Preview
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 07/18/2023 06:18 PM INDEX NO. 609832/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 16 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/18/2023
EXHIBITA
PART 3
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 07/18/2023 06:18 PM INDEX NO. 609832/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 16 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/18/2023
Case 2:17-cv-05253-JFB-SIL Document 104 Piled 09/19/18 Page 5 of 10 PagelD #: 2444
(id. ¶ 59); that Justice Steinman "reopened" the matter to issue the June 16,2017 order (id. 114(e),
75); and that the New York State Supreme Court Appellate Division, Second Department denied
leave to appeal that order (id. ¶ 2). Thus, plaintiffs' assertions that no judgment has been rendered
are meritless.
To the extent plaintiffs argue that no valid state court judgment has been rendered because
defendants allegedly acted without jurisdiction and in violation of plaintiffs' constitutional rights
(see Pis. Objs. 2), that argument is unavailing. See, e.g., Rerny v. NYS Dep't of Taxation &
No. 09 CV 4444, 2010 WI, 3926919, at *3 (E.D,N.Y. Sept, 29, 2010) (rejecting argument that
Rooker-Feldman did not apply because plaintiff alleged state court judgment was rendered
unconstitutionally and without jurisdiction), red, 507 F. App'x 16 (2d Cir. 2013),
Finally, the fact that plaintiffs assert that their constitutional rights were violated during the
state court proceedings does not except their claims from the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. E.g.,
Eden: v, Spitzes', No, 05-CV-3504 (IUD), 2005 WL 1971024, at *1 (E,D.N.Y. Aug. 15, 2005),
off'd, 204 F. App'x 95 (2d Cir. 2006). Accordingly, the Court adopts Magistrate Judge Locke's
recommendation that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman
doctrine, and dismisses the Amended Complaint on that ground.
2. The Domestic Relations Exception
Magistrate Judge Locke alternatively determined that the Court lacks subject 'matter
jurisdiction under the domestic relations exception to federal jurisdiction. (R&R 14-15..) Plaintiffs
argue that "Itjhe divorce proceedings terminated and the lawsuit is not about custody, alimony, or
divorce proceedings" but is instead about the deprivation of plaintiffs' constitutional rights. (Pis,
Objs. 4.) However, plaintiffs cannot avoid the domestic relations exception by recasting a
domestic dispUte as a tort, civil RICO claim, or constitutional violation. See, e.g., Sobel v.
5
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 07/18/2023 06:18 PM INDEX NO. 609832/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 16 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/18/2023
' Case 2:17-cv-.05253-,JFB-SIL Document 104 Piled 09/19/18 Page 6 of 10 PagelD #: 2445
Prudenti, 25 F. Supp. 3d 340, 354 (E.D.N.Y. 2014) (collecting cases). Here, as thoroughly
explained in the R&R, plaintiffs' Amended Complaint is, in effect, directed at challenging the
results of Temmi Kramer's divorce proceedings. Accordingly, the Court adopts Magistrate Judge
Locke's recommendation that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under the domestic
relations exception, and alternatively dismisses the Amended Complaint on that ground.4
B, Immunity
Magistrate Judge Locke further concluded that, even if the Court had subject matter
jurisdiction over the Amended Complaint, several defendants are entitled to immunity.
Specifically, the R&R. recommends that the claims against the State of New York are barred by
the Eleventh Amendment, and that the claims against Justice Dane, Justice Steinman, Justice
Marks, Linda Mejias (Justice Dane's law clerk at all relevant times), John Zenir (the court-
appointed guardian), Brian Davis (the court-appointed receiver), and Lori Schlesinger (a court-
appointed real-estate broker) are barred by the doctrines of judicial and quasi-judicial immunity.
(R&R 15-19.)
With respect to the Eleventh Amendment, plaintiffs argue only that the R&R "incorrectly
recommends dismissal upon the Eleventh Amendment." • (Pis. Objs. 11.) After a de novo review,
the Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Locke's determination that the Eleventh Amendment bars
the claims against the State of New York.
As to judicial and quasi-judicial immunity, plaintiffs argue that those doctrines do not apply
because the relevant defendants "act[ed] entirely without jurisdiction." (Pls. Objs. 3.) However,
the Amended Complaint fails to allege any facts supporting this conclusory assertion. See, e.g.,
As noted above, plaintiffs bring state law claims against Leagle, Inc. for publishing the state court's July 2015
custody decision. Although those claims are likely not barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine or the domestic
relations exception, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims and accordingly
dismisses there without prejudice,
6
art
2
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 07/18/2023 06:18 PM INDEX NO. 609832/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 16 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/18/2023
'Case 2:17-cv-05253-JFB-SIL Document 104 Filed 09/19/18 Page 7 of 10 PagelD g: 2446
Jackson v. Cty. of Nassau, No. 15-CV-7218(SJF)(AKT), 2016 WL 1452394, at *6 (E.D.N.Y. Apr.
13, 2016) (collecting cases where conclusory assertions that judge acted without jurisdiction were
insufficient to defeat immunity). Indeed, to the contrary, the factual allegations in the Amended
Complaint make clear that these defendants were acting within the scope of their jurisdiction at all
relevant times.
Finally, plaintiffs argue that Schlesinger is not entitled to quasi-judicial immunity because
she is a real estate agent. (Pls. Objs. 4.) A private actor is protected by quasi-judicial immunity if
her "acts are integrally related to an ongoing judicial proceeding." El-Shabazz v. Henry, No. 12
CIV. 5044 BMC, 2012 WL 5347824, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 29, 2012) (quoting Mitchell v, Fishbein,
37717,3d 157, 172 (2d Cir, 2004)). In other words, quasi-judicial immunity attaches to individuals
who are acting "as an arm of the court." Dowlah v. Dowlah, No. 09-CV-2020 SLT/LB, 2010 WL
889292, at *6 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 10, 2010) (quoting Scotto v. Ahnenas, 143 F,3d 105, 111 (2c1 Cir.
1998)). Although plaintiffs are correct that Schlesinger is a real estate broker, they ignore that she
is a defendant in this case solely because she was appointed by Justice Steinman to assist with the
sale of marital property pursuant to a court order issued in Temmi Kramer's divorce proceeding.
(See, e.g. , Am. Compl. 4(j), 25.) Thus, the Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Locke that
Schlesinger is entitled to quasi-judicial immunity.
C. Failure to State a Claim
As noted above, Magistrate Judge Locke further concluded that, even if the Court had
subject matter jurisdiction, the federal causes of action should nevertheless be dismissed for failure
to state a claim. (R&R 19-25.) After a de novo review, the Court agrees that the Amended
Complaint fails to state a federal claim for relief.
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 07/18/2023 06:18 PM INDEX NO. 609832/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 16 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/18/2023
'Case 2:17-cv-05253-JFB-SIL Document 104 Filed 09/19/18 Page 8 of 10 PagelD #: 2447
Plaintiffs objects to the R&R's recommendation that the civil RICO claim should be
dismissed because the Amended Complaint fails to allege that defendants' engaged in racketeering
acts. (R&R 24-25.) In particular, plaintiffs point to a chart attached to the Amended Complaint,
which, they contend, adequately alleges defendants' racketeering activity. (Pls. Objs. 10.)
However, the "racketeering acts" described in the chart are devoid of any factual information.
Instead, they allege only that defendants "participated in scheme to defraud," "conspired though
wire & mail," and "obstruct[ed) justice," (See generally ECF No. 23-1 at 83-95.) In other words,
the racketeering acts that plaintiffs allege amount to nothing more than legal conclusions, which
are insufficient to state a plausible RICO claim.
Plaintiff asserts other scattershot objections to Magistrate Judge Locke's determination that
the Amended Complaint fails to state a federal claim for relief. The Court has reviewed plaintiffs'
arguments de nova, and finds them to be without merit. Accordingly, the Court adopts Magistrate
Judge Locke's recommendation that the Amended Complaint fails to state a federal claim for
relief, and dismisses those claims.
D. Supplemental Jurisdiction
Plaintiffs also object to Magistrate Judge Locke's recommendation that the Court should
decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. (R&R 25-26.) Having
determined that plaintiffs' federal claims do not survive defendants' motions to dismiss, the Court
concludes that retaining jurisdiction over any state law claims is unwarranted. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1367(c)(3), "In the interest of comity, the Second Circuit instructs that `absent exceptional
circumstances,' where federal claims can. be disposed of pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) or summary
judgment grounds, courts should `abstain from exercising pendent jurisdiction.'" Birch v. Pioneer
Credit Recovery, Inc., No, 06-CV-6497T, 2007 WL 1703914, at *5 (W.D.N.Y. June 8, 2007)
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 07/18/2023 06:18 PM INDEX NO. 609832/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 16 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/18/2023
'Case 2:17-cv-05253-.1FB-SIL Document 104 Filed 09/19/18 Page 9 of 10 PagelD #: 2448
(quoting Walker v. Time Life Films, Inc., 784 F.2d 44, 53 (2d Cir. 1986)). Therefore, in the instant
case, the Court, in its discretion, "`decline[s] to exercise supplemental jurisdiction" over
plaintiffs' state law claims because "it 'has dismissed all claims over which it has original
jurisdiction,' Kolari v. N.Y-Presbyterian Hosp., 455 F.3d 118, 122 (2d Cir. 2006) (quoting 28
U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3)); see also Cave v. E. Meadow Union Free Sch. Dist., 514 F.3d 240, 250 (2d
Cir, 2008) ("We have already found that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over
appellants' federal claims. it would thus be clearly inappropriate for the district court to retain
jurisdiction over the state law claims when there is no basis for supplemental jurisdiction.").
