Preview
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 11/22/2023 06:28 PM INDEX NO. 609083/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 331 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/29/2023
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NASSAU Index No.: 609083/2018
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X
MARC PERGAMENT, ESQ., as Chapter 7 Trustee of
the Estate of MELISSA GACE BRYANT,,
Plaintiff(s), AMENDED COMPLAINT
-against-
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY
("GEICO"), PICCIANO & SCAHILL, LLP, GILBERT J.
HARDY, ESQ., NEIL H. GREENBERG & ASSOCIATES
P.C., and NEIL H. GREENBERG, ESQ.,
Defendants.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X
Plaintiff, by his attorneys WADE T. MORRIS, ESQS., complaining of the Defendants herein,
respectfully alleges as follows:
CLAIMS AS TO DEFENDANTS GEICO,
PICCIANO & SCAHILL, LLP, and GILBERT J. HARDY, ESQ.
1. Attached hereto as EXHIBIT “1” is the summons and complaint against
Defendants GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY (hereafter "GEICO"), PICCIANO
& SCAHILL, LLP (hereafter “P&S”), and GILBERT J. HARDY, ESQ. (hereafter “HARDY”).
2. Plaintiff incorporates each and every allegation set forth in the Summons and
Complaint attached hereto at EXHIBIT “1” as though fully set forth herein.
CLAIMS AS TO DEFENDANTS
NEIL H. GREENBERG & ASSOCIATES P.C., and NEIL H. GREENBERG, ESQ.
3. Attached hereto as EXHIBIT “2” is the summons and complaint against
Defendants NEIL H. GREENBERG & ASSOCIATES P.C. and NEIL H. GREENBERG, ESQ. (hereafter
collectively “GREENBERG”).
4. Plaintiff incorporates each and every allegation set forth in the Summons and
Complaint attached hereto at EXHIBIT “2” as though fully set forth herein.
1 of 253
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 11/22/2023 06:28 PM INDEX NO. 609083/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 331 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/29/2023
JUDICARY LAW 487 CLAIMS AGAINST TO DEFENDANTS
PICCIANO & SCAHILL, LLP, and GILBERT J. HARDY, ESQ.
NEIL H. GREENBERG & ASSOCIATES P.C., and NEIL H. GREENBERG, ESQ.
5. Plaintiff incorporates each and every allegation set forth above as though fully set
forth herein.
6. This is an action pursuant to Judiciary Law Section 487, which provides that an
attorney or counselor who is guilty of any deceit or collusion, or who consents to any deceit or
collusion, with intent to deceive the court or any party, shall pay treble damages to the injured
party.
7. The conduct complained of below occurred in an action in the Supreme Court of
New York, County of Nassau entitled ANNA BEDARD a/k/a ANNA FENOALTEA (hereafter
"BEDARD") v. MELISSA GACE a/k/a MELISSA BRYANT (hereafter “BRYANT”), Index No.
17555/2011 (hereafter “the Underlying Action”) and the related Bankruptcy action known as case
number 8-17-72593 – reg, In re BRYANT.
THE FACTS
A. Summary of the Deceit Which Gives Rise To This Case
8. Upon information and belief, at all times herein mentioned, the law firm
Defendant P&S was retained by the insurance carrier Defendant GEICO as legal counsel assigned
to represent and defend BRYANT against personal injury claims against her arising from a motor
vehicle accident on December 7, 2009 by the plaintiff in that action BEDARD.
9. Upon information and belief, at all times herein mentioned, the law firm
Defendant P&S was contractually obligated by the insurance carrier Defendant GEICO to
competently and ethically represent and defend the interests of Defendant GEICO's insured,
2 of 253
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 11/22/2023 06:28 PM INDEX NO. 609083/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 331 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/29/2023
BRYANT against claims arising from a motor vehicle accident in which she was involved on
December 7, 2009 and the consequences therefrom.
10. Upon information and belief, at all times herein mentioned, Defendants P&S and
HARDY were legally obligated by virtue of being licensed attorneys to ethically represent and
defend the interests of BRYANT against claims arising from a motor vehicle accident in which she
was involved on December 7, 2009 and the consequences therefrom.
11. Upon information and belief, at all times herein mentioned, all of Defendant P&S's
bills for legal services rendered by said firm to BRYANT in connection with the Underlying Action
were billed to, and were paid by the insurance carrier Defendant GEICO.
12. Upon information and belief, at all times herein mentioned, the attorney HARDY
was and is an employee and/or agent of the law firm Defendant P&S.
13. Upon information and belief, at all times herein mentioned, the attorney HARDY
was and is an employee and/or agent of the law firm Defendant P&S, and was charged by P&S
with the duty to directly litigate the Underlying Action in defense of BRYANT, especially at trial.
14. Upon information and belief, at all times herein mentioned, GEICO did hire, retain,
and/or employ their own attorneys.
15. Upon information and belief, at all times herein mentioned, GEICO did hire, retain,
and/or employ attorneys who supervise, oversee, control, and/or maintain their own claim files.
16. Upon information and belief, at all times herein mentioned, GEICO did hire, retain,
and/or employ attorneys who supervised, oversaw, controlled, and/or maintained the claim file
related to the underlying action.
3 of 253
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 11/22/2023 06:28 PM INDEX NO. 609083/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 331 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/29/2023
17. Upon information and belief, at all times herein mentioned, GEICO did hire,
retain, and/or employ attorneys who supervised, oversaw, controlled, and/or maintained the
claim file related to the underlying action and communicated with Defendants P&S and HARDY.
18. Upon information and belief, at all times herein mentioned, GEICO did hire,
retain, and/or employ attorneys who supervised, oversaw, controlled, and/or maintained the
claim file related to the underlying action and communicate with Defendants GREENBERG.
19. Upon information and belief, at all times herein mentioned, Defendant GEICO’s
attorneys were legally obligated by virtue of being licensed attorneys, to ethically and legally
conduct themselves particularly with regard to the interests of BRYANT arising from claims from
a motor vehicle accident in which she was involved on December 7, 2009 and the consequences
therefrom.
20. Upon information and belief, at all times herein mentioned, Defendant GEICO’s
attorneys were legally obligated by virtue of being licensed attorneys, to ethically and legally
conduct themselves particularly with regard to the interests of BRYANT arising from claims from
a motor vehicle accident in which she was involved on December 7, 2009 and the consequences
therefrom under the laws of the jurisdiction where the underlying litigation was conducted.
21. Upon information and belief, at all times herein mentioned, the attorney
Defendant HARDY was charged by the law firm Defendant P&S to perform and carry out pre-
trial preparations and, ultimately, to advise BRYANT before and during trial of the Underlying
Action as her trial counsel and thereafter.
4 of 253
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 11/22/2023 06:28 PM INDEX NO. 609083/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 331 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/29/2023
22. Upon information and belief, at all times herein mentioned, on around or about
July 8, 2016 a jury awarded to BEDARD a verdict for $2,002,446.07 against BRYANT. See EXHIBIT
“3”.
23. That according to the sworn testimony in this action of BEDARD’s attorney Ruth
Bernstein, Esq. within days of the verdict Frank Scahill, Esq of Defendants P&S informed
Bernstein his belief that BEDARD needed to negotiate the verdict with him and accept less
because otherwise BRYANT would “probably just declare bankruptcy”.
24. Upon information and belief, at all times herein mentioned, on around or about
September 15, 2016 the plaintiff BEDARD offered to BRYANT a forbearance on collecting against
the judgment for an assignment of rights to pursue bad faith against the insurance carrier
Defendant GEICO and malpractice claims against Defendants P&S and HARDY. See EXHIBIT “4”.
25. On September 26, 2016 Defendants P&S and HARDY deceitfully informed Lois
Profeta (BRYANT’s mother) that the Plaintiff did not need the forbearance. The advice was
wrong and focused on the bad faith claims against GEICO while ignoring the malpractice claims.
See EXHIBIT “5”.
5 of 253
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 11/22/2023 06:28 PM INDEX NO. 609083/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 331 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/29/2023
26. On October 24, 2016 Lois Profeta told Defendants P&S and HARDY that BRYANT
wanted to sign the forbearance causing the forgoing scheme to be hatched. See EXHIBIT “6”.
