On February 28, 2008, in an action unrelated to the Pavia litigation, a unanimous appellate court found Couri's refusal to comply with four court orders to make personal and corporate tax returns available was calculated to impede an examination of a claim that Couri defrauded Dr. John Siebert of $8 million dollars.

Incredibly, in the same case, Couri sued Siebert for $24,000,000. Of course, if Couri's $24M claim had merit, Couri would have provided the tax authorizations without court order, let alone four court orders. Couri's refusal to sign one-page tax authorizations demonstrates he was more concerned with being found to have defrauded Siebert than pursuing his (bogus) $24M claim. Eventually, Couri's conduct caught up with him. On February 28, 2008 the Appellate Division, First Department unanimously dismissed Couri's $24M claim. Notably, Couri did not appeal the decision.

Specifically, the Hon. Peter Tom, the Hon. David B. Saxe, the Hon. David Friedman, and the Hon. Milton L. Williams, wrote: "[Couri]'s conduct in [the Siebert] litigation has been 'dilatory, evasive, obstructive and ultimately contumacious' [case citation omitted] and, in the absence of any semblance of an excuse for his noncompliance with [Siebert's] legitimate discovery demands, warrants striking his pleading (NY CPLR 3126 [3])."

"The courts are not obliged to indulge the excesses of a pro se litigant at the expense of decorum, judicial economy and fairness to opposing parties. Proceeding pro se is not a license to ignore court orders, engage in dilatory and obstructive conduct or malign officers of the court."

"We find the medical excuse plaintiff proffered for his behavior to be uncompelling. The extent to which he was incapacitated by treatment for a malignant melanoma is not discernible from the record. In any event, it does not excuse his failure to perform the ministerial act of signing tax waivers at a time he was obviously capable of preparing lengthy communications to the Special Referee. Nor is there any suggestion that plaintiff was financially incapable of retaining counsel to assist him. Rather, it is apparent that his obstuctive conduct was calculated to impede examination of the merits of defendants' counterclaims alleging that plaintiff defrauded them out of millions of dollars, an inquiry that plaintiff would be understandably eager to avoid  [case citations referring to Couri's pleas to three felony counts contained in two informations. One guilty plea was to a violation of a federal securities law regulation that prohibits the manipulation of the price of securities (aka "share price manipulation") and, the two other guilty pleas were for making false financial statements to a federally-insured bank involving an art gallery that Couri controlled.]"

"[Couri] pro se has engaged in frivolous, defamatory and prejudicial conduct that includes multiple actions against Dr. Siebert and his counsel [Joseph M. Burke, Esq.], ex parte communications with the court and the Special Referee, voluminous and unnecessary motion practice, unresponsive papers disparaging the Special Referee, defendants, their attorney and their accountant, and invidious attacks on Dr. Siebert's professional standing by way of communications with his colleagues and other third parties."

EDITOR'S NOTES:

By citing to Couri's three 1981 felony pleas involving fraud, the Court indicated that the  felony convictions remain very much relevant today, Couri's claims to the contrary notwithstanding. The complete decision of the Appellate Division, First Department, is available by CLICKING HERE.

The court index number for the Couri v. Siebert is 107240/2004. Notably, since 2004, Couri has harassed Siebert by suing him a total of 13 times. To view the 13 cases, go to www.e-law.com, type "Couri" in the plaintiff search box, and "Siebert" in the defendant search box, then press "Enter." The 13 cases will appear. The details of a particular case are available by clicking on the case names. The E-Law.com service is free.