- Court
- New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department
- Case
- Brady v. New York County District Attorney’s Office
- Date
- June 2, 2026
- Slip Op. No.
- 2026 NY Slip Op 03382
Background
Pro se plaintiff James H. Brady was previously subject to a protective order prohibiting him from initiating any further litigation or making motions without first obtaining approval from the Administrative Judge. The protective order was imposed based on Brady’s documented pattern of vexatious conduct and repetitive meritless litigation across multiple actions, including the present one against the New York County District Attorney’s Office and other defendants. Brady moved to vacate the protective order and, when that motion was denied, filed a motion to reargue. Both motions were denied by the Supreme Court, New York County, and Brady appealed both orders.
Holding
The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed both orders. The Court held that Supreme Court properly denied the motion to vacate because it was itself filed in violation of the protective order, as Brady had not obtained prior approval from the Administrative Judge before making the motion. Even considering the merits, the Court found that Brady offered no cognizable reason to vacate the protective order, which was imposed because of his pattern of vexatious and meritless litigation. Similarly, the motion to reargue was denied because it too was filed in violation of the protective order, and on the merits, Brady failed to demonstrate that the court overlooked or misapprehended any matter of fact or law in denying his motion to vacate.
Takeaways
When a court imposes a protective order requiring a litigant to obtain prior judicial approval before filing motions or initiating new litigation, any motion filed in violation of that order is procedurally defective and may be denied on that basis alone. The protective order mechanism is an important tool for courts dealing with litigants who engage in a pattern of vexatious or repetitive filings. A litigant subject to such an order must first seek and obtain permission from the designated Administrative Judge before filing any motion, including a motion challenging the protective order itself.
Why It Matters
This decision illustrates the self-enforcing nature of pre-filing injunctions in New York courts. Once a protective order is in place, any litigation activity undertaken without the required prior approval is subject to summary denial, creating a gatekeeping mechanism that effectively prevents vexatious litigants from burdening the courts and opposing parties. For courts and practitioners, the case reaffirms that the First Department will uphold protective orders imposed against litigants with established patterns of abusive filing practices. Litigants subject to such orders who wish to challenge them must comply with the order’s own requirements as a precondition to being heard.