For those interested in #NewYorkJudiciaryLaw487 - an appeal of the final judgment in the #MokaySaga has been filed

A pro se appeal to the 3rd Department from a final (ex parte) money judgment was filed by my husband Frederick J. Neroni in the Mokay saga (see my blogs here, here and here).

You can read the Appellant's Brief here.

The table of contents and authorities to the Appellant's brief can be found here.

The record on appeal consists only of the trial transcript here, pages in the trial coincide with pages in the Record on Appeal (R-1 is trial transcript, page 1 etc.).

and Judge Kevin Dowd's order after the ex parte trial is here.

You can read about Judge Dowd's shenannigans about blocking Mr. Neroni's access to the trial exhibits after the trial, before and after Judge Dowd made his ex parte judgment, and releasing the trial exhibits (allegedly, hundreds of them, judging by the transcript) to Richard Harlem during the pendency of the appeal, making it impossible for Mr. Neroni to provide an effective representation for himself on appeal, and to see and analyze, for appellate purposes, any flaws in reliance by the trial court on those alleged trial exhibits.

The blogs, recordings of my conversations with the Delaware County Supreme Court Clerk's office, and transcripts of those conversations can be found here, here, here, here and here.

At this time, the Mokay trial exhibits are irreversibly spoliated and gone, thanks to Judge Dowd.

The 3rd Department court is stubbornly refusing to recuse from the case, even though it recused from my disciplinary case, after adding my husband to the caption of that case, in June of 2014, 

My husband's appeal has interesting (I think) arguments pertaining to:

1) #JudiciaryLaw487 and the case law interpreting it, including the just-decided Neroni v Follender that gutted Judiciary Law 487 by affirming absolute judicial immunity granted to a private attorney sued under that statute, see also my blogs about Judiciary Law 487  and other legal issues with the Mokay saga: 

• here - on the precedential value of the alleged "dicta" in Neroni v Follender;
• here - about the de facto gutting of Judiciary Law 487 by two courts, NYS Court of Appeals and Delaware County Supreme Court in Neroni v Follender;
• here - about Mr. Neroni's client (now the Estate represented by Mr. Harlem) suing Mr. Neroni for the client's own alleged participation in the fraud, according to the decision of Appellate Division 3rd Department from January of 2015;
• here - about Richard Harlem representing both the victims and the alleged perpetrator (the Estate of Andrew Mokay Sr.) in the same action, and claiming legal fees as his only damages, when such legal fees were forfeited as a matter of law because of such conflicted representation;
• here - about the improper billing practices of Richard Harlem that were accepted by Judge Kevin Dowd (because he will accept anything if it is against my husband or myself); and
• here - about the new rule of Judge Kevin Dowd invented in June of 2014 prohibiting me to impeach Richard Harlem testifying as a witness.

2) #InterferenceWithFutureRightOfInheritance;  
3) #ChoiceOfRemedies and #UnjustEnrichment;
4) #CausationOfDamages in a Judiciary Law 487 case;
5) attorney Richard Harlem's (and his law firms') and the trial counsel James Hartmann's fraud upon the court.

I look forward to seeing how Richard Harlem will react to the appeal.

This is the very first and only appeal in the Mokay case - and there were several intermediate appeals - that Richard Harlem did not try to derail by a motion to dismiss made within 2 months after the Notice of Appeal was filed, and several questions arise because of it:

1) Does Richard Harlem have pangs of conscience about his continued fraud?  Well, that is a rhetorical question, so scratch that;

2) Does Richard Harlem see the writing on the wall?

3) Did supporters of Richard Harlem distance from him finally because of his fraud, after my husband has forwarded to the Appellate Division 4th Department Committee the affidavit of David Mokay who Richard Harlem, throughout 8 years of litigation, claimed to have been his client?

Richard Harlem did not acknowledge to the 3rd Department that David Mokay provided to my husband an affidavit denying he ever was a Plaintiff in the 8-year-long litigation in two courts, after the final judgment based on ex parte trial in the Mokay case where no alleged Plaintiffs testifying, and where the only testifying (self-serving) witness was Richard Harlem himself, who testified that all his own bills were legitimate and good.

The appeal points out how Richard Harlem obtained from the Supreme Court what he already obtained previously from the Surrogate's Court, and points out that the whole legal theory of the Mokay case was a sham from the beginning, and continues to be even more of a sham, now that David Mokay came forward with his affidavit.

My husband was unable to raise on appeal the issue of fraud upon the court by attorneys Richard Harlem, Eric Jervis and James Hartmann, husband of judge Gary Rosa's law clerk Nancy Deming, because it was not part of the record on appeal.

I wonder whether Richard Harlem will actually disclose to the 3rd Department his fraud risking instant disbarment - or will continue to pretend that he represented David Mokay, even against David Mokay's own affidavit that it is not so.

We will know soon, as Respondents will have to - well - respond to that appeal.  

We will see whether Richard Harlem will have the audacity to continue to claim to the Third Department that he represents David Mokay on this appeal and represented him in the previous 8-year litigation, after David Mokay provided his affidavit saying Richard Harlem knew he never represented David Mokay, that David Mokay never hired Richard Harlem or his law firms to sue my husband on his behalf.

Stay tuned.