FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 09/21/ :42 AM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 230 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/21/2018

Transcription

1 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS PATRICK LOUIS, Individually and Derivatively, as CO-DIRECTOR and as 33 1/3% SHAREHOLDER Index No.: /16 of INFINITY RESTAURANT GROUP, INC., a New York Corporation, -against- Plaintiff, NOTICE OF ENTRY J. ANTHONY GOMES a/k/a JEREMY A. GOMES and INFINITY RESTAURANT GROUP, INC., a New York Corporation, Defendants. PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of the the Decision and Order which: (1) denied Plaintiff s Plaintiff's motion to vacate this Court s Court's prior Order, dated February 22, 2017, which held the amended complaint thereby withdrawn and that nonparty James Scott Cargile be removed from the caption of the action and all causes of action asserted against him be removed; (2) prohibits the Plaintiff from filing any more motions in this lawsuit or any new lawsuit against either the Defendants or non-party James Scott Cargile, or their counsels, without prior judicial approval; and, (3) ordered that the filing of any such papers without prior judicial approval can be deemed contempt of Court and can be punishable as such; signed on September 7, 2018 by the Honorable Leon Ruchelsman, J.S.C., and which was duly filed and entered with the Office of the Kings County Clerk on September 18, 2018 (Doc. # 229). 1 of 8

2 Dated: New York, New York September 21, 2018 BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC By: /s/ Tanya D. Bosi Tanya D. Bosi, Esq. 640 Fifth Avenue, 9 th Floor New York, New York Attorneys for non-party James Scott Cargile Telephone: (212) Fax: (212) tanya.bosi@bipc.com To: All Parties and/or Counsel of Record 2 2 of 8

3 EXHIBIT A 3 of 8

4 INDEX NO /2016 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 09/18/ :26 AM NŸSCEF ÛOC. NO. 229 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/18/2018 Y SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK CLER/f COUNTY OF KINGS : CIVIL TERM: COMMERCIAL 11 [8SEP to x 4/f f. PATRICK LOUIS, Individually and Derivatively, As CO-DIRECTOR and as 33 1/3% SHAREHOLDER OF INFINITY RESTAURANT GROUP, INC., A NEW YORK CORPORATION, Plaintiffs, Decision and order - against - Index No /16 J. ANTHONY GOMES a/k/a JEREMY A. GOMES AND INFINITY RESTAURANT GROUP, INC., A NEW YORK CORPORATION, x PRESENT: HON. LEON RUCHELSMAN Defendants, September 7, 2018 The plaintiff has moved seeking to "vacate" an order dated February 22, 2017 which held the amended complaint withdrawn and that in any event any action against James Cargile should be removed from the caption. The defendants and nonparty James Cargile have opposed the motion. Papers were submitted by the parties and arguments held. After reviewing all the arguments this court now makes the following determination. As recorded in an order dated July 27, 2017 this lawsuit concerns an agreement entered into between the plaintiff and defendant Anthony Gomes on March 5, Pursuant to that agreement the plaintiff tendered $320,000 to the defendant in return for shares of a corporation that was intended to operate as a business. The plaintiff has alleged the defendant never 1 of 4 4 of 8

5 INDEX NO /2016 [FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 09/18/ :26 AMl NTSCEF DOC. NO. 229 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/18/2018 operated the business and never fulfilled his end of the bargain. On November 28th 2016 Justice Sylvia Ash denied the plaintiff's request seeking to add Mr. Cargile as a party to this lawsuit. The plaintiff could have undertaken two legal options to challenge that determination. First, the plaintiff could have sought to timely reargue the decision pursuant to CPLR Alternatively, the plaintiff had the right to appeal that decision. The plaintiff did neither and is thus now foreclosed from challenging that determination. Indeed, the order dated February 22, 2017 merely flowed from the decision of Justice Ash and was no more than a procedural order insuring the conclusions of Justice Ash were followed. The plaintiff could have sought to timely reargue that order and could have also sought to appeal that order. Again, the plaintiff did neither. Consequently, the plaintiff's request seeking to "vacate" or somehow reargue that order at this late date is denied. Although the plaintiff is appearing pro and is entitled to "some latitude" (Duffen v. State, 245 AD2d 653, 665 NYS2d 978 [3rd Dept., 1997] still "a litigant appearing pro se acquires no greater right than any other litigant and such appearance may not be used to deprive the defendants of the same rights enjoyed by other defendants" (Roundtree v. Singh, 143 AD2d 995, 533 NYS2d 609 [2d Dept., 1988]). Therefore, the plaintiff's 2 2 of 4 5 of 8

6 INDEX NO /2016 [FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 09/18/ :26 AM1 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 229 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/18/2018 repeated and consistent non-legal rhetoric contained within it's papers is inappropriate. Just to cite a few examples for purposes of illustration, on page 11 of plaintiff's affidavit he states that he had "to chew on ginger and drink small amounts of water to prevent projectile vomiting upon reading legal paper prepared by Mr. Larsen. Mr. Larsen [counsel for the defendant] is a dishonest legal practitioner that we abhor [emphasis in original]. Ms. Bosi's [counsel for Cargile] paper by contrast provides us with examples of what not to avoid in legal writing" (id). On page 18 of plaintiff's affidavit he refers to counsel for defendant and Cargile as "2 attorney's at fraud" (id). Further, on page 21 the plaintiff first insinuates Ms. Bosi is an inferior attorney because she spends to much time shopping in stores on the ground floor of her office building. However, then he writes that "plaintiff is not some legal practitioner desperate for a billable hour, we're just trying to understand this litigation and this low breed of humans we are unfortunately plagued with in this legal action (litigators included of course)" [emphasis in original] (id). These comments are, as noted, inappropriate at best and slanderous at worst. They have no place in legal arguments presented, regardless of the experience or even the pro se status of the movant. This is especially true in this case where the 3 3 of 4 6 of 8

7 INDEX NO /2016 IFILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 09/18/ :26 AM NŸSCEF ÒOC. NO. 229 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/18/2018 plaintiff's true frustration must surely be directed toward the judiciary that has ruled to the plaintiff's displeasure. The plaintiff circumvents this frustration by accusing Ms. Bosi that she "influenced the Court to sign that Short Form Order" [emphasis in original] an accusation so bereft of evidence and so outlandish and insulting that the court will not further comment upon it. Thus, this case is a simple cause of action concerning the causes of action which survived the motion to dismiss. The parties must now conduct discovery in a professional manner. To help facilitate that posture the court hereby prohibits the plaintiff from filing any more motions in this lawsuit or any new lawsuit against either the defendant or Mr. Cargile, or thier counsels without prior judicial approval (Faison v. State, 176 Misc2d 808, 673 NYS2d 853 [New York Court of Claims 1998), Matter of Ricky P., 135 Misc2d 28, 513 NYS2d 606 [Family Court New York County 1987]). The filing of any such papers without prior judicial approval can be deemed contempt of court and can be punishable as such. The plaintiff's motions are all denied. 7 So ordered. o ENTER: co I DATED: September 7, 2018 Brooklyn N.Y. Hon. Leon R e sman JSC 4 4 of 4 7 of 8

8 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS Index No /16 PATRICK LOUIS, Individually and Derivatively, as CO-DIRECTOR and as 33 1/3% SHAREHOLDER of INFINITY RESTAURANT GROUP, INC., a New York Corporation, Plaintiff, -against- J. ANTHONY COMES a/k/a JEREMY A. GOMES and INFINITY RESTAURANT GROUP, INC., a New York Corporation, Defendants. NOTICE OF ENTRY BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC ATTORNEYS FOR NON-PARTY JAMES SCOTT CARGILE 640 FIFTH AVENUE, 9 TH FLOOR NEW YORK, NEW YORK PHONE: (212) FAX: (212) Pursuant to 22 NYCRR , the undersigned, an attorney admitted to practice in the courts of New York State, certifies that, upon information and belief and reasonable inquiry, the contentions contained in the annexed document are not frivolous. Dated: Signature Print Signer's Name... Service of a copy of the within Dated: is hereby admitted. Attorney(s) for PLEASE TAKE NOTICE I I that the within is a (certified) true copy of a Notice of entered in the office of the clerk of the within named Court on Entry that an Order of which the within is a true copy will be presented for settlement to Notice of the Hon. one of the judges of the within named Court, Settlement at on, at M. Dated: BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC 640 FIFTH AVENUE, 9 TH FLOOR NEW YORK, NEW YORK PHONE: (212) FAX: (212) of 8