Petition for ReHearing — Clissuras v. Concord Village Owners, Inc.

(2) ae wry U.S.

No. 04-447 DEC 3 0 2004

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

ALICE CLISSURAS,

Petitioner,

7.

CONCORD VILLAGE OWNERS INC. and

DOUGLAS ELLIMAN-GIBBONS & IVES INC.,

Respondents.

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE

STATE OF NEW YORK

PETITION FOR REHEARING OF ORDER DENYING

AND FOR DETERMINATION OF APPELLANTS '

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

ALICE CLISSURAS

Petitioner pro se

215 Adams Street

Brooklyn, NY 11201

(718)875-6171

REASONS: FOR REHEARING OF ORDER

DENYING AND FOR DETERMINING OF

APPELLANT'S PETITION FOR WRIT

OF CERTIORARI

1. The Orders of Kings County (4)

‘are void due to inter alia, failure of

the Trial Court to determine plaintiff's

Motions to Dismiss the Defendants for

failure to respond to and defend against

plaintiff's prima facie complaint with

four causes of action. - (App. for Writ,

A.12-24)

2. The Orders of the Appellate

thivisten, Second Department, are void

and should not be allowed to stand due

to, inter alia, failure to determine

plaintiff's Appeals and Motions to Va-

cate and due to failure to address and

correct the manifest errors of Kings

County. (App. for Writ, A.4-11)

3. The Orders of the Court of

Appeals should not be allowed to stand

ee

due to, inter alia, failure to determine

plaintiff's appeals and motions and due

to failure to address and correct the

manifest errors of the Appellate Division,

2d. (App. for Writ, A.1-3)

4. The Order of this Court is void

due to, inter alia, absence of detemina-

tion of Petitioner's request for Writ of

Certiorari to the Court of Appeals and

the absence of correction of manifest

errors of the Court of Appeals. (Ap-

pendix attached hereto, A.1)

PRIMM it aga Gia sai"

AiR Da aca tei NAAN Ro 25% 3 shen anita rE tui ahibleel ies

iii

ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS

For Plaintiff-Appellant:

ALICE CLISSURAS

Petitioner pro se

215 Adams Street |

Brooklyn, NY 11201

—(718)875-6171

J.D. Degree, no license

N.Y.S. Ct. of Ap., Mo.No.423(2004)

App.Div.2d, Case Nos. 2001- 08946,

2002-02114

Kings Co. Clerk's Index No.6067/91

For Defendants-Respondents:

KREZ & PEISNER

Attorneys for Respondents, Concord

Village Owners Inc. and Douglas

Elliman-Gibbons & Ives Inc.

Kathi Peisner, Esq.

225 Broadway

New York, NY 10C07

(212)964-5000

iv

~ TABLE OF CONTENTS

REASONS FOR REHEARING OF ORDER

DENYING AND FOR DETERMINING OF

APPELLANT'S PETITION FOR WRIT

OF CERTIORARI |

ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS .

TABLE OF CONTENTS .... .

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

REASONS FOR REHEARING .

(Argument )

APPENDIX

ORDER, SUPREME COURT OF THE

UNITED STATES ..... -

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

U.S.Const.Amends. V,VII,XIV. .

Const. of N.Y., Art.I-§1

Art.I-§2, Art.I-§1l.

CASES, STATUTES, REGULATIONS:

APPENDIX IN SUPPORT OF

APPELLANTS' PETITION FOR

WRIT OF CERTIORARI

By Incorporation: vi, vii

CERTIFICATION OF PETITIONER:

UNNUMBERED, FOLLOWS .....

Page

+ Ad

« Ad

~ No. 04-447

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

ALICE CLISSURAS, Mo.No.423(2004), v.

CONCORD VILLAGE OWNERS INC. and

DOUGLAS ELLIMAN-GIBBONS & IVES INC.

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE

STATE OF NEW YORK

PETITION FOR REHEARING OF ORDER DENYING

AND FOR DETERMINATION OF APPELLANT*S |

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

TO THE HONORABLE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and

ASSOCIATE JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT

OF THE UNITED STATES:

Alice Clissuras. (AC), petitioner pro

se, in this proceeding, respectfully

petitions the Court for rehearing and

determining of Order entered December 6,

2004, denying Appellant's Petition for

Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeals

of the State of New York. (A.1, attached

hereto. )

Petitioner makes this request for

reconsideration and determination of

Petitioner's Request for Writ, as of

right, on grounds that from the incep-

tion of plaintiff's case, fourteen years

ago, the defendants, Concord Village and

Douglas Elliman, have not: answered,

responded to, or argued against plain-

tiff's prima facie Complaint, by which a

ctiptete case for bodily injury, property

damage, harassment, and breach of fidu-

cial duty, is presented.

Plaintiff has tendered evidence and

argued the causes sufficiently to make a

prima facie showing of entitlement to

judgment as a matter of law. The total

absence of response on the part of defen-

dants clearly exhibits defendants' ad-

mission of default and the absence of

any material issues of fact.

The only argument the defendants

have made or make is something to the

effect that, no matter what plaintiff is

moving or appealing: it was decided

earlier, plaintiff's request is frivo-

lous, plaintiff should be sanctioned,

and the cause is dismissed or denied.

| Defendants do not identify what was

decided earlier and do not argue the

issues because there is no earlier

decision and defendants do not have any

argument to make against plaintiff's

case. :

The Courts overlook the failure of

defendants to respond to plaintiff's

prima facie Complaint and evidence,

the failure to serve a duly verified

answer in fourteen years, and the fail-

ure to argue and respond to plaintiff's

Motions and Appeals.

The unlawful taking of plaintiff's

due process, equal protection, and trial

rights is clearly visible in the papers

used for the instant appeal.

Kings County denied four Motions

due to non-existent earlier decisions,

imposed sanctions without grounds, and

did not determine plaintiff's Motions

for Dismissal of Defendants. (App. to

Petition for Writ, A.12-24)

On Appeal, Appellate Division, 2d,

dismissed the appeal by converting

plaintiff's Motions to Vacate to Motions

for Reargument, without grounds, to make ae

them unappealable; by imposing sanctions

without stated cause; and by not deter-

mining plaintiff's Appeal and Motion to

Vacate. (App. to Petition for Writ,

A.4-11.)

On Appeal, the Court of Appeals, of

the State of New York, dismissed Appel-

lant's Appeal from Appellate Division,

2d, as untimely, without stated cause;

dismissed Court Orders contained in

Court letters as unappealable, without

stated cause, and did not determine

Appellant's Appeal and Motion to Vacate.

(App. to Petition for Writ, A.1-3)

Plaintiff has been unjustly deprived

of rights pursuant to U.S. Constitution,

Amendments V and XIV for due process and

equal protection of the laws and Amend-

ment VII for right to trial.

Similarly, plaintiff has been un-

justly deprived of rights pursuant to

N.Y. Constitution, in relevant parts:

Art.I-§1 [Equal rights to all

citizens.] No member of this state

shall be disenfranchised, or de-

prived of the rights or privileges

secured to any citizen thereof,....

Art.1I-§2 [Right to trial by jury;]

Trial by jury in all cases in which it

has heretofore been guaranteed by ..

constitutional provision shall remain

inviolate forever;.... |

Art.1I-§11 [Equal protection of laws]

No person shall be denied the equal

protection of the laws of this state

or any subdivision thereof.

The violations of the Constitutions

and the Laws have continued nonstop from

the making of this case, to present.

REASONS FOR REHEARING, DETERMINING,

AND VACATING ORDER DENYING PETITION

FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Petitioner, Alice Clissuras, re-

quests rehearing and determination of

the December 6, 2004, Order, denying

Appellant's Petition for Writ of Certio-

rari for the following additional

reasons: | |

(1) That plaintiff"s case against

Concord Village and Douglas Elliman is

not in the ‘Court computers and is not

docketed. Kings County, Appellate Divi-

sion, Court of Appeals, and this Court

have not produced a docket.

