Court Opinion

ID: 9916468
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-10 01:07:20.367212+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:25:29.308706
License: Public Domain

Mazzone v Alonso, Andalkar & Facher, P.C.
               2024 NY Slip Op 30022(U)
                     January 4, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 152735/2019
                  Judge: Andrew Borrok
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.
                                                                                                                        INDEX NO. 152735/2019
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 486                                                                                             RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/04/2024

            SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
            COUNTY OF NEW YORK: COMMERCIAL DIVISION PART 53
            ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- X

             ROSA MAZZONE,                                                                          INDEX NO.          152735/2019

                                                          Plaintiff,
                                                                                                    MOTION DATE         N/A, N/A
                                                - V -
                                                                                                    MOTION SEQ. NO.      008 009
             ALONSO, ANDALKAR & FACHER, P.C.,MARK J.
             ALONSO, CATANIA T. FACHER, DONNA M. RUSSO,
                                                                                                     DECISION+ ORDER ON
                                                          Defendant.                                       MOTION
            ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- X

             ALONSO, ANDALKAR & FACHER, P.C.                                                                    Third-Party
                                                                                                          Index No. 595278/2019
                                                          Plaintiff,

                                                  -against-

             DONNA RUSSO

                                                          Defendant.
             -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- X

            HON. ANDREW BORROK:

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 008) 464,465,466,467,
            468,469,470,471,472,473
            were read on this motion to/for                                          REFER TO ANOTHER JUDGE

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 009) 474,475,476,477,
            478,479,480,481,482,483,484
            were read on this motion to/for                                    QUASH SUBPOENA, FIX CONDITIONS

            The Defendants' motion (Mtn. Seq. No. 008) for recusal is denied and the Plaintiff's request for

            leave to bring a motion seeking sanctions (NYSCEF Doc. No. 470, at 1) is also denied.

            This is a malpractice case. In 2017, the Plaintiff and her former business partner, Tracey

            Schusterman, joined RBC Capital Markets, LLC (RBC), a brokerage firm. Prior to joining

            RBC, the Plaintiff and Ms. Schusterman entered into an agreement covering, among other things,
             152735/2019 MAZZONE, ROSA vs. ALONSO, ANDALKAR & FACHER,                                                   Page 1 of 7
             Motion No. 008 009

[* 1]                                                                       1 of 7
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 152735/2019
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 486                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/04/2024

            what would happen if they terminated their business relationship. During a workplace argument

            in RBC' s offices, Ms. Schusterman struck the Plaintiff in the face and was immediately

            suspended and ultimately terminated. The Plaintiff sought legal advice from the Defendants

            regarding her rights and obligations as they related to Ms. Schusterman and RBC. A FINRA

            arbitration ensued. The Defendants represented the Plaintiff in the FINRA arbitration.

            Ultimately, the FINRA arbitration panel made several findings and awarded Ms. Schusterman

            over $500,000 in damages against the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff subsequently commenced this legal

            malpractice action against the Defendants.

            Previously, following years of discovery, the parties filed competing summary judgment

            motions. On their motion for summary judgment, the Defendants argued that the complaint

            against them should be dismissed because (i) the malpractice claim failed because the Plaintiff

            could not prove causation or damages, (ii) the breach of contract claim failed as duplicative of

            the malpractice claim, and (iii) the unjust enrichment claim failed because the parties'

            relationship was governed by contract. The Plaintiff argued that the Plaintiff was entitled to

            summary judgment because (i) the Defendants gave erroneous advice without basis and she was

            damaged thereby, (ii) those damages included the recovery of monetary sanctions imposed by

            the FINRA panel, and (iii) the same evidence supporting her malpractice claim entitled her to

           judgment on her breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims.

            The Court agreed with the Plaintiffs arguments and disagreed with the Defendants issuing a

            Decision and Order dated January 26, 2022 (NYSCEF Doc. No. 395), among other things,

             152735/2019 MAZZONE, ROSA vs. ALONSO, ANDALKAR & FACHER,                             Page 2 of 7
             Motion No. 008 009

[* 2]                                                     2 of 7
                                                                                                     INDEX NO. 152735/2019
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 486                                                                        RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/04/2024

            denying the Defendants' motion for summary judgment and granting the Plaintiff's motion for

            summary judgment.

            On appeal, as relevant, the Appellate Division modified this Court's decision to vacate the entry

            of judgment against the Defendants (i.e., but did not modify the decision denying the

            Defendant's competing summary judgment motion) and identified as issues of fact for trial (i)

            whether the Defendants' advice regarding solicitation was reasonable under the circumstances

            and in harmony with Bessemer Trust Co., NA. v Branin (16 NY3d 549 [2011 ]), (ii) whether the

            Plaintiff showed the requisite injury given that she faced greater losses had she been fired, which

            would have triggered her obligation to pay a $741,827 loan, (iii) whether the Defendants' advice

            was a proximate cause of the Plaintiff's injury given that she is alleged to have disregarded it,

            and (iv) whether Schusterman materially breached their arrangement thereby excusing the

            Plaintiff's performance thereunder (NYSCEF Doc. No. 463, at 2).

            The Defendants now argue that the Court should recuse itself in the looming bench trial because

            the Defendants are of the view that the Court has pre-decided the case that the Defendants intend

            to put on at trial based on the Court's statements and rulings at the time the Court heard the

            competing summary judgment motions. The argument fails.

            A judge is disqualified from sitting on a case (i) to which they are a party, (ii) in which they have

            been attorney or counsel, (iii) in which they are interested, or (iv) if they are related by

            consanguinity or affinity to any party to the controversy within the sixth degree (NY Jud§ 14).

            Absent a legal disqualification under Judiciary Law§ 14, a trial judge is the sole arbiter of

             152735/2019 MAZZONE, ROSA vs. ALONSO, ANDALKAR & FACHER,                                Page 3 of 7
             Motion No. 008 009

[* 3]                                                      3 of 7
                                                                                                    INDEX NO. 152735/2019
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 486                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/04/2024

            recusal (People ex rel. Spitzer v Grasso, 49 AD3d 303, 306 [1st Dept 2008]). Pursuant to 22

            NYCRR § 100.3(E), the court may recuse itself if the court's impartiality might reasonably be

            questioned. Pursuant to 22 NYCRR § 100.3(E)(l )( a)(ii), recusal is appropriate where "the judge

            has personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding."

            At bottom, the Defendants argue that the Court made a decision such that it could not come to

            different decision on the record established at trial. This is not correct.

            The Court made a judgment based on the record in front of the Court at that time and will make a

           judgment and decision based on the record established at trial. The Appellate Division has given

            clear instruction as to what the issues of fact are for trial. The Court shall listen dispassionately

            to the evidence presented at trial and render an impartial judgment and decision as to those issues

            holding the parties to their appropriate trial burden of proof. There simply is no appearance of

            impropriety and the Court has not pre-judged the case. The Court knows none of the parties in

            this case ( or the lawyers) and favors no party as to its outcome and fully believes that it can and

            will be entirely impartial.

            The Plaintiff indicates that the Court should grant leave to bring a motion for sanctions in the

            opposition papers because the Plaintiff is of the view that the motion is "impermissible judge-

            shopping" (NYSCEF Doc. No. 470, at 1). The Court declines to do so.

            The trial is scheduled to begin on April 8, 2024 - a mere approximately 90 days from now and

            well before the time to appeal this decision lapses. As such, and to ensure that the parties have

             152735/2019 MAZZONE, ROSA vs. ALONSO, ANDALKAR & FACHER,                               Page 4 of 7
             Motion No. 008 009

[* 4]                                                      4 of 7
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 152735/2019
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 486                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/04/2024

            appropriate time to appeal this decision, the trial is adjourned. A status conference is scheduled

            for August 13, 2024, at 11 :30am, at which time a new trial date shall be scheduled.

