FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/14/ :43 PM INDEX NO /2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/14/2014

Transcription

1 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/14/ :43 PM INDEX NO /2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/14/2014 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK X PAYKIN, RICHLAND & FALKOWSKI, P.C., -against- Plaintiff, Index No.: COMPLAINT XCENTRIC VENTURES, LLC, RIPOFFREPORT.COM, and DEREK, OUTISE, and ROCCO, being persons unknown, and JOHN DOE No. 1 through JOHN DOE No. 99, being persons unknown. Defendants X Plaintiff Paykin, Richland & Falkowski, P.C., alleges the following: 1. Plaintiff is a domestic professional corporation having a principal place of business at 350 Fifth Ave, 59 th Floor, New York, New York Defendant Xcentric Ventures, LLC is a foreign limited liability company having a principal place of business at Maria Crimi Speth, Esq., 3200 N. Central Ave, Suite 2000, Phoenix, Arizona Defendant RipoffRreport.com ( RipOff Report) is a subsidiary of Xcentric Ventures, LLC. 4. Defendant Derek is a person unknown who is a user of RipOff Report. 5. Defendant Outise is a person unknown who is a user of RipOff Report. 6. Defendant Rocco is a person unknown who is a user of RipOff Report. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION: Defamation Per Se 7. Paykin, Richland & Falkowski, PC ( the Firm ) is a domestic professional corporation engaged in the practice of law. Page 1 of 9

2 8. The three principals of the Firm are Alexander Paykin, Esq., Daniel H. Richland, Esq., and Michal Falkowski, Esq. 9. On November 12, 2014, Derek, a user of RipOff Report posted a report on RipOff Report about Daniel Richland, an attorney in good standing with the Bar of the State of New York and duly admitted to practice law in New York. Exhibit A. 10. The post was entitled, Daniel Richland Paykin Richland Help! I ve been Defrauded! New York New York. Id. 11. The post then proceeds to make the following defamatory statements: a. Daniel Richland is either a fraudster or certifiably insane. ; b. [Daniel Richland] lied to me about ensuring that I will be paid by his client and caused me to lose money I was holding in deposit as a result through his escrow account! ; c. [Daniel Richland] just lied to me and pretend [sic] nothing has happened! ; d. I know there is a lot of talk about him having problems with the disciplinary board[.] ; e. I am aware that other lawyers claim that he is being looked into for insurance fraud and all kinds of other issues relating to slander and libel[.] ; f. Don t trust this man. Even if he signs something in writing, be careful. He s a liar. 12. All of the above statements are statements of fact or purport to be factbased opinion, and therefore actionable as defamation. 13. All of the above statements are demonstrably false. Page 2 of 9

3 14. The above statements were published to the RipOff Report website on November 12, 2014, without privilege or authorization. 15. The above statements constitute defamation per se as they are targeted at the Firm, Mr. Richland s professional reputation, and allegedly specific conduct of the Firm and/or Mr. Richland. 16. Plaintiff prays for Judgment for compensatory damages in an amount to be determined by this Court, plus interest, costs, and expenses, and reasonable attorneys fees. 17. Plaintiff prays for Judgment for punitive damages in an amount to be determined by this Court. Second Cause of Action: Defamation Per Se 18. Plaintiff restates and realleges all of the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through On August 29, 2014, Outise, a user of RipOff Report posted a report on RipOff Report about Paykin, Richland & Fulkowski [sic]. Exhibit B. 20. The post then proceeds to make the following defamatory statements: a. [Paykin, Richland & Falkowski] lull you in by pretending to be attorneys, they take your money, talk about how brilliant (they are the BEST real estate attorneys, the MOST honest, the Nation s leading title experts, etc.) and aggressive they are, but every legal argument that made to me when they explained how they are going to definitely win and how they got the other side was, in the end without fail completely wrong. ; Page 3 of 9

4 b. Also, they didn t even do most of the work they claimed they will do. ; c. [M]y adversary told me at mediation that the only reason things got out of hand was because of the way Daniel Richland spoke to his lawyer. He was so unreasonable, and his arguments were so dishonest, and he made things so personal against him (calling him a liar, fraudster, etc.) that they called his bluff, and, unfortunately for me, they won. By the way, I didn t believe that my adversary was a fraudster, but Richland insisted this is the only way I can win. ; d. The post goes on to allege that another attorney reviewed the alleged work and his or her professional opinion was the alleged work showed profound errors in professional judgment. ; e. I spoke to someone else who also found this firm unusually dishonest, even for young attorneys who are starving for work. ; f. These people are not honest. They are certainly not transparent. And they have no problem taking your money, botching things up, and then blaming it on you. ; g. I did find an article that described how even a judge mocked their dishonesty on the record. 21. All of the above statements are statements of fact or purport to be factbased opinion, and therefore actionable as defamation. 22. All of the above statements are demonstrably false or believed to be demonstrably false. 23. Upon information and belief, the Firm has never represented any person named Outise and has no client by that name. Page 4 of 9

