19-2367 (L) In re Igor Y. Melnik UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT=S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION ASUMMARY ORDER@). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 17th day of December, two thousand twenty-one. PRESENT: GERARD E. LYNCH, RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, STEVEN J. MENASHI, Circuit Judges. _________________________________________________________________________________ In re: Igor Y. Melnik, Debtor. _____________________________________ Deepika Reddy, Pratap Reddy, Appellants, v. Nos. 19-2367 (L), 20-1634 (Con) Igor Y. Melnik, Debtor-Appellee. _____________________________________ FOR APPELLANTS: Deepika and Pratap Reddy, pro se, Austin, TX. FOR DEBTOR-APPELLEE: Mary Lannon Fangio, Whitelaw & Fangio, Syracuse, NY. Appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (Suddaby, C.J.) and an order of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of New York (Davis, J.). UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court and order of the bankruptcy court are AFFIRMED. This case arises out of an adversary proceeding brought by appellants Deepika and Pratap Reddy (“the Reddys”) in the Chapter 7 bankruptcy of Igor Melnik, to whom the Reddys sold their Syracuse, New York-based dental practice. In the lead appeal, the Reddys, proceeding pro se, challenge the district court’s affirmance of the bankruptcy court’s dismissal of their adversary proceeding and discharge of the debt owed to them by Melnik. In the consolidated appeal, the Reddys appeal the bankruptcy court’s order denying their motion for reconsideration. 1 1 The consolidated appeal was certified for immediate appeal to this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d)(2)(A)(iii). 2 We review the district court’s order here as if we were reviewing the bankruptcy court’s judgment directly. See In re Jackson, 593 F.3d 171, 176 (2d Cir. 2010) (“[A]n order of the district court functioning in its capacity as an appellate court in a bankruptcy case is subject to plenary review.”). In so doing, we “accept[] the bankruptcy court’s factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous, and review[] its conclusions of law de novo.” Id. In the lead appeal, we affirm for substantially the reasons stated by the district court in its July 2, 2019 decision. Although the Reddys contend that Melnik defrauded them into selling him their dental practice and financing the sale, the bankruptcy court did not clearly err in holding that Melnik lacked the requisite intent to deceive …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals