Preview
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 04/01/2024 12:04 PM INDEX NO. 706916/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/01/2024
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF QUEENS
ERIC KEARSLEY and Index No.:
MARKWESE LAWSON, Date Purchased:
Plaintiffs, SUMMONS
-against- Plaintiff designates Queens County as
the Place of Trial
JOHN NACCARATO and
NACCARATO LAW FIRM, PC, The basis of venue is Plaintiffs’
Residence and location where
Defendants. Defendants committed malpractice.
TO THE ABOVE-NAMED DEFENDANTS:
YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED to appear in the Supreme Court of the State of New
York, County of Queens, New York, within the time provided by law as noted below to file your
answer to the annexed Verified Complaint with the Clerk; upon your failure to answer, judgment
will be taken against you in the amount demanded in the complaint, or in an amount to be
determined later, with interest thereon from the filing of this suit, together with the costs of this
action.
Dated: March 27, 2024 ________________________
Islip, New York Ariel Aminov, Esq.
PANETTA AMINOV, PC
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
670 Main Street
Islip, NY 11751
Tel.: (631) 446-4411
File No.: 03/05/2017
TO: John Naccarato Naccarato Law Firm, PC
14 Wall Street, 20th Floor 14 Wall Street, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10005 New York, NY 10005
AND AND
22-10 80th Street 22-10 80th Street
E. Elmhurst, NY 11370 E. Elmhurst, NY 11370
NOTE: The law provides that: (a) If this summons is served by its delivery to you personally within
the City of New York, you must appear and answer within TWENTY days after such service; or
(b) If this summons is served by delivery to any person other than you personally, or is served
outside the City of New York, you are allowed THIRTY days after proof of service is filed with
the Clerk of this Court within which to appear and answer.
PLEASE IMMEDIATELY TRANSMIT THIS DOCUMENT TO YOUR INSURANCE
COMPANY. YOUR FAILURE TO DO SO MAY RESULT IN YOUR PERSONAL LIABILITY
FOR ANY JUDGMENT.
1 of 17
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 04/01/2024 12:04 PM INDEX NO. 706916/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/01/2024
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF QUEENS
ERIC KEARSLEY and Index No.:
MARKWESE LAWSON,
Plaintiffs, VERIFIED COMPLAINT
-against-
JOHN NACCARATO and
NACCARATO LAW FIRM, PC,
Defendants.
Plaintiffs, by their attorneys, PANETTA AMINOV, PC, complaining of the Defendants,
respectfully allege, upon information and belief:
THE PARTIES
1. At all times herein mentioned, Plaintiff ERIC KEARSLEY was, and remains, a resident of
the County of Queens, State of New York.
2. At all times herein mentioned, Plaintiff MARKWESE LAWSON was, and remains, a
resident of the County of Queens, State of New York.
3. Upon information and belief, on March 15, 1995, Defendant JOHN NACCARATO was
admitted to practice law in the State of New York, as is indicated on the New York Unified
Court System. Exhibit 1.
4. Upon information and belief, Defendant JOHN NACCARATO practiced law by, and
through, the corporate co-Defendant NACCARATO LAW FIRM, PC, at 14 Wall Street,
20th Floor, New York, NY 10005. Exhibit 1.
5. At all times herein mentioned, Defendant JOHN NACCARATO maintained an office for
the purpose of practicing law at 14 Wall Street, 20th Floor, New York, NY 10005.
2 of 17
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 04/01/2024 12:04 PM INDEX NO. 706916/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/01/2024
6. At all times herein mentioned, Defendant JOHN NACCARATO practiced law from 14
Wall Street, 20th Floor, New York, NY 10005, notwithstanding his suspension.
7. At all times herein mentioned, Defendant NACCARATO LAW FIRM, PC, was, and
remains, a domestic professional service corporation formed to practice law in the State of
New York.
8. At all times herein mentioned, Defendant NACCARATO LAW FIRM, PC, maintained an
office for the purpose of practicing law at 14 Wall Street, 20th Floor, New York, NY 10005.
9. At all times herein mentioned, Defendant JOHN NACCARATO was, and remains, a
principal of Defendant NACCARATO LAW FIRM, PC.
The 2018 Action
10. Upon information and belief, sometime in March 2017, Plaintiffs contracted, retained and
employed the services of Defendants to represent them for injuries Plaintiffs sustained in a
motor vehicle accident which occurred on March 5, 2017.
11. Upon information and belief, at all times herein mentioned, Defendants, for good and
valuable consideration, undertook and endeavored to, and did, advise and represent
Plaintiffs professionally.
12. By virtue of being retained by Plaintiffs, Defendants became Plaintiffs’ counsel.
13. By virtue of being retained by Plaintiffs, Defendants agreed to represent Plaintiffs.
14. By virtue of being retained by Plaintiffs, an attorney-client relationship was created
between Defendants as attorneys and Plaintiffs as clients.
15. However, unbeknownst to Plaintiffs, Defendant JOHN NACCARATO was suspended
from the practice of law on January 30, 2017, prior to being retained by Plaintiffs in March
2017. Exhibit 1. The suspension ended on November 2, 2017.
3 of 17
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 04/01/2024 12:04 PM INDEX NO. 706916/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/01/2024
16. On the date of retention, Defendant JOHN NACCARATO did not disclose that he was
suspended from practicing law in New York. In fact, Defendants never informed Plaintiffs
of the 2017 suspension. Exhibit 1.
17. Upon information and belief, at all times herein mentioned, Defendant JOHN
NACCARATO was, and remains, suspended from practicing law in the State of New York.
18. Upon information and belief, at all times herein mentioned, Defendant JOHN
NACCARATO represented himself to be an attorney duly licensed to practice law in the
State of New York.
19. On September 6, 2018, Defendants filed on NYSCEF a Summons and Complaint in
Queens County Supreme Court titled ERIC KEARSLEY and MARKWESE LAWSON v.
DARLIN GONZALEZ CAPELLAN, LANAERENISE WITTER and LATOYA POPE
ROSS, index number 713747/2018. Exhibit 2, NYSCEF Doc. 1. (“2018 Action”
hereinafter.)
20. It is unclear whether defendants in the 2018 Action were ever served; certainly no affidavits
of service were ever filed on NYSCEF.
21. On October 24, 2019, defendants Witter and Ross e-filed their answer with cross claims,
as well as various discovery responses. Exhibit 3, NYSCEF Doc. 2. Witter and Ross
claimed various affirmative defenses, including lack of personal jurisdiction due to lack of
service or improper service. Exhibit 3, NYSCEF Doc. 2.
22. On December 2, 2019, defendants Witter and Ross served a “good faith” letter upon
Defendants NACCARATO, reminding them that discovery is outstanding. Exhibit 4,
NYSCEF Doc. 12.
4 of 17
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 04/01/2024 12:04 PM INDEX NO. 706916/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/01/2024
23. Upon information and belief, Defendants NACCARATO failed to respond to the
December 9, 2019, “good faith” letter.
24. On January 14, 2020, defendants Witter and Ross filed a request for a preliminary
conference, which resulted in the February 11, 2020, preliminary conference and order.
Exhibit 5, NYSCEF Doc. 7. The order indicates that no one from the NACCARATO
Defendants appeared at this preliminary conference. The preliminary conference order
required that the NACCARATO Defendants provide discovery responses no later than
March 11, 2020.
25. Upon information and belief, Defendants NACCARATO failed to comply with the
preliminary conference order.
26. On May 27, 2020, defendants Witter and Ross filed a motion to compel the NACCARATO
Defendants to provide discovery responses or have the case dismissed. Exhibit 6, NYSCEF
Doc. 8. In support of the motion, Witter and Ross submitted the following: the December
9, 2019, “good faith letter” (Exhibit 4, NYSCEF Doc. 12), a February 17, 2020, “good faith
letter” (Exhibit 7, NYSCEF Doc. 14), a March 16, 2020, “good faith letter”, Exhibit 8,
NYSCEF Doc. 15), as well as post-EBT demands (Exhibit 9, NYSCEF Doc. 16). (Upon
information and belief, the reference to “post-EBT” is erroneous because no depositions
were ever held.)
27. Upon information and belief, Defendants failed to respond to the “good faith” letters and
failed to oppose the motion.
28. On August 17, 2020, the Hon. Richard G. Latin, JSC, issued an Order directing the
NACCARATO Defendants to provide discovery responses on or before September 18,
5 of 17
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 04/01/2024 12:04 PM INDEX NO. 706916/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/01/2024
2020. Exhibit 10, NYSCEF Doc. 19. Witter and Ross served the Order with Notice of
Entry on Defendants NACCARATO on August 19, 2020. Exhibit 11, NYSCEF Doc. 18.
29. Upon information and belief, Defendants NACCARATO failed to comply with the Order
of August 17, 2020.
30. As a result of the ongoing failures of Defendants NACCARATO, Witter and Ross filed
another motion to dismiss or compel discovery on October 5, 2020. Exhibit 12, NYSCEF
Doc. 20. On December 4, 2020, Hon. Richard G. Latin, JSC, issued a Decision and Order
dismissing the case unless Defendants NACCARATO provide discovery responses on or
before February 1, 2021. Exhibit 13, NYSCEF Doc. 29. Witter and Ross served the Order
with Notice of Entry on December 7, 2020. Exhibit 14, NYSCEF Doc. 30.
31. Upon information and belief, Defendants again failed to oppose the motion.
32. On May 12, 2021, Hon. Mojgan C. Lancman, JSC, dismissed the case. Exhibit 15,
NYSCEF Doc. 35. Witter and Ross served the Order with Notice of Entry on December
May 18, 2021. Exhibit 16, NYSCEF Doc. 36.
33. At all times herein mentioned, Plaintiffs were available by phone, by mail, and/or other
means, and were ready, willing, and able to participate and cooperate in the 2018 Action
and to come to court at any time Defendants would have requested.
34. As a result of the foregoing, Plaintiffs were caused monetary, physical and emotional
damages, including the loss of compensation from the 2018 Action.
35. Defendants’ failures to provide the contracted-for services caused Plaintiffs damages,
which in this case exceed the jurisdiction of all lower courts.
6 of 17
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 04/01/2024 12:04 PM INDEX NO. 706916/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/01/2024
AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS FOR
LEGAL MALPRACTICE
36. Plaintiffs repeat, reiterate and reallege each and every allegation contained in the above
number paragraphs of this Complaint, as though more fully set forth herein.
37. At all times herein mentioned, as a result of the attorney-client relationship created by the
above conduct, Defendants had a duty to represent Plaintiffs with the reasonable care, skill,
and diligence possessed and exercised by an ordinary attorney in similar circumstances.
38. Upon information and belief, at some point following Defendants’ commitment to pursue
the “2018 Action”, Defendants failed to perform their obligations as counsel, including but
not limited to, serving the summons and complaint, filing affidavits of service, moving for
a default judgment against Darlin Gonzalez Capellan, gathering medical records,
exchanging discovery, conducting depositions, communicating with defense counsel,
appearing in court on Plaintiffs’ behalf and communicating with Plaintiffs, informing
Plaintiffs of Defendants acts, omissions and malfeasance, and informing Plaintiffs of
Defendants licensure status from representation through the present time.
39. At all times herein mentioned, because of Defendants’ failures to perform said obligations,
the 2018 Action was dismissed after the defendants therein filed two motions to dismiss
that went unopposed.
40. At all times herein mentioned, as a result of the aforementioned dismissal, Defendants had
the obligation to provide notice to Plaintiffs as to their options and any potential curative
actions that could be taken.
41. At all times herein mentioned, Defendants had an ongoing obligation to Plaintiffs to take
curative actions to remedy the decisions of the court, including the dismissal.
7 of 17
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 04/01/2024 12:04 PM INDEX NO. 706916/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/01/2024
42. At all times herein mentioned, by not pursuing curative actions such as exchanging
discovery, filing notices of appeal, a stay, a motion and/or other available remedies at law,
Defendants breached their duty owed to Plaintiffs to exercise reasonable care, skill, and
diligence commonly possessed by a member of the legal profession.
