INDEX NO. 151068/2015 FILED : NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/13/2015 01: 01 AM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 73 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/17/2018 02/13/2015 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------------------------------------------------X JAMES S. PAGLINAWAN, ESQ.,. Index No.: Plamtiff Date Purchased: -against- SUMMONS NEHAMA NOVOFASTOVSKY, ILYA NOVOFASTOVSKY, ESQ., and NOVO LAW FIRM, P.C., ------------------------------------------------------------------------------X Defendants. Plaintiff designates NEW YORK COUNTY as the place of trial. The basis of venue is Defendant's residence. Plaintiff resides at 125-10 Queens Blvd., #612, Kew Gardens, NY 11415 To the above named Defendant(s): You are hereby summoned to answer the complaint in this action, and to serve a copy of your answer, or, if the complaint is not served with this summons, to serve a notice of appearance on the Plaintiffs attorneys within twenty days after the service of this summons, exclusive of the day of service, where service is made by delivery upon you personally within the state, or, within 30 days after completion of service where service is made in any other manner. 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: New York, New York February 13, 2015 BY: JAMES S. PAGLINAWAN, ESQ. Pro Se 118-35 Queens Blvd., Suite 400 Forest Hills, NY 11375 (718) 576-2544 TO: ILYA NOVOFASTOVSKY, ESQ. C/O NOVO LAW FIRM, P.C. 299 Broadway, 17th Floor New York, New York 10007-1914
NEHAMA NOVOFASTOVSKY, ESQ. C/0 NOVO LAW FIRM, P.C. 299 Broadway, 17th Floor New York, New York 10007-1914 NOVO LAW FIRM, P.C. 299 Broadway, 17th Floor New York, New York 10007-1914
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------------------------------------------------X JAMES S. PAGLINAWAN, ESQ., Index No. Date Purchased: Plaintiff -against- NEHAMA NOVOFASTOVSKY, ILYA NOVOFASTOVSKY, VERIFIED COMPLAINT ESQ., and NOVO LAW FIRM, P.C., ------------------------------------------------------------------------------X Defendants. Plaintiff JAMES S. PAGLINAWAN, ESQ., complaining of Defendants, respectfully alleges, upon information and belief, as follows: THE PARTIES 1. Defendant NOVO LAW FIRM. P.C. (hereinafter "the law firm" "NOVO" or "NOVO") represents itself to the public as "a full service, multi-state [law] practice most recognized for its advocacy of victims' rights and the impact [it has] had in bringing meaning and value to peoples' [sic] losses." See www.novolawfirm.com. It represents itself as "a nexus of legal advocacy for plaintiffs [sic] rights." Id. However, despite its apparent mission to uphold victims' rights and plaintiffs' plaintiffs rights, its employees have repeatedly complained about its long-standing and despicable history of demeaning its non-caucasian and gay employees and its history of terminating its non-caucasian employees at a disproportionate number. 2. Defendant ILYA NOVOFASTOVSKY, ESQ. is the Principal of the law firm. Defendant NEHAMA NOVOFASTOVSKY represents herself as the Chief Operating Officer of the law firm. These individual defendants are married to each other.
(" Paglinawan" 3. Plaintiff James S. Paglinawan, Esq. ("Mr. or "Plaintiff") is of Asian (Filipino) descent and is an immigrant from the Philippines. While working as a hotel front desk clerk in the evening, he obtained his nursing degree in New York in 1994. He subsequently passed the nursing board examination to become a registered professional nurse. He then worked as an emergency room and critical care nurse until 2001, when he decided to attend CUNY School of Law. In 2004, he earned his Juris Doctor degree with a job offer to work as an associate at one of the most prestigious medical malpractive law firms in New York. In August of 2008, he successfully tried his first case in court as lead trial counsel. Thereafter, he became a lead trial attorney at one of the most prestigious and well-known national civil litigation firms in this country. 4. From June 2012 to June 2014, Defendants employed Mr. Paglinawan as a fulltime associate attorney. On June 18, 2014, Mr. Paglinawan was forced to resign from the firm because of its hostile, demeaning, and discriminatory environment and because of its illegal use of "paid runners." FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 5. At all times mentioned herein, defendant NOVO was a domestic business corporation duly organized and existing under, and by virtue of, the laws of the State of New York. 6. At all times mentioned herein, the principal place of business of defendant NOVO was located in the State of New York, County of New York 7. At all times mentioned herein, defendant NOVO owned, operated, controlled, and managed a law firm pursuant to the laws of the State of New York. 8. At all times mentioned herein, defendant NOVO employed more than 30 people
9. At all times mentioned herein defendant ILYA NOVOFASTOVSKY, ESQ. was the Principal and owner of the law firm. 10. At all times mentioned herein, defendant NEHAMA NOVOFASTOVSKY represented herself as the Chief Operating Officer of, and an employee and/or agent of the law firm. 11. In June 2012, Mr. Paglinawan, after making his name as a well-respected trial attorney at a top national civil litigation firm, decided to accept a position at Defendant NOVO as a lead trial attorney for medical malpractice cases. 12. Defendants' Defendants discriminatory treatment of Mr. Paglinawan started immediately. For first several months of his employment at the firm, Mr. Paglinawan shared a cubicle with a junior attorney. Defendants also assigned Mr. Paglinawan duties other than those of a lead trial attorney, including, but not limited to, training file clerks and receptionists to become paralegals, making copies, filing papers in court, physically putting together appellate papers, entering dates into the calendar system, putting together binders of medical records, faxing documents, and scanning documents into the computer server. 13. Further, despite Mr. Paglinawan's credentials, title as a lead trial attorney, workload, and trial experience, Defendants paid Caucasian associate attorneys almost the same starting salary, if not more, than Mr. Paglinawan. These Causasian associate attorneys were three to four years out of law school and had no full jury trial experience at all; while Mr. Paglinawan, as of 2014, was ten years out of law school and has litigated, settled, and indepently tried dozens of multi-million dollar cases.
14. Additionally, Defendants have systemically terminated non-caucasian employees, while making sure that their Caucasian counterparts received salary raises, bonuses, and promotions. Defendant also systematically and regularly berated its non-caucasian employees. 15. Further, defendant NOVO's Principal ILYA NOVOFASTOVSKY, ESQ. Principal" ("NOVO's Principal") repeatedly made fun of another associate attorney at the firm, saying that this associate attorney did not have the potential to become a trial attorney because of his "effeminate" character that made him "look and sound gay." These comments compelled Mr. Paglinawan to "come out of the closet" - despite his fear of getting harassed and terminated -- to show to NOVO's Principal that even a gay person can be a well-respected and accomplished trial attorney just like his heterosexual counterparts. 16. Soon after Mr. Paglinawan "came out of the closet," NOVO's Chief Operating Officer Nehama Novofastovsky ("NOVO's COO") -- and wife of NOVO's Principal â started telling everyone at the firm of her suspicion that Mr. Paglinawan and NOVO's Principal were having an affair since both were having frequent late evening meetings in the office. As if this statement was not demeaning enough, NOVO's COO repeatedly took off her wedding band in front everyone in the office and gave it to Mr. Paglinawan, stating that "Mr. Paglinawan is more like my husband's wife." 17. Additionally, after Mr. Paglinawan "came out of the closet," NOVO's COO would regularly barge into Mr. Paglinawan's office - â especially when its door was closed to see if NOVO's Principal was with Mr. Paglinawan again. NOVO's COO also stated to Mr. Paglinawan, on at least two occasions, that she thought NOVO's Principal was gay when they were in college because he seemed to like men and did not act masculine.
18. In response to all of the homophobic comments and gestures, Mr. Paglinawan -- who is happily married to his husband since 2010 -- made clear to NOVO's COO that gay men have moral values too; thay gay men respect their marriage just like everyone else. Mr. Paglinawan also told NOVO's COO that -- despite the stereotypes -- not all gay men are promiscuous and not all gay men sleep with any man they meet. 19. Moreover, Defendants tolerated, and frequently promoted, homophobic remarks in the workplace. For instance, during calendar meetings, male paralegals made comments like "your phone looks gay" or "you look really gay with that shirt on" to insult male co-workers, as if being gay is an insult. NOVO's COO and Principal, both of whom were usually present during these meetings, heard and condoned these comments and frequently blurted in laughter in response. These comments, as Plaintiff made very clear to Defendants, demeaned Plaintiff and created an intolerable environment for him. 20. Further, in or aroud December of 2013, a female junior associate attorney who was working with Mr. Paglinawan tearfully complained to him about NOVO's Principal's sexist remarks to her. In or around January of 2014, two of Mr. Paglinawan's paralegals complained to him about NOVO's Principal's inappropriate physical contact at multiple times. 21. Furthermore, every employee of Defendants knows about its systematic use of illegal "runners" or "ambulance chasers" to bring in clients to the firm. Defendants pay these runners, two of whom to are known at the firm as "Jay" and "Mohammed," about five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) per client. Defendants also paid potential clients about $5,000 to switch their case to the firm. 22. In or about November 2013, Mr. Paglinawan confronted NOVO's Principal about the discriminatory pay, discriminatory treatment and termination of non-caucasian employees,
and the homophobic and sexist remarks and gestures. NOVO's Principal's response showed utter ignorance of anti-discrimination laws. First, he admitted that Mr. Paglinawan's salary was extremely low in relation to the salary of the Caucasian associate attorneys at the firm. However, he subsequently offered Mr. Paglinawan an insulting salary that was merely equal to - but not higher than --- the salary of the Caucasian junior attorneys at the firm. 23. Second, NOVO's Principal claimed that -- even though he himself terminated these non-caucasian employees -- he did not notice the firm's pattern of terminating non- Caucasian employees at a disproportionate rate. He blamed these non-caucasian employees for getting fired because -- unlike the Caucasian employees of the firm - these non-caucasian employees (all six of them!) did not perform to his standards. Similarly, he denied having made sexist remarks and inappropriate physical contact to female employees, even though Plaintiff himself notice all of these during office holiday parties. 24. Subsequently, Mr. Paglinawan was forced to choose between resigning or accepting the insulting salary increase. Demeaning as it was, he was forced to accept the insulting salary increase because his family needed his financial support. At that point, he would effectively get paid the same salary as his Caucasian counterpart who has no full jury trial experience and was four years out of law school. 25. In accepting the demeaning salary, Mr. Paglinawan demanded the following from Defendants: (a) Defendants must treat all of its employees -- including non-caucasian employees - fairly and with respect and dignity; (b) Defendants must stop using paid runners because it is an illegal crimininal practice and endangered the license to practice of all the attorneys working at the firm; and (c) Defendants must formulate and made available to everyone an office policy against discrimination against protected class.
26. Subsequently, Defendants' Defendants discriminatory and degrading treatment of its non- Caucasian employees continued. In or about April of 2014, Mr. Paglinawan had multiple closed doors meetings with NOVO's Principal and NOVO's COO regarding the continuing discriminationatory treatment of non-caucasian employees (including Mr. Paglinawan). Just recently, Defendanta terminated yet another a talented, dedicated, and experienced non- Caucasian (Latina) employee. 27. Nor did Defendant stop using paid runners. In March of 2014, Mr. Paglinawan and Ellie Silverman, Esq. had mutilple closed door meetings with NOVO's Principal regarding the firm's illegal and criminal use of paid runners. Mr. Paglinawan and Ms. Silverman, both of whom were concerned about losing their license to practice, demanded Defendant to stop this criminal practice and made it clear that they would not speak with any client from these paid runners. This criminal practice has continued long after Mr. Paglinawan had left the firm. 28. Defendants also continued to refuse to formulate and made available to everyone an office policy against discrimination against protected class. 29. Defendants, in retaliation to Mr. Paglinawan's complaints about its discriminatory and criminal practices, created an environment that was even more hostile than before. On June 18, 2014, NOVO's Principal repeteadly berated Mr. Paglinawan in front of a Caucasian attorney. Subsequently, Mr. Paglinawan had no choice but to resign..as AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 30. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation set forth above with the same force and effect as though set forth herein at length. (" 31. New York Human Rights Law, Executive Law section 296, et. seq., ("New York Human Rights Law") created statutory rights against invidious discrimination and harassment
based upon race, color, ethnicity, nationality, origin, sex, gender, and/or sexual orientation in terms and conditions of employment. 32. Defendants subjected Mr. Paglinawan to invidious discrimination and harassment in his employment based on his race, color, ethnicity, nationality, origin, sex, gender, and/or sexual orientation in terms and conditions of employment. 33. Defendants condoned the aforesaid discriminatory acts and practices, and as a result, Mr. Paglinawan has suffered, and will continue to suffer, substantial losses including loss of past earnings and other employment benefits, and has suffered monetary and compensatory damages for, inter alia, mental anguish, emotional distress and humiliation. 34. Defendants acted intentionally and with malice and reckless indifference to Mr. Paglinawan's statutory rights under New York Human Rights Law, and are, therefore, liable to Mr. Paglinawan for compensatory and other damages. 35. By reason of the above, Plaintiff has sustained damages, both general and special, in a sum that exceeds the jurisdictional limits of all lower courts which would otherwise have jurisdiction..as AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 36. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation set forth above with the same force and effect as though set forth herein at length. 37. The Administrative Code of the City of New York section 8-107, et. seq. (" Code" ("Administrative Code") created statutory rights against invidious discrimination and harassment based upon race, color, ethnicity, nationality, origin, sex, gender, and/or sexual orientation in terms and conditions of employment.