(2) That not one Court, with the

exception of Kings County, has issued

a signed order. | ;

(3) That not one Court has made a

statement or made any findings of fact

or of law of its decision of an Appeal

or of a Motion and the reasons for it.

|

7

(4) That the defendants have not

asserted that issue has been joined;

have not countered plaintiff's case for

default; and have not produced a shred

of controverting evidence.

(5) That plaintiff's Motions to

Kings County for judgment by default

remain undetermined, to present.

(6) That plaintiff's appeals to

Appellate Division, Court of Appeals,

and this Court, remain undetermined

to present.

(7) That the Courts overlook

defendants' default, defendants' fail-

ure to respond, and defendants' viola-

tions of the laws.

As a result of not determining:

plaintiff's Motions to Kings County;

appellant's Appeals and Motions to

Appellate Division and Court of Appeals;

and Petitioner's Petition for Writ of

Certiorari, the Motions, Appeals, and

Petition are all open and must be deter-

mined before any dismissals of Appeals

can lawfully be made.

As a result of overlooking defen-

dants* violations of the laws, all of

the Orders are void, by manifest errors

of all of the Courts; and

As a result of defendants' failure

to respond to plaintiff's prima facie

case and evidence, the defendants are

in default and have been since 20 days

after the service of the Complaint in

February of 1991, without joinder of

issue and without the right to continue

in this action, by law.

Thus, the Orders issued, in this

case, are unenforceable. There can be

no enforcement, by law, since there is

no law which can be used to shield

wrongdoers.

As to all of the above, it is clear

that justice has not been served or even

considered. Kings County issued void and

unenforceable orders, which Appellate

Division, 2d, should have seeected.

However, Appellate Division, 2d, made

the same errors, which should then have

been corrected by Court of Appeals. How-

evér Court of Appeals also issued open,

void, and unenforceable orders.

Petitioner respectfully requests

this Court's supervisory power to correct

the manifest and plain errors of the

above Courts, which errors are beyond the

jurisdiction of the Courts. (Supreme

Court Rule 10)

Petitioner requests a Court state-

ment informing Petitioner of the status

of her case.

And, petitioner requests judgment

by default against the defendants, on

the law:

10

Lest any one think thet petitioner

is repetitious in argument, in order

for reargument to be sanctionable, a

decided matter with specific evidentiary

support must be identified. In this

case petitioner is seeking decisions.

Lest any one think that petitioner

is causing delays, look to those who

have not answered for 14 years, and who

neve sbesetl petitioner for 14 years.

Petitioner respectfully requests

grant of the Petition for Writ and

requests a well deserved and well earned

judgment by default against defendants.

Respectfully submitted,

ALICE CLISSURAS

Petitioner, pro se

215 Adams Street

Brooklyn, NY 11201

(718)875-6171

A.l

Supreme Court of the United States

Office of the Clerk |

Washington, DC 205-43-0001

William K. Suter

Clerk of the Court

(202)479-3011

December 6, 2004

Ms. Alice Clissuras

215 Adams Street

Brooklyn, NY 11201

Re: Alice Clissuras

v. Concord Village Owners, Inc, et al.

No. 04-447

Dear Ms. Clissuras:

The Court today entered the a

order in the above-entitled case:

The petition for a writ of certiorari is

denied.

Sincerely,

William K. Suter

(Stamped)

William K. Suter,. Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

No. 04-361

Alice Clissuras, Petitioner

Vv.

Concord Village Owners Inc. and

Douglas Elliman-Gibbons & Ives Inc.,

Respondents

CERTIFICATION OF PETITIONER

Petitioner, Alice Clissuras, pro se,

certifies that the Petition for Rehearing

to which this Certification is bound is

restricted to the grounds specified in

Supreme Court Rule 44 and that it is

presented in good faith without any in-

tent of delay.

Petitioner seeks determination of the

issues. Any delays that occur can be

attributed to those who do not respond.

ALICE CLISSURAS ~

Petitioner pro se