In Re: Peggy Nestor
- Andrew Carter
- 1:24-cv-04063
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Marianne Nestor v. Albert Togut, Judge Carter denied Nestor’s motion without prejudice and set a telephone conference about whether it duplicated her bankruptcy appeal.
Marianne Nestor and Albert Togut; the order concerns Nestor’s motion and the parties’ pending bankruptcy-related dispute.
What happened
In Marianne Nestor v. Albert Togut, Marianne Nestor, representing herself, asked the court to confirm that she owned 50% of undivided property. Albert Togut argued that her request repeated relief she had already sought and been denied in bankruptcy court.
The court ordered Nestor to explain why her motion should not be treated as duplicating her appeal from the bankruptcy court’s order. Nestor submitted letters, and Togut again argued that the motion was an improper attempt to challenge the bankruptcy court’s order indirectly.
The court will hold a telephone conference on April 8, 2025, to hear from the parties, and Judge Carter denied the motion without prejudice. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion from the docket.
The detailed version
- In Re: Peggy Nestor · No. 1:24-cv-04063
- Andrew Carter
- Mar. 25, 2025
Background
Marianne Nestor, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a motion seeking an order confirming 50% of her undivided property. Albert Togut responded that Nestor was seeking substantially the same relief that she had requested and been denied in bankruptcy court. He argued that the motion duplicated Nestor’s appeal from the bankruptcy court’s order and was an improper collateral attack, meaning an indirect challenge, to that order.
Court’s proceedings
The court ordered Nestor to explain why the motion should not be considered duplicative of her bankruptcy appeal. Nestor filed letters in response. The court then ordered Togut to respond, and he repeated his argument that the motion duplicated the appeal and improperly attacked the bankruptcy court’s order.
Ruling
The court stated that it would hold a telephone conference on April 8, 2025, at 11:00 a.m. to give the parties an opportunity to be heard. Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. denied Nestor’s motion without prejudice and directed the clerk to terminate the motion at ECF No. 3. The opinion does not state that the court decided whether Nestor was entitled to the requested property confirmation.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.