Court Opinion

ID: 9964069
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-26 20:09:52.809363+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:09.359677
License: Public Domain

Cotton v Kiperman
               2024 NY Slip Op 31435(U)
                     April 22, 2024
             Supreme Court, Kings County
        Docket Number: Index No. 515660/2023
                Judge: Francois A. Rivera
Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip
 Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York
 State and local government sources, including the New
  York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service.
 This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official
                       publication.
    FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/23/2024 04:23 PM                                                                 INDEX NO. 515660/2023
    NYSCEF DOC. NO. 60                                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/23/2024

                                                                                                     At an IAS Tenn, Part 52 of
                                                                                                     the Supreme Court of the
                                                                                                     State of New York, held in
                                                                                                           . .      .

                                                                                                     and forthe County of
                                                                                                     Kings, at the Courthouse,
                                                                                                     at Civic Center, Brooklyn,
                                                                                                     New York, on the 22rtd day
                                                                                                     Qf April 2024

                           HONORABLE FRANCOIS A. RIVERA
                           --------------~------~-------------------------------------X
                           JOSEPH A. COTTON & THE ESTATE
                           OF ANGELINAADITARANTO&
                           ADMINISTRATOR JOSEPH A. COTTON,

                                                                             Plaintiffs 1            DECISION & ORDER
                                                                                                     Index No. 515660/2023
                                                           -against-

                           REGINA KIPERMAN, ESQ. and RK LAW P.C,

                                                                             Defendants.
                           ---. -- .-- ... --- ·. ----- ·------------... -----. -------------------- .--- .--X
                                     Recitation in acc.ordance with CPLR 22l9(a) of the papers considered on the
                          notice of motion, filed on November 20, 2023, under motion sequence number three, by
                          Regina Kiperman, Esq. aud·RK Law P.C{hereinafterthedefendants or movants) for an
                          ordet pursuant to CPLR § 321 l(a)(S), 321 l(a)(7), artd 321l(c) dismissing the complaint
                          ofJosephA Cotton & The Estate of Angelina A. Ditaranto and Ad1ninisttator Joseph A.
                          Cotton (hereinafter the plaintiffs}. The motion is opposed.
                          -Notice ofmotion
                          -Affi1mation in support
                                 Exhibits A-C
                          "Memorandum of law in support
                          --Affidavit in opposition
                                 Exhibits A-B
                          ~Affirmation in reply
                                 Exhibit 1-2
                          -Sur reply
                                 Exhibit 1

                                                                                                                             1

                                                                                            1 of 8
[*
---1]- - - - - - - - · · · · · · · · · · - · · · - · · · · · · · · · · · ·
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/23/2024 04:23 PM                                                                    INDEX NO. 515660/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 60                                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/23/2024

            BACKGROUND
                    On May 26, 2023, plaintiff, proceeding prose, c::omrnenc::ed the instant action by
            filing a summons, complaint, and annexed exhibits 1 with the Kings County Clerk's office
            (KCCD).
                     The complaint alleges the following salient facts, among other2 . On March 17,
             2021, plaintiffs retained the defendants, RI< Law P.C. and Regina Kiperman as counsel
             for the purpose of assisting the plaintiffs with certain issues relating to the Estate of
            AngelinaA. Ditaranto. Plaintiffs wanted the defendantstohelp amend theLetters of
            Administration by removingany limitations, reverse an illegal transfer of5459,shates of
            AT&Tstock by the former Voluntary Administrator Mary L. Banker held by
             Cmnputershares Corp.; institute a turnover proceeding to recover dividends and interest
            collected by Mary L Banker over a JO-year period; recover certain assets held inHSBC
            Bank; and institute an action against TD Bank. Plaintiffs sought to sue TD Bank because
             it allowed the Medallion Stamp on the transfer docmnents of the 5459shares of AT&T
            stock and that allowed for the transfer from the plaintiffs·' Computershares Account into
            the name of Mary L. Banker.
                    Although the plaintiffs had advised the defendants that Keane Legal Claimant
             Services (hereinafter KLS) needed to be removed from the tumover as adefendantwith
             Mary L Banker, the defendants kept including KLS onthe turnover action. The
            .defendants· kept billing fot the work of revising and reviewing their work on the same
             turnover document for approximately four months (March through August). The
             defendants still took another three months to get the turnover and evidence and
             clocumentation that plaintiff provided filed with the Court
                     Part ofthe bills for the first four months listed above were adjusted only to have
             doubled for the next two months (June & July). For the next year Regina Kiperman and
            ,staff continued revising, reviewing, and modifying the same docµments.
                   The plaintiffs constantly emailed and called reminding Regina Kiperman of these
            discrepancies only to be ignored for months. The defendants kept charging for the
            documents and revisions and the defendants did not remove KLS for almost a year.
                   The defendants overcharged for making phone calls. Defendant charged for a
            petition to amend letters of administration that plaintiff had been asking for; for over a
            year and a half. When it was completed, it was near the end of the case and no longer
            needed, but the defendants charged for itanyway.
                 The plaintiff wanted TD & HSBC Bank's to both he considered in the laws·uit with
            Computershares and Mary Banker. TD Bank illegally gave Mary Bankerthe Medallion

