Carrington v. Michael J. Kasen
Janice Carrington v. Michael J. Kasen, David A. Kasen, Jenny R. Kasen, Kasen & Kasen P.C., and Francine S. Kasen
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:25-cv-01635
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Carrington v. Kasen, Judge Abrams dismissed Carrington’s appeal without prejudice because she neither paid the fee nor completed required filings.
Janice Carrington’s appeal was dismissed without prejudice. The appellees—Michael J. Kasen, David A. Kasen, Jenny R. Kasen, Kasen & Kasen P.C., and Francine S. Kasen—are affected because the appeal will not proceed unless Carrington satisfies the order’s conditions.
What happened
Janice Carrington appealed an order dated January 14, 2025, involving Michael J. Kasen, David A. Kasen, Jenny R. Kasen, Kasen & Kasen P.C., and Francine S. Kasen. The court said Carrington had not paid the required filing fee or asked to proceed without paying it based on inability to pay. She also had not filed and served the required list of record items and statement of appellate issues.
The court explained that these failures allowed it to dismiss the appeal, even though the filing deadlines were not jurisdictional. Because the record did not contain enough information to evaluate the appeal, the court dismissed it without prejudice. Carrington could return the appeal to the docket by paying the fee or requesting permission to proceed without paying it, and then filing an appellate brief within fifteen days of that action.
Judge Ronnie Abrams ordered the case closed, subject to reopening under those conditions. If Carrington did not pay the fee or request that status within thirty days, the matter would be deemed dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute.
The detailed version
- Carrington v. Michael J. Kasen · No. 1:25-cv-01635
- Ronnie Abrams
- Sept. 24, 2025
Background
Janice Carrington, identified as the appellant, filed an appeal from an order entered into the Office of the County Clerk of the Supreme Court, New York County, dated January 14, 2025. The opinion states that the Clerk of the Bankruptcy Court informed the district court that Carrington had not paid the required filing fee or requested permission to proceed without prepaying fees based on inability to pay.
The opinion also states that Carrington did not file and serve on the appellees a designation of the items to be included in the appellate record or a statement of the issues to be presented, as required by Bankruptcy Rule 8009(a). The opinion does not otherwise describe the underlying dispute or the merits of the appealed order.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that parties beginning a civil action in district court generally must pay a filing fee. Under federal law, a court may allow a person to proceed without prepaying fees if that person submits an affidavit stating, among other things, that she cannot pay the fees or provide security. Carrington had done neither for this appeal.
The court also explained that Bankruptcy Rule 8009(a)(1) requires an appellant to serve and file a brief within fifteen days after the appeal is entered on the docket. Under Bankruptcy Rule 8001(a), failing to take steps beyond timely filing a notice of appeal does not invalidate the appeal but may justify dismissal. Although the rule’s deadlines are not jurisdictional, the district court may decide whether dismissal is appropriate under the circumstances.
Disposition
Because the record contained nothing available to evaluate the appeal, the court dismissed Carrington’s appeal without prejudice. Carrington was ordered either to pay the required filing fee or to request permission to proceed without paying it in order to return the appeal to the docket. If she failed to take either action within thirty days after the order’s entry, the matter would be deemed dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute. If she paid the fee or requested that status, she was also required to comply with Bankruptcy Rule 8009(a)(1) by serving and filing a brief within fifteen days of that action. Judge Ronnie Abrams directed the Clerk of Court to close the case, subject to reopening as provided in the order, and to mail Carrington a copy of the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.