Advani v. Appellate Term, 2nd Judicial Department

Background

In 2022, Windsor Terrace at Jamaica Estates Owners Inc. began a holdover proceeding in the Housing Part of the Queens County Civil Court seeking possession of the apartment where Aruna Advani was living. On July 31, 2023, the Housing Part awarded Windsor Terrace possession and ordered Advani’s eviction. The Appellate Term denied three requests to stay the eviction, denied Advani’s appeal, denied requests to vacate the denial of her appeal, and denied her motion for permission to reargue.

Advani then filed this federal case without a lawyer. Her amended pleading sought judicial review of actions by the Appellate Term and others and asked the court to annul and vacate the Appellate Term’s decisions and orders. She named the Appellate Term, the New York State Attorney General, and the Governor of New York. The court also understood the amended pleading to assert a claim against Windsor Terrace. Although Advani invoked state statutes, the court read her filings liberally and understood her to be asserting constitutional claims under Section 1983, a federal civil-rights statute.

Jurisdictional ruling

The Appellate Term and the New York State Attorney General moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court applied the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which generally prevents federal district courts from functioning as appeals courts for state-court judgments. The doctrine applied because: (1) Advani lost in state court; (2) she claimed injuries caused by the state-court judgments; (3) she asked the federal court to review and reject those judgments; and (4) the state judgments came before this federal case.

The court rejected Advani’s argument that she was asserting independent constitutional claims. It concluded that her claims against all defendants were based on the alleged invalidity of the Appellate Term’s decisions and could not be evaluated without reviewing those decisions. The court explained that labeling the state-court rulings unconstitutional did not avoid the jurisdictional bar.

Disposition

The court held that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over Advani’s claims against all defendants. It granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss on that basis and did not reach any arguments about the merits. The court declined to grant Advani leave to amend, reasoning that the defects were substantive, that she had already received an opportunity to amend, and that she had not identified additional facts that could cure the defects.

The Clerk was directed to enter judgment for the defendants, close the case, and mail Advani a copy of the opinion and order. The court certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees. The court also discussed nonexistent opinions, inaccurate quotations, and unsupported citations in Advani’s filings. Because Advani was not a lawyer and the case was being dismissed, the court declined to pursue sanctions but warned that similar conduct in the future could result in sanctions.