Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/05/2019 11:08 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 29 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/05/2019
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------------------------------X
STELLA STOLPER,
Index No. 652352/2018
Plaintiff,
v. VERIFIED ANSWER AND
COUNTERCLAIMS
ZARINA BURBACKI,
Defendant.
-------------------------------------------------------X
The Defendant, ZARINA BURBACKI, by her attorney, JONATHAN E. NEUMAN,
ESQ., as and for her Answer and Counterclaims to the Complaint herein, respectfully sets forth
and alleges as follows:
NATURE OF ACTION
1. Denies the allegations contained in paragraph 1 of the Verified Complaint.
PARTIES
2. Denies having knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
allegations contained in paragraph 2 of the Verified Complaint.
3. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the allegations
contained in paragraph 3 of the Verified Complaint.
4. Denies the address contained in paragraph 4 of the Verified Complaint, and
admits the remainder of such paragraph.
5. Denies the address contained in paragraph 5 of the Verified Complaint, and
admits the remainder of such paragraph.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
6. States that such paragraph states a legal conclusion to which no responsive
pleading is required and whose conclusion is left to the determination of the Court.
7. States that such paragraph states a legal conclusion to which no responsive
pleading is required and whose conclusion is left to the determination of the Court.
Page 1 of 16
1 of 16
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/05/2019 11:08 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 29 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/05/2019
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
8. Denies the allegations contained in paragraph 8 of the Verified Complaint.
9. Denies the allegations contained in paragraph 9 of the Verified Complaint.
10. Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 10 of the Verified Complaint.
11. Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 11 of the Verified Complaint.
12. Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 12 of the Verified Complaint.
13. Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 13 of the Verified Complaint.
14. Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 14 of the Verified Complaint.
15. Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 15 of the Verified Complaint.
16. Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 16 of the Verified Complaint.
17. Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 17 of the Verified Complaint.
18. Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 18 of the Verified Complaint.
19. Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 19 of the Verified Complaint.
20. Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 20 of the Verified Complaint.
21. Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 21 of the Verified Complaint.
22. Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 22 of the Verified Complaint.
23. Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 23 of the Verified Complaint.
24. Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 24 of the Verified Complaint.
25. Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 25 of the Verified Complaint.
26. Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 26 of the Verified Complaint.
27. Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 27 of the Verified Complaint.
28. Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 28 of the Verified Complaint.
29. Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 29 of the Verified Complaint.
30. Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 30 of the Verified Complaint.
31. Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 31 of the Verified Complaint.
32. Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 32 of the Verified Complaint.
33. Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 33 of the Verified Complaint.
34. Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 34 of the Verified Complaint.
35. Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 35 of the Verified Complaint.
36. Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 36 of the Verified Complaint.
37. Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 37 of the Verified Complaint.
Page 2 of 16
2 of 16
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/05/2019 11:08 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 29 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/05/2019
38. Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 38 of the Verified Complaint.
39. Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 39 of the Verified Complaint.
40. Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 40 of the Verified Complaint.
41. Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 41 of the Verified Complaint.
42. Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 42 of the Verified Complaint.
43. Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 43 of the Verified Complaint.
44. Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 44 of the Verified Complaint.
45. Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 45 of the Verified Complaint.
46. Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 46 of the Verified Complaint.
47. Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 47 of the Verified Complaint.
48. Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 48 of the Verified Complaint.
AS AND FOR PLAINTIFF’S FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
49. Repeats and realleges all prior responses to paragraph 49 of the Verified
Complaint.
50. Denies the allegations contained in paragraph 50 of the Verified Complaint.
51. Denies the allegations contained in paragraph 51 of the Verified Complaint.
52. Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 52 of the Verified Complaint.
53. Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 53 of the Verified Complaint.
54. Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 54 of the Verified Complaint.
AS AND FOR PLAINTIFF’S SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
55. This cause of action has been dismissed by the Court. To the extent a response is
required: Repeats and realleges all prior responses to paragraph 55 of the Verified Complaint.
56. This cause of action has been dismissed by the Court. To the extent a response is
required: Denies the allegations contained in paragraph 56 of the Verified Complaint.
57. This cause of action has been dismissed by the Court. To the extent a response is
required: Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 57 of the Verified Complaint.
58. This cause of action has been dismissed by the Court. To the extent a response is
required: Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 58 of the Verified Complaint.
Page 3 of 16
3 of 16
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/05/2019 11:08 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 29 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/05/2019
59. This cause of action has been dismissed by the Court. To the extent a response is
required: Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 59 of the Verified Complaint.
60. This cause of action has been dismissed by the Court. To the extent a response is
required: Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 60 of the Verified Complaint.
AS AND FOR PLAINTIFF’S THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
61. Repeats and realleges all prior responses to paragraph 61 of the Verified
Complaint.
62. Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 62 of the Verified Complaint.
63. Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 63 of the Verified Complaint.
64. Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 64 of the Verified Complaint.
65. Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 65 of the Verified Complaint.
AS AND FOR PLAINTIFF’S FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
66. This cause of action has been dismissed by the Court. To the extent a response is
required: Repeats and realleges all prior responses to paragraph 66 of the Verified Complaint.
67. This cause of action has been dismissed by the Court. To the extent a response is
required: Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 67 of the Verified Complaint.
68. This cause of action has been dismissed by the Court. To the extent a response is
required: Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 68 of the Verified Complaint.
69. This cause of action has been dismissed by the Court. To the extent a response is
required: Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 69 of the Verified Complaint.
70. This cause of action has been dismissed by the Court. To the extent a response is
required: Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 70 of the Verified Complaint.
AS AND FOR PLAINTIFF’S FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
71. This cause of action has been dismissed by the Court. To the extent a response is
required: Repeats and realleges all prior responses to paragraph 71 of the Verified Complaint.
72. This cause of action has been dismissed by the Court. To the extent a response is
required: Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 72 of the Verified Complaint.
Page 4 of 16
4 of 16
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/05/2019 11:08 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 29 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/05/2019
73. This cause of action has been dismissed by the Court. To the extent a response is
required: Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 73 of the Verified Complaint.
74. This cause of action has been dismissed by the Court. To the extent a response is
required: Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 74 of the Verified Complaint.
75. This cause of action has been dismissed by the Court. To the extent a response is
required: Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 75 of the Verified Complaint.
AS AND FOR PLAINTIFF’S SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
76. This cause of action has been dismissed by the Court. To the extent a response is
required: Repeats and realleges all prior responses to paragraph 76 of the Verified Complaint.
77. This cause of action has been dismissed by the Court. To the extent a response is
required: Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 77 of the Verified Complaint.
78. This cause of action has been dismissed by the Court. To the extent a response is
required: Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 78 of the Verified Complaint.
79. This cause of action has been dismissed by the Court. To the extent a response is
required: Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 79 of the Verified Complaint.
80. This cause of action has been dismissed by the Court. To the extent a response is
required: Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 80 of the Verified Complaint.
81. This cause of action has been dismissed by the Court. To the extent a response is
required: Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 81 of the Verified Complaint.
82. This cause of action has been dismissed by the Court. To the extent a response is
required: Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 82 of the Verified Complaint.
83. This cause of action has been dismissed by the Court. To the extent a response is
required: Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 83 of the Verified Complaint.
AS AND FOR PLAINTIFF’S SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
84. This cause of action has been dismissed by the Court. To the extent a response is
required: Repeats and realleges all prior responses to paragraph 84 of the Verified Complaint.
85. This cause of action has been dismissed by the Court. To the extent a response is
required: Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 85 of the Verified Complaint.
Page 5 of 16
5 of 16
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/05/2019 11:08 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 29 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/05/2019
86. This cause of action has been dismissed by the Court. To the extent a response is
required: Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 86 of the Verified Complaint.
87. This cause of action has been dismissed by the Court. To the extent a response is
required: Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 87 of the Verified Complaint.
88. This cause of action has been dismissed by the Court. To the extent a response is
required: Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 88 of the Verified Complaint.
AS AND FOR PLAINTIFF’S EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
89. This cause of action has been dismissed by the Court. To the extent a response is
required: Repeats and realleges all prior responses to paragraph 89 of the Verified Complaint.
90. This cause of action has been dismissed by the Court. To the extent a response is
required: Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 90 of the Verified Complaint.
91. This cause of action has been dismissed by the Court. To the extent a response is
required: Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 91 of the Verified Complaint.
92. This cause of action has been dismissed by the Court. To the extent a response is
required: Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 92 of the Verified Complaint.
AS AND FOR PLAINTIFF’S NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION
93. This cause of action has been dismissed by the Court. To the extent a response is
required: Repeats and realleges all prior responses to paragraph 89 of the Verified Complaint.
94. This cause of action has been dismissed by the Court. To the extent a response is
required: Denies the allegations contained in paragraph 94 of the Verified Complaint.
95. This cause of action has been dismissed by the Court. To the extent a response is
required: Denies the allegations contained in paragraph 95 of the Verified Complaint.
96. This cause of action has been dismissed by the Court. To the extent a response is
required: Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 96 of the Verified Complaint.
97. This cause of action has been dismissed by the Court. To the extent a response is
required: Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 97 of the Verified Complaint.
98. This cause of action has been dismissed by the Court. To the extent a response is
required: Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 98 of the Verified Complaint.
Page 6 of 16
6 of 16
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/05/2019 11:08 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 29 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/05/2019
99. This cause of action has been dismissed by the Court. To the extent a response is
required: Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 99 of the Verified Complaint.
AS AND FOR PLAINTIFF’S TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
100. Repeats and realleges all prior responses to paragraph 100 of the Verified
Complaint.
101. Denies the allegations contained in paragraph 101 of the Verified Complaint.
102. Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 102 of the Verified Complaint.
103. Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 103 of the Verified Complaint.
AS AND FOR PLAINTIFF’S ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
104. Repeats and realleges all prior responses to paragraph 104 of the Verified
Complaint.
105. Denies the allegations contained in paragraph 105 of the Verified Complaint.
106. Denies the allegations contained in paragraph 106 of the Verified Complaint.
Defendant asserts the following affirmative defenses and reserves the right to amend
and/or add additional Answers, Defenses and/or Counterclaims at a later date following
discovery:
AS AND FOR A FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
107. The complaint is barred in part or in full by the doctrine of unclean hands.
AS AND FOR A SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
108. The complaint is barred for lack of consideration.
AS AND FOR A THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
109. The complaint is barred by justification.
AS AND FOR A FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
110. The complaint is barred by estoppel.
Page 7 of 16
7 of 16
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/05/2019 11:08 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 29 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/05/2019
AS AND FOR AN FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
111. The complaint is barred as a result of Plaintiff’s unjust enrichment.
AS AND FOR A SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
112. The complaint is barred as a result of consent by the Plaintiff.
AS AND FOR A SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
113. The complaint is barred as a result of Plaintiffs’ ratification.
AS AND FOR AN EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
114. The complaint is barred as a result of Plaintiff’s waiver.
AS AND FOR A NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
115. The complaint is barred as a result of Plaintiff’s breach of contract.
AS AND FOR A TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
116. The complaint is barred as a result of Plaintiff sustaining no actual injury.
AS AND FOR AN ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
117. The complaint is barred as Plaintiff asserts nothing other than speculative
damages and will be unable to prove real damages.
AS AND FOR A TWELVTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
118. The complaint is barred by illegality on the part of the Plaintiff.
AS AND FOR A THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
119. The complaint is barred for failure to state a claim.
AS AND FOR A FOURTEENTH DEFENSE
120. The complaint is barred by the doctrine of laches.
Page 8 of 16
8 of 16
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/05/2019 11:08 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 29 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/05/2019
AS AND FOR A FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
121. The complaint is barred as Plaintiff has asserted and received damages from a
collateral source of recovery.
AS AND FOR A SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
122. The complaint is barred as a result of Plaintiff’s own culpable conduct.
AS AND FOR A SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
123. The complaint is barred due to Plaintiff’s release of Defendant.
AS AND FOR A FIRST COUNTERCLAIM: HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT
124. Plaintiff was the business manager for Plaintiff’s client MC1.
125. Defendant and her husband, Yonatan Shimrony2 (“YONATAN”) began working
for MC in or about early 2016.
126. As a result, Defendant and YONATAN constantly had to work with Plaintiff.
127. Plaintiff’s behavior in the workplace was perverse, pervasive, and severe.
128. Plaintiff would often refer to herself as the “Russian Dictator” and delight in the
fact that she could destroy peoples’ lives and careers in Hollywood.
129. Plaintiff would talk about idolizing the tactics of Vladimir Putin, “Scarface” and
“Goodfellas” and talk about her supposed mafia contacts in an effort to intimidate those around
her.
130. Plaintiff would constantly yell obscenities including but not limited to calling
colleagues or staff “white dog shit,” “fucking Israelis,” “fucking Jews,” “Armenian terrorist”,
“Armenian whore”, often using the N-word, homophobic slurs and other such vulgar and
disgusting insults.
131. Defendant is Jewish and YONATAN is Israeli.
132. Plaintiff would constantly tell the men on staff that her “heels are bigger than
[their] dicks” and that she had “bigger balls” than anyone.
1To protect the identity of this non‐party, Defendant is using a pseudonym.
2Mr. Shimrony was dismissed from this case without prejudice pursuant to Order of the Court. Plaintiff has
stated their intention to file an Amended Complaint to bring Mr. Shimrony back into the lawsuit.
Page 9 of 16
9 of 16
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/05/2019 11:08 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 29 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/05/2019
133. Plaintiff on several occasions would grab the genitals of staff members, male and
female, including Defendant and YONATAN, mocking them in front of other colleagues and
laughing at her own perverse jokes.
134. For example, on numerous occasions Plaintiff grabbed Defendant’s behind and
breasts, or would use her nails to touch Defendant’s crotch and simulate vaginal penetration.
135. Defendant was extraordinarily uncomfortable and disgusted by this, and would try
to push Plaintiff away, whereupon Plaintiff would refer to Defendant in a disparaging manner
and insult Defendant to the other staff members.
136. Likewise, Plaintiff would repeatedly grab YONATAN’s genitalia, stating that
YONATAN was her “day husband” and she had the right to “his balls.”
137. Plaintiff would often demand that the female and male staff, including Defendant
and YONATAN to let her know if there was odor coming from her genitals because she “was so
busy that [she] didn’t have time to shower” and stating that “showers are overrated” as if this
was something to be proud of.
138. Plaintiff also repeatedly pulled down her tank tops to reveal one or both of her
breasts and ask the staff, including Defendant and YONATAN, if the surgeon did a “good job”.
139. As was the nature of the work, Plaintiff, Defendant, and YONATAN would travel
with MC and often stay in hotels together.
140. In order to get work done collaboratively, Defendant and YONATAN were forced
to meet with Plaintiff in her hotel room.
141. On numerous occasions, Plaintiff would have her dirty underwear and clothing
strewn all over the room.
142. If Defendant or YONATAN asked for these dirty undergarments or clothing to be
moved so they could sit, Plaintiff would get belligerent and irate and scream at Defendants for
daring to not want to sit on her dirty garments and undergarments.
143. On one occasion, when they were at the Beverly Hills Hotel, Plaintiff invited
Defendant and YONATAN to her room.
144. When Defendant and YONATAN arrived, Plaintiff was sitting on top of a blood
soaked comforter with menstrual blood all over the white covering.
145. Defendant and YONATAN ran out of the room in disgust, stating that they would
not be able to work in that setting.
Page 10 of 16
10 of 16
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/05/2019 11:08 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 29 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/05/2019
146. On another occasion, Defendant was asked to come to Plaintiff’s room while they
were on tour in Europe.
147. When Defendant arrived to the room, Plaintiff was in a hotel robe.
148. Defendant stated that she would return when Plaintiff was clothed and ready to
discuss MC’s matters, however Plaintiff insisted that they talk then and there, and asked
Defendant to follow her into the other room.
149. Plaintiff then took a towel, threw it on the floor, spread her legs and started
urinating on the floor.
150. Defendant started yelling at her that she is crazy and ran out of the room, to which
Plaintiff maniacally laughed and demanded that Defendant come back.
151. On another occasion, Plaintiff made Defendant babysit her daughters, while
Plaintiff had sex in another room.
152. Plaintiff would constantly make comments in front of Defendant and YONATAN
about how she was going to star her daughter in a pornographic film.
153. On another occasion, Plaintiff tackled one of the assistants to the ground and
began urinating on her in the presence of Defendant and YONATAN, while laughing to the point
where she “couldn’t breathe.”
154. Plaintiff would constantly make crude comments about male genitalia in
Defendant and YONATAN’s presence, and specifically make such comments to YONATAN,
whom Plaintiff would refer to as her “day husband.”
155. This behavior was repetitive, pervasive and relentless.
156. Plaintiff knew that these actions were grotesque and extremely uncomfortable for
those around her, causing extreme emotional distress.
157. Defendant and her husband were too afraid to say anything or complain, fearful
that Plaintiff would get them fired if they tried to say anything.
158. Plaintiff’s conduct had the direct purpose and effect of unreasonably interfering
with Defendant and YONATAN’s work performance, and created an intimidating, hostile and
offensive working environment.
159. Plaintiff’s behavior caused severe emotional distress to the Defendant and
YONATAN in an amount to be determined at trial but no less than $50,000,000.00.
Page 11 of 16
11 of 16
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/05/2019 11:08 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 29 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/05/2019
AS AND FOR A SECOND COUNTERCLAIM: DEFAMATION
160. Defendant repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs
“124” through “159” inclusive, as if more fully set forth herein at length.
161. Once Plaintiff felt that she could no longer control Defendant and YONATAN
completely, Plaintiff became determined to ruin Defendant’s reputation.
162. Plaintiff began defaming Defendant to various individuals.
163. For example, Defendant is aware that in or around October 2017, Plaintiff stated
to Isabella Christina Bohorques, the former assistant to MC, that Burbacki was not really a
licensed attorney.
164. At this time Plaintiff also told Ms. Bohorques that Defendant had stolen millions
of dollars from Plaintiff.
165. In or around October 2017, Ms. Bohorques observed Plaintiff making these
statements to a number of Defendant’s colleagues and to other professionals in the entertainment
industry and beyond.
166. Likewise, in October 2017, Plaintiff had her assistant, Mathew Stevens
(“Stevens”) send a letter to MC’s head of security, Albert Mack (“Mack”), stating that Defendant
and YONATAN had conspired with MC’s assistant, Lianna Shakhnazarian (“Shakhnazarian”),
in order to extort and/or humiliate MC.
167. Stevens was instructed to say to Mack that Defendant and YONATAN had
conspired with Shakhnazarian to take a video of MC in a compromising state, and that they were
holding the video in order to extort money from MC.
168. Plaintiff knew that Mack would then present the letter to MC.
169. Plaintiff concocted this story to create doubt in the mind of MC regarding
Defendant and YONATAN’s loyalty, trustworthiness, and integrity.
170. Plaintiff’s false and defamatory statements ascribed criminal and salacious
behavior to BURBACKI and YONATAN.
171. These statements were blatant falsehoods that Plaintiff purposefully concocted in
order to harm Defendant and her husband.
172. These false statements were meant to damage Defendant and YONATAN’s
reputation, business and future earning potential, and ensure that Defendant would be unable to
become employed by or work with anyone in the entertainment industry.
Page 12 of 16
12 of 16
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/05/2019 11:08 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 29 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/05/2019
173. Plaintiff’s statements were defamatory per se.
174. Plaintiff’s defamatory statements were meant to insure that Defendant and her
husband would never be able to work in the entertainment industry again.
175. As a result of Plaintiff’s defamatory statements, Defendant and YONATAN have
been damaged in an amount to be determined at trial but no less than $50,000,000.00.
AS AND FOR A THIRD COUNTERCLAIM: UNJUST ENRICHMENT/QUANTUM
MERUIT
176. Defendant repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs
“124” through “175” inclusive, as if more fully set forth herein at length.
177. Plaintiff hired Defendant, in Plaintiff’s capacity as business manager for MC, for
Defendant to work for the benefit of MC and her corporate entities.
178. However, taking advantage of her power and control over MC and the power
imbalance that existed between Plaintiff and Defendant, Plaintiff made Defendant handle
thousands of hours of personal work for Plaintiff without payment made by Plaintiff to
Defendant for the services rendered.
179. Because Plaintiff had hired Defendant and wielded such enormous power of
MC’s affairs, Defendant was frightened to complain or say anything, for fear that Plaintiff would
then get Defendant and her husband fired and ensure that they never worked in the entertainment
industry again.
180. Plaintiff benefitted at the expense of Defendant as Defendant could have been
working on her own matters instead of having to spend thousands of hours working for free for
Plaintiff.
181. At no point did Plaintiff compensate Defendant for the thousands of hours of
work that Plaintiff made Defendant perform on Plaintiff’s behalf.
182. It is against equity and good conscience to permit Plaintiff to retain the benefit of
Defendant’s thousands of hours of work without proper compensation to Defendant.
183. As a result of Plaintiff’s actions, Defendant has been damaged in an amount to be
determined at trial but no less than $5,000,000.00.
Page 13 of 16
13 of 16
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/05/2019 11:08 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 29 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/05/2019
AS AND FOR A FOURTH COUNTERCLAIM: TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH
BUSINESS RELATIONS
184. Defendant repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs
“124” through “183” inclusive, as if more fully set forth herein at length.
185. In or around October 2017, Plaintiff became desperate to interfere with Defendant
and her husband’s relationship with MC, as Defendant and her husband were no longer speaking
to Plaintiff but were still speaking with and working with MC.
186. Accordingly, as discussed above, Plaintiff concocted a false story that Defendant
and her husband had conspired with MC’s assistant, Shakhnazarian, in order to extort and/or
humiliate MC.
187. Plaintiff knew of the falsehood of this defamatory lie, which Plaintiff concocted
to create doubt in the mind of MC regarding Defendant and YONATAN’s loyalty,
trustworthiness, and integrity.
188. Plaintiffs maliciously and unlawfully interfered with Defendant and
YONATAN’s business relationship with MC in order to harm Defendant and YONATAN and
cause the termination of the relationship.
189. Plaintiff acted with the sole purpose of harming Defendant and YONATAN.
190. Plaintiff used dishonest, unfair, and improper means to achieve this interference.
191. Prior to this letter, MC implicitly trusted and relied on the work of Defendant and
her husband.
192. After this letter, MC distanced herself from Defendant and her husband and
thereafter did not continue to use their services.
193. As a result of Plaintiff’s tortious and wrongful interference, Defendant and
YONATAN have been damaged in an amount to be determined at trial but no less than
$50,000,000.00.
WHEREFORE, the Defendant, ZARINA BURBACKI, demands judgment (1) against
Plaintiff dismissing the complaint in its entirety; (2) against Plaintiff on Defendant’s
counterclaims in an amount to be determined at trial but no less than $155,000,000, plus punitive
damages and pre- and post-judgment interest; (3) against Plaintiff for attorney’s fees, costs and
Page 14 of 16
14 of 16
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/05/2019 11:08 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 29 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/05/2019
disbursements; and (4) for such other, further, and different relief as to this court may seem just
and proper.
Dated: Fresh Meadows, New York
March 3, 2019
Yours etc.
/Jonathan E. Neuman/
Jonathan E. Neuman, Esq.
Attorney for Defendant
176-25 Union Turnpike, Suite 230
Fresh Meadows, New York 11366
(347) 450-6710
jnesq@jenesqlaw.com
To: Marlen Kruzhkov, Esq.
Kruzhkov Russo PLLC
Attorney for Plaintiff
350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7230 72 Fl
New York, NY 10118
(212) 363-2000
marlen@kruzhkovrusso.com
Page 15 of 16
15 of 16
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/05/2019 11:08 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 29 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/05/2019
16 of 16
Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/05/2019 11:08 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 29 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/05/2019 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------------------------X STELLA STOLPER, Index No. 652352/2018 Plaintiff, v. VERIFIED ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS ZARINA BURBACKI, Defendant. -------------------------------------------------------X The Defendant, ZARINA BURBACKI, by her attorney, JONATHAN E. NEUMAN, ESQ., as and for her Answer and Counterclaims to the Complaint herein, respectfully sets forth and alleges as follows: NATURE OF ACTION 1. Denies the allegations contained in paragraph 1 of the Verified Complaint. PARTIES 2. Denies having knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the allegations contained in paragraph 2 of the Verified Complaint. 3. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the allegations contained in paragraph 3 of the Verified Complaint. 4. Denies the address contained in paragraph 4 of the Verified Complaint, and admits the remainder of such paragraph. 5. Denies the address contained in paragraph 5 of the Verified Complaint, and admits the remainder of such paragraph. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 6. States that such paragraph states a legal conclusion to which no responsive pleading is required and whose conclusion is left to the determination of the Court. 7. States that such paragraph states a legal conclusion to which no responsive pleading is required and whose conclusion is left to the determination of the Court. Page 1 of 16 1 of 16 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/05/2019 11:08 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 29 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/05/2019 FACTUAL BACKGROUND 8. Denies the allegations contained in paragraph 8 of the Verified Complaint. 9. Denies the allegations contained in paragraph 9 of the Verified Complaint. 10. Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 10 of the Verified Complaint. 11. Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 11 of the Verified Complaint. 12. Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 12 of the Verified Complaint. 13. Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 13 of the Verified Complaint. 14. Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 14 of the Verified Complaint. 15. Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 15 of the Verified Complaint. 16. Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 16 of the Verified Complaint. 17. Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 17 of the Verified Complaint. 18. Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 18 of the Verified Complaint. 19. Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 19 of the Verified Complaint. 20. Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 20 of the Verified Complaint. 21. Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 21 of the Verified Complaint. 22. Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 22 of the Verified Complaint. 23. Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 23 of the Verified Complaint. 24. Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 24 of the Verified Complaint. 25. Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 25 of the Verified Complaint. 26. Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 26 of the Verified Complaint. 27. Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 27 of the Verified Complaint. 28. Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 28 of the Verified Complaint. 29. Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 29 of the Verified Complaint. 30. Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 30 of the Verified Complaint. 31. Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 31 of the Verified Complaint. 32. Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 32 of the Verified Complaint. 33. Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 33 of the Verified Complaint. 34. Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 34 of the Verified Complaint. 35. Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 35 of the Verified Complaint. 36. Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 36 of the Verified Complaint. 37. Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 37 of the Verified Complaint. Page 2 of 16 2 of 16 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/05/2019 11:08 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 29 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/05/2019 38. Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 38 of the Verified Complaint. 39. Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 39 of the Verified Complaint. 40. Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 40 of the Verified Complaint. 41. Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 41 of the Verified Complaint. 42. Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 42 of the Verified Complaint. 43. Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 43 of the Verified Complaint. 44. Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 44 of the Verified Complaint. 45. Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 45 of the Verified Complaint. 46. Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 46 of the Verified Complaint. 47. Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 47 of the Verified Complaint. 48. Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 48 of the Verified Complaint. AS AND FOR PLAINTIFF’S FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 49. Repeats and realleges all prior responses to paragraph 49 of the Verified Complaint. 50. Denies the allegations contained in paragraph 50 of the Verified Complaint. 51. Denies the allegations contained in paragraph 51 of the Verified Complaint. 52. Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 52 of the Verified Complaint. 53. Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 53 of the Verified Complaint. 54. Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 54 of the Verified Complaint. AS AND FOR PLAINTIFF’S SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 55. This cause of action has been dismissed by the Court. To the extent a response is required: Repeats and realleges all prior responses to paragraph 55 of the Verified Complaint. 56. This cause of action has been dismissed by the Court. To the extent a response is required: Denies the allegations contained in paragraph 56 of the Verified Complaint. 57. This cause of action has been dismissed by the Court. To the extent a response is required: Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 57 of the Verified Complaint. 58. This cause of action has been dismissed by the Court. To the extent a response is required: Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 58 of the Verified Complaint. Page 3 of 16 3 of 16 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/05/2019 11:08 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 29 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/05/2019 59. This cause of action has been dismissed by the Court. To the extent a response is required: Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 59 of the Verified Complaint. 60. This cause of action has been dismissed by the Court. To the extent a response is required: Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 60 of the Verified Complaint. AS AND FOR PLAINTIFF’S THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 61. Repeats and realleges all prior responses to paragraph 61 of the Verified Complaint. 62. Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 62 of the Verified Complaint. 63. Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 63 of the Verified Complaint. 64. Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 64 of the Verified Complaint. 65. Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 65 of the Verified Complaint. AS AND FOR PLAINTIFF’S FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION 66. This cause of action has been dismissed by the Court. To the extent a response is required: Repeats and realleges all prior responses to paragraph 66 of the Verified Complaint. 67. This cause of action has been dismissed by the Court. To the extent a response is required: Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 67 of the Verified Complaint. 68. This cause of action has been dismissed by the Court. To the extent a response is required: Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 68 of the Verified Complaint. 69. This cause of action has been dismissed by the Court. To the extent a response is required: Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 69 of the Verified Complaint. 70. This cause of action has been dismissed by the Court. To the extent a response is required: Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 70 of the Verified Complaint. AS AND FOR PLAINTIFF’S FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION 71. This cause of action has been dismissed by the Court. To the extent a response is required: Repeats and realleges all prior responses to paragraph 71 of the Verified Complaint. 72. This cause of action has been dismissed by the Court. To the extent a response is required: Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 72 of the Verified Complaint. Page 4 of 16 4 of 16 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/05/2019 11:08 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 29 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/05/2019 73. This cause of action has been dismissed by the Court. To the extent a response is required: Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 73 of the Verified Complaint. 74. This cause of action has been dismissed by the Court. To the extent a response is required: Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 74 of the Verified Complaint. 75. This cause of action has been dismissed by the Court. To the extent a response is required: Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 75 of the Verified Complaint. AS AND FOR PLAINTIFF’S SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION 76. This cause of action has been dismissed by the Court. To the extent a response is required: Repeats and realleges all prior responses to paragraph 76 of the Verified Complaint. 77. This cause of action has been dismissed by the Court. To the extent a response is required: Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 77 of the Verified Complaint. 78. This cause of action has been dismissed by the Court. To the extent a response is required: Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 78 of the Verified Complaint. 79. This cause of action has been dismissed by the Court. To the extent a response is required: Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 79 of the Verified Complaint. 80. This cause of action has been dismissed by the Court. To the extent a response is required: Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 80 of the Verified Complaint. 81. This cause of action has been dismissed by the Court. To the extent a response is required: Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 81 of the Verified Complaint. 82. This cause of action has been dismissed by the Court. To the extent a response is required: Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 82 of the Verified Complaint. 83. This cause of action has been dismissed by the Court. To the extent a response is required: Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 83 of the Verified Complaint. AS AND FOR PLAINTIFF’S SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION 84. This cause of action has been dismissed by the Court. To the extent a response is required: Repeats and realleges all prior responses to paragraph 84 of the Verified Complaint. 85. This cause of action has been dismissed by the Court. To the extent a response is required: Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 85 of the Verified Complaint. Page 5 of 16 5 of 16 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/05/2019 11:08 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 29 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/05/2019 86. This cause of action has been dismissed by the Court. To the extent a response is required: Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 86 of the Verified Complaint. 87. This cause of action has been dismissed by the Court. To the extent a response is required: Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 87 of the Verified Complaint. 88. This cause of action has been dismissed by the Court. To the extent a response is required: Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 88 of the Verified Complaint. AS AND FOR PLAINTIFF’S EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION 89. This cause of action has been dismissed by the Court. To the extent a response is required: Repeats and realleges all prior responses to paragraph 89 of the Verified Complaint. 90. This cause of action has been dismissed by the Court. To the extent a response is required: Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 90 of the Verified Complaint. 91. This cause of action has been dismissed by the Court. To the extent a response is required: Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 91 of the Verified Complaint. 92. This cause of action has been dismissed by the Court. To the extent a response is required: Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 92 of the Verified Complaint. AS AND FOR PLAINTIFF’S NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION 93. This cause of action has been dismissed by the Court. To the extent a response is required: Repeats and realleges all prior responses to paragraph 89 of the Verified Complaint. 94. This cause of action has been dismissed by the Court. To the extent a response is required: Denies the allegations contained in paragraph 94 of the Verified Complaint. 95. This cause of action has been dismissed by the Court. To the extent a response is required: Denies the allegations contained in paragraph 95 of the Verified Complaint. 96. This cause of action has been dismissed by the Court. To the extent a response is required: Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 96 of the Verified Complaint. 97. This cause of action has been dismissed by the Court. To the extent a response is required: Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 97 of the Verified Complaint. 98. This cause of action has been dismissed by the Court. To the extent a response is required: Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 98 of the Verified Complaint. Page 6 of 16 6 of 16 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/05/2019 11:08 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 29 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/05/2019 99. This cause of action has been dismissed by the Court. To the extent a response is required: Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 99 of the Verified Complaint. AS AND FOR PLAINTIFF’S TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION 100. Repeats and realleges all prior responses to paragraph 100 of the Verified Complaint. 101. Denies the allegations contained in paragraph 101 of the Verified Complaint. 102. Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 102 of the Verified Complaint. 103. Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 103 of the Verified Complaint. AS AND FOR PLAINTIFF’S ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION 104. Repeats and realleges all prior responses to paragraph 104 of the Verified Complaint. 105. Denies the allegations contained in paragraph 105 of the Verified Complaint. 106. Denies the allegations contained in paragraph 106 of the Verified Complaint. Defendant asserts the following affirmative defenses and reserves the right to amend and/or add additional Answers, Defenses and/or Counterclaims at a later date following discovery: AS AND FOR A FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 107. The complaint is barred in part or in full by the doctrine of unclean hands. AS AND FOR A SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 108. The complaint is barred for lack of consideration. AS AND FOR A THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 109. The complaint is barred by justification. AS AND FOR A FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 110. The complaint is barred by estoppel. Page 7 of 16 7 of 16 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/05/2019 11:08 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 29 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/05/2019 AS AND FOR AN FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 111. The complaint is barred as a result of Plaintiff’s unjust enrichment. AS AND FOR A SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 112. The complaint is barred as a result of consent by the Plaintiff. AS AND FOR A SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 113. The complaint is barred as a result of Plaintiffs’ ratification. AS AND FOR AN EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 114. The complaint is barred as a result of Plaintiff’s waiver. AS AND FOR A NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 115. The complaint is barred as a result of Plaintiff’s breach of contract. AS AND FOR A TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 116. The complaint is barred as a result of Plaintiff sustaining no actual injury. AS AND FOR AN ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 117. The complaint is barred as Plaintiff asserts nothing other than speculative damages and will be unable to prove real damages. AS AND FOR A TWELVTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 118. The complaint is barred by illegality on the part of the Plaintiff. AS AND FOR A THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 119. The complaint is barred for failure to state a claim. AS AND FOR A FOURTEENTH DEFENSE 120. The complaint is barred by the doctrine of laches. Page 8 of 16 8 of 16 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/05/2019 11:08 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 29 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/05/2019 AS AND FOR A FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 121. The complaint is barred as Plaintiff has asserted and received damages from a collateral source of recovery. AS AND FOR A SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 122. The complaint is barred as a result of Plaintiff’s own culpable conduct. AS AND FOR A SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 123. The complaint is barred due to Plaintiff’s release of Defendant. AS AND FOR A FIRST COUNTERCLAIM: HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT 124. Plaintiff was the business manager for Plaintiff’s client MC1. 125. Defendant and her husband, Yonatan Shimrony2 (“YONATAN”) began working for MC in or about early 2016. 126. As a result, Defendant and YONATAN constantly had to work with Plaintiff. 127. Plaintiff’s behavior in the workplace was perverse, pervasive, and severe. 128. Plaintiff would often refer to herself as the “Russian Dictator” and delight in the fact that she could destroy peoples’ lives and careers in Hollywood. 129. Plaintiff would talk about idolizing the tactics of Vladimir Putin, “Scarface” and “Goodfellas” and talk about her supposed mafia contacts in an effort to intimidate those around her. 130. Plaintiff would constantly yell obscenities including but not limited to calling colleagues or staff “white dog shit,” “fucking Israelis,” “fucking Jews,” “Armenian terrorist”, “Armenian whore”, often using the N-word, homophobic slurs and other such vulgar and disgusting insults. 131. Defendant is Jewish and YONATAN is Israeli. 132. Plaintiff would constantly tell the men on staff that her “heels are bigger than [their] dicks” and that she had “bigger balls” than anyone. 1To protect the identity of this non‐party, Defendant is using a pseudonym. 2Mr. Shimrony was dismissed from this case without prejudice pursuant to Order of the Court. Plaintiff has stated their intention to file an Amended Complaint to bring Mr. Shimrony back into the lawsuit. Page 9 of 16 9 of 16 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/05/2019 11:08 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 29 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/05/2019 133. Plaintiff on several occasions would grab the genitals of staff members, male and female, including Defendant and YONATAN, mocking them in front of other colleagues and laughing at her own perverse jokes. 134. For example, on numerous occasions Plaintiff grabbed Defendant’s behind and breasts, or would use her nails to touch Defendant’s crotch and simulate vaginal penetration. 135. Defendant was extraordinarily uncomfortable and disgusted by this, and would try to push Plaintiff away, whereupon Plaintiff would refer to Defendant in a disparaging manner and insult Defendant to the other staff members. 136. Likewise, Plaintiff would repeatedly grab YONATAN’s genitalia, stating that YONATAN was her “day husband” and she had the right to “his balls.” 137. Plaintiff would often demand that the female and male staff, including Defendant and YONATAN to let her know if there was odor coming from her genitals because she “was so busy that [she] didn’t have time to shower” and stating that “showers are overrated” as if this was something to be proud of. 138. Plaintiff also repeatedly pulled down her tank tops to reveal one or both of her breasts and ask the staff, including Defendant and YONATAN, if the surgeon did a “good job”. 139. As was the nature of the work, Plaintiff, Defendant, and YONATAN would travel with MC and often stay in hotels together. 140. In order to get work done collaboratively, Defendant and YONATAN were forced to meet with Plaintiff in her hotel room. 141. On numerous occasions, Plaintiff would have her dirty underwear and clothing strewn all over the room. 142. If Defendant or YONATAN asked for these dirty undergarments or clothing to be moved so they could sit, Plaintiff would get belligerent and irate and scream at Defendants for daring to not want to sit on her dirty garments and undergarments. 143. On one occasion, when they were at the Beverly Hills Hotel, Plaintiff invited Defendant and YONATAN to her room. 144. When Defendant and YONATAN arrived, Plaintiff was sitting on top of a blood soaked comforter with menstrual blood all over the white covering. 145. Defendant and YONATAN ran out of the room in disgust, stating that they would not be able to work in that setting. Page 10 of 16 10 of 16 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/05/2019 11:08 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 29 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/05/2019 146. On another occasion, Defendant was asked to come to Plaintiff’s room while they were on tour in Europe. 147. When Defendant arrived to the room, Plaintiff was in a hotel robe. 148. Defendant stated that she would return when Plaintiff was clothed and ready to discuss MC’s matters, however Plaintiff insisted that they talk then and there, and asked Defendant to follow her into the other room. 149. Plaintiff then took a towel, threw it on the floor, spread her legs and started urinating on the floor. 150. Defendant started yelling at her that she is crazy and ran out of the room, to which Plaintiff maniacally laughed and demanded that Defendant come back. 151. On another occasion, Plaintiff made Defendant babysit her daughters, while Plaintiff had sex in another room. 152. Plaintiff would constantly make comments in front of Defendant and YONATAN about how she was going to star her daughter in a pornographic film. 153. On another occasion, Plaintiff tackled one of the assistants to the ground and began urinating on her in the presence of Defendant and YONATAN, while laughing to the point where she “couldn’t breathe.” 154. Plaintiff would constantly make crude comments about male genitalia in Defendant and YONATAN’s presence, and specifically make such comments to YONATAN, whom Plaintiff would refer to as her “day husband.” 155. This behavior was repetitive, pervasive and relentless. 156. Plaintiff knew that these actions were grotesque and extremely uncomfortable for those around her, causing extreme emotional distress. 157. Defendant and her husband were too afraid to say anything or complain, fearful that Plaintiff would get them fired if they tried to say anything. 158. Plaintiff’s conduct had the direct purpose and effect of unreasonably interfering with Defendant and YONATAN’s work performance, and created an intimidating, hostile and offensive working environment. 159. Plaintiff’s behavior caused severe emotional distress to the Defendant and YONATAN in an amount to be determined at trial but no less than $50,000,000.00. Page 11 of 16 11 of 16 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/05/2019 11:08 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 29 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/05/2019 AS AND FOR A SECOND COUNTERCLAIM: DEFAMATION 160. Defendant repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs “124” through “159” inclusive, as if more fully set forth herein at length. 161. Once Plaintiff felt that she could no longer control Defendant and YONATAN completely, Plaintiff became determined to ruin Defendant’s reputation. 162. Plaintiff began defaming Defendant to various individuals. 163. For example, Defendant is aware that in or around October 2017, Plaintiff stated to Isabella Christina Bohorques, the former assistant to MC, that Burbacki was not really a licensed attorney. 164. At this time Plaintiff also told Ms. Bohorques that Defendant had stolen millions of dollars from Plaintiff. 165. In or around October 2017, Ms. Bohorques observed Plaintiff making these statements to a number of Defendant’s colleagues and to other professionals in the entertainment industry and beyond. 166. Likewise, in October 2017, Plaintiff had her assistant, Mathew Stevens (“Stevens”) send a letter to MC’s head of security, Albert Mack (“Mack”), stating that Defendant and YONATAN had conspired with MC’s assistant, Lianna Shakhnazarian (“Shakhnazarian”), in order to extort and/or humiliate MC. 167. Stevens was instructed to say to Mack that Defendant and YONATAN had conspired with Shakhnazarian to take a video of MC in a compromising state, and that they were holding the video in order to extort money from MC. 168. Plaintiff knew that Mack would then present the letter to MC. 169. Plaintiff concocted this story to create doubt in the mind of MC regarding Defendant and YONATAN’s loyalty, trustworthiness, and integrity. 170. Plaintiff’s false and defamatory statements ascribed criminal and salacious behavior to BURBACKI and YONATAN. 171. These statements were blatant falsehoods that Plaintiff purposefully concocted in order to harm Defendant and her husband. 172. These false statements were meant to damage Defendant and YONATAN’s reputation, business and future earning potential, and ensure that Defendant would be unable to become employed by or work with anyone in the entertainment industry. Page 12 of 16 12 of 16 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/05/2019 11:08 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 29 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/05/2019 173. Plaintiff’s statements were defamatory per se. 174. Plaintiff’s defamatory statements were meant to insure that Defendant and her husband would never be able to work in the entertainment industry again. 175. As a result of Plaintiff’s defamatory statements, Defendant and YONATAN have been damaged in an amount to be determined at trial but no less than $50,000,000.00. AS AND FOR A THIRD COUNTERCLAIM: UNJUST ENRICHMENT/QUANTUM MERUIT 176. Defendant repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs “124” through “175” inclusive, as if more fully set forth herein at length. 177. Plaintiff hired Defendant, in Plaintiff’s capacity as business manager for MC, for Defendant to work for the benefit of MC and her corporate entities. 178. However, taking advantage of her power and control over MC and the power imbalance that existed between Plaintiff and Defendant, Plaintiff made Defendant handle thousands of hours of personal work for Plaintiff without payment made by Plaintiff to Defendant for the services rendered. 179. Because Plaintiff had hired Defendant and wielded such enormous power of MC’s affairs, Defendant was frightened to complain or say anything, for fear that Plaintiff would then get Defendant and her husband fired and ensure that they never worked in the entertainment industry again. 180. Plaintiff benefitted at the expense of Defendant as Defendant could have been working on her own matters instead of having to spend thousands of hours working for free for Plaintiff. 181. At no point did Plaintiff compensate Defendant for the thousands of hours of work that Plaintiff made Defendant perform on Plaintiff’s behalf. 182. It is against equity and good conscience to permit Plaintiff to retain the benefit of Defendant’s thousands of hours of work without proper compensation to Defendant. 183. As a result of Plaintiff’s actions, Defendant has been damaged in an amount to be determined at trial but no less than $5,000,000.00. Page 13 of 16 13 of 16 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/05/2019 11:08 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 29 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/05/2019 AS AND FOR A FOURTH COUNTERCLAIM: TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH BUSINESS RELATIONS 184. Defendant repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs “124” through “183” inclusive, as if more fully set forth herein at length. 185. In or around October 2017, Plaintiff became desperate to interfere with Defendant and her husband’s relationship with MC, as Defendant and her husband were no longer speaking to Plaintiff but were still speaking with and working with MC. 186. Accordingly, as discussed above, Plaintiff concocted a false story that Defendant and her husband had conspired with MC’s assistant, Shakhnazarian, in order to extort and/or humiliate MC. 187. Plaintiff knew of the falsehood of this defamatory lie, which Plaintiff concocted to create doubt in the mind of MC regarding Defendant and YONATAN’s loyalty, trustworthiness, and integrity. 188. Plaintiffs maliciously and unlawfully interfered with Defendant and YONATAN’s business relationship with MC in order to harm Defendant and YONATAN and cause the termination of the relationship. 189. Plaintiff acted with the sole purpose of harming Defendant and YONATAN. 190. Plaintiff used dishonest, unfair, and improper means to achieve this interference. 191. Prior to this letter, MC implicitly trusted and relied on the work of Defendant and her husband. 192. After this letter, MC distanced herself from Defendant and her husband and thereafter did not continue to use their services. 193. As a result of Plaintiff’s tortious and wrongful interference, Defendant and YONATAN have been damaged in an amount to be determined at trial but no less than $50,000,000.00. WHEREFORE, the Defendant, ZARINA BURBACKI, demands judgment (1) against Plaintiff dismissing the complaint in its entirety; (2) against Plaintiff on Defendant’s counterclaims in an amount to be determined at trial but no less than $155,000,000, plus punitive damages and pre- and post-judgment interest; (3) against Plaintiff for attorney’s fees, costs and Page 14 of 16 14 of 16 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/05/2019 11:08 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 29 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/05/2019 disbursements; and (4) for such other, further, and different relief as to this court may seem just and proper. Dated: Fresh Meadows, New York March 3, 2019 Yours etc. /Jonathan E. Neuman/ Jonathan E. Neuman, Esq. Attorney for Defendant 176-25 Union Turnpike, Suite 230 Fresh Meadows, New York 11366 (347) 450-6710 jnesq@jenesqlaw.com To: Marlen Kruzhkov, Esq. Kruzhkov Russo PLLC Attorney for Plaintiff 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7230 72 Fl New York, NY 10118 (212) 363-2000 marlen@kruzhkovrusso.com Page 15 of 16 15 of 16 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/05/2019 11:08 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 29 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/05/2019 16 of 16