38. Defendants subjected Mr. Paglinawan to invidious discrimination and harassment in his employment based on his race, color, ethnicity, nationality, origin, sex, gender, and/or sexual orientation in terms and conditions of employment. 39. Defendants condoned the aforesaid discriminatory acts and practices, and as a result, Mr. Paglinawan has suffered, and will continue to suffer, substantial losses including loss of past earnings and other employment benefits, and has suffered monetary and compensatory damages for, inter alia, mental anguish, emotional distress and humiliation. 40. Defendants acted intentionally and with malice and reckless indifference to Mr. Paglinawan's statutory rights under the Administrative Code, and are, therefore, liable to Mr. Paglinawan for compensatory and other damages. 41. By reason of the above, Plaintiff has sustained damages, both general and special, in a sum that exceeds the jurisdictional limits of all lower courts which would otherwise have jurisdiction..as AND FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 42. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation set forth above with the same force and effect as though set forth herein at length. 43. Defendants retaliated against Mr. Paglinawan because of his complaints of discriminatory and criminal practices and created a hostile environment for Mr. Paglinawan., and as a result, violated the New York Human Rights Law. 44. As a result, Mr. Paglinawan has suffered, and will continue to suffer, substantial losses including loss of past earnings and other employment benefits, and has suffered monetary and compensatory damages for, inter alia, mental anguish, emotional distress and humiliation.
45. Defendants acted intentionally and with malice and reckless indifference to Mr. Paglinawan's statutory rights under the New York Human Rights Law, and are, therefore, liable to Mr. Paglinawan for compensatory damages. 46. By reason of the above, Plaintiff has sustained damages, both general and special, in a sum that exceeds the jurisdictional limits of all lower courts which would otherwise have jurisdiction. AS AND FOR A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION 47. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation set forth above with the same force and effect as though set forth herein at length. 48. Defendant retaliated against Mr. Paglinawan because of his complaints of discriminatory and criminal practices and created a hostile environment for Mr. Paglinawan, and a result, violated the Administrative Code. 49. As a result, Mr. Paglinawan has suffered, and will continue to suffer, substantial losses including loss of past earnings and other employment benefits, and has suffered monetary and compensatory damages for, inter alia, mental anguish, emotional distress and humiliation. 50. Defendants acted intentionally and with malice and reckless indifference to Mr. Paglinawan's statutory rights under the Administrative Code and are, therefore, liable to Mr. Paglinawan for compensatory damages. 51. By reason of the above, Plaintiff has sustained damages, both general and special, in a sum that exceeds the jurisdictional limits of all lower courts which would otherwise have jurisdiction.
AS AND FOR ÁLLEGATIONS RELATED TO PUNITIVE DAMAGES 52. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation set forth above with the same force and effect as though set forth herein at length. 53. Defendants' conduct towards Mr. Paglinawan and the other non-caucasian employees at the firm was intentional, malicious, and outrageous. 54. Imposing punitive damages upon Defendants would serve to deter such intentional, malicious, and outrageous conduct and would benefit the public at large. 55. By reason of the above, Plaintiff sustained damages, both general and special, in a sum that exceeds the jurisdictional limits of all lower courts which would otherwise have jurisdiction. 56. By reason of the above, Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages and attorney's fees. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully demands judgment against Defendants in the amount that exceeds the jurisdictional limits of all lower courts which would otherwise have jurisdiction as follows: (a) damages on Plaintiff's on all causes of action in the sum of Three Million Dollars ($3,000,000.00) plus interest from June 2012; (b) an award of reasonable attorney's fees, together with the costs and disbursements of maintaining this action; and (c) for such and further relief as this Court deems just and proper. Dated: New York, New York February 13, 2015 BY: JAMES S. PAGLINAWAN, ESQ. Pro se Plaintiff 118-35 Queens Blvd., Suite 400 Forest Hills, NY 11375 (718) 576-2544
VERIFICATION JAMES S. PAGLINAWAN, ESQ., an attorney duly admitted to practice before the Courts of the State of New York, affirms the following to be true under the penalties of perjury: I have read the annexed VERIFIED COMPLAINT and know the contents thereof, and the same are true to my knowledge, except those matters therein which are stated to be alleged upon information and belief, and as to those matters I believe them to be true. My belief, as to those matters therein not stated upon knowledge, is based upon personal knowledge, records, and other pertinent information contained in my files. DATED: Queens, New York February 13, 2015 JAMES S. PAGLINAWAN, ESQ
Index No. SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF QUEENS JAMES S. PAGLINAWAN, ESQ., Plaintiff -against- NEHAMA NOVOFASTOVSKY, ILYA NOVOFASTOVSKY, ESQ., and NOVO LAW FIRM, P.C., Defendants. SUMMONS & VERIFIED COMPLAINT JAMES S. PAGLINAWAN, ESQ 118-35 Queens Blvd., Suite 400 Forest Hills, NY 11375 (718) 576-2544 Dated: February 13, 2015 James S. Paglinawan, Esq.