FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/22/ :31 PM INDEX NO /2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/22/2017

Transcription

1 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK GREAT WALL MEDICAL P.C. d/b/a NEW YORK ROBOTIC GYNECOLOGY & WOMEN S HEALTH and JOON SONG, Index No: Plaintiffs, SUMMONS vs. MICHELLE LEVINE, Defendant. TO THE ABOVE NAMED DEFENDANT: YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED to answer the Complaint in this Action and to serve a copy of your Answer on the plaintiff s attorneys within 20 days after service of the summons (or within 30 days after service is complete if the summons is not personally delivered to you within the State of New York), and, in case of your failure to appear or answer, judgment will be taken against you by default for the relief demanded in the Complaint. Dated: Brooklyn, New York August 22, 2017 Lewis & Lin, LLC _/s Justin Mercer DAVID D. LIN JUSTIN MERCER 45 Main Street, Suite 608 Brooklyn, NY David@iLawco.com Justin@iLawco.com Telephone: (718) Facsimile: (718) Attorneys for Plaintiffs 1 1 of 18

2 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK GREAT WALL MEDICAL P.C. d/b/a NEW YORK ROBOTIC GYNECOLOGY & WOMEN S HEALTH and JOON SONG, Plaintiffs, Index No: NOTICE OF ELECTRONIC FILING vs. MICHELLE LEVINE, Defendant. PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the matter captioned above, which has been commenced by filing of the accompanying documents with the County Clerk, is subject to mandatory electronic filing pursuant to Section bb of the Uniform Rules for the Trial Courts. This notice is being served as required by Subdivision (b) (3) of that Section. The New York State Courts Electronic Filing System ( NYSCEF ) is designed for the electronic filing of documents with the County Clerk and the court and for the electronic service of those documents, court documents, and court notices upon counsel and self-represented parties. Counsel and/or parties who do not notify the court of a claimed exemption (see below) as required by Section bb(e)must immediately record their representation within the e-filed matter on the Consent page in NYSCEF. Failure to do so may result in an inability to receive electronic notice of document filings. Exemptions from mandatory e-filing are limited to: 1) attorneys who certify in good faith that they lack the computer equipment and (along with all employees) the requisite knowledge to comply; and 2) self-represented parties who choose not to participate in e-filing. For additional information about electronic filing, including access to Section bb, consult the NYSCEF website at or contact the NYSCEF Resource Center at or efile@courts.state.ny.us. Dated: Brooklyn, New York August 22, 2017 Lewis & Lin, LLC _/s Justin Mercer 45 Main Street, Suite 608 Brooklyn, NY Telephone: (718) Facsimile: (718) Attorneys for Plaintiffs 2 2 of 18

3 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK GREAT WALL MEDICAL P.C. d/b/a NEW YORK ROBOTIC GYNECOLOGY & WOMEN S HEALTH and JOON SONG, Index No: vs. MICHELLE LEVINE, Plaintiffs, VERIFIED COMPLAINT Defendant. Plaintiffs Great Wall Medical P.C. d/b/a New York Robotic Gynecology & Women s Health ( NY Robotic GYN ) and Joon Song, M.D., Ph. D, FACOG ( Dr. Song, collectively, Plaintiffs ) by their attorneys Lewis & Lin LLC, for their complaint against Defendant Michelle Levine ( Levine or Defendant ), allege as follows: STATEMENT OF CASE 1. This is an action for recovery of damages and injunctive relief arising from blatant acts of defamation, trade disparagement and tortious interference with contracts; in connection with the publishing of false reviews orchestrated by Defendant. Defendant commenced a systematic pattern of online harassment and defamation via various websites, including ZocDoc and Yelp. 2. Defendant created, or caused to be created, several false reviews for the purpose of publishing these false and defamatory statements. Defendant s false reviews remain active and, upon information and belief, are viewed by thousands of visitors each day, and Defendant continues to defame and injure Plaintiffs with these false reviews. As a result of Defendant s 3 3 of 18

4 misconduct, Plaintiffs have been and continue to be substantially and irreparably harmed. PARTIES 3. Plaintiff Great Wall Medical P.C. d/b/a New York Robotic Gynecology & Women s Health ( NY Robotic GYN ) is a professional corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York with its principal place of business in the State of New York, New York County. 4. Plaintiff Joon Song, M.D., Ph. D, FACOG ( Dr. Song, collectively, Plaintiffs ) is a private individual residing in the State of New York. Dr. Song is not a public official and not a public figure. 5. Upon information and belief, Defendant Michelle Levine is an individual residing in the State of New York, domiciled at th Avenue, Apt. 17M, New York, New York Upon information and belief, Levine maintains the Internet-based defamatory reviews located at: < < < < & < (collectively, the Defamatory Reviews ). 6. Upon information and belief, Levine either personally used or instructed her New York-based accomplice(s) to use the pseudonym Shell L., when participating on the Defamatory Reviews. Upon further information and belief, Levine scripted the false postings on the Defamatory Reviews and either physically posted them herself, or instructed her New Yorkbased accomplice(s) to so, under her sole authority and direction. 4 4 of 18

5 JURISDICTION AND VENUE 7. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant pursuant to CPLR 302 because she resides in and are domiciled in the State of New York. 8. Venue is proper in New York County pursuant to CPLR 503(a) as Plaintiff NY Robotic GYN s principal office is in New York County and the circumstances that led to the causes of action substantially occurred in New York County. BACKGROUND COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS 9. Plaintiffs operate a successful and respected medical practice in New York City. 10. Plaintiff Dr. Song is the owner of NY Robotic GYN and a doctor in the practice. Dr. Song has decades of experience. 11. Dr. Song received his medical degree from Chung Nam National University in South Korea, followed by a five-year residency at the South Korea National Medical Center Ob Gyn. Dr. Song then served as a doctor in the South Korean military for three years, followed by a fellowship at Korea University Hospital, studying in vitro fertilization and endoscopic surgery. 12. After several years as an attending physician at Korean National Medical Center, Dr. Song returned to Korea University to earn a Ph.D. in obstetrics and gynecology. 13. Starting in 1999, Dr. Song spent two years at Yale University completing fellowships in ob-gyn specialized in endocrinology, followed by two years as an associate research scientist. Dr. Song completed his U.S. residency in ob-gyn at Nassau University Medical Center (an affiliate of the Stony Brook University School of Medicine) in 2007, going on to serve as an attending physician at Nassau University Medical center and New York Hospital Medical Center of Queens, specializing in gynecologic endoscopic surgery. In 2008, Dr. Song was named a clinical assistant professor in obstetrics and gynecology and reproductive 5 5 of 18

6 medicine at Stony Brook University School of Medicine. Dr. Song joined the NYU Langone Medical Center faculty in In addition to being a highly experienced minimally-invasive surgeon, having performed over 3000 robotic assisted and laparoscopic procedures for benign, infertility and urogynecologic conditions, Dr. Song also has extensive training in reproductive medicine, including in vitro fertilization. As a board-certified endoscopic gynecologic surgeon, Dr. Song is currently transferring his extensive expertise in laparoscopy to the field of robot-assisted gynecologic surgery. In addition to using robotic surgery to treat conditions like fibroids, endometriosis, chronic pelvic pain and pelvic organ prolapse, Dr. Song is pioneering the use of robotic techniques to reverse tubal ligation. 15. Dr. Song is also a fellow of the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology ( FACOG ), and has Level 3 certification from the American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists. Defendant s Wrongful Online Conduct 16. On or about August 2017 and continuing to the present, Defendant commenced a campaign of harassing and defamatory behavior online directed at and intended to injure Plaintiffs, in an effort to dissuade NY Robotic GYN s customers and patients from doing further business with Plaintiffs. 17. On or about August 10, 2017, Defendant, under the pseudonym Shell L., directed the authoring of a harassing and defamatory user review of Plaintiffs on Yelp.com (accessible at to the public on the Internet at < (the First False Review ), concerning Plaintiffs NY Robotic GYN and Dr. Song. 6 6 of 18

7 18. Specifically, the First False Review stated as follows: Shell L. Manhattan, NY 1.0 star rating 8/10/2017 Very poor and crooked business practice. My review may be long, but you should read this so that you are not scammed in the same way they tried to scam me. This office made me panic when they gave me blood test results over the phone and gave me false information because the person that gave them to me had zero knowledge of the subject. I suspect that the doctor didn't even look at test before information was given out or was intentionally given out to scare me collect more money for a 2nd visit to tell me I don't have what they made me think I had. If I hadn't called back a dozen times and investigated myself I would still believe that I had a lifelong disease. When I asked to speak to the doctor regarding the results as they caused me to go into a panic, and I had zero answers to any of my questions, but they told me that i could only come in he doesn't talk on the phone. I went to this doctor only once... I booked a womans annual checkup. All I wanted was my annual exam. I did not have anything going on and I didn't expect to be billed after the visit. annual checkups are covered under my insurance. I was sent a bill for almost an additional $500 for my annual checkup. When I called my insurance to ask why it wasn't covered they said it wasn't billed as an annual and it was over $1700 which is very expensive for an annual checkup. And they told me it was billed as a normal visit. I suspect that this doctor gives unnecessary procedure to a lot of people and then charges the insurance sky high prices and no one knows the difference. Everything about my one and only visit here has caused me emotional distress and panic, and now they want me to cough up an extra $500 for services I didn't even need? **UPDATE** I called the office today to try to reason with them. They said i went into the office complaining of severe pelvic pain 7 7 of 18

8 that radiated down my legs. I said no I was there for an annual. She said you are not the one who decides what kind of visit you are in for. She continued to push the pelvic pain which was a total fabrication and a lie. It is bizarre and unbelievable that they are telling me I was there for a condition that I was not there for at all. ******* STAY AWAY Positive reviews below look like his staff. **** To the response below which looks like copy and paste. LIES LIES LIES MEDICAL FRAUD. SCAM OFFICE. his office made up a lie stating I had severe pelvic pain. Now stating i wanted a cheaper visit. I have nothing wrong with me I just wanted a pap smear. If i so desperately needed this expensive visit then why did i not receive further treatment for said needed appointment and said pelvic pain. Or would you have profited more off of the false medical diagnosis you gave me from my blood test. This man needs to lose his medical license DO NOT GO HERE YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED I WOULDN"T TRUST THIS OFFICE OR HIS STAFF FOR THE WORLD. LETS SEE WHAT THE JUDGE, NY MEDICAL BOARD, AND NY DEPT OF MEDICAL AND INSURANCE FRAUD THINKS. ***** 19. The First False Review contains so many statements that are entirely fabricated, and Defendant directed the dissemination of the First False Review in such a fashion, that no reasonable person would believe that the statements made therein were opinion, but rather statements of fact about Plaintiffs NY Robotic GYN and Dr. Song. 20. The above statements are knowingly and materially false, and were made to defame Plaintiffs. 21. Upon information and belief, Defendant published the First False Review for the sole purpose of harming Plaintiffs reputation and causing them to lose revenue as the statements 8 8 of 18

9 in the First False Review bear directly on Plaintiffs services, professional capabilities, business practices, professional hygiene and treatment of their clients and patients all key aspects of Plaintiffs business and factors that any patient considers before choosing to see a doctor. 22. Defendant s statements that Plaintiffs are a very poor and crooked business practice, have zero knowledge of the subject, have zero qualified staff, engage in medical billing fraud, in MEDICAL FRAUD, in INSURANCE FRAUD, and tried to scam Defendant are false, defamatory and injury Plaintiffs in their business, trade and/or profession. 23. Nor is it possible that Plaintiffs engaged in the conduct alleged in the First False Review. 24. Specifically, in the First False Review, Defendant claims that Plaintiffs made me panic when they gave me blood test results over the phone and gave me false information because the person that gave them to me had zero knowledge of the subject. 25. However, Plaintiffs do not give pathology results over the phone, and always notify a patient who needs follow up with Dr. Song for any abnormal finding. 26. In this case, Plaintiffs staff never attempted to give a medical consultation to Defendant over the phone, Defendant s pathology results were never revealed to her over the phone, and Defendant never came in for a second visit. As such, Defendant could not have been aware of her blood test results that caused her to believe she had a lifelong disease which Defendant falsely attributes to Plaintiff providing a false medical diagnosis. 27. Thus, any inference by Defendant s statement that Plaintiffs staff had zero answers when Plaintiffs staff directed Defendant to speak with Dr. Song in person is not only false and defamatory, but also misleading because by Defendant s own admission (and pursuant to HIPAA), Plaintiffs office staff consisting of non-medical persons are not authorized to 9 9 of 18

10 discuss medical issues, much less over the phone, when the identity of the caller cannot be confirmed. 28. Further, in the First False Review, Defendant claims that she came in for an annual womans [sic] checkup but Plaintiffs fraudulent billed her for an unnecessary normal visit, and claimed that Plaintiffs gives unnecessary procedure to a lot of people and then charges the insurance sky high prices and no one knows the difference. 29. This is false because Defendant complained of acute and worrisome symptoms, which required additional medical evaluation not simply an annual checkup. Defendant agreed to all the additional medical evaluation and even requested for some additional lab tests to be performed. 30. Accordingly, the First False Review is undeniably false. 31. In August 2017 until the present, Defendant s efforts intensified. 32. On or about July 10, 2017, Defendant, purportedly anonymously, directed the authoring of a harassing and defamatory user review on RateMDs.com accusing Plaintiffs of the same unprofessional and fraudulent activity as in the First False Review (accessible at to the public on the Internet at < the Second False Review ). The content of the Second False Review is similar to Defendant s First False Review on Yelp.com. 33. For example, the Second False Review falsely describes Plaintiffs professional and ethical conduct, goes on to accuse Plaintiffs of trying to scam the reviewer, and states that: They gave me additional testing that i did not need. I didn't go in with any complaints. I just stated I was there for my annual, and i booked an annual womens annal [sic] on zocdoc. Dispensing unneeded procedures and charging unexpected patients who are there for a pap smear is totally unethical and wrong. 34. The Second False Review contains so many statements that are entirely fabricated of 18

11 and defamatory. 35. Not only is it not possible that Plaintiffs engaged in the conduct alleged in the Second False Review such as intentionally giv[ing] a patient a false diagnosis to scare them to collect more money for a 2nd visit to tell me I don t have what they [falsely] made me think I had but it is also no coincidence that this false diagnosis accusation appears again herein, as it is identical to the false claims that appeared in Defendant s First False Review. 36. On or about August 11, 2017, Defendant, purportedly anonymously, directed the authoring of yet another harassing and defamatory user review on HealthGrades.com accusing Plaintiffs of unprofessional behavior (accessible at to the public on the Internet at < the Third False Review ). 37. Specifically, the Third False Review stated as follows: New York, NY Aug 11, 2017 I went to this doctor one time for an annual exam. Not only did his unknowledgeable phone staff cause me to panic from false blood results they are not legally supposed to give me over the phone. When I questioned the results they said the doctor does not talk on the phone. I went in for an annual which they billed so much my insurance did not cover it all and they now sent me another bill for almost $500. I filled a complaint to the medical board and now will have to fight the bill. 38. The Third False Review is entirely fabricated. Defendant directed the dissemination of the Third False Review in such a fashion that no reasonable person would believe that the statements made therein were opinion, but rather statements of fact about Plaintiffs NY Robotic GYN and Dr. Song. 39. The above statements are knowingly and materially false, and were made to defame Plaintiffs. 40. Upon information and belief, Defendant published the Third False Review for the of 18

12 sole purpose of harming Plaintiffs reputation and causing them to lose revenue as the statements in the Third False Review bear directly on Plaintiffs services, professional capabilities, business practices, and treatment of their clients all key aspects of Plaintiffs business and factors that any patient considers before choosing to see a doctor. 41. On or about August 10, 2017, Defendant, purportedly anonymously, directed the authoring of another harassing and defamatory user review on RateMDs.com accusing Plaintiffs of performing unnecessary work to charge Defendant extra money (accessible at to the public on the Internet at NY.html, the Fourth False Review ). The content of the Fourth False Review is similar to Defendant s First False Review on Yelp.com and Second False Review on ZocDoc. 42. Like the First and Second False Reviews, the Fourth False Review contains many statements that are entirely fabricated. Defendant directed the dissemination of the Fourth False Review in such a fashion that no reasonable person would believe that the statements made therein were opinion, but rather statements of fact about Plaintiffs NY Robotic GYN and Dr. Song. 43. In addition to their campaign of false and defamatory reviews, Defendant also created numerous, purportedly anonymous, one star ratings on Plaintiffs HealthGrades.com and Vitals.com profile. Plaintiffs is informed and thus believes that Defendant engaged in this false star rating campaign simultaneously with her false review campaign. 44. Upon information and belief, Defendant used HealthGrades.com and Vitals.com to falsely derail Plaintiffs star rating, much in the same fashion as they used RateMDs.com, precisely because they know that patients review that website regularly when reviewing doctors and because HealthGrades.com permits you to post star ratings anonymously of 18

13 45. Plaintiffs had and continues to have contractual relationships with its patients, customers and vendors. 46. Defendant scripted and caused to be disseminated the above statements as part of an intentional, malicious and systematic campaign to interfere with Plaintiffs contractual relationships with its patients, customers and vendors, and upon information and belief, to wreak havoc on Plaintiffs business by inducing Plaintiffs patients, customers and vendors and prospective patients to cease doing business with Plaintiffs. 47. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant s defamatory conduct described herein, a number of Plaintiffs patients have been confused, refused to start and/or continue business with Plaintiffs. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION [Defamation Per Se and Trade Libel] 48. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 through 47 as though fully set forth here. 49. Defendant has intentionally made knowingly false statements of fact about Plaintiffs via the Defamatory Reviews. 50. These statements were made maliciously and willfully, and were intended to cause harm to Plaintiffs business and reputation. 51. The aforementioned statements were false when made and Defendant knew or should have known that the statements were false when made. 52. These statements were made maliciously and willfully, and were intended to cause harm to Plaintiff Dr. Song s personal reputation. The statements were made with reckless disregard for their truth or falsity or with knowledge of their falsity and with wanton and willful disregard of the reputation and rights of Plaintiff Dr. Song of 18

14 53. The aforementioned statements where made of and concerning Plaintiffs, and were so understood by those who read Defendant s publication of them. 54. Among other statements, Defendant falsely accused Plaintiffs of being crooked and scammers, and perpetrators of unethical fraudulent and illegal behavior. 55. Defendant s false statements of fact tend to injure Dr. Song in his business trade and/or profession. 56. These statements were false, and were published to third parties in this county and across the Internet. 57. As a result of Defendant s acts, Plaintiffs have suffered irreparable damage to its reputation and further damages in the form of lost sales and profits, in an amount to be determined at trial. 58. As a result of the willful and malicious nature of the defamation, Plaintiffs are entitled to punitive damages. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION [Tortious Interference with Contractual Relations and Prospective Contractual Relations] 59. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 through 47 as though fully set forth here. 60. Plaintiffs had existing contracts with Plaintiffs patients, customers and vendors and prospective patients, and reasonably expected that its contractual relationship these would continue into the future. 61. Defendant knew of Plaintiffs contracts. 62. By the wrongful conduct described above, Defendant internationally and improperly interfered with Plaintiffs contracts with Plaintiffs patients, customers and vendors of 18

15 and prospective patients, and did so with the intent and purpose of damaging Plaintiffs business and reputation. 63. Defendant s interference caused Plaintiffs patients, customers and vendors and prospective patients confusion and to cease doing business with Plaintiffs. 64. As a result of Defendant s actions, Plaintiffs have been and continues to be damaged in an amount to be determined at trial. 65. Plaintiffs have also suffered and will continue to suffer irreparable harm in the form of damage to their reputations as a result of Defendant s conduct described herein. 66. While an award of damages may be adequate to compensate Plaintiffs for the loss of particular contracts or patients, an award of damages will not be adequate to compensate NY Robotic or Dr. Song for the damage to their reputations caused by Defendant. Plaintiffs have suffered and will continue to suffer irreparable harm unless injunctive relief is granted. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION [Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress] 67. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 through 47 as though fully set forth here. 68. Defendant s statements that Dr. Song is, inter alia, a crook, scam artist, a maker false diagnoses to perpetuate medical fraud, occurred intentionally with a desire to harm Dr. Song. 69. The manner by which Defendant sought to harm Dr. Song, including the steps described herein via creation of the Defamatory Reviews to communicate with the public at large, was extreme and outrageous. 70. As a result of Defendant s past and continued wrongful acts, including, inter alia, besmirching Dr. Song s reputation, Dr. Song has experienced extreme emotional distress of 18

16 71. As a result of Defendant s past and continued wrongful acts, the character and reputation of Dr. Song were harmed and he suffered mental anguish and personal humiliation. 72. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant s past and continued wrongful acts, Dr. Song has been materially and substantially damaged in an amount to be proved at trial, including compensation for Dr. Song s time, effort and attorney s fees. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against Defendant awarding Plaintiffs: 1. exemplary or punitive damages in an amount appropriate to punish Defendant and to make an example of Defendant to the community; 2. a Permanent Injunction enjoining and restraining Defendant and her respective agents, servants, employees, successors and assigns, and all other persons acting in concert with or in conspiracy with or affiliated with Defendant, from disparaging or otherwise posting defamatory comments about Plaintiffs; 3. That the Court issue an Order at the conclusion of the present matter directing Defendant to undertake such remedial efforts as the Court deems necessary to restore Plaintiffs reputation; 4. actual damages in an amount to be determined at trial, due to commercial defamation per se and trade libel, and an order directing Defendant and her respective agents, servants, employees, successors and assigns, and all other persons acting in concert with or in conspiracy with or affiliated with Defendant, to remove, delete, or otherwise disable such posts; 5. actual damages in an amount to be determined at trial, but in no event less than $1,000,000, due to common law tortious interference; of 18

17 6. actual damages in an amount to be determined at trial, but in no event less than $1,000,000, due to common law intentional infliction of emotional distress; 7. attorney s fees and costs as permitted by law; and 8. such other relief as the Court deems just and equitable under the circumstances. Dated: Brooklyn, New York August 22, 2017 Respectfully submitted, Lewis & Lin, LLC _/s Justin Mercer DAVID D. LIN JUSTIN MERCER 45 Main Street, Suite 608 Brooklyn, NY David@iLawco.com Justin@iLawco.com Telephone: (718) Facsimile: (718) Attorneys for Plaintiffs of 18

18 18 of 18