E. Leave to Amend
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) provides that a party shall be given leave to amend
"when justice so requires." Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). "Leave to amend should be freely granted, but
the district court has the discretion to deny leave if there is a good reason for it, such as futility,
bad faith, undue delay, or undue prejudice to the opposing party," fin v. Metro. Life Ins, Co., 310
F.3d 84, 101 (2d Cir. 2002). The Second Circuit has held that "a pro se litigant in particular
`should be afforded every reasonable opportunity to demonstrate that he has a valid claim.'
Diuhos v. Floating cc.- Abandoned Vessel, Known as New York, 162 F.3d 63, 69 (2d Cir. 1998)
(quoting Satchell v, Dilworth, 745 F,2d 731, 785 (2d Cir. 1984)). Nevertheless, even in the case
of a pro se plaintiff, "[silt is axiomatic that leave to amend need not be granted if to do so would be
futile." Cruz v. Garden of Eden Wholesale, Inc., 12 CIV. 5188 BMC MDG, 2012 WL 5386046, at
*2 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 26, 2012). As to futility, "leave to amend will be denied as futile only lithe
proposed new claim cannot withstand a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, i.e.,
if it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can plead no set of facts that would entitle him to
relief." Milanese v. Rust—Oleum Corp., 244 F.3d 104, 110 (2d Cir. 2001) (citing Ricciuti v. N.YC
9
4
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 07/18/2023 06:18 PM INDEX NO. 609832/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 16 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/18/2023
Case 2:17-cv-05253-JFB-SIL Document 104 Filed 09/19/18 Page 10 of 10
Pagelb #: 2449
Transit Auth., 941 F.2(1 119, 123 (2d Cir. 1991)),
Here, the defects in the Amended Complaint are jurisdictional and substantive and cannot
be cured through better pleading. Accordingly, the Court denies plaintiffs leave to amend and
dismisses the claims without prejudice, See Vandor, Inc. v. Milliello, 301 F.3d 37, 38-39 (2d Cir.
2002) (per curiam) ("{Albsent jurisdiction `federal courts do not have the power to dismiss with
prejudice.' (quoting Hernandez v, Conriv Realty Assocs., 182 F.3d 121, 122 (2d Cir. 1999))).
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, after a de nova review, the
Court adopts the R&R in its entirety. Accordingly, defendants' motions to dismiss are granted,
and plaintiffs' federal claims arc dismissed without prejudice. The Court declines to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state law claims and dismisses those claims without
prejudice. The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly and close the case.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the moving defendants shall serve a copy of this Order
on plaintiffs, and file proof of service with the Court.
The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that, should plaintiff seek leave to
appeal in forma pauperis, any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith, and in
forma pauper/s status is therefore denied for the purpose of any appeal. See Coppedge v. United
States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962).
SO AR2F,V,D
Jo ianco
d States District Judge
Dated: September 2018
Central Islip, New York
10
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 07/18/2023 06:18 PM INDEX NO. 609832/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 16 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/18/2023
UNIIED STATES DISTRICT COURT,
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
T. A. and P. A., infants by their Mother the Natural Guardian INDEX # I 7-CV-4291(JFB)(SIL)
and Custodial parent, REGAN LALLY, and REGAN LALLY
individually
Plaintiffs,
- against -
RECEIVED
IN CLERK'S OFFICE
U.S. DISTRICT COURT E.D.N.Y.
HOWARD B. LEFF, ESQ., BERNICE K. LEBER, ESQ.
MARK BLOOM, ESQ. ALEXANDER LEFF, ESQ., An 02 2018 *
JUNE FLANAGAN, GERALD GOLDSTEIN, ESQ,
LEONARD D. STEINMAN, MELANIE CYGANOWSKI, ESQ, LONG ISLAND OFFICE
MARGARET TRAUTMANN, INA ROMANO,
GAIL HOLMAN, JANET PUSHEE, BRYAN PUSHEE,
SILVER FOX CONSTRUCTION LTD, CHRIS KINNEAR,
GREY HAWK CONSTRUCTION SERVICES,
BEST REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT, LLC., ALLEN G.
REITER, ESQ, ARENT FOX, LLP. ROBERT J. BERGSON,
ESQ., John Doe #1, John Doe #2,
Defendants.
x
PLAINTIFFS' OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S
REPORT and RECOMMENDATION (R&R)
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. §636(b), Plaintiffs'
respectfully submit the following objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation dated July 17, 2018.
A. The Magistrate Judge erred in applying the "Domestic Relation Exception" to a
Post Judgment Receivership when NO domestic issues of Divorce, alimony or child
custody were litigated. Plaintiffs' are NOT seeking reconsideration of any domestic
relations decisions.
" A district court has abused it's discretion if it based its ruling on an erroneous view of
the law or on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence or rendered a decision that cannot
be located within the range of permissible decisions" Sims v. Blot, 534 F.3d 117 (2nd Cir. 2008).
Plaintiff's opposition papers [Doc 84], clearly documented that the Domestic Relations
Exception was proposed [Doc 56, 51, 65, 37] to deceive the Court into recommending dismissal
riz
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 07/18/2023 06:18 PM INDEX NO. 609832/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 16 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/18/2023
(based upon lack of subject matter jurisdiction) through misrepresentation of the facts and
misapplication of the law, as follows:
"...the RICO enterprise formed subsequent to the Trial Decision and subsequent to "the Divorce
Action" — [Doc 84]
"STEINMAN did not preside over the "Matrimonial Action" and only had authority in
ministerial oversight of the post-judgment Part 36 fiduciary appointment, aka LEBER/ARENT
FOX LLP, of which he had a close personal and professional relationship of thirty years." [Doc
84]
"Representing TRAUTMANN and HOLMAN, attorneys Wilck and Gutman attempt to
manipulate the facts by chanting the words "in the Divorce Action" twenty-four (24) times in
their twenty-four (24) page Memorandum of Law, when the Complaint clearly documents
numerous conspiracies and acts of racketeering in the post judgment administrative proceeding
of fiduciary LEBER/ARENT FOX LLP." — [page 9 Doc 84]
"...Assistant AG Hallak and Pernick are clearly aware that STEINMAN did not render any
decisions over custody, child support, visitation and/or equitable distribution. As stated in
the Complaint, STEINMAN received the matter Post Judgment of Divorce and STEINMAN's
only authority (after he refused to re-assign the matter following his November 13, 2013 Order
of re-assignment) was to be an administrative jurist over the BERNICE K. LEBER/ARENT
FOX LLP Receivership, overseeing her compliance with the Judgment of Divorce, Order of
Appointment and Appellate Division decisions. STEINMAN'S March 27, 2015 RICO enterprise
"off-the-record" telephone threats to LALLY to change custody of T.A. and P.A., without
jurisdiction or authority, would hardly qualify the matter as Domestic Relations. As plead in the
Complaint, STEINMAN'S telephone threat to LALLY was initiated after Howard LEFF (and the
RICO enterprise) committed mail and wire Fraud upon the Appellate Division, in falsely
claiming that STEINMAN was required to stay on the matter (not re-assign or recuse) to make
chemotherapy decisions for T.A. & P.A. (healthy children), to secure the RICO enterprise's
continuation with STEINMAN by that repeated, depraved Fraud. See Complaint ¶198-205." [
page 2, Doc 84].
"As plead, the value of the properties were intentionally diminished (by numerous described and
documented frauds, obstruction of justice, acts of racketeering and conspiracies) and purportedly
liquidated for less than 50% of their market value. This association-in-fact enterprise could have
been formed in any post judgment Civil case." [Doc 84]
"The elite NYS "connected" legal ruling class (former NYS Bar Association President, former
Federal Bankruptcy Judge, etc.) Defendants found the confidentiality within a post judgment
matrimonial Receivership particularly enticing to prey on single custodial women parents and
their young children by repeated fraudulent applications through wire and mail fraud, to the
various State Courts, as described and documented in the detailed Complaint." [page 3 Doc 84].
2
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 07/18/2023 06:18 PM INDEX NO. 609832/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 16 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/18/2023
In their Reply Briefs [Doc 85, 86, 89], the NYS Attorney General's Office (representing
SIELINTMAN), Rivkin Radler LLP (representing TRAUTMAN and HOLMAN), and Otterbourg
(representing CYGANOWSKI) failed to present even one matrimonial, custody, alimony,
child support decision in which STEINMAN had authority in support of their position that
the acts of racketeering and denial of Due Process rights occurred "in the Divorce Action" to
invoke the Domestic Relations exception, however the Magistrate Judge adopted this fabrication
in the R & R, as follows:
"Over the course of the Divorce Action, Lally alleges that Defendants collectively engaged in
a two part racketeering enterprise....Defendants are various attorneys, judges...." (page 4,12,
R&R).
"...conspiracy for their purported actions during her divorce proceedings..." (page 5, ¶2 R&R).
