| USDC SDNY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DOCUMENT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ELECTRONICALLY FILED In re DOC# : 10/30/2025 JOSE SANDY BUCO Debtor.

JOSE SANDY BUCO, Appellant, -against- 25-CV-05496 (MMG) Thomas C. Frost, ORDER Appellee.

MARGARET M. GARNETT, United States District Judge: Debtor-Appellant Jose Sandy Buco (“Appellant’’) appeals the Bankruptcy Court’s dismissal of his Chapter 13 petition. The relevant history of the case is summarized in the order issued by this Court on July 23, 2025, which denied Appellant’s emergency request to stay a foreclosure sale of his property. See Dkt. No. 7 (the “July Order’). The Court construed Appellant to be moving at that time for a stay of the dismissal of his Chapter 13 petition, and in deciding that motion, the Court evaluated the merits of the entire pending appeal. See July Order at 1,4. The Court concluded that the Bankruptcy Court had properly determined Appellant to be ineligible for Chapter 13 bankruptcy—meaning the underlying dismissal was appropriate. Given Appellant’s pro se status and the absence of full briefing, however, the Court declined to immediately dismiss the appeal. Instead, the Court ordered Appellant to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed in light of the Court’s conclusion as to Chapter 13 ineligibility. Appellant has since failed to identify any valid basis for maintaining the appeal, and the Chapter

13 Trustee has since submitted an affirmation further establishing Appellant’s Chapter 13 ineligibility. See Dkt. No. 14. Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED. As explained in the July Order, which the Court incorporates here, the Bankruptcy Court dismissed Appellant’s Chapter 13 petition because Appellant does not qualify as a Chapter 13 debtor under Section 109(e) of the Bankruptcy Code. See Bankr. Dkt. No. 91 (“Dismissal Order”) at 1. Specifically, Appellant had a total of $6,395,647.89 in noncontingent, liquidated debts as of the date he filed the petition, which far exceeds Section 109(e)’s eligibility limits on noncontingent, liquidated debts. See July Order at 4. Advancing arguments that the Bankruptcy Court repeatedly rejected, Appellant protests on appeal that certain of the debts against him are fraudulent. See generally Dkt. No. 17 (‘Appellant’s Brief’). But as the Bankruptcy Court has noted and as this Court reiterated in the July 2025 Order, “the fact that a debt is disputed does not make it ‘contingent’ or ‘unliquidated.’” July Order at 4 (quoting Order Denying Debtor’s Motion for Reconsideration at 2, Bankr. Dkt. No. 102); see also In re Mazzeo,

, 305 (2d Cir. 1997) (“The Code uses both ‘unliquidated’ and ‘disputed’ in its definition of ‘claim’; to rule that a claim (and hence the debt with which it is coextensive) is unliquidated whenever it is disputed would be to render the term ‘unliquidated’ mere surplusage. Such an interpretation would also allow a debtor, simply by characterizing certain claims as disputed, to ensure his eligibility to proceed under Chapter 13 in circumstances that Congress plainly intended to exclude from that chapter.”). Therefore, even fully crediting his assertions that he is not liable for the listed debts, Appellant simply does not qualify as a Chapter 13 debtor. The rest of Appellant’s arguments consist of conclusory, nebulous, and inapposite statements regarding purported violations of his constitutional nights and the controlling law by the Bankruptcy Court and purported misconduct by creditors. See generally Appellant’s Brief;

Appellant’s Response to Order to Show Cause, Dkt. No. 9. These arguments have no merit. Nothing in Appellant’s submissions presents a cognizable argument that could counter the conclusion that he is not an eligible Chapter 13 petitioner. For the reasons stated in the July Order and repeated herein, Appellant’s appeal is DISMISSED. All pending motions are moot. The Clerk of Court is direct to terminate the appeal. Dated: October 30, 2025 New York, New York SO ORDERED.

United States District Judge