            1 The tmne;1;:edexhibits were labeled A through H, 1-1 through I~3, and   J.
            2 The factual allegations of the complaint are stated as close as possible using the words chosen by the plaintiffs.

                                                                                                                                   2

                                                                   2 of 8
[* 2]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/23/2024 04:23 PM                                             INDEX NO. 515660/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 60                                                                 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/23/2024

            Stamp.That is why TD Bank had to represent Computershares under an Indemnity
            agreement. Adding to the problem Bruce Goodman, the attorney for TD Bank, wanted
            money from the Estate to pay for representation When it was a rnanager of the Bank that
            illegally gave the Medallion Stamp for an illegal transfer of the deceased assets that
            caused this action and the action that plaintiff has been working on sin<::e March 2017.
                   Prior to receiving Letters of Administration; plaintiff was informed by someone
            from HSBC Bank, that the decedent had several accounts. HSBC Bank held the
            decedent's safety deposit box. After plaintiff obtained letters ofadministration, plaintiff
            asked HSBC bank for infortnationregarding all accounts it held in the name of the
            decedent or Mary Banker HSBC told the plaintiff that they never had any accounts in
            the decedent's name. The defendants never made any inquiries ofHSBC Bank.
                   Plaintiffs believe defendant Regina Kiperman shared confidential information with
            Ms. Wilson, Bruce Goodman and the Legal Department ofTyndall Federal Credit Union,
            plaintiff's personal bank.
                   On March 6, 2023, Hon. Bernard J Graham signedthe Judicial Subpoena Duces
            Tecum for RK Law P.C. to appear on the 16th of March 2023 court date and bring mid
            produce the specified evidence as proof of all allegations of the plai1itiff. The affidavit of
            service was served on the 7th day ofMarch 2023 at 7:39 PM at 40 Wall Street Suite 2508
            New York NY 10005. The defendants did not comply with the court ordered subpoena.
                   Defendant Regina Kipennan threatened the plaintiff by reporting to the courts, Ms.
            Wilson, and Bruce Goodman things contained in emails and conversation with defendant
            and staff of RI( Law P.C. On August 8, 2022, plaintiff received an email from the
            defendant stating the following:
                   ''If you do notsend $40,000 to be placed into my escrow account pursuant to the
            stipulation of settlement by the end of day today, I will advise Bruce Goodman and the
            Court that you are in breach of the agreement and will have no choice but to recommend
            your immediate suspension and removal as fiduciary. Be guided accordingly,''
                   On an email issued on August 8, 2022, plaintiff proposed to the defendant a
            settlement ofherpayment offees, Defendant insisted that she be paid immediately on the
            recovery of any assets of the Estate. The defendant refused any other arrangement.
                    Under the stipulation ofagreement with Computetshares,the attorney provided by
             TD Bank required an accounting, ofplaintiffis actions as admihistrator. The d¢fendartt
            .said the a:ccoundng is a Whole different procedure, not associateµ with the stipulation or
            turnover ord¢r an4 would cost the plaintiffs a11other $20,000.00 to $24,000.00.
                   The order for tumover was signed by Judge Edmead on or around May 5~ 2023
            and the Letters were ready byMay 9, 2022. Atthattime plaintiffs' attorney Regina
            Kipertnan should have had Mary Banker served by overnigfit delivery With. a signature

