Opinion ID: 6327676
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Hakan’s Appeals

Text: As we noted above, this opinion addresses three separate but consolidated appeals, two of which, No. 20-1540-cr and No. 20-1542-cr, were filed by Hakan. Because Hakan lacks any concrete stake in the issues raised, he lacks standing to challenge the district court’s orders as to Ayfer’s rights and obligations, and his 39 appeals must be dismissed. “The Article III standing requirement ‘must be met by persons seeking appellate review, just as it must be met by persons appearing in courts of first instance.’” Tachiona v. United States, 386 F.3d 205, 211 (2d Cir. 2004), quoting Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 64 (1997). And to have “standing at the appellate stage . . . a litigant must demonstrate injury caused by the judgment.” Id. (quotation marks omitted); see also Diamond v. Charles, 476 U.S. 54, 62 (1986) (“[T]he decision to seek review must be placed in the hands of those who have a direct stake in the outcome. It is not to be placed in the hands of concerned bystanders.”) (quotation marks omitted). Hakan makes no argument as to why he has standing to challenge an order of the district court that solely affects Ayfer’s rights and obligations. While Hakan, as Ayfer’s son, may subjectively care about what happens to Ayfer and her restitution obligations, neither his status as Ayfer’s son nor as her codefendant suffices to establish standing absent some demonstrated injury to Hakan caused by the district court’s judgment. Here, whether we affirm or reverse the district court’s order has no effect on Hakan’s own restitution obligations. The district court ordered Hakan to pay $750,000 to W.A-M. in 40 restitution, and the fact that Hakan is liable jointly and severally with Ayfer for a portion of that amount does not change his own obligations. If we agreed with the Yalincaks and found that Ayfer had satisfied her restitution obligations because of the more than $500,000 credited to Hakan, he would receive no tangible benefit, because he would still be liable for the remaining balance of $139,057.43 owed to W.A-M. And our conclusion that Ayfer’s restitution obligation is not yet satisfied inflicts no injury on Hakan, because it does not increase his liability at all.6 Either way, Hakan’s obligations remain the same and he has suffered no cognizable injury as a result of the district court’s order. In any event, because Hakan’s appeals address the same issues as Ayfer’s appeal, and their arguments entirely overlap, the dismissal of his appeals has no effect on the substantive outcome of this case, and the merits of Ayfer’s rights and obligations are fully resolved by our resolution of Ayfer’s appeal.