Preview
.....-
FILED: . .,-
NEW .-
YORK --v....COUNTY ..--CLERK......,11/26/2018
.....,......- - - 12:11
. .. , .. PM INDEX NO. 650538/2018
YSCEF SOC.DOC.
N .NO.
28 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/21/2 318
NYSCEF 32 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/26/2018
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
------ ----------------------------------- ------------X
DR. JONATHAN A. KORN, Index No. 650538/2018
Plaintiff,
-against- CROSS- MOTION AND
AFFIRMATION IN
OPPOSITION TO
PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO
COMPEL AND/OR FOR
SANCTIONS
SACCO & FILLAS, LLP,
Defendants.
------------------------------------- ----------------------X
JAMES A. WOLFF, an attorney duly admitted to practice in the Courts of the State of New
York, affirms the following, upon information and belief, under the penalties of perjury:
1. I am an assóciate of SACCO & FILLAS, LLP, the attorney of record for the defendant, Sacco &
Fillas,LLP, and as such, I am familiar with the facts and circumstances herein based upon the
contents of the file maintained by this office.
2. This affirmation is respectfully made, pursuant to 22 NYCRR §202.7(f), in Opposition to
Plaintiff'sMotion to Compel and/or For Sanctions.
3. Plaintiff'scharacterization of the facts and circumstances giving rise to the current Motion to
Compel and/or for sanctions is iñcorrcet,inaccurate, and otherwise misconstrues the issues
inherent in the instant actions.
4. Defendant proffered a response to Plaintiff's FirstInterragateries on or about November 5*, 2018.
Your affinnant argues in opposition that the disclosure of cõñfidential, privileged, or otherwise
restricted information in connection with the underlying settlement requires a conclusive
determination by the Court after a review of allthe evideñtiary record, and that such disclosure
should be directed the express order of thisCourt as to the particular responses alleged non-
by
LCCO& FILLAS,UP
1 of 5
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/26/2018 12:11 PM INDEX NO. 650538/2018
IYSCEF
NYSCEF 0.
DOC.DOC. 28
NO. 32 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/21/2
11/26/2018 318
compliant, such that the issue of privileges and confidentialities may be conclusively determined
Law of the Case.
5. The respense contained a prelimimiy statement, general objections, and objections and responses
to Plaintiff's firstinterrogatories.
6. The respoñses were prefaced by the following language: Defendant objects to this admission
request as intending to breach, violate, obstruct, or otherwise break attorney-client
privilege, deliberative process privilege, attorney work product doctrine, and any other
applicable privileges insofar as Defendant is seemingly required to conann or deny the
existence of privileged and or confidential information in relation to their client's alleged
settlement. To the extent a response is required, such is solely within the province of the
Court to render after a review of the law as well as all testimonial and written evidence.
Subject to this objection, Defendant entered into a contract for the provision of legal
services for the above referenced individuals related to a personal injury action agaiñst
Federal Realty Investment Trust, Charlene Torres, and Nidia Torres, Index No. 1874/2010
(the "PI Action"). Defeñdañt refers this Plaintiff to their Answer with Counterclaim as
though fully set forth herein.
7. The entirety of Defendant's file as it relates to Dr. Korn consists of the following items:
a. Jason Krantz; July 11, 2011 Correspondence
b. Jason Krantz; July 12, 2011 Correspondence
c. Jason Krantz; July 14, 2011 Correspondence
d. Dennis Marc Reisman; June 1, 2012 Correspondence
e. Dennis Marc Reisman; June 26, 2014 Correspondence
f.Dennis Marc Reisman; April 29, 2016 Letter with Assignment
g. Sacco & Fillas, May 4, 2016 Reisman Responsive Letter
8. The Defendant has not previously disclosed such material and iñformation itbelieves to be subject
thatthese herein aforementioned restrictions because Defendant believes Plaintiffhas failed in its
initialpresumptive threshold duty because (a) the Ileged instrument was not properly executed,
sCCO&FILLAS,LLP 2
2 of 5
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/26/2018 12:11 PM INDEX NO. 650538/2018
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.DOC. .
NO.28 32 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/21/2
11/26/2018 )18
and the clientMs. Amandela disputed itslegitimacy and accuracy, (b), the records provided by Dr.
Korn do not demonstrate a Good Faith bill for services related to Medical Expert Witness services,
(c),the Doctor involved in the claim was allegedly previously on notice that the underlying
claimant Ms. Amandela had specifically disavowed communication with Dr. Korn and issued
such prohibiti0ñ by prior counsel in matters relating to an entirely separate and wholly
uncennected personal injury case, and (d) the reasoning as to the award of a lienis entirely suspect
as Dr. Korn's own records contradict Ms. Amandela's assertions or knowledge of Dr. Korn's
involvement in the underlying action and lawsüit, and (e)that additionally discovery should be
conActing inquiring into the relationship and history of Dr. Korn and prior counsel Jason Krantz
and Marc Reisman, as the prima facie facts alleged by Dr. Korn raise reasonable suspicions of
impropriety which isunfortunately common place within the personal injury practice and is
routinely discovered in these similar circumstances by the law firm's of attorneys who are
herring"
dedicated to the fidelity of representation to their clients and are suspect of "red scenarios
where such scams may be present.
9. Defendants further allege and argue that responsive discovery was proffered in Good Faith,
pursüânt to what Defendant's believe are itsobligations and restrictions with respect to the
underlying case, the entirety of the non-confidential files were produced, including multiple items
of correspeñdcnce by and between prior counsel, and other such documeñtery evidence that a
reasoñably prudent person would expect to be disclosed under the circumstances without an
express order directing further disclosure whereas such action might otherwise constitute the
breach by the herein named Law Firm with respect to itsclients rights and obligations.
10. Further, a separate action by the injured party in the underlying action has been started against
Plaintiff in the instant action, which logically should be consolidated as by inchuling Ms.
Amandola, a barrier would be removed for which Defendant may attack the validity of the
underlying Lien, as any privity objections would be moot, as previously argued by
accoanuas,ar 3
3 of 5
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/26/2018 12:11 PM INDEX NO. 650538/2018
NYSCEF
NYSCEFDOC.DOC. N:>.NO.
28 32 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/26/2018
11/21/2 )18
.
Plaintiff in validating their reason to obstruct Defendant's inquiry into the said Lien
agreement.
11. Plaintiff has not responded to Defendant's First Set of Interrogatories, which may yield
sufficient information as to make a determination as to whether or not Dr. Korn is has
presented a legitimate and valid Lien.
WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests the following determinations made by the court:
(a) That Defêñdañts Cross-Motion is granted, together with a denial against Plaintiff's
instant motion, and the lawsuit is consolidated with that of Ms. Non-party Amandola's
lawsuit, also represented by Sacco & Fillas LLP, thus defeating any issue of standing by
Defendant, as previously argued by Plaintiff, to object to the underlying alleged Expert
Medical Witness services by Plaintiff Dr. Korn.
(b) Or, in the alternative, That Defendants Cross-Motion is granted and the lawsuit is
consolidated with that of Ms. Non-party Amañdela's lawsuit, also represented by Sacco &
Fillas LLP, thus defeating any issue of standing by Defendant, as previously argued by
Plaintiff, to object to the underlying alleged Expert Medical Witness services by Plaintiff
Dr. Korn.
(c) Or, in the alternative, that after review of the evidentiary record and motion practice
before the court, that an order is given as to whether Defendants are directed to answer the
questions and demands made by Plaintiff, and to what extent such disclosure is necessary,
and that Defendant is granted leave to make a motion upon this court to consolidate the
actions with that of the separate action initiated by Sacco Fillas LLP against Plaintiff on
behalf of necessary party Ms. Amandola.
SACCO& FILLAS,LLP
4 of 5
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/26/2018 12:11 PM INDEX NO. 650538/2018
NYSCEF
NYSCEFD.OC.
DOC.N .
NO.28 32 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NY SCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/21/2)18
11/26/2018
k
(d) Or, in the alternative, that after of the evidentiary record and motion practice before the
court, that an order is given enjoining and adding former counsel Jason Krantz, Esq., as a
necessary party to defend the legitimacy of the alleged fraudulent Expert Medical Witness
Witness"
lien and the validity of Plaintiff Dr. Korn's purported "Expert Medical services.
Date: November 21st, 2018
Astoria, New York ames Ar t y Wolff, Esq.
SACCO & FILLAS, LLP
Attorneys for Defendant
31-19 Newtown Avenue
Astoria, New York 11102
(718) 269-2237
SACCO& FILLAS,LLP 5
5 of 5
Preview
.....- FILED: . .,- NEW .- YORK --v....COUNTY ..--CLERK......,11/26/2018 .....,......- - - 12:11 . .. , .. PM INDEX NO. 650538/2018 YSCEF SOC.DOC. N .NO. 28 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/21/2 318 NYSCEF 32 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/26/2018 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK ------ ----------------------------------- ------------X DR. JONATHAN A. KORN, Index No. 650538/2018 Plaintiff, -against- CROSS- MOTION AND AFFIRMATION IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL AND/OR FOR SANCTIONS SACCO & FILLAS, LLP, Defendants. ------------------------------------- ----------------------X JAMES A. WOLFF, an attorney duly admitted to practice in the Courts of the State of New York, affirms the following, upon information and belief, under the penalties of perjury: 1. I am an assóciate of SACCO & FILLAS, LLP, the attorney of record for the defendant, Sacco & Fillas,LLP, and as such, I am familiar with the facts and circumstances herein based upon the contents of the file maintained by this office. 2. This affirmation is respectfully made, pursuant to 22 NYCRR §202.7(f), in Opposition to Plaintiff'sMotion to Compel and/or For Sanctions. 3. Plaintiff'scharacterization of the facts and circumstances giving rise to the current Motion to Compel and/or for sanctions is iñcorrcet,inaccurate, and otherwise misconstrues the issues inherent in the instant actions. 4. Defendant proffered a response to Plaintiff's FirstInterragateries on or about November 5*, 2018. Your affinnant argues in opposition that the disclosure of cõñfidential, privileged, or otherwise restricted information in connection with the underlying settlement requires a conclusive determination by the Court after a review of allthe evideñtiary record, and that such disclosure should be directed the express order of thisCourt as to the particular responses alleged non- by LCCO& FILLAS,UP 1 of 5 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/26/2018 12:11 PM INDEX NO. 650538/2018 IYSCEF NYSCEF 0. DOC.DOC. 28 NO. 32 RECEIVED RECEIVED NYSCEF: NYSCEF: 11/21/2 11/26/2018 318 compliant, such that the issue of privileges and confidentialities may be conclusively determined Law of the Case. 5. The respense contained a prelimimiy statement, general objections, and objections and responses to Plaintiff's firstinterrogatories. 6. The respoñses were prefaced by the following language: Defendant objects to this admission request as intending to breach, violate, obstruct, or otherwise break attorney-client privilege, deliberative process privilege, attorney work product doctrine, and any other applicable privileges insofar as Defendant is seemingly required to conann or deny the existence of privileged and or confidential information in relation to their client's alleged settlement. To the extent a response is required, such is solely within the province of the Court to render after a review of the law as well as all testimonial and written evidence. Subject to this objection, Defendant entered into a contract for the provision of legal services for the above referenced individuals related to a personal injury action agaiñst Federal Realty Investment Trust, Charlene Torres, and Nidia Torres, Index No. 1874/2010 (the "PI Action"). Defeñdañt refers this Plaintiff to their Answer with Counterclaim as though fully set forth herein. 7. The entirety of Defendant's file as it relates to Dr. Korn consists of the following items: a. Jason Krantz; July 11, 2011 Correspondence b. Jason Krantz; July 12, 2011 Correspondence c. Jason Krantz; July 14, 2011 Correspondence d. Dennis Marc Reisman; June 1, 2012 Correspondence e. Dennis Marc Reisman; June 26, 2014 Correspondence f.Dennis Marc Reisman; April 29, 2016 Letter with Assignment g. Sacco & Fillas, May 4, 2016 Reisman Responsive Letter 8. The Defendant has not previously disclosed such material and iñformation itbelieves to be subject thatthese herein aforementioned restrictions because Defendant believes Plaintiffhas failed in its initialpresumptive threshold duty because (a) the Ileged instrument was not properly executed, sCCO&FILLAS,LLP 2 2 of 5 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/26/2018 12:11 PM INDEX NO. 650538/2018 NYSCEF NYSCEF DOC.DOC. . NO.28 32 RECEIVED RECEIVED NYSCEF: NYSCEF: 11/21/2 11/26/2018 )18 and the clientMs. Amandela disputed itslegitimacy and accuracy, (b), the records provided by Dr. Korn do not demonstrate a Good Faith bill for services related to Medical Expert Witness services, (c),the Doctor involved in the claim was allegedly previously on notice that the underlying claimant Ms. Amandela had specifically disavowed communication with Dr. Korn and issued such prohibiti0ñ by prior counsel in matters relating to an entirely separate and wholly uncennected personal injury case, and (d) the reasoning as to the award of a lienis entirely suspect as Dr. Korn's own records contradict Ms. Amandela's assertions or knowledge of Dr. Korn's involvement in the underlying action and lawsüit, and (e)that additionally discovery should be conActing inquiring into the relationship and history of Dr. Korn and prior counsel Jason Krantz and Marc Reisman, as the prima facie facts alleged by Dr. Korn raise reasonable suspicions of impropriety which isunfortunately common place within the personal injury practice and is routinely discovered in these similar circumstances by the law firm's of attorneys who are herring" dedicated to the fidelity of representation to their clients and are suspect of "red scenarios where such scams may be present. 9. Defendants further allege and argue that responsive discovery was proffered in Good Faith, pursüânt to what Defendant's believe are itsobligations and restrictions with respect to the underlying case, the entirety of the non-confidential files were produced, including multiple items of correspeñdcnce by and between prior counsel, and other such documeñtery evidence that a reasoñably prudent person would expect to be disclosed under the circumstances without an express order directing further disclosure whereas such action might otherwise constitute the breach by the herein named Law Firm with respect to itsclients rights and obligations. 10. Further, a separate action by the injured party in the underlying action has been started against Plaintiff in the instant action, which logically should be consolidated as by inchuling Ms. Amandola, a barrier would be removed for which Defendant may attack the validity of the underlying Lien, as any privity objections would be moot, as previously argued by accoanuas,ar 3 3 of 5 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/26/2018 12:11 PM INDEX NO. 650538/2018 NYSCEF NYSCEFDOC.DOC. N:>.NO. 28 32 RECEIVED RECEIVED NYSCEF: NYSCEF: 11/26/2018 11/21/2 )18 . Plaintiff in validating their reason to obstruct Defendant's inquiry into the said Lien agreement. 11. Plaintiff has not responded to Defendant's First Set of Interrogatories, which may yield sufficient information as to make a determination as to whether or not Dr. Korn is has presented a legitimate and valid Lien. WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests the following determinations made by the court: (a) That Defêñdañts Cross-Motion is granted, together with a denial against Plaintiff's instant motion, and the lawsuit is consolidated with that of Ms. Non-party Amandola's lawsuit, also represented by Sacco & Fillas LLP, thus defeating any issue of standing by Defendant, as previously argued by Plaintiff, to object to the underlying alleged Expert Medical Witness services by Plaintiff Dr. Korn. (b) Or, in the alternative, That Defendants Cross-Motion is granted and the lawsuit is consolidated with that of Ms. Non-party Amañdela's lawsuit, also represented by Sacco & Fillas LLP, thus defeating any issue of standing by Defendant, as previously argued by Plaintiff, to object to the underlying alleged Expert Medical Witness services by Plaintiff Dr. Korn. (c) Or, in the alternative, that after review of the evidentiary record and motion practice before the court, that an order is given as to whether Defendants are directed to answer the questions and demands made by Plaintiff, and to what extent such disclosure is necessary, and that Defendant is granted leave to make a motion upon this court to consolidate the actions with that of the separate action initiated by Sacco Fillas LLP against Plaintiff on behalf of necessary party Ms. Amandola. SACCO& FILLAS,LLP 4 of 5 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/26/2018 12:11 PM INDEX NO. 650538/2018 NYSCEF NYSCEFD.OC. DOC.N . NO.28 32 RECEIVED RECEIVED NY SCEF: NYSCEF: 11/21/2)18 11/26/2018 k (d) Or, in the alternative, that after of the evidentiary record and motion practice before the court, that an order is given enjoining and adding former counsel Jason Krantz, Esq., as a necessary party to defend the legitimacy of the alleged fraudulent Expert Medical Witness Witness" lien and the validity of Plaintiff Dr. Korn's purported "Expert Medical services. Date: November 21st, 2018 Astoria, New York ames Ar t y Wolff, Esq. SACCO & FILLAS, LLP Attorneys for Defendant 31-19 Newtown Avenue Astoria, New York 11102 (718) 269-2237 SACCO& FILLAS,LLP 5 5 of 5