Kleyman Law Group, P.C. v. Kaloidis (2026)

Case details
Full caption
Kleyman Law Group, P.C. v. James Kaloidis
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
New York (NY)
Court
New York Court of Appeals
Decided
2026
Disposition
Vacated
Majority
Enter (J.) (unanimous Court)
[FILED: 04/14/2026 11: 19 AM! DOC. NO. 108 502644/2025 04/14/2026 of of of of of PRES ENT: of of of __________ __________ __________ _________________ 1, of of 2, of of 41 [* 1]KINGS COUNTY CLERK INDEX NO. NYSCEF RECEIVED NYSCEF: At an IAS Term, Part 19 the Supreme Court the State New York, held in and for the County Kings, at the Courthouse, at 360 Adams Street, Brooklyn, New York, on the \ 3 day April, 2026. HON. HEELA D. CAPELL, Justice. -----------------------------------------------------------------------X KLEYMAN LAW GROUP, P.C., Plaintiff, -against- Index No.: 502644/25 JAMES KALOIDIS, as Executor the Estate George Kaloidis, Defendants. -----------------------------------------------------------------------X The following e-filed papers read herein: NYSCEF Nos.: Notice Motion/Order to Show Cause/ Petition/Cross Motion and Affidavits (Affirmations) Annexed _ 6-18, 19-23,25-29,30-36,37,42,53-63 Opposing Affidavits (Affirmations) 45-52,64-71,74-76,77,96 Affidavits/ Affirmations in Reply _ 78-82,86-92,93-95 Other Papers: _ Upon the foregoing papers, Kleyman Law Group, P.C. ("Plaintiff' or "KLG") moves, in motion (mot.) sequence (seq.) for an order pursuant to CPLR 321 l(a)(l), (a)(2), and (b) dismissing James Kaloidis, as Executor the Estate George Kaloidis' ("Defendant") affirmative defenses and counterclaims. Plaintiff moves, in mot. seq. for an order pursuant to 22 NYCRR § 130-1.1, awarding it sanctions against Defendant in the amount $20,000 for allegedly filing an alleged frivolous ethics complaint against 1 1
[FILED: 04/14/2026 11: 19 AM! 108 502644/2025 04/14/2026 I. of of of of of of 10 of of of of of of of of of of of 41 [* 2]KINGS COUNTY CLERK INDEX NO. NYSCEF DOC. NO. RECEIVED NYSCEF: Plaintiffs principal attorney, Alex Kleyman ("Mr. Kleyman") and for filing an answer in the instant action which contained alleged frivolous counterclaims and affirmative defenses. Plaintiff further moves for attorney's fees in the amount $50,000 for the time it spent defending against the alleged frivolous filings. Plaintiff moves, in mot. seq. 3, for an order, pursuant to CPLR 6201(1), 6201(3), and 6212(a) granting a prejudgment attachment Defendant's full ownership interest in Sheepshead Restaurant Associates, Inc. ("SRA"), granting a prejudgment attachment all proceeds received or to be received by Defendant from the sale the SRA property, authorizing Plaintiff to file a lien or security interest and to restrain transfer, concealment, or dissipation all proceeds from the sale the SRA property, directing Defendant to disclose all entities, accounts, contracts, and distributions related to the SRA property sale, directing Defendant, within days service the court's order, to disclose under oath a complete list all assets, corporate interests, and proceeds held by Defendant, and requiring Plaintiff to post an undertaking in an amount fixed by the court. 1 Plaintiff also moves, in mot. seq. 4, for an order, pursuant to CPLR 3212, granting it summary judgment under its breach contract claim and awarding it $1,246,000.00 in damages along with contractual interest at the rate 18% per year on unpaid balances or, alternatively prejudgment interest at the 9% statutory rate. Defendant cross-moves, in mot. seq. 5, for an order sanctioning Plaintiff/Mr. Kleyman for the filing an alleged frivolous motion for sanctions and for citing to fictitious cases and/or misrepresenting the holdings cases in its legal papers (i.e., mot. 1 Plaintiff's notice motion in mot. seq. 3 also seeks sanctions against Defendant. However, Plaintiff's affirmations in support and memorandum law contain no discussion supporting this branch its motion. 2 2
[FILED: 04/14/2026 11: 19 AM! DOC. NO. 108 502644/2025 04/14/2026 of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of 41 [* 3]KINGS COUNTY CLERK INDEX NO. NYSCEF RECEIVED NYSCEF: seq. 2). Plaintiff moves, in mot. seq. 6, for an order continuing the temporary restraints which preclude Defendant from transferring, encumbering, dissipating or otherwise disposing $2,000,000 any proceeds received from the pending sale SRA property or its 50% membership interest therein during the pendency this action and pending the resolution mot. seq. 3. In the alternative, Plaintiff seeks an order directing that no less than $2 million in net proceeds from the pending sale SRA property be deposited and maintained in a segregated, interest-bearing IOLA or escrow account under the control Defendant's attorney or a neutral third-party escrow agent. Plaintiff further moves for an order waiving the undertaking requirement under CPLR 6312(b) in light Plaintiffs demonstrated financial hardship. Background Facts/Allegations and Procedural History Plaintiff posits that in or about March 2021, KLG was retained to provide legal services on behalf Defendant's father, George Kaloidis. Plaintiff further maintains that after Mr. Kaloidis' death and the appointment Defendant as the executor his estate, Defendant retained KLG to perform various legal services including representation in several civil lawsuits, the sale the estate's 50% ownership interest in certain commercial property valued at $16,000,000 (i.e., Sheepshead Restaurant Associates, Inc.), as well as obtaining a judgment based upon debt owed to the estate. In this regard, Plaintiff has filed with the court a copy a retainer agreement dated June 22, 2022 (NYSCEF Doc. 12) between KLG and Defendant which indicates that KLG was retained to represent Defendant "in connection with general corporate, advisory, and Litigation matters, including but not limited to disputes involving [Defendant's] ownership interest, 3 3
[FILED: 04/14/2026 11: 19 AM! DOC. NO. 108 502644/2025 04/14/2026 of of 15 of of of of of of of of 10 of 41 [* 4]KINGS COUNTY CLERK INDEX NO. NYSCEF RECEIVED NYSCEF: shareholder conflicts, mortgage or financial issues, and matters concerning Sheepshead Restaurant Associates Inc. (SRA)." The retainer agreement further provided that KLG would bill at the rate $500 per hour and that Defendant would pay an initial retainer fee $25,000 which would be applied toward fees as earned. Further, the retainer agreement stated that "[i]nvoices will be issued regularly and are payable within days. Outstanding balances over 30 days will accrue interest at 1.5%." Plaintiff contends that between June 2022 and October 2024, KLG performed various legal services for Defendant. However, in or about the summer and early fall 2024, certain disputes arose between the parties concerning the work performed by KLG. In an email dated December 4, 2024, Defendant advised the Grievance Committee for the Second, Eleventh and Thirteenth Judicial Districts (the AGC) that his relationship with KLG and Alex Kleyman had deteriorated over the preceding six months, that he instructed Alex Kleyman to return a power attorney that was executed in late 2022, and that Mr. Kleyman refused return the power attorney. In an email to the AGA dated January 10, 2025, Defendant alleged that Mr. Kleyman used the power attorney to sign contracts on Defendant's behalf after he had revoked the power attorney. In an email dated January 16, 2025, Defendant notified KLG that he was terminating its services for him. By summons and complaint filed on January 24, 2025, Plaintiff commenced the instant action against Defendant seeking $1,240,000 in damages plus interest based upon causes action sounding in breach contract, quantum meruit, and an account stated. On March 6, 2025, Defendant filed an answer with affirmative defenses and 7 counterclaims. Among other things, the answer alleged that the Defendant never executed 4 4
[FILED: KINGS 04/14/2026 11: 19 AM! DOC. NO. 108 502644/2025 04/14/2026 of of of of 1, of of 5, of 14 of of 1, papers-including of court-are of 41 [* 5]COUNTY CLERK INDEX NO. NYSCEF RECEIVED NYSCEF: a retainer agreement with KLG and that KLG never presented Defendant with invoices detailing and specifying the $1,260,000 in legal services which the complaint alleged was due and owing. The answer further alleged that Defendant had "an informal agreement" with KLG pursuant to which KLG was to provide legal services to recover assets owned by the estate George Kaloi dis and that the exact terms the agreement including the hourly rate charged by KLG were never agreed to. On April 7, 2025, in support its motion to dismiss (i.e. mot. seq. 1), Defendant filed a copy the aforementioned retainer agreement. Plaintiff further submitted monthly billing invoices for the period between June 2022, and October 31, 2024 (NYSCEF Doc. 16) which indicate that Defendant owed KLG $1,419,000 for legal services rendered. These invoices also indicate that during this entire period, Defendant only made two payments to KLG, a payment $30,000 on November 2, 2023 and a payment $90,000 on January 2024. Plaintiff also submitted email and phone logs between KLG and Defendant as well as between KLG and other parties in connection with its representation Defendant (NYSCEF Docs. and 15). Together, these logs list over 4,000 individual phone and email conversations. Plaintiff's Use Fictitious and Misrepresented Legal Authority As an initial matter, upon review Plaintiffs submissions in Motion Sequence Nos. 2, 3, 4, and 6, the court finds that those Mr. Kleyman's affirmations in support, supporting affidavits, memoranda law, reply affirmations, reply affidavits, proposed order to show cause, and correspondence to the replete with citations to nonexistent authority, as well as citations to actual cases in which the facts, 5 5
