Motion for Writ in Lucy Gambarian, Menooa Gambarian v. Igor Spivakov| Trellis.Law

On December 08, 2022 a Motion-Secondary was filed involving a dispute between Lucy Gambarian, Menooa Gambarian, and Igor Spivakov, for Torts - Other (Vacate Forged Judgement) in the District Court of Richmond County.

Preview
FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 02/19/2024 10:55 PM INDEX NO. 152235/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 196 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/19/2024

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF RICHMOND
------------------------------------------------------------------X
LUCY GAMBARIAN, IN HER INDIVIDUAL Index No.: 152235/2022
CAPACITY AS LIMITED ADMINISTRATOR OF
THE ESTATE OF ARMEN GAMBARIAN, AND Hon. Lizette Colon
MENOOA GAMBARIAN,

Plaintiffs,

-against-

IGOR SPIVAKOV,

Defendant.
------------------------------------------------------------------X
IGOR SPIVAKOV,

Third-Party Plaintiff,

-against-

NATALIA GAMBA, a/k/a NATALIA GAMBARIAN,
a/k/a NATALIA MERKOCHINA,

Third-Party Defendant.
------------------------------------------------------------------X

REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANT AND THIRD-PARTY PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

AND

IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ CROSS-MOTION
SEEKING SUMMARY JUDGMENT

ROSS KATZ & PACHNANDA PLLC
Attorneys for Defendant and Third-Party
Plaintiff, Igor Spivakov
845 Third Avenue, 6th Floor
New York, NY 10022
(917) 997-7677

1 of 17
FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 02/19/2024 10:55 PM INDEX NO. 152235/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 196 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/19/2024

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Authorities ............................................................................................................ ii

ARGUMENT
I. PLAINTIFFS HAVE FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THE EXISTENCE OF
ANY QUESTIONS OF FACT WHICH WOULD REQUIRE A TRIAL ...........................1

A. Plaintiffs Failed To Satisfy Their “Heavy Burden” Under CPLR 5015
For Vacatur of the Judgment...............................................................................2

B. Plaintiffs Did Not Prove Any Fraud, Misrepresentation, or Misconduct
By Spivakov ........................................................................................................4

C. The “Opinion Letter” of Brett Goldstein Is Inconclusive
And Has No Probative Value..............................................................................5

Plaintiffs Commenced This Action Almost Two Years After Lucy
Gambarian Was Appointed As The Limited Administrator
Of Armen’s Estate. This Action Is Untimely As A Matter of Law ...................6

II. SPIVAKOV IS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON
HIS CLAIMS AGAINST THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT NATALIA GAMBA .............7

A. Notary Misconduct Under Executive Law § 135 ....................................................8

B. Fraudulent Inducement ............................................................................................8

C. Fraud ........................................................................................................................9

D. Negligence .............................................................................................................10

III. PLAINTIFF’S CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
IS UNTIMELY AS A MATTER OF LAW ......................................................................11

Conclusion .........................................................................................................................12

Word Count Certification ..................................................................................................13

2 of 17
FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 02/19/2024 10:55 PM INDEX NO. 152235/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 196 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/19/2024

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases Page(s)
Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Appalachian Asset Mgt. Corp.,
110 A.D.3d 32 (1st Dep’t 2013) ..........................................................................................7

Amodei v. New York State Chiropractic Assn.,
160 A.D.2d 279 (1st Dep’t 1990), aff’d 77 N.Y.2d 890 (1991) ..........................................8

Bank of N.Y. v. Stradford,
55 A.D.3d 765 (2d Dep’t 2008) ...........................................................................................7

City of Poughkeepsie v. Albano,
122 A.D.2d 14 (2d Dep’t 1986) ...........................................................................................4

Community West Bank, N.A. v. Stephen,
2017 NY Slip. Op. 06349 (2d Dep’t 2017, August 30, 2017) .............................................5

FTBK Inv. II LLC v. Genesis Holding LLC,
48 Misc.3d 274, 7 N.Y.S.3d 825 (NY Co. Sup. Ct. 2014) ..................................................3

Genger v. Arie Genger 1995 Life Ins. Trust,
84 A.D.3d 471 (1st Dep’t 2011) ..........................................................................................3

Giryluk v. Giryluk,
30 A.D.2d 22 (1st Dep’t 1968), aff’d, 23 N.Y.2d 894 (1969) .............................................2

Gosmile, Inc. v. Levine,
81 A.D.3d 77 (1st Dep’t 2010) ............................................................................................8

Hall Signs, Inc. v. Aries Striping, Inc.,
250 A.D.2d 811 (2d Dep’t 1998) .........................................................................................4

Herszdorfer v. Maimonides Med. Ctr.,
2023 N.Y Slip. Op. 50623(U) (Sup. Ct. Kings Co. June 25, 2023).....................................5

Long Is. Capital Mgt. Corp. v. Silver Sands Motel, Inc.,
167 A.D.3d 857 (2d Dep’t 2018) .........................................................................................7

Mars v. Grant
36 A.D.3d 561 (1st Dep’t 2007) ..........................................................................................8

Perkins Davis Grp., Inc. v. Chelsea 82973, LLC,
24 A.D.3d 645 (2d Dep’t 2005) ...........................................................................................2

3 of 17
FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 02/19/2024 10:55 PM INDEX NO. 152235/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 196 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/19/2024

Politopoulos v. City of N.Y.,
130 A.D.3d 706 (2d Dep’t 2015) .........................................................................................2

Small v. Lorillard Tobacco Co.,
94 N.Y.2d 43 (1999) ............................................................................................................9

SNC Props., LLC v. DeMartino
185 A.D.3d 750 (2d Dep’t 2020) .........................................................................................7

Spector v. Wendy,
63 A.D.3d 820 (2d Dep’t 2009) ...........................................................................................9

U.S. Bank N.A. v. Livingston,
199 A.D.3d 964 (2d Dep’t 2021) .........................................................................................6

Yellow Book of New York, L.P. v. Cataldo,
106 A.D.3d 1080 (2d Dep’t 2013) .......................................................................................5

iii

4 of 17
FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 02/19/2024 10:55 PM INDEX NO. 152235/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 196 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/19/2024

REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANT/THIRD-PARTY PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
AND
IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ CROSS-MOTION
SEEKING SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff Igor Spivakov (“Spivakov”) respectfully submits this

memorandum of law in further support of his motion for summary judgment dismissing the

verified complaint of Plaintiffs Lucy Gambarian (“Lucy”), in her individual capacity and as

Limited Administrator of The Estate of Armen Gambarian (“The Estate”), and Menooa

Gambarian (together, “Plaintiffs”); and (ii) in support of his motion for summary judgment

against Third-Party Defendant, Natalia Gamba (“Gamba”).

Spivakov also respectfully submits this memorandum of law in opposition to Plaintiffs’

untimely cross-motion seeking summary judgment.

Argument

POINT I

PLAINTIFFS HAVE FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THE EXISTENCE OF
ANY QUESTIONS OF FACT WHICH WOULD REQUIRE A TRIAL

Plaintiffs commenced this action alleging a single cause of action against Spivakov

seeking vacatur of a judgment under CPLR 5015(a)(3). But now that discovery in this action has

been completed, the undisputed facts demonstrate that Plaintiffs have failed to sustain their

burden of proof in support of their claim. Specifically, the undisputed facts demonstrate that: (i)

Spivakov provided several loans to Armen, Maria Starovoyt, and BCCCI; (ii) Armen signed the

affidavit of confession of judgment; (iii) in front of a duly licensed notary public -- Third-Party

Defendant, Natalia Gamba -- who acknowledged the genuineness of Armen’s execution of that

document; and (iv) a judgment was duly entered based on the affidavit of confession of judgment

5 of 17
FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 02/19/2024 10:55 PM INDEX NO. 152235/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 196 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/19/2024

signed by Armen and notarized by Gamba. The Plaintiffs did not, because they cannot,

demonstrate that the Judgment was procured by fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct on the

part of Spivakov. Accordingly, Spivakov is entitled to summary judgment dismissing the

Plaintiffs’ complaint.

A. Plaintiffs Failed To Satisfy Their “Heavy Burden” Under CPLR 5015
For Vacatur Of The Judgment

Pursuant to CPLR § 3218, “a judgment by confession may be entered, without an action,

either for money due or to become due . . . upon an affidavit executed by the defendant: (1)

stating the sum for which judgment may be entered, authorizing the entry of judgment, and

stating the county where the defendant resides; (2) if the judgment to be confessed is for money

due or to be due, stating concisely the facts out of which the debt arose and showing that the sum

confessed is justly due or to become due . . . .”

A party seeking to vacate a judgment bears the heavy burden of persuasion under CPLR

5015. See, e.g., Politopoulos v. City of N.Y., 130 A.D.3d 706, 707 (2d Dep’t 2015). A judgment

by confession entered pursuant to CPLR 3218 “has all of the qualities, incidents and attributes of

a judgment on a verdict, including a presumption as to its validity.” Giryluk v. Giryluk, 30

A.D.2d 22, 25 (1st Dep’t 1968), aff’d, 23 N.Y.2d 894 (1969). Courts will not vacate a judgment

entered upon a confession where the confession meets the statutory requirements of CPLR 3218

unless the defendant is able to “submit clear, positive, and satisfactory evidence of any fraud,

misconduct, or other circumstances that would require the judgment in question to be set aside.”

Perkins Davis Grp., Inc. v. Chelsea 82973, LLC, 24 A.D.3d 645 (2d Dep’t 2005); see also

Giryluk, 30 A.D.2d 25 (same).

Here, the Confession at issue fully complies with the statute because it states the sum for

which judgment may be entered, and it concisely states the facts out of which the debt arose.

6 of 17
FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 02/19/2024 10:55 PM INDEX NO. 152235/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 196 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/19/2024

Specifically, the Confession authorizes the entry of judgment against Armen and BCCCI, jointly

and severally, if either or both of those parties failed to repay Spivakov the confessed sum of

$750,000 on or before June 1, 2019.

Plaintiffs do not, because they cannot, dispute that the Confession sufficiently meets the

requirements of CPLR § 3218. Instead, Plaintiffs (conveniently) contend that Armen did not

sign the Confession, even though it was admittedly notarized by Natalia Gamba, Armen’s ex-

wife, and given to Arkady Starovoyt. See Spivakov Aff. at ¶ 19 and Starovoyt Aff. at ¶¶ 10

through 12 (attached to the Ross Aff. as Exhibit I). But it is well settled law in New York that a

signed and notarized document establishes a presumption of the notarized signatures’ due

execution and genuineness. CPLR § 4538; see also FTBK Inv. II LLC v. Genesis Holding LLC,

48 Misc.3d 274, 282, 7 N.Y.S.3d 825 (NY Co. Sup. Ct. 2014) citing Genger v. Arie Genger 1995

Life Ins. Trust, 84 A.D.3d 471 (1st Dep’t 2011). Here, the Confession conforms to the

requirements of the law and the Judgment should be enforced.

Further, the undisputed facts also demonstrate that Armen’s execution of the Confession

was witnessed by Arkady Starovoyt who submitted a sworn statement that he “watched Armen

sign the affidavit of confession of judgment, which was then notarized by Natalia Gamba.” See

the affidavit of Arkady Starovoyt, sworn to January 27, 2023 (attached to the Ross Aff. as

Exhibit I). And Plaintiffs did not – presumably because they cannot – submit any evidence

which would contradict the transactions described by Mr. Starovoyt in his affidavit.

Plaintiffs also seem to argue that Armen was not competent to make decisions for himself

while he was in the hospital. However, other than their own unqualified speculation, Plaintiffs

have failed to support this claim with any material evidence (let alone admissible evidence), such

as an opinion from Armen’s medical providers.

7 of 17
FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 02/19/2024 10:55 PM INDEX NO. 152235/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 196 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/19/2024

As such, Spivakov is entitled to summary judgment dismissing the Complaint.

