18‐1307‐cv Levin v. Barone 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. 1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 2 held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the 3 City of New York, on the 4th day of June, two thousand nineteen. 4 5 PRESENT: GUIDO CALABRESI, 6 GERARD E. LYNCH, 7 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 8 Circuit Judges. 9 ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 10 EVA LEVIN, 11 12 Plaintiff‐Appellant, 13 14 v. No. 18‐1307‐cv 15 16 ROBERT BARONE, 17 18 Defendant‐Appellee. 19 ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 1 FOR APPELLANT: Eva Levin, pro se, New York, 2 NY. 3 4 FOR APPELLEE: Michael L. Walker, Law 5 Offices of Michael L. Walker, 6 Brooklyn, NY. 7 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the 8 Southern District of New York (Alison J. Nathan, Judge). 9 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, 10 AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED. 11 Eva Levin, a Swedish citizen proceeding pro se, appeals from the grant of 12 summary judgment by the District Court (Nathan, J.) in favor of Levin’s former 13 husband, Robert Barone, which resulted in the dismissal of Levin’s claim to 14 enforce an Affidavit of Support (Form I‐864) under the Immigration and 15 Nationality Act. See 8 C.F.R. § 213a.2(a), (b). We assume the parties’ 16 familiarity with the underlying facts and the record of prior proceedings, to 17 which we refer only as necessary to explain our decision to affirm. 18 Here, Barone initiated a divorce proceeding against Levin in New York 19 State court. After a bench trial, the State court entered a judgment of divorce in 20 which it held that Levin would receive no further maintenance from Barone. 2 1 Having stayed its action while the divorce proceeding was pending in State 2 court, the District Court concluded that Levin’s I‐864 support claim was barred 3 by res judicata. 4 The District Court correctly applied New York law to determine the 5 preclusive effect of New York State court judgments. See Hoblock v. Albany 6 Cty. Bd. of Elections, 422 F.3d 77, 93 (2d Cir. 2005); 28 U.S.C. § 1738. Under New 7 York law, a “final judgment on the merits of an action precludes the parties or 8 their privies from relitigating issues that were or could have been raised in that 9 action.” Maharaj v. ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals