FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/09/2016 12:21 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1605
`
`INDEX NO. 104675/2010
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/09/2016
`
`1 of 5
`
`
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1605
`
`INDEX NO. 104675/2010
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/09/2016
`
`1 of 5
`
`
`
`Plaintiff DLJ Mortgage Capital, Inc. (“DLJ”) submit this Memorandum of Law in
`
`support its motion, by Order to Show Cause, for entry of an Order:
`
`in the amount of
`(i) directing the Clerk to immediately enter judgment
`$446,725.41, together with interest at the statutory rate of 9% from May 19,
`2016, and costs and disbursements, jointly and severally against (a) Jeffrey
`Siegel, Richard Siegel, and Massoud & Pashkoff LLP, and (b) pursuant to
`New York Partnership Law § 26, Ahmed A. Massoud, Esq. and Lisa
`Pashkoff, Esq.;
`
`(ii) alternatively, restraining Jeffrey Siegel, Richard Siegel, Massoud & Pashkoff
`LLP, Ahmed A. Massoud, Esq. and Lisa Pashkoff, Esq. with the same effect
`as if a restraining notice had been served upon them after entry of judgment,
`pursuant to New York Civil Practice Law and Rules (“CPLR”) § 5229; and
`
`(iii)granting such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
`
`PERTINENT FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`The facts pertinent to this motion are set forth in the accompanying Affirmation of
`
`John P. Amato, Esq., sworn to June 9, 2016 (“Amato Aff.”), and the Court is respectfully
`
`referred thereto. Capitalized terms not defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed in
`
`the Amato Affirmation.
`
`I. The Court Should Direct Immediate En_t;y of Jyggment
`
`ARGUIVIENT
`
`DLJ requests the Court to direct the Clerk to immediately enter judgment, jointly
`
`and severally, against Jeffrey Siegel, Richard Siegel, Massoud & Pashkoff LLP, Ahmed A.
`
`Massoud, Esq. and Lisa Pashkoff, Esq.
`
`As detailed in the Amato Affirmation, DLJ understands that the Clerk’s office has a
`
`tremendous backlog ofjudgments awaiting review and to be entered, numbering in excess of
`
`1,400 as of May 2, 2016, and is currently taking in excess of thirteen weeks to complete final
`
`entry ofjudgments presented by a party. (Amato Aff. ‘W 8-9.)
`
`2of5
`2 of 5
`
`
`
`Special Referee Phyllis Sambuco’s May 19, 2016 Decision directed the Clerk to enter
`
`judgment, and such Decision was even initially docketed on the Court’s ECF system as a
`
`“Judgment.” (Amato Aff. 1] 10.) However, the Clerk later advised that judgment could not
`
`be entered upon the Special Referee’s direction and thus directed DLJ’s attorneys to submit
`
`a proposed judgment for review, processing, and entry by the Clerk. (Amato Aff. fil 10.)
`
`Requiring DLJ to present a proposed judgment for review, processing, and ultimate
`
`entry by the Clerk will result in significant prejudice to DLJ. As detailed in the Amato
`
`Affirmation, the to—be judgment debtors have exhibited a pattern and routine of disrespect
`
`and abuse of the rule of law, and any delay in entry of judgment could provide the to-be
`
`judgment debtors time to improperly render themselves judgment proof.
`
`(Amato Aff.
`
`111} ll-l2.) DLJ requires immediate entry of judgment so that it can ensure no prejudice
`
`from avoidable delays. (Amato Aff. 111] ll-l2.)
`
`The judgment entered should also be jointly and severally against the individual
`
`partners of Massoud & Pashkoff LLP, z'.e., Ahmed A. Massoud, Esq. and Lisa Pashkoff,
`
`Esq. who were personally involved in all of the reprehensible conduct that resulted in the
`
`Court’s January 21, 2014 sanction order.
`
`New York Partnership Law § 26(c)(i) states in pertinent part that:
`
`each partner, employee or agent of a partnership which is a registered
`limited liability partnership shall be personally and fully liable and
`accountable for any negligent or wrongful act or misconduct
`committed by him or her or by any person under his or her direct
`supervision and control while rendering professional services on behalf
`of such registered limited liability partnership
`
`Massoud & Pashkoff LLP is a New York State registered limited liability
`
`partnership.
`
`(Amato Aff. 1] 15.) Ahmed A. Massoud, Esq. and Lisa Pashkoff, Esq. (a) are
`
`each a partner, employee, and/or agent of Massoud & Pashkoff LLP;
`
`(b) have each
`
`3of5
`3 of 5
`
`
`
`previously appeared before this Court in connection with this matter; and (c) have each
`
`participated in the wrongful and sanctionable conduct addressed by DLJ’s prior motion for
`
`which attorneys’ fees and expenses were awarded. (Amato Aff. '1] 16.) Accordingly, entry of
`
`judgment against Ahmed A. Massoud and Lisa Pashkoff is appropriate pursuant
`
`to
`
`New York Partnership Law § 26(C)(i). See, e.g., Sier 1». Jacobs Persinger & Parker, 236 A.D.2d
`
`309, 309-10, 654 N.Y.S.2d 351, 352 (1st Dep’t 1997) (recognizing law firm partners are
`
`jointly and severally liable for misconduct of the firm pursuant
`
`to Partnership Law
`
`§26(C)(i)); Scarborough V. Napoli, Kaiser & Bern, LLP, 63 A.D.3d 1531, 1532, 880 N.Y.S.2d
`
`800, 802 (4th Dep’t 2009) (recognizing law firm associates can be held liable for colleagues’
`
`misconduct pursuant to Partnership Law § 26(c)(i)).
`
`Given the foregoing, an Order should be entered directing the Clerk to immediately
`
`enter judgment in the amount of $446,725.41, together with interest at the statutory rate of
`
`9% from May 19, 2016, and costs and disbursements, jointly and severally against Jeffrey
`
`Siegel, Richard Siegel, Massoud & Pashkoff LLP, Ahmed A. Massoud, Esq. and Lisa
`
`Pashkoff, Esq.
`
`II. Alternatively, The To-Be Judgr_n;ent Debtors Should Be Immediately Restrained
`
`CPLR § 5229 states in pertinent part:
`
`In any court, before a judgment is entered, upon motion of the party in
`whose favor a verdict or decision has been rendered, the trial judge
`may order examination of the adverse party and order him restrained
`with the same effect as if a restraining notice had been served upon
`him after judgment.
`
`Whether imposition of a CPLR § 5229 restraint is appropriate is within the trial court’s
`
`discretion. See z'd.; Gallegos 12. Elite Model Mgmt. Corp,
`
`1 Misc. 3d 200, 202, 768 N.Y.S.2d
`
`134, 135 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. 2003).
`
`4of5
`4 of 5
`
`
`
`As detailed in the Amato Aflirmation, should this Court not immediately direct
`
`otherwise, there will be a lengthy delay in the entry of judgment which will significantly
`
`prejudice DLJ’s ability to enforce and collect upon the amount due and owing from the
`
`to—be judgment debtors,
`
`z'.e., Jeffrey Siegel, Richard Siegel, Massoud & Pashkoff LLP,
`
`Ahmed A. Massoud, Esq. and Lisa Pashkoff, Esq. (Amato Aff. W 8-9.)
`
`For
`
`this
`
`reason, DLJ alternatively requests
`
`that
`
`this Court enter an Order
`
`immediately restraining the to~be judgment debtors.
`
`See, e.g.,
`
`id. at 203, 136 (granting
`
`plaintiff’ s requested CPLR § 5229 pre-judgment restraint in light of defendants’ history of
`
`misleading statements and evasive actions); Kamins/ey v. Kalm, 46 Misc. 2d 131,
`
`258 N.Y.S.2d 1000, (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. 1965) (directing CPLR § 5229 restraint prior to
`
`entry ofjudgment upon showing that to—be judgment debtor may be judgment proof).
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For the reasons set forth herein and in the accompanying Amato Affirmation,
`
`Plaintiff DLJ Mortgage Capital, Inc. respectfully requests that this Court grant the instant
`
`motion in its entirety, and grant such other and further relief as this Court deems just and
`
`proper.
`
`Dated: New York, New York
`
`June 9, 2016
`
`
`
`ga e
`
`pztal, Incr
`
`flt
`
`John P. Amato
`Robert J. Malatak
`
`Annie P. Kubic
`
`488 Madison Avenue
`
`New York, New York 10022
`(212) 478-7200
`
`5of5
`5 of 5
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