[FILED: 04/14/2026 11: 19 AM! 108 502644/2025 04/14/2026 of of 83 of 1s as LLP st LLP, Mut. Co. [l't Sch. TOE Matter of LLC LLC New Auth, st [l't N. Matter of LLP Ma Arrow Hafer LLP Hutton Matter of Matter of of affirmation support of motion to (NYSCEF Mr. the of Esqs, LLP, that "the until after the attorney that mentioned during the Department the that after of the to merit." the plaintiff former attorney's of other Department found that the must under CPLR as it that the for to with the under CPLR it of not or of support of (NYSCEF Mr. the of that the "the Department for refuted documentary the court that the of to of proper affirmative that that other affirmative the as merit not of 41 [* 6]KINGS COUNTY CLERK INDEX NO. NYSCEF DOC. NO. RECEIVED NYSCEF: applicable law, and/or holdings are materially misrepresented. Notably, Plaintiffs submissions cite 23 fictitious cases on a total 4 7 occasions. 2 With respect to Plaintiff/Mr. Kleyman's misrepresentation the holdings and applicable law in the cases cited, the court has identified at least instances in which the holdings are misstated, often with the same case being mischaracterized multiple times throughout the submissions. While too numerous to detail fully herein, illustrative examples are set forth in the margins to demonstrate the flagrant nature these misrepresentations. 3 Such misconduct 2 These fictitious cases are follows: Feder Kasovitz v Rosen, (202 AD3d 421 [1 Dept 2022]); Bouer v st Cravath, Swain & Moore, (177 AD3d 479 [1 Dept 2019]); Lawsky v Condor Capital Corp., (154 AD3d 537 [2d Dept 20171); Liberty Ins. v Jenkins, (10 AD3d 792 [2d Dept 2004]); Rich v Rich, (231 AD2d 384 Dept 19961); Carlucci v Poughkeepsie City Dist., (88 AD3d 1054 [2d Dept 2011)); Citibank v Suthers, (68 AD3d 68 [2d Dept 2009)); Pine v AIA Delivery, Inc., (201 AD3d 640 [2d Dept 2022]); Cruz v Bank NA, (202 AD3d 582 [2d Dept 2022)); White Plains Plaza Realty, v Cappelli, (201 AD3d 689 [2d Dept 2022]); Madison Liquidity lnvs. st 119, v Griffith, (205 AD3d 826 [2d Dept 2022]); Epstein v York City Transit (110 AD3d 493 [1 Dept 2013]); Loew v Smith, 182 AD3d 492 [1 Dept 2020)); Credit Argicole lndosuez v Rossy, (30 AD3d 1041 Dept 2006)); Nassau Diagnostic Imaging v Hummel, (201 AD2d 724 [2d Dept 1994]); Banco Popular Am. v Christie, (202 st AD2d 385 [2d Dept 1994)); Winston & Strawn (21 NY3d 715 [2013)); v Lien, (198 AD3d 567 [1 st Dept 2006); Shukat Weber & Herbsman, v (43 AD3d 395 [1 Dept 2007)); Edgeworth Food Corp. v Stephenson, (53 NY2d 962 [1981)); Tash v Perlmutter, (453 NYS2d 61 [2d Dept 1982); Witham v Witham, 1221 AD3d 781 [2d Dept 20141); and Index Stock Transfer v Blasnik (57 AD3d 1080 [3d Dept 20081). 3 On page 3 his in Defendant's dismiss Doc 7), Kleyman cites case Pace v Raisman & Assocs., (95 AD3d 1185 [2d Dept 20121) and states in this case client waited demanded unpaid legal fees before raising counterclaims and grievances had never been representation. The Second dismissed counterclaims, emphasizing claims raised only the breakdown attorney-client relationship and in response fee demands lack credibility and legal In fact, in Pace, sued his alleging causes action sounding in (among things) legal malpractice and fraud. The Second malpractice claim be dismissed 3211 (a)(5) was time-barred and fraud claim must be dismissed failing be pied requisite particularity required 306(b) and because was duplicative the malpractice claim (Pace, 95 AD3d at 118). The case does involve counterclaims unpaid legal fees. On page 6 his affidavit in sanctions Doc 21), Kleyman cites case Butler v Catinella, (58 AD3d 145 [2d Dept 2008]) and states in case, Second sanctioned a party verified allegations by evidence." In fact, in Butler, ruled defense failure state a cause action was a defense could be asserted in an answer and certain counterclaims and defenses in answer must be dismissed lacking (Butler, 58 AD3d at 148-152). The Butler case does involve sanctions. 6 6
[FILED: 04/14/2026 11: 19 AM! DOC. NO. 108 502644/2025 04/14/2026 of of 32ll(a)(l), of On of of of of Media LLC that the "to In Media of the to Media On of Anthony that CPLR to by case the of an of not On of of {NYSCEF of CPLR has In the case CPLR the of an On of of of that without of of In that of an meruit that of In that for that to with to of of DR NYCRR that to not without of or of 41 [* 7]KINGS COUNTY CLERK INDEX NO. NYSCEF RECEIVED NYSCEF: sanctionable as discussed below in relation to Defendant's cross motion (mot. seq. 5). The court has attached, as Exhibit A to this decision, a comprehensive list the fictitious citations in Plaintiffs papers as well as the citations in which PlaintifflMr. Kleyman misrepresented the holdings and/or facts. The court now turns to the merits each motion. Plaintiffs Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff moves, pursuant to CPLR (a)(2), and (b), to dismiss Defendant's affirmative defenses and counterclaims. As noted above and set forth in Exhibit A to this decision, Plaintiffs affirmation, affidavit, and memorandum law in page 8 his memorandum law in support Plaintiff's motion for prejudgment attachment, Mr. Kleyman cites the case VisionChina Inc. v Shareholder Representative Servs., (109 AD3d 49 [2d Dept 2013)) and states court granted attachment prevent post-litigation dissipation." fact, in VisionChina Inc., the First Department did the exact opposite what Mr. Kleyman claims and reversed lower court's order granting the plaintiff's motion attach the defendant's assets (VisionChina Inc., 109 AD3d at 62). th the same page, Mr. Kleyman cites the case Erdman & Assoc., Inc. v Barkstrom {298 AD2d 981 [4 Dept 2002]) for the proposition 6201{1) "aims prevent defendants from rendering judgments ineffectual removing assets from jurisdictional reach." In fact, this involves granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing account stated cause action and does involve prejudgment attachment orders. page 16 his memorandum in support Plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief Doc 40), Mr. Kleyman cites the case Yed/in v Lieberman, {102 AD3d 769 [2d Dept 2013]) for the proposition that "[c]ourts routinely [waive undertakings under 6312[b] or fix the bond in a nominal amount] when the plaintiff shown financial hardship, equitable standing, and good cause." fact, the Ye/din court upheld a preliminary injunction involving a restrictive covenant in parties' employment agreement (Ye/din, 102 AD3d at 769). The does not involve 6312 or waiving undertaking. page 4 his affidavit in support his summary judgment motion, Mr. Kleyman cites the case Gould v Decolotor, {121 AD3d 845 [2d Dept 2014]) for the proposition a "[d)efendant's partial payments, made voluntarily reservation rights or protest, constitute a ratification plaintiff's invoices and services rendered." contrast, the Second Department held in Gould the defendant failed to establish that the plaintiff's claim for breach implied contract for legal services under a quantum theory was time-barred (Gould, 121 AD3d at 847). The court further held the allegations in plaintiff's complaint were insufficient to support a claim fraud (id. at 848). addition, the court held plaintiff's claim a contingency fee "was dismissible on the ground the plaintiff failed provide the defendants a writing identifying the method by which the contingency fee was be determined in violation former Code Professional Responsibility 2- 106 [d] [22 1200.11 [d)" (id. at 848). Finally, the court found plaintiff's claim for punitive damages must be dismissed (id.). Thus, contrary Mr. Kelyman's representation, Gould did involve partial payments made voluntarily reservation rights protest. 7 7
[FILED: 04/14/2026 11: 19 AM! DOC. NO. 108 502644/2025 04/14/2026 of is is of of of of of of 41 [* 8]KINGS COUNTY CLERK INDEX NO. NYSCEF RECEIVED NYSCEF: support are replete with citations to nonexistent authority, as well as citations to actual cases in which Plaintiff/Mr. Kleyman materially misrepresents the facts or holdings. Indeed, virtually every citation in Plaintiff's motion papers falls into one these two categories. Under these circumstances, Plaintiff's motion to dismiss denied. In any event, Plaintiff's motion is primarily based upon claims in Mr. Kleyman's affidavit and affirmation and the argument that Defendant's affirmative defenses and counterclaims are contradicted by documentary evidence including the retainer agreement, invoices, and email/phone logs filed by Plaintiff. However, it well settled that affidavits do not constitute documentary evidence under CPLR 3211 (a)(l) (Bremner v Bush, 244 AD3d 1044 [2d Dept 2025]). Moreover, as will be discussed more fully below, there are issues fact regarding the validity the retainer agreement, invoices, and email/phone logs submitted by Plaintiff. Sanctions Plaintiff moves, pursuant to 22 NYCRR § 130-1.1, for sanctions against Defendant in the total amount $20,000 for frivolous counterclaims, affirmative defenses, and ethics complaints as well as $50,000 in attorney's fees expended in defending against these frivolous claims. At the same time, Defendant cross-moves for sanctions against Plaintiff for filing a frivolous motion for sanctions and for citing fictitious cases and misrepresenting the holdings cases. In support its motion for sanctions, Plaintiff maintains that the affirmative defenses and counterclaims in Defendant's answer are frivolous on their face as they are contradicted by documentary evidence including the retainer agreement, the invoices, as 8 8
[FILED: 04/14/2026 11: 19 AM! 108 502644/2025 04/14/2026 of of of of of of of of of 41 [* 9]KINGS COUNTY CLERK INDEX NO. 1 NYSCEF DOC. NO. RECEIVED NYSCEF: well as the email/phone logs submitted by Plaintiff. Plaintiff also avers that the ethics complaint that Defendant filed with the AGC was frivolous and intended to harass Plaintiff/Mr. Kleyman, which warrants further sanctions. Finally, Plaintiff submits Mr. Kleyman's own affidavit in which he avers that the billing impact Defendant's frivolous claim has exceeded $50,000 which should be charged to Defendant. In opposition to Plaintiff's motion for sanctions, Defendant submits his own affidavit in which he denies that he entered into the retainer agreement or that he received the invoices that Plaintiff filed. Defendant also notes that Plaintiff forwarded to Matthew Donovan, the law firm Farrell Fritz, an introductory email on November 14, 2022, seeking that firm's assistance in connection with litigation arising out the sale the SRA property (NYSCEF Doc 50). However, the email/phone logs filed by Plaintiff list numerous purported communications with Farrell Fritz that predate the introductory email. In addition, Defendant notes that the email and phone logs submitted by Plaintiff contain numerous purported communications with Maria Johnson, Farrell Fritz, from 2022 and 2023. However, Ms. Johnson did not join the law firm Farrell Fritz until February 2024 as evidenced by a press release submitted by Defendant (NYSCEF Doc. 52). Thus, Defendant maintains that there is no basis for awarding sanctions against him since the documentary evidence which Plaintiff relies upon in support his motion for sanctions has been called into question. In addition, Defendant argues that there is no basis for awarding sanctions against him based upon the ethics complaint that he filed against Defendant with the AGC since the matter before this court and the matter before the AGC are separate proceedings. 9 9
[FILED: 04/14/2026 11: 19 AM! 108 502644/2025 04/14/2026 of of of of of if 1) of of of 13 of of 10 of 41 [* 10]KINGS COUNTY CLERK INDEX NO. NYSCEF DOC. NO. RECEIVED NYSCEF: With respect to his cross motion for sanctions against Plaintiff/Mr. Kleyman, Defendant maintains that Plaintiffs motion for sanctions in this case based upon Defendant's filing a complaint against Plaintiff with the AGC is itself sanctionable. In support this contention, Defendant maintains that the Court Appeals ruling in Wiener v Weintraub (22 NY2d 330, 331-332 [1968]) precludes Plaintiff from seeking sanctions against him in this case based upon the complaint filed with the AGC. Defendant further notes that Plaintiff was presented with this precedent but refused to withdraw his motion for sanctions. In further support his cross motion for sanctions, Defendant points out that Plaintiffs memorandum law in support its motion for sanctions cites numerous cases that do not stand for the proposition that Plaintiff claims they stand for and that Plaintiff also cites to a non-existent case. "Pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1, sanctions may be imposed against a party or the party's attorney for frivolous conduct" (Genco v Genco, 124 AD3d 580, 580 [2d Dept 2015]). "Conduct is frivolous ( it is completely without merit in law or fact and cannot be supported by a reasonable argument for the extension, modification or reversal existing law; (2) it is undertaken primarily to delay or prolong the resolution the litigation, or to harass or maliciously injure another; or (3) it asserts material factual statements that are false" (Matter Congregation Ahavas Moische, Inc., v Katzoff, 54 AD3d 934,934 [2d Dept 2015], citing 22 NYCRR 130-1.l[c]). "The decision whether to impose costs or sanctions against a party for frivolous conduct, and the amount such costs or sanctions, is generally entrusted to the court's sound discretion" (Strunk v New York State Bd. Elections, 126 AD3d 779, 781 [2d Dept 2015]). 10
[FILED: 04/14/2026 11: 19 AM! DOC. NO. 108 502644/2025 04/14/2026 of motion-contain of of of of of of is of 11 of 41 [* 11]KINGS COUNTY CLERK INDEX NO. NYSCEF RECEIVED NYSCEF: Turning first to Plaintiffs motion for sanctions against Defendant, the court notes that, as discussed above, Plaintiffs submissions-including those in support the instant multiple citations to nonexistent authority and to cases that do not support the propositions for which they are cited. The court finds it particularly noteworthy that such conduct, which is itself sanctionable as discussed below, occurs in the context a motion seeking sanctions against the opposing party. The court further notes that Plaintiff seeks $50,000 in attorney's fees for work product that appears to have been generated through the use artificial intelligence, without adequate verification the accuracy the cited authorities. In any event, Plaintiffs motion for sanctions must be denied on the merits. Specifically, there is no basis for imposing sanctions against Defendant in the instant action based upon his alleged filing a frivolous complaint against Plaintiff/Mr. Kleyman with the AGC. As Defendant maintains, the matter before the AGC was a separate and distinct proceeding from the instant matter (Wiener v Weintraub, 32 NY2d 330, 331-332) and there is no authority for the proposition that this court may impose sanctions against Defendant for a matter he brought before the AGC. Moreover, Plaintiff has failed to establish that Defendant's complaint against him with the AGC was frivolous. Plaintiff has also failed to establish that the affirmative defenses and counterclaims m the answer were frivolous, warranting the imposition sanctions. In particular, Plaintiffs motion for sanctions primarily based upon its claim that the affirmative defenses and counterclaims are contradicted by documentary evidence in the form the retainer agreement, invoices, and email/phone logs submitted by Plaintiff. As will be more 11
[FILED: 04/14/2026 11: 19 AM! DOC. NO. 108 502644/2025 04/14/2026 of of is in of 23 as of Co. _AD3d_, [3of of as of of for 12 of 41 [* 12]KINGS COUNTY CLERK INDEX NO. NYSCEF RECEIVED NYSCEF: fully discussed below, there are issues fact regarding this evidence. Accordingly, Plaintiffs motion for sanctions against Defendant and attorney's fees is denied. Turning to Defendant's cross motion for sanctions against Plaintiff/Mr. Kleyman, although Plaintiffs motion for sanctions against Defendant based upon the complaint filed with the AGC was without merit, it cannot be said that it was frivolous so as to justify the imposition sanctions. However, Plaintiffs conduct in submitting papers riddled with fictitious citations and citations that do not stand for the propositions claimed sanctionable as frivolous conduct pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1. Indeed, the Appellate Division, Third Department recently sanctioned an attorney for frivolous conduct the amount $5,000 for submitting five filings containing fabricated legal authorities as well misrepresenting the holdings in several cases during the pendency an appeal rd (Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust v LeTennier, 2026 NY Slip Op 00040 Dept 4 2026]). As the Third Department noted in that case, "there are many harms associated with the submission fake cases that extend beyond merely wasting the time and money the opposing party, but also in taking up the court's resources to evaluate and resolve the deception." With respect to this latter point, and evidenced by exhibit A to this decision and order, the court expended considerable time, effort and resources in evaluating and resolving Plaintiffs deception. In imposing sanctions, the Third Department also noted that some the papers containing erroneous and fictitious citations were filed after the defense counsel was on notice the issue, which also occurred in the instant case. 4 This ruling imposed additional sanctions against the attorney and his client filing a frivolous appeal. 12
[FILED: 04/14/2026 11: 19 AM! DOC. NO. 108 502644/2025 04/14/2026 Law§ of of _AD3d_, is of of 19 of of of of of is of of 13 of 41 [* 13]KINGS COUNTY CLERK INDEX NO. NYSCEF RECEIVED NYSCEF: The court also notes that Mr. Kleyman's conduct may be referable to the AGC. The Appellate Division, First Department recently granted the AGC's motion for reciprocal discipline pursuant to Judiciary 90(2) and 22 NYCRR 1240.13 to publicly censure an attorney admitted to practice in New York who filed a brief in the United States District Court for the Northern District Texas that contained numerous citation errors and repeatedly misrepresented case law for propositions it did not support (Matter Zareh, 2026 NY Slip Op 00619 [Pt Dept 2026]). Indeed, it would appear that Mr. Kleyman's conduct in the instant matter more egregious than that the attorney in Matter Zareh since he directly filed separate affirmations, affidavits, memorandum law as well as a proposed order to show cause and letter to the court containing fictitious and/or erroneous citations, some which were filed after he was placed on notice his actions. For the reasons set forth above, Defendant's cross motion for sanctions against Plaintiff/Mr. Kleyman is granted and the parties are to appear before the court for a hearing on June 9, 2026 at 10:00A.M. at 360 Adams Street, Part 19, Room 419, Brooklyn NY, 11201, at which time the amount sanctions, as well as whether referral Mr. Kleyman to the AGC warranted, will be determined. Plaintiff's Motion for Prejudgment Attachment Plaintiff moves, in mot. seq. 3, pursuant to CPLR 6201(1), 6201(3), 6212(a) and 6220 for an order awarding it prejudgment attachment Defendant's ownership interest in the SRA property and all proceeds received or to be received from the sale the SRA property. In addition, Plaintiff seeks an order, pursuant to CPLR 6220 directing Defendant 13
[FILED: 04/14/2026 11: 19 AM! 108 502644/2025 04/14/2026 of of of is of of is is of of ). of is of of of of 3. that is to of 41 [* 14]KINGS COUNTY CLERK INDEX NO. NYSCEF DOC. NO. RECEIVED NYSCEF: 1 to disclose all entities, accounts, contracts, and distributions related to the SRA transaction and further directing Defendant to disclose under oath all assets held by the estate his late father, George Kaloidis. 5 In support this motion, Plaintiff claims to have demonstrated the probable success its claims as required under CPLR 6212 (a). Plaintiff points to the retainer agreement, invoices, email records, as well as the fact that Defendant made partial payments for the legal services rendered by Plaintiff. Plaintiff further notes that Defendant currently lives in Florida, and as such, a nondomiciliary residing outside the state New York. In addition, Plaintiff submits Mr. Kleyman' s affidavit in which he contends that Defendant told him on numerous occasions that he plans to move back to his native Greece once the sale the SRA property complete. Under the circumstances, Plaintiff contends that he entitled to an order awarding him prejudgment attachment Defendant's ownership interest in the SRA property and all proceeds received or to be received from the sale the SRA property under CPLR 6201 ( 1 Plaintiff also maintains that it is entitled to an order attachment under CPLR 6201 (3) inasmuch as Defendant has or about to act to frustrate the enforcement a judgment in Plaintiffs favor by assigning, disposing of, and secreting the proceeds from the sale the SRA property. In support this argument, Plaintiff again points to Mr. Kleyman' s affidavit in which he avers that Defendant intends to relocate to Greece after liquidating the estate his father. In addition, Plaintiff states that in 2023, Defendant instructed Mr. 5 Plaintiff also moves for sanctions against Defendant in mot. seq. However, the court has already determined Plaintiff not entitled sanctions. 14 14
[FILED: 04/14/2026 11: 19 AM! 108 502644/2025 04/14/2026 is of of ). of of of of of of 15 of 41 [* 15]KINGS COUNTY CLERK INDEX NO. NYSCEF DOC. NO. RECEIVED NYSCEF: Kleyman to release a $275,000 distribution to Defendant's brother, who a beneficiary under the estate. Plaintiff also points to Defendant's answer, in which he denied the existence the retainer agreement and claimed that he never received any invoices for legal work, both which, according to Plaintiff, are contradicted by documentary evidence. According to Plaintiff, this conduct constitutes a calculated campaign by Defendant to evade his legal obligations and shield the estate assets from judicial enforcement. In opposition to Plaintiffs motion, Defendant maintains that the mere fact that he resides in Florida is not sufficient grounds for granting an attachment under CPLR 6201 ( 1 According to Defendant, Plaintiff also must demonstrate that Defendant lacks sufficient assets to cover any future judgment or that he has or will hide or dispose his assets so as to frustrate any future judgment. Here, Defendant argues that Plaintiff has failed to make such a showing. In particular, Defendant points out that the estate seeks to sell its 50% ownership in SRA for $16 million, which demonstrates that Defendant has the wherewithal to satisfy the judgment sought by Plaintiff. In addition, Defendant maintains that Plaintiff has failed to produce any evidence that he has or will hide or dispose assets so as to defeat a future judgment. Defendant submits his own affidavit in which he states that he never told Plaintiff that he planned to move to Greece and that he has no intention doing so. In addition, while Defendant concedes that he distributed $275,000 in estate assets to his brother, he maintains that this money was given to his brother as a return his portion estate taxes when his brother renounced his share the estate. Defendant 15
[FILED: 04/14/2026 11: 19 AM! 108 502644/2025 04/14/2026 of is of of is of of of of is of NY of of 11 is 16 of 41 [* 16]KINGS COUNTY CLERK INDEX NO. NYSCEF DOC. NO. RECEIVED NYSCEF: further states that this distribution was made with Plaintiffs/Mr. Kleyman' s knowledge as the money was released from Plaintiffs escrow account. Similarly, Defendant argues that Plaintiff has failed to establish that he is entitled to an attachment under CPLR 6201(3) as there is no evidence that he intends to frustrate the enforcement any judgment or that he has or about to assign, dispose or remove property or that he is about to do so. Finally, Defendant argues that Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that he is likely to succeed on the merits his claim, as required when seeking an order attachment. In support, Defendant reiterates his claim that he did not sign the retainer agreement and never received the invoices filed by Plaintiff. In addition, Defendant again notes that the phone/email logs submitted by Plaintiff contain numerous emails to Farrell Fitz that predate Plaintiffs introductory email to that firm as well as numerous emails to Ms. Johnson that predate her joining the Farrell Fitz law firm, both which undercut the validity these phone/email logs. As previously noted, and as set forth in Exhibit A, Plaintiffs papers in support his motion for a prejudgment attachment are replete with fictitious and erroneous citations. In any event, even disregarding these citations, Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden in seeking an attachment order. "Attachment a 'harsh' remedy, and is construed narrowly in favor the party against whom the remedy is invoked" (VisionChina Media Inc., 109 AD3d at 59, citing Penoyar v Kelsey, 150 77, 80 [1896]). "Whether to grant a motion for an order attachment rests within the discretion the court (VisionChina Media Inc., 109 AD3d at 59, citing Morgenthau v Avian Resources, Ltd., NY3d 383, 387 [2008]). Under CPLR 6201 ( 1) a defendant being a nondomiciliary residing without the state 16
!FILED: 04/14/2026 11: 19 AM! 108 502644/2025 04/14/2026 of of of of is of is of of of 41 [* 17]KINGS COUNTY CLERK INDEX NO. NYSCEF DOC. NO. RECEIVED NYSCEF: grounds for attachment. However, in addition to meeting this statutory requirement, "the party seeking attachment must demonstrate an identifiable risk that the defendant will not be able to satisfy the judgment" ( VisionChina Media Inc., 109 AD3d at 60). "That risk should be real, 'whether it is a defendant's financial position or past and present conduct"' (id., quoting Ames v Clifford, 863 F.Supp. 175, 177 [SDNY 1994]). Here, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that Defendant will not be able to satisfy the judgment sought by Plaintiff. To the contrary, the evidence before the court indicates that the estate's ownership interest in the SRA properties is more than enough to cover any eventual judgment. Further, Plaintiff has failed to establish that Defendant's conduct indicates that he intends to frustrate hide or dispose the estate's assets. The only specific example given by Plaintiff Defendant disbursing the assets the estate involves a $275,000 distribution to his brother. However, in his affidavit, Defendant states that this was in return for estate taxes paid by his brother after he renounced his share the estate and Plaintiff does not dispute this claim. Plaintiff has also failed to demonstrate that it is entitled to an attachment order under CPLR 6211(3). Under this provision, attachment may be granted when it shown that "defendant, with intent to defraud his creditors or frustrate the enforcement a judgment that might be rendered in plaintiffs favor, has assigned, disposed of, encumbered or secreted property, or removed it from the state or about to do any these acts." "Affidavits containing allegations raising a mere suspicion an intent to defraud are insufficient. It must appear that such fraudulent intent really existed in the defendant's mind" (Societe Generate Alsacienne De Banque, Zurich v Flemingdon Dev. Corp., 118 17 17
!FILED: KINGS 04/14/2026 11: 19 AM! 108 502644/2025 04/14/2026 of is of of (3 ). 1) of of of of of of of of 1, of of of of 18 of 41 [* 18]COUNTY CLERK INDEX NO. NYSCEF DOC. NO. RECEIVED NYSCEF: AD2d 769, 773 [2d Dept 1986] [internal quotation marks omitted]). Furthermore, "[t]he 'mere removal, assignment or other disposition property not grounds for attachment'" (Cyngiel v Krigsman, 192 AD3d 762, 763 [2d Dept 2021], quoting Corsi v Vroman, 32 AD3d 397, 397 [2d Dept 2007]). Here, Plaintiff has failed to make a showing any conduct which would satisfy the requirements CPLR 6201 Accordingly, Plaintiffs motion, for an order awarding it prejudgment attachment under CPLR 6201 ( and (3) is denied. Furthermore, Plaintiffs motion, pursuant to CPLR 6220 seeking various disclosure related to the sale the SRA property and the assets the estate is also denied. Although CPLR 6220 permits a plaintiff to move for an order directing disclosure regarding property in which the defendant has an interest "at any time after the granting an order attachment," here, Plaintiffs motion for an order attachment is denied. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment Plaintiff moves for summary judgment under its breach contract cause action. In support its motion, Plaintiff submits the purported retainer agreement between Defendant and KLG, the monthly invoices for the work it allegedly performed for Defendant between June 2022 and October 31, 2024, as well as email/phone logs for work purportedly performed on behalf Defendant. According to Plaintiff, this documentary evidence conclusively establishes that the parties entered into a written contract for the performance services by KLG, that KLG perfonned its obligations under the contract, that Defendant breached the contract by failing to pay for these services, and that KLG was damaged in the amount $1,419,000.000 (plus interest) as a result 18
!FILED: 04/14/2026 11: 19 AM! 108 502644/2025 04/14/2026 in of of of of as of is 321 of of if of is 19 of 41 [* 19]KINGS COUNTY CLERK INDEX NO. NYSCEF DOC. NO. RECEIVED NYSCEF: Defendant's breach. Plaintiff further contends that Defendant's claim in his answer and affidavit opposition to the motion that he did not sign the retainer agreement or receive any the invoices submitted by Plaintiff is insufficient to raise a triable issue fact given the documentary evidence submitted by Plaintiff, as well as the fact that Defendant made partial payments in the total amount $170,000 for services performed. In further support his motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff argues that Defendant's affirmative defenses fail a matter law. In particular, Plaintiff maintains that Defendant's first affirmative defense (failure to state a claim) not a proper affirmative defense and must be raised in a CPLR l(a)(7) motion. In addition, Plaintiff argues that Defendant's second and third affirmative defenses (failure to provide invoices, no account stated and waiver) are refuted by the documentary evidence submitted by Plaintiff. Plaintiff also maintains that Defendant's fourth and fifth affirmative defenses (failure to provide invoices was an ethical violation and said failure also results in Plaintiff's claims being barred by the doctrine laches) are refuted by the documentary evidence submitted by Plaintiff. Further, Plaintiff argues that allegations ethical violations, even proven, do not negate a party's contractual entitlement to payment for services rendered. In addition, Plaintiff argues that the doctrine laches not an available defense in actions at law for monetary damages. Plaintiff also argues that Defendant's sixth affirmative defense (failure to enter into a retainer agreement) is refuted by the documentary evidence before the court. Finally, Plaintiff argues that Defendant's seventh through tenth affirmative defenses (malpractice, negligence, breach a fiduciary duty, and conversion) are conclusory and unsupported by any admissible evidence. 19
!FILED: 04/14/2026 11: 19 AM! 108 502644/2025 04/14/2026 of of of is of of of of of of of of of of 20 of 41 [* 20]KINGS COUNTY CLERK INDEX NO. NYSCEF DOC. NO. RECEIVED NYSCEF: With respect to Defendant's counterclaims, Plaintiff argues that Defendant's first and second counterclaims (breach fiduciary duty) fail since Defendant has not presented admissible evidence showing misconduct on KLG' s part. Further, Plaintiff argues that the parties' underlying relationship was governed by the retainer agreement and as such, these claims are duplicative Defendant's breach contract counterclaim. Plaintiff contends that Defendant's third counterclaim (which seeks an accounting) has no basis inasmuch as KLG has provided detailed monthly billing invoices which were accepted by Defendant without objection. In addition, Plaintiff maintains that there no basis for Defendant's fourth counterclaim, which alleges the breach an oral contract between the parties given the existence the written retainer agreement. With respect to Defendant's fifth counterclaim, which alleges conversion, Plaintiff argues that this claim fails as Defendant has failed to allege a wrongful dominion over property in defiance the owner's rights. As a final matter, Plaintiff claims that Defendant's sixth and seventh counterclaims (negligence and malpractice) are baseless as Defendant cannot establish that KLG's conduct caused any actual damages. In opposition to Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment under its breach contract claim, Defendant argues that there are issues fact that preclude awarding Plaintiff summary judgment under this cause action. In support, Defendant submits his own affidavit in which he denies that he signed the retainer agreement submitted by Plaintiff and further states that he never saw this agreement until after the commencement this action. Instead, Defendant avers that he entered into an oral agreement with KLG whereby KLG would receive 5% Defendant's portion the proceeds from the sale 20
!FILED: 04/14/2026 11: 19 AM! 108 502644/2025 04/14/2026 of of of of 19, is if of 21 of 41 [* 21]KINGS COUNTY CLERK INDEX NO. NYSCEF DOC. NO. RECEIVED NYSCEF: the SRA property. Defendant admits that he did pay KLG for work performed, but only after Kleyman "begged me for an advance because he needed the money." Defendant also maintains that he never received any the invoices submitted by Plaintiff and did not see these documents until after the commencement this action. Defendant also notes that Plaintiff has failed to produce a single contemporaneous communication between the parties such as an email or letter referencing the retainer agreement or invoices. In addition, Defendant notes that Plaintiff contends that the invoices were delivered to Defendant by hand. However, Defendant points out that he has lived in Florida since late 2023 and Plaintiff has failed to introduce any evidence regarding how the delivery the invoices were made after he moved to Florida. Further, Defendant submits a copy an email sent to him by Mr. Kleyman dated November 2024 in which Mr. Kleyman states, "I am currently working on itemizing all the work I performed for your benefit ... and all the work I did for your judgment dating back to 2022 and continuing till present day." Mr. Kleyman further states in this email that "I estimate that the total [ amount due] going to be around $1.3-$1.5 million." In this regard, Defendant notes that KLG had provided him with invoices on a monthly basis going back to June 2022 (as claimed by Mr. Kleyman), Mr. Kleyman would not have needed to itemize the work performed nor to estimate the amount due. Thus, Defendant maintains that it is clear from Mr. Kleyman's own statement in this email that the invoices were created after the fact and were never delivered to Defendant. In further opposition to Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment, Defendant points to several anomalies in the proof submitted by Plaintiff. In particular, as previously noted, 21
!FILED: 04/14/2026 11: 19 AM! 108 502644/2025 04/14/2026 of of of of of KLG's 8.1 of is of of 41 [* 22]KINGS COUNTY CLERK INDEX NO. NYSCEF DOC. NO. RECEIVED NYSCEF: Defendant points out that KLG's first communication with the law firm Farrell Fritz on Defendant's behalf was an introductory email from KLG to Matt Donovan at Farrell Fritz dated November 14, 2022 (NYSCEF Doc. 50). However, the email and phone logs submitted by Plaintiff in support his motion contain numerous purported communications with individuals at Farrell Fritz that pre-date the introductory email. In addition, Defendant again notes that the email and phone logs submitted by Plaintiff contain numerous purported communications with Maria Johnson Farrell Fritz from 2022 and 2023. However, Ms. Johnson did not join the law firm Farrell Fritz until February 2024 as evidenced by a press release submitted by Defendant (NYSCEF Doc. 52). Finally, Defendant points to certain anomalies in the invoices submitted by Plaintiff. In particular, December 2022 invoice billed Defendant for 7.9 hours for a meeting held with Farrell Fritz on December 6, 2022. However, Farrell Fritz's invoice for the same meeting only billed 1.5 hours for the meeting. In addition, KLG's invoices indicate that it met with Farrell Fritz for hours on December 16, 2022. However, Farrell Fritz's invoices show no record any such meeting with KLG on that date. In opposition to Plaintiffs motion to dismiss his affirmative defenses, Defendant argues that contrary to Plaintiffs claim, his first affirmative defense (failure to state a claim) a viable affirmative defense. Defendant also argues that his second affirmative defense (no account stated because KLG failed to provide him with invoices), third affirmative defense (KLG waived it's right to payment by failing to provide Defendant with invoices) and fourth affirmative defense (failure to provide invoices was a violation attorney ethics cannons) are all viable since Defendant was not in fact provided with the 22 22
!FILED: 04/14/2026 11: 19 AM! 108 502644/2025 04/14/2026 of of of of of of of of 23 of 41 [* 23]KINGS COUNTY CLERK INDEX NO. NYSCEF DOC. NO. RECEIVED NYSCEF: mvo1ces. Defendant further contends that his fifth (latches), sixth and seventh affirmative defenses (overcharge) are viable. In particular, Defendant reasserts his claim that Plaintiff failed to send him any invoices and further points to Mr. Kleyman's November 19, 2024 email in which he indicated that he was in the process itemizing the work he performed for Defendant. Thus, Defendant maintains that Plaintiff failed to bill him in a timely manner and that he was prejudiced by this delay. In addition, Defendant points to the aforementioned discrepancies between Plaintiff's invoices and Farrell Fritz's invoices. Defendant also contends that his eighth affirmative defense ( alleging negligence) is viable since Plaintiff rendered negligent legal services by using an invalid power attorney to sign an agreement to sell a judgment, and by improperly commencing a direct action against an SRA member rather than a derivative action which resulted in the discontinuance the action. Finally, Defendant argues that his ninth and tenth affirmative defenses (alleging breach fiduciary duty) are viable since Plaintiff represented both sides a transaction without Defendant's knowledge and improperly released escrow funds in violation a judgment agreement. With respect to his counterclaims, Defendant argues that his first and second counterclaims, which allege breach fiduciary duty are valid and should not be dismissed. In support this contention Defendant maintains that Mr. Kleyman placed his own interests above Defendant's interests when acting as an escrow agent, he transferred a $100,000 down payment in an escrow account to LRJADE consulting, Inc., which is an entity controlled by Mr. Kleyman's wife. In addition, Defendant argues that Mr. Kleyman breached his fiduciary duty by representing both parties in a transaction in an effort to sell 23
!FILED: 04/14/2026 11: 19 AM! 108 502644/2025 04/14/2026 Plaintiffs KLG's of ofKLG's of KLG's of of 24 of 41 [* 24]KINGS COUNTY CLERK INDEX NO. NYSCEF DOC. NO. RECEIVED NYSCEF: a judgment held by the estate. In addition, Defendant maintains that his third counterclaim (seeking an accounting) should not be dismissed since Defendant has denied ever receiving the invoices and Plaintiff has failed to provide any documentation proving otherwise. In further opposition to motion for summary judgment dismissing the accounting counterclaim, Defendant maintains that there is evidence that KLG overbilled him given the discrepancies between bills and Farrell Fritz's corresponding bills for the same work. In addition, Defendant maintains that he has a viable breach contract claim (fourth counterclaim) against Plaintiff based upon the poor quality work and the fact that Plaintiff placed its own interest before those its client. Furthermore, Defendant contends that his fifth counterclaim ( conversion) is viable given his allegation that Mr. Kleyman improperly released $100,000 from escrow account. As a final matter, Defendant argues that his sixth and seventh counterclaims, which allege malpractice, should not be dismissed. Defendant maintains that there is evidence that KLG committed malpractice when it commenced an action to enforce an alleged agreement for Defendant's late father to purchase shares from his brothers that was dismissed on a summary judgment motion. Defendant further alleges that KLG committed malpractice when it improperly commenced an action for misappropriation that was discontinued after a motion to dismiss was made based on lack standing. Moreover, Defendant contends that KLG committed malpractice by improperly using an invalid power attorney to sign a judgment agreement. Finally, Defendant argues that Mr. Kleyman is personally liable for this malpractice pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 1505. 24
!FILED: 04/14/2026 11: 19 AM! 108 502644/2025 04/14/2026 of of of of of of of of is of of Tit. of of is of of of of D. of 25 of 41 [* 25]KINGS COUNTY CLERK INDEX NO. NYSCEF DOC. NO. RECEIVED NYSCEF: Mr. Kleyman's affirmation, affidavit, and memorandum in support Plaintiffs summary judgment motion on its breach contract claim once again contain numerous fictitious citations and misrepresentations actual case law. A party cannot satisfy its prima facie burden by relying on nonexistent cases or misstating the law. Moreover, genuine issues fact preclude granting summary judgment on the breach contract. "To establish prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter law on a cause action alleging breach contract, a party required to demonstrate the existence a contract, the party's performance under the contract, the other party's breach the contract, and that the party suffered harm as a result" ( US. Bank Natl. Assoc. v Reddy, 220 AD3d 967, 972 [2d Dept 2023], quoting Sammy v First Am. Ins. Co., 205 AD3d 949, 957 [2d Dept 2022]). Here, Plaintiff relies primarily upon the retainer agreement, the invoices, and the email/phone logs in support his summary judgment motion under his breach contract claim while Defendant's opposition to the motion primarily based upon his claim that he never entered into the retainer agreement and never received the invoices. As a general rule, a defendant's "bald assertion forgery" is insufficient to raise a triable issue fact regarding a breach contract claim (Law Office Ronald Weiss P.C. v Piltan, 241 AD3d 671,672, [2d Dept 2025], quoting 82-90 Broadway Realty Corp. v New York Supermarket, Inc., 154 AD3d 797, 799 [2d Dept 2017]). However, as discussed below, there are certain unexplained anomalies, discrepancies and inconsistencies in Plaintiffs proof which raise triable issues fact. Initially, the court notes that the retainer agreement submitted by Plaintiff requires that Defendant pay KLG a $25,000 retainer fee. However, the invoices submitted by 25
!FILED: 04/14/2026 11: 19 AM! 108 502644/2025 04/14/2026 of 15 of of 17 of of of of of of 26 of 41 [* 26]KINGS COUNTY CLERK INDEX NO. NYSCEF DOC. NO. RECEIVED NYSCEF: Plaintiff indicate that this retainer fee was never paid. Moreover, Plaintiff has failed to submit a single contemporaneous written communication between the parties wherein KLG asks Defendant about the payment the retainer fee. Further, the retainer agreement requires that Defendant pay all monthly invoices within days receipt. However, the invoices submitted by Plaintiff indicate that Defendant did not make a single payment until November 2023, some months after the retainer agreement was entered into, by which time (according to the invoices) there was a balance over $850,000 due based upon over 1,700 hours being billed. Moreover, notwithstanding the length time that had passed before any payments were made and the amount the balance due, Plaintiff has failed to submit a single contemporaneous written communication between the parties inquiring about payments and the outstanding balance. The court also notes that, contrary to Plaintiffs claim, the invoices do not indicate that Defendant made a $50,000 payment in March 2024. Further, regarding the invoices upon which Plaintiff relies in support its summary judgment motion, although Mr. Kleyman maintains that he hand-delivered the invoices to Defendant, he has offered no proof (such as a mailing receipt or email) as to how the invoices were delivered to Defendant after he moved to Florida in 2023. Moreover, the statement in Mr. Kleyman's November 19, 2024 email that he was in the process "itemizing all the work I performed for your benefit" raises issues fact as to whether the invoices submitted by Plaintiff were ever delivered to Defendant and/or whether these invoices were created years after KLG was initially hired by Defendant. Mr. Kleyman's statement that he estimated "the total is going to be around $1.3-$1.5 million" raises similar 26
!FILED: 04/14/2026 11: 19 AM! 108 502644/2025 04/14/2026 of of of of of of of of of of In to of KLG that not that the 27 of 41 [* 27]KINGS COUNTY CLERK INDEX NO. NYSCEF DOC. NO. RECEIVED NYSCEF: issues fact since he would not have had to estimate the balance due had the invoices been generated and delivered on a monthly basis going back to June 2022 as claimed by Mr. Kleyman. There are also issues regarding the email and phone logs submitted by Plaintiff in support his summary judgment motion. As Defendant indicates, these logs list hundreds purported emails between KLG and individuals working for Farrell Fitz which predate the November 14, 2022 introductory email between KLG and Farrell Fritz. Plaintiff has failed to offer any explanation for this discrepancy. Further, Plaintiff has not adequately explained why the logs contain emails with Maria Johnson Farrell Fritz which predate 6 her joining that firm in February 2024. These claimed emails are all the more problematic inasmuch as the invoices that predate the November 14, 2022 introductory letter all bill hours for "bundled emails" that were reviewed, which presumably include the emails with Farrell Fritz set forth in the logs submitted by Plaintiff. Under these circumstances and considering the fact that no discovery has yet taken place in this action, Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment under his breach contract claim against Defendant is denied as there are issues fact regarding whether the parties entered into the retainer agreement and whether Defendant ever received the invoices. There are also issues fact regarding the legitimacy the email/phone logs submitted by Plaintiff in support its summary judgment motion. 6 response Defendant's argument regarding the Johnson emails, Plaintiff submits a screenshot emails between and Ms. Johnson occurred after she joined Farrell Fritz. Obviously, this does refute Defendant's arguments regarding the emails listed in the logs occurred before she joined firm. 27
!FILED: 04/14/2026 11: 19 AM! 108 502644/2025 04/14/2026 is is of of of of of Plaintiffs of of of of 28 of 41 [* 28]KINGS COUNTY CLERK INDEX NO. NYSCEF DOC. NO. RECEIVED NYSCEF: Turning to Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment dismissing Defendant's affirmative defenses, contrary to Plaintiffs contention, the failure to state a claim a valid affirmative defense (Butler v Catinella, 58 AD3d 145 [2d Dept 2008]). Accordingly, Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment dismissing Defendant's first affirmative defense denied. Furthermore, the court has already determined that there are issues fact regarding whether Plaintiff provided Defendant with the invoices. Accordingly, Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment dismissing Defendant's second and third affirmative defenses (which allege that no account has been stated and that Plaintiff waived its right to payment for failing to provide Defendant with the invoices) is denied. Similarly, summary judgment dismissing Defendant's fourth affirmative defense alleging that the failure to provide detailed invoices constituted an ethical breach is denied. In addition, that branch Plaintiffs motion seeking to dismiss Defendant's fifth affinnative defense, which alleges that Plaintiffs claims are barred by the doctrine laches based upon its failure to bill Defendant for work performed for a period over two years, must be denied. That branch motion seeking to dismiss Defendant's sixth affirmative defense, which alleges that Plaintiffs failure to enter into a retainer agreement with Defendant constituted an ethical breach, must also be denied since the court has determined that there are issues fact regarding the validity the retainer agreement. The motion to dismiss Defendant's seventh affirmative defense (that Plaintiff undertook unnecessary work during its representation Defendant) and eighth affirmative defense (that Plaintiff performed its work for Defendant in a negligent manner) is denied as Plaintiff has failed to meet its prima facie burden demonstrating that these defenses are frivolous or that 28
!FILED: 04/14/2026 11: 19 AM! 108 502644/2025 04/14/2026 of is of of of of is of of of of of is of of 29 of 41 [* 29]KINGS COUNTY CLERK INDEX NO. NYSCEF DOC. NO. RECEIVED NYSCEF: Plaintiff was free from negligence during its representation Defendant. Finally, Plaintiffs motion to dismiss Defendant's ninth and tenth affirmative defenses denied. These affirmative defenses allege that Plaintiffs improper transfer $100,000 in the escrow account breached its duty loyalty and care owed to Defendant and was an ethical violation. In this regard, Plaintiff has failed to meet its prima facie burden demonstrating that this transfer was made with Defendant's knowledge and consent. Accordingly, the branch the motion seeking to dismiss Defendant's affirmative defenses denied. Turning to Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment dismissing Defendant's counterclaims, Defendants first and second counterclaims ( alleging breach fiduciary duty) and fourth counterclaim (breach contract) are duplicative his malpractice claim (Alphas v Smith, 147 AD3d 557, 558-559 [Pt Dept 2017], Conklin v Owen, 72 AD3d 1006, 1007 [2d Dept 2010]). Accordingly, these counterclaims must be dismissed. However, Plaintiff has failed to meet its prima facie burden demonstrating that it did not commit malpractice in its representation Defendant. Thus, Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment dismissing Defendant's sixth counterclaim denied. Plaintifrs motion for summary judgment dismissing Defendant's third counterclaim (accounting) must also be denied as the court has already determined that there are issues fact regarding whether or not KLG provided Defendant with the mvmces. In addition, Plaintiff has failed to meet its prima facie burden in moving for summary judgment dismissing Defendant's fifth counterclaim (conversion) given Defendant's allegation that Mr. Kleyman improperly transferred $100,000 out the escrow account to an entity controlled by Mr. Kleyman's wife. As a final matter, Plaintiff 29
!FILED: KINGS 04/14/2026 11: 19 AM! 108 502644/2025 04/14/2026 Law§ of ifhe of of of of of is Relief 6, of of of of of of 30 of 41 [* 30]COUNTY CLERK INDEX NO. NYSCEF DOC. NO. RECEIVED NYSCEF: has failed to meet its prima facie burden in moving for summary judgment dismissing Defendant's seventh counterclaim, which seeks to hold Mr. Kleyman individually liable for KLG's malpractice pursuant to Business Corporation 1505(a). Under the statute, an attorney "can be personally liable for the negligent performance [legal] services participated in the negligent acts or supervised and controlled the members the corporation who committed the negligent acts" (Beltrone v General Schuyler & Company, 223 AD2d 938, 939 [3d Dept 1996]). Here, it is undisputed that Mr. Kleyman performed all the legal services performed by KLG and the court has already determined that KLG has failed to demonstrate, as a matter law, that it did not commit malpractice in its representation Defendant. Accordingly, that branch Plaintiffs motion which seeks summary judgment dismissing Defendant's first and second and fourth counterclaims is granted. That branch the motion which seeks summary judgment dismissing the remaining counterclaims denied. PlaintifFs Motion for Injunctive Plaintiff moves, in mot. seq. for an order continuing the temporary restraints which precludes Defendant from transferring, encumbering, dissipating or otherwise disposing of$2,000,000 any proceeds received from the pending sale SRA or its 50% membership interest therein during the pendency this action and pending the resolution mot. seq. 3. In the alternative, Plaintiff seeks an order directing that no less than $2 million in net proceeds from the pending sale SRA be deposited and maintained in a segregated, interest-bearing IOLA or escrow account under the control Defendant's 30
!FILED: 04/14/2026 11: 19 AM! 108 502644/2025 04/14/2026 63 of of of is of is of of of is of of of of 31 of 41 [* 31]KINGS COUNTY CLERK INDEX NO. NYSCEF DOC. NO. RECEIVED NYSCEF: attorney or a neutral third-party escrow agent. Plaintiff further moves for an order waiving the undertaking requirement under CPLR l 2(b) in light Plaintiffs demonstrated financial hardship. In support this motion, Plaintiff raises the same arguments that it raised in support its motion for attachment and argues that temporary injunctive relief necessary pending the resolution the attachment motion. In particular, Plaintiff reiterates its claim that Defendant is planning on relocating to Greece and that it will be irreparably harmed unless injunctive relief granted as it will be impossible for it to enforce any judgment it is awarded. In addition, Plaintiff maintains that it will likely succeed on the merits this case given the documentary evidence submitted including the retainer agreement, the invoices, and email/phone logs. Finally, Plaintiff contends that the equities tip in its favor granting injunctive relief. Specifically, Plaintiff notes that the sale the SRA property will generate approximately $16,000,000 and it is merely seeking to restrain $2,000,000 to preserve its ability to recover a $1.246 million legal fee claim. In opposition to this motion, Defendant maintains that injunctive relief not appropriate herein as Plaintiff merely seeks monetary damages. Further, Defendant argues that the motion should be denied for the same reasons that Plaintiffs motion for prejudgment attachment should be denied, namely that Plaintiff has failed to prove that there is any danger dissipation assets by Defendant. As previously noted, the authorities cited by Plaintiff in support this motion largely either misstate the applicable law or are entirely nonexistent. This includes the fictitious case Loew (182 AD3d at 492), cited in Plaintiffs proposed order to show 31
[FILED: 04/14/2026 11: 19 AM! 108 502644/2025 04/14/2026 of of of of 1, l(a)(l), 2, is 4, of is 5, is is of 32 of 41 [* 32]KINGS COUNTY CLERK INDEX NO. NYSCEF DOC. NO. RECEIVED NYSCEF: cause, which resulted in the issuance an order containing an invalid citation. In any event, the motion must be denied, as Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate irreparable harm in the absence injunctive relief As a final matter, given the denial Plaintiffs motion for injunctive relief, the temporary restraining order contained on page two the court's June 12, 2025 order to show cause is vacated. Summary In summary, the court rules as follows: (1) Plaintiffs motion, in mot. seq. for an order, pursuant to CPLR 321 (a)(2), and (b), dismissing Defendant's affirmative defenses and counterclaims is denied. Plaintiffs motion, in mot. seq. for an order awarding sanctions and attorney's fees against Defendant denied. Plaintiffs motion, in mot. seq. 3, for an order, pursuant to CPLR 6201(1), 6201(3), and 6212(a), granting prejudgment attachment and directing various discovery and disclosure is denied. Plaintiffs motion, in mot. seq. which seeks summary judgment under its breach contract claim and summary judgment dismissing Defendant's affirmative defenses and counterclaims granted only to the extent that Defendant's first, second, and fourth counterclaims are dismissed and the motion is otherwise denied. Plaintiffs motion, in mot. seq. 6, which seeks injunctive relief is denied and the temporary restraining order in the court's June 12, 2025 order is vacated. Defendant's cross motion, in mot. seq. which seeks sanctions against Plaintiff/Mr. Kleyman granted and this matter set down for a hearing before the Court on June 9, 2026 at 10:00 A.M., at which time the amount 32
!FILED: 04/14/2026 11: 19 AM! 108 502644/2025 04/14/2026 of of ENTER, J. HON. HEELA D. CAPELL, JSC 33 of 41 [* 33]KINGS COUNTY CLERK INDEX NO. NYSCEF DOC. NO. RECEIVED NYSCEF: sanctions, as well as whether referral Mr. Kleyman to the AGC is warranted, will be determined. This constitutes the decision and order the court. S. C. 33
[FILED: 04/14/2026 11: 19 AM! 108 1, 502644/2025 04/14/2026 of (1 LLP of 83 P. of is but not of 41 [* 34]KINGS COUNTY CLERK INDEX NO. NYSCEF DOC. NO. RECEIVED NYSCEF: COURT'S EXHIBIT A Motion Seq. (Plaintiff's motion to dismiss) -Alex Kleyman Esq.'s (Plaintiff) affirmation in support (NYSCEF Doc. 7) misrepresents the facts/holding in Fontanetta v Doe (73 AD3d 78 [2d Dept 2010]) (on page 2), misrepresents the holding in Pace v Raisman & Assocs., Esq. LLP, (95 AD3d 1185 [2d Dept 2012]) (on page 3), and misrepresents the holding in Matter Tagliaferri v Weiler, NY3d 605 [2004]) (on page 5). -Plaintiff's affidavit in support (NYSCEF Doc. 8) again misrepresents the holding in Fontanetta ( on pages 2 and 5). He again misrepresents the holding in Pace ( on page 2). He also misrepresents the holding in David v Hack, Fern & Hack, (97 AD3d 43 7, 439 [2d Dept 2012]) (on page 3 and page 4). His affidavit also cites a fictitious case, Feder 1 7 Kaszovitz v Rosen, 202 AD3d 421, 422 [!5 Department 2022]) (on page 12). The affidavit again misrepresents the holding in Pace ( on page 5) -Plaintiff's Memorandum Law (NYSCEF Doc. 9) misrepresents the holding in Leon v Martinez (84 NY2d [1994]) (on page 7), misrepresents the holding in Marinelli v Sullivan Papa in Block McGrath & Cannavo, C, (205 AD3d 714 [2d Dept 2022]) ( on pages 7-8), again misrepresents the holding in Pace ( on page 8), and misrepresents the holding in Gould v Decolator, (121 ad3d 846 [2d Dept 2014]) (on page 10). The memorandum law also cites a fictitious case, Bauer v Cravath, Swain & Moore LLP, 7 There a Federal District Court case by this name, any state cases. 34 34
[FILED: 04/14/2026 11: 19 AM! 108 502644/2025 04/14/2026 [111 ). [2Co. [l [1oflaw 7, 9, 8, 13 ). 35 35 of 41 [* 35]KINGS COUNTY CLERK INDEX NO. NYSCEF DOC. NO. RECEIVED NYSCEF: st ( 177 AD3d 4 79 Dept 2019]) ( on page The memorandum also cites a fictitious case, Lawsky v Condor Capital Corp, (154 AD3d 537 nd Dept 2017]) (on page 13), misrepresents the holding in Apple Records, Inc., v Capitol Records, Inc., (137 AD2d 50 [Pt Dept 1988]) (on page 13) and misrepresents the holding in Butler v Catinella, (58 AD3d 145, 148 [2d Dept 2008]) (on page 13). The memorandum also cites a fictitious case, Liberty Mut. Ins. v Jenkins, (10 AD3d 792 [2d Dept 2004]) (on page 14). The memorandum also misrepresents the holding in DRMAK Realty LLC v Progressive st Credit Union, (133 AD3d 401 Dept 2015]. In addition, the memorandum cites to two fictitious cases, Rich v Rich, (231 AD2d 3 84 st Dept 1996]) and Carlucci v Poughkeepsie City Sch. Dist., (88 AD3d 1052 [2d Dept 2011]) (both on page 15). The memorandum again cites to the fictitious Carlucci ( on page 16). The memorandum again misrepresents the holding in David ( on page 16). Finally, the memorandum again misrepresents the holdings in Gould and Marinelli ( on page 20). Motion Sequence 2 (Plaintiff's motion for sanctions) -Plaintiffs affirmation in support (NYSCEF Doc 20) again misrepresents the holdings in Vision China Media Inc. (on pages 2 and 4), Butler (on page 2) and Pace (on page 4). -Plaintiffs affidavit in support (NYSCEF Doc 21) again misrepresents the holdings in Pace, Vision China Media Inc., and Butler (all on page 6). -Plaintiffs memorandum in support again misrepresents the holding in Pace (on pages 12, and 14). The memorandum again misrepresents the holding in Butler (on pages 11, and In addition, the memorandum misrepresents the holding in Schwartz v Sayah, (72 NY3d 790 [2d Dept 2010]) (on page 7). Furthermore, the
[FILED: KINGS 04/14/2026 11: 19 AM! 108 502644/2025 04/14/2026 10 in in of oflaw 10 is th but th that not 36 of 41 [* 36]COUNTY CLERK INDEX NO. r NYSCEF DOC. NO. RECEIVED NYSCEF: memorandum again misrepresents the holding in Vision China Media Inc. (on pages 9, 11, and 13). In addition, the memorandum cites the fictitious case Citibank v Suthers, (68 AD3d 68 [2d Dept 2009]) (on pages and 12). 8 Further, the memorandum misrepresents the holding in Kashi v Gratsos, (790 F2d 1050 [2d Cir 1986]) (on page 12). Motion Sequence 3 (Plaintifrs motion for pre-judgement attachment) -Plaintiffs affirmation in support (NYSCEF Doc 26) misrepresents the holding in Mineola Ford Sales Ltd. v Rapp, (242 AD2d 371 [2d Dept 1997]) (on page 2), again misrepresents the holding in Kashi (on page 3), and again misrepresents the holding Pace (on page 3). -Plaintiffs affidavit in support (NYSCEF Doc 27) again misrepresents the holdings Pace ( on page 4 ), David ( on page 4) and Mineola Ford Sales Ltd. ( on page 4 ). -Plaintiff's memorandum law in support (NYSCEF Doc 28) cites a fictitious case - Pine v AJA Delivery, Inc., (201 AD3d 640 [2d Dept 20221) (on page 6). The memorandum also misrepresents the holding in Erdman Anthony & Assoc., Inc. v th Barkstrom, (298 AD2d 981 [ 4 Dept 2002]) ( on page 8), again misrepresents the holding in Kashi and VisioChina Media Inc. (both on page 8). The memorandum cites an additional fictitious case, Cruz v TD Bank NA, (202 AD3d 582 [2d Dept 2022]). (on page 9). The memorandum again misrepresents the holding in Pace and Butler (on pages and 11). Furthermore, the memorandum again misrepresents the holdings in Fontanetta and David (on page 11) and Gould (on page 12). The memorandum further cites a 8 There a case named Citibank v Suthers, (68 AD2d 790 [4 Dept 1979]) it's a 4 Department case from 1979 does involve sanctions. 36
[FILED: 04/14/2026 11: 19 AM! 108 502644/2025 04/14/2026 of of 13 17 of 11 cases of of has to with 37 of 41 [* 37]KINGS COUNTY CLERK INDEX NO. NYSCEF DOC. NO. RECEIVED NYSCEF: fictitious case, Matter White Plains Plaza Realty, LLC v Cappelli, (20 I AD3d 689 [2d 9 Dept 2022]) (on page 12). The memorandum also misrepresents the holding in Reading Int'l, Inc. v Oaktree Capital Mgmt, (317 F Supp 2d 301 [SDNY 2003]) (on page 14). Finally, the memorandum again misrepresents the holding in Kashi (on page 15). -Plaintiffs affirmation in reply (NYSCEF Doc 78) again misrepresents the holding in Mineola Ford Sales Ltd., Kashi, and Pace (all on page 2). Plaintiffs reply affirmation also again cites to the fictitious case Feder Kaszvoitz LLP ( on page 9) and misrepresents the holdings in Butler ( on pages and 15)), Gould (on pages and 18), Kashi ( on page 18), Pace ( on page 18) and again cites to the fictitious case Feder Kaszvoitz LLP ( on page 18). In addition, the reply affirmation again misrepresents the holding in Butler (on page 18). Notably, this affirmation was filed over two months after Defendant's counsel complained about Plaintiff misrepresenting the holdings in citations and citing to fictitious cases in his June 6, 2025 affirmation (NYSCEF Doc 54) yet Plaintiff continued to misrepresent the holdings in cases and to cite to fictitious cases. -Plaintiffs affidavit in reply (NYSCEF Doc 79) again misrepresents the holding in Mineola Ford Sales Ltd. ( on page 6), the holding in Pace ( on page ), the holding in Butler (on pages 12-13) and contains a fictitious quotation from Gould (on page 12). 9 There are several reported under this name, but none them was decided under this citation and none them anything do attachment. 37
[FILED: 04/14/2026 11: 19 AM! 108 502644/2025 04/14/2026 of of LLC 10 of of of is with but it is LLC 38 of 41 [* 38]KINGS COUNTY CLERK INDEX NO. NYSCEF DOC. NO. RECEIVED NYSCEF: -Motion Sequence 4 (Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment). -Plaintiffs affirmation in support (NYSCEF Doc 31) again misrepresents the holding in Fontanetta ( on page 5). -Plaintiffs affidavit in support (NYSCEF Doc 32) again misrepresents the holding in Gould (on page 5). The affidavit again cites to the fictitious case Feder Kaszovitz LLP ( on page 5). The affidavit again misstates the holding in Fontanetta ( on page 6). The affidavit again misrepresents the holding in Pace ( on page 7). -Plaintiffs memorandum law in support (NYSCEF Doc 33) cites a fictitious case, Madison Liquidity Invs. 119, v Griffith, (205 AD3d 826 [2d Dept 2022]) ( on page 13). The memorandum again cites the fictitious cases Rich and Carlucci (on page 14). The memorandum again misrepresents the holding in DRMAK Realty LLC (on page 14). The memorandum also cites to a fictitious case, Epstein v New York City Transit Auth, (110 AD3d 493 [Pt Dept 2013]) (on page 14). Finally, the memorandum misrepresents the holding in Weintraub v Phillips, Nizer, Benjamin, Krim & Ballon, (172 AD2d 254 [ pt Dept 1991]) ( on page 15). -Motion Sequence 6 (Plaintiff's motion for a TRO) -Plaintiffs proposed Order to Show Cause (NYSCEF Doc 37) cites to the fictitious case Loew v Smith (182 AD3d 492 [Pt Dept 2020]) (on page 3). -Plaintiffs affirmation in support (NYSCEF Doc 38) again misrepresents the holdings Pace (on page 4) and VisionChina Media Inc. (on page 5). The affirmation also 10 There a case this name, a First Department case from 2008 (Madison Liquidity Investors 119, v Griffith, (57 AD3d 438 [l5t Dept 20081). 38
[FILED: 04/14/2026 11: 19 AM! DOC. NO. 108 502644/2025 04/14/2026 of of Bar LLC [l of of of N. of LLP (21 of of [139 of 41 [* 39]KINGS COUNTY CLERK INDEX NO. r NYSCEF RECEIVED NYSCEF: misrepresents the holding in Computer Strategies v Commodore Bus. Machines, (105 AD2d 167 [2d Dept 1984]) ( on page 5). The affirmation also cites the fictitious case Credit Argricole lndosuez v Rossy (30 AD3d 1041 [ pt Dept 2006) on page 6 and misrepresents the holding in Societe Generate Alsacienne De Banque v Flemingdon Dev. nd Corp. (118 AD2d 769 [2 Dept 1986]) (both on page 6). Finally, the affirmation again cites to the fictitious case Loew ( on page 7). -Plaintiffs affidavit in support (NYSCEF Doc 38) again cites the fictitious case Credit Agricole lndosuez ( on page 5) and misrepresents the holding in VisionChina Media Inc. ( on page 8). In addition, the affidavit misrepresents the holding in bes Restaurant Inc. st v ASSRR Suzer (140 AD3d 430 Dept 2016]). The memorandum cites the fictitious case Nassau Diagnostic Imaging v Hummel, (201 AD2d 724 [2d Dept 1994]) (on page 8) and misrepresents the holding in Yedlin v Lieberman (102 AD3d 769 [2d Dept 2013]). -Plaintiffs memorandum law in support (NYSCEF Doc 40) cites the fictitious case Banco Popular Am. v Christie, (202 AD2d 385 [2d Dept 1994]) (on page 4) and again misrepresents the holding in VisionChina Media Inc. (on page 5). The memorandum again cites the fictitious Lowe case ( on page 5) and cites the fictitious case Matter Winston & Strawn NY3d 715 [2013]) (on page 5). The memorandum again misrepresents the holding in Barbes Restaurant Inc. (on page 5). The memorandum again cites the fictitious case Credit Agricole Indosuez ( on both pages 8 and 9) and misrepresents the holding in Potter v North Shore University Hosp. (7 NY3d 548 [2006]). st ( on page 8). The memorandum cites to the fictitious case Ma v Lien 198 AD3d 567 39
!FILED: 04/14/2026 11: 19 AM! 108 502644/2025 04/14/2026 11 of of JSC Bank [l 9). LLC LLP 43 [1of LLP 11 ), JSC Bank of 61 [2of of of Food 13 ). of is Ma st is st 40 40 of 41 [* 40]KINGS COUNTY CLERK INDEX NO. NYSCEF DOC. NO. RECEIVED NYSCEF: Dept 2006]) ( on page 8). Plaintiff again misrepresents the holding in Vision China Media Inc. and again cites the fictitious cases Banco Popular N Am. and Credit Agricole Indosuez (both on page 8). In addition, the memorandum again cites the fictitious case Nassau Diagnostic Imaging and cites the fictitious Lowe case (both on page 9). The memorandum misrepresents the holding in VTB v Mavlyanov (154 AD3d 560 st Dept 2017]) (on page The memorandum misrepresents the holding in Marin v Constitution Realty, (28 NY3d 666 [2017]) ( on page 10) and cites the fictitious case Shukat Arrow Hafer Weber & Herbsman, v Hutton ( AD3d st 395 Dept 2007]) ( on page 10). The memorandum again cites the fictitious case Matter Winston & Strawn ( on page 11) and cites the fictitious case Edgeworth 12 Food Corp. v Stephenson (53 NY2d 962 [1981]). The memorandum again misrepresents the holdings in Fontanetta and David ( on page again cites the fictitious case Credit Agricole Indosuez (twice on page 12) and again misrepresents the holding in VisionChina Media Inc. (twice on page 12). The memorandum again misrepresents the holdings in VTB and Societe Generate Alsacienne De Banque ( on page 13) and cites the fictitious case Tash v Perlmutter ( 453 NYS2d nd Dept 1982]) (on page 13). The memorandum cites the fictitious case Matter Witham v Witham (122 AD3d 781 [2d Dept 2014]) (on page 13), again cites the fictitious case Edgeworth Corp. and again misrepresents the holding in JSC VTB Bank (both on page The memorandum again cites the fictitious case Credit Agricole 11 There a case entitled v Lien (198 AD2d 186 [1 Department 19931). 12 There a case entitled Edgeworth Food Corp. v Stephenson (53 AD2d 588 [1 Dept 19761).
!FILED: 04/14/2026 11: 19 AM! 108 502644/2025 04/14/2026 of 14 of of of of 16 LLC 16 of 101 ), of 41 of 41 [* 41]KINGS COUNTY CLERK INDEX NO. NYSCEF DOC. NO. RECEIVED NYSCEF: Indosuez and again misrepresents the holding in Barbes Restaurant Inc. (on page 14). The memorandum again cites the fictitious case Ma v Lien ( on page ) and the fictitious case Nassau Diagnostic Imaging (on pages 14 and 15). The memorandum cites the fictitious case Matter Index Stock Transfer v Blasnik (57 AD3d 1080 [3d Dept 2008]) ( on page 16). The memorandum again cites the fictitious case Nassau Diagnostic Imagine ( on both pages and 17), misstates the holding in Courthouse Corporate Ctr. ( on both pages and 17) and misrepresents the holding in Yedlin v nd Lieberman (102 AD3d 769 [2 Dept 2013]) (on page 16). Finally, the memorandum again cites the fictitious case Loew ( on page 17). -Plaintiff's December 8, 2025 Letter to the Court -In his letter to the court (NYSCEF Doc Plaintiff again misrepresents the holding in Elisa Dreier Reporting Corp. and again cites the fictitious cases Madison Liquidity Invs. 119, LLC and Epstein. Defendant's counsel complained about Plaintiff misrepresenting the holdings in citations and citing to fictitious cases in his June 6, 2025 affirmation (NYSCEF Doc 54). 41
ProvenanceKnow exactly where this document came from.Members see the sourcing behind every authority on DocPost — so you can check the record yourself and cite with confidence.Request access