Saladino original/default/post-judgment chronology
The original S.D.N.Y. Saladino case resulted in default after counsel was relieved and no answer was filed. The court later found the default willful and no meritorious defense, entered a default judgment/injunction, and denied multiple later attempts to vacate/stay/disqualify or add a third-party complaint; an emergency stay pending appeal was also denied.
The July 12, 2022 court opinion expressly found willful default and no meritorious defense; the Jan. 29, 2026 order denied multiple post-default motions and noted the defendants had caused significant delay.
Research assessment
Strong procedural-compliance chronology and important background for the later Pennsylvania Saladino cases, but it concerns Tufano largely as a defendant rather than repeated plaintiff filings.
Important caveat
This sequence should not itself be treated as a vexatious-litigant finding. The June 2026 appellate/post-judgment status should be checked again for the latest disposition.
Cases in this sequence
Timeline
The court granted defense counsel's motion to be relieved and permitted Tufano to proceed pro se, directing him to state by March 18 whether he would retain new counsel or proceed pro se.
Source ↗After no answer was filed to the amended complaint, a certificate of default was entered against Tufano.
Source ↗The court denied the motion to vacate the entries of default, finding the defendants' default willful and that they failed to show a meritorious defense.
Source ↗The court denied motions to vacate the inquest, file a third-party complaint, disqualify the court/demand a trial, and stay proceedings, and struck the improperly filed third-party complaint.
Source ↗The court denied an emergency stay pending appeal, stating that the motion largely reasserted arguments previously raised and rejected and presented no new facts, evidence or controlling authority justifying a stay.
Source ↗