43. At all times herein mentioned, as a result of Defendants negligent failures to communicate,
appear, respond, produce and/or restore the matter after their non-appearance and other
failures, Plaintiffs sustained injury and loss – specifically, Plaintiffs’ injuries include the
loss of a verdict, settlement, or award, and the interest that Plaintiffs would have recovered
but for Defendants’ breach of duty.
44. At all times herein mentioned, the damage sustained by Plaintiffs was proximately caused
by Defendants breach of duty as set forth above.
45. At all times herein mentioned, Defendants failed to inform Plaintiffs of all available
options, by certified mail, email, phone, or by any and all other means available.
46. At all times herein mentioned, Plaintiffs committed no acts of negligence that contributed
to their damages.
47. At all times herein mentioned, that but for Defendants’ actions, inaction, nonfeasance,
malfeasance and/or other acts constituting malpractice, Plaintiffs would have recovered
damages on the pled and other causes of action that were available to be pursued.
48. At all times herein mentioned, that as a result of the foregoing, Plaintiffs were caused
monetary, physical and emotional damages, including the loss of compensation from the
2018 Action.
8 of 17
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 04/01/2024 12:04 PM INDEX NO. 706916/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/01/2024
49. Therefore, Plaintiffs MARKWESE LAWSON and ERIC KEARSLEY seek exemplary
damages for such conduct on the part of Defendants JOHN NACCARATO and
NACCARATO LAW FIRM, PC.
50. Upon information and belief, Plaintiffs’ damages exceed the jurisdiction of all lower
courts.
AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS FOR
NEGLIGENCE
51. Plaintiffs repeat, reiterate and reallege each and every allegation contained in the above
number paragraphs of this Complaint, as though more fully set forth herein.
52. At all times herein mentioned, Defendants’ conduct in failing to give Plaintiffs notice of
Defendants’ failures to pursue the pled causes of action, and other causes of action, on
Plaintiffs’ behalf was a breach of Defendants’ duty of care.
53. At all times herein mentioned, under the same circumstances, a reasonably prudent attorney
or law firm in Defendants’ position would have notified Plaintiffs of Defendants’ failures
to pursue the pled causes of action and/or other causes of action.
54. At all times herein mentioned, Plaintiffs contractually agreed, via a retainer agreement, to
empower Defendants with the exclusive right to explore all possible causes of action, pled
or otherwise.
55. At all times herein mentioned, said retainer agreement is legally binding against
Defendants in so empowering Defendants to exercise their professional care in pursuing
all causes of action available to them on Plaintiffs’ behalf.
9 of 17
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 04/01/2024 12:04 PM INDEX NO. 706916/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/01/2024
56. At all times herein mentioned, Plaintiffs never sought to pursue this matter individually
and instead relied upon the assertions in the aforementioned contract that Defendants
would litigate the matters and pursue all available causes of action, pled or otherwise.
57. At all times herein mentioned, Defendants had not informed Plaintiffs prior to the
expiration of the statute of limitations date that they were not pursuing any restoration of
the matter or other remedies at law due to Defendants’ inaction.
58. At all times herein mentioned, that as a result of the foregoing, Plaintiffs were prevented
from recovering all causes of action, pled or otherwise.
59. At all times herein mentioned, that as a result of the foregoing, Plaintiffs were caused
monetary, physical and emotional damages, including the loss of compensation from the
2018 Action.
60. Upon information and belief, Plaintiffs’ damages exceed the jurisdiction of all lower
courts.
AS AND FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS FOR
FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT
61. Plaintiffs repeat, reiterate and reallege each and every allegation contained in the above
number paragraphs of this Complaint, as though more fully set forth herein.
62. At all times herein mentioned, Defendants represented that they were licensed to practice
law before the Courts of the State of New York.
63. At all times herein mentioned, Defendants represented that they were capable of acting as
attorneys licensed to practice law before the Courts of the State of New York.
10 of 17
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 04/01/2024 12:04 PM INDEX NO. 706916/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/01/2024
64. At all times herein mentioned, Defendants omitted the disclosure of the material fact that
Defendants were not licensed to practice law before the Courts of the State of New York,
and/or that they were suspended from the practice of law after being retained.
65. Defendants’ above representations were false, or that Defendants’ omissions of their
licensure status amounted to omissions of material facts.
66. Defendants knew that these representations were false, or that the omissions of their
licensure status were material to Plaintiffs.
67. Defendants nonetheless made the above representations and/or omissions in order to induce
Plaintiffs to rely upon said representations and/or omissions.
68. Plaintiffs did actually rely on said representations and/or omissions.
69. Plaintiffs did not know that said representations and/or omissions were false.
70. At all times herein mentioned, that as a result of the foregoing, Plaintiffs were caused
monetary, physical and emotional damages, including the loss of compensation from the
2018 Action.
71. Upon information and belief, Plaintiffs’ damages exceed the jurisdiction of all lower
courts.
AS AND FOR A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS FOR
VIOLATION OF NEW YORK GENERAL BUSINESS LAW SECTION 349(A)
72. Plaintiffs repeat, reiterate and reallege each and every allegation contained in the above
number paragraphs of this Complaint, as though more fully set forth herein.
73. Plaintiffs were “consumers” as defined in GBL § 349(a).
74. Defendants’ conduct – namely, but not limited to, of representing themselves as attorneys
licensed to practice law in the State of New York, failing to disclose their licensure status
11 of 17
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 04/01/2024 12:04 PM INDEX NO. 706916/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/01/2024
throughout the representation and life of the 2018 Action, and of their failures to prosecute
the 2018 Action, and inform Plaintiffs of Defendants’ failures in the prosecution of the
2018 Action – was oriented at the consuming public at large, and specifically Plaintiffs
herein.
75. Defendants’ conduct was materially false.
76. At all times herein mentioned, that as a result of the foregoing, Plaintiffs were caused
monetary, physical and emotional damages, including the loss of compensation from the
2018 Action.
77. Upon information and belief, Plaintiffs’ damages exceed the jurisdiction of all lower
courts.
AS AND FOR A FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS FOR
VIOLATION OF NEW JUDICIARY LAW SECTION 487
78. Plaintiffs repeat, reiterate and reallege each and every allegation contained in the above
number paragraphs of this Complaint, as though more fully set forth herein.
79. Defendants conduct, as detailed above, amounts to misrepresentation or material omission
of facts, including, but not limited to, representing themselves as attorneys licensed to
practice law in the State of New York, failing to disclose their licensure status throughout
the representation and life of the 2018 Action, and of their failures to prosecute the 2018
Action, and inform Plaintiffs of Defendants’ failures in the prosecution of the 2018 Action,
amounted to misrepresentations or material omissions of fact.
80. Said misrepresentations or material omissions of fact were false.
81. Defendants knew that said misrepresentations or material omissions of fact were false.
12 of 17
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 04/01/2024 12:04 PM INDEX NO. 706916/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/01/2024
82. Defendants made said misrepresentations and material omissions of fact for the purpose of
inducing Plaintiffs to rely on such misrepresentations or material omissions of fact.
83. Plaintiffs relied on Defendants’ misrepresentations or material omissions of fact.
84. Defendants’ misrepresentations or material omissions of fact were meant to deceive
Plaintiffs into believing that Defendants were permitted to be retained by Plaintiffs, that
Defendants were legally permitted to maintain the representation and prosecution of the
2018 Action, and that the 2018 Action was being diligently and properly prosecuted,
amongst other misrepresentations or material omissions of fact.
85. Said misrepresentations or material omissions of fact amount to willful delays of Plaintiffs’
2018 Action.
86. Defendants’ conduct and delays were for their own gain so as to prevent scrutiny and
potential legal malpractice claims against Defendants.
87. That Plaintiffs were injured by Defendants’ conduct, delays, misrepresentations or material
omissions of fact.
88. At all times herein mentioned, that as a result of the foregoing, Plaintiffs were caused
monetary, physical and emotional damages, including the loss of compensation from the
2018 Action.
89. Upon information and belief, Plaintiffs’ damages exceed the jurisdiction of all lower
courts.
90. That no prior application for relief has been filed in any court in any jurisdiction for the
acts and omissions of Defendants JOHN NACCARATO and NACCARATO LAW FIRM,
PC.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendants, jointly and severally, in
13 of 17
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 04/01/2024 12:04 PM INDEX NO. 706916/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/01/2024
each and every Cause of Action, in an amount which exceeds the monetary jurisdictional limits of
all lower New York State Courts, and Plaintiffs demand such other, further and different relief as
the Court may deem just and proper, together with the costs and disbursements of this action.
I affirm this 27th day of March, 2024, under the penalties of perjury under the laws of New
York, which may include a fine or imprisonment, that the foregoing is true, and I understand that
this document may be filed in an action or proceeding in a court of law.
Dated: March 27, 2024
Islip, New York
________________________
Ariel Aminov, Esq.
PANETTA AMINOV, PC
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
670 Main Street
Islip, NY 11751
Tel.: (631) 446-4411
File No.:
14 of 17
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 04/01/2024 12:04 PM INDEX NO. 706916/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/01/2024
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF QUEENS
ERIC KEARSLEY and Index No.:
MARKWESE LAWSON,
Plaintiffs. PLAINTIFF’S VERIFICATION
-against-
JOHN NACCARATO and
NACCARATO LAW FIRM, PC,
Defendants.
I, ERIC KEARSLEY, being duly sworn, deposes and says the following under penalties
of perjury:
I am one of the Plaintiffs herein and as such I am fully familiar with the facts and
circumstances described in the Verified Complaint.
I have read the foregoing Summons and Verified Complaint and know the contents thereof
to be true based on my own personal knowledge due to my involvement in the subject legal
malpractice matter. The statements in the Verified Complaint are true and correct, except as to
matters therein stated to be alleged upon information and belief, and as to those matters I believe
them to be true.
I affirm this 27th day of March, 2024, under the penalties of perjury under the laws of New
York, which may include a fine or imprisonment, that the foregoing is true, and I understand that
this document may be filed in an action or proceeding in a court of law.
Dated: March 27, 2024
Queens, New York
____________________________
ERIC KEARSLEY
15 of 17
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 04/01/2024 12:04 PM INDEX NO. 706916/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/01/2024
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF QUEENS
ERIC KEARSLEY and Index No.:
MARKWESE LAWSON,
Plaintiffs. PLAINTIFF’S VERIFICATION
-against-
JOHN NACCARATO and
NACCARATO LAW FIRM, PC,
Defendants.
MARKWESE LAWSON, being duly sworn, deposes and says the following under
penalties of perjury:
I am one of the Plaintiffs herein and as such I am fully familiar with the facts and
circumstances described in the Verified Complaint.
I have read the foregoing Summons and Verified Complaint and know the contents thereof
to be true based on my own personal knowledge due to my involvement in the subject legal
malpractice matter. The statements in the Verified Complaint are true and correct, except as to
matters therein stated to be alleged upon information and belief, and as to those matters I believe
them to be true.
29
I affirm this 27th day of March, 2024, under the penalties of perjury under the laws of New
York, which may include a fine or imprisonment, that the foregoing is true, and I understand that
this document may be filed in an action or proceeding in a court of law.
Dated: March 27, 2024 March 29,2024
Queens, New York
____________________________
MARKWESE LAWSON
16 of 17
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 04/01/2024 12:04 PM INDEX NO. 706916/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/01/2024
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF QUEENS
ERIC KEARSLEY and Index No.:
MARKWESE LAWSON,
Plaintiffs.
-against-
JOHN NACCARATO and
NACCARATO LAW FIRM, PC,
Defendants.
SUMMONS AND VERIFIED COMPLAINT
Ariel Aminov, Esq.
PANETTA AMINOV, PC
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
670 Main Street
Islip, NY 11751
Tel: 631-446-4411
File No.:
Pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1, the undersigned, an attorney duly admitted to practice in the
courts of New York State, certifies that, upon information and belief and reasonable inquiry, the
contentions contained in the annexed documents are not frivolous.
Dated: March 27, 2024 Signature:
Print Signer’s Name:
17 of 17
Preview
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 04/01/2024 12:04 PM INDEX NO. 706916/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/01/2024 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF QUEENS ERIC KEARSLEY and Index No.: MARKWESE LAWSON, Date Purchased: Plaintiffs, SUMMONS -against- Plaintiff designates Queens County as the Place of Trial JOHN NACCARATO and NACCARATO LAW FIRM, PC, The basis of venue is Plaintiffs’ Residence and location where Defendants. Defendants committed malpractice. TO THE ABOVE-NAMED DEFENDANTS: YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED to appear in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Queens, New York, within the time provided by law as noted below to file your answer to the annexed Verified Complaint with the Clerk; upon your failure to answer, judgment will be taken against you in the amount demanded in the complaint, or in an amount to be determined later, with interest thereon from the filing of this suit, together with the costs of this action. Dated: March 27, 2024 ________________________ Islip, New York Ariel Aminov, Esq. PANETTA AMINOV, PC Attorneys for Plaintiffs 670 Main Street Islip, NY 11751 Tel.: (631) 446-4411 File No.: 03/05/2017 TO: John Naccarato Naccarato Law Firm, PC 14 Wall Street, 20th Floor 14 Wall Street, 20th Floor New York, NY 10005 New York, NY 10005 AND AND 22-10 80th Street 22-10 80th Street E. Elmhurst, NY 11370 E. Elmhurst, NY 11370 NOTE: The law provides that: (a) If this summons is served by its delivery to you personally within the City of New York, you must appear and answer within TWENTY days after such service; or (b) If this summons is served by delivery to any person other than you personally, or is served outside the City of New York, you are allowed THIRTY days after proof of service is filed with the Clerk of this Court within which to appear and answer. PLEASE IMMEDIATELY TRANSMIT THIS DOCUMENT TO YOUR INSURANCE COMPANY. YOUR FAILURE TO DO SO MAY RESULT IN YOUR PERSONAL LIABILITY FOR ANY JUDGMENT. 1 of 17 FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 04/01/2024 12:04 PM INDEX NO. 706916/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/01/2024 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF QUEENS ERIC KEARSLEY and Index No.: MARKWESE LAWSON, Plaintiffs, VERIFIED COMPLAINT -against- JOHN NACCARATO and NACCARATO LAW FIRM, PC, Defendants. Plaintiffs, by their attorneys, PANETTA AMINOV, PC, complaining of the Defendants, respectfully allege, upon information and belief: THE PARTIES 1. At all times herein mentioned, Plaintiff ERIC KEARSLEY was, and remains, a resident of the County of Queens, State of New York. 2. At all times herein mentioned, Plaintiff MARKWESE LAWSON was, and remains, a resident of the County of Queens, State of New York. 3. Upon information and belief, on March 15, 1995, Defendant JOHN NACCARATO was admitted to practice law in the State of New York, as is indicated on the New York Unified Court System. Exhibit 1. 4. Upon information and belief, Defendant JOHN NACCARATO practiced law by, and through, the corporate co-Defendant NACCARATO LAW FIRM, PC, at 14 Wall Street, 20th Floor, New York, NY 10005. Exhibit 1. 5. At all times herein mentioned, Defendant JOHN NACCARATO maintained an office for the purpose of practicing law at 14 Wall Street, 20th Floor, New York, NY 10005. 2 of 17 FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 04/01/2024 12:04 PM INDEX NO. 706916/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/01/2024 6. At all times herein mentioned, Defendant JOHN NACCARATO practiced law from 14 Wall Street, 20th Floor, New York, NY 10005, notwithstanding his suspension. 7. At all times herein mentioned, Defendant NACCARATO LAW FIRM, PC, was, and remains, a domestic professional service corporation formed to practice law in the State of New York. 8. At all times herein mentioned, Defendant NACCARATO LAW FIRM, PC, maintained an office for the purpose of practicing law at 14 Wall Street, 20th Floor, New York, NY 10005. 9. At all times herein mentioned, Defendant JOHN NACCARATO was, and remains, a principal of Defendant NACCARATO LAW FIRM, PC. The 2018 Action 10. Upon information and belief, sometime in March 2017, Plaintiffs contracted, retained and employed the services of Defendants to represent them for injuries Plaintiffs sustained in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on March 5, 2017. 11. Upon information and belief, at all times herein mentioned, Defendants, for good and valuable consideration, undertook and endeavored to, and did, advise and represent Plaintiffs professionally. 12. By virtue of being retained by Plaintiffs, Defendants became Plaintiffs’ counsel. 13. By virtue of being retained by Plaintiffs, Defendants agreed to represent Plaintiffs. 14. By virtue of being retained by Plaintiffs, an attorney-client relationship was created between Defendants as attorneys and Plaintiffs as clients. 15. However, unbeknownst to Plaintiffs, Defendant JOHN NACCARATO was suspended from the practice of law on January 30, 2017, prior to being retained by Plaintiffs in March 2017. Exhibit 1. The suspension ended on November 2, 2017. 3 of 17 FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 04/01/2024 12:04 PM INDEX NO. 706916/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/01/2024 16. On the date of retention, Defendant JOHN NACCARATO did not disclose that he was suspended from practicing law in New York. In fact, Defendants never informed Plaintiffs of the 2017 suspension. Exhibit 1. 17. Upon information and belief, at all times herein mentioned, Defendant JOHN NACCARATO was, and remains, suspended from practicing law in the State of New York. 18. Upon information and belief, at all times herein mentioned, Defendant JOHN NACCARATO represented himself to be an attorney duly licensed to practice law in the State of New York. 19. On September 6, 2018, Defendants filed on NYSCEF a Summons and Complaint in Queens County Supreme Court titled ERIC KEARSLEY and MARKWESE LAWSON v. DARLIN GONZALEZ CAPELLAN, LANAERENISE WITTER and LATOYA POPE ROSS, index number 713747/2018. Exhibit 2, NYSCEF Doc. 1. (“2018 Action” hereinafter.) 20. It is unclear whether defendants in the 2018 Action were ever served; certainly no affidavits of service were ever filed on NYSCEF. 21. On October 24, 2019, defendants Witter and Ross e-filed their answer with cross claims, as well as various discovery responses. Exhibit 3, NYSCEF Doc. 2. Witter and Ross claimed various affirmative defenses, including lack of personal jurisdiction due to lack of service or improper service. Exhibit 3, NYSCEF Doc. 2. 22. On December 2, 2019, defendants Witter and Ross served a “good faith” letter upon Defendants NACCARATO, reminding them that discovery is outstanding. Exhibit 4, NYSCEF Doc. 12. 4 of 17 FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 04/01/2024 12:04 PM INDEX NO. 706916/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/01/2024 23. Upon information and belief, Defendants NACCARATO failed to respond to the December 9, 2019, “good faith” letter. 24. On January 14, 2020, defendants Witter and Ross filed a request for a preliminary conference, which resulted in the February 11, 2020, preliminary conference and order. Exhibit 5, NYSCEF Doc. 7. The order indicates that no one from the NACCARATO Defendants appeared at this preliminary conference. The preliminary conference order required that the NACCARATO Defendants provide discovery responses no later than March 11, 2020. 25. Upon information and belief, Defendants NACCARATO failed to comply with the preliminary conference order. 26. On May 27, 2020, defendants Witter and Ross filed a motion to compel the NACCARATO Defendants to provide discovery responses or have the case dismissed. Exhibit 6, NYSCEF Doc. 8. In support of the motion, Witter and Ross submitted the following: the December 9, 2019, “good faith letter” (Exhibit 4, NYSCEF Doc. 12), a February 17, 2020, “good faith letter” (Exhibit 7, NYSCEF Doc. 14), a March 16, 2020, “good faith letter”, Exhibit 8, NYSCEF Doc. 15), as well as post-EBT demands (Exhibit 9, NYSCEF Doc. 16). (Upon information and belief, the reference to “post-EBT” is erroneous because no depositions were ever held.) 27. Upon information and belief, Defendants failed to respond to the “good faith” letters and failed to oppose the motion. 28. On August 17, 2020, the Hon. Richard G. Latin, JSC, issued an Order directing the NACCARATO Defendants to provide discovery responses on or before September 18, 5 of 17 FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 04/01/2024 12:04 PM INDEX NO. 706916/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/01/2024 2020. Exhibit 10, NYSCEF Doc. 19. Witter and Ross served the Order with Notice of Entry on Defendants NACCARATO on August 19, 2020. Exhibit 11, NYSCEF Doc. 18. 29. Upon information and belief, Defendants NACCARATO failed to comply with the Order of August 17, 2020. 30. As a result of the ongoing failures of Defendants NACCARATO, Witter and Ross filed another motion to dismiss or compel discovery on October 5, 2020. Exhibit 12, NYSCEF Doc. 20. On December 4, 2020, Hon. Richard G. Latin, JSC, issued a Decision and Order dismissing the case unless Defendants NACCARATO provide discovery responses on or before February 1, 2021. Exhibit 13, NYSCEF Doc. 29. Witter and Ross served the Order with Notice of Entry on December 7, 2020. Exhibit 14, NYSCEF Doc. 30. 31. Upon information and belief, Defendants again failed to oppose the motion. 32. On May 12, 2021, Hon. Mojgan C. Lancman, JSC, dismissed the case. Exhibit 15, NYSCEF Doc. 35. Witter and Ross served the Order with Notice of Entry on December May 18, 2021. Exhibit 16, NYSCEF Doc. 36. 33. At all times herein mentioned, Plaintiffs were available by phone, by mail, and/or other means, and were ready, willing, and able to participate and cooperate in the 2018 Action and to come to court at any time Defendants would have requested. 34. As a result of the foregoing, Plaintiffs were caused monetary, physical and emotional damages, including the loss of compensation from the 2018 Action. 35. Defendants’ failures to provide the contracted-for services caused Plaintiffs damages, which in this case exceed the jurisdiction of all lower courts. 6 of 17 FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 04/01/2024 12:04 PM INDEX NO. 706916/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/01/2024 AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS FOR LEGAL MALPRACTICE 36. Plaintiffs repeat, reiterate and reallege each and every allegation contained in the above number paragraphs of this Complaint, as though more fully set forth herein. 37. At all times herein mentioned, as a result of the attorney-client relationship created by the above conduct, Defendants had a duty to represent Plaintiffs with the reasonable care, skill, and diligence possessed and exercised by an ordinary attorney in similar circumstances. 38. Upon information and belief, at some point following Defendants’ commitment to pursue the “2018 Action”, Defendants failed to perform their obligations as counsel, including but not limited to, serving the summons and complaint, filing affidavits of service, moving for a default judgment against Darlin Gonzalez Capellan, gathering medical records, exchanging discovery, conducting depositions, communicating with defense counsel, appearing in court on Plaintiffs’ behalf and communicating with Plaintiffs, informing Plaintiffs of Defendants acts, omissions and malfeasance, and informing Plaintiffs of Defendants licensure status from representation through the present time. 39. At all times herein mentioned, because of Defendants’ failures to perform said obligations, the 2018 Action was dismissed after the defendants therein filed two motions to dismiss that went unopposed. 40. At all times herein mentioned, as a result of the aforementioned dismissal, Defendants had the obligation to provide notice to Plaintiffs as to their options and any potential curative actions that could be taken. 41. At all times herein mentioned, Defendants had an ongoing obligation to Plaintiffs to take curative actions to remedy the decisions of the court, including the dismissal. 7 of 17 FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 04/01/2024 12:04 PM INDEX NO. 706916/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/01/2024 42. At all times herein mentioned, by not pursuing curative actions such as exchanging discovery, filing notices of appeal, a stay, a motion and/or other available remedies at law, Defendants breached their duty owed to Plaintiffs to exercise reasonable care, skill, and diligence commonly possessed by a member of the legal profession. 43. At all times herein mentioned, as a result of Defendants negligent failures to communicate, appear, respond, produce and/or restore the matter after their non-appearance and other failures, Plaintiffs sustained injury and loss – specifically, Plaintiffs’ injuries include the loss of a verdict, settlement, or award, and the interest that Plaintiffs would have recovered but for Defendants’ breach of duty. 44. At all times herein mentioned, the damage sustained by Plaintiffs was proximately caused by Defendants breach of duty as set forth above. 45. At all times herein mentioned, Defendants failed to inform Plaintiffs of all available options, by certified mail, email, phone, or by any and all other means available. 46. At all times herein mentioned, Plaintiffs committed no acts of negligence that contributed to their damages. 47. At all times herein mentioned, that but for Defendants’ actions, inaction, nonfeasance, malfeasance and/or other acts constituting malpractice, Plaintiffs would have recovered damages on the pled and other causes of action that were available to be pursued. 48. At all times herein mentioned, that as a result of the foregoing, Plaintiffs were caused monetary, physical and emotional damages, including the loss of compensation from the 2018 Action. 8 of 17 FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 04/01/2024 12:04 PM INDEX NO. 706916/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/01/2024 49. Therefore, Plaintiffs MARKWESE LAWSON and ERIC KEARSLEY seek exemplary damages for such conduct on the part of Defendants JOHN NACCARATO and NACCARATO LAW FIRM, PC. 50. Upon information and belief, Plaintiffs’ damages exceed the jurisdiction of all lower courts. AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS FOR NEGLIGENCE 51. Plaintiffs repeat, reiterate and reallege each and every allegation contained in the above number paragraphs of this Complaint, as though more fully set forth herein. 52. At all times herein mentioned, Defendants’ conduct in failing to give Plaintiffs notice of Defendants’ failures to pursue the pled causes of action, and other causes of action, on Plaintiffs’ behalf was a breach of Defendants’ duty of care. 53. At all times herein mentioned, under the same circumstances, a reasonably prudent attorney or law firm in Defendants’ position would have notified Plaintiffs of Defendants’ failures to pursue the pled causes of action and/or other causes of action. 54. At all times herein mentioned, Plaintiffs contractually agreed, via a retainer agreement, to empower Defendants with the exclusive right to explore all possible causes of action, pled or otherwise. 55. At all times herein mentioned, said retainer agreement is legally binding against Defendants in so empowering Defendants to exercise their professional care in pursuing all causes of action available to them on Plaintiffs’ behalf. 9 of 17 FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 04/01/2024 12:04 PM INDEX NO. 706916/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/01/2024 56. At all times herein mentioned, Plaintiffs never sought to pursue this matter individually and instead relied upon the assertions in the aforementioned contract that Defendants would litigate the matters and pursue all available causes of action, pled or otherwise. 57. At all times herein mentioned, Defendants had not informed Plaintiffs prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations date that they were not pursuing any restoration of the matter or other remedies at law due to Defendants’ inaction. 58. At all times herein mentioned, that as a result of the foregoing, Plaintiffs were prevented from recovering all causes of action, pled or otherwise. 59. At all times herein mentioned, that as a result of the foregoing, Plaintiffs were caused monetary, physical and emotional damages, including the loss of compensation from the 2018 Action. 60. Upon information and belief, Plaintiffs’ damages exceed the jurisdiction of all lower courts. AS AND FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS FOR FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT 61. Plaintiffs repeat, reiterate and reallege each and every allegation contained in the above number paragraphs of this Complaint, as though more fully set forth herein. 62. At all times herein mentioned, Defendants represented that they were licensed to practice law before the Courts of the State of New York. 63. At all times herein mentioned, Defendants represented that they were capable of acting as attorneys licensed to practice law before the Courts of the State of New York. 10 of 17 FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 04/01/2024 12:04 PM INDEX NO. 706916/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/01/2024 64. At all times herein mentioned, Defendants omitted the disclosure of the material fact that Defendants were not licensed to practice law before the Courts of the State of New York, and/or that they were suspended from the practice of law after being retained. 65. Defendants’ above representations were false, or that Defendants’ omissions of their licensure status amounted to omissions of material facts. 66. Defendants knew that these representations were false, or that the omissions of their licensure status were material to Plaintiffs. 67. Defendants nonetheless made the above representations and/or omissions in order to induce Plaintiffs to rely upon said representations and/or omissions. 68. Plaintiffs did actually rely on said representations and/or omissions. 69. Plaintiffs did not know that said representations and/or omissions were false. 70. At all times herein mentioned, that as a result of the foregoing, Plaintiffs were caused monetary, physical and emotional damages, including the loss of compensation from the 2018 Action. 71. Upon information and belief, Plaintiffs’ damages exceed the jurisdiction of all lower courts. AS AND FOR A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS FOR VIOLATION OF NEW YORK GENERAL BUSINESS LAW SECTION 349(A) 72. Plaintiffs repeat, reiterate and reallege each and every allegation contained in the above number paragraphs of this Complaint, as though more fully set forth herein. 73. Plaintiffs were “consumers” as defined in GBL § 349(a). 74. Defendants’ conduct – namely, but not limited to, of representing themselves as attorneys licensed to practice law in the State of New York, failing to disclose their licensure status 11 of 17 FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 04/01/2024 12:04 PM INDEX NO. 706916/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/01/2024 throughout the representation and life of the 2018 Action, and of their failures to prosecute the 2018 Action, and inform Plaintiffs of Defendants’ failures in the prosecution of the 2018 Action – was oriented at the consuming public at large, and specifically Plaintiffs herein. 75. Defendants’ conduct was materially false. 76. At all times herein mentioned, that as a result of the foregoing, Plaintiffs were caused monetary, physical and emotional damages, including the loss of compensation from the 2018 Action. 77. Upon information and belief, Plaintiffs’ damages exceed the jurisdiction of all lower courts. AS AND FOR A FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS FOR VIOLATION OF NEW JUDICIARY LAW SECTION 487 78. Plaintiffs repeat, reiterate and reallege each and every allegation contained in the above number paragraphs of this Complaint, as though more fully set forth herein. 79. Defendants conduct, as detailed above, amounts to misrepresentation or material omission of facts, including, but not limited to, representing themselves as attorneys licensed to practice law in the State of New York, failing to disclose their licensure status throughout the representation and life of the 2018 Action, and of their failures to prosecute the 2018 Action, and inform Plaintiffs of Defendants’ failures in the prosecution of the 2018 Action, amounted to misrepresentations or material omissions of fact. 80. Said misrepresentations or material omissions of fact were false. 81. Defendants knew that said misrepresentations or material omissions of fact were false. 12 of 17 FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 04/01/2024 12:04 PM INDEX NO. 706916/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/01/2024 82. Defendants made said misrepresentations and material omissions of fact for the purpose of inducing Plaintiffs to rely on such misrepresentations or material omissions of fact. 83. Plaintiffs relied on Defendants’ misrepresentations or material omissions of fact. 84. Defendants’ misrepresentations or material omissions of fact were meant to deceive Plaintiffs into believing that Defendants were permitted to be retained by Plaintiffs, that Defendants were legally permitted to maintain the representation and prosecution of the 2018 Action, and that the 2018 Action was being diligently and properly prosecuted, amongst other misrepresentations or material omissions of fact. 85. Said misrepresentations or material omissions of fact amount to willful delays of Plaintiffs’ 2018 Action. 86. Defendants’ conduct and delays were for their own gain so as to prevent scrutiny and potential legal malpractice claims against Defendants. 87. That Plaintiffs were injured by Defendants’ conduct, delays, misrepresentations or material omissions of fact. 88. At all times herein mentioned, that as a result of the foregoing, Plaintiffs were caused monetary, physical and emotional damages, including the loss of compensation from the 2018 Action. 89. Upon information and belief, Plaintiffs’ damages exceed the jurisdiction of all lower courts. 90. That no prior application for relief has been filed in any court in any jurisdiction for the acts and omissions of Defendants JOHN NACCARATO and NACCARATO LAW FIRM, PC. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendants, jointly and severally, in 13 of 17 FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 04/01/2024 12:04 PM INDEX NO. 706916/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/01/2024 each and every Cause of Action, in an amount which exceeds the monetary jurisdictional limits of all lower New York State Courts, and Plaintiffs demand such other, further and different relief as the Court may deem just and proper, together with the costs and disbursements of this action. I affirm this 27th day of March, 2024, under the penalties of perjury under the laws of New York, which may include a fine or imprisonment, that the foregoing is true, and I understand that this document may be filed in an action or proceeding in a court of law. Dated: March 27, 2024 Islip, New York ________________________ Ariel Aminov, Esq. PANETTA AMINOV, PC Attorneys for Plaintiffs 670 Main Street Islip, NY 11751 Tel.: (631) 446-4411 File No.: 14 of 17 FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 04/01/2024 12:04 PM INDEX NO. 706916/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/01/2024 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF QUEENS ERIC KEARSLEY and Index No.: MARKWESE LAWSON, Plaintiffs. PLAINTIFF’S VERIFICATION -against- JOHN NACCARATO and NACCARATO LAW FIRM, PC, Defendants. I, ERIC KEARSLEY, being duly sworn, deposes and says the following under penalties of perjury: I am one of the Plaintiffs herein and as such I am fully familiar with the facts and circumstances described in the Verified Complaint. I have read the foregoing Summons and Verified Complaint and know the contents thereof to be true based on my own personal knowledge due to my involvement in the subject legal malpractice matter. The statements in the Verified Complaint are true and correct, except as to matters therein stated to be alleged upon information and belief, and as to those matters I believe them to be true. I affirm this 27th day of March, 2024, under the penalties of perjury under the laws of New York, which may include a fine or imprisonment, that the foregoing is true, and I understand that this document may be filed in an action or proceeding in a court of law. Dated: March 27, 2024 Queens, New York ____________________________ ERIC KEARSLEY 15 of 17 FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 04/01/2024 12:04 PM INDEX NO. 706916/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/01/2024 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF QUEENS ERIC KEARSLEY and Index No.: MARKWESE LAWSON, Plaintiffs. PLAINTIFF’S VERIFICATION -against- JOHN NACCARATO and NACCARATO LAW FIRM, PC, Defendants. MARKWESE LAWSON, being duly sworn, deposes and says the following under penalties of perjury: I am one of the Plaintiffs herein and as such I am fully familiar with the facts and circumstances described in the Verified Complaint. I have read the foregoing Summons and Verified Complaint and know the contents thereof to be true based on my own personal knowledge due to my involvement in the subject legal malpractice matter. The statements in the Verified Complaint are true and correct, except as to matters therein stated to be alleged upon information and belief, and as to those matters I believe them to be true. 29 I affirm this 27th day of March, 2024, under the penalties of perjury under the laws of New York, which may include a fine or imprisonment, that the foregoing is true, and I understand that this document may be filed in an action or proceeding in a court of law. Dated: March 27, 2024 March 29,2024 Queens, New York ____________________________ MARKWESE LAWSON 16 of 17 FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 04/01/2024 12:04 PM INDEX NO. 706916/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/01/2024 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF QUEENS ERIC KEARSLEY and Index No.: MARKWESE LAWSON, Plaintiffs. -against- JOHN NACCARATO and NACCARATO LAW FIRM, PC, Defendants. SUMMONS AND VERIFIED COMPLAINT Ariel Aminov, Esq. PANETTA AMINOV, PC Attorneys for Plaintiffs 670 Main Street Islip, NY 11751 Tel: 631-446-4411 File No.: Pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1, the undersigned, an attorney duly admitted to practice in the courts of New York State, certifies that, upon information and belief and reasonable inquiry, the contentions contained in the annexed documents are not frivolous. Dated: March 27, 2024 Signature: Print Signer’s Name: 17 of 17