Legal Document: Yevgeny Levin v. Richard W Young

On July 26, 2023 a EXHIBIT(S) - B - MSJ Affirmation was filed involving a dispute between Yevgeny Levin, and Richard W Young, for Torts - Other (Defamation) in the District Court of Kings County.

Preview
07/26/2023 07:43
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 11/18/2023 12:01 PM INDEX NO. 521498/2023
2
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 9 07/26/2023
RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/18/2023

EXHIBIT 1
SUFFOLK
FILED: KINGS COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 07/26/2023
07/20/2023
11/18/2023 12:01
12:15
07:43 PMAM 621678/2021
INDEX NO. 521498/2023
76
2
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 9 07/20/2023
07/26/2023
RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/18/2023

Supreme Court of the State of New York
County of Suffolk
CORY HAL MORRIS,
Index №
Plaintiff 621678/ 20 21
–v–
MELVIN CARPIO, YEVGENY LEVIN, CHRISTOPHER
FROMME, and LEVIN LAW GROUP, PLLC

Defendants

A FFIRMATION IN S U PPORT OF
P LAIN TIFF ’S M OTION TO R EN EW / R EARGU E FOR S U MMARY
J U D GMEN T AN D IN O PPOSITION TO D EFEN D AN TS ’ M OTION
TO D ISMISS

By Richard W. Young, Esq. (RWY 7633)
Attorney for Cory Hal Morris, Esq.
863 Islip Avenue
Central Islip, N.Y. 11722
(631) 224-7500

1 of 26
SUFFOLK
FILED: KINGS COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 07/26/2023
07/20/2023
11/18/2023 12:01
12:15
07:43 PMAM 621678/2021
INDEX NO. 521498/2023
76
2
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 9 07/20/2023
07/26/2023
RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/18/2023

I, Richard W. Young, Esq. an attorney duly admitted to practice law in the Courts of the

State of New York, hereby affirm under penalties of perjury, and in compliance with N.Y.C.R.R.

§ 130-1.1a, that the following is true and correct, or, if stated upon information and belief, that I

believe it to be true and correct:

1. I am the principal attorney to the Cory Hal Morris., which represents PLAINTIFF

(“Morris”) in this matter.I have reviewed the documents on this matter, mailings,

communications, affidavits, the statement of material facts (hereinafter "SOMF") annexed

hereto and spoken Mr. Morris and thus have personal knowledge about the matters herein.

2. This Affirmation is submitted in support of Plaintiff’s Rewnewal and Reargument

of a Motion for Summary Judgment and in opposition to Defendants’ Motion (which

includes affidavits and a word-count) or, alternatively, for leave to replead pursuant to CPLR

§ 3025(b) in reply should Defendants provide a statement of material facts/the admissions

required under the Uniform Civil Rules For The Supreme Court & The County Court.

3. The facts set forth herein are known to me to be true except facts stated upon

information and belief, which statements are true to the best of my knowledge.

4. This motion is made with permission of the Court granted on July 13, 2023 for

which a previous request for such relief was made and denied by this Honorable Court.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

5. Defendants' answer shows (NYSCEF Doc. 11, Exhibit "2," SOMF ¶ 3:21) that

Defendants, attorneys and their client (id at ¶ 12), ignored a properly served time of the

essence letter (id at ¶ 20) and closing on a Property (id at ¶ 43) that Plaintiff owned and,

although an attorney, was represented by Peter Tamsen, the escrow agent, who was never

named in a lawsuit/served. Plaintiff renews and reargues these facts before the Court.

2 of 26
SUFFOLK
FILED: KINGS COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 07/26/2023
07/20/2023
11/18/2023 12:01
12:15
07:43 PMAM 621678/2021
INDEX NO. 521498/2023
76
2
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 9 07/20/2023
07/26/2023
RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/18/2023

6. Defendants, by and through Defendant Yevgeniy Levin (see NYSCEF Doc. No.

67) and his law firm, Levin Law Group, PLLC, (id. at ¶¶ 2, 5), failed to consummate the

above real estate transaction and filed a notice of pendency (SOMF ¶ 3:30) and concede in its

previous motion that “Defendants initiated suit regarding a down payment dispute in relation

to the sale of the Premises [with] a motion of summary judgement in lieu of a complaint and

filed a notice of pendency.” NYSCEF Doc. No. 26 ¶ 69.

