
    Stephen YAGMAN, Debtor-Appellant, v. David R. KITTAY, Trustee-Appellee.
    16-57
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    December 1, 2016
    For Appellant: Stephen Yagman, pro se, Venice Beach, California.
    For Appellee: David R. Kittay, Esq., pro se, Tarrytown, New York.
    PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, ROSEMARY S. POOLER, Circuit Judges, GEOFFREY W. CRAWFORD, District Judge.
    
      
       Judge Geoffrey W. Crawford, of the United States District Court for the District of Vermont, sitting by designation.
    
   SUMMARY ORDER

Stephen Yagman, the debtor in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding, appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing, for lack of standing, his appeal from a bankruptcy court order that overruled his objections and directed the trustee to distribute the bankruptcy estate. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

We conduct a plenary review when a bankruptcy appeal reaches us after district court review of a bankruptcy order, assessing conclusions of law de novo and factual findings for clear error. In re First Central Fin. Corp., 377 F.3d 209, 212 (2d Cir. 2004). As to the ruling on standing: “To have standing to appeal from a bankruptcy court ruling in this Circuit, an appellant must be an ‘aggrieved person,’ a person ‘directly and adversely affected pecuniarily’ by the challenged order of the bankruptcy court.” In re Gucci, 126 F.3d 380, 388 (2d Cir. 1997) (citing In re Colony Hill Assoc., 111 F.3d 269, 273 (2d Cir. 1997)).

Upon review, we conclude that the district court properly dismissed Yagman’s appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The bankruptcy court approved a settlement agreement under which Yagman withdrew his objection to the claims of certain creditors and waived his right to object to the distribution of the bankruptcy estate. Yagman failed to object to the bankruptcy trustee’s motion for settlement approval, and did not appeal from the bankruptcy court’s order approving the settlement. He cannot now challenge that order, and is thus barred from challenging the distribution of the bankruptcy estate. As the district court determined, Yagman lacked standing to challenge the bankruptcy court’s order because he had no direct financial interest in the bankruptcy estate’s funds. See In re Gucci, 126 F.3d at 388.

We have considered all of Yagman’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.  