Melnitzky v. Apple Bank for SavingsMelnitzky v. Apple Bank for Savings
Plaintiff’s claim is premised on the contention that defendant allowed the contents of his safe deposit box to be removed by his ex-wife (the third-party defendant) and her attorney, and that defendant colluded with said attorney by taking no precautions to safeguard plaintiff’s belongings, thus violating its fiduciary duty to him. All issues and claims raised herein that were or could have been addressed in plaintiff’s matrimonial action, particularly regarding the inventory of safe deposit boxes, are barred (see generally Smith v Russell Sage Coll., 54 NY2d 185 [1981]). Additionally, the claim for conversion is time-barred (see
In light of the continuous and vexatious nature of his litigation,* we issue our injunction sua sponte. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Tom, Mazzarelli, Ellerin and Gonzalez, JJ.