7. Defendants now seek dismissal, (attaching various affidavits on different days),

pursuant to CPLR § 3211 for "failure to state a cause of action (2) for restating claims

Plaintiff failed to make in the underlying action (3) for the suit against an employee acting in

their capacity as an employee (4) for actions commenced in the normal course of business"

NYSCEF Doc. No. 63. Defendants' new June 27, 2023 motion is duplicative of the previous

one filed under NYSCEF Doc. No. 25 and suffers from the following infirmities:

- Defendants did not serve complete papers, filing affidavits days after and not
filing Exhibits C and D (see. e/g/. NYSCEF Doc. No. 71) until weeks after, July
13, 2023 - the Defendants' Motion was not properly filed or served and is a nullity
like the previous failure to comply with 22 NYCRR 202.8-b;

- Defendants did not provide a statement of material facts but did provide
conclusory affidavits which, among other things, evidence that the Defendants
law firm se terminated the attorney who failed to show to the time-of-the-essence
real estate closing, neglected Defendant Melvin Carpio's file and now is making
money off what is attorney malpractice;

- Defendants previously moved under CPLR § 3211 and does not specify under
what grounds Defendants move, again, for dismissal under Section 3211;

- CPLR § 3211 lists enumerated grounds for dismissal for which there is no basis
to seek dismissal for "restating claims," for "acting in their capacity as an
employee" and/or "for actions commenced in the normal course of business";

- Defendant Chris Fromme is both representing the client and concedes he is a
named Defendant in this action for which he is claiming levity, as a pro se; and

3 of 26
SUFFOLK
FILED: KINGS COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 07/26/2023
07/20/2023
11/18/2023 12:01
12:15
07:43 PMAM 621678/2021
INDEX NO. 521498/2023
76
2
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 9 07/20/2023
07/26/2023
RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/18/2023

- Defendants concede it did not have permission to file a second motion, did not
attach the Order (cf. NYSCEF Doc. No. 66) it claims allows it to file the second
CPLR § 3211 motion nor did Defendants follow Your Honor's Court Rules;

8. No Summons and Complaint was filed nevertheless served upon Plaintiff (or

Escrow Agent, Peter Tamsen) in the underlying suit.

9. Defendants concede its only pleading filed against Plaintiff was filed "as an

employee of the Levin Law Group," (NYSCEF Doc. No. 68 ¶ 4), and denied, (NYSCEF

Doc. 11, Exhibit "2," SOMF ¶¶ 3:31 and 3:50), and Defendants did not serve Plaintiff or the

escrow agent over a downpayment to date.

10. It is uncontested that Defendants wished to obtain money ($5,000, see id. at ¶

3:17) instead of reinstall the existing cover, see Index No. 611610/2021, Doc. No. 9, as

required by the lender and, therefore, Defendants claim that “The lender, on the other hand,

required certain necessary repairs to the pool located on the Premises amounting to five

thousand ($5,000) dollars” is baseless, false, and the misstatement, NYSCEF Doc. No. 26 ¶

76, and in the absence of sworn testimony from the lender stating the same should not

preclude the award of summary judgment in Plaintiff's favor.

11. After causing damage to the property, it is uncontested that Defendants ignored a

time of the essence letter and closing all-the-while knowing that Peter Tamsen, Esq., and not

Plaintiff, has the down payment Defendants falsely state that “Plaintiff still has constructive

possession of Defendants down payment through his escrow agent, Defendants properly filed

a notice of pendency as a purchaser’s lien pursuant to paragraph 24 of the land sale contract.”

NYSCEF Doc. No. 26 ¶ 80. After defaulting on a real estate contract, ignoring Peter Tamsen

for months, Defendants wished to hold the property hostage over a downpayment.

