Curtis v. Greenberg
| Decision Date | 23 September 2021 |
| Docket Number | 20-CV-824 (PKC) (LB) |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
| Parties | W. ROBERT CURTIS, ESQ., Plaintiff, v. TERESA P. GREENBERG, ESQ., THE LAW OFFICE OF YEUNG & WANG, PLLC, WILLIAM J. LARKIN, III, ESQ., LARKIN, INGRASSIA, & TEPERMAYSTER, LLP, TODD A. KELSON, ESQ., TODD A. KELSON, PC, MISHAEL M. PINE, ESQ., RONALD A. BERUTTI, ESQ., WEINER LAW GROUP, LLP, JEFFREY SALTIEL, ESQ., WENIG, SALTIEL, LLP, GREGORY SHEINDLIN, ESQ., SHEINDLIN LAW OFFICE, and NILOUFER BASSA, Defendants. |
Plaintiff an attorney proceeding pro se, filed the Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) in this case on July 27, 2020. The SAC alleges violations of state law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (“RICO”) Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962(c) and (d), by Defendants Teresa Greenberg, Esq. and the Law Office of Yeung & Wang, PLLC (collectively, the “Greenberg Defendants”); William Larkin, III, Esq. and the law firm Larkin, Ingrassia, & Tepermayster, LLP (collectively, the “Larkin Defendants”); Todd Kelson, Esq. and the law firm Todd A. Kelson, PC (collectively, the “Kelson Defendants”); Ronald Berutti, Esq. and the Weiner Law Group, LLP (collectively the “Berutti Defendants”); Jeffrey Saltiel, Esq. and the law firm Wenig Saltiel, LLP (collectively, the “Saltiel Defendants”); Gregory Sheindlin, Esq. and the Sheindlin Law Office (collectively, the “Sheindlin Defendants”); Mishael M. Pine, Esq. and Niloufer Bassa.
The 103-page, two-volume SAC essentially alleges that Defendants took advantage of Plaintiff's alcohol abuse and consequent incapacity to deprive him of his property and assets. It asserts that Defendants misled New York courts about Plaintiff's need for a court-appointed guardian and then, when a guardian was appointed, sought to manage Plaintiff's assets against his interests without his interference. Defendants move to dismiss the SAC in its entirety. Finding that the SAC does not adequately allege any RICO violations, the Court dismisses Plaintiff's RICO claims with prejudice. Because the RICO claims are the only federal causes of action the SAC invokes, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims and dismisses the state law causes of action without prejudice to refile in state court.
The SAC alleges the following facts, which the Court accepts as true for purposes of Defendants' motions. See Forest Park Pictures v. Universal Television Network, Inc., 683 F.3d 424, 429 (2d Cir. 2012).
Plaintiff is an attorney who operated a law firm, Curtis & Associates, PC, until 2016. (SAC Volume I (“SAC I”), Dkt. 52, ¶¶ 1-2.) Plaintiff's firm was in a “store-front townhouse located on [155] Duane [Street], in Tribeca, [New York]” (the “Duane Street Property”). (Id. ¶ 1.) In January 2016, Plaintiff retained the Greenberg Defendants to exchange the Duane Street Property for a “real property of like kind” under Section 1031 of the Internal Revenue Code, see 26 U.S.C. § 1031(a)(1), to allow Plaintiff to delay paying capital gains taxes on the Duane Street Property. (Id. ¶¶ 6, 10, 13-14.) The Duane Street Property sold for “approximately $7.7 million, ” and Defendant Greenberg, an attorney at Yeung & Wang, PLLC, arranged an exchange for a property in Brooklyn, New York (the “Brooklyn Property”). (Id. ¶¶ 6, 20.) On February 16, 2016, Greenberg purchased the Brooklyn Property on Plaintiff's behalf for $3.5 million. (Id. ¶ 21.) At the time, Plaintiff was unaware that the Brooklyn property had various structural defects such that “its assessed value was in fact $448, 458.” (Id. ¶ 25B.)
On November 1, 2016, Plaintiff retained the Larkin Defendants. (See Retainer Agreement, Dkt. 95-3, at 7.[1]) The Larkin Defendants represented Plaintiff in revoking his prior will. (SAC I, Dkt. 52, ¶ 43.) They also represented Plaintiff in family court proceedings against a former girlfriend. (See Id. ¶ 52.)
At some point in 2016, Plaintiff “became incapacitated and unable to function effectively, having lost some short-term memory skills because of the abuse of Lagavulin, a single-malt scotch.” (Id. ¶ 2.) On February 20, 2017, Plaintiff admitted himself to an alcohol treatment program. (See Id. ¶ 262.)
Around March 13, 2017, the Larkin Defendants commenced a proceeding on behalf of Plaintiff's daughter under Article 81 of the New York Mental Hygiene Law, seeking to have a guardian appointed for Plaintiff. (Id. ¶ 59.) In a guardianship proceeding, Justice Robert A. Onofry of the Supreme Court of New York appointed a Court Evaluator to prepare a report about Plaintiff, and the Kelson Defendants as counsel for Plaintiff. (See Id. ¶ 64.) Defendant Kelson “specialized in Article 81 proceedings.” (Id. ¶ 88.) On April 19, 2017, Justice Onofry appointed Defendant Pine as Plaintiff's temporary guardian. (See Id. ¶¶ 24, 105; see also Affirmation of Mishael M. Pine, Dkt. 85-25, ¶ 1; Interim Order, Dkt. 85-27.)[2]
After meeting with Plaintiff and speaking with Larkin and Plaintiff's daughter, the Court Evaluator submitted a report to Justice Onofry. (SAC I, Dkt. 52, ¶ 68.) According to Plaintiff, the report contained false statements. (See Id. ¶ 68A-H.)