                                                                                                          3

                                                      3 of 8
[* 3]
   FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/23/2024 04:23 PM                                                        INDEX NO. 515660/2023
   NYSCEF DOC. NO. 60                                                                            RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/23/2024

                     receipt and produced an affidavit of service:; On May 26, 2022, ·plaintiffs sentRegina an
                     email, asking whether Mary Banker had been successfully served. On May 26, 2022,
                     Regina Kiperman replied that itwasreturned and needed to be resent. Plaintiffs replied,
                     ''Regina, ldon'tlmow what is going on, but I do know it doesn'ttakeover 3 weeks to
                     send overnight delivery.·" Plaintiff checked the court records and have so far not been
                     able to locate an affidavitofservice for an order of judgment against Mary Banker.
                            Mary Banker was found liable for approximately $140,000.00 in dividends and
                     another $70,000.00 in interest if not returned to the estate within 10 days of receiving the
                     court order.
                            On June 6, 2022, plaintiff received an email that only said Mary was served.
                    Plaintiffs rec:.:eived an email from one of the staff members ofdefendants advising of an
                    increaseto_the.firm's hourly rate of work effective June I, 2022.
                           On March 6, 2023; Hon. Bernatd J Graham signed the judicial subpoena duces
                    tecum fat RK Law P;C. to appear on the court date of March 16, 2023, and to bring and
                    to prod11ce the specified evidence as pl'oof of all allegations of the plaintiff and his
                    defense during the fee-conference. The affidavit ofservicewas served on March 7,2023
                    at 7:39 PM at 40 Wall Street, Suite 2508; New York, NY 10005. The defendant did not
                    comply with the court ordered subpoena. By reason ofthe facts and circumstances stated
                    above, The Estate of Angelina A. Ditaranto has been damaged by the defendants in the
                    amount of$209,824.64 that was to be collected fro1TI Mary Banker had the Defendants
                    properly served as set by the State of New York, completed their obligations as a
                    competentattorney of the State ofNew York. Plaintiff Joseph A. Cotton claims damages
                    for Emotional Distress in the mnourtt of$200,000 artd Defamation and/or Breach of
                    Confidentiality in the amount of$500,000 or ainount deemed appropriate together with
                    any other reliefthe Court finds to be justand proper.

                            On November 20, 2023, the defendants filed the instant motion to dismiss the
                    plaintiffs' complaint pursuant to CPLR3211(a)(5) artd CPLR 321 l(a)(7) and-32ll(c).
                          By order issued ort February 26, 2024, the Court gave plaintiff Joseph Cotton until
                    March 11, 2024; to file opposition to the instant motion and gave thedefendants until
                    March 25, 2024, to file a reply. The. matter was adjourned to April 3, 2O:Z4, for avirtual
                    appearance and oral argument.
                    LA'WAND APPLiCATION
                           On a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLil 3211(a)(7), as inade by the defendants
                    herein, "the court ntust accept the fac~s alleged in tli.e complaint as trqe, c,tcc;ord plaintiffs
                    the benefit ofevery possible favorablei11ference,.-and determine only whether the facts as
                    alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory" (Benjamin v Yeroushalml, 212 AD3d 758,
                    760 [2d Dept 2023], quoting Sokol v Leader; 74 AD3d 1180, J 181 [2d Dept201 OJ).
                    ''Where evi derttiary 111ateti aJs are considerl!d -in support of a motion pµrsua.nt to CPLR
                                                                                                                     4

                                                                             4 of 8
[* 4]
------------------------------------------------------------- ------------
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/23/2024 04:23 PM                                                                   INDEX NO. 515660/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 60                                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/23/2024

            32ll(a)(7), and the motion is not converted into one for smnmaryjudgment, the court
            mustdetermine whether the plaintiffhas a cause of action, not whether the plaintiff has
            stated one and, unless it has· been shown thata material fact as claimed by the plait1tiffto
            be one is not a fact at alland unless it can be said that no significant dispute exists
            regarding it, dismissal should not eventuate" (Recine v Recine, 201 Ab3d 827, 830 [2d
            Dept2022], quotingAgai vLiberty Mut. Agency Corp.; 118 AD3d 830, 832 [2d Dept
            2014]).     .            .

                    The defendants did not allege or contend that the plaintiffs have failed to plead a
            cognizable '?aµse of action. Rather defendants' sole contention is that their evidentiary
            submission est£tblished that the plaintiffs do not have. a cause of action because the causes
            of action asserted in the plaintiffs' complaint are barred by the doctrine of tes judicata and
            collateral estoppeL
                    The documents submitted by the defendants in support of the motion were an
            affirmation ·of counsel, a memorandum oft aw in. support, and three c)nnexed exhibits
            labeled A through C. Exhibit A is a copy of the instant summons and complaint. Exhibit
            B is an affidavit of service of the summons and complaint upon the defendants. Exhibit
            C is a copy of decision and order of the Surrogate Court of the State of New York County
            ofKings bearing File No. 3010-J043/H on the matter entitled Proceeding by Regina
            Kiperman, Esq., to Fix and Determine Compensation for Services Rendered in the Matter
            of the Estate ofAngelina Ditaranto (hereinafter the Surrogate order).
                   In response to the defendants' motion,the plaintiff subinitted a document
            denominated as an affirmation in opposition3 and three annexed exhibits labeled A
            through C. ExhibitAwas,a one-page document which appearedincomplete. Exhibit B
            contained several copies of a verified petition for turnover of estate assets, an order of
            Justice Carol R 1 Ec:lmead dated May 5, 2023, a copy ofthe retainer agreement between
            the plaintiff and RK Law P.C., and a copy ofa judicial subpoena duces teculli.. Exhibit C
            was a document denominated as a verification by Joseph A. Cotton.
                   Plaintiff contends in sum and substance that defe1idanfa' motion for legal fees in
             Surrogate Court should not be a basis for application of resjudicata or collateral estoppel.
            He argues that the Surrogate order was not a judgment. Plaintiff also claims, in sum and
            substance, that he did not have. a full and fair opportunity to litigate his cause of action for
            defamation, the defendants' shad11g of confidential information, and for infliction of
            ·emotional distress.

            3   The document contained Jqseph A. Cotton ;s signature. The document did not reflect th at it was taken under oath
            by someone authorized to administer oaths. Nor did Cotton affirm the truth of the statemtmts contained therein
            pursuarit to CPL R 2106. · The docµment is therefore unswom.
                                                                                                                                   5

                                                                    5 of 8
[* 5]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/23/2024 04:23 PM                                           INDEX NO. 515660/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 60                                                               RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/23/2024

                  In reply to plaintiff's opposition papers, the defendant a.gain submitted the
            Surrogate order and a copy of the Joseph A. Cotton's verified objection to Regina
            Kipennan'smotion which yielded the Surrogate order.
                    The Surrogate order of Judge Graham established the following. Regina
            Kiperman, Esq. commenced a miscellaneous proceeding (hereinafter the miscellaneous
            proceeding) seeking a deten11ination pursuant to SCPA § 2110, of legal fees, costs and
            disbursements incurred in connection with her representation on behalfof the Joseph A,
            Costello, the Administrator, since her retention on or aboutMarch 17, 2021, through July
            2022. The Administrator objected to the attorney's fees requested. The parties consented
            to the issues being decided by the Court on their submissions.
                  Judge Graham found the following facts.
                  A review of petitioner's affirmation of legal services reveals that the firm
                  reviewed the documents presented by the respondent and engaged with
                  discussions with Computershare and counsel for Computershare. Thereafter,
                  the firm filed the petition for turnover of assets and sought a restraining order
                  against Computershare to prevent Conlputershare from.transferring the assets
                  to Mary in her individual capacify. Upon the signing of the order to show
                  cause, the firm served the documents to the interested parties and then
                  engaged in negotiations with Computershare, negotiations with TD Bank,
                  attendedrrtultiple Court conferences, conductedconfetence calls with counsel,
                  and conducted conference calls with respondent explaining the ne:x:t steps in
                  the matter, including the possibility of filing a judicial accounting.
                  In respondent1s objections, respondent alleg;es "overbilling" and thatthe firm
                  worked on the 11 sameturnover document for approx. four months (March thru
                  Aug) and still took another three months" to file the documents with the
                  Court. However, the Finn's hours indicate that the Firm was drafting the
                  petition on or about May 11, 2021, and the petition, along with the attorney
                  afl:innation and order to show cause,were filed with the Court on or about
                  July 21,.2021. This was a complex petition, which included multiple
                  unauthorized stock transfers and eight years·. of improper· divi <lends collected
                  going as far back as 2010, as well as contact with several corporations and
                  their legal department. Therefore, the antount of time spent on drafting the
                  petition seems eminently reasonable. The respondent also alleges that he hired
                  the Firm to prepare, and file amended Letters of Administration to remove the
                  $10,000 limitation on the Letters ofAdministration, and that the Finn
                  apparently failed to do so. However, the Court's order dated May 05, 2022.;
                  removed the previous restriction on the Administrator1s Letters and increased
                  the sum to $200,000. Additionally, the respondent alleges thatthe petitioner
                  shared confidential information; however, the respondent has provided scant