5 24. The above statements were published to the RipOff Report website on August 29, 2014 and allegedly updated on September 18, 2014, without privilege or authorization. 25. The above statements constitute defamation per se as they are targeted at the Firm, Mr. Richland s professional reputation, and allegedly specific conduct of the Firm and/or Mr. Richland. 26. Plaintiff prays for Judgment for compensatory damages in an amount to be determined by this Court, plus interest, costs, and expenses, and reasonable attorneys fees. 27. Plaintiff prays for Judgment for punitive damages in an amount to be determined by this Court. Third Cause of Action: Defamation Per Se 28. Plaintiff restates and realleges all of the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through On August 13, Rocco, a user of RipOff Report posted a report on RipOff Report about Alexander Paykin and/or Daniel Richland Paykin, Richland & Fulkowski, P.C. The most unethical dishonest, and corrupt attorneys I have ever personally witnesse in my enter life. Exhibit C. 30. The post then proceeds to make the following defamatory statements: a. I spoke to Daniel Richland on a number of occasions from the law firm of Paykin, Richland & Fulkowski. They took my retainer (Alex insisted on cash), had a few meetings with me, and promised me the world in Page 5 of 9

6 terms of their ability to recover on my behalf, their credentials and their ability to broker a settlement. I never got a penny. ; b. Although Richland boasted about his phenomenal intelligence (Paykin did the selling, while Richland pretended to be modest about it), and his ability to be an asshole with the other side, all that happened is that he got the other side so angry, that they refused to work with me on ANYTHING. ; c. Now I hear judges mock them in open court for lying! There are even articles about it! ; d. Richland s misplaced arrogance cost me and my family. He was deceptive in the way he said he would do things and in the way he represented he would do things. ; e. His writing is poor, and his attitude towards other attorneys which is always supposed to be professional, nor [sic] matter what, and his poor standing and lack of experience cost me my case. ; f. It doesn t help that Richland subsequently represented my adversary in the case and claimed he was never my client because Paykin took the money! 31. All of the above statements are statements of fact or purport to be factbased opinion, and therefore actionable as defamation. 32. All of the above statements are demonstrably false or believed to be demonstrably false. 33. Upon information and belief, the Firm has never represented any person named Rocco and has no client by that name. Page 6 of 9

7 34. The above statements were published to the Rip Off Report website on August 13, 2014, without privilege or authorization. 35. The above statements constitute defamation per se as they are targeted at the Firm, Mr. Richland s professional reputation, Mr. Paykin s professional reputation, and allegedly specific conduct of the Firm and/or Mr. Richland and Mr. Paykin. 36. Plaintiff prays for Judgment for compensatory damages in an amount to be determined by this Court, plus interest, costs, and expenses, and reasonable attorneys fees. 37. Plaintiff prays for Judgment for punitive damages in an amount to be determined by this Court. Fourth Cause of Action: NY General Business Law Plaintiff restates and realleges all of the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through Upon information and belief, the RipOff Reports detailed above are part of a scheme by persons unknown to damage Plaintiff s reputation in order to obtain a litigation or commercial advantage, either in general or in specific litigation. 40. Upon information and belief, these postings are part of a larger, deceptive practice to mislead the courts, clients, potential clients, adversaries, and other attorneys as to the quality of services provided by the Firm. 41. These postings are deceptive and misleading to consumers as they purport to be from actual clients when they are not, in fact, from actual clients and thus are materially misleading. Page 7 of 9

8 42. These posts have caused harm to Plaintiff s business reputation. 43. Plaintiff prays for Judgment for compensatory damages in an amount to be determined by this Court, plus interest, costs, and expenses, and reasonable attorneys fees. 44. Plaintiff prays for Judgment for punitive damages in an amount to be determined by this Court. Fifth Cause of Action: Declaratory Judgment 45. Plaintiff restates and realleges all of the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through Plaintiff prays this Court issue an Order directing non-party search engines, including but not limited Google, Yahoo!, and MSN Bing, to cease indexing search results from the RipOff Report website against Plaintiff, Daniel H. Richland, Michal Falkowski, or Alexander Paykin, or any variation thereof during the pendency of this action and permanently after the action. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays this Court grants judgment in favor of Plaintiff as follows: A. On the first, second, third, and fourth causes of action, a Judgment for compensatory damages in an amount to be determined by this Court, plus interest, costs, and expenses, and reasonable attorneys fees. B. On the first, second, third, and fourth causes of action, a Judgment for punitive damages in an amount to be determined by this Court. Page 8 of 9

9 C. On the fifth cause of action, an Order directing Google, Yahoo!, and MSN Bing, among other search engines, to cease indexing the Rip Off Report website as against Plaintiff, Daniel Richland, Alexander Paykin, and Michal Falkowski, or any variation thereof. DATED: November 13, 2014 New York, NY Respectfully Submitted, Paykin, Richland & Falkowski, P.C. By: Daniel H. Richland, Esq th Avenue, 59 th Floor New York, NY Phone: Fax: (not for service of process) Pro Se Page 9 of 9