Preview
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/05/2024 02:51 PM INDEX NO. 500506/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/05/2024
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK INDEX:
COUNTY OF KINGS DATE FILED:
-_____-...---------..-------.....--.....---.._____......- _____ _____Ç
DAVID MAUNDRELL, Plaintiff designates
Kings County
as the place of trial
Plaintiff, The basis of Venue:
Plaintiff's Residence
..
-against-
SUMMONS
MICHAEL D. STUTMAN, ESQ., STUTMAN, STUTMAN
& LICHTENSTEIN LLP, ALTER WOLFF FOLEY & Plaintiff's Residence
STUTMAN, LLP., ELLIOT SCHEINBERO, ESQ. 47 Bridge Street
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Defendants.
-------.-_.----------......___..--_ _____-------.............________Ç
TO THE ABOVE NAMED DEFENDANT(S):
YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED to answer the Complaint in this action and to serve a
copy of your answer, or, if the complaint is not served with this summons, to serve a notice of
appearance on the Plaintiff(s) attorney within 20 days after the service of this summons, exclusive
of the day of service (or within 30 days after service is complete if this summons is not personally
delivered to you within the State of New York), and in case of your failure to appear or answer,
judgment will be taken against you by default for the relief demanded in the complaint.
Dated: Uniondale, New York
December 15, 2023
Yours, etc
THE/LICATESI AW trTOUP, LLP
By ANTHOH J LICATESI, Esq.
Attorneys for Plaintiff
423 RXR Plaza, East Tower
Uniondale, New York 11556
(516) 227-2662
Defendants'
Address:
MICHAEL D. STUTMAN, ESQ. ELLIOT SCHEINBERG, ESQ.
STUTMAN, STUTMAN & LICHTENSTEIN, LLP 11 Pepperidge Drive
ALTER WOLFF FOLEY AND STUTMAN LLP New City, NY 10956
c/o Alter Wolff Foley and Stutman LLP
810 Seventh Avenue, Suite 3600
New York, NY 10019
1 of 14
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/05/2024 02:51 PM INDEX NO. 500506/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/05/2024
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF KINGS
----------------------------------------------------------X INDEX:
DAVID J. MAUNDRELL III,
Plaintiff, VERIFIED COMPLAINT
-against-
MICHAEL D. STUTMAN, ESQ., STUTMAN, STUTMAN
& LICHTENSTEIN LLP, ALTER WOLFF FOLEY &
STUTMAN, LLP., ELLIOT SCHEINBERG, ESQ
Defendants.
-----_____________________-_________________Ç
Plaintiff, by his attorneys, THE LICATESI LAW OROUP, LLP, complaining of the
Defendants, jointly and/or severally, herein alleges, upon information and belief, as follows:
1. That at all relevant times mentioned the Plaintiff, DAVID J. MAUNDRELL III was
and still is a resident of the County of Kings, State of New York.
2. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, upon information and belief, Defendant
STUTMAN, STUTMAN & LICHTENSTEIN, LLP was a limited liability partnership duly
licensed and existing under the laws of the State of New York.
3. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, upon information and belief, Defendant
ALTER WOLFF FOLEY & STUTMAN, LLP was a limited liability partnership duly licensed
and existing under the laws of the State of New York.
4. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, upon information and belief, Defendant
STUTMAN, STUTMAN & LICHTENSTEIN, LLP was a law firm which provided legal services,
including the representation of individuals involved in divorce proceedings and other legal matters
resolved within the Family Court of the State of New York.
5. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, upon information and belief, Defendant
2 of 14
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/05/2024 02:51 PM INDEX NO. 500506/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/05/2024
ALTER WOLFF FOLEY & STUTMAN, LLP was a law firm which provided legal services,
including the representation of individuals involved in divorce proceedings and other legal matters
resolved within the Family Court of the State of New York
6. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, Defendant MICHAEL D. STUTMAN,
ESQ. was and still is an attorney duly licensed to practice law in the State of New York.
7. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, Defendant MICHAEL D. STUTMAN,
ESQ. was a member of STUTMAN, STUTMAN & LICHTENSTEIN LLP and/or ALTER
WOLFF FOLEY & STUTMAN, LLP.
8. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, Plaintiff retained Defendant MICHAEL D.
STUTMAN ESQ., to represent him in connection with a matrimonial action brought against him
by his then spouse, Michelle Maundrell.
9. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, Plaintiff retained Defendant STUTMAN,
STUTMAN & LICHTENSTEIN LLP to represent him in connection with a matrimonial action
brought against him by his then spouse, Michelle Maundrell.
10. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, Plaintiff retained Defendant ALTER
WOLFF FOLEY & STUTMAN, LLP. to represent him in connection with a matrimonial action
brought against him by his then spouse, Michelle Maundrell.
11. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, Defendant ELLIOT SCHEINBERG ESQ.
was and still is an attorney duly licensed to practice law in the State of New York.
12. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, Plaintiff retained Defendant ELLIOT
SCHEINBERG ESQ. to represent him in connection with a matrimonial action brought against
him by his then spouse, Michelle Maundrell.
3 of 14
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/05/2024 02:51 PM INDEX NO. 500506/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/05/2024
13. That on or about November 1, 2017, the marriage between Plaintiff and Michelle
Maundrell was dissolved pursuant to a Judgment by the Honorable Delores J. Thomas, J.S.C.
14. That from approximately November of 2017 to July of 2023, Defendant MICHAEL
D. STUTMAN continued to represent Plaintiff in related family court proceedings, including, but
not limited to, matters involving concerning custody of the former couple's child, and
discrepancies involving the former couple's amended 2016 tax return with regard to the sale of
Plaintiff's former business, David Maund, Inc.
15. That Defendants MICHAEL D. STUTMAN, ESQ., STUTMAN, STUTMAN &
LICHTENSTEIN LLP and/or ALTER WOLFF FOLEY & STUTMAN, LLP. undertook to
represent Plaintiff in connection with the aforementioned proceedings.
16. That from October 16, 2019, to September 9, 2021, a Post-Judgment Hearing was
held addressing, among other disputed matters, the former couple's custody arrangement of their
child, and Plaintiff's request for reimbursement in the amount of One Hundred Twenty-Two
Thousand, Five Hundred ($122,500.00) dollars, regarding the amended 2016 tax return.
17. That during the course of the aforementioned hearing, Defendant MICHAEL D.
STUTMAN, ESQ., failed to zealously and effectively advocate on behalf of Plaintiff with regard
to the former couple's custody arrangement, and Plaintiff request for reimbursement for the
discrepancy in the amended 2016 tax return.
18. That during the course of the aforementioned hearing, Defendant STUTMAN,
STUTMAN & LICHTENSTEIN LLP., failed to zealously and effectively advocate on behalf of
Plaintiff with regard to the former couple's custody arrangement, and Plaintiff request for
reimbursement for the discrepancy in the amended 2016 tax return.
19. That during the course of the aforementioned hearing, Defendant ALTER WOLFF
4 of 14
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/05/2024 02:51 PM INDEX NO. 500506/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/05/2024
FOLEY & STUTMAN, LLP., failed to zealously and effectively advocate on behalf of Plaintiff
with regard to the former couple's custody arrangement, and Plaintiff request for reimbursement
for the discrepancy in the amended 2016 tax return.
20. That during the course of the aforementioned hearing, Defendants MICHAEL D.
STUTMAN, ESQ., failed to introduce key evidence relating to the aforementioned tax return,
despite Plaintiff's insistence to do so. Specifically, Defendant failed to admit before the Court a
written statement by the purchaser of Plaintiff's former business, David Maund, Inc., confirming
"Earn-out"
that Plaintiff never received payment pursuant to an incentive in the sale of said
company.
21. That during the course of the aforementioned hearing, Defendant STUTMAN,
STUTMAN & LICHTENSTEIN LLP, failed to introduce key evidence relating to the
aforementioned tax return, despite Plaintiff's insistence to do so. Specifically, Defendant failed to
admit before the Court a written statement by the purchaser of Plaintiff's former business, David
"Earn-out"
Maund, Inc., confirming that Plaintiffnever received payment pursuant to an incentive
in the sale of said company.
22. That during the course of the aforementioned hearing, Defendant ALTER WOLFF
FOLEY & STUTMAN, LLP., failed to introduce key evidence relating to the aforementioned tax
return, despite Plaintiff's insistence to do so. Specifically, Defendant failed to admit before the
Court a written statement by the purchaser of Plaintiff's former business, David Maund, Inc.,
"Earn-out"
confirming that Plaintiff never received payment pursuant to an incentive in the sale of
said company.
23. That following the aforementioned hearing, on or about January 5, 2023, a Post-
Hearing Decision by the Honorable Delores J. Thomas dated December 30, 2023 was entered by
5 of 14
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/05/2024 02:51 PM INDEX NO. 500506/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/05/2024
the Court ordering that Plaintiff was required to pay $66,950 for reasonable counsel fees and
$7,849.09 for disbursements for a total of $74,798.09 for his ex-wife's attorney fees; denying
Plaintiff's motion for reimbursement of 40% of the income tax deficiency from the 2016 income
tax returns and for counsel fees and denying Plaintiff's child custody rights.
24. That upon entry of the Decision dated December 30, 2023, Plaintiff advised
Defendants MICHAEL D. STUTMAN, ESQ., and ELLIOT SCHEINBERG, ESQ., that he sought
to appeal said Decision.
25. Thereafter, Plaintiff retained appellate counsel, ELLIOT SCHEINBERG ESQ to
represent him regarding the appellate proceedings of the aforementioned Decision.
26. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, upon information and belief, Defendant
ELLIOT SCHEINBERG was an attorney which provided appellate services, including the
representation of individuals involved in divorce proceedings and other legal matters resolved
within the Family Court of the State of New York.
27. That, Defendants MICHAEL D. STUTMAN, ESQ., and ELLIOT SCHEINBERG,
ESQ., failed to appeal said Decision entered by the Court on January 5, 2023, including as to the
tax discrepancy of approximately $122,500, the issue of child custody and payment of Plaintiff's
attorneys'
then spouse's fees and disbursements totaling $74,798.09
28. That Plaintiff was forced to pay money in accordance with Post Judgment Hearing
decision to his detriment.
AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
29. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every allegation contained in the
hereinbefore mentioned paragraphs of this complaint as if set forth herein at length.
30. That Defendants MICHAEL D. STUTMAN, ESQ., departed from good, accepted
6 of 14
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/05/2024 02:51 PM INDEX NO. 500506/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/05/2024
standards of legal practice in the representation of the Plaintiff.
31. That Defendant STUTMAN, STUTMAN & LICHTENSTEIN LLP departed from
good, accepted standards of legal practice in the representation of the Plaintiff.
32. That Defendant ALTER WOLFF FOLEY & STUTMAN, LLP departed from good,
accepted standards of legal practice in the representation of the Plaintiff.
33. That Plaintiff's claim for reimbursement, and the appeal for such, had merit.
34. That Defendant MICHAEL D. STUTMAN, his agents, servants, and/or employees
failed to timely and properly file a Notice of Appeal regarding the aforementioned Decision
entered by the Court on January 5, 2023.
35. That Defendant STUTMAN, STUTMAN & LICHTENSTEIN LLP, its agents,
servants, and/or employees failed to timely and properly file a Notice of Appeal regarding the
aforementioned Decision entered by the Court on January 5, 2023.
36. That Defendant ALTER WOLFF FOLEY & STUTMAN LLP, its agents, servants,
and/or employees failed to timely and properly file a Notice of Appeal regarding the
aforementioned Decision entered by the Court on January 5, 2023.
37. That as a result of the negligence and legal malpractice of Defendant MICHAEL
D. STUTMAN, ESQ, Plaintiff's claim for reimbursement has been extinguished, barred, and/or
precluded from further litigation or appeal.
38. That as a result of the negligence and legal malpractice of Defendant STUTMAN,
STUTMAN & LICHTENSTEIN LLP, Plaintiff's claim for reimbursement has been extinguished,
barred, and/or precluded from further litigation or appeal.
39. That as a result of the negligence and legal malpractice of Defendant ALTER
WOLFF FOLEY & STUTMAN, LLP, Plaintiff's claim for reimbursement has been extinguished,
7 of 14
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/05/2024 02:51 PM INDEX NO. 500506/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/05/2024
barred, and/or precluded from further litigation or appeal.
40. That as a result of the negligence and legal malpractice of Defendants, jointly
and/or severally, a Default Judgment was entered against Plaintiff regarding the disputed taxes.
41. That but for the aforesaid failures, neglect, and legal malpractice of Defendants,
jointly and/or severally, Plaintiff would have prevailed in his appeal of the underlying Decision.
42. That but for the aforesaid failures, neglect, and legal malpractice of Defendants,
jointly and/or severally, Plaintiff would have recovered monetary reimbursement for the disputed
taxes.
43. That the aforesaid failures, neglect and legal malpractice of Defendants, jointly
and/or severally, proximately caused the Plaintiff to sustain actual and ascertainable damages.
44. That the amount of damages sustained by the Plaintiff, DAVID MAUNDRELL,
exceeds the jurisdictional limitations of all lower courts which would otherwise have jurisdiction
over this matter.
AS AND FOR A SECON.D CAUSE OF ACTION
45. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every allegation contained in the
hereinbefore mentioned paragraphs of this complaint as if set forth herein at length.
46. That Defendant MICHAEL D. STUTMAN departed from good, accepted standards
of legal practice in his representation of the Plaintiff regarding the disputed child custody
arrangement in the underlying matrimonial action, and the subsequent appeal of its Decision.
47. That Defendant STUTMAN, STUTMAN & LICHTENSTEIN LLP departed from
good, accepted standards of legal practice in its representation of the Plaintiff regarding the
disputed child custody arrangement in the underlying matrimonial action, and the subsequent
appeal of its Decision.
8 of 14
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/05/2024 02:51 PM INDEX NO. 500506/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/05/2024
48. That Defendant ALTER WOLFF FOLEY & STUTMAN LLP departed from good,
accepted standards of legal practice in its representation of the Plaintiff regarding the disputed
child custody arrangement in the underlying matrimonial action, and the subsequent appeal of its
Decision.
49. That Plaintiff's claim for a more fair and equitable custody arrangement within the
best interest of his child, and the appeal for such, had merit.
50. That Defendant MICHAEL D. STUTMAN, his agents, servants, and/or employees
failed to timely and properly file a Notice of Appeal regarding the aforementioned Decision
entered by the Court on January 5, 2023.
51. That Defendant STUTMAN, STUTMAN & LICHTENSTEIN LLP, his agents,
servants, and/or employees failed to timely and properly file a Notice of Appeal regarding the
aforementioned Decision entered by the Court on January 5, 2023.
52. That Defendant ALTER WOLFF FOLEY & STUTMAN LLP, his agents, servants,
and/or employees failed to timely and properly file a Notice of Appeal regarding the
aforementioned Decision entered by the Court on January 5, 2023
53. That as a result of the negligence and legal malpractice of Defendant MICHAEL
D. STUTMAN, Plaintiff's claim for a more fair and equitable custody arrangement within the best
interest of his child, has been extinguished, barred, and/or precluded from further litigation or
appeal.
54. That as a result of the negligence and legal malpractice of Defendant STUTMAN,
STUTMAN & LICHTENSTEIN LLP, Plaintiff's claim for a more fair and equitable custody
arrangement within the best interest of his child, has been extinguished, barred, and/or precluded
from further litigation or appeal.
9 of 14
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/05/2024 02:51 PM INDEX NO. 500506/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/05/2024
55. That as a result of the negligence and legal malpractice of Defendant ALTER
WOLFF FOLEY & STUTMAN, LLP, Plaintiff's claim for a more fair and equitable custody
arrangement within the best interest of his child, has been extinguished, barred, and/or precluded
from further litigation or appeal.
56. That but for the aforesaid failures, neglect, and legal malpractice of Defendants,
jointly and/or severally, Plaintiff would have prevailed in his appeal of the underlying Decision.
57. That but for the aforesaid failures, neglect, and legal malpractice of Defendants,
jointly and/or severally, Plaintiff would have prevailed in his appeal of the underlying Decision
including child custody and payment of his ex-wife's attorney fees and disbursements.
58. That but for the aforesaid failures, neglect, and legal malpractice of Defendants,
jointly and/or severally, Plaintiff would have attained a more fair and equitable custody
arrangement within the best interest of his child.
59. That but for the aforesaid failures, neglect, and legal malpractice of Defendants,
Preview
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/05/2024 02:51 PM INDEX NO. 500506/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/05/2024 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK INDEX: COUNTY OF KINGS DATE FILED: -_____-...---------..-------.....--.....---.._____......- _____ _____Ç DAVID MAUNDRELL, Plaintiff designates Kings County as the place of trial Plaintiff, The basis of Venue: Plaintiff's Residence .. -against- SUMMONS MICHAEL D. STUTMAN, ESQ., STUTMAN, STUTMAN & LICHTENSTEIN LLP, ALTER WOLFF FOLEY & Plaintiff's Residence STUTMAN, LLP., ELLIOT SCHEINBERO, ESQ. 47 Bridge Street Brooklyn, NY 11201 Defendants. -------.-_.----------......___..--_ _____-------.............________Ç TO THE ABOVE NAMED DEFENDANT(S): YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED to answer the Complaint in this action and to serve a copy of your answer, or, if the complaint is not served with this summons, to serve a notice of appearance on the Plaintiff(s) attorney within 20 days after the service of this summons, exclusive of the day of service (or within 30 days after service is complete if this summons is not personally delivered to you within the State of New York), and in case of your failure to appear or answer, judgment will be taken against you by default for the relief demanded in the complaint. Dated: Uniondale, New York December 15, 2023 Yours, etc THE/LICATESI AW trTOUP, LLP By ANTHOH J LICATESI, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiff 423 RXR Plaza, East Tower Uniondale, New York 11556 (516) 227-2662 Defendants' Address: MICHAEL D. STUTMAN, ESQ. ELLIOT SCHEINBERG, ESQ. STUTMAN, STUTMAN & LICHTENSTEIN, LLP 11 Pepperidge Drive ALTER WOLFF FOLEY AND STUTMAN LLP New City, NY 10956 c/o Alter Wolff Foley and Stutman LLP 810 Seventh Avenue, Suite 3600 New York, NY 10019 1 of 14 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/05/2024 02:51 PM INDEX NO. 500506/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/05/2024 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS ----------------------------------------------------------X INDEX: DAVID J. MAUNDRELL III, Plaintiff, VERIFIED COMPLAINT -against- MICHAEL D. STUTMAN, ESQ., STUTMAN, STUTMAN & LICHTENSTEIN LLP, ALTER WOLFF FOLEY & STUTMAN, LLP., ELLIOT SCHEINBERG, ESQ Defendants. -----_____________________-_________________Ç Plaintiff, by his attorneys, THE LICATESI LAW OROUP, LLP, complaining of the Defendants, jointly and/or severally, herein alleges, upon information and belief, as follows: 1. That at all relevant times mentioned the Plaintiff, DAVID J. MAUNDRELL III was and still is a resident of the County of Kings, State of New York. 2. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, upon information and belief, Defendant STUTMAN, STUTMAN & LICHTENSTEIN, LLP was a limited liability partnership duly licensed and existing under the laws of the State of New York. 3. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, upon information and belief, Defendant ALTER WOLFF FOLEY & STUTMAN, LLP was a limited liability partnership duly licensed and existing under the laws of the State of New York. 4. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, upon information and belief, Defendant STUTMAN, STUTMAN & LICHTENSTEIN, LLP was a law firm which provided legal services, including the representation of individuals involved in divorce proceedings and other legal matters resolved within the Family Court of the State of New York. 5. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, upon information and belief, Defendant 2 of 14 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/05/2024 02:51 PM INDEX NO. 500506/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/05/2024 ALTER WOLFF FOLEY & STUTMAN, LLP was a law firm which provided legal services, including the representation of individuals involved in divorce proceedings and other legal matters resolved within the Family Court of the State of New York 6. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, Defendant MICHAEL D. STUTMAN, ESQ. was and still is an attorney duly licensed to practice law in the State of New York. 7. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, Defendant MICHAEL D. STUTMAN, ESQ. was a member of STUTMAN, STUTMAN & LICHTENSTEIN LLP and/or ALTER WOLFF FOLEY & STUTMAN, LLP. 8. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, Plaintiff retained Defendant MICHAEL D. STUTMAN ESQ., to represent him in connection with a matrimonial action brought against him by his then spouse, Michelle Maundrell. 9. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, Plaintiff retained Defendant STUTMAN, STUTMAN & LICHTENSTEIN LLP to represent him in connection with a matrimonial action brought against him by his then spouse, Michelle Maundrell. 10. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, Plaintiff retained Defendant ALTER WOLFF FOLEY & STUTMAN, LLP. to represent him in connection with a matrimonial action brought against him by his then spouse, Michelle Maundrell. 11. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, Defendant ELLIOT SCHEINBERG ESQ. was and still is an attorney duly licensed to practice law in the State of New York. 12. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, Plaintiff retained Defendant ELLIOT SCHEINBERG ESQ. to represent him in connection with a matrimonial action brought against him by his then spouse, Michelle Maundrell. 3 of 14 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/05/2024 02:51 PM INDEX NO. 500506/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/05/2024 13. That on or about November 1, 2017, the marriage between Plaintiff and Michelle Maundrell was dissolved pursuant to a Judgment by the Honorable Delores J. Thomas, J.S.C. 14. That from approximately November of 2017 to July of 2023, Defendant MICHAEL D. STUTMAN continued to represent Plaintiff in related family court proceedings, including, but not limited to, matters involving concerning custody of the former couple's child, and discrepancies involving the former couple's amended 2016 tax return with regard to the sale of Plaintiff's former business, David Maund, Inc. 15. That Defendants MICHAEL D. STUTMAN, ESQ., STUTMAN, STUTMAN & LICHTENSTEIN LLP and/or ALTER WOLFF FOLEY & STUTMAN, LLP. undertook to represent Plaintiff in connection with the aforementioned proceedings. 16. That from October 16, 2019, to September 9, 2021, a Post-Judgment Hearing was held addressing, among other disputed matters, the former couple's custody arrangement of their child, and Plaintiff's request for reimbursement in the amount of One Hundred Twenty-Two Thousand, Five Hundred ($122,500.00) dollars, regarding the amended 2016 tax return. 17. That during the course of the aforementioned hearing, Defendant MICHAEL D. STUTMAN, ESQ., failed to zealously and effectively advocate on behalf of Plaintiff with regard to the former couple's custody arrangement, and Plaintiff request for reimbursement for the discrepancy in the amended 2016 tax return. 18. That during the course of the aforementioned hearing, Defendant STUTMAN, STUTMAN & LICHTENSTEIN LLP., failed to zealously and effectively advocate on behalf of Plaintiff with regard to the former couple's custody arrangement, and Plaintiff request for reimbursement for the discrepancy in the amended 2016 tax return. 19. That during the course of the aforementioned hearing, Defendant ALTER WOLFF 4 of 14 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/05/2024 02:51 PM INDEX NO. 500506/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/05/2024 FOLEY & STUTMAN, LLP., failed to zealously and effectively advocate on behalf of Plaintiff with regard to the former couple's custody arrangement, and Plaintiff request for reimbursement for the discrepancy in the amended 2016 tax return. 20. That during the course of the aforementioned hearing, Defendants MICHAEL D. STUTMAN, ESQ., failed to introduce key evidence relating to the aforementioned tax return, despite Plaintiff's insistence to do so. Specifically, Defendant failed to admit before the Court a written statement by the purchaser of Plaintiff's former business, David Maund, Inc., confirming "Earn-out" that Plaintiff never received payment pursuant to an incentive in the sale of said company. 21. That during the course of the aforementioned hearing, Defendant STUTMAN, STUTMAN & LICHTENSTEIN LLP, failed to introduce key evidence relating to the aforementioned tax return, despite Plaintiff's insistence to do so. Specifically, Defendant failed to admit before the Court a written statement by the purchaser of Plaintiff's former business, David "Earn-out" Maund, Inc., confirming that Plaintiffnever received payment pursuant to an incentive in the sale of said company. 22. That during the course of the aforementioned hearing, Defendant ALTER WOLFF FOLEY & STUTMAN, LLP., failed to introduce key evidence relating to the aforementioned tax return, despite Plaintiff's insistence to do so. Specifically, Defendant failed to admit before the Court a written statement by the purchaser of Plaintiff's former business, David Maund, Inc., "Earn-out" confirming that Plaintiff never received payment pursuant to an incentive in the sale of said company. 23. That following the aforementioned hearing, on or about January 5, 2023, a Post- Hearing Decision by the Honorable Delores J. Thomas dated December 30, 2023 was entered by 5 of 14 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/05/2024 02:51 PM INDEX NO. 500506/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/05/2024 the Court ordering that Plaintiff was required to pay $66,950 for reasonable counsel fees and $7,849.09 for disbursements for a total of $74,798.09 for his ex-wife's attorney fees; denying Plaintiff's motion for reimbursement of 40% of the income tax deficiency from the 2016 income tax returns and for counsel fees and denying Plaintiff's child custody rights. 24. That upon entry of the Decision dated December 30, 2023, Plaintiff advised Defendants MICHAEL D. STUTMAN, ESQ., and ELLIOT SCHEINBERG, ESQ., that he sought to appeal said Decision. 25. Thereafter, Plaintiff retained appellate counsel, ELLIOT SCHEINBERG ESQ to represent him regarding the appellate proceedings of the aforementioned Decision. 26. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, upon information and belief, Defendant ELLIOT SCHEINBERG was an attorney which provided appellate services, including the representation of individuals involved in divorce proceedings and other legal matters resolved within the Family Court of the State of New York. 27. That, Defendants MICHAEL D. STUTMAN, ESQ., and ELLIOT SCHEINBERG, ESQ., failed to appeal said Decision entered by the Court on January 5, 2023, including as to the tax discrepancy of approximately $122,500, the issue of child custody and payment of Plaintiff's attorneys' then spouse's fees and disbursements totaling $74,798.09 28. That Plaintiff was forced to pay money in accordance with Post Judgment Hearing decision to his detriment. AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 29. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every allegation contained in the hereinbefore mentioned paragraphs of this complaint as if set forth herein at length. 30. That Defendants MICHAEL D. STUTMAN, ESQ., departed from good, accepted 6 of 14 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/05/2024 02:51 PM INDEX NO. 500506/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/05/2024 standards of legal practice in the representation of the Plaintiff. 31. That Defendant STUTMAN, STUTMAN & LICHTENSTEIN LLP departed from good, accepted standards of legal practice in the representation of the Plaintiff. 32. That Defendant ALTER WOLFF FOLEY & STUTMAN, LLP departed from good, accepted standards of legal practice in the representation of the Plaintiff. 33. That Plaintiff's claim for reimbursement, and the appeal for such, had merit. 34. That Defendant MICHAEL D. STUTMAN, his agents, servants, and/or employees failed to timely and properly file a Notice of Appeal regarding the aforementioned Decision entered by the Court on January 5, 2023. 35. That Defendant STUTMAN, STUTMAN & LICHTENSTEIN LLP, its agents, servants, and/or employees failed to timely and properly file a Notice of Appeal regarding the aforementioned Decision entered by the Court on January 5, 2023. 36. That Defendant ALTER WOLFF FOLEY & STUTMAN LLP, its agents, servants, and/or employees failed to timely and properly file a Notice of Appeal regarding the aforementioned Decision entered by the Court on January 5, 2023. 37. That as a result of the negligence and legal malpractice of Defendant MICHAEL D. STUTMAN, ESQ, Plaintiff's claim for reimbursement has been extinguished, barred, and/or precluded from further litigation or appeal. 38. That as a result of the negligence and legal malpractice of Defendant STUTMAN, STUTMAN & LICHTENSTEIN LLP, Plaintiff's claim for reimbursement has been extinguished, barred, and/or precluded from further litigation or appeal. 39. That as a result of the negligence and legal malpractice of Defendant ALTER WOLFF FOLEY & STUTMAN, LLP, Plaintiff's claim for reimbursement has been extinguished, 7 of 14 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/05/2024 02:51 PM INDEX NO. 500506/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/05/2024 barred, and/or precluded from further litigation or appeal. 40. That as a result of the negligence and legal malpractice of Defendants, jointly and/or severally, a Default Judgment was entered against Plaintiff regarding the disputed taxes. 41. That but for the aforesaid failures, neglect, and legal malpractice of Defendants, jointly and/or severally, Plaintiff would have prevailed in his appeal of the underlying Decision. 42. That but for the aforesaid failures, neglect, and legal malpractice of Defendants, jointly and/or severally, Plaintiff would have recovered monetary reimbursement for the disputed taxes. 43. That the aforesaid failures, neglect and legal malpractice of Defendants, jointly and/or severally, proximately caused the Plaintiff to sustain actual and ascertainable damages. 44. That the amount of damages sustained by the Plaintiff, DAVID MAUNDRELL, exceeds the jurisdictional limitations of all lower courts which would otherwise have jurisdiction over this matter. AS AND FOR A SECON.D CAUSE OF ACTION 45. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every allegation contained in the hereinbefore mentioned paragraphs of this complaint as if set forth herein at length. 46. That Defendant MICHAEL D. STUTMAN departed from good, accepted standards of legal practice in his representation of the Plaintiff regarding the disputed child custody arrangement in the underlying matrimonial action, and the subsequent appeal of its Decision. 47. That Defendant STUTMAN, STUTMAN & LICHTENSTEIN LLP departed from good, accepted standards of legal practice in its representation of the Plaintiff regarding the disputed child custody arrangement in the underlying matrimonial action, and the subsequent appeal of its Decision. 8 of 14 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/05/2024 02:51 PM INDEX NO. 500506/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/05/2024 48. That Defendant ALTER WOLFF FOLEY & STUTMAN LLP departed from good, accepted standards of legal practice in its representation of the Plaintiff regarding the disputed child custody arrangement in the underlying matrimonial action, and the subsequent appeal of its Decision. 49. That Plaintiff's claim for a more fair and equitable custody arrangement within the best interest of his child, and the appeal for such, had merit. 50. That Defendant MICHAEL D. STUTMAN, his agents, servants, and/or employees failed to timely and properly file a Notice of Appeal regarding the aforementioned Decision entered by the Court on January 5, 2023. 51. That Defendant STUTMAN, STUTMAN & LICHTENSTEIN LLP, his agents, servants, and/or employees failed to timely and properly file a Notice of Appeal regarding the aforementioned Decision entered by the Court on January 5, 2023. 52. That Defendant ALTER WOLFF FOLEY & STUTMAN LLP, his agents, servants, and/or employees failed to timely and properly file a Notice of Appeal regarding the aforementioned Decision entered by the Court on January 5, 2023 53. That as a result of the negligence and legal malpractice of Defendant MICHAEL D. STUTMAN, Plaintiff's claim for a more fair and equitable custody arrangement within the best interest of his child, has been extinguished, barred, and/or precluded from further litigation or appeal. 54. That as a result of the negligence and legal malpractice of Defendant STUTMAN, STUTMAN & LICHTENSTEIN LLP, Plaintiff's claim for a more fair and equitable custody arrangement within the best interest of his child, has been extinguished, barred, and/or precluded from further litigation or appeal. 9 of 14 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/05/2024 02:51 PM INDEX NO. 500506/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/05/2024 55. That as a result of the negligence and legal malpractice of Defendant ALTER WOLFF FOLEY & STUTMAN, LLP, Plaintiff's claim for a more fair and equitable custody arrangement within the best interest of his child, has been extinguished, barred, and/or precluded from further litigation or appeal. 56. That but for the aforesaid failures, neglect, and legal malpractice of Defendants, jointly and/or severally, Plaintiff would have prevailed in his appeal of the underlying Decision. 57. That but for the aforesaid failures, neglect, and legal malpractice of Defendants, jointly and/or severally, Plaintiff would have prevailed in his appeal of the underlying Decision including child custody and payment of his ex-wife's attorney fees and disbursements. 58. That but for the aforesaid failures, neglect, and legal malpractice of Defendants, jointly and/or severally, Plaintiff would have attained a more fair and equitable custody arrangement within the best interest of his child. 59. That but for the aforesaid failures, neglect, and legal malpractice of Defendants,