                                                                                                      6

                                                     6 of 8
[* 6]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/23/2024 04:23 PM                                            INDEX NO. 515660/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 60                                                                RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/23/2024

                   evidence of any wrongdoing. The rest of respondent's objections seems to
                   focus on the interpersonal conflict between the respondent and petitioner as
                   weII as apparent miscommunication between the pa.rties.
                   The Court has carefully reviewed the. servi_ces performed which included
                   drafting the petition for turnover of estate assets, extensive contact with
                   attorneys and attending multiple court conferences. The petitioner's Firtn was
                   able to settle the tnatter by stipulation and the respondent collected over 5,549
                   shares of ATT stocks,. 1,322 shares of Warner Brothers stock, andtheunpaid
                   dividend checks that Computershare had been·accumulating. In addition, the
                   Court order directed that Mary return misappropriated funds to the Estate, and
                   if she failed to do so, judgment would be entered against Mary. The Court
                   notes the complexity of this matter, with the Voluntary Letters of'
                   Administration initially being issued to Mary 2011 and multiple unauthorized
                   transactions takingplace since that titne. It is notable that petitioner succeeded
                   in turning over the misappropriated assets from Mary to the Estate and raising
                   the limitatiory in the Letters from $10,000 to $200,000; this is primarilywhat
                   the petitioner was hired to accomplish. Itis therefore without question that
                   petitionees firm has ably representedtheAdminist tator and increased the
                   value ofthe Estate.
                   After consideration of the cmnplt::x proceedings in the Estate, the nature of the
                   services rendered, the reputation and experience of counsel, the supporting
                   information set forth in the·affinnation of legalservices and having due regard
                   fot the factors relevant to the fixing of attorney's fees (See Matter of Freeman,
                   supra), the Court fixes the fair and reasonable value of legal fees at
                   $20,061.60. The Court directs that the fees be paid out of the Estate, or,if
                   Respondent removedthe assets of the Estate, that the fees be paid personally
                   by Respondent.
                    The defendants claim that the application of resjudicataand collateral estoppel
            bar the prosecution of the plaintiff's complaintis premised on the Sutrogate order.
                   1 'Under the doctrine of res judicata, a final adjudication of a claim on the merits
            precludes relitigating of that claim and all claims arising out of the same transaction or
            series of transactions by a party or those in privity with a party'' (1155 Nobo Assoc1, LLC
            v New York Hosp. Med Ctr. o.fQueens, I 81 AD3d 937,938 [2d Dept 20201, quoting
            Djoganopouios v Polkes, 67 AD3d 726, 727 [2d Dept 2009]). "The rule applies not only
            to claims actually litigated but also to claims that could have been raised in the prior
            litigation'' (Matter of Hunter; 4 NY3d 260,269 [2005]).
                   Pursuant to this doctrine, a legal malpractice action generally win be barred by the·
            defendant's ''successful prosecution of a prior action to recover fees for the same. legal
            services which the [plaintiff] presently allege[s] were negligently performed" (York v
                                                                                                        7

                                                      7 of 8
[* 7]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/23/2024 04:23 PM                                             INDEX NO. 515660/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 60                                                                 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/23/2024

            Landa, 57 AD3d 980 [2d Dept2008], citing.Pirog vlngber, 203 AD2d 348, 348-349 [2d
            Dept 1994]). "Under New York State law, a determination fixing a defendants' fees in a
            prior action brought by the defendant against the plaintiff for fees for the same legal
            services which the plaintiff alleges were negligently performed, necessarily determines
            that there was no legal malpractice'; (Breslin Realty Development Corp; v Shaw, 72 AD3d
            258, 263-64 [2d Dept 201 OJ, citingBlair v. Bartlett, 75 NY 150, 154 [ 1878]).
                    The defendants' evidentiary submis.sion establishes that th¢ defendants' successful
            prosecuted the motion to recover fees for the same legal services which the plaintiffs
            allege were negligently performed (York v Landa, 57 AD3d 980, 981-82 [2d Dept 2008],
            citingPirog vlngber, 203 AD2d 348, 348-349 [2d Dept 19941). It further establishes that
            the plaintiff's objection to the proceedings were submitted and considered. by the Court in
            determining the motion. Furthermore, both the plaintiff at1d the defendant consented to
            the issues being decided by the Court on their submissions.
                    These facts taken together establish thatthe plaintiff had a full and fair opportunity
            to litigate the issues raised in plaintiff's objection to the miscellaneous proceeding and
            thatthe issues raised therein were necessarily decided by the Surrogate order.
            CONCLUSION
                   The motion by defendant.s Regina Kiperman, Esq. and RK Law P.C for an order
            pursuant to CPLR § 3211 dismissing the complaint of Joseph A. Cotton & The Estate of
            Angelina A. Ditaranto and Administrator Joseph A. Cotton is granted. The causes of
            action asserted in the complaint are barred by application of the principal of resjudicata
            and collateral estoppel.
            The foregoing constitutes the decision and order of this Court.

            ENTER:

                                                                     J.S.C.
                                                             HON. FRANCOIS A. RIVERA

                                                                                                         8

                                                       8 of 8
[* 8]