4 of 26
SUFFOLK
FILED: KINGS COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 07/26/2023
07/20/2023
11/18/2023 12:01
12:15
07:43 PMAM 621678/2021
INDEX NO. 521498/2023
76
2
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 9 07/20/2023
07/26/2023
RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/18/2023

12. Defendants latest motion repeats the previous allegations as responded to at

length below and Defendants never entered the Order filed by this Honorable Court.

13. Plaintiff, therefore, is within his right to renew and reargue this motion, which the

Court granted Plaintiff permission to file during the last Court conference, in light of the

affidavits that post-date the defective (e.g. filed one and two days after the notice) motion.

LEGAL STANDARD

REWNEWAL AND REARGUE - SUMMARY JUDGMENT

14. Plaintiff submits additional facts show that the Defendant Levin Law Group

terminated the attorney who neglected its client, Defendant Melvin Carpio, file for which it

now appears, submitting affidavit testimony, but has Melvin Carpio paying for a pro se.

15. To obtain summary judgment, “it is necessary that the movant establish his cause

of action or defense ‘sufficiently to warrant the court as a matter of law in directing

judgment’ in his favor...” See Zuckerman v. City of New York, 29 N.Y.2d 557, 427 N.Y.S.2d

595 (1980).

16. Summary judgment is designed to expedite all civil cases by eliminating from the

trial calendar claims which can be properly resolved as a matter of law.Andre v. Pomeroy, 35

N.Y.2d 361, 362 N.Y.S.2d 131 (1974).

17. Pursuant to CPLR § 3212, summary judgment is appropriate where, as here, there

are no genuine issues of material fact to be resolved at trial evidenced by the new affidavits

that were not previously available to Plaintiff.

18. Alternatively, Plaintiff moves to reargue as Summary judgment will generally be

granted where, upon the evidence submitted, the cause of action or defense has been

5 of 26
SUFFOLK
FILED: KINGS COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 07/26/2023
07/20/2023
11/18/2023 12:01
12:15
07:43 PMAM 621678/2021
INDEX NO. 521498/2023
76
2
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 9 07/20/2023
07/26/2023
RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/18/2023

established sufficiently to warrant the court, as a matter of law, in directly judgment in favor

of any party. [N.Y. Civ. Prac. L. & R. 3212 (McKinney 1999)].

19. Indeed, an unfounded reluctance to employ the remedy by This Honorable Court

serves only to swell trial calendars and to deny to other litigants the right to have their claims

promptly adjudicated. Id.; Gibbons v. Hantman, 395 N.Y.S.2d 482, 58 A.D.2d 108 aff’d 43

N.Y.2d 941, 403 N.Y.S.2d 895.

20. The burden is on a party opposing summary judgment to produce evidentiary

proof in admissible form sufficient to require a trial of material questions of fact, on which

the opposing claim rests. Gilbert Frank Corp. v. Federal Insurance Co., 70 N.Y.2d 966, 525

N.Y.S.2d 793 (1988); Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 427 N.Y.S.2d 595

(1980).

21. Bald conclusory assertions, general allegations of negligence (for example),

expressions of hope or unsubstantiated allegations or assertions are all insufficient to defeat a

motion for summary judgment. Spaulding v. Benenati, 57 N.Y.2d 418, 456 N.Y.S.2d 733

(1982); Del Giacco v. Noteworthy Co., 572 N.Y.S.2d 784, 175 A.D.2d 516 (3rdDep’t 1991).

DISMISSAL UNDER CPLR § 3211, FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM

22. The facts as alleged in the complaint are given a liberal construction, regarded as

true, and the plaintiff is afforded the benefit of every favorable inference. See Leon v

Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87-88 (1994). Defendants concede this standard in paragraph twelve

of Defendant-Attorney- Pro Se Fromme's affirmation. See NYSCEF Doc. No. 64, ¶ 12.

23. Defendants' assertions that are flatly contradicted by documentary evidence are

not entitled to any such consideration. See e.g. Nisari v Ramjohn, 85 AD3d 987, 989 (2nd

Dep’t. 2011).

6 of 26
SUFFOLK
FILED: KINGS COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 07/26/2023
07/20/2023
11/18/2023 12:01
12:15
07:43 PMAM 621678/2021
INDEX NO. 521498/2023
76
2
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 9 07/20/2023
07/26/2023
RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/18/2023

24. On a motion to dismiss a plaintiff's claim pursuant to CPLR § 3211 (a)(7) for

failure to state a cause of action, the court is not called upon to determine the truth of the

allegations. Campaign for Fiscal Equity v State, 86 NY2d 307, 317 (1995); 219 Broadway

Corp. v Alexander's, Inc., 46 NY2d 506, 509 (1979).

25. Rather, the court is required to "afford the pleadings a liberal construction, take

the allegations of the complaint as true and provide plaintiff the benefit of every possible

inference [citation omitted].

26. Whether a plaintiff can ultimately establish its allegations is not part of the

calculus in determining a motion to dismiss" EBC I v Goldman, Sachs & Co., 5 NY3d 11, 19

(2005).

27. The court's role is limited to determining whether the pleading states a cause of

action, not whether there is evidentiary support to establish a meritorious cause of

action. Guggenheimer v Ginzburg, 43 NY2d 268, 275 (1977); Sokol v Leader, 74 AD3d

1180 (2d Dep’t. 2010).

28. Accordingly, Defendants fail to obtain dismissal by the same rote, redundant,

statements and conclusions that are contradicted by, inter alia, a complaint supported by

eight (8) exhibits consisting of sworn statements and documentary evidence. Exhibit “1”.

LEAVE TO REPLEAD

29. Plaintiff's complaint is verified, supported by documentary evidence and should

not be subject to dismissal for well pled causes of action that followed the denial of the only

pleading filed and served by Defendants against Plaintiff, a motion for summary judgment in

lieu of a complaint for, among other things, sanctions that Plaintiff would readily amend

should it be required after receiving an opposition from Defendants in this matter.

7 of 26
SUFFOLK
FILED: KINGS COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 07/26/2023
07/20/2023
11/18/2023 12:01
12:15
07:43 PMAM 621678/2021
INDEX NO. 521498/2023
76
2
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 9 07/20/2023
07/26/2023
RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/18/2023

30. Accordingly, leave for such "In the absence of prejudice or surprise resulting

directly from the delay in seeking leave, applications to amend or supplement a pleading `are

to be freely granted unless the proposed amendment is palpably insufficient or patently

devoid of merit'" Myung Hwa Jang v Mang, 164 AD3d 803, 804 (2d Dep't.

2018), (quoting Lucido v Mancuso, 49 AD3d 220, 222 (2008)).

31. There is no prejudice to Defendants, Plaintiff is within the statute of limitations,

and there can be no surprise, as Defendants complain of an insufficient pleading by means of

scant affidavit testimony and upon unenumerated grounds.

32. Accordingly, "Where this standard is met, no evidentiary showing of merit is

required in a motion to amend the complaint under CPLR 3025(b)." US Bank NA v. Murillo,

171 A.D.3d 984, 98 N.Y.S.3d 115 (2d Dep't. 2019) (citing Lucido v Mancuso, 49 AD3d at

229).

33. While, the determination to permit or deny amendment is committed to the sound

discretion of the trial court (see Edenwald Contr. Co. v City of New York, 60 NY2d 957, 959

(1983)), the Second Department in Mohammed v. NYS Prof. Fire Fighters Assn, Inc.., 209

A.D.3d 1151, 176 N.Y.S.3d 364 (2d Dep't. 2022) recently held trial court abused its

discretion where no discovery commenced, it was "undisputed that plaintiff timely filed" suit,

that Defendants "cannot allege prejudice or surprise," and any "proposed amended

complaint…[Plaintiff would be] merely curing her pleading omission." Id.

34. Indeed, however, Defendants submit affidavit testimony, days after filing a notice

of motion, which appears to make their motion one for summary judgment and not one that

would lend itself to attack the pleadings itself.

8 of 26
SUFFOLK
FILED: KINGS COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 07/26/2023
07/20/2023
11/18/2023 12:01
12:15
07:43 PMAM 621678/2021
INDEX NO. 521498/2023
76
2
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 9 07/20/2023
07/26/2023
RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/18/2023

35. Accordingly, the complaint should not be dismissed for the purported deficiencies

alleged by the Defendants in a motion that should be considered a nullity, as it was for failure

to comply with 22 NYCRR 202.8-b (see NYSCEF Doc. No. 56-57), because it did not

include service of the papers in any coherent matter and, instead, was a filing spread across

four (4) different dates and events.

DEFENDANTS IMPROPERLY USED A NOTICE OF PENDENCY IN SEEKING DEFENDANT CARPIO’S DOWN
PAYMENT ON THE SUBJECT PREMISES THAT IS STILL HELD BY ESCROW AGENT

36. Defendants concede it terminated the attorney handling the matter - likely for the

complete failure to show at a time of the essence closing/ignore Melvin Carpio's file. A

notice of pendency is "an extraordinary privilege because of the relative ease by which it can

be obtained and its powerful effect on the alienability of real property" In re Sakow, 97 NY2d

436, 441, 741 NYS2d 175 (2002)(internal quotations omitted).

37. Where the Plaintiff only seeks return of the deposit/down-payment, see Fisher v.

Mor, 2021 N.Y. Slip Op 30153 (NYC Sup. Ct. 2021), a notice of pendency should not be

filed and should be considered baseless at its inception. Chu v Greenpoint Bank, 257 AD 2d

589, 590 (2d Dep’t. 1999).

38. Defendants, whose attorney handling the litigation file was terminated, do not

seek specific performance and failed to name the proper party holding Defendant CARPIO’s

down payment. See Underlying Action, NYSCEF Doc. No. 26; see also NYSCEF Doc. No.

70.

39. Defendants took action, by and through the Defendants LEVIN LAW GROUP

PLLC to defame and state that Plaintiff, a practicing attorney, should be subject to sanctions

without any valid basis therefore.

9 of 26
SUFFOLK
FILED: KINGS COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 07/26/2023
07/20/2023
11/18/2023 12:01
12:15
07:43 PMAM 621678/2021
INDEX NO. 521498/2023
76
2
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 9 07/20/2023
07/26/2023
RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/18/2023

DEFAMATION AND N.Y.C.R.R. § 130-1.1

40. Plaintiff submits that a false claim for sanctions, where it is uncontested that the

Plaintiff did not act as an attorney in his real estate closing, is sanctionable contrary to

Defendants' assertions otherwise (NYSCEF Doc. No. 64 ¶ 14) where it concedes its actions.

41. Defendants failed to comply with the signing requirements of N.Y.C.R.R. § 130-

1.1 in the underlying filing, Exhibit “1”, and sought sanctions against Plaintiff as attorney.

42. Defendants request for sanctions imputes wrongdoing on an attorney, Plaintiff,

that was represented by another attorney in the sale of the Subject Premises and for which

Defendants do not articulate why this statement, made on a date to a Court of record is not

defamation per se. Cf. NYSCEF Doc. No. 64 ¶¶ 17-18.

43. Defendants do not articulate what Plaintiff did that was sanctionable but filed the

same that was communicated to the Court and is publicly accessible to his colleagues,

members of the bar and the judiciary before which the Plaintiff practices law.

44. N.Y.C.R.R. § 130-1.1a requires that

(b) Certification. By signing a paper, an attorney or party certifies
that, to the best of that person's knowledge, information and belief,
formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances, (1) the
presentation of the paper or the contentions therein are not
frivolous as defined in section 130-1.1(c) of this Subpart, and (2)
where the paper is an initiating pleading, (i) the matter was not
obtained through illegal conduct, or that if it was, the attorney
or other persons responsible for the illegal conduct are not
participating in the matter or sharing in any fee earned
therefrom, and (ii) the matter was not obtained in violation of
Part 1200. Rule 4.5 of this Title.

N.Y.C.R.R. § 130-1.1a (external quotation marks omitted and emphasis added).

