In Re: Samuel Rubin
- Philip Halpern
- 7:25-cv-05012
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Rubin v. Trump Village Section 3, Inc.: Judge Halpern dismissed the appeal because Rubin failed to provide required appellate materials or meet deadlines.
Samuel Rubin’s appeal was dismissed, the pending motion was terminated, and the case was closed. Trump Village Section 3, Inc. was the appellee. Any possible fee-free appeal from the order was denied.
What happened
In Rubin v. Trump Village Section 3, Inc., Samuel Rubin appealed, but the opinion does not identify the underlying ruling or explain the dispute’s subject.
The court ordered Rubin to explain by August 20, 2025 why the appeal should not be dismissed for failing to complete or pursue it. Rubin did not file the required explanation or otherwise communicate with the court. He also failed to identify the materials for the appellate record and the issues he wanted reviewed.
Because there was no record for review and Rubin did not follow the court’s instructions and deadlines, Judge Philip M. Halpern dismissed the appeal. The clerk was directed to terminate a pending motion and close the case. The court also denied fee-free appeal status if Rubin chose to appeal this order, certifying that such an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- In Re: Samuel Rubin · No. 7:25-cv-05012
- Philip Halpern
- Aug. 27, 2025
Background
Samuel Rubin was the appellant, and Trump Village Section 3, Inc. was the appellee. The opinion does not describe the underlying dispute or identify the ruling being appealed.
On August 13, 2025, the court ordered Rubin to show cause—that is, to explain—by 5:00 p.m. on August 20 why the appeal should not be dismissed under Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure 8003(a)(2) and 8009 for failing to complete or pursue the appeal. Rubin did not file the required letter and did not otherwise communicate with the court.
Court’s Analysis
The court stated that Rubin had failed to file a designation of the items to be included in the appellate record and a statement of the issues to be presented. As a result, there was no record for the court to review. The court found that Rubin had received adequate notice but failed to comply with procedural requirements, filing deadlines, and the August 13 order. Citing In re Lynch, 430 F.3d 600, 603 (2d Cir. 2005), the court exercised its discretion to dismiss the appeal.
Ruling
Judge Philip M. Halpern dismissed the appeal. The clerk was requested to terminate the pending motion at Document 2 and close the case.
The court also addressed a possible appeal from this order. If Rubin elected to proceed without paying the filing fee, the court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that the appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free appeal status. The opinion does not state whether Rubin sought that status.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.