B. Plaintiffs Did Not Prove Any Fraud, Misrepresentation,
Or Misconduct By Spivakov

As set forth previously, a party seeking to vacate a judgment pursuant to CPLR

5015(a)(3) must establish its claims of fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct by a

preponderance of clear, positive, and satisfactory evidence. City of Poughkeepsie v. Albano, 122

A.D.2d 14 (2d Dep’t 1986). Indeed, the Second Department has held that “a party seeking to

vacate a judgment on the basis of fraud will not prevail by merely showing fraud in the

underlying transaction but must show fraud in the very means by which the judgment was

procured.” Hall Signs, Inc. v. Aries Striping, Inc., 250 A.D.2d 811 (2d Dep’t 1998) (citations

omitted).

In support of their claim for vacatur of the Judgment, Plaintiffs simply allege “fraud”

without citation to any facts at all in support of that claim. Both of the Plaintiffs, Lucy

Gambarian and Menooa Gambarian, as well as Third-Party Defendant, Natalia Gamba, admitted

in their depositions that none of them had ever even met Mr. Spivakov, let alone spoken to him.

See Ross Aff., Exhibit D (Lucy Gambarian); and Ross Aff., Exhibit G (Natalia Gamba).

So where is the evidence of fraud, misconduct, or misrepresentation? Where is the

evidence that Spivakov made any statements to any of the Plaintiffs, let alone a

misrepresentation? Where is the evidence of misconduct on the part of Mr. Spivakov? Where is

the evidence that Gamba was “tricked” into notarizing an allegedly blank document? Who

tricked her? What was said? When? Plaintiffs cannot identify the time and place where the

purported fraudulent scheme was devised and enacted, nor can they identify any fraudulent

statements made by Mr. Spivakov or misconduct committed by Mr. Spivakov. In other words,

there are no facts which would establish that Mr. Spivakov procured the Judgment by fraud,

8 of 17
FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 02/19/2024 10:55 PM INDEX NO. 152235/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 196 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/19/2024

misrepresentation, or other misconduct. And mere speculation on the part of the Plaintiffs is

plainly insufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment.

As a result, Plaintiffs cannot identify any material facts that would support a fraud cause

of action, and the Plaintiffs’ complaint must be dismissed as a matter of law. See, e.g., Yellow

Book of New York, L.P. v. Cataldo, 106 A.D.3d 1080 (2d Dep’t 2013) (holding that “there is no

evidence in the record supporting [defendant’s] contention that the plaintiff committed fraud,

made any misrepresentations, or engaged in misconduct in the course of securing the . . .

judgment.”) (citations omitted); see also, Community West Bank, N.A. v. Stephen, 2017 NY Slip.

Op. 06349 (2d Dep’t 2017, August 30, 2017) (holding that the “movants failed to demonstrate

the existence of fraud, misrepresentation or misconduct on the part of the plaintiff and, therefore,

they were not entitled to vacatur . . . pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(3)” (citations omitted); and

Herszdorfer v. Maimonides Med. Ctr., 2023 N.Y Slip. Op. 50623(U) (Sup. Ct. Kings Co. June

25, 2023).

As a result, Spivakov is entitled to summary judgment dismissing Plaintiffs’ complaint in

this action.

C. The “Opinion Letter” Of Brett Goldstein Is Inconclusive
And Has No Probative Value

The first page of Mr. Goldstein’s “Opinion Letter” reveals that that he prepared his report

for “Artem Razin,” a non-party who is purportedly married to Third-Party Defendant Gamba.

This fact alone raises serious questions about Mr. Goldstein’s integrity and reliability because the

Plaintiffs have presented Mr. Goldstein as their expert, yet Mr. Goldstein has admittedly relied

upon information provided by Gamba’s husband. More significantly, Mr. Goldstein admitted

that he did not review or inspect the original affidavit of confession of judgment that was signed

9 of 17
FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 02/19/2024 10:55 PM INDEX NO. 152235/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 196 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/19/2024

by Armen Gambarian and notarized by Gamba. (See “Limiting Factors” on page 2 of Mr.

Goldstein’s “Opinion Letter.”)

Examining the original document is not just a procedural formality; it is the cornerstone

of any credible analysis. Without firsthand observation, any purported expert may overlook

subtle nuances, context and intricacies embedded within the document. Those nuances could

significantly alter the interpretation and ultimate conclusions to be drawn from the evidence.

And the absence of direct examination of the original document raises additional questions about

the integrity and reliability of Mr. Goldstein’s opinion because it is necessarily based on

secondary information and other assumptions; all of which apparently came from Gamba’s

husband.

In summary, Mr. Goldstein’s opinion (which is not a sworn statement and therefore

inadmissible) is not grounded in an examination of the original confession of judgment, thereby

lacking the necessary credibility and authority to be deemed conclusive. As such, Mr.

Goldstein’s opinion lacks any probative value and should be disregarded by the Court.

D. Plaintiffs Commenced This Action Almost Two Years After Lucy
Gambarian Was Appointed As The Limited Administrator
Of Armen’s Estate. This Action Is Untimely As A Matter Of Law

A motion to vacate a prior judgment or order is addressed to the court’s “sound

discretion, subject to reversal only whether has been a clear abuse of that discretion.” Here,

Plaintiffs have failed to satisfy the basic requirement of commencing this action for vacatur of

the Judgment within a reasonable time period.

It is black letter law that a party seeking vacatur under CPLR 5015(a)(3) must do so

within a reasonable time. U.S. Bank N.A. v. Livingston, 199 A.D.3d 964, 966 (2d Dep’t 2021).

Here, even giving Plaintiffs the benefit of every doubt, Plaintiffs were aware of the Judgment as

10 of 17
FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 02/19/2024 10:55 PM INDEX NO. 152235/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 196 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/19/2024

early as July 2020 (after receiving service of an Information Subpoena with Restraining Notice).

And even if that failure to act could be explained, there is no dispute that Lucy was appointed as

Limited Administrator of Armen’s Estate on March 29, 2021, and yet Plaintiffs still waited until

December 8, 2022, to commence this action; a difference of 619 days, or nearly 21 months.

Under such circumstances, Plaintiffs’ delay was unreasonable as a matter of law. See

Long Is. Capital Mgt. Corp. v. Silver Sands Motel, Inc., 167 A.D.3d 857, 859 (2d Dep’t 2018)

(finding that the defendants [the party seeking vacatur] did not move within a reasonable time);

SNC Props., LLC v. DeMartino, 185 A.D.3d 750 (2d Dep’t 2020); and Bank of N.Y. v. Stradford,

55 A.D.3d 765 (2d Dep’t 2008). This Court should, respectfully, exercise its discretion

judiciously and dismiss this action because Plaintiffs failed to act within a reasonable timeframe,

all to the detriment of Mr. Spivakov.

POINT II

SPIVAKOV IS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS
CLAIMS AGAINST THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT NATALIA GAMBA

Spivakov’s Third-Party Complaint alleges four causes of action as against Gamba: (i)

notary misconduct; (ii) fraud; (iii) fraudulent inducement; and (iv) negligence. See Ross Aff.,

Exhibit C. While Gamba’s opposition to this motion attempts to attack the underlying loan

transactions, it does not change the fact that Gamba admitted to notary misconduct in a sworn

statement. And Gamba’s opposition wholly fails to contradict any portion of the affidavit of

Arkady Starovoyt who provided an eye-witness account of Armen’s execution of the affidavit of

confession of judgment, and Gamba’s notarial acts in notarizing that affidavit. See Ross Aff., at

Exhibit I. Accordingly, Spivakov is entitled to summary judgment on each of his four causes of

action against Gamba.

11 of 17
FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 02/19/2024 10:55 PM INDEX NO. 152235/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 196 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/19/2024

A. Notary Misconduct Under Executive Law § 135

As set forth previously, Executive Law § 135 allows a private right of action against a

notary for misconduct. See Mars. v. Grant, 36 A.D.3d 561, 562 (1st Dep’t 2007); Amodei v.

New York State Chiropractic Assn., 160 A.D.2d 279, 282 (1st Dep’t 1990), aff’d 77 N.Y.2d 890

(1991).

Here, Gamba admitted in a sworn statement that she “notarized a blank, unsigned

document,”1 which is prima facie evidence of notary misconduct. As a result of the foregoing,

Spivakov is entitled to summary judgment on his first cause of action against Gamba for notary

misconduct.

B. Fraudulent Inducement

To prove a claim for fraudulent inducement, “there must be a knowing misrepresentation

of material present fact, which is intended to deceive another party and induce that party to act

on it, resulting in injury.” See, Gosmile, Inc. v. Levine, 81 A.D.3d 77, 81 (1st Dep’t 2010)

(citations omitted). Here, Gamba was a licensed notary public when she notarized Armen’s

affidavit of confession of judgment with her signature, notary stamp, and embossment, and

explicitly affirmed to the world that Armen had “executed the foregoing instrument and

acknowledged that he executed the same.”

As a licensed notary public, Gamba was aware that her notarization and acknowledgment

of a given document would be relied upon by others. Indeed, Gamba’s affidavit (Ross Aff.,

Exhibit C) confirms this fact. And not only did Spivakov rely upon Gamba’s notarization of

Armen’s COJ, but this Honorable Court also relied upon Gamba’s notarial act when it entered

the Judgment.

1
Gamba Aff. at ¶ 29.

12 of 17
FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 02/19/2024 10:55 PM INDEX NO. 152235/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 196 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/19/2024

As a result of the foregoing, Spivakov is entitled to summary judgment against Gamba on

his second cause of action for fraudulent inducement.

C. Fraud

The elements of a cause of action for fraud require: (i) a misrepresentation or a material

omission of fact which was false and known to be false by the defendant; (ii) made for the

purpose of inducing the other party to rely upon it; (iii) justifiable reliance of the other party on

the misrepresentation or material omission; and (iv) injury. See Spector v. Wendy, 63 A.D.3d

820, 821 (2d Dep’t 2009), citing Small v. Lorillard Tobacco Co., 94 N.Y.2d 43, 57 (1999).

Here, Gamba admitted that on or about July 26, 2019, acting in her capacity as a notary

public and a public officer, Ms. Gamba received, certified, and acknowledged to the world that

Armen Gambarian had signed a certain Affidavit of Confession of Judgment when she notarized

that instrument with her signature, notary stamp, and embossment, and explicitly affirmed in

writing and under oath that Armen had “executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged

that he executed the same.”

Spivakov (as well as this Court) was justifiably entitled to rely upon the facially apparent

genuineness of Armen’s signature on the affidavit of confession of judgment which was

admittedly notarized by Gamba. And Spivakov’s justifiable reliance upon Gamba’s notarization

of that document caused Spivakov to incur actual damages because he loaned additional sums of

money to Armen and BCCCI based on Armen’s purported signature and Gamba’s notarization of

that instrument. See Spivakov Aff. at ¶ 13.

As a result of the foregoing, Spivakov is entitled to summary judgment on his third cause

of action for fraud.

13 of 17
FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 02/19/2024 10:55 PM INDEX NO. 152235/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 196 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/19/2024

D. Negligence

To state a claim for negligence, a plaintiff must sufficiently allege duty, a breach of that

duty, causation, and actual injury. See, generally, Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Appalachian Asset Mgt.

Corp., 110 A.D.3d 32, 42-43 (1st Dep’t 2013).

Notarization involves more than just affixing a notary seal; it includes verifying the

identity of the person signing the document, ensuring that the signature is voluntary, and

confirming that the signer understands the contents of the document. Thus, as a matter of law,

Gamba had a duty of care to perform her notary services in a reasonable manner to avoid the

foreseeable harm of improperly notarized documents.

Here, Gamba breached that duty when she falsely stated that Armen Gambarian had

signed that certain Affidavit of Confession of Judgment, and then applied her signature, notary

stamp, and embossment, and explicitly affirmed in writing and under oath that Armen had

“executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he executed the same.”

As set forth previously Gamba’s negligence has caused Spivakov to suffer actual

damages by, among other things, providing additional funds to Armen -- $600,000 -- in reliance

upon Gamba’s notarization of Armen’s affidavit of confession of judgment, loss of the principal

moneys previously loaned to Armen and BCCCI, and unnecessary expenses in defending against

this lawsuit.

As a result of the foregoing, Spivakov is entitled to summary judgment on his fourth

cause of action against Gamba for negligence.

14 of 17
FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 02/19/2024 10:55 PM INDEX NO. 152235/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 196 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/19/2024

POINT III

PLAINTIFFS’ CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
IS UNTIMELY AS A MATTER OF LAW

Pursuant to Rule 4(a) of The Uniform Civil Term Rules for the Thirteenth Judicial

District, Supreme Court Richmond County, “All motions for summary judgment shall be served

and filed within sixty (60) days of the filing of the Notice of Issue.” (Emphasis in original.).

Here, Plaintiffs filed the Note of Issue on September 22, 2023 (NYSCEF # 115) and

therefore Plaintiffs were required to move for summary judgment not later than November 21,

2023, which is sixty days’ after September 22, 2023. Plaintiffs’ cross-motion for summary

judgment, however, was made on February 2, 2024, which is approximately ninety (90) days

beyond the deadline pursuant to this Court’s rules. Further, Plaintiffs did not previously seek

permission from the Court for an extension of time to file such cross-motion, nor did Plaintiffs

demonstrate good cause (or any excuse) for their delay.

As such, the Court should, respectfully, deny Plaintiffs’ untimely motion for summary

judgment.

15 of 17
FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 02/19/2024 10:55 PM INDEX NO. 152235/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 196 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/19/2024

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Spivakov’s motion for summary judgment should be granted,

and this Court should dismiss the Plaintiffs’ Complaint as a matter of law.

Dated: New York, New York
February 19, 2024
Respectfully submitted,

ROSS KATZ & PACHNANDA PLLC
Attorneys for Defendant and Third-Party
Plaintiff, Igor Spivakov

By: /s/ Alex K. Ross
Alex K. Ross
845 Third Avenue, 6th Floor
New York, New York 10022
Aross@RKPlawgroup.com
(917) 997-7677

16 of 17
FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 02/19/2024 10:55 PM INDEX NO. 152235/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 196 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/19/2024

WORD COUNT CERTIFICATION

The undersigned hereby certifies that, pursuant to Section 202.8-b of the Uniform Rules for the
Supreme Court, the foregoing memorandum of law contains a total of 3,030 words as measured
by the word processing system (Microsoft Word) on which it was prepared, inclusive of point
headings and footnotes, and exclusive of the caption, table of contents, table of authorities,
signature block and this Certificate.

/s/ Alex K. Ross
ALEX K. ROSS

17 of 17

Case Info

Judge

Lizette Colon Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

February 19, 2024

Case Filing Date

December 08, 2022

County

Parties

CHIU, WING KEUNG Attorney for the Plaintiff
Igor Spivakov Defendant
Lucy Gambarian Plaintiff
Menooa Gambarian Plaintiff
MESTECHKIN, OLEG A. Attorney for the Plaintiff
ROSS, ALEX KENDALL Attorney for the Defendant
ZELMATI, JANICE ADAH JUSTINE Attorney for the Plaintiff
ROBERT BONDAR Attorneys for Defendants
ALAN BENNETT Attorneys for Defendants
MICHAEL KONOPKA Attorneys for Defendants
KAYAN CHIU Attorneys for Plaintiffs
VIKTORIA BERESS Attorneys for Plaintiffs
JOSEPH ALTMAN Attorneys for Defendants
GLENN MARSHALL Attorney
ZARA JAVAKOV Attorney

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Motion-Secondary: Lucy Gambarian, Menooa Gambarian v. Igor Spivakov

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties