Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/26/2024 04:37 PM INDEX NO. 152758/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 4 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/26/2024
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
--------------------------------------------------------X Index No.
MY GOALS SOLUTIONS, INC. and SERGEY
VOSKIN, MD,
AFFIRMATION IN SUPPORT
Plaintiff,
-against-
VIMEO.COM, INC. d/b/a THE ZEUS
NETWORK,
Defendant.
--------------------------------------------------------X
Joshua M. Lurie, Esq., an attorney duly admitted to practice before the Courts of the State
of New York, hereby affirms under penalty of perjury that the following is true:
1. I am counsel to My Goals Solutions, Inc. and Dr. Voskin, the Plaintiffs in the
present action.
2. As such, I am fully familiar with the facts and circumstances underlying this
proceeding and I submit this affirmation in support of Petitioner’s request for an Order enjoining
the Defendant, Vimeo.com, Inc. d/b/a The Zeus Network, from displaying or broadcasting the
show called “Transforming Rollie” on any forum whatsoever and requiring the removal of any
trailers, or advertisements, regarding same to maintain the status quo.
3. I submit this application for a temporary restraining order in conjunction with the
underlying summons and complaint annexed heretofore Exhibit A and incorporated herein.
FACTS
4. As set forth in the accompanying affirmation by Plaintiff’s principal, the parties
hereto had agreed that Plaintiff would arrange for the surgical procedure for Defendant’s talent,
1
1 of 6
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/26/2024 04:37 PM INDEX NO. 152758/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 4 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/26/2024
Goldie Martin a/k/a Rollie Pollie, at one of Plaintiff’s affiliated medical practices in part of a show
which is now known to be called “Transforming Rollie.”
4. In furtherance of same, Plaintiff advised Defendant that certain mandatory
obligations would need to be met, including that it be provided with an opportunity to review any
footage filmed at its affiliated location in Atlanta, Georgia, to ensure that no other patients are
inadvertently recorded or on footage to protect their privacy rights under HIPAA.
5. Plaintiff also made abundantly clear to Defendant’s agents that it had no desire to
be a part of the stereotypical “reality television show” where conflict is created, and proverbial
good guys and bad guys are created. Indeed, Plaintiffs also made abundantly clear that it did not
want Defendant to use the television production to harm, defame, malign or cause harm to
Plaintiffs or their affiliates.
6. The first surgical procedure that was relevant to the underlying agreement occurred
on March 15, 2024 at Plaintiff My Goals’ affiliated medical practice located in Atlanta, Georgia.
7. The procedure was without issue.
8. Thereafter, and as part of the continuing agreements, a second procedure was
performed at Plaintiff My Goals’ affiliated medical practice in Los Angeles, California on July 20,
2023.
9. In contrast to the first procedure, the second (while successful and had no issues)
did not result in Ms. Martin acting appropriately.
10. Subsequent to the surgery, the talent, Ms. Martin, became irate, insulting,
threatening, and caused a scene in the practice.
11. Ms. Martin threatened harm to Plaintiffs in various manners.
12. Thereafter, and for several months, Ms. Martin, in an effort to cause harm to
2
2 of 6
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/26/2024 04:37 PM INDEX NO. 152758/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 4 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/26/2024
Plaintiffs, made several harassing and defamatory statements against Plaintiffs.
13. Eventually, after falsely accusing Plaintiffs of killing people, Plaintiffs herein were
constrained to file arbitration (pursuant to the agreement between Plaintiff My Goals and Ms.
Martin) to address her conduct. Ms. Martin was served with a copy of the arbitration demand on
March 16, 2024.
14. On Sunday, March 24, 2024, Plaintiff My Goals received a notice on social media
that it had been “tagged” in a post from Defendant’s social media profile regarding the forthcoming
show about Ms. Martin, now known as “Transforming Rollie.”
15. Upon review of the promotional trailer, Plaintiffs became incredibly concerned
about the focus. While much of it was positive, towards the end of the video, it shows footage of
Ms. Martin threatening Plaintiffs. Indeed, it is clearly heard on video Ms. Martin stating that
Plaintiffs are “unprofessional as f*ck” before continuing with threats to Plaintiff in saying “b*tch,
I’ll make you lose this whole mother*cking building, bitch.”
16. At another scene in the video, it appears to show others in the public areas of the
medical practice, and these may be other patients.
17. Considering the erratic behavior of Ms. Martin, and that such was shown fully on
this trailer in such a way that it defames and maligns Plaintiffs and also threatens them, Plaintiff
became increasingly concerned.
18. On March 25, 2024, Plaintiffs sent a cease-and-desist notice to Vimeo.com’s legal
department with a demand to retract and permit Plaintiffs to review the footage to ensure that same
does not parrot and republish the defamation of Ms. Martin or otherwise convert this show in such
a way to be used to harass, malign, or defame Plaintiffs.
19. On March 26, 2024, the undersigned further attempted to contact Defendant’s
3
3 of 6
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/26/2024 04:37 PM INDEX NO. 152758/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 4 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/26/2024
agents directly involved in the show to advise that, for the time being, Plaintiffs had revoked their
license to use their name and likeness as well as their registered trademarks, until such time as this
issue could be resolved.
20. Defendants have not responded to the cease-and-desist notice in the time specified
nor the notice of revocation.
21. Without further recourse, Plaintiffs are constrained to file the within action to enjoin
the Defendant for broadcasting the show until such time as it can be confirmed that Plaintiffs will
not be maligned.
22. Further, and as highly relevant, Plaintiffs were not aware at the time of the contract
that “The Zeus Network” was a subsidiary or property of Defendant and that the Plaintiffs were
subject to misrepresentations by the representatives of Defendants that they were entered into
agreements with Zeus Network and not Vimeo. Thus, the agreements between the parties were
predicated upon fraudulent inducement and not enforceable.
ANALYSIS
22. The instant order moved for herein falls under the standard of temporary restraining
order and preliminary injunction.
23. A preliminary injunction being used as a provisional remedy designated to maintain
the status quo between parties until litigation is concluded, so as to prevent the defendant from
violating the Plaintiff’s rights with respect to the subject of the underlying action. (See CPLR §
6301; Uniformed Firefighters Association v. New York, 79 NY2d 236, 581 NYS2d 734, 590 NE2d
719 (1992)).
4
4 of 6
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/26/2024 04:37 PM INDEX NO. 152758/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 4 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/26/2024
24. For a preliminary injunction to be granted, it is required that a prima facie showing
of the Plaintiff’s likelihood of success be made. (Tucker v. Toia, 54 AD2d 322, 326, 388 NYS2d
475, 478 (4th Dept 1976))
25. Plaintiff has made a prima facie showing of loss and harm due to the actions of the
Defendant and that the Defendant is likely to continue to hurt Plaintiffs’ interests.
26. Defendants have, by wrongful conduct, failed to comply with their agreements to
allow Plaintiffs to review all footage before any displays of same to ensure that no other patients
are visible on film.
27. Defendants also misrepresented the intent of the show and, based upon the conduct
of Ms. Martin and evident on the television trailer, it appears that this will be used as a vehicle to
continue Ms. Martin’s pervasive pattern of harassment and defamation which has resulted in
arbitration being filed against her and still pending.
28. Thus, it is respectfully submitted that the likelihood of success burden imposed by
the judiciary of New York is met and the Plaintiff is entitled to the relief sought.
29. Further, the granting of a preliminary injunction is also contained in Plaintiff’s
ability to show irreparable harm and unbalanced equities if the preliminary injunction is not
granted. Using these standards, the court may grant a preliminary injunction even if there were to
be a factual dispute on the matter as long as the injunction is necessary to maintain the status quo
and the party to be enjoined will suffer no great hardship as a result. (Melvin v. Union College,
195 AD2d 447, 447, 600 NYS2d 141, 142 (2d Dept 1993).
30. The Plaintiff is in imminent danger of further its reputation and extensive monetary
damages as a result of Defendant’s conduct to which cannot be calculated. As to the reputation of
5
5 of 6
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/26/2024 04:37 PM INDEX NO. 152758/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 4 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/26/2024
Plaintiffs if Ms. Martin is provided an international forum to defame and malign Plaintiffs, money
damages alone would not be able to replace such conduct.
31. The harm is real and present, not imagined. The threat of Defendant causing
Plaintiffs to violate HIPAA or provide a forum for Ms. Martin to continue her campaign of
misinformation and defamation is real. Thus, an injunction would be Plaintiff’s only option to
preserve the status quo.
32. Further, as the name and likeness, as well as trademark rights, have been revoked,
the use of same by Defendant would trigger federal claims and also claims under the New York
Civil Rights laws which could be removed by an injunction until such time as Plaintiffs are
provided with their promised opportunity to review all footage prior to
33. Similarly, it is respectfully submitted that any money damages would not change
the conduct of Defendant. Per public records, as a publicly traded company, Vimeo.com is worth
approximately 913 Million Dollars. Thus, payment of money damages would simply be a drop in
the pan for them while the entire time causing extensive harm to Plaintiffs which would be
irreparable.
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully submitted that in this affirmation and the annexed
affidavit of the Plaintiff’s principal, Dr. Sergey Voskin, provide sufficient facts that have been set
forth for this court to enjoin the Defendant from continuing this conduct.
Dated: March 26, 2024
Hackensack, New Jersey
LURIE | STRUPINSKY, LLP.
Attorneys for Plaintiff
By:
JOSHUA M. LURIE, ESQ.
6
6 of 6
Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/26/2024 04:37 PM INDEX NO. 152758/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 4 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/26/2024 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------X Index No. MY GOALS SOLUTIONS, INC. and SERGEY VOSKIN, MD, AFFIRMATION IN SUPPORT Plaintiff, -against- VIMEO.COM, INC. d/b/a THE ZEUS NETWORK, Defendant. --------------------------------------------------------X Joshua M. Lurie, Esq., an attorney duly admitted to practice before the Courts of the State of New York, hereby affirms under penalty of perjury that the following is true: 1. I am counsel to My Goals Solutions, Inc. and Dr. Voskin, the Plaintiffs in the present action. 2. As such, I am fully familiar with the facts and circumstances underlying this proceeding and I submit this affirmation in support of Petitioner’s request for an Order enjoining the Defendant, Vimeo.com, Inc. d/b/a The Zeus Network, from displaying or broadcasting the show called “Transforming Rollie” on any forum whatsoever and requiring the removal of any trailers, or advertisements, regarding same to maintain the status quo. 3. I submit this application for a temporary restraining order in conjunction with the underlying summons and complaint annexed heretofore Exhibit A and incorporated herein. FACTS 4. As set forth in the accompanying affirmation by Plaintiff’s principal, the parties hereto had agreed that Plaintiff would arrange for the surgical procedure for Defendant’s talent, 1 1 of 6 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/26/2024 04:37 PM INDEX NO. 152758/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 4 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/26/2024 Goldie Martin a/k/a Rollie Pollie, at one of Plaintiff’s affiliated medical practices in part of a show which is now known to be called “Transforming Rollie.” 4. In furtherance of same, Plaintiff advised Defendant that certain mandatory obligations would need to be met, including that it be provided with an opportunity to review any footage filmed at its affiliated location in Atlanta, Georgia, to ensure that no other patients are inadvertently recorded or on footage to protect their privacy rights under HIPAA. 5. Plaintiff also made abundantly clear to Defendant’s agents that it had no desire to be a part of the stereotypical “reality television show” where conflict is created, and proverbial good guys and bad guys are created. Indeed, Plaintiffs also made abundantly clear that it did not want Defendant to use the television production to harm, defame, malign or cause harm to Plaintiffs or their affiliates. 6. The first surgical procedure that was relevant to the underlying agreement occurred on March 15, 2024 at Plaintiff My Goals’ affiliated medical practice located in Atlanta, Georgia. 7. The procedure was without issue. 8. Thereafter, and as part of the continuing agreements, a second procedure was performed at Plaintiff My Goals’ affiliated medical practice in Los Angeles, California on July 20, 2023. 9. In contrast to the first procedure, the second (while successful and had no issues) did not result in Ms. Martin acting appropriately. 10. Subsequent to the surgery, the talent, Ms. Martin, became irate, insulting, threatening, and caused a scene in the practice. 11. Ms. Martin threatened harm to Plaintiffs in various manners. 12. Thereafter, and for several months, Ms. Martin, in an effort to cause harm to 2 2 of 6 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/26/2024 04:37 PM INDEX NO. 152758/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 4 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/26/2024 Plaintiffs, made several harassing and defamatory statements against Plaintiffs. 13. Eventually, after falsely accusing Plaintiffs of killing people, Plaintiffs herein were constrained to file arbitration (pursuant to the agreement between Plaintiff My Goals and Ms. Martin) to address her conduct. Ms. Martin was served with a copy of the arbitration demand on March 16, 2024. 14. On Sunday, March 24, 2024, Plaintiff My Goals received a notice on social media that it had been “tagged” in a post from Defendant’s social media profile regarding the forthcoming show about Ms. Martin, now known as “Transforming Rollie.” 15. Upon review of the promotional trailer, Plaintiffs became incredibly concerned about the focus. While much of it was positive, towards the end of the video, it shows footage of Ms. Martin threatening Plaintiffs. Indeed, it is clearly heard on video Ms. Martin stating that Plaintiffs are “unprofessional as f*ck” before continuing with threats to Plaintiff in saying “b*tch, I’ll make you lose this whole mother*cking building, bitch.” 16. At another scene in the video, it appears to show others in the public areas of the medical practice, and these may be other patients. 17. Considering the erratic behavior of Ms. Martin, and that such was shown fully on this trailer in such a way that it defames and maligns Plaintiffs and also threatens them, Plaintiff became increasingly concerned. 18. On March 25, 2024, Plaintiffs sent a cease-and-desist notice to Vimeo.com’s legal department with a demand to retract and permit Plaintiffs to review the footage to ensure that same does not parrot and republish the defamation of Ms. Martin or otherwise convert this show in such a way to be used to harass, malign, or defame Plaintiffs. 19. On March 26, 2024, the undersigned further attempted to contact Defendant’s 3 3 of 6 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/26/2024 04:37 PM INDEX NO. 152758/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 4 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/26/2024 agents directly involved in the show to advise that, for the time being, Plaintiffs had revoked their license to use their name and likeness as well as their registered trademarks, until such time as this issue could be resolved. 20. Defendants have not responded to the cease-and-desist notice in the time specified nor the notice of revocation. 21. Without further recourse, Plaintiffs are constrained to file the within action to enjoin the Defendant for broadcasting the show until such time as it can be confirmed that Plaintiffs will not be maligned. 22. Further, and as highly relevant, Plaintiffs were not aware at the time of the contract that “The Zeus Network” was a subsidiary or property of Defendant and that the Plaintiffs were subject to misrepresentations by the representatives of Defendants that they were entered into agreements with Zeus Network and not Vimeo. Thus, the agreements between the parties were predicated upon fraudulent inducement and not enforceable. ANALYSIS 22. The instant order moved for herein falls under the standard of temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. 23. A preliminary injunction being used as a provisional remedy designated to maintain the status quo between parties until litigation is concluded, so as to prevent the defendant from violating the Plaintiff’s rights with respect to the subject of the underlying action. (See CPLR § 6301; Uniformed Firefighters Association v. New York, 79 NY2d 236, 581 NYS2d 734, 590 NE2d 719 (1992)). 4 4 of 6 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/26/2024 04:37 PM INDEX NO. 152758/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 4 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/26/2024 24. For a preliminary injunction to be granted, it is required that a prima facie showing of the Plaintiff’s likelihood of success be made. (Tucker v. Toia, 54 AD2d 322, 326, 388 NYS2d 475, 478 (4th Dept 1976)) 25. Plaintiff has made a prima facie showing of loss and harm due to the actions of the Defendant and that the Defendant is likely to continue to hurt Plaintiffs’ interests. 26. Defendants have, by wrongful conduct, failed to comply with their agreements to allow Plaintiffs to review all footage before any displays of same to ensure that no other patients are visible on film. 27. Defendants also misrepresented the intent of the show and, based upon the conduct of Ms. Martin and evident on the television trailer, it appears that this will be used as a vehicle to continue Ms. Martin’s pervasive pattern of harassment and defamation which has resulted in arbitration being filed against her and still pending. 28. Thus, it is respectfully submitted that the likelihood of success burden imposed by the judiciary of New York is met and the Plaintiff is entitled to the relief sought. 29. Further, the granting of a preliminary injunction is also contained in Plaintiff’s ability to show irreparable harm and unbalanced equities if the preliminary injunction is not granted. Using these standards, the court may grant a preliminary injunction even if there were to be a factual dispute on the matter as long as the injunction is necessary to maintain the status quo and the party to be enjoined will suffer no great hardship as a result. (Melvin v. Union College, 195 AD2d 447, 447, 600 NYS2d 141, 142 (2d Dept 1993). 30. The Plaintiff is in imminent danger of further its reputation and extensive monetary damages as a result of Defendant’s conduct to which cannot be calculated. As to the reputation of 5 5 of 6 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/26/2024 04:37 PM INDEX NO. 152758/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 4 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/26/2024 Plaintiffs if Ms. Martin is provided an international forum to defame and malign Plaintiffs, money damages alone would not be able to replace such conduct. 31. The harm is real and present, not imagined. The threat of Defendant causing Plaintiffs to violate HIPAA or provide a forum for Ms. Martin to continue her campaign of misinformation and defamation is real. Thus, an injunction would be Plaintiff’s only option to preserve the status quo. 32. Further, as the name and likeness, as well as trademark rights, have been revoked, the use of same by Defendant would trigger federal claims and also claims under the New York Civil Rights laws which could be removed by an injunction until such time as Plaintiffs are provided with their promised opportunity to review all footage prior to 33. Similarly, it is respectfully submitted that any money damages would not change the conduct of Defendant. Per public records, as a publicly traded company, Vimeo.com is worth approximately 913 Million Dollars. Thus, payment of money damages would simply be a drop in the pan for them while the entire time causing extensive harm to Plaintiffs which would be irreparable. WHEREFORE, it is respectfully submitted that in this affirmation and the annexed affidavit of the Plaintiff’s principal, Dr. Sergey Voskin, provide sufficient facts that have been set forth for this court to enjoin the Defendant from continuing this conduct. Dated: March 26, 2024 Hackensack, New Jersey LURIE | STRUPINSKY, LLP. Attorneys for Plaintiff By: JOSHUA M. LURIE, ESQ. 6 6 of 6