"This complaint seeks relief for the purported unlawful conduct in the Divorce Action..." (page
6, ¶2 R&R).
"LaIly's divorce proceedings were fully and fairly litigated and she lost" (page 16, ¶ 2 R&R).
"....requires the Court to improperly "re-examine and re-interpret all the evidence before the
state court" in the underlying divorce proceedings" (page 17, ¶ 3 R&R).
"While the Court provides facts relevant only to the pending motions to dismiss, a more
thorough recitation of the underlying state court proceedings are available at Aebly v.
Lally, 112 A.D. 3d 561, 977 NYS 2d 50 (2d Dept. 2013)." (page 3, footnote #2 R&R).
The above R&R findings are not factual. LALLY did not lose in the Divorce Action
which was fully decided in October of 2011, as LALLY was successfully granted full legal and
physical custody of the children and child support payable through the Child Support Collection
Unit. Justice Palmieri presided over the Divorce Action and trial in 2011. Justice Zimmerman
received the Administrative oversight of the receivership, post-judgment, and randomly
transferred the matter to STEINMAN in November 2013, over two years subsequent to the
conclusion of the Divorce Action.
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 07/18/2023 06:18 PM INDEX NO. 609832/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 16 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/18/2023
The Magistrate Judge in his R&R's refers to Aebly v. Lally, 112 A.D. 3d 561, 977 NYS
2d 50 (2d Dept. 2013), (page 3, footnote #2 R&R), which states:
"The financial circumstances of the parties did not dictate the immediate sale of the marital
residence...considering that the parties will receive substantial income from the sale of other
marital properties by an appointed receiver, it is appropriate to give the defendant the option
of retaining exclusive occupancy of the marital residence." Aebly v. Lally, 112 A.D. 3d 561, 977
NYS 2d 50 (2d Dept. 2013) - EXHIBIT "1".
The efficiently managed, profitable rentals (other marital properties) ordered sold by a
receiver post-trial should have resulted in the Plaintiffs' "receiv[ing] substantial income from the
sale of the other martial properties by an appointed receiver".
Then how did the Plaintiffs end up homeless, penniless and in extensive debt, after the
December 4, 2013 NYS Appellate Division decision, in 2017 with receiver LEBER controlling
the marital property ?
That would require reading the Federal Complaint, 17-CV-4291, which contains over
(30) thirty acts of racketeering, over a course of (5) five years, by the RICO Defendants and their
enterprise, resulting in the Defendants' extensive financial enrichment. Plaintiffs would have
over one ($1) million dollars in their Bank account from a Post -judgment property liquidation,
worth over $2.5 million dollars, if it were not for the Defendants' acts of Racketeering (perjury,
mail and wire fraud, extortion, obstruction of justice, conspiracies to induce LALLY to commit
felonies, crimes and extortion against LALLY, conspiracies for warrants to issue for her arrest,
etc.) and Constitutional and Due Process violations by the Defendants, which includes ONE
Judge, Leonard D. STEINMAN, who had an Administrative role in monitoring this Post-
Judgment Receivership beginning in November 2013. STEINMAN, a former co-worker and
friend of 30 years of LEBER, engaged in criminal acts of Racketeering with the other
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 07/18/2023 06:18 PM INDEX NO. 609832/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 16 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/18/2023
association-in-fact Defendants of the enterprise to dissolve over $2.5 million dollars into the
Defendants' own pockets, as fully documented and described in the Complaint [Doc 1].
See Appeal in Aebly v. Lally, 112 A.D. 3d 561, 977 NYS 2d 50 (2d Dept. 2013) —
referenced in the R&R, EXHIBIT "1", and sworn Statements of Net Worth from Aebly
($2,532,853.00) and Lally ($2,553,085.00) in real estate assets prior to the post-trial and post
"Divorce Action" formation of the RICO enterprise, EXHIBIT "2".
B. The Magistrate Judge erred in applying the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine to a Post
Judgment Receivership where there was no State Court venue to discontinue the
racketeering sponsored by STEINIVIAN through mail and wire Fraud, theft,
perjury, obstruction, extortion, conspiracies in the Appellate Division and other
State Courts.
The application of the Rooker -Feldman Doctrine to exclude subject matter jurisdiction in
Federal Court would be legally appropriate IF Plaintiffs sued the Defendants for Breach of
Fiduciary Duty, Fraud and Unjust enrichment in State Court for the:
a) diminution of the value of three residential properties to 50% of their pre-
Receivership value by wire and mail Fraud, purposeful destruction,
fabrication of a Certificate of Occupancy violation, fabrication of Mold, etc
and
b) the sale of the residential real estate exclusively to inside purchasers for less
than the higher offers made by others, with fabricated low-ball offers,
fabricated contracts of sale and false legal bills, and
c) excluding the Plaintiffs from purchasing the property at the 50% off price to
their associates, and- Lost in State Court, and subsequently brought a Federal
Court action for the RICO conspiracies and racketeering connected thereto.
However, Plaintiffs NEVER filed a Lawsuit in State Court for the above a-c.
Additionally, the documented and described racketeering acts of the RICO enterprise in
the Complaint [Doc 1] far exceeded the above-mentioned a-c acts and included criminal activity
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 07/18/2023 06:18 PM INDEX NO. 609832/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 16 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/18/2023
(extortion, racketeering, stalking & trespass, physical threats and threats of professional ruin)
where:
(a) an arrest was made (and a conviction) for conspiracies and conduct which STEINMAN
orchestrated victimizing LALLY and T.A. in STEINMAN'S Courtroom while Plaintiff LALLY
was stripped of her liberty by STEINMAN'S false Order on June 3, 2014,
(b) there is a documented conspiracy by the RICO Defendants inducing LALLY to commit the
felonies of mortgage fraud, mail and wire fraud, and perjury by sworn affidavit- through the U.S.
mail and wires (Doc 1, ¶106-108),
(c) the RICO Defendants concealed a rental registration violation for a Warrant to issue for
LALLY's arrest for non-appearance in Huntington District Court on August 28, 2013.
The R&R's on page 16 misrepresent the facts and falsely claim, as follows: "Plaintiff
requests review of the merits of that judgment [Divorce] including a determination on the
propriety of: (i) appointing Leber as a receiver; and (ii) the sale of the marital property", and
"Plaintiffs claims thus presuppose and hinge on the allegation of unlawful conduct in the Divorce
Action", when nothing could be farther from the truth.
As clearly stated by Plaintiffs' in Document 84, as follows:
".... this Doctrine does not apply, as a LEBER and the RICO enterprise had control of three
residential properties at an undisputed Net Worth value of over $2.5 million dollars. The RICO
Defendants conspired to form a RICO enterprise and corrupt the proceedings in State Court by
Fraud to enrich themselves by acts of Racketeering and to actively conceal the criminal conduct
in a post judgment civil matter. In Aebly v. Lally, Index #202114-2008, Mr. Aebly is also a
State Court "loser" through post-judgment malpractice, fraud and the manipulation of his
weakened condition to the enrichment of others, as plead in the Complaint." [Doc 84].
Four requirements must be met before the Rooker- Feldman Doctrine applies.
Firstly, the R & R's stating that Plaintiffs were State Court losers in the Divorce Action is
inaccurate, as the children and child support was decided favorably for the Plaintiffs in August
2011 and the Appellate Division overturned the sale of the children's home — See Exhibit "1".
Secondly, the. Plaintiffs do not complain of the injuries of a State Court Judgment
because there was no opportunity OR venue to litigate a corrupt Post-judgment Administrative
6
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 07/18/2023 06:18 PM INDEX NO. 609832/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 16 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/18/2023
oversite by a Supreme Court Judge, STEINMAN and the other RICO Defendants, who conspired
and participated in the racketeering that stripped over $2.5 million in real estate from a custodial
parent and children. Clearly, there was no State-court judgment that stated that LEBER,
BLOOM, ARENT FOX LLP, LEFFS and STEINMAN could bleed over $2.5 million dollars of
North Shore Gold Coast real estate into their own pockets by racketeering through their RICO
enterprise, as fully described in the Complaint [Doc 1].
Third, there exists no state -court judgment that stated that these so-called Part 36
"fiduciaries" could engage in numerous conspiracies and acts of racketeering to self-deal, harm
Plaintiffs by threats and stripping them of liberty, and profit against the rights of the Plaintiffs.
Fourth, as correctly stated in the R&R (page 16, ¶2), "It is also undisputed that the
Divorce Action concluded, and the judgment was rendered before this federal action", which is
correct as the Divorce Action was fully concluded in October of 2011. This lawsuit has nothing
to do with a "Divorce Action" (rulings on custody, alimony, child support), as the RICO
enterprise formed after October 2011and the causes of Action in this Federal Lawsuit do not
address the Divorce Action domestic relation decisions.
It is also clearly plead and stated [Doc 1 & 84], that this RICO enterprise is not
finished/COMPLETED, as $50,000 of the estate is still being held in escrow by LEFF at
LEBER'S request for LEBER'S anticipated prosecution by the U.S. Attorney's Office, as
follows :
"As plead in the Complaint (¶261), STEINMAN and phase two RICO enterprise conspired
through wire fraud in a "Grand Finale", to amended STEINMAN'S December 19, 2016 Order to
a December 21, 2016 Order which illegally holds $50,000, of the estate funds in escrow by
HOWARD LEFF, as per LEBER'S earlier request (August 29, 2016), to be used to criminally
defend LEBER and the RICO enterprise against proceedings brought by the U.S. Attorney's
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 07/18/2023 06:18 PM INDEX NO. 609832/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 16 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/18/2023
Office. See LEBER'S August 29, 2016 request and amended Orders in EXHIBIT "5" ". [Doc
84].
The RICO enterprise still has $50,000 in the account of Defendant LEFF to fund their
foreseen federal criminal prosecution. It is notable that LEBER' s admission of guilt and concern
of prosecution was made on August 29, 2016, EXHIBIT "3", before the November 2016
Presidential election, when LEBER' s political ally, Loretta "tarmac" Lynch, was in control of the
U.S. Attorney's Office, and expected to stay in control.
Additionally, the R&R ignores Plaintiffs' request to Amend the Complaint [Doc 107-
first request] to add CUOMO, MARKS and New York State, as there is currently a campaign to
further destroy Plaintiffs' by unlawful and unconstitutional actions by these NYS power players,
which this Court was advised [Doc 102-111].
The R&R ignored the consolidation request with Kramer v. Dane et al, 17-CV-05253,
made in January 2018 to allow for a "dividing and retaliation campaign" after CUOMO,
MARKS and New York State: a) illegally separated the legal NYS citizens in June 2017 al
year old girl from mother -Plaintiffs in Kramer v. Dane et al.), b) restrained them from going to
the media concerning the illegal restraint, c) restrained the mother from accessing any documents
for a Hearing that they (DANE, MARKS, CUOMO) refused grant her, and d) distributed the ex-
parte document of her illegal restraint throughout her workplaces to cause her loss of work and
defame her.
The R&R states incorrect facts to turn a Post-civil judgment Racketeering RICO
enterprise into a "Divorce Action" to invoke the Domestic Relations exception and Rooker-
Feldman improperly.
8
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 07/18/2023 06:18 PM INDEX NO. 609832/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 16 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/18/2023
C. The Magistrate Judge erred in applying Collateral Estoppel, as the issues
surrounding the RICO enterprise- intentionally devaluing property by racketeering
and profiting illegally by $2.5 million dollars - and the Unconstitutional, corrupt
State process under which they operated was NOT litigated in State Court
The R&R makes an incorrect, blanket statement (page 24, to impose Collateral
Estoppel, as follows:
"There can be no real dispute here that the issues that comprise the basis for Plaintiff's
current litigation are identical to those previously raised in her state court proceedings. Plaintiff's
previous actions, specifically the Divorce and Second Suffolk Court Actions, assert claims
premised on whether Defendants unlawfully devalued the Marital property. Thus, the Court
would be unable to grant Plaintiff relief on any of her asserted causes of action, which emanate
from her prior proceedings, without making findings contrary to those made in her previous state
court actions."
The R&R does not elaborate upon what State Court ruling would be contrary to
the relief requested by the Complaint [Doc 1] because these State Court rulings do not exist.
The Divorce trial and custody decisions were concluded in October 2011. The
State Court action in Suffolk County only plead Defamation, Abuse of Process (solely
surrounding the Defamation) and Fraud (surrounding the Defamation by offering a false
instrument for filing, repeatedly deceiving the Nassau County Clerk's office) by placing the
matrimonial index number on the Defamation case, so that the Clerk's Office would
unknowingly channel the Defamation to STEINMAN, so that he could re-assign the matter to
himself illegally, without jurisdiction, and obstruct justice and Plaintiffs' access to the NYS
Courts. See Complaint [Doc 1] ¶66, 67, 208-222, 233-237, 246-248, 276-287 and Exhibit "9"
which plead the State Court Action of Defamation - which was never litigated in a NYS Court
due to racketeering, criminal and unconstitutional actions, as plead in the Complaint [Doc 1].
D. The Magistrate Judge erred in applying Judicial and Quasi -Judicial Immunity to a
Post Judgment Receivership where STEINMAN only had authority to oversee that
LEBER followed the Order of Appointment, which as plead they did not, as
Defendants acted with criminal intent that would "shock the conscience", outside
any judicial mandate, and without jurisdiction
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 07/18/2023 06:18 PM INDEX NO. 609832/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 16 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/18/2023
Again, the R&R's [page 20, ¶ 2] misrepresents the Complaint and Doc 84 to misapply the
law, as follows:
"Here, subject matter jurisdiction over the Divorce Action is vested with the state courts
and Plaintiff has failed to allege plausibly that the rulings made during the matrimonial dispute
were outside that court's jurisdiction. The Complaint similarly fails to set forth plausibly any
allegation that Leber as an appointed receiver, acted outside her judicial mandate."
The Complaint and opposition [Doc 84] clearly document that all conduct described in
the Complaint was post "Divorce Action", by repeated acts of racketeering, outside the scope of
authority and/or Order of appointment, without jurisdiction, intended to enrich the Defendants
and strip Plaintiffs' of their life, liberty and property (over $2.5 million dollars- See EXHIBIT
"2") by the RICO enterprise, as follows:
"194. After receipt of GOLDS I EIN and LEBER'S Motion to sell 3 Blueberry Hill, Northport,
REGAN LALLY Cross-moved to Compel production of the Certificate of Occupancy Violation
which the original RICO Defendants swore under oath on August 2, 2013 existed upon the
Northport cottage, issued by the Town of Huntington...LEBER swore under oath three days later
(before the closing) on December 11, 2014, as follows:
" In any event, the need for a copy of the Certificate of Occupancy Violation — even if it existed,
which it does not — is now moot. On December 8, 2014, the Court granted the Receiver's motion
to sell 3 Blueberry Hill, Northport." EXHIBIT "4".
196. STEINMAN ignored LEBER'S confession to her previous perjury, did not stop the sale
upon this documented fraudulent devaluation, and sought further retribution against the
Plaintiffs." [Doc 1]
"Plaintiffs' Complaint clearly documents that STEINMAN acted without jurisdiction and
authority AND that when Justice Zimmerman had the post judgment civil matter from 2012 to
2013 and directed the parties to discharge Receiver — BERNICE K. LEBER/ARENT FOX LLP
in September 2012 the RICO enterprise refused to disband (Compl. ¶ 11-13, 81-84)."[Doc 84]
"The original "phase one" RICO Defendants refused to obey Justice Zimmerman's September 5,
2012 directive, as educated legal scholars they were aware Justice Zimmerman had no
individual, determinative authority but only administrative, ministerial oversight of the trial
Court's (Palmieri, J.) 2011 Order of the Receivership Appointment, Judgment of Divorce and
any Appellate Division decisions." [Doc 84]
"Therefore, the RICO enterprise continued conspiring through mail and wire fraud, obstruction
of justice, extortion, perjury, etc. to commit mail and wire Fraud upon the Appellate Division,
Huntington District Court, Nassau County Family. "There is a general rule that ministerial
10
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 07/18/2023 06:18 PM INDEX NO. 609832/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 16 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/18/2023
officer who acts wrongly, although in good faith is nevertheless liable in a civil action and
cannot claim immunity of the Sovereign", Cooper v. O'Connor, 99 F.2d 133."[Doc 84]
"The administrative oversight of the LEBER/ARENT FOX LLP Receivership matter was then
randomly assigned to LEBER longtime friend and former co-worker, LEONARD S l'ENMAN
in November 2013— as detailed in the Complaint. "Administrative -capacity torts by a judge do
not involve the "performance of a function of resolving disputes between parties, or of
authoritatively adjudicating private rights" and therefore do not have the judicial immunity of
judicial acts." Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219, 98 L.Ed 2d 555, 108 S.Ct 538 (1988), Atkinson-
Baker & Assoc. v. Kolts, 7 F. 3d 1454, (9th Cir 1993)."[Doc 84]
"IN RESPONSE to STEINMAN POINT III — Absolute Immunity, Absolute Judicial
Immunity- Assistant AG Hallak and Pernick cite Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S 9 (1991) in that there
are two exceptions that bar absolute judicial immunity, as follows: "when an action is not taken
in the judge's judicial capacity and when the action , though judicial in nature, is taken in the
complete absence of jurisdiction" or " whether it is a function normally performed by a judge
and whether the judge is acting in his adjudicative (as opposed to administrative) capacity"
Bliven v. Hunt, 579 Fr i 204, 209 (2d Cir. 2009).[Doc 84]
The RICO defendants with STEINMAN conspired, through fraudulent applications sent
through the U.S. mails and wires, to acquire another $170,000 from a third-party's mortgage into
the receivership pot for their own consumption, and admittedly acted without jurisdiction, as
documented in Doc 84, as follows:
"When a judicial officer acts entirely without jurisdiction or without compliance with jurisdiction
requisites he may be held civilly liable for abuse of process even though his act involved a
decision made in good faith, that he had jurisdiction", State use of Little v. U.S. Fidelity &
Guaranty Co., 217 Miss. 576, 64 So. 2d 697. As documented and described in the Complaint,
STEINMAN- additionally knowingly acted in complete absence of jurisdiction and continuously
conspired against the Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs' relatives (¶198-204), as documented on December
19, 2014 (first appearance by Brian Davis representing Pro Se, Regan Lally), as follows:
THE COURT: "...So, Ms. Lally, did you hear that? Are there any mortgages outstanding
on the property, I guess he's specifically referencing mortgages to your father?"
MS LALLY: " Your Honor, I don't know what Mr. Goldstein is talking about citing
Justice Palmieri's decision"
THE COURT: " Don't even worry about that. My question to you is, to your
knowledge, are there any outstanding mortgages on the property?"
THE COURT: "...you're authorized to bring whatever action, proceeding, motion that
you wish to bring to me in that regard to me." See December 19, 2014 transcript, page 27-29 ,
EXHIBIT "1". [Doc 84]
Preview
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 07/18/2023 06:18 PM INDEX NO. 609832/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 16 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/18/2023 EXHIBITA PART 3 FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 07/18/2023 06:18 PM INDEX NO. 609832/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 16 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/18/2023 Case 2:17-cv-05253-JFB-SIL Document 104 Piled 09/19/18 Page 5 of 10 PagelD #: 2444 (id. ¶ 59); that Justice Steinman "reopened" the matter to issue the June 16,2017 order (id. 114(e), 75); and that the New York State Supreme Court Appellate Division, Second Department denied leave to appeal that order (id. ¶ 2). Thus, plaintiffs' assertions that no judgment has been rendered are meritless. To the extent plaintiffs argue that no valid state court judgment has been rendered because defendants allegedly acted without jurisdiction and in violation of plaintiffs' constitutional rights (see Pis. Objs. 2), that argument is unavailing. See, e.g., Rerny v. NYS Dep't of Taxation & No. 09 CV 4444, 2010 WI, 3926919, at *3 (E.D,N.Y. Sept, 29, 2010) (rejecting argument that Rooker-Feldman did not apply because plaintiff alleged state court judgment was rendered unconstitutionally and without jurisdiction), red, 507 F. App'x 16 (2d Cir. 2013), Finally, the fact that plaintiffs assert that their constitutional rights were violated during the state court proceedings does not except their claims from the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. E.g., Eden: v, Spitzes', No, 05-CV-3504 (IUD), 2005 WL 1971024, at *1 (E,D.N.Y. Aug. 15, 2005), off'd, 204 F. App'x 95 (2d Cir. 2006). Accordingly, the Court adopts Magistrate Judge Locke's recommendation that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, and dismisses the Amended Complaint on that ground. 2. The Domestic Relations Exception Magistrate Judge Locke alternatively determined that the Court lacks subject 'matter jurisdiction under the domestic relations exception to federal jurisdiction. (R&R 14-15..) Plaintiffs argue that "Itjhe divorce proceedings terminated and the lawsuit is not about custody, alimony, or divorce proceedings" but is instead about the deprivation of plaintiffs' constitutional rights. (Pis, Objs. 4.) However, plaintiffs cannot avoid the domestic relations exception by recasting a domestic dispUte as a tort, civil RICO claim, or constitutional violation. See, e.g., Sobel v. 5 FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 07/18/2023 06:18 PM INDEX NO. 609832/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 16 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/18/2023 ' Case 2:17-cv-.05253-,JFB-SIL Document 104 Piled 09/19/18 Page 6 of 10 PagelD #: 2445 Prudenti, 25 F. Supp. 3d 340, 354 (E.D.N.Y. 2014) (collecting cases). Here, as thoroughly explained in the R&R, plaintiffs' Amended Complaint is, in effect, directed at challenging the results of Temmi Kramer's divorce proceedings. Accordingly, the Court adopts Magistrate Judge Locke's recommendation that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under the domestic relations exception, and alternatively dismisses the Amended Complaint on that ground.4 B, Immunity Magistrate Judge Locke further concluded that, even if the Court had subject matter jurisdiction over the Amended Complaint, several defendants are entitled to immunity. Specifically, the R&R. recommends that the claims against the State of New York are barred by the Eleventh Amendment, and that the claims against Justice Dane, Justice Steinman, Justice Marks, Linda Mejias (Justice Dane's law clerk at all relevant times), John Zenir (the court- appointed guardian), Brian Davis (the court-appointed receiver), and Lori Schlesinger (a court- appointed real-estate broker) are barred by the doctrines of judicial and quasi-judicial immunity. (R&R 15-19.) With respect to the Eleventh Amendment, plaintiffs argue only that the R&R "incorrectly recommends dismissal upon the Eleventh Amendment." • (Pis. Objs. 11.) After a de novo review, the Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Locke's determination that the Eleventh Amendment bars the claims against the State of New York. As to judicial and quasi-judicial immunity, plaintiffs argue that those doctrines do not apply because the relevant defendants "act[ed] entirely without jurisdiction." (Pls. Objs. 3.) However, the Amended Complaint fails to allege any facts supporting this conclusory assertion. See, e.g., As noted above, plaintiffs bring state law claims against Leagle, Inc. for publishing the state court's July 2015 custody decision. Although those claims are likely not barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine or the domestic relations exception, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims and accordingly dismisses there without prejudice, 6 art 2 FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 07/18/2023 06:18 PM INDEX NO. 609832/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 16 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/18/2023 'Case 2:17-cv-05253-JFB-SIL Document 104 Filed 09/19/18 Page 7 of 10 PagelD g: 2446 Jackson v. Cty. of Nassau, No. 15-CV-7218(SJF)(AKT), 2016 WL 1452394, at *6 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 13, 2016) (collecting cases where conclusory assertions that judge acted without jurisdiction were insufficient to defeat immunity). Indeed, to the contrary, the factual allegations in the Amended Complaint make clear that these defendants were acting within the scope of their jurisdiction at all relevant times. Finally, plaintiffs argue that Schlesinger is not entitled to quasi-judicial immunity because she is a real estate agent. (Pls. Objs. 4.) A private actor is protected by quasi-judicial immunity if her "acts are integrally related to an ongoing judicial proceeding." El-Shabazz v. Henry, No. 12 CIV. 5044 BMC, 2012 WL 5347824, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 29, 2012) (quoting Mitchell v, Fishbein, 37717,3d 157, 172 (2d Cir, 2004)). In other words, quasi-judicial immunity attaches to individuals who are acting "as an arm of the court." Dowlah v. Dowlah, No. 09-CV-2020 SLT/LB, 2010 WL 889292, at *6 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 10, 2010) (quoting Scotto v. Ahnenas, 143 F,3d 105, 111 (2c1 Cir. 1998)). Although plaintiffs are correct that Schlesinger is a real estate broker, they ignore that she is a defendant in this case solely because she was appointed by Justice Steinman to assist with the sale of marital property pursuant to a court order issued in Temmi Kramer's divorce proceeding. (See, e.g. , Am. Compl. 4(j), 25.) Thus, the Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Locke that Schlesinger is entitled to quasi-judicial immunity. C. Failure to State a Claim As noted above, Magistrate Judge Locke further concluded that, even if the Court had subject matter jurisdiction, the federal causes of action should nevertheless be dismissed for failure to state a claim. (R&R 19-25.) After a de novo review, the Court agrees that the Amended Complaint fails to state a federal claim for relief. FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 07/18/2023 06:18 PM INDEX NO. 609832/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 16 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/18/2023 'Case 2:17-cv-05253-JFB-SIL Document 104 Filed 09/19/18 Page 8 of 10 PagelD #: 2447 Plaintiffs objects to the R&R's recommendation that the civil RICO claim should be dismissed because the Amended Complaint fails to allege that defendants' engaged in racketeering acts. (R&R 24-25.) In particular, plaintiffs point to a chart attached to the Amended Complaint, which, they contend, adequately alleges defendants' racketeering activity. (Pls. Objs. 10.) However, the "racketeering acts" described in the chart are devoid of any factual information. Instead, they allege only that defendants "participated in scheme to defraud," "conspired though wire & mail," and "obstruct[ed) justice," (See generally ECF No. 23-1 at 83-95.) In other words, the racketeering acts that plaintiffs allege amount to nothing more than legal conclusions, which are insufficient to state a plausible RICO claim. Plaintiff asserts other scattershot objections to Magistrate Judge Locke's determination that the Amended Complaint fails to state a federal claim for relief. The Court has reviewed plaintiffs' arguments de nova, and finds them to be without merit. Accordingly, the Court adopts Magistrate Judge Locke's recommendation that the Amended Complaint fails to state a federal claim for relief, and dismisses those claims. D. Supplemental Jurisdiction Plaintiffs also object to Magistrate Judge Locke's recommendation that the Court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. (R&R 25-26.) Having determined that plaintiffs' federal claims do not survive defendants' motions to dismiss, the Court concludes that retaining jurisdiction over any state law claims is unwarranted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), "In the interest of comity, the Second Circuit instructs that `absent exceptional circumstances,' where federal claims can. be disposed of pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) or summary judgment grounds, courts should `abstain from exercising pendent jurisdiction.'" Birch v. Pioneer Credit Recovery, Inc., No, 06-CV-6497T, 2007 WL 1703914, at *5 (W.D.N.Y. June 8, 2007) FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 07/18/2023 06:18 PM INDEX NO. 609832/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 16 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/18/2023 'Case 2:17-cv-05253-.1FB-SIL Document 104 Filed 09/19/18 Page 9 of 10 PagelD #: 2448 (quoting Walker v. Time Life Films, Inc., 784 F.2d 44, 53 (2d Cir. 1986)). Therefore, in the instant case, the Court, in its discretion, "`decline[s] to exercise supplemental jurisdiction" over plaintiffs' state law claims because "it 'has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,' Kolari v. N.Y-Presbyterian Hosp., 455 F.3d 118, 122 (2d Cir. 2006) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3)); see also Cave v. E. Meadow Union Free Sch. Dist., 514 F.3d 240, 250 (2d Cir, 2008) ("We have already found that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over appellants' federal claims. it would thus be clearly inappropriate for the district court to retain jurisdiction over the state law claims when there is no basis for supplemental jurisdiction."). E. Leave to Amend Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) provides that a party shall be given leave to amend "when justice so requires." Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). "Leave to amend should be freely granted, but the district court has the discretion to deny leave if there is a good reason for it, such as futility, bad faith, undue delay, or undue prejudice to the opposing party," fin v. Metro. Life Ins, Co., 310 F.3d 84, 101 (2d Cir. 2002). The Second Circuit has held that "a pro se litigant in particular `should be afforded every reasonable opportunity to demonstrate that he has a valid claim.' Diuhos v. Floating cc.- Abandoned Vessel, Known as New York, 162 F.3d 63, 69 (2d Cir. 1998) (quoting Satchell v, Dilworth, 745 F,2d 731, 785 (2d Cir. 1984)). Nevertheless, even in the case of a pro se plaintiff, "[silt is axiomatic that leave to amend need not be granted if to do so would be futile." Cruz v. Garden of Eden Wholesale, Inc., 12 CIV. 5188 BMC MDG, 2012 WL 5386046, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 26, 2012). As to futility, "leave to amend will be denied as futile only lithe proposed new claim cannot withstand a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, i.e., if it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can plead no set of facts that would entitle him to relief." Milanese v. Rust—Oleum Corp., 244 F.3d 104, 110 (2d Cir. 2001) (citing Ricciuti v. N.YC 9 4 FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 07/18/2023 06:18 PM INDEX NO. 609832/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 16 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/18/2023 Case 2:17-cv-05253-JFB-SIL Document 104 Filed 09/19/18 Page 10 of 10 Pagelb #: 2449 Transit Auth., 941 F.2(1 119, 123 (2d Cir. 1991)), Here, the defects in the Amended Complaint are jurisdictional and substantive and cannot be cured through better pleading. Accordingly, the Court denies plaintiffs leave to amend and dismisses the claims without prejudice, See Vandor, Inc. v. Milliello, 301 F.3d 37, 38-39 (2d Cir. 2002) (per curiam) ("{Albsent jurisdiction `federal courts do not have the power to dismiss with prejudice.' (quoting Hernandez v, Conriv Realty Assocs., 182 F.3d 121, 122 (2d Cir. 1999))). III. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, after a de nova review, the Court adopts the R&R in its entirety. Accordingly, defendants' motions to dismiss are granted, and plaintiffs' federal claims arc dismissed without prejudice. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state law claims and dismisses those claims without prejudice. The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly and close the case. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the moving defendants shall serve a copy of this Order on plaintiffs, and file proof of service with the Court. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that, should plaintiff seek leave to appeal in forma pauperis, any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith, and in forma pauper/s status is therefore denied for the purpose of any appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). SO AR2F,V,D Jo ianco d States District Judge Dated: September 2018 Central Islip, New York 10 FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 07/18/2023 06:18 PM INDEX NO. 609832/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 16 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/18/2023 UNIIED STATES DISTRICT COURT, EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK T. A. and P. A., infants by their Mother the Natural Guardian INDEX # I 7-CV-4291(JFB)(SIL) and Custodial parent, REGAN LALLY, and REGAN LALLY individually Plaintiffs, - against - RECEIVED IN CLERK'S OFFICE U.S. DISTRICT COURT E.D.N.Y. HOWARD B. LEFF, ESQ., BERNICE K. LEBER, ESQ. MARK BLOOM, ESQ. ALEXANDER LEFF, ESQ., An 02 2018 * JUNE FLANAGAN, GERALD GOLDSTEIN, ESQ, LEONARD D. STEINMAN, MELANIE CYGANOWSKI, ESQ, LONG ISLAND OFFICE MARGARET TRAUTMANN, INA ROMANO, GAIL HOLMAN, JANET PUSHEE, BRYAN PUSHEE, SILVER FOX CONSTRUCTION LTD, CHRIS KINNEAR, GREY HAWK CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, BEST REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT, LLC., ALLEN G. REITER, ESQ, ARENT FOX, LLP. ROBERT J. BERGSON, ESQ., John Doe #1, John Doe #2, Defendants. x PLAINTIFFS' OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT and RECOMMENDATION (R&R) Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. §636(b), Plaintiffs' respectfully submit the following objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation dated July 17, 2018. A. The Magistrate Judge erred in applying the "Domestic Relation Exception" to a Post Judgment Receivership when NO domestic issues of Divorce, alimony or child custody were litigated. Plaintiffs' are NOT seeking reconsideration of any domestic relations decisions. " A district court has abused it's discretion if it based its ruling on an erroneous view of the law or on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence or rendered a decision that cannot be located within the range of permissible decisions" Sims v. Blot, 534 F.3d 117 (2nd Cir. 2008). Plaintiff's opposition papers [Doc 84], clearly documented that the Domestic Relations Exception was proposed [Doc 56, 51, 65, 37] to deceive the Court into recommending dismissal riz FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 07/18/2023 06:18 PM INDEX NO. 609832/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 16 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/18/2023 (based upon lack of subject matter jurisdiction) through misrepresentation of the facts and misapplication of the law, as follows: "...the RICO enterprise formed subsequent to the Trial Decision and subsequent to "the Divorce Action" — [Doc 84] "STEINMAN did not preside over the "Matrimonial Action" and only had authority in ministerial oversight of the post-judgment Part 36 fiduciary appointment, aka LEBER/ARENT FOX LLP, of which he had a close personal and professional relationship of thirty years." [Doc 84] "Representing TRAUTMANN and HOLMAN, attorneys Wilck and Gutman attempt to manipulate the facts by chanting the words "in the Divorce Action" twenty-four (24) times in their twenty-four (24) page Memorandum of Law, when the Complaint clearly documents numerous conspiracies and acts of racketeering in the post judgment administrative proceeding of fiduciary LEBER/ARENT FOX LLP." — [page 9 Doc 84] "...Assistant AG Hallak and Pernick are clearly aware that STEINMAN did not render any decisions over custody, child support, visitation and/or equitable distribution. As stated in the Complaint, STEINMAN received the matter Post Judgment of Divorce and STEINMAN's only authority (after he refused to re-assign the matter following his November 13, 2013 Order of re-assignment) was to be an administrative jurist over the BERNICE K. LEBER/ARENT FOX LLP Receivership, overseeing her compliance with the Judgment of Divorce, Order of Appointment and Appellate Division decisions. STEINMAN'S March 27, 2015 RICO enterprise "off-the-record" telephone threats to LALLY to change custody of T.A. and P.A., without jurisdiction or authority, would hardly qualify the matter as Domestic Relations. As plead in the Complaint, STEINMAN'S telephone threat to LALLY was initiated after Howard LEFF (and the RICO enterprise) committed mail and wire Fraud upon the Appellate Division, in falsely claiming that STEINMAN was required to stay on the matter (not re-assign or recuse) to make chemotherapy decisions for T.A. & P.A. (healthy children), to secure the RICO enterprise's continuation with STEINMAN by that repeated, depraved Fraud. See Complaint ¶198-205." [ page 2, Doc 84]. "As plead, the value of the properties were intentionally diminished (by numerous described and documented frauds, obstruction of justice, acts of racketeering and conspiracies) and purportedly liquidated for less than 50% of their market value. This association-in-fact enterprise could have been formed in any post judgment Civil case." [Doc 84] "The elite NYS "connected" legal ruling class (former NYS Bar Association President, former Federal Bankruptcy Judge, etc.) Defendants found the confidentiality within a post judgment matrimonial Receivership particularly enticing to prey on single custodial women parents and their young children by repeated fraudulent applications through wire and mail fraud, to the various State Courts, as described and documented in the detailed Complaint." [page 3 Doc 84]. 