45. The same law requires that “Absent good cause shown, the court shall strike any

unsigned paper if the omission of the signature is not corrected promptly after being called to

the attention of the attorney or party.” N.Y.C.R.R. § 130-1.1a(a).
9

10 of 26
SUFFOLK
FILED: KINGS COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 07/26/2023
07/20/2023
11/18/2023 12:01
12:15
07:43 PMAM 621678/2021
INDEX NO. 521498/2023
76
2
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 9 07/20/2023
07/26/2023
RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/18/2023

46. Further, "conduct is frivolous if: (1) it is completely without merit in law and

cannot be supported by a reasonable argument for an extension, modification or reversal of

existing law; (2) it is undertaken primarily to delay or prolong the resolution of the litigation,

or to harass or maliciously injure another; or (3) it asserts material factual statements that are

false." 22 NYCRR § 130-1.1.

47. Defendants said Plaintiff was deserving of attorney sanctions when he was a

homeowner represented by counsel.

48. All criteria are met: (1) there is no basis for Defendants' request for sanctions,

there is no argument in fact or law supporting their request; (2) Defendants sought to prevent

the sale of property as opposed to litigate over the down payment, prolonging litigation and

forcing Plaintiff to undertake series of litigation; (3) Defendants conduct injures Plaintiff; and

(4) Defendants falsely stated that Plaintiff was deserving of attorney sanctions when Plaintiff

did not undertake legal services but rather hired an attorney for the sale of his own residence.

49. Defendants filed the Underlying Action to obstruct the sale of the Subject

Premises. See Exhibit "5". Damages are pled and evidenced by the Notice of Pendency. Id.

50. Defendants actions evidence malice, cf. NYSCEF Doc. No. 64 ¶ 25 (citing

Liberman v. Gelstein, 80 N.Y.2d 429 (N.Y. 1992)), and is not communication, it is a desire to

obtain monetary sanctions or injure an attorney based on improper conduct within the

profession of law. This is defamation per se.

51. Defendants now concede it terminated staff handling the Defendant Melvin

Carpio closing - it appears that their actions are done to cover up attorney malpractice.

11 of 26
SUFFOLK
FILED: KINGS COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 07/26/2023
07/20/2023
11/18/2023 12:01
12:15
07:43 PMAM 621678/2021
INDEX NO. 521498/2023
76
2
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 9 07/20/2023
07/26/2023
RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/18/2023

52. Defendants did not comply with the terms and conditions of the real estate

contract, see Exhibit “1”, Defendants seek to enforce that would require, among other things,

the transfer of Defendant CARPIO’s down payment to a court of competent jurisdiction.

53. A court may, in its discretion, award any party or counsel in a civil matter "costs

in the form of reimbursement for actual expenses reasonably incurred and reasonable

[counsel] fees, resulting from frivolous conduct" and "may impose financial sanctions upon

any party or attorney" for frivolous conduct. 22 NYCRR 130-1.1a; see Bank of N.Y. Mellon v

Moon, 167 AD3d 1212, 1213 (2018); Matter of Gwenyth V. [Jennifer W.], 159 AD3d 1097,

1098-1099 (2018); Matter of Flanigan v Smyth, 148 AD3d 1249, 1250-1251 (2017), lv

dismissed and denied 29 NY3d 1046 (2017).

54. This Honorable Court has the ability to, on its own motion, invoke the rules that

govern attorney conduct before a tribunal. See, e.g., Obstfeld v. ThermoNiton Analyzers,

LLC, 168 A.D.3d 1080, 93 N.Y.S.3d 338 (2d Dep’t. 2019).

55. That Defendants failure to act diligently in the representation of a putative

homebuyer resulted in the dispute of a downpayment is not a basis to use a provisional

remedy, nonetheless an excuse for the attorney to comply even with the most basic signing

requirements. See 22 NYCRR 130-1.1a.

56. Defendants’ conduct is egregious and continues to date.

57. Defendants’ conduct causes Plaintiff damages. See Exhibit "5".

58. Defendants’ use of a provisional remedy is without merit in law and cannot be

supported by a reasonable argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing

law.

12 of 26
SUFFOLK
FILED: KINGS COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 07/26/2023
07/20/2023
11/18/2023 12:01
12:15
07:43 PMAM 621678/2021
INDEX NO. 521498/2023
76
2
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 9 07/20/2023
07/26/2023
RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/18/2023

59. Conduct is frivolous under 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 if it is "completely without merit

in law and cannot be supported by a reasonable argument for an extension, modification or

reversal of existing law" or it is "undertaken primarily to delay or prolong the resolution of

the litigation, or to harass or maliciously injure another." 22 NYCRR 130-1.1(c)(1),

(2); see Mascia v Maresco, 39 AD3d 504, 505 (2007); Greene v Doral Conference Ctr.

Assoc., 18 AD3d 429, 431 (2005).

60. Defendants cannot reasonably state they were privileged to make such statements

and concede, in some regard, that "such possible defamatory communications may have been

stated in Defendant’s pleadings in the Underlying action." NYSCEF Doc. No. 64, ¶ 28.

61. The filing of a Notice of Pendency to delay the proceedings when only monetary

issues, at best, are at issue should result in the finding of sanctions against the Defendants

who seeks attorney’s fees against Plaintiff, Cory H. Morris, in the Underlying Action.

SLANDER OF TITLE

62. Plaintiff submits both affidavit testimony and an updated attorney correspondence

(Exhibit "5") evidencing special damages against the Subject Property - the notice of

pendency is there although there is no right to the property or specific performance,

Defendants refuse to remove the lien on property to which it has no desire to obtain and

Plaintiff suffers special damages as alleged.

63. Slander of Title:

Plaintiff must plead particular facts that allege a (1)
communication falsely casting doubt on the validity of
complainant’s title that was (2) reasonably calculated to cause
harm which (3) results in special damages. The claim of slander of
title does not arise until such special damages are sustained.

NYSCEF Doc. No. 26 ¶ 31 (external quotation marks and citations omitted)

13 of 26
SUFFOLK
FILED: KINGS COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 07/26/2023
07/20/2023
11/18/2023 12:01
12:15
07:43 PMAM 621678/2021
INDEX NO. 521498/2023
76
2
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 9 07/20/2023
07/26/2023
RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/18/2023

64. The Notice of Pendency filed by Defendants clouded the title of the Subject

Premises.

65. Defendants erroneously state that “The mere filing a notice of pendency alone

fails to be a false communication that casts doubt on the validity of the complainant’s title,”

NYSCEF Doc. No. 26 ¶ 34, and that Plaintiff failed to allege harm when the complaint

annexes proof of the same harm, $55,000.00 of Plaintiff's money is held in Escrow and he

must bring litigation as a result of Defendants. See NYSCEF Doc. No. 64, ¶¶ 31-38.

66. It is undisputed that Defendants fired the attorney who handled the contract for

the sale of property, which stated "Section 24 of the Contract of Sale is titled “Purchaser’s

Lien”… but such liens shall not continue after default by Purchaser under this

contract.” NYSCEF Doc. No. 26 ¶ 40, NYSCEF Doc. No. 64, ¶ 40 (emphasis added).

67. The Escrow Agent handled the money in this Contract and the provisions require

a dispute to have the money deposited with the Court.

68. Defendants, who appear to continue their malpractice, ignored a closing and

defaulted. This Court inquired and the pro se attorney admitted it was charging Melvin

Carpio for him to represent himself in this proceeding.

69. Special damages are asserted in the complaint, by sworn testimony and the

confirmation of those special damages are annexed in Exhibit "5". Cf. NYSCEF Doc. No. 64,

¶¶ 38-40.

70. Defendants concede it seeks only monetary damages (NYSCEF Doc. No. 64, ¶¶

43-44) – thus there being no reason to cloud the title of the Subject Premises – as it admits in

affirmations seeking dismissal. NYSCEF Doc. No. 26 ¶ 41, NYSCEF Doc. No. 64, ¶¶ 40-44.

14 of 26
SUFFOLK
FILED: KINGS COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 07/26/2023
07/20/2023
11/18/2023 12:01
12:15
07:43 PMAM 621678/2021
INDEX NO. 521498/2023
76
2
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 9 07/20/2023
07/26/2023
RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/18/2023

71. The attorney/named Defendants in this proceeding make stunning admissions in

seeking dismissal that evidence the only basis to cloud title was to gain an unfair advantage

as opposed to Escrow provisions in the contract and, among other things, the obvious fact

that counsel, and not the homeowner, holds the money at issue and has a fidicuary duty to

both the seller and purchaser in the event (as contemplated by the contract) of a dispute:

It would not allow Purchasers to a real estate contract to be able to
negotiate a very important contractual remedy to prevent the loss
of their contract deposit. Once there is a dispute over the down
payment, the seller will try to sell the property as quickly as
possible. Once the property is sold it becomes difficult to recover
in an action seeking damages against the seller for breach of
contract Although not the case in this sale, most sellers after they
sell their property might move to another state or to a different
country after the sale. If the seller is a single entity LLC or an
estate or a trust selling the property it makes it even more difficult
to recover funds once the entity distributes the funds to the owners
or beneficiaries. This right was included in the contract negotiated
between the parties and should not be taken away from Defendant
simply because Plaintiff does not like the result.

NYSCEF Doc. No. 26 ¶ 43 (external quotation marks omitted); NYSCEF Doc. No. 64, ¶ 43.

72. Defendants intended to cloud title to the Subject Premises to obtain an unfair

advantage in a litigation, a breach of contract, which causes damages. Exhibit "5".

73. Defendants knew and had reason to know that Plaintiff sought to convey the

Subject Premises to a third party, as evidenced by Defendants’ Motion for Summary

Judgment and Notice signed by Defendant Christopher Fromme of Levin Law Group, PLLC.

74. Plaintiff has suffered the loss of $55,000.00 USD, litigation costs and other costs

associated with Defendants’ actions as per sworn (uncontested) testimony.

75. Plaintiff is damaged and continues to be damaged by Defendants’ continuance of

a Notice of Pendency.

15 of 26
SUFFOLK
FILED: KINGS COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 07/26/2023
07/20/2023
11/18/2023 12:01
12:15
07:43 PMAM 621678/2021
INDEX NO. 521498/2023
76
2
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 9 07/20/2023
07/26/2023
RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/18/2023

76. Further, as a result of Defendants’ conduct in clouding Plaintiff’s title to the

Premises, Plaintiff has been further damaged in his creditworthiness.

77. Defendants’ improper use of a provisional remedy, a notice of pendency, clouds

the title of the Subject Premises causing Plaintiff, as former homeowner, damages.

78. The improper use of a Notice of Pendency should entitle Plaintiff to treble

damages and reasonable attorney’s fees, by statute.

TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH A CONTRACT

79. Plaintiff vacated the home to sell to Defendant Melvin Carpio. In failing to close,

ignoring all attempts to close on the property, Defendants caused a default to the contract.

80. Defendants sought to prevent the sale, clouding the title of the property, from

Plaintiff to another homeowner when Defendant Melvin Carpio's attorneys, now appearing

here pro se, refused to answer phone calls or show up at a properly notice time-of-the-

essence closing.

81. Plaintiffs renew and reargue based on Defendants motion that the following

exists:

(1) the existence of a valid contract between the Plaintiff and a
third-party, (2) Defendants knowledge of such contract, (3)
Defendant’s intentional procurement of the third-party’s breach of
the contract, (4) the procurement of such breach was without
justification, (5) actual breach and (6) damages.

NYSCEF Doc. No. 26 ¶ 46 (external quotation marks omitted)

82. Defendants knew and had reason to know that Plaintiff sought to convey the

Subject Premises to a third party. See Exhibit “1”.

83. Defendants did intend to prevent the conveyance of the Subject Premises.

Case Info

Judge

Wayne Saitta Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

November 18, 2023

Case Filing Date

July 26, 2023

County

Parties

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

Document for Yevgeny Levin v. Richard W Young

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties