Case Activity (79)

1. Appeal | Filed: March 11, 2026 | Entered: March 11, 2026 Blum et al v. Heller et al

   P.I.: Other | New York Eastern

   USCA Order

   ORDER of USCA as to 22 Notice of Appeal filed by Wendy A. Blum, Ilene G. Fattore. It is hereby ORDERED that the stay motion is DENIED. See Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 43435 (2009). It is further ORDERED that the request for sanctions is DENIED as procedurally defective. See Great Am. Ins. Co. v. M/V Handy Laker, 348 F.3d 352, 354 (2d Cir. 2003) (denying request for Rule 38 sanctions raised in appellees brief, where no separately filed motion had been submitted). Certified Copy Issued: 3/11/2026. USCA# 25-2921. (VJ)

2. Order | Filed: December 02, 2025 | Entered: December 02, 2025 Blum et al v. Heller et al

   P.I.: Other | New York Eastern

   Order on Motion to Stay

   ORDER denying 23 Motion to Stay. In its November 12, 2025 Order, the Court denied the plaintiffs' request to stay this case pending appeal. (ECF No. 20 at 4.) Despite this ruling, the plaintiffs filed another motion to stay the Court's November 13, 2025 judgment pending their appeal in this case and in the related case, 24-CV-3130. (ECF No. 23.) They "specifically request that the Court stay the cancellation of the Notice of Pendency" the plaintiffs filed against the Hellers' property. (Id. at 6.) As the Court explained in denying the identical request, the plaintiffs are not likely to succeed on the merits, because they do not have creditor standing to sue the Hellers under New York Debtor and Creditor Law. A stay would also unduly prejudice the defendants; they have already spent time and resources defending against the plaintiffs' lawsuits, and the notice of pendency unjustifiably impeded their ownership rights in their property. Accordingly, the plaintiffs' second motion for a stay pending appeal is denied. Ordered by Judge Ann M. Donnelly on 12/2/2025. (EHS)

3. 77 additional result(s)