27. As a result Defendants P&S and HARDY declared that they had a conflict, could
not advise BRYANT as to the forbearance and BRYANT needed another lawyer in that regard.
28. Defendants P&S and HARDY also informed Defendant GEICO that they had a
conflict, could not advise BRYANT as to the forbearance and BRYANT needed another lawyer.
29. Despite the representation to the client and Defendant GEICO that Defendant
P&S and HARDY had a conflict of interest they continued their representation of BRYANT for the
post trial motions and appeal with GEICO’s approval.
30. At this time, upon information and belief, the Defendants P&S and HARDY, did
not obtain any written waiver of their conflicts of interest from BRYANT.
31. On October 25, 2016 Defendants P&S and HARDY attempted to steer BRYANT to
Defendants GREENBERG, a friend of Frank Scahill, Esq, a partner at Defendant P&S. See EXHIBIT
“7”.
6 of 253
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 11/22/2023 06:28 PM INDEX NO. 609083/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 331 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/29/2023
32. On October 26, 2016 Defendants P&S and HARDY were informed BRYANT could
not afford another lawyer, challenged the nature of the conflict and that Defendants P&S and
HARDY should draft the agreement. See EXHIBIT “8”.
33. Upon information and belief, at all times herein mentioned, on around or about
December 16, 2016, the plaintiff, BEDARD, in the Underlying Action moved to disqualify the
Defendants P&S and HARDY for a conflict of interest.
34. Defendants P&S and HARDY did not withdraw voluntarily and in opposing the
motion to disqualify Defendants HARDY and P&S mismanaged the conflict and violated their
obligations to BRYANT using deceit and/or collusion to advance their interests and to the harm
of BRYANT.
7 of 253
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 11/22/2023 06:28 PM INDEX NO. 609083/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 331 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/29/2023
35. Defendants P&S and HARDY went so far as to allow Defendant GEICO’s attorneys
to edit the motion to set aside including the portion of the motion dedicated to disqualifying the
firm. See EXHIBIT “9”.
8 of 253
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 11/22/2023 06:28 PM INDEX NO. 609083/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 331 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/29/2023
36. That on January 12, 2017 oral argument was had in front of Judge Capeotola
whereat the Judge warned Defendants P&S and HARDY that the motion to disqualify the firm
had merit and the firm should voluntarily withdraw.
37. Defendants P&S and HARDY after consulting Defendant GEICO decided to not
withdraw.
38. On January 26, 2017, Defendant GEICO also decided that Defendants P&S and
HARDY should remain as counsel.
39. Thereafter, on January 26, 2017 Defendant HARDY reached out to Lois Profeta
and told her to “please contact me.” See EXHIBIT “10”.
40. Upon information and belief, at all times herein mentioned, on around or about
January 26, 2017, after oral argument and with knowledge that the Court was likely to disqualify
the law firm Defendant P&S on the basis of conflict of interest, the attorney Defendants P&S and
HARDY and/or others at Defendant P&S continued to discuss and advise and persuade BRYANT
through her mother Lois Profeta on a particular course of action not in her best interests.
41. That on January 29, 2017, Defendants P&S and HARDY warned BRYANT and her
mother Lois Profeta that BRYANT “was at risk” and needed independent counsel. See EXHIBIT
“10”.
9 of 253
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 11/22/2023 06:28 PM INDEX NO. 609083/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 331 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/29/2023
42. That on January 29, 2017 Defendant HARDY informed Lois Profeta he would get
attorney recommendations from the local Bar Association. See EXHIBIT “10”.
43. That on January 30, 2017 Defendants P&S and HARDY instead of getting names of
independent attorneys from the Bar association, instead again recommended BRYANT use
Defendants GREENBERG. See EXHIBIT “11”.
44. That on January 31, 2017, based on Defendant HARDY’S recommendation
BRYANT agreed to use Defendants GREENBERG.
45. That on January 31, 2017 BRYANT agreed to use Defendants GREENBERG with the
understanding she would not be paying for him.
46. That part of the scheme involved persuading BRYANT to use their counsel of
choice by letting her know she would not need to pay for that counsel.
47. Upon information and belief, at all times herein mentioned, the attorney
Defendant HARDY, Frank Scahill and/or another attorney at Defendant P&S had repeated and
10 of 253
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 11/22/2023 06:28 PM INDEX NO. 609083/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 331 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/29/2023
ongoing discussions with the Defendant named herein, NEIL H. GREENBERG, ESQ., concerning
the Underlying Action while still representing BRYANT.
48. Upon information and belief, at all times herein mentioned, in January 2017
Defendants P&S and/or HARDY discussed the Underlying Matter with the Defendants
GREENBERG including matters upon which they were conflicted; including on or around January
31, 2017. See EXHIBIT “11”.
49. Upon information and belief, at all times herein mentioned, notwithstanding the
fact that Defendants GREENBERG were supposed to be rendering individual advice and
confidential counsel while representing BRYANT, there were additional conversations between
the Defendants P&S and/or HARDY and Defendants GREENBERG wherein they discussed the
Underlying Action with the including matters upon which they were conflicted and/or in
furtherance of the scheme; including but not limited to February 2017, March 2017, and April 2017.
50. Upon information and belief, at all times herein mentioned, that the pre-existing
relationship of Defendant NEIL H. GREENBERG, ESQ. and FRANK SCAHILL, ESQ., who is a partner
of the law firm P&S, created a conflict of interest for Defendants GREENBERG in representing
BRYANT.
51. Upon information and belief, at all times herein mentioned, the nature of the
discussions with persons from Defendants P&S and/or HARDY created a conflict of interest for
Defendants GREENBERG in representing BRYANT.
11 of 253
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 11/22/2023 06:28 PM INDEX NO. 609083/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 331 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/29/2023
52. Upon information and belief, at all times herein mentioned, any advice, counsel,
plan of action discussed or agreed to compromised the independent nature of Defendants
GREENBERG’s representation of BRYANT.
53. Upon information and belief, at all times herein mentioned, the nature of the
discussions with persons from Defendants P&S and/or HARDY and/or GEICO created a conflict
of interest for Defendants GREENBERG in representing BRYANT when payment to GREENBERG
by GEICO or from other sources besides BRYANT herself or her mother was discussed and/or
agreed upon.
54. Upon information and belief, at all times herein mentioned, that Defendants
GREENBERG and attorneys from Defendants P&S and/or HARDY and/or GEICO did coordinate to
have BRYANT file bankruptcy in furtherance of the interests of Defendants P&S and/or HARDY
with either indifference to BRYANT's interests and/or against and/or in direct conflict with those
interests.
55. That the purpose of the scheme against the clients’ interests and in the interest
of Defendants P&S and/or HARDY was to protect the firm from a malpractice claim.
56. That the purpose of the scheme against the clients’ interests and in the interest
of Defendants P&S and/or HARDY was to protect Defendant GEICO from the consequences of
their own malfeasance.
57. Upon information and belief, at all times herein mentioned, that Defendants
GREENBERG and attorneys from Defendants P&S and/or HARDY and/or GEICO did coordinate,
or knowingly consent, to have BRYANT file bankruptcy in furtherance of the interests of the
12 of 253
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 11/22/2023 06:28 PM INDEX NO. 609083/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 331 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/29/2023
insurance carrier Defendant GEICO with either indifference to BRYANT's interests and/or against
and/or in direct conflict with those interests.
58. That the purpose of the scheme against the client’s interests and in the interest
of Defendant GEICO was to protect the carrier from a bad faith claim over the excess verdict that
was rendered as a result of its carelessness, recklessness, willful, wonton and intentional
disregard of BRYANTS interests.
59. Upon information and belief, at all times herein mentioned, that Defendants
GREENBERG and attorneys from Defendants P&S and/or HARDY and/or GEICO did coordinate to
have BRYANT file bankruptcy in furtherance of the interests of Defendants GREENBERG with
either indifference to BRYANT's interests and/or against and/or in direct conflict with those
interests.
60. That the purpose of the scheme against the client’s interests and in the interest
of Defendants GREENBERG was to get paid an excessive amount of money to come to a forgone
conclusion.
61. That all Defendants herein failed in their legal, fiduciary, contractual, and/or
ethical obligations to BRYANT
62. That all Defendants herein failed in their legal, fiduciary, contractual, and/or
ethical obligations to BRYANT and colluded, deceived and or consented to same in their own
interests against BRYANTS interests.
63. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, in, around,
or about February 22, 2017, the Defendants GREENBERG met with BRYANT and her mother Lois
Profeta for approximately thirty (30) minutes. See EXHIBIT “12”.
13 of 253
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 11/22/2023 06:28 PM INDEX NO. 609083/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 331 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/29/2023
64. That at that meeting Defendants GREENBERG had an ethical, legal and fiduciary
duty to provide independent counsel to BRYANT and her mother Lois Profeta irrespective of the
needs or interests of others, including himself.
65. Upon information and belief, at all times herein mentioned, Defendants
GREENBERG were legally obligated by virtue of being licensed attorneys to ethically represent
and defend the interests of BRYANT.
66. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, in, around,
or about February 22, 2017, the Defendants GREENBERG, advised BRYANT to file for bankruptcy
and advised against any other course of action.
67. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, in, around,
or about February 22, 2017, the Defendants GREENBERG, advised BRYANT to file for bankruptcy.
68. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, in, around,
or about February 22, 2017, the Defendants GREENBERG, advised BRYANT to file for bankruptcy,
without considering the offer by BEDARD of a forbearance in exchange for an assignment.
69. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, in, around,
or about February 22, 2017, the Defendants GREENBERG, advised BRYANT to file for bankruptcy,
without considering the offer by BEDARD of a forbearance in exchange for an assignment after
consulting with Defendants P&S and/or HARDY and/or GEICO.
14 of 253
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 11/22/2023 06:28 PM INDEX NO. 609083/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 331 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/29/2023
70. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, in, around,
or about February 22, 2017, the Defendants GREENBERG advised BRYANT to file for bankruptcy,
without even reviewing the BRYANT file for the Underlying Action.
71. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, in, around,
or about February 22, 2017, the Defendants GREENBERG advised BRYANT to file for bankruptcy,
without doing any legal research.
72. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, that all of
the above occurred while P&S was still the attorney of record for BRYANT.
73. On February 23, 2017, BRYANT’s mother Lois Profeta emailed Defendants P&S and
HARDY to inform them that Defendants GREENBERG had recommended bankruptcy for
BRYANT and she would proceed with filing for bankruptcy. See EXHIBIT “13”.
74. On February 28, 2017, Defendants P&S and HARDY were disqualified from
handling the BRYANT matter due to a conflict of interest or the appearance thereof by Court
Order. See EXHIBIT “14”.
75. On March 1, 2017, Defendants P&S and HARDY both informed Defendant GEICO
separately that Defendants GREENBERG had recommended BRYANT file for bankruptcy. See
EXHIBIT “15”.
15 of 253
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 11/22/2023 06:28 PM INDEX NO. 609083/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 331 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/29/2023
76. On March, 1, 2017 Defendants P&S and HARDY sent an email to BRYANT they were
disqualified as her attorneys. See EXHIBIT “16”.
77. On March 2, 2017, Lois Profeta emailed GREENBERG expressing uncertainty about
bankruptcy versus assigning rights for a forbearance. See EXHIBIT “17”.
16 of 253
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 11/22/2023 06:28 PM INDEX NO. 609083/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 331 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/29/2023
78. On March 8, 2017, Defendants GREENBERG was formally hired to be counsel for
BRYANT to handle the matter. This, despite the fact Defendant GEICO, had already approved
and/or retained PILLINGER MILLER & TARALLO to handle the Appeal.
79. By virtue of this retention, upon information and belief, at all times herein
mentioned, Defendants GREENBERG were legally obligated by virtue of being licensed attorneys
to ethically represent and defend the interests of BRYANT against claims arising from a motor
vehicle accident in which she was involved on December 7, 2009 and the consequences
therefrom and comply with all applicable laws of New York.
80. On March 8, 2017, Defendants GREENBERG billed for a 1.2 hour conversation with
Frank Scahill of Defendant P&S. See EXHIBIT “12”.
17 of 253
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 11/22/2023 06:28 PM INDEX NO. 609083/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 331 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/29/2023
81. At all times mentioned herein, upon information and belief it was Defendant
GREENBERG’s intention to get paid by Defendant GEICO and/or by Defendant P&S and not from
BRYANT.
82. On March 9, 2017, Defendants GREENBERG informed Defendants P&S and HARDY
he was now the attorney of record. See EXHIBIT “18”.
83. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, the
Defendants GREENBERG, failed to negotiate on behalf of BRYANT with the counsel for the
plaintiff of the Underlying Action, BEDARD.
84. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, the
Defendants GREENBERG, failed to review the entire BRYANT file.
85. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, the
Defendants GREENBERG, failed to do relevant and pertinent legal research.
86. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, the
Defendants GREENBERG, failed to properly review the Underlying Action for any legal
malpractice by Defendants P&S and HARDY.
18 of 253
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 11/22/2023 06:28 PM INDEX NO. 609083/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 331 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/29/2023
87. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, the
Defendants GREENBERG, failed to properly evaluate the Underlying Action for any bad faith
claims on behalf of the insurance carrier Defendant GEICO.
88. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, the
Defendants GREENBERG, failed to properly consider the ramifications of bankruptcy in
comparison to the offer from Plaintiff BEDARD of forbearance and for an assignment of rights.
89. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, the
Defendants GREENBERG, failed to perform proper and adequate legal research before advising
BRYANT.
90. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, the
Defendants GREENBERG, failed to properly consider BRYANT’s interests.
91. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, the
Defendants GREENBERG, failed to make proper disclosures to BRYANT and obtain informed
consent from BRYANT regarding the full and complete nature of a prior relationship with
Defendants P&S and HARDY.
92. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, the
Defendants GREENBERG, failed to make proper disclosures to BRYANT and to obtain informed
consent from BRYANT prior to any conversations with Defendants P&S and/or HARDY regarding
this matter.
93. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, the
Defendants GREENBERG, failed to make proper disclosures to BRYANT and to obtain informed
consent prior to any conversations with Defendant GEICO regarding this matter.
19 of 253
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 11/22/2023 06:28 PM INDEX NO. 609083/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 331 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/29/2023
94. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, the
Defendants GREENBERG, failed to properly disclose to BRYANT any conflicts regarding handling
this matter.
95. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, the
Defendants GREENBERG, failed to make proper disclosures to BRYANT and obtain informed
consent from BRYANT regarding any conflicts of interest he had.
96. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, the
Defendants GREENBERG, did not provide BRYANT with any information whatsoever as to the
risks and advantages and alternative courses of action in writing.
97. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, the
Defendants GREENBERG did not obtain any written waiver of their conflicts of interest from
BRYANT.
98. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, the
Defendants P&S and HARDY, did not provide BRYANT with any information whatsoever as to
the risks and advantages and alternative courses of action in writing
99. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, the
Defendants P&S and HARDY did not obtain any written waiver of their conflicts of interest from
BRYANT.
100. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, when the
Defendants GREENBERG undertook the consultation of BRYANT relating to the Underlying
Action, BRYANT had a viable opportunity to resolve the judgment against her by cooperating
20 of 253
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 11/22/2023 06:28 PM INDEX NO. 609083/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 331 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/29/2023
with the underlying plaintiff BEDARD to obtain a forbearance in exchange for an assignment of
rights.
101. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, when the
Defendants GREENBERG undertook the consultation of BRYANT relating to the action, BRYANT
had a viable opportunity to resolve the judgment against her by cooperating with the underlying
plaintiff BEDARD and opposing counsel to pursue a bad faith claim against her insurance
company Defendant GEICO and a malpractice action against her attorneys Defendants P&S.
102. Upon information and belief, given the totality of the circumstances the
forbearance was clearly the better choice for BRYANT to achieve her goals at lowest possible
cost and burden with the least amount of reputational damage.
103. Upon information and belief, given the totality of the circumstances, convincing
BRYANT to reject the forbearance was clearly intended to be in the best interests of Defendant
GEICO to prevent Plaintiff BEDARD from being able to collect on the $2 million judgment through
bad faith against Defendant GEICO.
104. Upon information and belief, given the totality of the circumstances, convincing
BRYANT to reject the forbearance was clearly intended to be in the best interests of Defendant
GEICO and thereby Defendants GREENBERG failed to protect BRYANT’s interests.
105. Upon information and belief, given the totality of the circumstances, convincing
BRYANT to reject the forbearance was clearly intended to be in the best interests of Defendant
P&S and HARDY to prevent Plaintiff BEDARD from being able to collect on the $2 million
judgment through legal malpractice against Defendant P&S and HARDY.
21 of 253
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 11/22/2023 06:28 PM INDEX NO. 609083/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 331 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/29/2023
106. Upon information and belief, given the totality of the circumstances, convincing
BRYANT to reject the forbearance was clearly intended to be in the best interests of Defendant
P&S and HARDY and thereby Defendants GREENBERG failed to protect BRYANT’s interests.
107. On March 16, 2017, Defendants P&S and HARDY asked Defendant GEICO for an
expense allotment to keep a copy of the file for “a possible malpractice case.” See EXHIBIT “19”
at p. 18.
108. On or around March 21, 2017, Defendant GREENBERG called GEICO saying he had
“Good News”. See EXHIBIT “19” at p. 17.
109. On or about March 23, 2017, Defendants P&S and HARDY informed BRYANT’s
mother Lois Profeta they are off the case and Pillinger Miller & Tarallo is their new counsel.
22 of 253
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 11/22/2023 06:28 PM INDEX NO. 609083/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 331 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/29/2023
Defendants P&S and HARDY also improperly told her to “continue to consult with Neil
Greenberg and the bankruptcy attorney.” See EXHIBIT “20”.
110. On March 28, 2017, Defendants GREENBERG informed Defendant GEICO that he
“had spoken to f/c [fee counsel] frank scahill” … “did obtain the transcripts” and that “he feels
that the best interests of the insured is to file bankruptcy” despite not yet having read the
transcripts or having previously reviewed BRYANT’s file. See EXHIBIT “19” p. 15.
23 of 253
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 11/22/2023 06:28 PM INDEX NO. 609083/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 331 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/29/2023
111. On the same date Defendants GREENBERG additionally noted to Defendant
GEICO “once the insured filed for bankruptcy the judgment … will be wiped out once the
bankruptcy is granted” and “he would forward his bill to frank for us to pay same.” See EXHIBIT
“19” p. 16.
112. On April 7, 2017, Defendants GREENBERG again reiterated that the advised course
was for BRYANT to file for bankruptcy in a formal opinion letter. See EXHIBIT “21”.
24 of 253
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 11/22/2023 06:28 PM INDEX NO. 609083/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 331 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/29/2023
113. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, on, around,
and/or before April 7, 2017, the Defendants all failed to counsel the BRYANT in the significance of
working with the underlying plaintiff BEDARD, who was then also a Judgment Creditor.
114. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, on or around
and before April 7, 2017, the Defendants all guided BRYANT only towards filing for bankruptcy,
despite her having no other debts of note besides the judgment and their knowledge there were
alternative courses of action that she could take.
115. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, on, around,
and/or before April 7, 2017, the Defendants all guided BRYANT only towards filing for bankruptcy
against her interests and to her harm and detriment.
116. On April 11, 2017, BRYANT’s mother again reiterated to Defendant GEICO her
expectation they will pay for Defendants GREENBERG’s consultation bills. See EXHIBIT “19” at
p. 11-12.
25 of 253
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 11/22/2023 06:28 PM INDEX NO. 609083/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 331 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/29/2023
117. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, that on or
around April 14, 2017, Lois Profeta forwarded a bill from Defendants GREENBERG to GEICO for
$11,200 with an hourly rate of $550.00/hour and itemized the list of work done. See EXHIBIT “22”.
118. On April 28, 2017, BRYANT filed for bankruptcy under case number 8-17-72593 –
reg.
119. On April 28, 2017, BRYANT filed for bankruptcy under case number 8-17-72593 –
reg, and the Judgment was the only liability that BRYANT filed bankruptcy to obtain protection
from. See EXHIBIT “23”.
120. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, that the
purpose of advising said bankruptcy discharge was solely for the purposes of attempting to
damage the bad faith and malpractice claims under the guise of evading the judgment from the
underlying action against her as well as obtain renumeration for said counsel.
121. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, that that the
purpose of advising said bankruptcy discharge was solely for the purposes of attempting to
26 of 253
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 11/22/2023 06:28 PM INDEX NO. 609083/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 331 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/29/2023
damage the bad faith and malpractice claims under the guise of evading the judgment from the
underlying action against her, as well as obtain renumeration for said counsel, without regard to
what was in the best interests of BRYANT.
122. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, that on,
around or about June 20, 2017, Defendants GREENBERG submitted a bill to GEICO or was already
aware they already possessed the bill. See EXHIBIT “22”.
123. That on or prior to June 20, 2017, Defendant GEICO was presented a copy of
Defendant GREENBERGs’ bill for services of $11,200.00.
124. That on or prior to June 20, 2017, Defendant GEICO reviewed said bill and had
come to the conclusion it was “excessive”. See EXHIBIT “19” p. 7.
125. Said bill included charges for items which included asset protection counseling.
126. Said bill included charges which were inaccurate and incorrect.
127. Said bill was also for a review of the bad faith claims and malpractice claims
against Defendants GEICO and P&S respectively.
27 of 253
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 11/22/2023 06:28 PM INDEX NO. 609083/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 331 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/29/2023
128. Said bill contained charges Defendant GEICO had no legal or contractual
obligation to pay.
129. Said bill had an hourly rate that Defendant GEICO had no legal or contractual
obligation to pay.
130. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, that on June
20, 2017, Defendants GREENBERG discussed with Defendants GEICO their payment of said bill.
131. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, that on June
20, 2017, Defendant GEICO discussed with Defendants GREENBERG that the hourly rate of
$550.00/hour was too high, that the normal hourly rate was $125.00/hour but that Defendant
GEICO was willing to pay him $225.00/hour.
132. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, that on June
20, 2017, Defendants GREENBERG in discussions with Defendant GEICO regarding the payment
of his bill, which Defendant GEICO found to be “excessive”, balked at being paid less that his full
bill; whereupon he detailed the scheme stating: “he was able to convince [his client/GEICO’s
insured] to file for bankruptcy and she did so therefore HE is saving our company and f/c frank
scahill [Defendants GEICO and P&S] a lot of money in defense of this matter….” See EXHIBIT
“19” p. 8.
28 of 253
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 11/22/2023 06:28 PM INDEX NO. 609083/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 331 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/29/2023
133. That Defendant GEICO and their lawyers on staff knew of and were aware that
BRYANT wanted to sign the forbearance and instead was convinced to file for bankruptcy.
134. That Defendant GEICO and their lawyers on staff approved the payment for the
counseling that convinced BRYANT to file for bankruptcy and thus consented to said scheme, if
not directly participating in said scheme.
135. Upon Information and belief Carl Silber, Esq. an attorney working for Defendant
GEICO, approved the payment to Greenberg. See EXHIBIT “19” at p. 7.
136. Upon Information and belief it was also Carl Silber, Esq. an attorney working for
Defendant GEICO, that was assigned to handle this matter once a verdict was rendered in the
underlying action.
137. Upon Information and belief it was also Carl Silber, Esq. an attorney working for
Defendant GEICO, that also edited the motion to disqualify the firm of Defendant P&S.
138. Upon Information and belief other attorneys working for Defendant GEICO, may
have also worked on this matter during the pendency of said scheme.
139. As a result of the actions of any attorneys working for Defendant GEICO in
furtherance of said scheme or consenting to same in the above noted New York State actions
29 of 253
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 11/22/2023 06:28 PM INDEX NO. 609083/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 331 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/29/2023
places them under the ethical obligations of this state and thus requires them to abide by the
laws of New York governing their conduct in the underlying matters.
140. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, that on
about or around June 26, 2017, Defendants GREENBERG was paid in full by Defendant GEICO his
bill, without reservations or further objections. See EXHIBIT “24”.
141. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, that on
about or around June 26, 2017, Defendants GREENBERG were paid in full by Defendant GEICO
directly in part or in whole as a result of his restatement of the scheme to which Defendant GEICO
consented with its payment in full.
142. That Defendants GREENBERG accepted said payment in full without reservation
or obj
Preview
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 11/22/2023 06:28 PM INDEX NO. 609083/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 331 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/29/2023 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NASSAU Index No.: 609083/2018 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X MARC PERGAMENT, ESQ., as Chapter 7 Trustee of the Estate of MELISSA GACE BRYANT,, Plaintiff(s), AMENDED COMPLAINT -against- GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY ("GEICO"), PICCIANO & SCAHILL, LLP, GILBERT J. HARDY, ESQ., NEIL H. GREENBERG & ASSOCIATES P.C., and NEIL H. GREENBERG, ESQ., Defendants. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X Plaintiff, by his attorneys WADE T. MORRIS, ESQS., complaining of the Defendants herein, respectfully alleges as follows: CLAIMS AS TO DEFENDANTS GEICO, PICCIANO & SCAHILL, LLP, and GILBERT J. HARDY, ESQ. 1. Attached hereto as EXHIBIT “1” is the summons and complaint against Defendants GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY (hereafter "GEICO"), PICCIANO & SCAHILL, LLP (hereafter “P&S”), and GILBERT J. HARDY, ESQ. (hereafter “HARDY”). 2. Plaintiff incorporates each and every allegation set forth in the Summons and Complaint attached hereto at EXHIBIT “1” as though fully set forth herein. CLAIMS AS TO DEFENDANTS NEIL H. GREENBERG & ASSOCIATES P.C., and NEIL H. GREENBERG, ESQ. 3. Attached hereto as EXHIBIT “2” is the summons and complaint against Defendants NEIL H. GREENBERG & ASSOCIATES P.C. and NEIL H. GREENBERG, ESQ. (hereafter collectively “GREENBERG”). 4. Plaintiff incorporates each and every allegation set forth in the Summons and Complaint attached hereto at EXHIBIT “2” as though fully set forth herein. 1 of 253 FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 11/22/2023 06:28 PM INDEX NO. 609083/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 331 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/29/2023 JUDICARY LAW 487 CLAIMS AGAINST TO DEFENDANTS PICCIANO & SCAHILL, LLP, and GILBERT J. HARDY, ESQ. NEIL H. GREENBERG & ASSOCIATES P.C., and NEIL H. GREENBERG, ESQ. 5. Plaintiff incorporates each and every allegation set forth above as though fully set forth herein. 6. This is an action pursuant to Judiciary Law Section 487, which provides that an attorney or counselor who is guilty of any deceit or collusion, or who consents to any deceit or collusion, with intent to deceive the court or any party, shall pay treble damages to the injured party. 7. The conduct complained of below occurred in an action in the Supreme Court of New York, County of Nassau entitled ANNA BEDARD a/k/a ANNA FENOALTEA (hereafter "BEDARD") v. MELISSA GACE a/k/a MELISSA BRYANT (hereafter “BRYANT”), Index No. 17555/2011 (hereafter “the Underlying Action”) and the related Bankruptcy action known as case number 8-17-72593 – reg, In re BRYANT. THE FACTS A. Summary of the Deceit Which Gives Rise To This Case 8. Upon information and belief, at all times herein mentioned, the law firm Defendant P&S was retained by the insurance carrier Defendant GEICO as legal counsel assigned to represent and defend BRYANT against personal injury claims against her arising from a motor vehicle accident on December 7, 2009 by the plaintiff in that action BEDARD. 9. Upon information and belief, at all times herein mentioned, the law firm Defendant P&S was contractually obligated by the insurance carrier Defendant GEICO to competently and ethically represent and defend the interests of Defendant GEICO's insured, 2 of 253 FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 11/22/2023 06:28 PM INDEX NO. 609083/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 331 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/29/2023 BRYANT against claims arising from a motor vehicle accident in which she was involved on December 7, 2009 and the consequences therefrom. 10. Upon information and belief, at all times herein mentioned, Defendants P&S and HARDY were legally obligated by virtue of being licensed attorneys to ethically represent and defend the interests of BRYANT against claims arising from a motor vehicle accident in which she was involved on December 7, 2009 and the consequences therefrom. 11. Upon information and belief, at all times herein mentioned, all of Defendant P&S's bills for legal services rendered by said firm to BRYANT in connection with the Underlying Action were billed to, and were paid by the insurance carrier Defendant GEICO. 12. Upon information and belief, at all times herein mentioned, the attorney HARDY was and is an employee and/or agent of the law firm Defendant P&S. 13. Upon information and belief, at all times herein mentioned, the attorney HARDY was and is an employee and/or agent of the law firm Defendant P&S, and was charged by P&S with the duty to directly litigate the Underlying Action in defense of BRYANT, especially at trial. 14. Upon information and belief, at all times herein mentioned, GEICO did hire, retain, and/or employ their own attorneys. 15. Upon information and belief, at all times herein mentioned, GEICO did hire, retain, and/or employ attorneys who supervise, oversee, control, and/or maintain their own claim files. 16. Upon information and belief, at all times herein mentioned, GEICO did hire, retain, and/or employ attorneys who supervised, oversaw, controlled, and/or maintained the claim file related to the underlying action. 3 of 253 FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 11/22/2023 06:28 PM INDEX NO. 609083/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 331 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/29/2023 17. Upon information and belief, at all times herein mentioned, GEICO did hire, retain, and/or employ attorneys who supervised, oversaw, controlled, and/or maintained the claim file related to the underlying action and communicated with Defendants P&S and HARDY. 18. Upon information and belief, at all times herein mentioned, GEICO did hire, retain, and/or employ attorneys who supervised, oversaw, controlled, and/or maintained the claim file related to the underlying action and communicate with Defendants GREENBERG. 19. Upon information and belief, at all times herein mentioned, Defendant GEICO’s attorneys were legally obligated by virtue of being licensed attorneys, to ethically and legally conduct themselves particularly with regard to the interests of BRYANT arising from claims from a motor vehicle accident in which she was involved on December 7, 2009 and the consequences therefrom. 20. Upon information and belief, at all times herein mentioned, Defendant GEICO’s attorneys were legally obligated by virtue of being licensed attorneys, to ethically and legally conduct themselves particularly with regard to the interests of BRYANT arising from claims from a motor vehicle accident in which she was involved on December 7, 2009 and the consequences therefrom under the laws of the jurisdiction where the underlying litigation was conducted. 21. Upon information and belief, at all times herein mentioned, the attorney Defendant HARDY was charged by the law firm Defendant P&S to perform and carry out pre- trial preparations and, ultimately, to advise BRYANT before and during trial of the Underlying Action as her trial counsel and thereafter. 4 of 253 FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 11/22/2023 06:28 PM INDEX NO. 609083/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 331 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/29/2023 22. Upon information and belief, at all times herein mentioned, on around or about July 8, 2016 a jury awarded to BEDARD a verdict for $2,002,446.07 against BRYANT. See EXHIBIT “3”. 23. That according to the sworn testimony in this action of BEDARD’s attorney Ruth Bernstein, Esq. within days of the verdict Frank Scahill, Esq of Defendants P&S informed Bernstein his belief that BEDARD needed to negotiate the verdict with him and accept less because otherwise BRYANT would “probably just declare bankruptcy”. 24. Upon information and belief, at all times herein mentioned, on around or about September 15, 2016 the plaintiff BEDARD offered to BRYANT a forbearance on collecting against the judgment for an assignment of rights to pursue bad faith against the insurance carrier Defendant GEICO and malpractice claims against Defendants P&S and HARDY. See EXHIBIT “4”. 25. On September 26, 2016 Defendants P&S and HARDY deceitfully informed Lois Profeta (BRYANT’s mother) that the Plaintiff did not need the forbearance. The advice was wrong and focused on the bad faith claims against GEICO while ignoring the malpractice claims. See EXHIBIT “5”. 5 of 253 FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 11/22/2023 06:28 PM INDEX NO. 609083/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 331 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/29/2023 26. On October 24, 2016 Lois Profeta told Defendants P&S and HARDY that BRYANT wanted to sign the forbearance causing the forgoing scheme to be hatched. See EXHIBIT “6”. 27. As a result Defendants P&S and HARDY declared that they had a conflict, could not advise BRYANT as to the forbearance and BRYANT needed another lawyer in that regard. 28. Defendants P&S and HARDY also informed Defendant GEICO that they had a conflict, could not advise BRYANT as to the forbearance and BRYANT needed another lawyer. 29. Despite the representation to the client and Defendant GEICO that Defendant P&S and HARDY had a conflict of interest they continued their representation of BRYANT for the post trial motions and appeal with GEICO’s approval. 30. At this time, upon information and belief, the Defendants P&S and HARDY, did not obtain any written waiver of their conflicts of interest from BRYANT. 31. On October 25, 2016 Defendants P&S and HARDY attempted to steer BRYANT to Defendants GREENBERG, a friend of Frank Scahill, Esq, a partner at Defendant P&S. See EXHIBIT “7”. 6 of 253 FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 11/22/2023 06:28 PM INDEX NO. 609083/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 331 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/29/2023 32. On October 26, 2016 Defendants P&S and HARDY were informed BRYANT could not afford another lawyer, challenged the nature of the conflict and that Defendants P&S and HARDY should draft the agreement. See EXHIBIT “8”. 33. Upon information and belief, at all times herein mentioned, on around or about December 16, 2016, the plaintiff, BEDARD, in the Underlying Action moved to disqualify the Defendants P&S and HARDY for a conflict of interest. 34. Defendants P&S and HARDY did not withdraw voluntarily and in opposing the motion to disqualify Defendants HARDY and P&S mismanaged the conflict and violated their obligations to BRYANT using deceit and/or collusion to advance their interests and to the harm of BRYANT. 7 of 253 FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 11/22/2023 06:28 PM INDEX NO. 609083/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 331 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/29/2023 35. Defendants P&S and HARDY went so far as to allow Defendant GEICO’s attorneys to edit the motion to set aside including the portion of the motion dedicated to disqualifying the firm. See EXHIBIT “9”. 8 of 253 FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 11/22/2023 06:28 PM INDEX NO. 609083/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 331 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/29/2023 36. That on January 12, 2017 oral argument was had in front of Judge Capeotola whereat the Judge warned Defendants P&S and HARDY that the motion to disqualify the firm had merit and the firm should voluntarily withdraw. 37. Defendants P&S and HARDY after consulting Defendant GEICO decided to not withdraw. 38. On January 26, 2017, Defendant GEICO also decided that Defendants P&S and HARDY should remain as counsel. 39. Thereafter, on January 26, 2017 Defendant HARDY reached out to Lois Profeta and told her to “please contact me.” See EXHIBIT “10”. 40. Upon information and belief, at all times herein mentioned, on around or about January 26, 2017, after oral argument and with knowledge that the Court was likely to disqualify the law firm Defendant P&S on the basis of conflict of interest, the attorney Defendants P&S and HARDY and/or others at Defendant P&S continued to discuss and advise and persuade BRYANT through her mother Lois Profeta on a particular course of action not in her best interests. 41. That on January 29, 2017, Defendants P&S and HARDY warned BRYANT and her mother Lois Profeta that BRYANT “was at risk” and needed independent counsel. See EXHIBIT “10”. 9 of 253 FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 11/22/2023 06:28 PM INDEX NO. 609083/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 331 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/29/2023 42. That on January 29, 2017 Defendant HARDY informed Lois Profeta he would get attorney recommendations from the local Bar Association. See EXHIBIT “10”. 43. That on January 30, 2017 Defendants P&S and HARDY instead of getting names of independent attorneys from the Bar association, instead again recommended BRYANT use Defendants GREENBERG. See EXHIBIT “11”. 44. That on January 31, 2017, based on Defendant HARDY’S recommendation BRYANT agreed to use Defendants GREENBERG. 45. That on January 31, 2017 BRYANT agreed to use Defendants GREENBERG with the understanding she would not be paying for him. 46. That part of the scheme involved persuading BRYANT to use their counsel of choice by letting her know she would not need to pay for that counsel. 47. Upon information and belief, at all times herein mentioned, the attorney Defendant HARDY, Frank Scahill and/or another attorney at Defendant P&S had repeated and 10 of 253 FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 11/22/2023 06:28 PM INDEX NO. 609083/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 331 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/29/2023 ongoing discussions with the Defendant named herein, NEIL H. GREENBERG, ESQ., concerning the Underlying Action while still representing BRYANT. 48. Upon information and belief, at all times herein mentioned, in January 2017 Defendants P&S and/or HARDY discussed the Underlying Matter with the Defendants GREENBERG including matters upon which they were conflicted; including on or around January 31, 2017. See EXHIBIT “11”. 49. Upon information and belief, at all times herein mentioned, notwithstanding the fact that Defendants GREENBERG were supposed to be rendering individual advice and confidential counsel while representing BRYANT, there were additional conversations between the Defendants P&S and/or HARDY and Defendants GREENBERG wherein they discussed the Underlying Action with the including matters upon which they were conflicted and/or in furtherance of the scheme; including but not limited to February 2017, March 2017, and April 2017. 50. Upon information and belief, at all times herein mentioned, that the pre-existing relationship of Defendant NEIL H. GREENBERG, ESQ. and FRANK SCAHILL, ESQ., who is a partner of the law firm P&S, created a conflict of interest for Defendants GREENBERG in representing BRYANT. 51. Upon information and belief, at all times herein mentioned, the nature of the discussions with persons from Defendants P&S and/or HARDY created a conflict of interest for Defendants GREENBERG in representing BRYANT. 11 of 253 FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 11/22/2023 06:28 PM INDEX NO. 609083/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 331 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/29/2023 52. Upon information and belief, at all times herein mentioned, any advice, counsel, plan of action discussed or agreed to compromised the independent nature of Defendants GREENBERG’s representation of BRYANT. 53. Upon information and belief, at all times herein mentioned, the nature of the discussions with persons from Defendants P&S and/or HARDY and/or GEICO created a conflict of interest for Defendants GREENBERG in representing BRYANT when payment to GREENBERG by GEICO or from other sources besides BRYANT herself or her mother was discussed and/or agreed upon. 54. Upon information and belief, at all times herein mentioned, that Defendants GREENBERG and attorneys from Defendants P&S and/or HARDY and/or GEICO did coordinate to have BRYANT file bankruptcy in furtherance of the interests of Defendants P&S and/or HARDY with either indifference to BRYANT's interests and/or against and/or in direct conflict with those interests. 55. That the purpose of the scheme against the clients’ interests and in the interest of Defendants P&S and/or HARDY was to protect the firm from a malpractice claim. 56. That the purpose of the scheme against the clients’ interests and in the interest of Defendants P&S and/or HARDY was to protect Defendant GEICO from the consequences of their own malfeasance. 57. Upon information and belief, at all times herein mentioned, that Defendants GREENBERG and attorneys from Defendants P&S and/or HARDY and/or GEICO did coordinate, or knowingly consent, to have BRYANT file bankruptcy in furtherance of the interests of the 12 of 253 FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 11/22/2023 06:28 PM INDEX NO. 609083/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 331 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/29/2023 insurance carrier Defendant GEICO with either indifference to BRYANT's interests and/or against and/or in direct conflict with those interests. 58. That the purpose of the scheme against the client’s interests and in the interest of Defendant GEICO was to protect the carrier from a bad faith claim over the excess verdict that was rendered as a result of its carelessness, recklessness, willful, wonton and intentional disregard of BRYANTS interests. 59. Upon information and belief, at all times herein mentioned, that Defendants GREENBERG and attorneys from Defendants P&S and/or HARDY and/or GEICO did coordinate to have BRYANT file bankruptcy in furtherance of the interests of Defendants GREENBERG with either indifference to BRYANT's interests and/or against and/or in direct conflict with those interests. 60. That the purpose of the scheme against the client’s interests and in the interest of Defendants GREENBERG was to get paid an excessive amount of money to come to a forgone conclusion. 61. That all Defendants herein failed in their legal, fiduciary, contractual, and/or ethical obligations to BRYANT 62. That all Defendants herein failed in their legal, fiduciary, contractual, and/or ethical obligations to BRYANT and colluded, deceived and or consented to same in their own interests against BRYANTS interests. 63. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, in, around, or about February 22, 2017, the Defendants GREENBERG met with BRYANT and her mother Lois Profeta for approximately thirty (30) minutes. See EXHIBIT “12”. 13 of 253 FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 11/22/2023 06:28 PM INDEX NO. 609083/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 331 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/29/2023 64. That at that meeting Defendants GREENBERG had an ethical, legal and fiduciary duty to provide independent counsel to BRYANT and her mother Lois Profeta irrespective of the needs or interests of others, including himself. 65. Upon information and belief, at all times herein mentioned, Defendants GREENBERG were legally obligated by virtue of being licensed attorneys to ethically represent and defend the interests of BRYANT. 66. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, in, around, or about February 22, 2017, the Defendants GREENBERG, advised BRYANT to file for bankruptcy and advised against any other course of action. 67. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, in, around, or about February 22, 2017, the Defendants GREENBERG, advised BRYANT to file for bankruptcy. 68. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, in, around, or about February 22, 2017, the Defendants GREENBERG, advised BRYANT to file for bankruptcy, without considering the offer by BEDARD of a forbearance in exchange for an assignment. 69. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, in, around, or about February 22, 2017, the Defendants GREENBERG, advised BRYANT to file for bankruptcy, without considering the offer by BEDARD of a forbearance in exchange for an assignment after consulting with Defendants P&S and/or HARDY and/or GEICO. 14 of 253 FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 11/22/2023 06:28 PM INDEX NO. 609083/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 331 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/29/2023 70. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, in, around, or about February 22, 2017, the Defendants GREENBERG advised BRYANT to file for bankruptcy, without even reviewing the BRYANT file for the Underlying Action. 71. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, in, around, or about February 22, 2017, the Defendants GREENBERG advised BRYANT to file for bankruptcy, without doing any legal research. 72. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, that all of the above occurred while P&S was still the attorney of record for BRYANT. 73. On February 23, 2017, BRYANT’s mother Lois Profeta emailed Defendants P&S and HARDY to inform them that Defendants GREENBERG had recommended bankruptcy for BRYANT and she would proceed with filing for bankruptcy. See EXHIBIT “13”. 74. On February 28, 2017, Defendants P&S and HARDY were disqualified from handling the BRYANT matter due to a conflict of interest or the appearance thereof by Court Order. See EXHIBIT “14”. 75. On March 1, 2017, Defendants P&S and HARDY both informed Defendant GEICO separately that Defendants GREENBERG had recommended BRYANT file for bankruptcy. See EXHIBIT “15”. 15 of 253 FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 11/22/2023 06:28 PM INDEX NO. 609083/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 331 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/29/2023 76. On March, 1, 2017 Defendants P&S and HARDY sent an email to BRYANT they were disqualified as her attorneys. See EXHIBIT “16”. 77. On March 2, 2017, Lois Profeta emailed GREENBERG expressing uncertainty about bankruptcy versus assigning rights for a forbearance. See EXHIBIT “17”. 16 of 253 FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 11/22/2023 06:28 PM INDEX NO. 609083/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 331 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/29/2023 78. On March 8, 2017, Defendants GREENBERG was formally hired to be counsel for BRYANT to handle the matter. This, despite the fact Defendant GEICO, had already approved and/or retained PILLINGER MILLER & TARALLO to handle the Appeal. 79. By virtue of this retention, upon information and belief, at all times herein mentioned, Defendants GREENBERG were legally obligated by virtue of being licensed attorneys to ethically represent and defend the interests of BRYANT against claims arising from a motor vehicle accident in which she was involved on December 7, 2009 and the consequences therefrom and comply with all applicable laws of New York. 80. On March 8, 2017, Defendants GREENBERG billed for a 1.2 hour conversation with Frank Scahill of Defendant P&S. See EXHIBIT “12”. 17 of 253 FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 11/22/2023 06:28 PM INDEX NO. 609083/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 331 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/29/2023 81. At all times mentioned herein, upon information and belief it was Defendant GREENBERG’s intention to get paid by Defendant GEICO and/or by Defendant P&S and not from BRYANT. 82. On March 9, 2017, Defendants GREENBERG informed Defendants P&S and HARDY he was now the attorney of record. See EXHIBIT “18”. 83. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, the Defendants GREENBERG, failed to negotiate on behalf of BRYANT with the counsel for the plaintiff of the Underlying Action, BEDARD. 84. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, the Defendants GREENBERG, failed to review the entire BRYANT file. 85. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, the Defendants GREENBERG, failed to do relevant and pertinent legal research. 86. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, the Defendants GREENBERG, failed to properly review the Underlying Action for any legal malpractice by Defendants P&S and HARDY. 18 of 253 FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 11/22/2023 06:28 PM INDEX NO. 609083/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 331 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/29/2023 87. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, the Defendants GREENBERG, failed to properly evaluate the Underlying Action for any bad faith claims on behalf of the insurance carrier Defendant GEICO. 88. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, the Defendants GREENBERG, failed to properly consider the ramifications of bankruptcy in comparison to the offer from Plaintiff BEDARD of forbearance and for an assignment of rights. 89. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, the Defendants GREENBERG, failed to perform proper and adequate legal research before advising BRYANT. 90. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, the Defendants GREENBERG, failed to properly consider BRYANT’s interests. 91. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, the Defendants GREENBERG, failed to make proper disclosures to BRYANT and obtain informed consent from BRYANT regarding the full and complete nature of a prior relationship with Defendants P&S and HARDY. 92. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, the Defendants GREENBERG, failed to make proper disclosures to BRYANT and to obtain informed consent from BRYANT prior to any conversations with Defendants P&S and/or HARDY regarding this matter. 93. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, the Defendants GREENBERG, failed to make proper disclosures to BRYANT and to obtain informed consent prior to any conversations with Defendant GEICO regarding this matter. 19 of 253 FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 11/22/2023 06:28 PM INDEX NO. 609083/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 331 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/29/2023 94. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, the Defendants GREENBERG, failed to properly disclose to BRYANT any conflicts regarding handling this matter. 95. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, the Defendants GREENBERG, failed to make proper disclosures to BRYANT and obtain informed consent from BRYANT regarding any conflicts of interest he had. 96. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, the Defendants GREENBERG, did not provide BRYANT with any information whatsoever as to the risks and advantages and alternative courses of action in writing. 97. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, the Defendants GREENBERG did not obtain any written waiver of their conflicts of interest from BRYANT. 98. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, the Defendants P&S and HARDY, did not provide BRYANT with any information whatsoever as to the risks and advantages and alternative courses of action in writing 99. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, the Defendants P&S and HARDY did not obtain any written waiver of their conflicts of interest from BRYANT. 100. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, when the Defendants GREENBERG undertook the consultation of BRYANT relating to the Underlying Action, BRYANT had a viable opportunity to resolve the judgment against her by cooperating 20 of 253 FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 11/22/2023 06:28 PM INDEX NO. 609083/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 331 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/29/2023 with the underlying plaintiff BEDARD to obtain a forbearance in exchange for an assignment of rights. 101. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, when the Defendants GREENBERG undertook the consultation of BRYANT relating to the action, BRYANT had a viable opportunity to resolve the judgment against her by cooperating with the underlying plaintiff BEDARD and opposing counsel to pursue a bad faith claim against her insurance company Defendant GEICO and a malpractice action against her attorneys Defendants P&S. 102. Upon information and belief, given the totality of the circumstances the forbearance was clearly the better choice for BRYANT to achieve her goals at lowest possible cost and burden with the least amount of reputational damage. 103. Upon information and belief, given the totality of the circumstances, convincing BRYANT to reject the forbearance was clearly intended to be in the best interests of Defendant GEICO to prevent Plaintiff BEDARD from being able to collect on the $2 million judgment through bad faith against Defendant GEICO. 104. Upon information and belief, given the totality of the circumstances, convincing BRYANT to reject the forbearance was clearly intended to be in the best interests of Defendant GEICO and thereby Defendants GREENBERG failed to protect BRYANT’s interests. 105. Upon information and belief, given the totality of the circumstances, convincing BRYANT to reject the forbearance was clearly intended to be in the best interests of Defendant P&S and HARDY to prevent Plaintiff BEDARD from being able to collect on the $2 million judgment through legal malpractice against Defendant P&S and HARDY. 21 of 253 FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 11/22/2023 06:28 PM INDEX NO. 609083/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 331 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/29/2023 106. Upon information and belief, given the totality of the circumstances, convincing BRYANT to reject the forbearance was clearly intended to be in the best interests of Defendant P&S and HARDY and thereby Defendants GREENBERG failed to protect BRYANT’s interests. 107. On March 16, 2017, Defendants P&S and HARDY asked Defendant GEICO for an expense allotment to keep a copy of the file for “a possible malpractice case.” See EXHIBIT “19” at p. 18. 108. On or around March 21, 2017, Defendant GREENBERG called GEICO saying he had “Good News”. See EXHIBIT “19” at p. 17. 109. On or about March 23, 2017, Defendants P&S and HARDY informed BRYANT’s mother Lois Profeta they are off the case and Pillinger Miller & Tarallo is their new counsel. 22 of 253 FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 11/22/2023 06:28 PM INDEX NO. 609083/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 331 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/29/2023 Defendants P&S and HARDY also improperly told her to “continue to consult with Neil Greenberg and the bankruptcy attorney.” See EXHIBIT “20”. 110. On March 28, 2017, Defendants GREENBERG informed Defendant GEICO that he “had spoken to f/c [fee counsel] frank scahill” … “did obtain the transcripts” and that “he feels that the best interests of the insured is to file bankruptcy” despite not yet having read the transcripts or having previously reviewed BRYANT’s file. See EXHIBIT “19” p. 15. 23 of 253 FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 11/22/2023 06:28 PM INDEX NO. 609083/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 331 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/29/2023 111. On the same date Defendants GREENBERG additionally noted to Defendant GEICO “once the insured filed for bankruptcy the judgment … will be wiped out once the bankruptcy is granted” and “he would forward his bill to frank for us to pay same.” See EXHIBIT “19” p. 16. 112. On April 7, 2017, Defendants GREENBERG again reiterated that the advised course was for BRYANT to file for bankruptcy in a formal opinion letter. See EXHIBIT “21”. 24 of 253 FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 11/22/2023 06:28 PM INDEX NO. 609083/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 331 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/29/2023 113. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, on, around, and/or before April 7, 2017, the Defendants all failed to counsel the BRYANT in the significance of working with the underlying plaintiff BEDARD, who was then also a Judgment Creditor. 114. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, on or around and before April 7, 2017, the Defendants all guided BRYANT only towards filing for bankruptcy, despite her having no other debts of note besides the judgment and their knowledge there were alternative courses of action that she could take. 115. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, on, around, and/or before April 7, 2017, the Defendants all guided BRYANT only towards filing for bankruptcy against her interests and to her harm and detriment. 116. On April 11, 2017, BRYANT’s mother again reiterated to Defendant GEICO her expectation they will pay for Defendants GREENBERG’s consultation bills. See EXHIBIT “19” at p. 11-12. 25 of 253 FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 11/22/2023 06:28 PM INDEX NO. 609083/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 331 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/29/2023 117. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, that on or around April 14, 2017, Lois Profeta forwarded a bill from Defendants GREENBERG to GEICO for $11,200 with an hourly rate of $550.00/hour and itemized the list of work done. See EXHIBIT “22”. 118. On April 28, 2017, BRYANT filed for bankruptcy under case number 8-17-72593 – reg. 119. On April 28, 2017, BRYANT filed for bankruptcy under case number 8-17-72593 – reg, and the Judgment was the only liability that BRYANT filed bankruptcy to obtain protection from. See EXHIBIT “23”. 120. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, that the purpose of advising said bankruptcy discharge was solely for the purposes of attempting to damage the bad faith and malpractice claims under the guise of evading the judgment from the underlying action against her as well as obtain renumeration for said counsel. 121. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, that that the purpose of advising said bankruptcy discharge was solely for the purposes of attempting to 26 of 253 FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 11/22/2023 06:28 PM INDEX NO. 609083/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 331 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/29/2023 damage the bad faith and malpractice claims under the guise of evading the judgment from the underlying action against her, as well as obtain renumeration for said counsel, without regard to what was in the best interests of BRYANT. 122. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, that on, around or about June 20, 2017, Defendants GREENBERG submitted a bill to GEICO or was already aware they already possessed the bill. See EXHIBIT “22”. 123. That on or prior to June 20, 2017, Defendant GEICO was presented a copy of Defendant GREENBERGs’ bill for services of $11,200.00. 124. That on or prior to June 20, 2017, Defendant GEICO reviewed said bill and had come to the conclusion it was “excessive”. See EXHIBIT “19” p. 7. 125. Said bill included charges for items which included asset protection counseling. 126. Said bill included charges which were inaccurate and incorrect. 127. Said bill was also for a review of the bad faith claims and malpractice claims against Defendants GEICO and P&S respectively. 27 of 253 FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 11/22/2023 06:28 PM INDEX NO. 609083/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 331 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/29/2023 128. Said bill contained charges Defendant GEICO had no legal or contractual obligation to pay. 129. Said bill had an hourly rate that Defendant GEICO had no legal or contractual obligation to pay. 130. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, that on June 20, 2017, Defendants GREENBERG discussed with Defendants GEICO their payment of said bill. 131. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, that on June 20, 2017, Defendant GEICO discussed with Defendants GREENBERG that the hourly rate of $550.00/hour was too high, that the normal hourly rate was $125.00/hour but that Defendant GEICO was willing to pay him $225.00/hour. 132. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, that on June 20, 2017, Defendants GREENBERG in discussions with Defendant GEICO regarding the payment of his bill, which Defendant GEICO found to be “excessive”, balked at being paid less that his full bill; whereupon he detailed the scheme stating: “he was able to convince [his client/GEICO’s insured] to file for bankruptcy and she did so therefore HE is saving our company and f/c frank scahill [Defendants GEICO and P&S] a lot of money in defense of this matter….” See EXHIBIT “19” p. 8. 28 of 253 FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 11/22/2023 06:28 PM INDEX NO. 609083/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 331 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/29/2023 133. That Defendant GEICO and their lawyers on staff knew of and were aware that BRYANT wanted to sign the forbearance and instead was convinced to file for bankruptcy. 134. That Defendant GEICO and their lawyers on staff approved the payment for the counseling that convinced BRYANT to file for bankruptcy and thus consented to said scheme, if not directly participating in said scheme. 135. Upon Information and belief Carl Silber, Esq. an attorney working for Defendant GEICO, approved the payment to Greenberg. See EXHIBIT “19” at p. 7. 136. Upon Information and belief it was also Carl Silber, Esq. an attorney working for Defendant GEICO, that was assigned to handle this matter once a verdict was rendered in the underlying action. 137. Upon Information and belief it was also Carl Silber, Esq. an attorney working for Defendant GEICO, that also edited the motion to disqualify the firm of Defendant P&S. 138. Upon Information and belief other attorneys working for Defendant GEICO, may have also worked on this matter during the pendency of said scheme. 139. As a result of the actions of any attorneys working for Defendant GEICO in furtherance of said scheme or consenting to same in the above noted New York State actions 29 of 253 FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 11/22/2023 06:28 PM INDEX NO. 609083/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 331 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/29/2023 places them under the ethical obligations of this state and thus requires them to abide by the laws of New York governing their conduct in the underlying matters. 140. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, that on about or around June 26, 2017, Defendants GREENBERG was paid in full by Defendant GEICO his bill, without reservations or further objections. See EXHIBIT “24”. 141. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, that on about or around June 26, 2017, Defendants GREENBERG were paid in full by Defendant GEICO directly in part or in whole as a result of his restatement of the scheme to which Defendant GEICO consented with its payment in full. 142. That Defendants GREENBERG accepted said payment in full without reservation or obj