1 

16-57 

In re Yagman 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY 

ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF 

APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT=S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER 

IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN 

ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION ASUMMARY ORDER@). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY 

ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. 

 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for 

the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States 

Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 

1st day of December, two thousand sixteen. 

PRESENT: 

DENNIS JACOBS,

ROSEMARY S. POOLER, 

Circuit Judges, 

GEOFFREY W. CRAWFORD,* 

District Judge. 

_____________________________________ 

Stephen Yagman, 

Debtor-Appellant, 

v. 16-57 

David R. Kittay, 

Trustee-Appellee. 

_____________________________________ 

 

* Judge Geoffrey W. Crawford, of the United States District 

Court for the District of Vermont, sitting by designation. 
2 

FOR APPELLANT: Stephen Yagman, pro se, Venice Beach, 

California. 

FOR APPELLEE: David R. Kittay, Esq., pro se, Tarrytown, 

New York. 

Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of New York (Caproni, J.). 

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND 

DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

Stephen Yagman, the debtor in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy 

proceeding, appeals pro se from the district court’s order 

dismissing, for lack of standing, his appeal from a bankruptcy 

court order that overruled his objections and directed the 

trustee to distribute the bankruptcy estate. We assume the 

parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural 

history of the case, and the issues on appeal. 

 We conduct a plenary review when a bankruptcy appeal 

reaches us after district court review of a bankruptcy order, 

assessing conclusions of law de novo and factual findings for 

clear error. In re First Central Fin. Corp., 377 F.3d 209, 212 

(2d Cir. 2004). As to the ruling on standing: “To have standing 

to appeal from a bankruptcy court ruling in this Circuit, an 

appellant must be an ‘aggrieved person,’ a person ‘directly and 

adversely affected pecuniarily’ by the challenged order of the 

bankruptcy court.” In re Gucci, 126 F.3d 380, 388 (2d Cir. 

1997) (citing In re Colony Hill Assoc., 111 F.3d 269, 273 (2d 

Cir. 1997)). 

 Upon review, we conclude that the district court properly 

dismissed Yagman’s appeal for lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction. The bankruptcy court approved a settlement 

agreement under which Yagman withdrew his objection to the 

claims of certain creditors and waived his right to object to 

the distribution of the bankruptcy estate. Yagman failed to 

object to the bankruptcy trustee’s motion for settlement 

approval, and did not appeal from the bankruptcy court’s order 

approving the settlement. He cannot now challenge that order, 
3 

and is thus barred from challenging the distribution of the 

bankruptcy estate. As the district court determined, Yagman 

lacked standing to challenge the bankruptcy court’s order 

because he had no direct financial interest in the bankruptcy 

estate’s funds. See In re Gucci, 126 F.3d at 388. 

 

We have considered all of Yagman’s remaining arguments and 

find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the 

judgment of the district court. 

FOR THE COURT: 

Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk