Opinion
2014-12-30
In re Meryl BRODSKY, Petitioner–Appellant, Mark Feinsot, et al., Petitioners, v. NEW YORK CITY CAMPAIGN FINANCE BOARD, Respondent–Respondent.
Meryl Brodsky, petitioner pro se. Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Drake A. Colley of counsel), for respondent.
Meryl Brodsky, petitioner pro se. Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Drake A. Colley of counsel), for respondent.
ACOSTA, J.P., MOSKOWITZ, RICHTER, CLARK, JJ.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen A. Rakower, J.), entered August 31, 2009, directing petitioner to remit to respondent an aggregate amount of $35,850, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
This Court has rejected petitioner's prior efforts pro se to vacate the underlying judgment, on the ground, among other things, that she has not been prejudiced by any technical defects in the judgment ( see80 A.D.3d 495, 914 N.Y.S.2d 629 [1st Dept.2011] ). Petitioner's renewed attempts to vacate the judgment and collaterally attack the prior ruling holding her personally liable for the repayments owed to respondent are barred by the doctrines of res judicata and law of the case, and are otherwise without merit ( see107 A.D.3d 544, 971 N.Y.S.2d 265 [1st Dept.2013] ).