2 FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 07/18/2023 06:18 PM INDEX NO. 609832/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 16 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/18/2023 In their Reply Briefs [Doc 85, 86, 89], the NYS Attorney General's Office (representing SIELINTMAN), Rivkin Radler LLP (representing TRAUTMAN and HOLMAN), and Otterbourg (representing CYGANOWSKI) failed to present even one matrimonial, custody, alimony, child support decision in which STEINMAN had authority in support of their position that the acts of racketeering and denial of Due Process rights occurred "in the Divorce Action" to invoke the Domestic Relations exception, however the Magistrate Judge adopted this fabrication in the R & R, as follows: "Over the course of the Divorce Action, Lally alleges that Defendants collectively engaged in a two part racketeering enterprise....Defendants are various attorneys, judges...." (page 4,12, R&R). "...conspiracy for their purported actions during her divorce proceedings..." (page 5, ¶2 R&R). "This complaint seeks relief for the purported unlawful conduct in the Divorce Action..." (page 6, ¶2 R&R). "LaIly's divorce proceedings were fully and fairly litigated and she lost" (page 16, ¶ 2 R&R). "....requires the Court to improperly "re-examine and re-interpret all the evidence before the state court" in the underlying divorce proceedings" (page 17, ¶ 3 R&R). "While the Court provides facts relevant only to the pending motions to dismiss, a more thorough recitation of the underlying state court proceedings are available at Aebly v. Lally, 112 A.D. 3d 561, 977 NYS 2d 50 (2d Dept. 2013)." (page 3, footnote #2 R&R). The above R&R findings are not factual. LALLY did not lose in the Divorce Action which was fully decided in October of 2011, as LALLY was successfully granted full legal and physical custody of the children and child support payable through the Child Support Collection Unit. Justice Palmieri presided over the Divorce Action and trial in 2011. Justice Zimmerman received the Administrative oversight of the receivership, post-judgment, and randomly transferred the matter to STEINMAN in November 2013, over two years subsequent to the conclusion of the Divorce Action. FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 07/18/2023 06:18 PM INDEX NO. 609832/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 16 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/18/2023 The Magistrate Judge in his R&R's refers to Aebly v. Lally, 112 A.D. 3d 561, 977 NYS 2d 50 (2d Dept. 2013), (page 3, footnote #2 R&R), which states: "The financial circumstances of the parties did not dictate the immediate sale of the marital residence...considering that the parties will receive substantial income from the sale of other marital properties by an appointed receiver, it is appropriate to give the defendant the option of retaining exclusive occupancy of the marital residence." Aebly v. Lally, 112 A.D. 3d 561, 977 NYS 2d 50 (2d Dept. 2013) - EXHIBIT "1". The efficiently managed, profitable rentals (other marital properties) ordered sold by a receiver post-trial should have resulted in the Plaintiffs' "receiv[ing] substantial income from the sale of the other martial properties by an appointed receiver". Then how did the Plaintiffs end up homeless, penniless and in extensive debt, after the December 4, 2013 NYS Appellate Division decision, in 2017 with receiver LEBER controlling the marital property ? That would require reading the Federal Complaint, 17-CV-4291, which contains over (30) thirty acts of racketeering, over a course of (5) five years, by the RICO Defendants and their enterprise, resulting in the Defendants' extensive financial enrichment. Plaintiffs would have over one ($1) million dollars in their Bank account from a Post -judgment property liquidation, worth over $2.5 million dollars, if it were not for the Defendants' acts of Racketeering (perjury, mail and wire fraud, extortion, obstruction of justice, conspiracies to induce LALLY to commit felonies, crimes and extortion against LALLY, conspiracies for warrants to issue for her arrest, etc.) and Constitutional and Due Process violations by the Defendants, which includes ONE Judge, Leonard D. STEINMAN, who had an Administrative role in monitoring this Post- Judgment Receivership beginning in November 2013. STEINMAN, a former co-worker and friend of 30 years of LEBER, engaged in criminal acts of Racketeering with the other FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 07/18/2023 06:18 PM INDEX NO. 609832/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 16 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/18/2023 association-in-fact Defendants of the enterprise to dissolve over $2.5 million dollars into the Defendants' own pockets, as fully documented and described in the Complaint [Doc 1]. See Appeal in Aebly v. Lally, 112 A.D. 3d 561, 977 NYS 2d 50 (2d Dept. 2013) — referenced in the R&R, EXHIBIT "1", and sworn Statements of Net Worth from Aebly ($2,532,853.00) and Lally ($2,553,085.00) in real estate assets prior to the post-trial and post "Divorce Action" formation of the RICO enterprise, EXHIBIT "2". B. The Magistrate Judge erred in applying the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine to a Post Judgment Receivership where there was no State Court venue to discontinue the racketeering sponsored by STEINIVIAN through mail and wire Fraud, theft, perjury, obstruction, extortion, conspiracies in the Appellate Division and other State Courts. The application of the Rooker -Feldman Doctrine to exclude subject matter jurisdiction in Federal Court would be legally appropriate IF Plaintiffs sued the Defendants for Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Fraud and Unjust enrichment in State Court for the: a) diminution of the value of three residential properties to 50% of their pre- Receivership value by wire and mail Fraud, purposeful destruction, fabrication of a Certificate of Occupancy violation, fabrication of Mold, etc and b) the sale of the residential real estate exclusively to inside purchasers for less than the higher offers made by others, with fabricated low-ball offers, fabricated contracts of sale and false legal bills, and c) excluding the Plaintiffs from purchasing the property at the 50% off price to their associates, and- Lost in State Court, and subsequently brought a Federal Court action for the RICO conspiracies and racketeering connected thereto. However, Plaintiffs NEVER filed a Lawsuit in State Court for the above a-c. Additionally, the documented and described racketeering acts of the RICO enterprise in the Complaint [Doc 1] far exceeded the above-mentioned a-c acts and included criminal activity FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 07/18/2023 06:18 PM INDEX NO. 609832/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 16 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/18/2023 (extortion, racketeering, stalking & trespass, physical threats and threats of professional ruin) where: (a) an arrest was made (and a conviction) for conspiracies and conduct which STEINMAN orchestrated victimizing LALLY and T.A. in STEINMAN'S Courtroom while Plaintiff LALLY was stripped of her liberty by STEINMAN'S false Order on June 3, 2014, (b) there is a documented conspiracy by the RICO Defendants inducing LALLY to commit the felonies of mortgage fraud, mail and wire fraud, and perjury by sworn affidavit- through the U.S. mail and wires (Doc 1, ¶106-108), (c) the RICO Defendants concealed a rental registration violation for a Warrant to issue for LALLY's arrest for non-appearance in Huntington District Court on August 28, 2013. The R&R's on page 16 misrepresent the facts and falsely claim, as follows: "Plaintiff requests review of the merits of that judgment [Divorce] including a determination on the propriety of: (i) appointing Leber as a receiver; and (ii) the sale of the marital property", and "Plaintiffs claims thus presuppose and hinge on the allegation of unlawful conduct in the Divorce Action", when nothing could be farther from the truth. As clearly stated by Plaintiffs' in Document 84, as follows: ".... this Doctrine does not apply, as a LEBER and the RICO enterprise had control of three residential properties at an undisputed Net Worth value of over $2.5 million dollars. The RICO Defendants conspired to form a RICO enterprise and corrupt the proceedings in State Court by Fraud to enrich themselves by acts of Racketeering and to actively conceal the criminal conduct in a post judgment civil matter. In Aebly v. Lally, Index #202114-2008, Mr. Aebly is also a State Court "loser" through post-judgment malpractice, fraud and the manipulation of his weakened condition to the enrichment of others, as plead in the Complaint." [Doc 84]. Four requirements must be met before the Rooker- Feldman Doctrine applies. Firstly, the R & R's stating that Plaintiffs were State Court losers in the Divorce Action is inaccurate, as the children and child support was decided favorably for the Plaintiffs in August 2011 and the Appellate Division overturned the sale of the children's home — See Exhibit "1". Secondly, the. Plaintiffs do not complain of the injuries of a State Court Judgment because there was no opportunity OR venue to litigate a corrupt Post-judgment Administrative 6 FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 07/18/2023 06:18 PM INDEX NO. 609832/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 16 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/18/2023 oversite by a Supreme Court Judge, STEINMAN and the other RICO Defendants, who conspired and participated in the racketeering that stripped over $2.5 million in real estate from a custodial parent and children. Clearly, there was no State-court judgment that stated that LEBER, BLOOM, ARENT FOX LLP, LEFFS and STEINMAN could bleed over $2.5 million dollars of North Shore Gold Coast real estate into their own pockets by racketeering through their RICO enterprise, as fully described in the Complaint [Doc 1]. Third, there exists no state -court judgment that stated that these so-called Part 36 "fiduciaries" could engage in numerous conspiracies and acts of racketeering to self-deal, harm Plaintiffs by threats and stripping them of liberty, and profit against the rights of the Plaintiffs. Fourth, as correctly stated in the R&R (page 16, ¶2), "It is also undisputed that the Divorce Action concluded, and the judgment was rendered before this federal action", which is correct as the Divorce Action was fully concluded in October of 2011. This lawsuit has nothing to do with a "Divorce Action" (rulings on custody, alimony, child support), as the RICO enterprise formed after October 2011and the causes of Action in this Federal Lawsuit do not address the Divorce Action domestic relation decisions. It is also clearly plead and stated [Doc 1 & 84], that this RICO enterprise is not finished/COMPLETED, as $50,000 of the estate is still being held in escrow by LEFF at LEBER'S request for LEBER'S anticipated prosecution by the U.S. Attorney's Office, as follows : "As plead in the Complaint (¶261), STEINMAN and phase two RICO enterprise conspired through wire fraud in a "Grand Finale", to amended STEINMAN'S December 19, 2016 Order to a December 21, 2016 Order which illegally holds $50,000, of the estate funds in escrow by HOWARD LEFF, as per LEBER'S earlier request (August 29, 2016), to be used to criminally defend LEBER and the RICO enterprise against proceedings brought by the U.S. Attorney's FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 07/18/2023 06:18 PM INDEX NO. 609832/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 16 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/18/2023 Office. See LEBER'S August 29, 2016 request and amended Orders in EXHIBIT "5" ". [Doc 84]. The RICO enterprise still has $50,000 in the account of Defendant LEFF to fund their foreseen federal criminal prosecution. It is notable that LEBER' s admission of guilt and concern of prosecution was made on August 29, 2016, EXHIBIT "3", before the November 2016 Presidential election, when LEBER' s political ally, Loretta "tarmac" Lynch, was in control of the U.S. Attorney's Office, and expected to stay in control. Additionally, the R&R ignores Plaintiffs' request to Amend the Complaint [Doc 107- first request] to add CUOMO, MARKS and New York State, as there is currently a campaign to further destroy Plaintiffs' by unlawful and unconstitutional actions by these NYS power players, which this Court was advised [Doc 102-111]. The R&R ignored the consolidation request with Kramer v. Dane et al, 17-CV-05253, made in January 2018 to allow for a "dividing and retaliation campaign" after CUOMO, MARKS and New York State: a) illegally separated the legal NYS citizens in June 2017 al year old girl from mother -Plaintiffs in Kramer v. Dane et al.), b) restrained them from going to the media concerning the illegal restraint, c) restrained the mother from accessing any documents for a Hearing that they (DANE, MARKS, CUOMO) refused grant her, and d) distributed the ex- parte document of her illegal restraint throughout her workplaces to cause her loss of work and defame her. The R&R states incorrect facts to turn a Post-civil judgment Racketeering RICO enterprise into a "Divorce Action" to invoke the Domestic Relations exception and Rooker- Feldman improperly. 8 FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 07/18/2023 06:18 PM INDEX NO. 609832/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 16 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/18/2023 C. The Magistrate Judge erred in applying Collateral Estoppel, as the issues surrounding the RICO enterprise- intentionally devaluing property by racketeering and profiting illegally by $2.5 million dollars - and the Unconstitutional, corrupt State process under which they operated was NOT litigated in State Court The R&R makes an incorrect, blanket statement (page 24, to impose Collateral Estoppel, as follows: "There can be no real dispute here that the issues that comprise the basis for Plaintiff's current litigation are identical to those previously raised in her state court proceedings. Plaintiff's previous actions, specifically the Divorce and Second Suffolk Court Actions, assert claims premised on whether Defendants unlawfully devalued the Marital property. Thus, the Court would be unable to grant Plaintiff relief on any of her asserted causes of action, which emanate from her prior proceedings, without making findings contrary to those made in her previous state court actions." The R&R does not elaborate upon what State Court ruling would be contrary to the relief requested by the Complaint [Doc 1] because these State Court rulings do not exist. The Divorce trial and custody decisions were concluded in October 2011. The State Court action in Suffolk County only plead Defamation, Abuse of Process (solely surrounding the Defamation) and Fraud (surrounding the Defamation by offering a false instrument for filing, repeatedly deceiving the Nassau County Clerk's office) by placing the matrimonial index number on the Defamation case, so that the Clerk's Office would unknowingly channel the Defamation to STEINMAN, so that he could re-assign the matter to himself illegally, without jurisdiction, and obstruct justice and Plaintiffs' access to the NYS Courts. See Complaint [Doc 1] ¶66, 67, 208-222, 233-237, 246-248, 276-287 and Exhibit "9" which plead the State Court Action of Defamation - which was never litigated in a NYS Court due to racketeering, criminal and unconstitutional actions, as plead in the Complaint [Doc 1]. D. The Magistrate Judge erred in applying Judicial and Quasi -Judicial Immunity to a Post Judgment Receivership where STEINMAN only had authority to oversee that LEBER followed the Order of Appointment, which as plead they did not, as Defendants acted with criminal intent that would "shock the conscience", outside any judicial mandate, and without jurisdiction FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 07/18/2023 06:18 PM INDEX NO. 609832/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 16 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/18/2023 Again, the R&R's [page 20, ¶ 2] misrepresents the Complaint and Doc 84 to misapply the law, as follows: "Here, subject matter jurisdiction over the Divorce Action is vested with the state courts and Plaintiff has failed to allege plausibly that the rulings made during the matrimonial dispute were outside that court's jurisdiction. The Complaint similarly fails to set forth plausibly any allegation that Leber as an appointed receiver, acted outside her judicial mandate." The Complaint and opposition [Doc 84] clearly document that all conduct described in the Complaint was post "Divorce Action", by repeated acts of racketeering, outside the scope of authority and/or Order of appointment, without jurisdiction, intended to enrich the Defendants and strip Plaintiffs' of their life, liberty and property (over $2.5 million dollars- See EXHIBIT "2") by the RICO enterprise, as follows: "194. After receipt of GOLDS I EIN and LEBER'S Motion to sell 3 Blueberry Hill, Northport, REGAN LALLY Cross-moved to Compel production of the Certificate of Occupancy Violation which the original RICO Defendants swore under oath on August 2, 2013 existed upon the Northport cottage, issued by the Town of Huntington...LEBER swore under oath three days later (before the closing) on December 11, 2014, as follows: " In any event, the need for a copy of the Certificate of Occupancy Violation — even if it existed, which it does not — is now moot. On December 8, 2014, the Court granted the Receiver's motion to sell 3 Blueberry Hill, Northport." EXHIBIT "4". 196. STEINMAN ignored LEBER'S confession to her previous perjury, did not stop the sale upon this documented fraudulent devaluation, and sought further retribution against the Plaintiffs." [Doc 1] "Plaintiffs' Complaint clearly documents that STEINMAN acted without jurisdiction and authority AND that when Justice Zimmerman had the post judgment civil matter from 2012 to 2013 and directed the parties to discharge Receiver — BERNICE K. LEBER/ARENT FOX LLP in September 2012 the RICO enterprise refused to disband (Compl. ¶ 11-13, 81-84)."[Doc 84] "The original "phase one" RICO Defendants refused to obey Justice Zimmerman's September 5, 2012 directive, as educated legal scholars they were aware Justice Zimmerman had no individual, determinative authority but only administrative, ministerial oversight of the trial Court's (Palmieri, J.) 2011 Order of the Receivership Appointment, Judgment of Divorce and any Appellate Division decisions." [Doc 84] "Therefore, the RICO enterprise continued conspiring through mail and wire fraud, obstruction of justice, extortion, perjury, etc. to commit mail and wire Fraud upon the Appellate Division, Huntington District Court, Nassau County Family. "There is a general rule that ministerial 10 FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 07/18/2023 06:18 PM INDEX NO. 609832/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 16 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/18/2023 officer who acts wrongly, although in good faith is nevertheless liable in a civil action and cannot claim immunity of the Sovereign", Cooper v. O'Connor, 99 F.2d 133."[Doc 84] "The administrative oversight of the LEBER/ARENT FOX LLP Receivership matter was then randomly assigned to LEBER longtime friend and former co-worker, LEONARD S l'ENMAN in November 2013— as detailed in the Complaint. "Administrative -capacity torts by a judge do not involve the "performance of a function of resolving disputes between parties, or of authoritatively adjudicating private rights" and therefore do not have the judicial immunity of judicial acts." Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219, 98 L.Ed 2d 555, 108 S.Ct 538 (1988), Atkinson- Baker & Assoc. v. Kolts, 7 F. 3d 1454, (9th Cir 1993)."[Doc 84] "IN RESPONSE to STEINMAN POINT III — Absolute Immunity, Absolute Judicial Immunity- Assistant AG Hallak and Pernick cite Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S 9 (1991) in that there are two exceptions that bar absolute judicial immunity, as follows: "when an action is not taken in the judge's judicial capacity and when the action , though judicial in nature, is taken in the complete absence of jurisdiction" or " whether it is a function normally performed by a judge and whether the judge is acting in his adjudicative (as opposed to administrative) capacity" Bliven v. Hunt, 579 Fr i 204, 209 (2d Cir. 2009).[Doc 84] The RICO defendants with STEINMAN conspired, through fraudulent applications sent through the U.S. mails and wires, to acquire another $170,000 from a third-party's mortgage into the receivership pot for their own consumption, and admittedly acted without jurisdiction, as documented in Doc 84, as follows: "When a judicial officer acts entirely without jurisdiction or without compliance with jurisdiction requisites he may be held civilly liable for abuse of process even though his act involved a decision made in good faith, that he had jurisdiction", State use of Little v. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 217 Miss. 576, 64 So. 2d 697. As documented and described in the Complaint, STEINMAN- additionally knowingly acted in complete absence of jurisdiction and continuously conspired against the Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs' relatives (¶198-204), as documented on December 19, 2014 (first appearance by Brian Davis representing Pro Se, Regan Lally), as follows: THE COURT: "...So, Ms. Lally, did you hear that? Are there any mortgages outstanding on the property, I guess he's specifically referencing mortgages to your father?" MS LALLY: " Your Honor, I don't know what Mr. Goldstein is talking about citing Justice Palmieri's decision" THE COURT: " Don't even worry about that. My question to you is, to your knowledge, are there any outstanding mortgages on the property?" THE COURT: "...you're authorized to bring whatever action, proceeding, motion that you wish to bring to me in that regard to me." See December 19, 2014 transcript, page 27-29 , EXHIBIT "1". [Doc 84]