On June 29, 2017, Larkin and Kelson “presented Justice Onofry with a pre-prepared” proposed order including “[f]indings of [f]act, [c]onclusions of [l]aw, and [j]udgment.” (Id. ¶ 73.) Justice Onofry adopted the order, finding that Plaintiff had consented to the appointment of a guardian for an indefinite duration. (Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Judgment, (“Guardianship Order”), Dkt. 52-8, at ECF[3] 2-4.)[4]
Justice Onofry directed Larkin, Kelson, and Pine to “use Plaintiff's existing funds to pay for [Plaintiff's] living expenses” in light of a fire having recently destroyed the house on one of Plaintiff's properties, known as “Landmark Farm.” (SAC I, Dkt. 52, ¶¶ 38, 67.) Plaintiff told Larkin that he had “decided to rebuild his home at Landmark Farm with the insurance proceeds.” (Id. ¶ 268.)
According to the SAC, the Larkin Defendants committed various acts of misconduct during the time they represented Plaintiff, most relevant of which are: (1) “intentionally deceiv[ing] [Justice Onofry about Plaintiff's medical condition] to obtain [the court's] authority, ” (2) sabotaging Plaintiff's recovery, (3) failing to adequately litigate Plaintiff's various cases, (4) attempting to liquidate Landmark Farm against Plaintiff's request, and (5) withholding documents from Plaintiff establishing this alleged misconduct.
The SAC alleges that the Kelson Defendants committed various acts of misconduct, primarily: (1) “[d]eceiv[ing] [Justice Onofry] regarding Plaintiff's continuing, and then full recovery, ” (2) “conceal[ing] material facts from Plaintiff regarding estate operations and expenditures, ” (3) [l]iquidat[ing] Landmark Farm against the wishes and instruction of Plaintiff, ”[5](4) billing Plaintiff excessively, and (5) otherwise failing to pursue Plaintiff's interests as his representatives. (See Id. ¶ 101A-B.)
In February 2018, Plaintiff retained the Berutti Defendants. (Id. ¶¶ 143-44.) The Berutti Defendants replaced the Larkin Defendants as counsel in Plaintiff's personal litigation matters “because [Larkin had a] conflict of interest.” (Id. ¶ 144; see also SAC Volume II (“SAC II”), Dkt. 52-1, ¶ 318.) In one of the cases the Berutti Defendants litigated on Plaintiff's behalf, Berutti negotiated a settlement with the Sheindlin Defendants. (See SAC I, Dkt. 52, ¶ 151; SAC II, Dkt. 52-1, ¶ 492.)
According to the SAC, the Berutti Defendants (1) failed “to include [Plaintiff] in all material decision-making, ” (2) falsely claimed “Plaintiff was not fully recovered in May of 2018, ” (3) concealed information from Plaintiff about judicial proceedings, (4) “ignored the instruction from Plaintiff and his son not to seek the appointment of a Receiver” for the Brooklyn Property, (5) mismanaged Plaintiff's litigations, and (6) “presented fraudulent bills to Pine and the Court.” (Id. ¶ 141.)
On June 14, 2018, a New York state court appointed Defendant Saltiel as “Receiver and manager of [t]he Brooklyn Property.” (Id. ¶ 159.) Saltiel “repeatedly refused Plaintiff entry to [t]he Brooklyn Property to prepare its seven units for rental” (id. ¶ 160) and failed to make repairs on the property despite taking “$18, 646 from Plaintiff's estate identified for stated repairs” (id. ¶ 161). Saltiel, Berutti, and Pine then “engaged in a lengthy phone conference, upon information and belief, to plan the liquidation of [t]he Brooklyn Property.” (SAC II, Dkt. 52-1, ¶ 533N.) The liquidation was “stopped because Plaintiff is an attorney.” (SAC I, Dkt. 52, ¶ 7D.)
On January 17, 2019, Justice Onofry terminated Plaintiff's guardianship. (SAC II, Dkt. 52-1, ¶ 468.) Plaintiff “obtained possession of [t]he Brooklyn Property in May of 2019, ” at which point he discovered various defects such as “backflow for the sewer” and incomplete construction on aspects of the building, among other issues. (SAC I, Dkt. 52, ¶ 32A-L.)
In July 2019, Plaintiff hired Defendant Bassa as an administrative assistant. (See Id. ¶¶ 169-172.) Bassa temporarily moved into a vacant apartment in the Brooklyn Property that Plaintiff owned. (See Id. ¶ 178.) Without Plaintiff's knowledge, Bassa remained in the apartment longer than he had offered to allow her to stay during which time she did not pay rent. Plaintiff also discovered that Bassa was working on a personal real estate business. (See Id. ¶¶ 183-185.) Plaintiff fired Bassa in September 2019 (id. ¶ 186), at which point she “compos[ed] several e-mails and sen[t] copies of them to Judge [sic] Onofry making utterly...
To continue reading
Request your trial