            The Plaintiffs motion (Mtn. Seq. No. 009) to quash the document subpoena served by the

            Defendants on RBC is granted. The Defendants served both document subpoenas and trial

            testimony subpoenas. The trial testimony subpoenas were served on RBC (the Plaintiffs former

            employer) employees John Moran and Shareen Luze. The Plaintiff does not seek to quash these

            trial testimony subpoenas. They seek to quash the document subpoena.

            The document subpoena served on RBC seeks documents concerning (i) the altercation between

            the Plaintiff and Ms. Schusterman, (ii) the Plaintiffs employability at RBC and the liability on

            her forgivable loan, and (iii) fees and other compensation that the Plaintiff has been paid by RBC

            broken down by customers. As discussed below, at this time, this is improper.

            The Court has the power to control discovery and may providently exercise its discretion to

            quash a subpoena where, as here, subpoenas are being improperly used to secure discovery after

            note of issue has been filed (Feiner & Lavy, PC v Zahar, 210 AD3d 408, 408 [1st Dept 2022]).

            A subpoena is properly quashed where a party improperly utilizes an overbroad trial subpoena as

            a discovery device to secure discovery that they neglected to obtain in pretrial disclosure

            (Tribeca Space Managers, Inc. v Tribeca Mews Ltd., 200 AD3d 626, 629 [1st Dept 2021]). A

            party seeking discovery post note of issue must demonstrate unusual or unanticipated

            circumstances or substantial prejudice to justify the discovery they seek (Desario v SL Green

            Mgt. LLC, 118 AD3d 520, 520 [1st Dept 2014]).

             152735/2019 MAZZONE, ROSA vs. ALONSO, ANDALKAR & FACHER,                              Page 5 of 7
             Motion No. 008 009

[* 5]                                                     5 of 7
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 152735/2019
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 486                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/04/2024

            This case was filed in March, 2019. As discussed above, prior to the parties filing competing

            summary judgment motions, discovery had been conducted for years. Fact discovery closed on

            December 31, 2020 - three years ago. Note oflssue in this case was filed on July 14, 2021 - two

            and a half years ago. There has been no surprise, no new theory or other unanticipated

            circumstances warranting additional discovery. Simply put, the Defendants have had more than

            ample time and opportunity to complete all necessary discovery in the last four years. This

            subpoena is not merely a trial subpoena seeking records for trial. It is an untimely attempt to

            conduct additional discovery. The Appellative Division has identified the issues for trial in this

            case and the case is trial ready. As such, motion to quash is granted.

            For completeness, the Defendants' argument that the Plaintiff lacks standing to bring this motion

            fails because the Court has power to control discovery in this case and can properly quash the

            subpoena of its own accord (Feiner & Lavy, 210 AD3d at 408). The motion is therefore granted.

            It is hereby ORDERED that the Defendants' motion (Mtn. Seq. No. 008) for recusal is denied;

            and it is further

            ORDERED that the Plaintiffs motion (Mtn. Seq. No. 009) to quash a subpoena is granted; and it

            is further

            ORDERED that the trial of this action is adjourned without date; and it is further

             152735/2019 MAZZONE, ROSA vs. ALONSO, ANDALKAR & FACHER,                             Page 6 of 7
             Motion No. 008 009

[* 6]                                                     6 of 7
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 152735/2019
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 486                                                                        RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/04/2024

            0 RD ERED that the parties shall appear for a status conference on August 13, 2024 at 11 :30 am

            to reschedule the trial.

                     1/4/2024
                      DATE                                                      ANDREW BORROK, J.S.C.

                                       ~
             CHECK ONE:                    CASE DISPOSED                 NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

                                           GRANTED         0    DENIED   GRANTED IN PART          □ OTHER
             APPLICATION:                  SETTLE ORDER                  SUBMIT ORDER

             CHECK IF APPROPRIATE:         INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN    FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT    □ REFERENCE

             152735/2019 MAZZONE, ROSA vs. ALONSO, ANDALKAR & FACHER,                              Page 7 of 7
             Motion No. 008 009

[* 7]                                                          7 of 7