I have extensively covered the case Neroni v Follender on this blog and thought I knew everything about it - after all, I've litigated it.
Apparently, I didn't.
An attorney who specializes in legal malpractice, revealed on his blog that allegedly I was sued by Follender and lost before I "turned around and sued the plaintiffs".
Using a case you obviously did not read and do not have a clue what it was about, as an advertisement of your alleged abilities to represent people is kind of stupid.
Andrew Lavoot Bluestone, an attorney with 38 years of experience, should know better than to make claims about cases without reading them.
And, attorney #AndrewLavoottBluestone who, without reading the case, falsely alleged that:
- I was sued, as a party, by Follender or his client before suing in Neroni v Follender; and that
- I lost in that prior single lawsuit
advertises in his biography on his law firm's website all kinds of good things about himself:
Apparently, a couple of things were omitted - elementary due diligence and ability to read.
What is interesting is that this misrepresentation is made during the pendency of a criminal investigation into my criminal complaint against Jonathan Follender who tried to further enrich himself in this case by filing a false multi-thousand dollar judgement with the court - making me wonder if this misrepresentation was made on request from Follender or his friends.
Here is, once again, a short description of the controversy underlying Neroni v Follender case:
Underlying
case No. 1
M &
C Brothers, Inc. v. Torum
Delaware
County Index No. 2007-280
|
Underlying
Case No. 2
M &
C Brothers, Inc. v. Torum
Delaware
County
Index No. 2011-884
|
||||
Nature of the case
|
Civil action for breach of
contract/fraud
|
Nature of the case
|
Homestead petition
|
||
Case started
|
2007
|
I was not admitted to the bar at the
time the case started, was not an attorney or attorney of record in the case
and was not a defendant in the action
|
Case started
|
Filed in 2011, a couple of weeks
before Case No. 1 was concluded and jurisdiction in Case No. 2 was lost
|
I NEVER stepped into that case and was
NEVER an attorney of record in that case
|
Parties and attorneys:
|
Parties and attorneys:
|
||||
Plaintiff
|
M & C Brothers, Inc.
|
Represented by Jonathan S. Follender
|
Petitioner
|
M & C Brothers, Inc.
|
Represented by Jonathan S. Follender
|
Defendants
|
And Genevieve Gorder
 
(an HGTV host and designer)
|
Represented by Gregory Kottmeier
In the underlying real estate
transaction represented by former Delaware County Attorney Richard Spinney,
friend, colleague and former boss of 27 years of presiding judge Carl Becker
|
-
|
||
Defendants
|
Brad Torum,
Samme Chittum
|
Represented by Frederick J. Neroni
In the underlying real estate
transaction represented by Delaware County District Attorney John Hubbard,
friend and former undisclosed law partner of presiding judge Carl Becker
|
Brad Torum,
Samme Chittum,
|
Respondents
|
Pro Se (I am listed in the case as an
attorney on the NYS Court website, because Follender claimed I am an attorney
of record, for his convenience, while I never appeared in the case, there is no notice of
appearance or any other evidence that I am attorney of record, and Respondents appeared pro se
– THAT was the misrepresentation
that was the underlying part of the lawsuit, that Follender was fraudulently
claiming I abandoned my clients in a case where I was not even an attorney of
record
|
I understand that everybody wants to distance away from this dirty case - dirty because:
- Delaware County Attorney Richard Spinney and then ADA (and former law partner of a judge) John Hubbard were the real culprits in the action their clients were sued for;
- The case was settled by the two TV celebrities, Tyler Harcott and Genevieve Gorder, because Follender was harassing them, and their attorney Gregory Kottmeier pointed out Follender's misconduct and misrepresentations in court pleadings, and in private to me;
- The judgment was rendered in favor of incompetent and corrupt Follender in Case No. 1 by Eugene Peckham who later allowed his law firm to appear in the same case where he previously presided as a judge, so Peckham had no clue what judicial integrity is about - and Peckham granted the judgment to Follender, without any legal basis, only because he was also a judge in Ulster County;
- I stepped into the case only after the judgment was already rendered, after I was admitted to the bar in 2009;
- My motions to vacate were denied and I was sanctioned by Judge Becker who was trying hard to save his two friends, Richard Spinney and John Hubbard, from malpractice and disbarment for their actions;
- then everybody was pretending that I was the culprit in everything that everybody else did - and Follender continued to badmouth me for allegedly abandoning my "clients" in Case No. 2 where I:
- never appeared - and an attorney cannot be simply 'included' into a case as an attorney of record without being HIRED for that case by the clients and without APPEARING in that case - neither of which happened in Case No. 2.
I finally lost patience with Follender continuously lying about me to the court in Case No. 2 and asking to punish me for "abandoning my clients" where I was not even an attorney of record.
THAT is why I sued Follender.
The assigned Judge Tormey would not acknowledge that there were TWO underlying cases, not one.
Instead, he conflated TWO above cases into one and punished me without reading the record - simply because it was about me.
And, attorney and law professor Andrew Lavoott Bluestone, with all around star ratings, considered it possible in reporting on the case to simply jump on the bandwagon and continue misrepresentaions about the case further:
that now I WAS THE DEFENDANT in ONE case where Follender SUED ME, and where I, personally, as a party, lost - all of which was false, because:
1) I was never a defendant in any lawsuits filed by Follender;
2) There were 2 underlying court cases in Neroni v Follender, not one, in none of them I was a party, in the 1st one I was not a licensed attorney or attorney of record during the main part of litigation, I was an attorney only on post-judgment motions to vacate; in the 2nd underlying case I was NEITHER a party, NOR an attorney of record, I was only a victim of Follender's defamation and fraud upon the court which was exactly why I sued Follender.
All of the above, apparently, does not matter to the all-around star attorney Andrew Lavoot Bluestone,
who is also a law professor.
I bet, Professor Bluestone requires more diligence from his law students then he requires from himself.
One more important issue that Professor Bluestone "forgot" to mention - that in 3 Appellate Divisions (1st, 2nd and 4th Departments) I would have won the lawsuit in Neroni v Follender because Follender defaulted by serving his and his client's pre-answer motion to dismiss and all of his other pleadings himself, while being a party in the action.
The 3rd Department alone - as an "exception" for me and Follender (who is a judge in a town justice court in Ulster County while remaining a practicing attorney) - decided that disregarding that clear statute is a "mere irregularity" and not a jurisdictional defect.
Yet, in three quarters of New York courts service of a pre-answer motion to dismiss by a party, like Follender did in Neroni v Follender would have resulted in a DEFAULT AGAINST Follender and his client.
The 3rd Department though, in order to block vacating of my disciplinary decision (where Neroni v Follender was, without disclosure, considered because the trial judge sent his decision to the disciplinary court), disregarded clear statutory law by an attorney-judge against an attorney-critic of judges, as it does often in favor of politically connected parties, and considered disregarding clear statutory law that its 3 sister courts consider a jurisdictional defect - "a mere irregularity".
Of course, such a nuance was not important for Professor Bluestone who allegedly specializes in Judiciary Law 487 cases, to consider and report in his blog.
One more important issue that Professor Bluestone "forgot" to mention - that in 3 Appellate Divisions (1st, 2nd and 4th Departments) I would have won the lawsuit in Neroni v Follender because Follender defaulted by serving his and his client's pre-answer motion to dismiss and all of his other pleadings himself, while being a party in the action.
The 3rd Department alone - as an "exception" for me and Follender (who is a judge in a town justice court in Ulster County while remaining a practicing attorney) - decided that disregarding that clear statute is a "mere irregularity" and not a jurisdictional defect.
Yet, in three quarters of New York courts service of a pre-answer motion to dismiss by a party, like Follender did in Neroni v Follender would have resulted in a DEFAULT AGAINST Follender and his client.
The 3rd Department though, in order to block vacating of my disciplinary decision (where Neroni v Follender was, without disclosure, considered because the trial judge sent his decision to the disciplinary court), disregarded clear statutory law by an attorney-judge against an attorney-critic of judges, as it does often in favor of politically connected parties, and considered disregarding clear statutory law that its 3 sister courts consider a jurisdictional defect - "a mere irregularity".
Of course, such a nuance was not important for Professor Bluestone who allegedly specializes in Judiciary Law 487 cases, to consider and report in his blog.
Yet, for consumers considering to hire Andrew Bluestone as their attorney, it is a clear warning.
Consumers beware: if Professor Bluestone can so misread a case where all underlying facts are reflected in multiple court records, does it with complete indifference to the truth of what is in the record, and invents things to make up for his lack of knowledge of the case - anybody should think twice before putting his own litigation case and livelihood into Andrew Bluestone's careless hands.
One more interesting thing: I've left a comment on Andrew Bluestone's blog, pointing out his misrepresentation. It was never published - Andrew Bluestone, unlike me, carefully weeds out comments unfavorable to him.
I wonder, how many other people posted comments like mine, about misrepresenting their cases that Attorney Bluestone became so wary of public opinion as to hide from it behind moderation?
Consumers beware: if Professor Bluestone can so misread a case where all underlying facts are reflected in multiple court records, does it with complete indifference to the truth of what is in the record, and invents things to make up for his lack of knowledge of the case - anybody should think twice before putting his own litigation case and livelihood into Andrew Bluestone's careless hands.
One more interesting thing: I've left a comment on Andrew Bluestone's blog, pointing out his misrepresentation. It was never published - Andrew Bluestone, unlike me, carefully weeds out comments unfavorable to him.
I wonder, how many other people posted comments like mine, about misrepresenting their cases that Attorney Bluestone became so wary of public opinion as to hide from it behind moderation?
No comments:
Post a Comment