The following papers numbered 1 to 18 were read on these motions:

There are six open motions before the Court in this action in which the foreclosure sale occurred many years ago — and the arm's-length, third-party purchaser at that sale has already entered into a contract to resell the home to another arm's-length, third-party purchaser. The first motion, filed by defendant Carol O'Leary, seeks (1) to vacate the December 2018 Judgment of Foreclosure and Sale; (2) to have this Court recuse itself;^[FN2] (3) to have Martin O'Leary "removed" as "both a defendant and a plaintiff" in this action; (4) restitution to movant for damages incurred; (5) pendente lite relief of $1 million; and (6) a "full investigation" into fraudulent conduct of respondents and their "co-conspirators." The second motion, filed by Martin O'Leary, seeks attorneys' fees against Ms. O'Leary, for frivolous conduct. The third motion, filed by Ms. O'Leary, seeks (1) to "clarify the attorneys;" (2) $100,000 from plaintiff or Mr. O'Leary for her to use to obtain counsel; (3) to have counsel assigned for Ms. O'Leary's non-party son; (4) to confirm the date her reply is due (which is now moot, as the Court allowed her extra time); and (5) to excuse her uploading error (also now moot). The fourth motion, filed by plaintiff, seeks to enjoin Ms. O'Leary from "filing any further motions, applications, or separate [sic] lawsuit related in any way to the subject matter of this completed action or the underlying mortgage loan transaction." The fifth motion, filed by Ms. O'Leary, seeks a trial in open court and to testify about human trafficking. The final motion, also filed by Ms. O'Leary, seeks to vacate the foreclosure at issue and for financial compensation for fraud.

In January 2020, this Court issued a Decision and Order on a motion filed by Ms. O'Leary that held, in relevant part, that "she alleges that the loan was predatory and fraudulent at the outset — in 2005." The Court held that notwithstanding that "any issues with the inception of the loan are likely time-barred," the Court found that Ms. O'Leary did not have a reasonable excuse for her default or a meritorious defense in order to vacate the Judgment of Foreclosure and Sale. Specifically, the Court held that "In September 2018, while represented by counsel, Ms. O'Leary withdrew her answer, consented to the motion for the Order of Reference, and consented to the Judgment of Foreclosure and Sale. Ms. O'Leary admits that she received $10,000 in 'cash for keys.'" (Emphasis in original).

Now, on these motions, Ms. O'Leary apparently either repudiates that she received "cash for keys," or asserts that she was defrauded or coerced into doing so and settling the foreclosure action. The problems with Ms. O'Leary's assertions are that, among other things, she has no factual support for her assertions; she was represented by counsel at the time of the settlement; and, significantly, according to her submissions, she knew that there were alleged problems with the loan as far back as 2014 ^[FN3] so that any such allegations are certainly time-barred.

With respect to Ms. O'Leary's complaints about her former husband, his conduct during their marriage, during the divorce proceedings and thereafter, any such conduct cannot be raised in this foreclosure proceeding. There is no legally-cognizable evidence before this Court that Mr. O'Leary conspired with plaintiff in any way; indeed, the Court notes that he also lost the marital home in this foreclosure proceeding. There is also no basis for "pendente lite" relief,^[FN4] the assignment of counsel for anyone,^[FN5] or the advancement of funds from any party to Ms. O'Leary in this concluded action.

Nor can Ms. O'Leary raise complaints about, for example, CitiMortage, her children, Brady violations, human trafficking or other statutes that are irrelevant in this civil foreclosure proceeding, or any of the proceedings involving the disposition of the property after the foreclosure sale. The property was sold at arms' length to a third-party buyer, which then resold it to another third-party buyer.

A review of all of Ms. O'Leary's many submission to the Court shows that she believes that she has been wronged in many ways, by many people and entities over a long period of time. While the Court is sympathetic to Ms. O'Leary's plight, there is no legal basis for the [*2]Court to reopen this long-disposed foreclosure action. Accordingly, the Court denies each and every element of all of the motions filed by Ms. O'Leary. This matter is disposed. To be perfectly clear, there is no basis for any party to file any additional motions in this matter. Accordingly, the Court will not permit any party or person to file any additional motions in this disposed matter, Index No. 50414/2016. Any motions filed in this matter will be rejected.

As for the remaining motions, the Court declines to award any sanctions against Ms. O'Leary. While she has not prevailed, the Court does not believe that she filed any of these motions maliciously. The Court also finds that it has no legal basis to prohibit Ms. O'Leary from commencing any new litigations in the future.

As Ms. O'Leary is pro se, plaintiff is directed to send a copy of this Decision and Order to her, at the P.O. Box listed on her last motion, by overnight mail within three business days of receipt.

The foregoing constitutes the decision and order of the Court.