Favour Inegbenehi Associate Editor, The Ethics Reporter 120 19th Street N, Suite 201 PMB 336306 Birmingham, Alabama 35203 VIA CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED, AND ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct Corning Tower, Suite 2301 Empire State Plaza Albany, New York 12223 August _5__, 2026 RE: SECOND COMPLAINT AGAINST HON. DAVID FRIED, Judge of the Court of Claims and Acting Justice of the Supreme Court, Rockland County, Ninth Judicial District, and Member of this Commission — Retaliation Against an Attorney Through (1) an Attorney-Grievance Referral Concealed as a “Sua Sponte” Investigation and (2) Serial Recusals Invoking Confidentiality Prior related file: 2026/N-0141 (complaint dated February 4, 2026; dismissed May 27, 2026) I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY 1. This is my second complaint against Judge David Fried. My first, dated February 4, 2026, documented conduct I personally witnessed in Adler v. Pollak, Index No. 035769/2025 (Sup. Ct., Rockland County): open-court hostility toward per diem counsel, coercive sanction threats untethered to any noticed sanctions proceeding, and intimidation of attorney a Muslim woman attorney — a Muslim woman lawyer — for the lawful act of making a record. The Commission dismissed that complaint on May 27, 2026, in four sentences, without findings or explanation (File No. 2026/N0141) (Exhibit D). 2. This complaint concerns what Judge Fried did after that complaint was filed and dismissed. It does not re-allege the courtroom conduct the Commission has already declined to act on. It alleges something categorically worse: the use of two instruments of state power — the attorney disciplinary system and the recusal apparatus — to retaliate against the attorney associated with a complaint about him. 3. The facts, set out fully below and supported by the documentary exhibits: a. The disguised grievance referral. By letter dated June 18, 2026 — twentytwo days after this Commission dismissed the complaint against Judge Fried — the Grievance Committee for the Ninth Judicial District notified the attorney that it had “initiated a complaint and investigation, sua sponte,” File No. W-931-26, “based upon the findings of misconduct in” Judge Fried’s March 30, 2026 Decision & Order. (Exhibit A.) Upon information and belief, it was not sua sponte. It was a referral from Judge Fried, concealed as a committee-initiated matter — an investigation resting entirely on an order whose author is Judge Fried and which on its face disclaims any finding warranting sanction. b. Judge Fried has begun serially recusing himself from every case in which the attorney appears as counsel, checking box (b) of the Unified Court System recusal form — that the reason for recusal “must be kept confidential” pursuant to statute or caselaw — while providing no substantive reason. Two such orders are attached: Hudson Valley Credit Union v. Adler, Index No. 031319/2025 (filed July 21, 2026) (Exhibit B), and U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. v. Friesel 2008 Family Trust, Index No. 032320/2022 (filed August 3, 2026) (Exhibit C). c. These two facts are one fact. As explained in Part V.A below, the Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics has held that a judge who reports an attorney to a grievance committee (i) is disqualified from all matters in which that attorney appears, for the duration of the investigation and for two years after its disposition (Opinions 18-29; 21-45), and (ii) must not disclose the reason for the recusal unless the attorney waives confidentiality (Opinions 18-29; 21-45; Judiciary Law § 90[10]). A judge who has made a secret grievance referral against an attorney behaves in precisely one way: he recuses from all of her cases and cites statutory confidentiality. That is exactly — and only — what Judge Fried’s recusal forms show. His own forms are the referral’s fingerprint. d. Judge Fried himself foreclosed the innocent explanation. When he presided over the underlying proceedings in early 2026, he expressly stated that his order concerning the attorney was not a sanction (Exhibit E). A judge who contemporaneously and formally disclaims any finding of sanctionable conduct, and then — only after a judicial-conduct complaint about his own behavior is filed, published, and dismissed — routes the same attorney into the disciplinary system through a concealed referral, is not discharging a duty under 22 NYCRR 100.3(D)(2). He is retaliating. 4. The question presented is narrow and grave: May a New York judge answer a citizen’s judicial-conduct complaint by secretly referring the associated attorney for bar discipline, procuring or acquiescing in the concealment of his role behind a “sua sponte” designation, and serially recusing from her cases behind a confidentiality invocation — thereby imposing years of professional injury on the attorney without notice, process, or accountability? Under this Commission’s own precedent — Matter of Appel (Comm’n on Jud. Conduct, May 14, 2007) and Matter of Hart, 7 N.Y.3d 1 (2006) — the answer is no. 5. Because Judge Fried is a sitting member of this Commission, and because the Commission’s handling of File No. 2026/N-0141 consisted of a four-sentence unexplained dismissal, I also request specific procedural safeguards, set out in Part VII. II. THE COMPLAINANT 6. I am the Associate Editor of The Ethics Reporter, an independent, reader-funded legal-accountability publication covering the New York courts. I have personally observed more than 150 court proceedings in and around the Ninth Judicial District. I attended the January 28, 2026 proceeding in Adler v. Pollak in person. I have no financial or litigation interest in any matter pending before Judge Fried. 6.1. One further fact bears on why this work — and this complaint — matters, and I affirm it here under the same affirmation that closes this complaint: The Ethics Reporter receives donations from staff members of New York attorney grievance committees. I will not disclose their identities; they are sources, and journalistic integrity forbids it. But the fact itself is significant, and I swear to it: people who work inside the attorney disciplinary system are, quietly and at personal risk, financially supporting independent scrutiny of that system. That is not what employees of a healthy institution do. It signals real internal disagreement and discord within the committees about how these bodies are being run and how their powers are being used. The Commission should understand that when it evaluates whether a “sua sponte” designation from one of those committees can simply be taken at face value. 6.2. Finally, Judge Fried has been given every opportunity to explain himself outside this process. Before publishing its reporting on his recusals, The Ethics Reporter sent Judge Fried two written requests for comment: on July 23, 2026, concerning the Hudson Valley Credit Union v. Adler recusal (with the recusal order attached), and on August 3, 2026, concerning the U.S. Bank Trust v. Friesel 2008 Family Trust recusal (with that order attached). (Exhibit F.) He responded to neither. The Ethics Reporter then published its analysis of the recusal orders on August 3, 2026 (“Confidential”? Judge David Fried’s Recusal Form Reveals an Impossible Claim, available at https://www.theethicsreporter.com/2026/08/03/david-fried-recusal-confidential-nyjudiciary-law/). His silence in the face of specific, direct questions about his recusals — followed by published analysis of the lawfulness of his box (b) certifications — is itself notable: a judge with an innocent explanation had two invitations to give it. III. STATEMENT OF FACTS A. The underlying proceeding — and the order that was “not a sanction” 7. On January 28, 2026, in Adler v. Pollak, Index No. 035769/2025 (Sup. Ct., Rockland County), I watched Judge Fried raise his voice at the attorney, point at her menacingly, question her motives for making lawful filings, and repeatedly warn her to “be very careful” how she answered his questions — explicitly tying the prospect of sanctions to the content of her answers. He castigated her for “creating a record.” The details are set out in my February 4, 2026 complaint, republished in full in The Ethics Reporter’s February 5, 2026 investigation (available at https://www.theethicsreporter.com/2026/02/05/rockland-county-judge-david-friedwho-touts-his-relationship-to-epstein-associates-castigates-muslim-lawyer-forcreating-a-record/). 8. The January 28, 2026 proceeding had been noticed as an inquest on damages — the quantification of costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. It was not noticed as a hearing on counsel’s professional conduct. Judge Fried nonetheless converted it into one: he interrogated the attorney about her conduct, tied the prospect of sanctions to the manner of her answers, and conducted what was, in substance, an unnoticed conduct proceeding inside a damages inquest. That transformation — conductpolicing without proper notice or process — was among the abuses described in my February 4, 2026 complaint and The Ethics Reporter’s contemporaneous reporting (see ¶ 7). 8.1. Yet what matters most here is what Judge Fried did at the end of the proceeding he had commandeered. In his Decision & Order on Attorney Fees, Costs and Expenses dated March 30, 2026 (NYSCEF Doc. No. 64) (Exhibit E), he directed that the attorney and/or her law office be jointly and severally liable for $3,500.00 of the costs award under 22 NYCRR 130-1.1(b) — and then wrote, in terms: “The aforesaid is expressly an award of costs and is not a sanction upon said counsel”; and separately, that the Court “in its discretion, declines to impose a formal Part 130 sanction upon said attorney.” The judgment incorporating those rulings was signed April 24, 2026 and entered April 29, 2026 (NYSCEF Doc. No. 68). 8.2. This contemporaneous, formal disposition is dispositive of any later suggestion that a grievance referral was the discharge of a duty. Even after unilaterally expanding a damages inquest into an examination of counsel’s conduct — with the full coercive advantage that ambush gave him — Judge Fried expressly declined to sanction, choosing a modest costs award he took pains to label “not a sanction.” Whatever one thinks of the findings recited in that order — they are now under review by the Appellate Division, Second Department (¶ 9.1, Exhibit G) — Judge Fried pressed his inquiry into counsel’s conduct as far as he wished, held every disciplinary tool in his hand, and set them down. The time for “appropriate action” under 100.3(D)(2), if he believed any was warranted, was then. 9.1. On April 29, 2026, the attorney filed a Notice of Appeal to the Appellate Division, Second Department (NYSCEF Doc. No. 69) (Exhibit G), appealing the Judgment and the underlying December 22, 2025 and March 30, 2026 orders — including, specifically, the propriety of holding counsel jointly and severally liable for $3,500.00 under 22 NYCRR 130-1.1, whether counsel received adequate notice and opportunity to be heard, and whether the required written findings were made. The question of the attorney’s conduct in that proceeding is therefore sub judice before the Second Department — a fact whose significance for the grievance referral is addressed in ¶ 29.1 below. B. The first complaint and its aftermath 9. On February 4, 2026, I filed my complaint with this Commission. On February 5, 2026, The Ethics Reporter published its investigation, including the complaint’s substance (see ¶ 7). A second investigation followed on February 24, 2026 (available at https://www.theethicsreporter.com/2026/02/24/inside-the-inner-circlehow-judge-david-fried-and-justice-sherri-eisenpress-built-a-judicial-empire-oncronyism-conflicts-and-cover-ups/), documenting Judge Fried’s extensive personal and institutional ties to former Justice Sherri L. Eisenpress — who resigned that same winter under formal Commission charges of presiding over at least 55 cases involving attorneys with whom she maintained undisclosed personal relationships. 10. On March 12, 2026 — five weeks after my complaint was filed — Governor Hochul appointed Judge Fried to this Commission, where he now sits, with a term through March 31, 2030. 11. By letter dated May 27, 2026, signed by Clerk Celia A. Zahner and stamped CONFIDENTIAL, the Commission dismissed my complaint in four sentences, stating only that it found “insufficient indication of judicial misconduct” and that “Judge Fried did not participate in the Commission’s consideration of your complaint.” File No. 2026/N-0141 (Exhibit D). The Ethics Reporter reported on the dismissal on June 9, 2026 (available at https://www.theethicsreporter.com/2026/06/09/david-fried-complaint-dismissedcommission-judicial-conduct-favour-inegbenehi-2026/). C. The retaliation 12. The serial recusals. Beginning in July 2026, Judge Fried began recusing himself from cases in which the attorney appears as counsel of record: Hudson Valley Credit Union v. Miriam Adler, Index No. 031319/2025 (Sup. Ct., Rockland County) — recusal filed July 21, 2026, checking box (b): the reason for recusal “must be kept confidential.” No substantive reason given. (Exhibit B.) U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. v. Friesel 2008 Family Trust, et al., Index No. 032320/2022 (Sup. Ct., Rockland County) — recusal filed August 3, 2026, again checking box (b). No substantive reason given. (Exhibit C.) Upon information and belief, Judge Fried has recused or will recuse from every matter in which the attorney appears, on the same basis. 13. The “sua sponte” grievance investigation. By letter dated June 18, 2026, marked “PERSONAL & CONFIDENTIAL” and signed by Staff Counsel Antonia Cipollone, the Grievance Committee for the Ninth Judicial District notified the attorney that “pursuant to 22 NYCRR §1240.7, this Committee has initiated a complaint and investigation, sua sponte, concerning your professional conduct.” File No. W-931-26. (Exhibit A.) The letter states that “[t]he investigation is based upon the findings of misconduct in the Decision & Order on Attorney Fees, Costs and Expenses dated March 30, 2026, entered in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Rockland in the matter of Bleema Adler vs. Mendel Pollak and Zipora Pollak, by Honorable David Fried.” It directs the attorney to answer “under the penalties of perjury” within ten days, to complete a background questionnaire, and warns that failure to respond “constitutes ‘professional misconduct’ independent of the merits.” The enclosures accompanying the letter consisted of the background questionnaire and a copy of Judge Fried’s March 30, 2026 Decision & Order — nothing else. The complete evidentiary basis of File No. W-931-26 is a single document, authored by Judge Fried. 13.0.1. Note what the June 18 letter does: it converts an order that says on its face it is “expressly an award of costs and is not a sanction upon said counsel” — an order in which the court expressly “declines to impose a formal Part 130 sanction” — into “findings of misconduct.” The disciplinary predicate the Committee recites is a characterization the issuing judge himself formally disclaimed. And note the arithmetic: the letter issued eighty days after the March 30 order it purports to rest on — but only twenty-two days after this Commission’s May 27 dismissal of the complaint against Judge Fried, and fifty days after the attorney filed her appeal challenging that very order. If the March 30 order genuinely and independently moved the Committee to act, nothing explains the eighty-day pause — or why the pause ended three weeks after Judge Fried’s complaint file closed. 13.1. Corroborating witnesses. Multiple individuals with direct knowledge of these proceedings are willing to come forward and testify before the Commission, including Isaac Stern and Daniel Eusebio. Both witnessed the relevant events, and both, upon learning of Judge Fried’s recusals, independently and contemporaneously reached the same conclusion — in words to the effect that “he had to be the one who referred his own order to the Grievance Committee.” Their contemporaneous reactions matter: the inference this complaint draws in Part V.A is not the product of hindsight or advocacy. It is the conclusion that observers on the ground reached immediately and unprompted, because no other explanation fits the observed facts. 14. The chronology is itself the evidence: Date Jan. 28, 2026 Event Fried castigates the attorney in open court for “creating a record”; threatens sanctions Feb. 4, 2026 I file the CJC complaint about Fried’s conduct Feb. 5, 2026 The Ethics Reporter publishes Mar. 12, 2026 Fried appointed to this Commission Fried’s Decision & Order: $3,500 costs award Mar. 30, 2026 against counsel, “expressly … not a sanction”; declines formal Part 130 sanction (NYSCEF Doc. 64) Apr. 24/29, 2026 Judgment signed and entered (NYSCEF Doc. 68) the attorney files Notice of Appeal challenging, Apr. 29, 2026 May 27, 2026 inter alia, the 130-1.1 award against counsel (NYSCEF Doc. 69) Commission dismisses the complaint without explanation Ninth JD Grievance Committee opens “sua Jun. 18, 2026 sponte” investigation of the attorney, File No. W931-26, “based upon the findings of misconduct in” Fried’s March 30 order — 22 days after the dismissal; 80 days after the order Date Event Jul. 21, 2026 Fried recuses from Hudson Valley CU v. Adler — box (b), confidential Aug. 3, 2026 Fried recuses from U.S. Bank v. Friesel Trust — box (b), confidential IV. THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK 15. Judiciary Law § 9 (eff. Dec. 23, 2020) provides: “Any judge who recuses himself or herself from sitting in or taking part in the decision of an action, claim, matter, motion or proceeding shall provide the reason for such recusal in writing or on the record; provided, however, that no judge shall be required to provide a reason for such recusal when the reason may result in embarrassment, or is of a personal nature, affecting the judge or a person related to the judge within the sixth degree by consanguinity or affinity.” The statute’s only carve-out from mandatory disclosure covers matters of embarrassment or personal matters “affecting the judge or a person related to the judge.” As the Advisory Committee has observed, the statute “does not, on its face, appear to provide an exception based on possible embarrassment or opprobrium to an attorney who is not related to the judge.” Opinion 21-45 (Mar. 11, 2021). 16. Judiciary Law § 90(10) seals “all papers, records and documents … upon any complaint, inquiry, investigation or proceeding relating to the conduct or discipline of an attorney,” rendering attorney disciplinary matters “private and confidential” unless charges are sustained or the Appellate Division orders disclosure. 17. The reporting-judge disqualification rule. The Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics has repeatedly held that a judge who reports an attorney to a grievance committee is disqualified from all matters in which that attorney appears — not merely permitted to recuse — while the disciplinary matter is pending and for two years after its disposition (Opinions 18-29; 21-45; see also Joint Opinion 08183/08-202/09-112; Opinion 03-88 [as modified]). During that period, the judge “must not disclose the reason for recusal unless the attorney waives confidentiality or the matter results in public discipline” (Opinion 21-45, citing Opinion 18-29). In Opinion 21-45, the Committee expressly confronted the “dissonance” between Judiciary Law § 9’s disclosure mandate and § 90(10)’s confidentiality, and concluded that whether a reporting judge may publicly disclose the reason “is a legal question we cannot resolve.” 18. The Rules Governing Judicial Conduct. 22 NYCRR 100.1 (a judge shall uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary); 100.2(A) (shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary); 100.2(C) (shall not lend the prestige of judicial office to advance private interests); 100.3(B)(1) (shall be faithful to the law); 100.3(B)(3) (shall be patient, dignified and courteous to lawyers); 100.3(D)(2) (a judge who receives information indicating a substantial likelihood that a lawyer has committed a substantial violation of professional-conduct rules “shall take appropriate action”); 100.3(E)(1) (disqualification for personal bias, including bias concerning a party’s lawyer). 19. Matter of Appel (Comm’n on Jud. Conduct, May 14, 2007) (Doris T. Appel, Chatham Town Court, Columbia County). This Commission admonished a judge who, having developed “a personal bias” against a single attorney on the basis of unsubstantiated hearsay, announced — in open court and “in a manner that unnecessarily exposed the attorney to public embarrassment” — that she would not permit the attorney to appear before her in future cases, and refused to explain her reasons. The Advisory Committee’s gloss on Appel is unambiguous: what the Commission disciplined was a judge “using recusal to punish or otherwise hurt or embarrass the attorney” and acting “in an irresponsible, undignified or demeaning manner towards the attorney.” Opinion 07-102 (June 6, 2007). 20. Matter of Hart, 7 N.Y.3d 1 (2006) (censure accepted by the Court of Appeals). A Queens County Supreme Court Justice was censured for holding a litigant in contempt because the litigant’s attorney insisted on making a record of an outof-court encounter between the judge and the litigant. The Court of Appeals accepted the Commission’s determination that punishing a party because his lawyer “had the temerity to insist on placing his client’s position on the record” is judicial misconduct. The parallel to Judge Fried — who castigated the attorney for “creating a record” and then routed her into the disciplinary system — is exact. 21. Matter of Cerbone, 61 N.Y.2d 93, 96 (1984): “respect for the judiciary is better fostered by temperate conduct, not hot-headed reactions.” 22. Federal constitutional backdrop. In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133, 136 (1955) (“A fair trial in a fair tribunal is a basic requirement of due process… our system of law has always endeavored to prevent even the probability of unfairness.”); Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (1994) (bias arising from an extrajudicial source — here, a public complaint about the judge — is the paradigm disqualifying antagonism); Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868, 881 (2009) (due process asks whether the circumstances present an unconstitutional “potential for bias”); Borough of Duryea v. Guarnieri, 564 U.S. 379 (2011) (the Petition Clause of the First Amendment protects the right to complain to government bodies — including, necessarily, judicial-conduct commissions — without official retaliation). V. ARGUMENT A. The recusal forms themselves disclose the grievance referral 23. Judge Fried’s recusal orders check box (b): the reason “must be kept confidential” pursuant to statute or caselaw. Ask the obvious question: what statute or caselaw could make the reason for recusing from the attorney’s cases confidential? 24. The statutory carve-out in Judiciary Law § 9 does not apply — animus toward, or any circumstance concerning, an unrelated attorney is not a matter “affecting the judge or a person related to the judge within the sixth degree.” The Advisory Committee said so directly in Opinion 21-45. 25. There is exactly one body of “statute or caselaw” that fits: Judiciary Law § 90(10), which seals attorney disciplinary matters — coupled with the Advisory Committee’s rule that a judge who has reported an attorney to a grievance committee is disqualified from her cases and must stay silent about why (Opinions 18-29; 21-45). A judge who has secretly reported an attorney behaves in precisely one observable way: he recuses from every one of her cases, cites confidentiality “pursuant to statute,” and says nothing more. That is a complete description of Exhibits B and C. 26. The sequence completes the proof. The Grievance Committee’s investigation opened on June 18, 2026 — a matter that Judiciary Law § 90(10) makes “sealed… private and confidential.” Judge Fried’s serial recusals from the attorney’s cases began July 21, 2026 — thirty-three days later — each invoking confidentiality by statute. A confidential disciplinary investigation is, by design, unknown to outsiders. A judge who begins executing the reporting-judge disqualification protocol weeks after a sealed investigation opens is not an outsider to it. He is its source — or at minimum a participant whose role the Commission is entitled to discover. 26.1. In other words: either Judge Fried reported the attorney to the Grievance Committee — in which case the “sua sponte” designation on File No. W-931-26 is a misrepresentation of its source — or he did not, in which case no statute or caselaw supports his confidentiality certification and box (b) is false. Both branches are misconduct. There is no third possibility. B. The referral was retaliation, not the discharge of a duty 27. Section 100.3(D)(2) obligates a judge who receives information indicating a substantial likelihood of a substantial violation to “take appropriate action.” Judge Fried will presumably invoke it. The invocation fails on this record for four independent reasons. 28. First, his own order forecloses it. The duty under 100.3(D)(2) is keyed to the judge’s receipt of the information — here, the proceedings over which he himself presided, culminating in the January 28, 2026 damages inquest that he unilaterally expanded into an examination of counsel’s conduct (¶ 8). Having converted the proceeding, pressed his inquiry as far as he wished, and deliberated for two months, Judge Fried formally declared his award “expressly an award of costs and not a sanction upon said counsel,” expressly “declin[ing] to impose a formal Part 130 sanction” (Exhibit E). Whether an attorney’s conduct crosses the disciplinary threshold “is a determination to be made by the judge” in the exercise of judgment and discretion (Opinion 03-88). Judge Fried made that determination when he had every procedural advantage — including ones he was not entitled to — and no motive to understate it. What changed between March 30, 2026 and the referral was not the attorney’s conduct; the record closed with his order. What changed was that a complaint about his conduct was filed, published, and — on May 27, 2026 — safely dismissed; and that his rulings against the attorney and her client were taken up on appeal. 29. Second, the timing is the classic signature of pretext. A genuine 100.3(D)(2) referral follows the triggering conduct promptly. The June 18, 2026 investigation opened eighty days after the March 30 order it recites as its basis — but only twenty-two days after the complainant’s avenue of scrutiny closed with the May 27 dismissal, and fifty days after the attorney filed her appeal challenging his rulings. Under Liteky, antagonism traceable to an extrajudicial source (a published complaint to this Commission) is the paradigm disqualifying bias; a disciplinary referral born of that same antagonism is the paradigm retaliatory act. 29.1. Third, the referral interferes with a pending appeal. The propriety of the 1301.1 costs award against the attorney — including the adequacy of notice, the opportunity to be heard, and the required written findings — is presently sub judice before the Appellate Division, Second Department (Exhibit G). A grievance referral premised on the same conduct does two improper things at once: it invites the disciplinary system to relitigate, in secret and without appellate safeguards, the very questions the Second Department has been asked to review; and it applies coercive pressure on the attorney — who now litigates her appeal knowing that the judge whose rulings she challenges has set the bar’s disciplinary machinery on her — to abandon that appeal. A judge “faithful to the law” (100.3[B][1]) awaits appellate review of his own contested rulings; he does not open a second, hidden front against the attorney prosecuting the appeal. 30. Fourth, a proper judicial referral is not concealed. The Advisory Committee’s guidance contemplates that a judge who reports an attorney discloses that fact to the parties in appropriate ways and accepts the mandatory-disqualification consequences openly (Opinions 03-88; 21-45 [judge “may privately advise that attorney that the judge made a complaint”]). What the guidance nowhere contemplates is a judicial referral dressed up as a committee-initiated “sua sponte” investigation — a designation whose only function here is to deny the attorney knowledge of her accuser, deny her the retaliation context she would need to defend herself, and insulate Judge Fried from the appearance-of-retaliation problem he well understood. If Judge Fried requested, procured, suggested, or knowingly acquiesced in the “sua sponte” designation, that concealment is independent misconduct under 100.1 and 100.2(A) — and it is evidence of consciousness of impropriety. 31. Fifth, this Commission has already disciplined this exact behavior pattern. In Matter of Hart, a judge punished a litigant because his attorney insisted on making a record; the Court of Appeals accepted censure. In Matter of Appel, a judge weaponized recusal against a single attorney out of personal bias; this Commission admonished her. Judge Fried has combined the two: he castigated an attorney for “creating a record” (the Hart conduct), and when a complaint followed, he deployed both a disciplinary referral and blanket recusal against her (the Appel conduct, aggravated by the referral’s concealment). The professional injury is not abstract: under the two-year rule of Opinions 18-29 and 21-45, the attorney’s clients lose access to an entire courtroom of the Rockland County Supreme Court for years, and the attorney carries a secret disciplinary investigation whose true origin has been hidden from her. C. Retaliation against protected petitioning 32. The February 4, 2026 complaint was core protected activity under the Petition Clause. Borough of Duryea v. Guarnieri, 564 U.S. 379 (2011). A judge’s use of official power to punish an attorney because she — or a publication associated with her — petitioned the state’s judicial-conduct authority is retaliation in its most corrosive form, because it teaches every lawyer in the Ninth Judicial District that the cost of complaining about a judge is a grievance file with her name on it. The chilling effect is not speculative; it is the point. A judiciary in which complaints to this Commission are answered with concealed bar referrals has made this Commission’s entire complaint apparatus a trap for the complainant. 33. Judge Fried, it must be remembered, explicitly did not sanction the attorney when he had lawful process available to address any genuine concern. What he did instead — after the complaint — was reach for instruments that operate in secret: a “sua sponte”-labeled investigation and a “confidential” recusal. Secrecy was not incidental to the retaliation. Secrecy was the method. D. Aggravating circumstances 34. He sits on this Commission. Judge Fried was appointed to this Commission five weeks after my first complaint was filed, and the Commission dismissed that complaint while he was a member, in a letter bearing his name on its letterhead. Whatever the formal recusal notation, the structural problem is obvious, and it is aggravated — not cured — when the same judge then retaliates against the attorney connected to the dismissed complaint, secure in the knowledge that any new complaint will be reviewed by his ten colleagues. 35. The Ninth Judicial District context. This Commission’s own charges against former Justice Eisenpress documented how personal relationships and mutual institutional protection corrupted the Rockland County bench. Commission Administrator Robert H. Tembeckjian said it plainly: “For the public to have confidence in the courts, judges must be and appear to be impartial.” Judge Fried — Justice Eisenpress’s close associate, whose wedding she officiated — now tests whether that principle applies to a member of the Commission itself. VI. RULES VIOLATED 36. On the facts above, Judge Fried has violated: 22 NYCRR 100.1 — failure to uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary; 22 NYCRR 100.2(A) — conduct destroying public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary; 22 NYCRR 100.2(C) — lending the prestige of judicial office to advance a private interest: his personal interest in retribution against an attorney associated with a complaint about him; 22 NYCRR 100.3(B)(1) — infidelity to the law, including Judiciary Law § 9; 22 NYCRR 100.3(D)(2) — abuse of the “appropriate action” duty as a vehicle for retaliation; 22 NYCRR 100.3(E)(1) — discharge of disqualification obligations by means of a false or misleading confidentiality certification; Judiciary Law § 9 — failure to state the reason for recusal where no statutory exception applies (pleaded in the alternative to ¶ 26). VII. RELIEF REQUESTED 37. I respectfully request that the Commission: a. Investigate whether Judge Fried referred the attorney to the Attorney Grievance Committee for the Ninth Judicial District, directly or through any intermediary, and whether he requested, procured, suggested, or acquiesced in the designation of the resulting investigation as “sua sponte”; b. Obtain the Grievance Committee’s intake and referral records for the matter concerning the attorney, including all communications between Judge Fried (or his chambers, or anyone acting on his behalf) and the Committee or its staff; c. Investigate the basis for the box (b) confidentiality certifications on the July 21 and August 3, 2026 recusal orders, and any other recusal orders Judge Fried has entered in the attorney’s cases; d. Determine whether Judge Fried has violated the Rules Governing Judicial Conduct and impose public discipline commensurate with the gravity of retaliatory abuse of the disciplinary and recusal systems; e. Confirm in writing that Judge Fried has been screened from every aspect of this matter, including access to its existence, its file, and its deliberations; and f. Refer this matter to independent or special counsel. The Commission’s foursentence, unexplained dismissal of File No. 2026/N-0141 — a complaint against its own sitting member — does not permit public confidence that ordinary internal process suffices for a second complaint against the same member alleging retaliation for the first. 38. I am prepared to provide testimony, and the attorney is prepared to provide the underlying court records, transcripts, and the Grievance Committee’s notice, upon request. In addition, Isaac Stern and Daniel Eusebio — and other witnesses whose identities can be provided to Commission staff — are willing to testify to the facts described in ¶ 14, including their contemporaneous observations following Judge Fried’s recusals (¶ 13.1). VIII. EXHIBITS Exhibit A — Grievance Committee for the Ninth Judicial District, letter dated June 18, 2026, File No. W-931-26 (Cipollone, Staff Counsel): “sua sponte” investigation of a Muslim woman attorney “based upon the findings of misconduct in” the March 30, 2026 Decision & Order by Hon. David Fried, with 10-day perjury-affirmed answer demand and background questionnaire Exhibit B — Recusal order, Hudson Valley Credit Union v. Adler, Index No. 031319/2025, filed July 21, 2026 (box (b)) Exhibit C — Recusal order, U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. v. Friesel 2008 Family Trust, Index No. 032320/2022, filed Aug. 3, 2026 (box (b)) Exhibit D — Commission dismissal letter, May 27, 2026, File No. 2026/N-0141 Exhibit E — Decision & Order on Attorney Fees, Costs and Expenses, Adler v. Pollak, Index No. 035769/2025, dated March 30, 2026 (NYSCEF Doc. No. 64) — “expressly an award of costs and is not a sanction upon said counsel”; declining formal Part 130 sanction Exhibit F — Two written requests for comment emailed to Judge Fried (July 23, 2026 and August 3, 2026) prior to publication of the recusal reporting, each attaching the recusal order at issue; no response was received to either Exhibit G — Notice of Appeal, Adler v. Pollak, Index No. 035769/2025, filed April 29, 2026 (NYSCEF Doc. No. 69), appealing the Judgment (NYSCEF Doc. No. 68) and underlying orders, including the 130-1.1 award against counsel The Ethics Reporter’s published investigations referenced herein are available at theethicsreporter.com and are cited by direct link in the body of this complaint (¶¶ 6.2, 7, 9, 11). I affirm that the factual statements above are true to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief. Respectfully submitted, Favour Inegbenehi Associate Editor, The Ethics Reporter EXHIBIT A Grievance Committee for the Ninth Judicial District — Letter dated June 18, 2026, File No. W-931-26 — “sua sponte” investigation of a Muslim woman attorney based upon the March 30, 2026 Decision & Order of Hon. David Fried EXHIBIT B Recusal Order — Hudson Valley Credit Union v. Adler, Index No. 031319/2025 (Sup. Ct., Rockland County), filed July 21, 2026 — box (b), confidential EXHIBIT C Recusal Order — U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. v. Friesel 2008 Family Trust, Index No. 032320/2022 (Sup. Ct., Rockland County), filed August 3, 2026 — box (b), confidential INDEX NO. 032320/2022 FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 08/03/2026 11:39 AM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 135 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/03/2026 NEW YORK STATE UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM JUDICIARY LAW S 9 RECUSAL Namc of Matter US Bank Trust National Associatlon v. Shimon Neustadt et al Docket Number 03232012022 I hereby recusc myself in the above-entitted matter. In accordance with section 9 of the Judiciary Law (check as appropriate): I decline to provide a reason for this recusal because: in of a reason may result I-l a) pursuant to the exception prescribed in section 9, provision person related to me within me or a cmbarrassment, or is ofa personal nature, affecting the sixth degree by consanguinity or affinity; or I b1 pursuant to statute or caselaw, the reason for my recusal must be kept confidential. I am recusing myself because: c) I wish to avoid any potential appearance of impropriety that my impartiality might be questioned as it may appear that (provide reason): d) I have personal knowledge ofdisputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding. e) I servcd as a lawyer in the mattcr in controversy in this proceeding' fl A lawyer with whom I previously practiced law served, during my association with him or her, as a lawyer concerning the matter in controversy in this proceeding. g) I have been a material witness concerning the matter in controversy in this proceeding. h) I (or my spouse or minor child residing in my household) may have an economic interest in the subject matter in controversy in this proceeding or in a party to the proceeding, or I may have any other interest that could be substantially affected by the proceeding. i) I (or my spouse or a person I know to be within the sixth degree of relationship of either myself or my spouse or the spouse ofsuch person) am a party in this proceeding. j) I (or my spouse or a person I know to be within the sixth degree ofrelationship ofeither myself or my spouse or the spouse of such person) am an officer, director, or trustee of a party in this proceeding. k) I (or my spouse or a person I know to be within the sixth degree of relationship of either myself or my spouse or the spouse ofsuch person) have an interest that could be substantially affected by the proceeding. P.ev: 12125 Judiciary Law $ 9 Recusal 1 of 2 Page I of2 INDEX NO. 032320/2022 FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 08/03/2026 11:39 AM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 135 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/03/2026 l) I (or my spouse or a person I know to be within the fourth degree of relationship of either myself or my spouse or the spouse of such person) am acting as a lawyer in this proceeding or am likely to be a material witness in this proceeding. m) While a candidate for judicial office, I made a pledge or promise of conduct in office that is inconsistent with the impartial performance of the adjudicative duties of the office or, at any time, I have made a public statement not in my adjudicative capacity that commits me rvith respect to an issue'in the proceeding or to the parties or controversy in the proceeding. n) I am otherwisc requircd by law (identify statute: ) to recuse myself. o) I am recusing myself for a reason other than one listed in d) through m) hereof on the basis of an advisory opinion issued to me by the Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics pursuant to section 212(2)(l) ofthe Judiciary Law. p) Other (please provide a written explanation below): Signature Hon. DAVID FRIED Title Acting Justice of the Supreme Court Dated: 08/03/2026 Note: Use ofthis form to comply with section 9 ofthe Judiciary Law is not required, only suggested. A judge orjusticc recusing him or hcrselfin a proceeding may instead provide thc reason thcrefor in any other written form of his or hcr choicc. Alternatively, hc or shc may provide such rcason on the record ofthe proceeding or, if no record is made ofthe proceedlng, in any other written form that his or her court makes available ibr public view, including but not limited to a court website. Rev: 12125 Judiciary Law $ 9 Recusal 2 of 2 Page 2 of 2 EXHIBIT D New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct — dismissal letter dated May 27, 2026, File No. 2026/N-0141 NEW YORK STATE COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT JOSEPH W. BELLUCK, CHAIR TAA GRAYS, VICE CHAIR HON. FERNANDO M. CAMACHO STEFANO CAMBARERI BRIAN C. DOYLE HON. JOHN A. FALK HON. DAVID FRIED ROBIN CHAPPELLE GOLSTON NINA M. MOORE HON. PETER H. MOULTON MARVIN RAY RASKIN MEMBERS CELIA A. ZAHNER, CLERK 61 BROADWAY, SUITE 1200 NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10006 ROBERT H. TEMBECKJIAN ADMINISTRATOR & COUNSEL 646-386-4800 518-299-1757 TELEPHONE FACSIMILE www.cjc.ny.gov CONFIDENTIAL May 27, 2026 Ms. Favour Inegbenehi 120 19th Street N Suite 201 PMB 336306 Birmingham, Alabama 35203 Re: File No. 2026/N-0141 Dear Ms. Inegbencehi: The State Commission on Judicial Conduct has reviewed your letter of complaint dated February 4, 2026 and your subsequent correspondence. The Commission has asked me to advise you that it has dismissed the complaint. Upon careful consideration, the Commission concluded that there was insufficient indication of judicial misconduct to justify judicial discipline. Judge Fried did not participate in the Commission’s consideration of your complaint. Very truly yours, KAAS CAZ/ja Celia A. Zafiner Clerk of the Commission EXHIBIT E Decision & Order on Attorney Fees, Costs and Expenses — Adler v. Pollak, Index No. 035769/2025, dated March 30, 2026 (NYSCEF Doc. No. 64) — “expressly an award of costs and is not a sanction upon said counsel” FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 09:36 AM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 64 INDEX NO. 035769/2025 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026 'fo commence thc statutorJ' timc period for appeals as of right (CPLR \5513 [a]), you ate advised to serve a copy of this Order, with notice of entry, upon all parties. CO L', uI' ( )t''r'H l.t S',f ,\'r'r,r ()F N I i!il \'()RIi (]()T'NTY OIT R(X]KI,r\Nt) s UPRIIN{I] \ Bl-EEITL\ ADLElt, DECISION & ORDER ON ATTORNEY FEES, COSTS AND EXPENSES I'laintiff, -agalnst- Index No. 0357 69 /2025 l\{otion Sequence No. 1 NII'lNDl,l. P()1.1,,\l( rnd ZII)( )R,\ P( )LI-r\K, I)efcr.rdants. \ HON. DAVID FRIED, A.J.S.C. The papers filed electronically via NYSCEF numbered 42 ('Lrnderlying Otder"),48 - 61, and 63 ('Inquest Transcript") wcre tead and considered herein. Llpon such reading and consideration, and upon all priot papers and proceedings heretofore had herein, the Court determines the issues of attorfley fees, costs, and expenses as follows: BACKGROUND This case arose out of a residenrial contract of sale of properq, that was entered into between the Plaintiff Bleema,'\dler ('Plaintiff') and Defendants Nlendcl Pollak and Zipota Pollak ("Defendants") on November 5,2024. 'l'hercafter, the parties signed an,\mcndmcnt to Contract rvhich changcd the closing date from Janua4' 31,2025 toJune 2,2025, urth time bcing ofthe cssence with respcct to said date, and stated that the conttact of salc shall be terminated aut()maticallv without any further noticc or action rcquted of either parq, and, thereafter, neithet parn, shall har.e any furthet claim against the other. Additionally, the ,,\mendment to Contr2ct directed the cscrow agent to release PlaintifPs down payment of$150,000 to Defendants on.|anuarv 31,2025. 'I'he partrcs agreed that said dorvn payment shall not be refundable to buyer except in the event of sellem' default. Defendants, by way of N{ouon Sequcncc No. 1, sought an ()tder: (1) drsmrssrng Plainttffs Complaint [i] pursuant to (IPLR 321 1(a)(1) based on documentaq' cvidcnce and [ii] CPI-R 3211(a)(7) for failure to state a claim; (2) vacating, canccling and/or discharging l)lainufPs Notice of Pcndency [i] pursuant to CPLR 6514@) and (c), 22 N\'(IRR 1.30-1.1 (a) and (c), and thc (lourt's inherent power and authorir\,, 1 of 16 FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 09:36 AM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 64 INDEX NO. 035769/2025 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026 bccause Plaintiff has n<>t commenced or prosecuted this action in good faith, and awarding Defendants reasonablc attornevs' fees and costs on this Nlotion, and [til pursuant to CPI,R 6515, if derued, tequiring Plaintiff to post a substantial undertaking. Plaintrff parnally opposed lr{otion Sequence No. 1. Thc Court issued a Dccision & Order on l)eccmber 22,2025 OJYSCI-IF I)oc. No. 42) - the "Llnderlying Ord er" - inter alia, addressing Defendants' various applications and schcduling an inquest. THE UNDERLYING ORDER Plaintiff alleged rn thc Complaint that Defendants failcd to send a termination notice and failed to retum PlaintifPs down payment, and that Defendants' failure t() retum the down payment const-ituted a breach of contact (I{YSCIIF l)oc. No. 1 flfl 5 &6). However, in suppott of their N{otion to Dismiss, Defendants submrtted the c()ntract and the written amendments thereto QJYSCEF Doc. No. 10), which conclusively estabhshed a defense to the 2sserted claims as a matter of law. Notably in N{otion Sequence No. 1, Plaintiff did not contest the existence of said amendments, or the Ianguage set forth therein. The amendment to conttact changed the closing date from-fanuary 11,2025 toJune 2,2025, rvith time being of the essence with tesPect to sard date, and stated that thc contract of sale shall be terminated automatically without any furthet notice or acdon required ofcithcr parw and, thereafter, neither party shall have anv funher claim against the othet (NYSC[.:,I.' l)oc. No. 10, p. 9 tl 3). ,\dditionally, the amendment directed the escrow agent to release Plaintiffs dorvn payment of$150,000 to Defendants onJanuary 31,2025 l)r-rc. No. t0, p. 9'll 2). 'I'he partres agrecd that said down payment shall O\IYSCII,F not be refundable to buycr except in the evenr of sellers'dcfault (I.JYSCEF Doc. No. t0, p. 9 !l 2). Hence, the allegations in the Complaint fa to identrfy the provisions of thc contact that werc purportedly breached. In conffast, Plainnff alleged that Defendants failcd to scnd a termination noticc, while the terms of the amendment specifically state the oppositc. 'l'o the extent that Plarntrff sought to rely upon a purported oral waivet of written terms of thc contract and or amendments thereto, the Conract upon rvhich Pluntiff claims was breached, specifically states that "[nleither th[e] contract not anl pror.ision thereof may be u'aived, changed or canceled exccpt in writing' (|JYSCF.F- Doc. No. 10, p. 5,!l 2Spl). N{oreover, there has been no evidence before this Court that the purportcd discussion of wair.er actuallv took placc between Plaintiff (or counsel) and Defendants (or their counsel). Plaintrff asserted that the convcrsatron Plaintrff had related to thc waivcr was betwecn himself and a broket (IrIYSCEF Doc. No. 24 tl 6). Non-party Yrzchok Shteierman assertcd that the conversatron he had, related to the waiver, was bctwecn himself and Plaintiff Q.{YSCEIT Doc. No. 25 fl 6). Notwithstandrng, there were no alleged facts in the Oomplaint related to a purpotted oral waivet of the written terms of the amendment to the conffact. Furthermore, the Complatnt made no mention of the amendment. Accordinglr, this Court granted Defendants' N{otion t, l)ismiss the Complaint by wav of the 2 of 16 FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 09:36 AM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 64 INDEX NO. 035769/2025 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026 Llndcrlying Ordcr (I.{YSOL,| Doc. No. 42) and flowing therefrom, cancelled the Notice of Pendency See, CPI.R \6514; Catrultto r, 1848 Reufty, 1nt.,241 )'1).3d 1256,241 N,Y.S 3d 414 (2"'t DcPt. 2025); .llui()/ L:Lry. t. ) Rr-_, Ll,(.),230 A.D.3d 527 ,530,217 N.\'.S.3d 5t31(2''r Dcpt. 2024); md a:hi'Ilealty 712, I I (. t. G.l;1 Holding C0r2.,220 A.D.3d 914,911,198 N.\'.S.3d 7.30 (2"r t)cPt. 2023). In the Underlying Order, thc Court thcrcafter addressed thc portion of l)cfcndants' N{otion which sought costs and expenscs pursuant to Ol)l,R $(r514(c) and on the gtounds that the Noticc ofPcndency was lrled in the absencc of good faith. 'l'hc (lourt notcd that rvhile the Oomplarnt lackcd, ittter alia, a factual basis, it could not be affirmativelv said at thc timc of the issuance of the Unded,ving C)rder, that Plaintiff or Plaintiffs counscl engagcd in frivolous conduct related to the Ftling of thc Oomplaint. Nonctheless, glven Plaintlffs counsel's failure to explain to the Court the merits of thc Notice of Pendency durrng the Octobcr 17,2025 appearance in conncction with l)efcndants' Modon and in anv subsc<1uent submission, thc Court found that the Noticc of Pendencv was filed in the abscncc of good faith, and, h its discretion, granted thc branch of Dcfcndants' Nlotion f<rr an award of costs and expcnscs, if any, occasioncd bv said flrhng and cancellation, including rcasonable attorncl"s fees. ()f particular importancc with regard to such hol<hng, the Court noted that PlaintifPs Oomplarnt asserted only a claim for mone)' - n<>t a right, tide, or intercst in thc propet6'. As such, Plaintiff forfcited use of the Noticc of Pendenct rvhen asserting onh' a monetan' claim (Ktanal r. .lheldon,55 .\D3d6U4[2dDept200U1;I-znglsluttd(.ity.fn,ingsandl-oan-l.to,iulionr.Gotl/i,90Al)2d766[2dDept 1982]). In other words, a Notice of Pendency should not har.e been frled hcrein. Plarntiffs' Notrce of Pcndcncy telated to thc rcal property at issuc, was impropcr, and was thus cancelled. As such, following noticc and a full and fat opportuniq to be heard, Defendants rvere arvarded costs and cxpcnses, if anv, occasioned br said frling and cancellation, includrng reasonable attorncy's fees. See, CPLR 5\6514(a) and (c); and Saa/ r L/idokl, 151 A-D.3d 7U0, 56 N.Y.S.3d 230 (2nd Dept. 2017). In order to determine the quantlty of such costs, expenses, and reasonable attorneys' fces, if any, and to resolve any di5pg1361 contentions in connection with such computations, an inquest was scheduled to be conducted before this Oourt, in-person, on.[anuary 28,2026 at 9:15ANI. In addition, the Lhderl)'ing Order spccifically also placcd the parties on nodcc that the scope of the Januaty 28,2026 inqucst would not only encompass thc quantiW of costs, expenses, and rcasonable atto(nev's fees to be awarded, if any, pursuant to CPLR \(r514(c), but also provided counscl with the opportuniq' to be heard on the alleged misreprescntation made by Plaintiffs counsel in her Nlcmorandum of Larv. In PlaintrfPs N{emorandum of Law in opposition to the Nlotion to Dismrss, PlaintifPs counsel rcprcscntcd to the C()urt that Plaintiff cuculatcd a stipulation to Defendants' counsel to the effcct of canceLing the Notice of Pendency. In l)cfendants' tcplv on Nlotion Scquence No. l, l)efendants contcnded that PlaintifPs counsel omittcd from her l\lcmorandum of Larv that within lcss than one hour of extending the offer to dismiss the Notice of Pcndency and prior to any tesponse theteto, Plaintrff withdrew the offet to stipulatc without explanation and bcforc Defendants' counsel could 3 of 16 FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 09:36 AM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 64 INDEX NO. 035769/2025 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026 view, let alone resp()nd to, the stipulauon OIYSCL,I' D<>c. Nos. 30 & 3i). ln its Underlying C)rder, the Cowt thus stated that, "as Defendants havc alleged that I)laintrffs counscl failed to tell thc Court that within one hour of makhg the offer to dismiss the Notice of Pendency and prior to nny response thcrcto, Plaintiff withdrew the offcr to stipulate without cxplanation, whilc concurrently asserting said purported offer to stipulate in her opposition to the Nlcxi<>n, Defendant is granted leavc to address said allegation in connection with the headng to determine c()sts, expenses, and reasonablc att()rncy's fecs, if any, as rclated to costs of the within motion practice, if at all." (l{YSCIllI Doc, No. 42). THE INQUEST 'fhc rnqucst was conductcd on.)anuarr 28,2026 (see, Inqucst Transcript at NYS()F,Ii l)oc. No. 63). Attorncy t)onald J. Iiectick and his clicnt, Defendant T,ipota Pollak, appeated in pcrson as rcquircd. r\ttornev Iran'a the attorney appeared virtuallt' r'ia Nlicrosoft 'l eams on behalf of hcr client, the Plaintrff. At the intluest, Dcfendants' counsel indicated that Defendants sought two forms of rccovery in conncction with a prospcctive arvard of costs, expcnscs, and attorncy fecs: (a) positive expenses including damages in thc form of costs, expenses, and attornel' fees rcsulting from the canccllation of the Notice ofPendency; and @) reasonablc attomcy fees rcsulting from dcfcnding against the ftivolous filing of a Notice of Pendencr. u,hich rvas devoid of anl mcrit and bascless litigation. Regarding thc posiuve expense category of damages, Dcfcndants' counsel contended as follows: that if Defendant still owned the properq'when the meridcss Notice of Pendency was activcly filed - which is not the case hcrc - positir.e expenscs rvould includc costs such as mortgage, insurance, and maintenance charges; that at bar, thc issue of thc meritless Notice of Pendency arosc rvhen a dde compan)'did a continuation search in proximin to a ckrsing being scheduled as to thc replacement buver's ftansacdon; that the title company teported that thcre was a Noticc <>fPendency asscrted against the propcrty; that when the tide company became aware of the Notice of I'cndcncy and took notice of the amount in controrersy relevant to same, the tide c<>mpan1' required $200,000 to be paid unt the 6nal disposition ofthe withrn litrgauon; that the Dcfcndans thus paid the $200,000 as required bv the tide companl,; that as a result of the forcgoing, Joda r\bstract held Defendants' $200,000 until shordy after thc Cout determined Defendant's Nlotron to Dismiss which ultrmately extinguishcd Plaintiffs claims against Defendants; that Defcndants' $200,000 rvas rcturned to Defendants on l)ccember 2(>, 2025; that as a result of the foregoing, I)efcndants lost thc value of their money and thc access thereto for a period of 96 davs; that same c()nsdrutes a posrtive c\pcnse as to rvhich Dcfcndants arc entided to recover from Plaintiff; and, that such positive expensc should be calculated as follows: $200,000 x 0.09 as and for interest = $ I tJ,000 / 365 days resulting in a per diem rate of 949.32 x 96 days = $4,734.72 in damagcs as to rvhich recovery is sought. In connection with thc sccond category of rccoverl sought bv Defendants- reasonable attornev's fees - it has been represented to the Court that I)cfcndants' attorne)'s fees amount to a total of $15,503.69 as ofthc datc of the inqucst. Said total sum was supportcd by Defendants' counsel's statcments on the 4 of 16 INDEX NO. 035769/2025 FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 09:36 AM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 64 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026 recotd as an ofFlcer of the Court, accompanied b1' bilhng statements. I)efendants' counsel ad,r.rsed thc Court that said total sum also includes two disbursements, to rvit a motion frLng fee and a transcript production fee. In suppon of this branch of reLre( I)cfendants' counsel notes that he attempted to m.rtigate htigation costs by contacting Plaintiffs counsel regarding Defendants' position that the action should be discontinued, to which PlaintifPs counsel rcfirsed. In connection with thc accusation assertcd in his tcplv as to PlaintifPs counsel's offer t() cancel the Noticc ofPendcncl but which was withdras'n, Dcfendants' counsel contcnds as follorvs: that he would have agreed tr> the proposed stipulatron to withdraw the Noticc of Pcndcncl'; that before hc had any opportuniry.* to do so, Plarnuff s c<>unscl rvithdrerv thc stipulation that she proposcd; that approximate ly less than one hour lapsed benvecn the time Plaintiffls counscl proposed the stipulation and the ttme she withdtcw the stipulation, and without an1 reasonablc opportuniry for Dcfendants' counsel to respond; that the withdrav'al of thc stipulation bl Plainufls c()unsel occurred on C)ctober 31,2025; that as a result of the withdrarvn proposcd stipulatron, Defendants rvcre required to incur the costs of prepanng and filing a reply in connection with N{otron Sequencc No. 1; that Defcndants' counscl felt it was necessary to advise the (lourt of the foregoing in hrs repli' because the oppositton papers of Plaintiffs counscl inr.okcd rel.iance upon said withdra.;'n stipulauon without evcr mentioning to the Court that shc had actually withdrawn the supulatron; and d.rat as a rcsult of thc foregoing, Plainuff should compensate Defendants for their rcasonablc attornev fccs. l\fr. Iiccrick furthcr statcd to thc (]()urt as follorvs: "But that -- that exchangc, or the falsit]'ofthat exchangc, tequircd my client to then put in a reply. r\nd - and rvhen wc put in thc rcply, vour Honot, wc put in a replv rvith bervilder, but it requrcd an acdon becausc rvc had to tell you rvhat had transpircd, and wc did, rvhich I submit t<> you mcans our entirc bill through todal' should bc chargcable to the dcfense. But thc bcwildetment was, it madc no scnse. V4ro would do what transpired? N{akc an offer, withdrarv it, and then tell the Court that [slhc made the offcr rvithr.rut talking about thc s.ithdrarval. Well, the only one who would do it is somcone rvho isn't managing ther NYSCIi| filings. In this case, thc Noricc of Pendency w-as filcd apparentl). without plaintiffs counsel's permission or consent b1' hcr staff and fi.led in a rvindow of timc rvhen -. rvhcn multiple efforts rvere made to correct it. And those rccords arc also before vout \'()ur Honor, in the rcplv papers. i\nd you'll see on at Icast threc separatc occasions, plaintifPs counscl's staff attempted t() corrcct thc Notice ofPendcnct.. 'fhe very Notice of Pendcncr. that r.ou'll see rvas thc subject of an exchangc asking to just drop it, not m()ye fonvard rvith it, and thcv continued to prosecute it, to attempt to f,rx it and thcn to f,ilc it on Scptember 26th. 5 of 16 INDEX NO. 035769/2025 FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 09:36 AM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 64 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026 It had first been Frled ()n August 18th and then it was subsequently corected and filcd in a correctcd firrm on Scptembcr 26th. That sh<i.,vs a pcrsistencl', your Honor, to do that rvhich plaintiffs counsel said she had no role in it. It's insane. lfhen we pointcd out in our teplv papers rve're bewildered, wc were trying to understand rvhat',r,'as going on, and rvc suggested to your Honor that it seemed like some()nc was using a NYSOIIIi password of an attornev without thc pr()per supervision and control of thc attorney. What I just hcard toda1, this morning, was that the exchanges yesterday were of such a nature that plaintrffs counsel spokc to her staff for frling what was filed ycstetday and, so to speak, chastised them. Your Honor, I can't cxplain rvhat's happcning in front ofyou. I have fl() rcason to explain it. I rcptcscnt a partl rvho had a transaction, attcmpted to be scutded bv a frivolous hling, bv a rvrongful frling, by a bad faith hhng, and rvc had to g() through all effort rather than iust ncgotiation with opposing counscl to drop rt. Wc had to go through court time, court effort,'t,our attcntion was drarvn to this matter, your inrolvement in a hearing, r'our involvement in replt papers and t'our ruling and your time in making a rvritten finding that brings us here today. AII of this is completell. nccdless and it doesn't explain rvho frlcd the Notrcc of Pendcncy. You ncver hcard it. You never heard it rvhcn it was fitst brought up. \iru ncver hcard it in an1, subscquent conversation, and you still havcn't hcard it todal'. \X/ho frled the Notice of Pendeno'? And if no one knorvs, mv recommcndation, your H<>nor, and the requcst of ml clicnt, is f<rr an arvard, all damages associated rvith this evcnt should be chargcd to both plaintlff, and I hatc to say an appeal to counsel, but counscl hasn't explained who dtd this. And if it rvasn't hcr and somcone drd it inappropriatcly undcr her watch, I want to knorv rvho it rvas and horv it occurred and what, if any, cottectivc action occutted. IJecausc if it's continuing and wc'tc dealing with it again, because my client is norv herc and she necd not be here if rve rvere going to do this virtuall)', wete bcen inconvenicnced and t'ou've been inconycnicnced and rve'te hetc for a sanctions inquest, which is extrar>rdinarv in itself. But with all ofthat said, r'our Honor, and being as succinct as possible, my client wants $4,734.25 for thc loss, time, use of thc positivc expense of her payment into escrow of $200,000, plus all of her legal fees associated in defendrng this mattcr on the mcrits due to the bad faith filing involved of$15,503.69 for a total of520,237.94. Wewantit from plarrtiff and/or counsel if an explanation is rnadequately suppLed." (Inquest Transcript, pgs. 13 - 16). In rcsponse to thc aforesaid, PlaintifPs Counscl, on behalf of Plaintiff, avcrrcd as follows: that she "doesn't see an1. sort ofcasc law supporting [Dcfcndants' counsel'sl posiuon lrcgardrng the contendcd 6 of 16 INDEX NO. 035769/2025 FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 09:36 AM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 64 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026 positivc expenscs], which lshe has] ner,cr seen at inquest before rcgarding cscrowing and cxpenses associated with the escrowing" (Inqucst 'Iranscript, pg. 1(r ln 24 pg. 17 ln 2); that the funds held by the tidc company accrucd no interest; that Defendants' counsel assumes a 9?o interest ratc; that she understands the l)efendants' "frusffation. . .that thcy could not access the funds and, of course, ir was an inconvenience, I'm not gorng to argue that it rvas not ...it's a totallv bald assertion [ ]" (In<1uest Transcript, pg. 17 lns. 14 - 17); that as to the rcqucst for attornei' fccs, that l)cfendants' counsel "put in his affirmation some cascs that hc doesn't cxpound upr>n" (ln<1uest 'I'ranscript, pg. 17 lns. 24 - 25); that "it is hard for fter] to just respond to that and to undcrstand the reasonableness of attorney's fees. ..'l'hete's no case larv to support that the ,\ppellate Divrsion has grven this position that a bad faith Frling of a /b penden.r is going to Iead to reimbursement of attornc)"s fecs" (Inquest Transcript, pg. 18 lns. 5 - 13); that she, "[doesn't] disagrce that there is going to bc an exchange of funds here that plaintiff is going to have to pay somc of these costs" but that as to "the entucq' of the lcgal expenscs, it's difficult to know what is reasonable, and thcrc's absolutely no prccedence, at lcast none cited, that I can rcp\, to tegarding the expenses related to thc escrorving of funds" (Inquest 'I'ranscript, pg. 18 lns. ls - 22). Remarkably, Plainuffs counsel temained rvholly s ent in the first instance regarding l)efendants' counsel's accusation agarnst her that shc invokcd a proposed supulauon in her opposiuon to Ir{otion Sequence No. 1, but which was withdrawn by hcr, and noncthcless temained at all relevant times the basis of an argumcnt supporting her oppositron bcfore this Court. .,\ccordingly, the Court inquted of PlaintifPs counsel regatding same (Inquest 'l'ranscript, pg. 'l 8 ln 25; pg. 19 lns. 1 1). 'l'hc Courr read the relevant portion of PlaintrfPs counscl's opposition into the record (Inqucst 'I'ranscript, pg. 19 lns. 3 - 1 - 11). In tesponse thereto, PlantifPs counsel contended as follows: that "obr..rously if it's comrng with [her] srgnature block on it, [she docsn't] deny that [shc] bear[sl responsibiliq fot it. | ] It was fterl staf[ Ultimatclv, it falls on [PlaintifPs counsell" (lnquest 'l ranscript, pg. 19 lns 12 16); that "what fDefcndants' counsel] was getting at bcfote is that thcre is an individual who is making -- sort ofhaving these conversations from [hcr] email and sending stipulations from lher] email, and [she has] since corrected that issue . So it was withdrawn, but, unfortunatell', it -- it rvas without ftcrl authorizati()n and that individual has iust been removed from lher] staff since thc incident occurred I l" (Inquest 'Iranscript, pg. 20 lns. 3 10); and, that she never corrcctcd for the Court the statcment in her oppositon, "p]ut, of course, if the (lourt had rvanted any information [she] rvould har.e supplied it" (Inquest 'I'ranscript, pg. 20 lns. 16 - 1 8). Notwithstanding that PlainufPs counsel admits that thc stipulation rvas rvithdrarvn and that such withdrawal was not btought to the Court's attentjon, yet maintained for months in her Mcmorandum of Law to this Coutt that she circulated a supulatron to withdraw thc Notice of l)cndency - which was a major focus of N{otion Sequence No. I and thc October 17,2025 conference on the record before the undersigned - when asked by the Court, "at what point drd [she] think that it would bc approptiatc to let the (loutt know that there was a matcrial falsc statement in fter submrssionl," (Inquest 'l'ranscrip t, 7 of 16 FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 09:36 AM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 64 INDEX NO. 035769/2025 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026 pg. 21 1ns.4 - 6), PlaintifPs counsel responded, "well, what was the matedal false statement Il?" (Inquest 'I'ranscript, pg. 2i lns. 7 8). Counselthcn responded, "it rvas Liralaledl l" (emphasis added) so as to suggest, at the i'erlr least, that silence as to the subsequent rvithdrawal was cither not germane or 'l-hereaftet, under an adr-isory could simply not bc mentioned (Inqucst 'l'ranscript, pg. 21 lns. 12 - 25). of possible sancdons,' Plaintiffs counscl frnallv took responsibilifi' for same and apologized (In<1ucst 'I'ranscript, pg. 22 ln. Transcript, pg. 22lns.1 - 9) for rvhich the Court noted its appreciation (Inquest 10). Thc Court notcd that thc statement in counsel's submission, which was latet rendercd false by omission of thc withdtawal of the stipulation within Ie ss than one hout of proposing same, remained before the Court uncoffected fot two months and was the subject ofsevetal hours ofwork performcd, by thc Court and its personnel in rendenng a determination on N{otion Sequence No. 1 - not to mention the costly legal services ptolrded by Defendants' counsel to his clients in drafung and filing a rep\' and preparing for and arguhg at an inquest. In furthcr supporr ofhis c()ntcndon that an award ofpositivc cxpenscs is approptiatc hcrc, I)efendants' Counscl noted as follows: "fl'lhe Appellate Division does speak to positive cxpcnses, and I rvould represent, vour Honot, mv clients arc out of pocket. \J7c gave a check and it went into Joda .'\bsuact and sat there for 96 days. But there is a unique disnnctron between first-party claims and thirdparq claims when you deal with escrow accounts. If you and I were in a ffansaction buyrng and selling and wc had a written contract that had an esctow agteement, and inside that contlact the escrow agrcement said let's put it, part of the escrow, in an IOLA account that bears no intercst, neithcr you, nor I, have any claim to protest that the window of time that it took for the release of that money deposited in escrow spanned months, ifnot vcars, while litigation took place. And ifyou look at the casc law, you'll Frnd that that's, in fact, true. 'I'hat's not thj.s case . We havc a third-party claim. What happened hetc rvas that rvc had an untelated ttansaction with a rcplacement buyer; that rve had ',vent out of pocket for positive expeflse. And we'rc not asking fot the full positive expense bccausc we got it back. We're onl,v asking for the loss value of that mone\' I the Undetlying C)rder provided express noticc to all counsel that the relevant issue would lre addressed at the inquest so as to enable a meaningful opporruoiq' for all parties to lx prepared and heard related thereto. F"or clarity, no sanction nor award of cost was imposed at the inquest, so thar the Court could thorougl l- hear the parties' respecnve positions, reflect upon the record, and ultimately determine the issue by ldttcn Order. 22 N\CRR 130 1.1(d) authorizes a Oourt to impose sanctions ard or awards of costs upon motion or upon the Court's o\r! ioitiative, after a reasonable opporrunity to be heard. 'fhe opportunity to be heard "shall depend upon thc narure ofthe conduct and the circumstances ofthe case" (22 NYCRR 130-1.1[dD. Here, the (iourt proridcd advance notrce ofthc rclevant issucs to the attentioo ofPlainufPs counsel ar the October 17, 2025 confetence belotc the frling of Plarnuffs counscl's opposition papers on October 31. 2025 Each party was provided a meaningful opporruniB' to lre heard on the record ptiot to the issuance of the l'tthin Decision & Order. 8 of 16 INDEX NO. 035769/2025 FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 09:36 AM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 64 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026 during thc window of timc that plaintiff triglcred its rcmoval from my client's possession, that's it. 'l'hat's rvhy I point to the positive cxpense law. I'hat's wh1' I tell you it's different than Flrst-part)' claims betrvecn a buyet and seller. We'te not a buycr and sellct in this instancc. Wc had a transaction rvith a third part), thc replacement buycr, that thcy impeded by basicallv doing what thev did." (lntluest 1'ranscnpt, pgs. )) _ )i\ In furthet support of his contention that an award of reasonable attornev fees is apptopriate here, Defendants' counsel noted as follows: "[I]t sounds to me like a classic, classic situation rvherc vou havc a misteprescntation of fact. What is misrcpresentation of fact? What does it mean? How does it occur? Well, rn the sensibihty of this particular case, in the design and the purposc and the intent of the plaintiff in this casc, a misrcprcsentation of fact is a true, but inaccurate statement. They gave you truth entirely inaccurately. When they delivercd their memo of lau,', it rvasn't true anvmore. lt had been a truth when it was delivered; one hour latcr it was no longer true; two houts after that they fi.led thct memo of law that restated a true but inaccutate fact because they never told I'ou it had been withdrawn. That, your Honor, I believc to be a misreptese ntation of fact. It is a bad faith misreprcsentadon, rvhich was your question. Is this a bad faith misrepresentatron? I think based on what you've heatd here, the answer is absolutclr' 1'es. i\nd again, becausc it's I'es, and becausc rve have all this extra work that was entircly needless, my client should n<>t be out of pocket a penny." (lnquest 'l'ranscript, pg. 24lns. 6 - 25). DISCUSSION As noted in the Underlyrng ()rder tegarding Itlotion Se<luence No. 1, Defendants conclusively estabLished a defense to PlaintifPs claims as a matter of law, inter a/r4 by submitting the contract between the patttes and the writtcn amendment thcrcto. Plaintrff did not contest the existence of said amendments to the contfact nor the language set forth therein, sustaining the legttimacy and medt of Defendant's positron.'l'he allegations in the now-drsmissed Complatnt farled to identr$' the ptovisions of the contract that were purpottedly breached. Plarnuff alleged that Defendants failed to send a termination n<ltice, rvhile the terms of the amendmcnt - which Plaintiff ncvet placed before this Court - sPccifically states the opposite. In fact, a basic reading of thc Complaint does nor indicate that the contract upon rvhrch Plainnff premises this entire action, rvas amended. In other words, this entire case was haphazardly presented upon an incomplete set of allegat-ions. Still, and cven though the litigation Pertains to an unsubstantiated claim for money - not title or other properry rght a Noticc - of Pcndency was filed and marntatned for months without anv basis rn fact not law to have been s<.r 6led. By virtue of the fotegoing, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Pendency in the absence of good faith, exerted service to bdng the Defendants - who incurted the time, cost, and anxieties of liugauon - 9 of 16 FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 09:36 AM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 64 INDEX NO. 035769/2025 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026 before this Coutt, and, among othet things, caused wholly unnecessary motion practice which required two lengthy coutt confetences and a commitment of judicial resources and personnel at the expense of the public. Plaintrffs Notice of Pendcncy was completelv devoid of mcrit in that samc had no relevancc to the possession, use or enjoyment ofreal properry. Nlaking matters rvorse, when Defendants' counsel raised the issue of the Notice of Pendencv at the October 17 , 2025 c<>urt conference, and upon the (lourt's inquiry regarding samc, Plaintiffs counsel fust statcd to thc (lourt that she did not filc a Notice of Pendency, and then claimcd that her client filed thc Noticc of Pendencr'. $(/hen thc Court examined the NYSCEF dockct in open court and noted that thc Noticc of Pendency containcd Plaintiffs counsel's signarure block, PlaintifPs counse[ pirotcd to claim that shc had no recollection of the Noticc of Pendency and that her staff must ha\.e 6led it, evcn aftcr thc Court noted that said Noticc of Pcndency contained 1)latntifPs counsel's si.gnature block and was upbaded to NYSCEF by hcr pcrsonal ftling account. Next, counsel took the position that the Noticc of Pendency did not bear hcr signaturc. Despitc being rnvrted by the Court to explain the basis in law for filing a Notice of Pendcncy in ln action wherein onlv purported monetar) damages were sought, c<>unsel could not, or at the vcry lcast did not, provide any explanation. .,\s such, this Court stongly cncouraged PlainufFs counsel to address same in her oppositron to l\{otion Sequence No. 1 ('ra, NYS(ll,llr Doc. Nos. 2 & 39) to cnsurc a firll and fair oppottuniq'to be hcard nonvithstanding the teprcscntations counsel made to the Court during the conference as afotesaid. Nonetheless, she did not do s<1, and instead afFtrmed that, "Plaintiff has reviewed the matrer, horvcvcr, and realized bis eror. r\ccordingly, Plainuff has agrecd to drsmiss the Notice of Pendency and will not addrcss the Defendants' arguments herein. Plarntrff has alsc. inululed u .ftipulation to Cottn.se/ .lbr lhe l)lindanb t0 lhdt ellict." OIYSCIiF Doc. No. 26, pg. 1.) (emphasis added). Notably, by this statement counsel represents to this (i)urt that the error was made by P/ain/i/f- not an error of PlaintifPs counscl, which the Court finds disingcnuous considering that same was clectronically Frted to NYSCEIi bcaring Plaintrffs counsel's signature block, and frled using her own NYSCI,IF {iling account (see, NYSC}IF Doc. No. 2). Of particular\ serious concern, the inquest record establishes to the Court's satisfaction rhat at the time that Plaintiffls counsel ftled het opposition containing an affumativc statement that Plaintiff "circulated a Strpulation to counsel for the Defendant to [drsmiss the Notice of Pendency]" said supulation had already becn withdrawn fot roughly three hours. It has not gone unnotrced by this Court that: [a] the communicauon proposing the strpulation was emailed by or on behalf of PlaintrfPs counsel'to Defendants' counsel on Octobcr 31,2025 at 9:50ANI OIYSCEF Doc. No. 30); pl the very same stipulation was withdtawn by emarl sent by or on behalf of Plaintrffs counsel to Defendants' counsel at 10:37AM on October 31, 2025 QJYSCEF Doc. No. 31); and [c] Plaintif8s counsel submittecl 2 The email address which extended the offer to cancel the Notice of Pendency to Defendants' counsel (I.JYSCEF Doc. Nos. 30 & 3l) is also one of three email addresses fot Plahtiffs counsel listed on her NYSCEF -{ttome\. lnformation Page- 10 of 16 FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 09:36 AM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 64 INDEX NO. 035769/2025 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026 to this Court in writing, roughlv thrce houts after withdrarval, on October 31,2025 at 1:46PN{, that she,/her clicnt agreed to dismiss thc Notice of Pendencv and circulated a stipulation to effectuate same - never mcntioning any indicauon that said stipulation had already been withdrawn eadier that samc day and was, thus, a nulliq'. The statement made to this Court by Plarntrffs counscl was false. Makrng matters much worse, thc false statemcnt was not corected despite notice to her by her adversary, a written decision that teferenced thc issuc, and the scheduling of an inqucsr tha,t, inler ulia, wouJd address thc aliegation of the false statement. Iiurther, aftet Defcndants' counsel raiscd the issue during the inquest and she was provided an opportunit)'to be heard, Plaintiffs counsel addressed a myriad ofissues with no mentir.rn whatsoever of the false statement untiJ specifrc and diect inqurrl' of the Court. (irmpellingly, thc response of "Well, what was the matcrial false statement []?" (Inquest 'I'ranscript, pg 21 lns 7-8), shines a spotlight on the unacceptable naturc of what has transpired here. Such statement was false, considering that it is undisputed on this record that Plaint-iffs counsel and or her staff withdtew that very samc stipulation within less than one hout of proposing same to Defendants' counsel. Even assuming, urgando, that such false statement was made in etror or as a result of law offtcc failure (which can happ€n, does happen, and as to which courts should be forgiving to the extent reasonable and ptopct) counsel was at the very least lust on notice of said "inaccutacy" as eatly as the filing by Defendants' counsel of lls reply papers on November 4, 2025. Plaintiffs counsel allowed such false statement te remain ofrecord, in hcr submission, until theJanuary 28,2026 rnquest, at which point she remained silent about it requiring direct inquiq,by the Court, and then once asked pointedly, the initial tesponse failed to shorv an1' rccognition of the roubling nature of maintaimng a false statement in frled papcrs ('Well, what rvas the material false statement []?" [Inquest Transcript, pg. 21 lns. 7-8]). At no time in the span of ovcr two months did shc make gat cffort whatsoever to correct and or at least addtess the falsiq' of hcr tepresentation to this Court. A srmple ttmely acknowledgement of the issue with ptompt c<>rrectir'e action rvould hkely have avoided the entireq' of at least thrs portion of the ordeal. Thrs Court is al.wals mindful that mistakes can be made and routineh' asPi.res to proride rcasonable opportunities for corrective action so long as doing so is non-preiudrcial and othenvise proper. Horver.er, a laissez faire approach to one's mistakes - particularly whete, as herc, the eror was brought to the attention of the mistaken part1, - and or a strategy ofdenial and distancc, is not acceptable as under such conditions the errot can metamorphosize to ratified falsehood and misrepresentation. Defendants' Application for Costs and Expenses under CPLR $6514(c) Prior to the inquest, Defendants hled proof of t)re costs, cxpenses, and reasonable attornev fees purported\, incurred as a result of thc impropedy f ed noticc of pendency. ,\s for Defendants' claim for so-callcd "positivc expcnses," that is statutor) intcrcst on $200,000 dcpositcd by l)cfendants in esctow fot a pcdod of 96 days, Dcfcndants submit a title bill indicating 2n escrow deposit of g200,000 by the seller, an email from Joda ,\bstract I-LC indicatrng that it agreed to hold $200,000 in escrow 11 of 16 FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 09:36 AM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 64 INDEX NO. 035769/2025 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026 pendrng the resolution ofthe matter, a check paid to the order of-Joda r\bsttact IJ-C in the amount of $200,000, and a wire ttansfet statement e\.idencing the return of the $200,000 to l)efendants. As for Defendants' claim fot attotne\"s fees incurred from the filing and cancellation ofthe improperly frled Notice of Pendency, Defendants submit thrce invoiccs for legal senices from September 4,2025 to )anuary 27,2026 billed to Defendants fot a total sum of $15,503.69. PlaintifPs sole opposition to l)efendants' request for so-called "positive cxpcnscs" and attorney's fees is that there is no case law from the appellate division to support the rccovcry of same under CPI-R \6514(c). Although thete is a dearth of case law to support I)efendants' position for the recovery of interest resulting from an improperly {iled notice of pendency, it is not without support. I.irstly, the plain langnage ofCPLR \6514(c) provides that "any ntb and etpenst.r occasioned by the rvrongful filing and cancelladon ofa nodce ofpendencv under CPLR \651a(a) or (tr), in addition to any nsts of the actton" may be tecovered (emphasis added). The escrowing of money as a security for an imptopedy frlcd notice of pendency may not constitute a dtect cost to Defendants, but it represents a real cost insofar as they were depdved of thc immedrate use of thefu money, for which thcy would ordrnadly be compensated thtough intcrcst payments. Sccondlv, support for awarding lost interest to a defendant aggdeved by a Notice of Pendency filed in bad farth is found in case law issued by the Appellate Division, Thtd Department and at least one Ll.S. District Coutt (r-ee TtrL'ker,199 ,\D2d at 958 [holding that the premium that vendors incured from the sale of real property following cancellation of the notice ofpendencv could not be used to offset theit damages sought under CPLR S6514(c), including lost interestl; In re Stn Pmperly Consu/tuntt, 1nt.,2021 \XL 357 4026, *4 - +5 [E.D.N.Y. August 12, 2021 Case No. 8-16-72267D. Ihtdly, CPI-R $6515, as an alternative to CPLR $6514, allows for an aggrieved pafty to move to cancel a Notice of Pendency provided that such a p2rty flrst post an undetaking in an amount fixed by the Coutt. When calculating the amount of the undertaking, Couts have factored "the economic losscs and expenses rncur[red] as a rcsult of the de facto inabrlitv to sell the propert] while the notice of pendencl' remains in place, [including] loss o[interest on the sales proceeds from a dclayed or cancelled conffact to sell the propcrq' to a third person" fl/incent C. Alexander, Ptactice Commentaries, N{cKinney's Cons Laws of NY,2014 []lectronic Update, CPLR $6514' *e dlto, Andew, Int. r. Page,137 AD2d 349, 358 [1st Dept 1988); [)sfosilo rt. f-ederul Depo.rit Int. C0ry.,644 F Swpp 276, 277 [E.D.N.Y. 1986D. On the othet hand, contrary to the contentions ofPlaintrffs counsel at the inquest, thete is ample case law to suppott Defendants' claim for attomey's fces incured as a result ofthe filing and cancelation of an imprope y filed Notice of Pendency, some of rvhich rvas supplied by [)cfendants' counsel in his memotandum of law (ee e.g., Ltke L/alha/a, 194 AD3d at 805 [holding that the Supreme Court providendy exercised its discretion to award costs and expenses under CPLR \651a(c), including an award of reasonable attomey's fees]; J/L'l Road Pnperties, I I C t. Vdry Reu/ Prupert1, Ll-C,232 AD3d 828, 830 [2d Dept 2024]; No. I L;nndingCenhr, /rr: ,i8 AD3d zt 911;.lo:eJi.ron,141 ,\D2d at 7011). Accotdinglv, it falls within the pun'ierv of this Oourt pursuant to CPLR \6514(c) ro au,ard Defendants intcrest for having to dcposit $200,000 into cscrou' as a rcsult oI I'lainufPs bad farth fihng of thc Noucc 12 of 16 INDEX NO. 035769/2025 FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 09:36 AM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 64 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026 of Pcndency as wel.[ as attorney's fecs resulting from the frling and canceladon. Wrthout any furthcr opposiuon to Defendants' application, the Court, in its discretion, awatds Dcfendants $4,734.25 in statutory intcrest for havrng to dcposit and keep $200,000 in escrow for a period of 9(r days while the Notice of Pendency temained active, and 512,594.19 (30.3 chargeable hours x $400.00 per hour [$12,120.00] plus motion and R.fI filing fees l$144.191 and transcript production fee l$330.001) of thc $15,503.69 sought as and for reasonable attornc\"s fees in conncction rvith thc filing and cancelation of the Notice of Pendency. In making such an award for attorney's fees, the (lourt has tcvierved the invoices submitted bi, Dcfendants' counscl raking into considcration the drfficulq'of the issues involved and the skill and effectiveness of Dcfcndants' counsel (.rze ,lO/lJlut:tar l-l-(.' r, Cunarsie I lolel Corp., 33 AD3d 98(r [2d Dept 200(r]). ]')xcept as othcrwise specrfrcally' notcd hcre, the Coutt Frnds the applicable services listed in the invoices to bc propcrly charged to Defendants and tccoverable from Plaintiffundcr CPLR \6514(c). Horvevcr, in the undersigned's discretion, the Court bclicvcs that same are more appropriately arvarded at a rate of S4(X)/hour rathcr than the $495/hour and 9425/hour rates reflccted in said invoices. Further, the (lourt has not includcd the Octobet 30'h chargcs in thc amount of $148.50 in that it is unclear to the (lourt how samc pertains to the instant matter. F-inall),, the Court excludcs the November 6'h chargc in the amount of $148.50 in that same is idenufied as bcing "nonrelated." Defendants' Application for An Award of Costs and Imposition of Sanctions 22 NYCRR 130-1.1(d) authorizes a Court to impose sanctions and or awards ofcosts against any party or attomey for frivolous conduct upon modon or upon the Court's own ininatfi'e, after a teasonable opportunity to be heard. 'I'he opportuntty to be heard "shall depend upon the naturc of the conduct and the circumstanccs of the case" (22 NYCRR \130-1.1[d]). Conduct is ftivolous if: (1) it is completely without merit in law and cannot be supported by a rcasonable argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law; (2) it is undertaken primaril,v to delay or prolong the resolution of the litrgation, or to harass ot maliciously rnjure another; or (3) it asserts material factual statements that are f se (22 NYCRR \130-1.1[c]). The arvard of costs ()r imposition of sanctions must be issued via a wdtten decision which sets forth the conduct upon which the award or imposition is based, the reasons whv the Court found the conduct to bc frivolous, and the reasons why the Court found the amount awarded or imposed to be appropriate (22 NYCRR 5130-1.2). A finding that a Notice of Pendency was filed without good faith under CPLR S6514(b) also fotms the basis for a finding of frivolous conduct under 22 NYCRR \130-1.1 Qu A4alter of Souh tseatb zlrea-State 2,236 4D3c1800,801 [2d Dept 2025] [upholding lorver Court's dccision to award attorney's fees and disbursemen$ wndet 22 NYCzut $130-1.1 based on the improper Frling of a Notice of Pcndencyl; lVilninglon Saringt Pmd Socirly, Lt.lB t k//y,229 AD3d,660,662 [2d Dept 2024] [holding simila\;Whelan n Buiello,219 AD3d 778,780 - 781 [2d Dept 2023] lholding similarl). In the undedying Order, the Court detctmined that the Nouce of Pendency rvas filed in thc abscncc of good faith. At no ume duting the Ocober 17,2025 appeanncc on the Motion to Dismrss, or ln the 13 of 16 FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 09:36 AM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 64 INDEX NO. 035769/2025 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026 Ir'lcmorandum of Law in opposition thereto, did Plarnuff explain thc merits of the Notice of Pendency. Instead, PlaintifPs counsel attempted to sidestep the issue by arguing that the Notice of Pcndency was a misfrling that was not approved by her, as it drd not contain her signature. However, as the Court noted on thc October 77,2025 confcrence record and in the underlying ()rder, the absence ofPlaintifPs counsel's sigriature on an e-filed document does not abs<>h.e her from responsibiliq, for Frling same where the document contains her sQnature block and was filed rvith her NYSCEIT account. In fact, by registenng on NYSCIIF, PlaintifPs counsel, as with all NYSC[']F uscrs, agreed to thc Terms of Llse, which include in relevant part an undcrstanding that "each use of [her] password for frling documents with NYSCI.IF constitutes [herl srgnaturc on the documcnt being submitted of the purpose of meeting the requirements of Part 130 of thc I{ulcs of the (lhief r\dministtatot and all rules governing NYSCIIF" (lVeltsite 'fems ol Use, https: / / tzppscontent.courts.state.ny.us/NYSCEIT/live/terms()fuse.htm [New York State Coutts Electronic FiJing, accessed I\Iat. 18, 20261).'fo thc extent that Plaintiffs counsel seeks to evade or dimllsh her tesponsibili6' for the frling of the Notice of Pendency by atttibutrng same to one of hcr staff membcts, she is advised to hced Part 202 of thc Llnifotm Rules for Ncw York State Trial Courts, which PlaintifPs counsel agreed to adhere to by registcring an account on NYSCIII.'. Subdir.ision (4) of Section 202.5-c petmrts NYSCF,F users to authorize others to make filings with their account on thet behalf but notes that tesponsibihn' for such filngs temains rvith the NYSCEIT uscr. Notwithstanding the discussion on the record w-ith PlaintifPs counsel on October 17 ,2025, Plaintiffs counsel subsequentl)' stated rn her Nlemorandum of Larv in opposiuon to the N{otion to Dismiss that Pluintifl had tezlized, P/ainlifr': efflr - r,.ot counsel's own error as thc filer of the Nouce of Pcndency, which underscorcs a continued refusal on the part of PlaintrfFs counsel to take rcsponsibrlity for the hling. In addruon, the Court inspected the electronic docket and discovered that PlarntifFs counsel origrnally filcd a Notice of Pendency contemporaneously with the Summons & Complaint on August 18,2025, which rvas in fact signed bv her. Said Notice ofPcndencl rvas returned for correction by thc Rockland Countv Clerk's Office on August 18,2025 for farhng to includc a Schedule A and Defendants' names. On August 29,2025, a Notice of Pendency beadng the signatutc of Plaintiffs counsel was once again filed and subsequendy retumcd on the same date for failing to include a Schedule r\ and an instrument number. It was not until approximatcly one month later on Septembe r 26,2025 that a corccted Notice of Pendency was filed without the signaturc of Plainuffs counsel. This rer.elation of two defcctive Nolces of Pend ency aclaal/y and alfimalit'e! tignul b1 Plainlil/\. Lttlnre/ fhes rn the face of her statemenr on the record of the ()ctober 17 ,2025 conference that she does not recall hlng a Notice of Pendency herein and that same must have been a misfiling not authorized bv her. Separate and apart from the Notice of Pendcncy issue, the Underlying Order also placed the parties on notice that one subject of the inquest would be the then-allegcd materially false statement contained within PlainufPs N{emotandum of Larv in oppositron to N{otion Se<luence No. 1 (Nyscl,F Doc. No. 26) that statcment berng that Plaintiffs counsel circulated a supulation to cancel the Notice of Pendency to Defcndants' counsel without any mention that the offer was withdtawn less than onc hour 14 of 16 FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 09:36 AM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 64 INDEX NO. 035769/2025 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026 after it was extended, learing no time frrr I)efendants' counsel to vierv let alone respond to the offet. Thc Llndetlying Order further specifled that the subjcct would be heard in connection with thc determination of costs, expenses, and tcasonable attornc\"s fecs. 'l'hus, PlaintifPs counsel was put on ample advanced notice ofthe potential for an au.atd ofcosts and or an imposition of sanctions resulting from the alleged misrcpresentation/omission contained rvithin her Nlcmorandum of Law. At the inqucst, both Plaintrff and I)cfendants rvcrc provided rvith a mcaningful opportuniq' to be heard on the tecord regatding thc assertion of PhintifPs counsel's misreprescntation prior to the issuance of thc within De cision & ()rdcr. It is alarmrng that a member of the bar would not onll'placc a disingenuous statement before the Court but in addrtion fail to correct the statcment for months after opposing counsel pointed out the inaccuracy of the statement. Plaintiffs counsel's choice to allow a matedally false statement to remain unaddrcssed for months demonsttates either complaccncy or proctastination but certainly delayed acdon and noncompliance \\rith ptofessional expectations. 'fhe Court believes that such behavior, along with PlaintifPs counscl's frivolous Noticc of Pendeno', her refusal to take responsibiliq for same until all othet options extinguished, and her lack of candor with the Court, must be discouragcd, as same unnecessadly prolonged this litrgauon, caused Defendants to incur unn€ccssary legal fees, and wasted judicial resoutces at the public's expense. Had PlaintrfPs counsel taken due care in assessing the merirs of thc Nonce of Pendency, same would not ha\.e becn frled, and Defcndants would not have been required to post a $200,000 undertaking and lost the immediate use and enioyment of same. Had PlaintifPs Counsel been more candid about her Frling of the rmpropcr Noticc of Pendency and thc alleged circulation of thc stipulation at issue, judrcial and party resources would have becn saved, and Defendants would have incurred fewcr legal fees, as neither a rep\, to I)laintrffs opposition nor, possibly, an in-petson inquest rvould havc becn necessitated. As such, the Court in its disctetion under 22 NYCRR \130- 1.1, chooses to hold Plaintiffs counsel and het law ofltce Liable, in part, for the costs and expenses awardcd to Defcndants under CPI,R $651a(c). f-he Court believes that such an a*'ard of costs is sufficicnt to discouragc PlaintifPs counsel, as well as others, from engaging in such behavior in the futurc bcf<>rc a Court of this state. ()n this tecotd, an award ofcosts requinng that the Plainuffpal the entiretr'ofthc stated costs, rvithout contribution ftom PlaintifPs counsel, would be offensive to justicc. r\ccordingll, of the total judgment granted herein in favor of Defendants, Plarndffs counsel and or her law office, joindy and scverally, shall rcmit the total sum of$3,500 as an award ofcosts thus tcducing the out-of-pocket impact upon her client, the Plainuff. In determining the rcasonableness of such amourit, thc (louft re\-iewed and considered the legal fees incurrcd by Defendants as of the initral drspatch of thc purported stipulation to vacate the Notice of Pendcncy, and thc ensuing work performed by Defendant's counsel, thereafter, as a rcsult thercof. In light of the directive requiring Plaintrffs counscl and or her larv office to contribute the t()ta[ sum of $3,500 toward the judgmcnt, inJiu, thc Oourt, in its discrction, declines to impose a formal Part 130 sanction upon said attorncl - although it cannot be overstated that the conduct herc rvould most certainl1, rvarrant samc. I SI(iNrYl'LrRE, PA(;II Ir()i.LO\yS ] 15 of 16 INDEX NO. 035769/2025 FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 09:36 AM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 64 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026 In hght of the foregoing, it is hercbl' QRDERED, that Defendants are A$TARDED the total sum of $4,734.75 as and for an award of damages resulting from the improper frltng of the Notice of Pendencv Pursuant to GPLR $6514(c), and mote specifically in connection with the Defendants' loss of access, use, and enioyment of $200,000 for a period of96 days as described herein' *pra; ancl it is futther oRDERED, that Defendants are AWARD[]D teasonable attorney's fees, inclusive of d.isbursements, putsuant to CPLR $6514(c), in the total sum of $12,594.19; and it is further oREDRED AND ADJUDGED, that Defendants are (1tu\N]'IlD, as against Plaintif( iudgment in the total amount of $17,328.94 (84,734.75 [arvard of damages, r pftll plus $12,594.19 [reasonable attorney's fees inclusive of disbursemcnts, wpral) of which, as an award of costs pursuant to 22 NycRR 130-1.1(b),Fawa.lafi, Esq. and or'fhe Law ofFrce of l.'arva the attorney shall be ioindy and severally liablc in the amount of $3,500.00. 'Ihe aforcsaid is exprcssly an awatd of costs and is not a sanction upon said counsel; and it is frrtther ORDERED, that Defendants are ffanted leave to enterJudgrncnt consistent with the rehef gtanted hercin. 'l'hc foregoing constitutes the Decision & Ordcr of this Court. Datcd: Ncw Ciq', Nerv York l.t N'l- l:. R NIarch 30, 2026 a HON. DAVrD FRTED, A.J.S.C. s'r'.\'il.t ()1,, Nliw \()l{K C()t rN l \' ()li tt()CIil..\Nl) 16 of 16 EXHIBIT F Two written requests for comment emailed to Judge Fried (July 23, 2026 and August 3, 2026) — no response received Requests for Comment to Hon. David Fried — July 23 & August 3, 2026 (no response received) REQUEST FOR COMMENT No. 1 ====================================================================== From: the ethics Reporter <[email protected]> Date: Thu, Jul 23, 2026 at 8:34 AM Subject: Article on recusal To: <[email protected]> Acting Justice Fried, Do you have any comment regarding the attached recusal? We are writing an article about it. Regards, The Ethics Reporter Attachment: Judgment - HUDSON VALLEY CREDIT UNION v. MIRIAM ADLER.pdf (853.3 KB) [No response was received.] REQUEST FOR COMMENT No. 2 ====================================================================== From: the ethics Reporter <[email protected]> Date: Mon, Aug 3, 2026 at 2:19 PM Subject: Re: Article on recusal To: <[email protected]> Acting Justice Fried, Do you have any comment regarding the attached new recusal? We are writing a follow-up article about it. Regards, The Ethics Reporter On Thu, Jul 23, 2026 at 8:34 AM the ethics Reporter < [email protected]> wrote: > Acting Justice Fried, > > Do you have any comment regarding the attached recusal? > article about it. We are writing an > > Regards, > The Ethics Reporter > Attachment: 032320_2022_US_BANK_NA_TR_v_FRIESEL_2008_FAMILY_TRUST_et_al_RECUSAL_BY_JUDGE__J_135.pdf (607.6 KB) [No response was received.] EXHIBIT G Notice of Appeal — Adler v. Pollak, Index No. 035769/2025, filed April 29, 2026 (NYSCEF Doc. No. 69) FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 04/29/2026 10:04 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 69 INDEX NO. 035769/2025 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/29/2026 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF ROCKLAND --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------BLEEMA ADLER, Index No. 035769/2025 Plaintiff-Appellant, -against- NOTICE OF APPEAL MENDEL POLLAK and ZIPORA POLLAK, Defendants-Respondents. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Plaintiff BLEEMA ADLER hereby appeals to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Second Judicial Department, from each and every part of the Judgment of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Rockland (Hon. David Fried, J.S.C.), dated April 24, 2026 and entered in the Office of the Clerk of the County of Rockland on April 29, 2026 (NYSCEF Doc. No. 68), which, among other things, (i) dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint; (ii) cancelled Plaintiff’s Notice of Pendency filed in the Rockland County Clerk’s Office under Instrument No. 2025-035769; (iii) awarded Defendants Mendel Pollak and Zipora Pollak the sum of $4,734.75 for damages resulting from the filing of the Notice of Pendency and the sum of $12,594.19 for attorneys’ fees, for a total of $17,328.94 against Plaintiff Bleema Adler; and (iv) held Plaintiff’s counsel a Muslim woman attorney and/or her law office jointly and severally liable for $3,500.00 of the total $17,328.94 award pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1. Plaintiff further appeals from each and every part of the underlying decisions and orders that are recited in, incorporated into, and necessarily affect the foregoing Judgment, including but not limited to: 1 1 of 36 FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 04/29/2026 10:04 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 69 INDEX NO. 035769/2025 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/29/2026 (a) the Decision and Order of the Honorable David Fried, J.S.C., dated December 22, 2025 and entered in the Office of the Clerk of the County of Rockland (NYSCEF Doc. No. 42), which, among other things, granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) and (a)(7), cancelled the Notice of Pendency filed by Plaintiff pursuant to CPLR 6514(b) and (c) and 22 NYCRR 130-1.1, and awarded Defendants their costs, expenses, and reasonable attorneys’ fees occasioned by the filing and cancellation of the Notice of Pendency; and (b) the Decision and Order of the Honorable David Fried, J.S.C., dated March 30, 2026 and entered in the Office of the Clerk of the County of Rockland (NYSCEF Doc. No. 64), which, among other things, awarded Defendants the sum of $4,734.75 for positive expenses resulting from the filing of the Notice of Pendency, the sum of $12,594.19 for reasonable attorneys’ fees, for a total award of $17,328.94 against Plaintiff, and held Plaintiff’s counsel a Muslim woman attorney and/or her law office, jointly and severally, liable for $3,500.00 of the total award pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1. Plaintiff appeals from each and every part of the foregoing Judgment and the underlying Decisions and Orders, and from the whole thereof. Dated: Valhalla, New York April 29, 2026 Respectfully submitted, /s/ a Muslim woman attorney a Muslim woman attorney, Esq. Bar ID: [withheld] [address withheld] Tel: [phone withheld] Email: [email withheld] Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellant 2 2 of 36 FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 04/29/2026 10:04 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 69 INDEX NO. 035769/2025 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/29/2026 TO: Feerick Nugent MacCartney PLLC Donald J. Feerick, Jr., Esq. 96 South Broadway South Nyack, New York 10960 Attorneys for Defendants-Respondents Clerk of the Supreme Court County of Rockland 1 South Main Street, Suite 100 New City, New York 10956 Clerk of the Appellate Division, Supreme Court, Second Department 45 Monroe Place Brooklyn, New York 11201 3 3 of 36 INDEX NO. 035769/2025 FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 04/29/2026 10:04 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 69 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/29/2026 Supreme Court of the State of New York Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department Informational Statement (Pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1250.3 [a]) - Civil Case Title: Set forth the title of the case as it appears on the summons, notice of petition or order to show cause by which the matter was or is to be commenced, or as amended. For Court of Original Instance BLEEMA ADLER, Date Notice of Appeal Filed - against - MENDEL POLLAK and ZIPORA POLLAK, For Appellate Division Case Type ☐ Civil Action ☐ CPLR article 75 Arbitration Filing Type ☐ CPLR article 78 Proceeding ☐ Appeal ☐ Special Proceeding Other ☐ Original Proceedings ☐ CPLR Article 78 ☐ Habeas Corpus Proceeding ☐ Eminent Domain ☐ Labor Law 220 or 220-b ☐ Public Officers Law § 36 ☐ Real Property Tax Law § 1278 ☐ Transferred Proceeding ☐ CPLR Article 78 ☐ Executive Law § 298 ☐ CPLR 5704 Review Nature of Suit: Check up to three of the following categories which best reflect the nature of the case. ☐ Administrative Review ☐ Declaratory Judgment ☐ Family Court ☐ Real Property (other than foreclosure) ☐ Business Relationships ☐ Domestic Relations ☐ Mortgage Foreclosure ☐ Statutory ☐ Commercial ☐ Election Law ☐ Miscellaneous ☐ Taxation Informational Statement - Civil 4 of 36 ☐ Contracts ☐ Estate Matters ☐ Prisoner Discipline & Parole ☐ Torts INDEX NO. 035769/2025 FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 04/29/2026 10:04 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 69 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/29/2026 Paper Appealed From (Check one only): ☐ Amended Decree ☐ Amended Judgement ☐ Amended Order ☐ Decision ☐ Decree Appeal If an appeal has been taken from more than one order or judgment by the filing of this notice of appeal, please indicate the below information for each such order or judgment appealed from on a separate sheet of paper. ☐ Determination ☐ Order ☐ Resettled Order ☐ Finding ☐ Order & Judgment ☐ Ruling ☐ Interlocutory Decree ☐ Partial Decree ☐ Other (specify): ☐ Interlocutory Judgment ☐ Resettled Decree ☐ Judgment ☐ Resettled Judgment Court: County: Supreme Court Rockland 04/29/2026 04/29/2026 Dated: Entered: Judge (name in full):Hon. David Fried, J.S.C. Index No.:035769/2025 Stage: ☐ Interlocutory ☐ Final ☐ Post-Final Trial: ☐ Yes ☐ No If Yes: ☐ Jury ☐ Non-Jury Prior Unperfected Appeal and Related Case Information ☐ Yes ☐ No Are any appeals arising in the same action or proceeding currently pending in the court? If Yes, please set forth the Appellate Division Case Number assigned to each such appeal. Where appropriate, indicate whether there is any related action or proceeding now in any court of this or any other jurisdiction, and if so, the status of the case: Original Proceeding Commenced by: ☐ Order to Show Cause ☐ Notice of Petition ☐ Writ of Habeas Corpus Statute authorizing commencement of proceeding in the Appellate Division: Date Filed: Proceeding Transferred Pursuant to CPLR 7804(g) Court: Choose Court Judge (name in full): County: Choose County Order of Transfer Date: CPLR 5704 Review of Ex Parte Order: Court: County: Choose County Choose Court Judge (name in full): Dated: Description of Appeal, Proceeding or Application and Statement of Issues Description: If an appeal, briefly describe the paper appealed from. If the appeal is from an order, specify the relief requested and whether the motion was granted or denied. If an original proceeding commenced in this court or transferred pursuant to CPLR 7804(g), briefly describe the object of proceeding. If an application under CPLR 5704, briefly describe the nature of the ex parte order to be reviewed. Plaintiff-Appellant appeals from the final Judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Hon. David Fried, J.S.C.), dated April 24, 2026 and entered April 29, 2026 (NYSCEF Doc. No. 68), which (i) dismissed Plaintiff's Complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) and (a)(7); (ii) cancelled Plaintiff's Notice of Pendency (Instrument No. 2025-035769); (iii) awarded Defendants $4,734.75 in damages and $12,594.19 in attorneys' fees ($17,328.94 total) against Plaintiff; and (iv) held Plaintiff's counsel jointly and severally liable for $3,500.00 of the award pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1. The appeal also brings up for review the underlying Decision and Order dated December 22, 2025 (NYSCEF Doc. No. 42) and the Decision and Order dated March 30, 2026 (NYSCEF Doc. No. 64) incorporated into the Judgment. Informational Statement - Civil 5 of 36 FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 04/29/2026 10:04 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 69 INDEX NO. 035769/2025 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/29/2026 Issues: Specify the issues proposed to be raised on the appeal, proceeding, or application for CPLR 5704 review, the grounds for reversal, or modification to be advanced and the specific relief sought on appeal. Plaintiff-Appellant intends to raise, without limitation, the following issues on appeal: Whether the Supreme Court erred in granting Defendants' motion to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) and (a)(7), where the documentary evidence did not utterly refute Plaintiff's allegations and the Complaint, liberally construed, stated cognizable claims. Whether the Supreme Court erred in cancelling Plaintiff's Notice of Pendency under CPLR 6514(b), (c) and 22 NYCRR 130-1.1, including whether the action was filed in good faith and sufficiently affected title to or possession, use, or enjoyment of real property. Whether the Court erred in finding the Complaint and Notice of Pendency frivolous within 22 NYCRR 130-1.1, and in awarding costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees without the specific written findings required by 22 NYCRR 130-1.2.Whether the Court erred in fixing expenses at $4,734.75 and attorneys' fees at $12,594.19 (total $17,328.94), where the amounts were unsupported, unreasonable, or not properly attributable to defending the Notice of Pendency. Whether the Court erred in holding Plaintiff's counsel liable for $3,500.00 severally under 22 NYCRR 130-1.1, including whether the conduct was frivolous, whether counsel received adequate notice and a reasonable opportunity to be heard, and whether the required written findings were made. Plaintiff-Appellant seeks reversal of the Judgment and underlying Orders; reinstatement of the Complaint and Notice of Pendency; vacatur of all monetary awards and such other relief as the Court deems just and proper. Party Information Instructions: Fill in the name of each party to the action or proceeding, one name per line. If this form is to be filed for an appeal, indicate the status of the party in the court of original instance and his, her, or its status in this court, if any. If this form is to be filed for a proceeding commenced in this court, fill in only the party’s name and his, her, or its status in this court. No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Party Name BLEEMA ADLER MENDEL POLLAK ZIPORA POLLAK Original Status Plaintiff Defendant Defendant Informational Statement - Civil 6 of 36 Appellate Division Status Appellant Respondent Respondent FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 04/29/2026 10:04 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 69 INDEX NO. 035769/2025 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/29/2026 Attorney Information Instructions: Fill in the names of the attorneys or firms for the respective parties. If this form is to be filed with the notice of petition or order to show cause by which a special proceeding is to be commenced in the Appellate Division, only the name of the attorney for the petitioner need be provided. In the event that a litigant represents herself or himself, the box marked “Pro Se” must be checked and the appropriate information for that litigant must be supplied in the spaces provided. Attorney/Firm Name: a Muslim woman attorney (Attorney for Appellant) Address:400 Columbus Avenue Suite 112 City: Valhalla State: NY Zip:10595 Telephone No: 9144179215 E-mail Address:[email withheld] Attorney Type: ☐ Retained ☐ Assigned ☐ Government ☐ Pro Se ☐ Pro Hac Vice Party or Parties Represented (set forth party number(s) from table above): Attorney/Firm Name: Donald J Feerick, Jr. (Attorney for Respondent) Address:96 South Broadway City: South Nyack State: NY Zip:10960 Telephone No: 845-353-2000 [email protected] E-mail Address: Attorney Type: ☐ Retained ☐ Assigned ☐ Government ☐ Pro Se ☐ Pro Hac Vice Party or Parties Represented (set forth party number(s) from table above): Attorney/Firm Name: Address: City: State: Zip: Telephone No: E-mail Address: Attorney Type: ☐ Retained ☐ Assigned ☐ Government ☐ Pro Se ☐ Pro Hac Vice Party or Parties Represented (set forth party number(s) from table above): Attorney/Firm Name: Address: City: State: Zip: Telephone No: E-mail Address: Attorney Type: ☐ Retained ☐ Assigned ☐ Government ☐ Pro Se ☐ Pro Hac Vice Party or Parties Represented (set forth party number(s) from table above): Attorney/Firm Name: Address: City: State: Zip: Telephone No: E-mail Address: Attorney Type: ☐ Retained ☐ Assigned ☐ Government ☐ Pro Se ☐ Pro Hac Vice Party or Parties Represented (set forth party number(s) from table above): Attorney/Firm Name: Address: City: State: Zip: Telephone No: E-mail Address: Attorney Type: ☐ Retained ☐ Assigned ☐ Government ☐ Pro Se ☐ Pro Hac Vice Party or Parties Represented (set forth party number(s) from table above): Informational Statement - Civil 7 of 36 INDEX NO. 035769/2025 FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 04/29/2026 02:46 10:04 AM PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 68 69 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/29/2026 At An IAS Term of thc Suprcme Court, Rockland County held at the Courthousc, Ncw City, NY on April z./ .2026 PRESENT: Hon. David Fried SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF ROCKLAND X BLEEMA ADLER, Plaintifl JUDGMENT lndcx No.035769/2025 -against- MENDEL POLLAK and ZIPORA POLLAK, Defendants. x This above-captioned matter having come before the Court, by way of Motion Sequence No. I , for an Order ( I ) dismissing Plaintifls Complaint (i) pursuant to CPLR 321 I (a)( I ) based on documentary evidence and (ii) pursuant to CPLR 321 l(a)(7) based on a failure to state a claim; (2) vacating, cancelling and/or discharging Plaintiffs Notice of Pendency (i) pursuant to CPLR 6514(b) and (c), 22 NYCRR 130-l.l(a) and (c), and the Court's inherent power and authority because Plaintiffdid not commence or prosecute the action in good faith, and awarding Defendants reasonable attomey's fees and costs on the Motion, and (ii) pursuant to CPLR 6515, ifdenied, requiring Plaintiffto post a substantial undertaking; and Plaintiffhaving partially opposed Motion Sequence No. l; and the Court, after entertaining the Parties' respective counsel at oral argument and giving due deliberation thereon, having issued a Decision and Order, dated December22,2025 (NYSCEF Doc. No.42), dismissing Plaintiffls Complaint, cancelling the Notice of Pendency, and 81 of of 3 36 FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 04/29/2026 02:46 10:04 AM PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 68 69 INDEX NO. 035769/2025 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/29/2026 awarding Defendants' costs and expenses occasioned by the bad faith filing and cancelling ofthe Notice of Pendency, including reasonable attomey's fees (the "Underlying Order); and, after an inquest was held on January 28,2026, where Defendants sought two forms of recovery in connection with the award of costs, expenses and attorney's fees, to wit: (l) positive expenses resulting from the filing ofthe Notice of Pendency and (2) reasonable attomey's fee and expenses incurred defending against the frivolously filed Notice of Pendency, which was devoid of merit, and baseless titigation; and Plaintiffhaving opposed the forms ofrecovery sought; and the Court, after entertaining the partics' proofs and the arguments ofcounsel, having duly deliberated, issued a Decision and Order datcd March 30, 2026 (NYSCEF Doc. No. 64), awarding Defendants Mende I Pollak and Zipora Pollak from Plaintiff Bleema Adler: (l) thc sum of $4,734.75 for positive expenses resulting fiom the filing of the Notice of Pendency and (2) the sum of $12,594.19 for reasonable attomey's fees incurred defending against the frivolously filed Notice of Pendency, which was devoid of merit, and baseless litigation, for a total of $17,328.94; and (3) holding Plaintiffs counsel Favra the attorney and/or her law office, jointly and severally, liable for $3,500 ofthe total of$ 17,328.94, in the Court's discretion, under 22 NYCRR 130- l. l; and granting Defendants' leave to enterjudgment consistent with the reliefgranted. NOW, on motion of counsel for Defendants MENDEL POLLAK and ZIPORA POLLAK it is ORDERED, ADruDGED AND DECREED that the Plaintiffs Complaint is dismissed; and it is further ORDERED, ADruDGED AND DECREED that the Plaintiff s Notice of Pendency filed in the Rockland County Clerk's Office under Instrument No. 2025-035769 is cancelled; and it is further 92 of of 3 36 INDEX NO. 035769/2025 FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 04/29/2026 02:46 10:04 AM PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 68 69 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/29/2026 ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Defendants are awarded their costs and expenses occasioned by the bad faith filing and cancelation ofthe Notice of Pendency, including reasonable attomeys' fees; and it is further ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Defendants MENDEL POLLAK and ZIPORA POLLAK, of 12 Zeck Court, Suffem, New York 10901, recover fiom Plaintiff BLEEMA ADLER, of207l 58s Street, Brooklyn, New York I1204, [] the sum of$4,734.75 for damages resulting from the improper filing of the Notice of Pendency and [2] the sum of$12,594.19 for attomey's fees, inclusive of disbursements, for a total of$17,328.94, and [3] Plaintifls Counsel, a Muslim woman attorney, and/or her law office, is jointly and severally liable for the sum of $3,500.00 of the total of $17,328.94; and it is further ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Defendants Mendel Pollak and Zipora Pollak have exccution thcrcfor. ENTER: I JUDGE DAVID FRIED New York State Court of Claims Acting Justice of the Supreme Court ENTERED this _ day of ,2026 at New City, New York. ROCKLAND COLINTY CLERK AS CLERK OF THE COURT 10 3 of 36 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/23/2025 INDEX NO. 035769/2025 INDEX NO. 035769/2025 FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 04/29/2026 10:04 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 69 H y RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/29/2026 SUPREMECOURTOFTHE STATE OFNEW YORK COUNTYOFROCKLAND ___________________________________________________________________Ç BLEEMAADLER, NOTICEOF ENTRY Plaintiff, Index No. 35769/2025 -against- MENDELPOLLAKand ZIPORA POLLAK, Defendants. ___________________________________________________________________Ç MA D A ME S: FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 12/23/2025 08:59 AM PLEASETAKE NOTICE that the within of the Clerk of the within named Court on December 23, 2025. This transmittal Dated: and Order of the dated December 22, 2025, which was duly entered in the Office A.J.S.C., co o a true copy of a Decision Honorable Davied Fried, of Entry and no other method of service .. is will constitutes be implemented. South Nyack, NewYork December 23, 2025 N o N Yours, N etc. FEERICKNU NT fi NEYPLLC By: flSoDajkf ra Feerick, Jr. 96 S6uth Ifroadway South Nyack, NewYork 10960 (845) 353-2000 O NYSCEF DOC. NO. 43 Attorneys TO: All Appearing Parties for Defendants via NYSCEF O* 11 of 36 Notice 1 of 7 S I R S or RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/23/2025 INDEX NO. 035769/2025 INDEX NO. 035769/2025 FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 04/29/2026 10:04 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 69 o O |FILED: ROCKLANDCOUNTYCLERK 12/23/2025 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/29/2026 INDEX NO. 035769/2025 08: 07 A14 NYSCEFDOC. NO. 42 f r1 RECEIVEDNYSCEF: 12/22/2025 To commence the statutory time period for appeals as of (CPLR §5513 |al), you right are advised to serve a copy of this Order, with notice of entry, upon all parties. YORK SUPREME COURTOF THESTATE OF NEW COUNTYOFROCKLAND DECISION & ORDER X -------------------------------------------------------------------X .BLEEMAADLER, Index No. 035769/2025 Plaintiff, -against- Motion Sequence No. 1 MENDELPOLLAKand ZIPORA POLLAK, Defendants. via NYSCEF numbered 4 - 19, 21; 24 - 38, and 40 ("Motion"), fded electronically ak>ng with the transcript fded as NYSCEFDoc. No. 39, were read and considered herein. Upon such reading The papers and consideration, O is disposed as follows: BACKGROUND N O N This M N N contract of sale of property that was entered into between the out of a residential ("Buyer" ("Sellers" and Defendants and or "Defendants") and or "Plaintiff") Bleema Adler case arises Plaintiff on November 5, 2024 (NYSCEF Doc. No. 10). Thereafter, the parties signed an Amendmentto Contract (NYSCEF Doc. No. 10, p. 9). The Amendmentto Contract changed the closing date from time being of the essence with respect to said date, and stated of sale shall be terminated automatically without any further notice or action required January 31, 2025, to June 2, 2025, with that M the contract of either party and, thereafter, neither have any further party shall claim against the other (NYSCEF Doc, No. 10, p. 9 ¶ 3). Additionally, the Amendment to Contract directed the escrow agent to release Plaintiffs down payment of $150,000 to Defendants on January 31, 2025 (NYSCEFDoc. No. 10, p. 9 ¶ 2), The parties agreed that said down payment shall Sellers' of default (NYSCEFDoc. No. 10, p. 9 ¶ 2). O O Defendants, NYSCEF DOC. NO. 43 bd the Motion OO O* u dismissing and lii) not be refundable to Buyer except in the event by Order to Show Cause, bring the within Motion seeking an order for the following: (1) based on documentary evidence Complaint [i] pursuant to CPLR §3211(a)(I), the Plaintiffs CPLR §3211(a)(7), for failure to state a claim; 1 of (2) 6 12 of 36 vacating, canceling and/or discharging the 2 of 7 FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 12/23/2025 08:59 AM HON.DAVID FRIED, A.J.S.C. RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/23/2025 INDEX NO. 035769/2025 INDEX NO. 035769/2025 FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 04/29/2026 10:04 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 69 o O 2 y FILED: ROCKLANDCOUNTYCLERK 12 /23/2025 NYSCEFDOC. NO. 42 f ra a RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/29/2026 INDEX NO. 035769/2025 08 : 07 AM| RECEIVEDNYSCEF: 12/22/2025 Notice of Pendency [i] pursuant to CPLR§6514(b) and (c), 22 NYCRR § 130-1.1 (a) and (c), has or prosecuted this Plaintiff not commenced and because and the Coutt's inherent power authority, Plaintiff's action in good faith, [ii] pursuant to CPLR §6515, if denied, opposes partially attorneys' and awarding Defendants reasonable Defendants' and costs on this Motion and to post a substantial Plaintiff requiring fees undertaking. Plaintiff Motion. DISCUSSION Although it is must "accept well-settled that when considering alleged to be true, the facts a motion to dismiss accord the pleader pursuant to CPLR§3211, a court of every possible the benefit favorable theory," and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal ]PMorgan Chase Bank, a HunterGrp., ]ne., 124 A.113d 727, 728 (2d Dept. 2015), it is equally wellinference, NA setded that "a complaint which contains contradicted evidence bare legal conclusions dismissed." should be and or factual Kenneth R. claims which are flarly Rotnan Catholic Diocese of by documentary BnMoklyn, 229 A.D.2d 159, 162 (2d Dept. 1997); and Corporate Nat/. Realty n Phi/son Ltd., 232 Ad2d 518 (2nd Dept 1996). A motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR §3211(a)(7) shall be granted where, even v. FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 12/23/2025 08:59 AM Parsppany Constr. Co., inc. n C/ark Patterson Court must determine whether the alleged Inc., co o 28 A.D.3d 440, 441 [2d Dept. claims, which are flady contradicted dismiss for failure to state a cause 2006]). of 41 A.D.3d 805, 806 (2d Dept. 2007). "The theory" legal (Mora/es n Copy Rtght, Assors., P.C., facts fit any cognizable "It is well setded that bare legal conclusions and factual by the evidence, are not presumed to be true Un a motion to action" (Meyer n Guints, 262 A.D.2d 463, 464 [2d Dept. 1999]). Moreover, even on a motion to dismiss, the Court need not credit "legal conclusions or . . . factual incredible." claims which are . . . inherently West Branch Consen>ation AssI a County of Rockland, 227 A.D.2d 547, 547 (2d Dept. 1996). Where the "allegations supporting [thej cause of action are vague, facts," speculative and unsupported by any the claims should be dismissed (]ones n Vosknesenskaya, 125 No N A.D.3d 532, 534 [2d Dept. 2015]). N N "Dismissal of a complaint pursuant submitted conclusively establishes 84 NY2d 83, 88 [1994]). M O allegations supporting documentary evidence to CPLR§3211(a)(1) where'the documentary evidence law' a defense to the asserted claims as a matter of (Leon n MartineI In particular, a litigant's where a written cause of action for is warranted agreement ... unambiguously contradicts breach of contract, the contract itself the constitutes to CPLR §3211(a)(1), the dismissal of the complaint pursuant warranting regardless of any extrinsic evidence or self-serving allegations offered by the proponent of the claim Exce/ 75 Ninth Graphim Tech. a AGSCB 1 AD3d 2 N.Y.3d (see, CFG/ 65, 69 [2003), ly dismissed Ave., [2004]." 794 See, Cochard-Robinson a Concepeion, 60 A.D.3d 800, 802 (2d Dept. 2009) [reversing trial court O O NYSCEF DOC. NO. 43 that had denied motion to dismiss based on documentary evidence and holding occupancy was documentary evidence that establishing a defense as a matter of lawl. utterly refuted O* O u 2 of 6 13 of 36 plaintiff's factual that the certificate allegations, conclusively of 3 of 7 to state a as true, the plaintiff fails to allege facts sufficient viewing the allegations in the complaint cause of action. See, Mukhopadhyay n Genesis Corp., 894 N.Y.S.2d 430, 431 (1st Dept. 2010); see also, RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/23/2025 INDEX NO. 035769/2025 INDEX NO. 035769/2025 FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 04/29/2026 10:04 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 69 o o FILED: ROCKLANDCOUNTYCLERK 12 /23/2025 08: 07 A14 NYSCEFDOC. NO. 42 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/29/2026 INDEX NO. 035769/2025 RECEIVEDNYSCEF: 12/22/2025 fa m '"The essential cause of action of a breach of contract elements damages" the of that contract, and resulting Stewan n Beger, 192 AD3d 940, breach under the contract, the defendant's (RDa a Petmsyants, 203 AD3d 768, 769-770 [2022), performance plaintiffs of a contract, are the existence quoting of action to recover damages for a breach of contract, the plaintiffs breached" (N&I Gmupn Lotus of the contract that were the provisions allegations must identify Barker n Time Warner Cab/e, Inc., 83 AD3d 750, 751 [2011); Research, Inc., 180 AD3d at 1061, quoting "[Tjo 941 [2021])s accord 750)." a cause state Tsatskin n Kordonsky, 189 AD3d 1296, 1297 [2020|; Coach Line, Pierce Barker a Time l^rner ine., 83 AD3d 213 AD3d 959, 960, 185 NYS3d n Port Washington Union Free Schoo/ District, ine. Cabk, Dept 2023). 187, (2nd alleges Here, Plaintiff to return Plaintiffs Complaint in the down payment, and that failed to send a termination failure toreturn Defendants that Defendants' notice and failed the down payment constitutes (NYSCEFDoc. No. 1 ¶¶ 5 &6). However, in support of their Motion to Dismiss, Defendants submit the contract and the written amendments thereto (NYSCEF Doc. No. 10), which of contract establish a defense to the asserted claims as a matter of law. Notably, conclusively contest the existence of said amendments to the contract, or the language set forth FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 12/23/2025 08:59 AM does not therein. changed the closing date from January 31, 2025 to June respect to said date, and stated that the contract of sale 2, 2025, with time being of the essence with without any further notice or action required of either party and, shall be terminated automatically As set forth above, the amendment to contract (NYSCEF Doc. No. 10, p. 9 ¶ down payment of 3). Additionally, the amendment directed the escrow agent to release Plaintiffs The parties agreed that $150,000 to Defendants on January 31, 2025 (NYSCEFDoc. No. 10, p. 9 ¶ 2). Sellers' default (NYSCEF said down payrnent shall not be reftmdable to Buyer except in the event of neither thereafter, o Doc. No. 10, N o N contract party p. 9 ¶ 2). shall claim against the other have any further in the Hence, the allegations that were purportedly termination N N breached. In contrast, Complaint that Plaintiff the purported discussion to identify alleges Plaintiff notice, while the terms of the amendment specifically To the extent fail that Defendants state of the the provisions failed to send a the opposite. upon a purported oral waiver of written terms of the contract states claims was breached, specifically and or amendments thereto, the Contract upon which Plaintiff thereof maybe waived, changed or canceled except in that "[n]either this contract nor any provision writing" (NYSCEF Doc. No, 10, p. 5 ¶ 28[b]). Moreover, there is no evidence before this Court that O (or their counsel). himself and a broker conversation O O Plaintiff seeks to rely of waiver asserts actually took place between Plaintiff that the conversation Plaintiff (or counsel) and Defendants had related to the waiver was between (NYSCEF Doc. No. 24 ¶ 6). Non-party Yizchok Shteierman asserts that the (NYSCEF Doc. No. 25 he had, related to the waiver, was between himself and Plaintiff there are no alleged facts in the Complaint related to a purported oral waiver of ¶ 6). Notwithstanding, the Complaint makes no mention the written terms of the amendment to the contract. Furthermore, NYSCEF DOC. NO. 43 of the amendment to contract. M OO O* H Plaintiff Accordingly, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Complaint o 3 of 6 14 of 36 is granted. In turn, the Notice of Pendency 4 of 7 a breach RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/23/2025 INDEX NO. 035769/2025 INDEX NO. 035769/2025 FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 04/29/2026 10:04 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 69 FILED: ROCKLANDCOUNTYCLERK 12 /23/2025 NYSCEFDOC. NO. o O 2 is-i si 8 a y fil RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/29/2026 INDEX NO. 035769/2025 08 : 07 AM| RECEIVEDNYSCEF: 12/22/2025 42 Ve, ( PLR 651 L t wwo t I848 8 a n, In , 241 \ D id 1256, 241 N 3 s 3d 414 ½l(2' Dept 2024;, and Dept 2025i, Wu,( ag / iRI , /1( , 2 To \ D 3d 52', 530, 2“ N 8 3d (2' ( tv R as ~/2 l11 " 6 5 I / /o dm ( of f , 220 \ D 3d 914, 9“. 198 N \ 5 3d ~30 Dept 2023, 1, (2' uncelled The Court will now turn its attention to the portion of Defendants' Motion seeking costs and expenses pursuant to CPLR§6514(c) and on the grounds that this action was commenced in bad faith. A conference that before Court was conducted on October this she did not file of Pendency, a Notice 17, 2025. After first counsel alleged that her client Plaintiffs to the Court stating of the Notice filed Pendency. The Court, examining the NYSCEFdocket during said conference, noted that the Notice of Pendency contained Plaintiff's counsel's signature block, to which counsel indicated having no recollection of the Notice of Pendency herein and that her staff must have filed it (notwithstanding counsel Plaintiffs on NYSCEFas the document filer). indicated is counsel represented from the Notice of Pendency, Plaintiffs signature block is affixed to said Notice of Pendency, which was filed In further that she did not sign sameand could not explain Court strongly (see, FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 12/23/2025 08:59 AM and that N realized as follows: that to counsel Plaintiff for without counsel the withdrawal to report to the by filing Court that her Memorandumof Law which detailed said offer had been withdrawn; and that the purported Plaintiffs to award costs or impose financial action for engaging conduct in frivolous (see 22 that [20231)"(see, are false sanctions NYSCEF DOC. NO. 43 (see application above, the Complaint counsel Conduct is frivolous 22 NYCRR130-1 1 for costs related is lacking, engaged in frivolous while Plaintiffs to against a party or attorney if (1) it is without completely [c]; ; Whelan v Busie!/o, inter alia, conduct counsel contends, to the underlying in a factual related for the first in a basis, it action, merit in law or or reversal of existing asserts material factual 219 AD3d 778, 780-781 Casta/do v /848 Rea/ty, Inc, 241 A.D.3d 1256, 1258, 241 N.Y.S.3d As to Defendants' but failed NYCRR130-1.1 [al, [b]; Industry LIC Condominium and unsupported by a reasonable argument for an extension, modification, or (3) it law, (2) it is undertaken pnmarily to delay resolution of the litigation, statements offer counsel of the Notice of Pendency (NYSCEFDoc. No. 32). fact OO O* one hour of within of Pendency and prior to any response thereto, explanation (NYSCEFDoc. No. 31 ); that Plaintiffs to stipulate v Hudes, 200 AD3d 761, 761 (20211). O O arguments herein; withdrew the offer civil EÄ Plaintiff Plaintiff "Courts have discretion O the within to that effect. the Court that, to tell fails to ertm; that Plaintiffs Defendants' the Defendants, Motion to the within the Notice address the merits N N same in her opposition Plaints/fhas her to dismiss failed M a stipulation Court, making the offer followed NO contend that to distance that while on NYSCEFby said counsel, of said document. As such, this of Pendency and will not address the the Notice attempt Memorandumof Law in opposition the following: has also circulated Plaintiff In Reply, Defendants o submits counsel Plaintiffs has agreed to dismiss co to the Court the merit to address counsel NYSCEFDoc. Nos. 2 & 39. In Plaintiffs Motion, ; encouraged Plaintiffs to this 414 [2nd Dept. while, as more fully cannot be said that Plaintiff 2025]). set forth or Plaintiffs Also, and noteworthy, time in her Memorandum of Law (albeit by citing to Mr. to the filing O 4 of 6 15 of 36 of the Complaint. 5 of 7 that herself RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/23/2025 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 69 o |FILED: RECEIVEDNYSCEF: 12/22/2025 Em Affidavit Stern's does not that * Defendants y Defendants do not actually conversation is contest Pendency during the conference date other Reply, explain to failure and in subsequent Of note, and further, fees. and hereby improper, expenses, if cancelled to the Court that if as her lack any, occasioned of candor as to by said fding, including Complaint asserted only a claim for money use of the notice of has forfeited As such, Plaintiff See, Khana/ v. Shekton, 55 A.D.3d 684, 867 N.Y.S.2d p. Gottlie/4 of Pendency related Notice and forfeited, to the real property Defendants and, as noted, 90 A.D.2d 766, 455 are at issue, awarded costs and attomey's be conducted the award of costs, to determine have alleged that expenses, and reasonable counsel Plaintiffs to failed attorneys' N N to stipulate in her opposition to the connection with to determine telated the hearing to costs of the within motion In light of the foregoing, hereby ORDERED,that it is Defendants' fees, the Court that within tell one Plaintiff hour of making the offer to dismiss the Notice withdrew the offer to stipulate without explanation, N O N is fees. See, including by said fding and cancellation, and Sau/ p. Vidok/, 151 A.D.3d 780, 56 N.Y.S.3d 230 (2nd Dept. 2017). A reasonable of Pendency and prior to any response thereto, O party's a third of the Notice of the merits as well submission, any, occasioned as Defendants Further, Plaintiffs' 1982). CPLR §6514(a) and (c); hearing will if any. (NYSCEF Doc. No. 26, p. 2), than contending pendency when asserting only a monetary claim. 460 (2nd Dept. 2008); and Langlshmd City Savings and laan Arsociation N Y.S.2d 300 (2nd Dept. with Plaintiffs in the property. or interest title, their had discussions Mr. Stern that contention), awards costs and expenses, in its discretion, attorney's same in counsel's Plaintiffs reasonable said on anyone. (NYSCEFDoc. No. 27 ¶ 23). not binding However, given - not a right, support about adjouming the June 2, 2025 closing directly same, the Court, FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 12/23/2025 08:59 AM RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/29/2026 INDEX NO. 035769/2025 08 : 07 A14 NYSCEFDOC. NO. 42 O m a o a H ROCKLANDCOUNTYCLERK 12 /23 /2025 offer while concurrently asserting said purported Defendant is granted leave to address said aHegation in Motion, costs, expenses, and reasonable attorney's fees, if any, as if at all. practice, Motion to Dismiss the Complaint is GRANTED;and it is further r-1 ORDERED,that the Rockland County Clerk is directed to cancel and discharge of record, the Notice of Pendency/Lis 12 Zeck Court, Suffern, (Inst. No. 2020-00016927), cancellation of the NYSCEF DOC. NO. 43 ORDERED,that an Inquest Notice award for costs, cancellation of the aforesaid expenses, is scheduled and reasonable Notice to be conducted to determine attorney's fees, if of Pendency/ Lis Pendeus (Inst. O o to the real property fees, if any, occasioned of Pendency / Ur Pendeus (Inst. and it is further aforesaid AWARDED to the Defendants; OO O* related located at New York 10901; and it is further ORDERED,that costs, expenses, and reasonable attorney's O O bd herein Pendens filed 5 of 6 16 of 36 by the fding and No. 2020-00016927) are the amount of the aforesaid any, occasioned by the fding and No. 2020-00016927) on January 6 of 7 INDEX NO. 035769/2025 INDEX NO. 035769/2025 FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 04/29/2026 10:04 PM RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/23/2025 INDEX NO. 035769/2025 INDEX NO. 035769/2025 FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 04/29/2026 10:04 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 69 o o a FILED: ROCKLANDCOUNTYCLERK 12 /23 /2025 NYSCEFDOC. NO. 42 a 28, 2026 at 9:15AM, as provided The foregoing Dated: constitutes for herein. the Decision NewCity, NewYork December 22, 2025 The Inquest 08 : 07 AM| will RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/29/2026 INDEX NO. 035769/2025 RECEIVEDNYSCEF: 12/22/2025 be conducted in-person. & Order of this Court. E N T E R: 7 of 7 FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 12/23/2025 08:59 AM HON.DAVIDFRIED, A!S.C STATE OFNEW YORK CDUNTYOF ROCKLAND O .. O N O N N r-1 O :M EÄ NYSCEF DOC. NO. 43 O O O* 6 of 6 17 of 36 INDEX NO. 035769/2025 FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 04/01/2026 04/29/2026 12:25 10:04 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 65 69 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/01/2026 04/29/2026 SUPREMECOURTOFTHESTATEOFNEW YORK COUNTYOFROCKLAND ___________________________________________________________________Ç BLEEMAADLER, NOTICE OFENTRY Plaintiff, Index No. 35769/2025 -against- MENDELPOLLAKand ZIPORAPOLLAK, Defendants. ___________________________________________________________________Ç S I R S or MA D A ME S: PLEASETAKENOTICE that the within Honorable Davied Fried, the Clerk of the within Entry and no other Dated: A.J.S.C., is a true copy of a Decision and Order of the dated March 30, 2026, which named Court on March 30, 2026. method of service will was duly entered This transmittal of Notice of constitutes be implemented. South Nyack, New York April 1, 2026 Yours, etc. FEERICKN By: D AR NEYPLLC ENT I d eenc , r. 96 So ay South Nyack, NewYork 10960 (845) 353-2000 Attorneys TO: in the Office All Appearing Parties via NYSCEF 18 of 1 of 17 36 for Defendants FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 04/01/2026 04/29/2026 12:25 10:04 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 69 65 FILED: ROCKLANDCOUNTYCLERK :3 NYSCEF DOC. NO. INDEX NO. 035769/2025 INDEX NO. 0357 69/2025 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/29/2026 04/01/2026 RECEIVEDNYSCEF: 03/30/2026 64 To commencethe statutory time period right for appeals as of (CPLR §5513 ja|), you to serve a copy of this Order, with notice of are advised entry, upon all parties. SUPREME COURTOFTHE STATEOF NEWYORK COUNTY OFROCKLAND BLEEMAADLER, DECISION& ORDER Plaintiff, ONATTORNEYFEES, COSTSANDEXPENSES -against- Index No. 035769/2025 Motion Sequence No. 1 MENDELPOLLAKand ZIPORA POLLAK, Defendants. HON. DAVID FRIED, A.J.S.C. The papers filed ("Inquest Transcript") upon all prior attorney fees, via electronically NYSCEFnumbered 42 ("Underlying were read and considered papers and proceedings costs, berein. heretofore Order"), 48 - 61, and 63 Upon such reading and consideration, had herein, the Court determines and the issues of and expenses as follows: BACKGROUND This case arose out of a residential Plaintiff Bleema Adler ("Plaintiff") on November 5, 2024. closing date Thereafter, signed an Amendmentto Contract the parties date, and stated that the contract Additionally, of sale shall of either party and, the time being of the essence with respect to said be terminated automatically without any further notice neither thereafter, not be refundable party shall Amendmentto Contract directed payment of S150,000 to Defendants on January shall which changed the from January 31, 2025 to June 2, 2025, with or action required other. contract of sale of property that was entered into between the and Defendants Mendel Pollak and Zipora Pollak ("Defendants") to buyer except 31, 2025. in the event of have any further claim against the the escrow agent to release Plaintiff's The parties sellers' down agreed that said down payment default. Complaint Defendants, by way of Motion Sequence No. 1, sought an Order: (1) dismissing Plaintiffs pursuant to CPLR based on evidence and CPLR {il 3211(a)(1) [ii) documentary 3211(a)(7) for failure to state a claim; to CPLR6514(b) (2) vacating, canceling and/or and (c), 22 NYCRR130-1.1 discharging (a) and (c), 1 of 16 19 of 2 of 17 36 Notice of Pendency [i| pursuant t and the Court's inherent power and authority, Plaintiffs INDEX NO. 035769/2025 FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 04/01/2026 04/29/2026 12:25 10:04 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 69 65 FILED : ROCKLANDCOUNTYCLERK : NYSCEF DOC. NO. RECEIVEDNYSCEF: 03/30/2026 64 because denied, commenced or not has Plaintiff Defendants attorneys' reasonable to Plaintiff requiring action this in good and awarding faith, to CPLR6515, on this Motion, and |ii) pursuant if opposed Motion partially a Decision & Order on December 22, 2025 (NYSCEF Doc. No. a substantial Order" - inter - the "Underlying prosecuted fees and costs post Sequence No. 1. The Court issued 42) 0357 69/2025 INDEX NO. RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/29/2026 04/01/2026 undertaking. addressing alia, Plaintiff Defendants' various and scheduling applications an inquest. THEUNDERLYING ORDER alleged Plaintiff the Complaint in that Defendants to send a termination failed notice and failed to down payment, and that Defendants' failure to return the down payment constituted a breach of contract (NYSCEF Doc. No. I ¶¶ 5 &6). However, in support of their Motion to Dismiss, Defendants submitted the contract and the written amendments thereto (NYSCEF Doc. No. 10), return Plaintiffs which conclusively Sequence No. established as a matter of law. Notably in Motion of said amendments, or the language set forth to the asserted claims a defense did not contest 1, Plaintiff the existence therein. The amendment to contract changed the closing being of the essence with respect automatically shall to said date, and stated that without any further have any further claim date from January 31, 2025 to June 2, 2025, with notice against or action the other of sale the contract time be terminated shall of either party and, thereafter, neither party (NYSCEF Doc. No. 10, p. 9 ¶ 3). Additionally, the required amendment directed the escrow agent to release Plaintiff's down payment of S150,000 to Defendants on January 31, 2025 (NYSCEF Doc. No. 10, p. 9 ¶ 2). The parties agreed that said down payment shall not be refundable to buyer except in the event of Hence, the allegations breached. purportedly while Complaint In contrast, the terms of the To the extent the in to identify the provisions of the contract that were alleged that Defendants failed to send a termination notice, Plaintiff state the opposite. sought to rely upon a purported oral waiver of written and or amendments thereto, the Contract that "In|either writing" nor any provision contract upon which Plaintiff thereof the purported discussion Defendants (or their counsel). of waiver Plaintiff actually claims terms of the contract was breached, there has been no evidence before took place between asserted that the conversation Plaintiff (or had related Plaintiff states specifically may be waived, changed or canceled (NYSCEF Doc. No. 10, p. 5 ¶ 28{b1). Moreover, that (NYSCEF Doc. No. 10, p. 9 ¶ 2). default fail amendment specifically that Plaintiff th[e] sellers' except in this Court counsel) and to the waiver was between himself and a broker (NYSCEF Doc. No. 24¶ 6). Non-party Yizchok Shteierman asserted that the conversation he had, related to the waiver, was between himself and Plaintiff (NYSCEF Doc. No. 25 ¶ 6). Notwithstanding, there were no alleged facts in the Complaint related to a purported oral waiver of the written terms of the amendment to the contract. Furthermore, the Complaint made no mention of the amendment. According7, this Court granted Defendants' Motion 2 of 16 20 of 3 of 17 36 to Dismiss the Complaint by way of the INDEX NO. 035769/2025 INDEX NO. 035769/2025 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/29/2026 04/01/2026 FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 04/01/2026 04/29/2026 12:25 10:04 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 69 65 FILED: ROCKLANDCOUNTYCLERK : NYSCEF DOC. NO. RECEIVEDNYSCEF: 03/30/2026 64 cancelled the Notice of Pendency Underlying Order (NYSCEF Doc. No. 42) and flowing therefrom, 241 NY.S.3d 414 (2"d Dept. 2025); See, CPLR§6514; Castaldo a 1848 Realty, Inc., 241 A.D.3d 1256, 581(2"" Dept. 2024); and Chic Realty 7 / 2, Special Cent. n 3RE LLC, 230 A.D.3d 527, 530, 217 NXS.3d LLC n GMHolding Cop., 220 A.D.3d 914, 917, 198 NIS.3d (2"" 730 Dept. 2023). Defendants' Motion which addressed the portion of In the Underlying Order, the Court thereafter sought costs and expenses pursuant to CPLR§6514(c) and on the grounds that the Notice of Pendency was filed factual given Plaintiffs Nonetheless, conduct counsel engaged in frivolous or Plaintiffs Plaintiff the Complaint while counsel's failure inter a alia, that Order, of the Complaint. to the filing to the Court explain to related lacked, of the Underlying said at the time of the issuance could not be affirmatively it basis, The Court noted that absence of good faith. in the the merits of the Notice of Defendants' Motion and in any Pendency during the October 17, 2025 appearance in connection with subsequent submission, the Court found that the Notice of Pendency was filed in the absence of good Defendants' Motion for an award of costs and granted the branch of and, in its discretion, faith, any, occasioned by said Eding and cancellation, if expenses, Of particular with regard a claim money - not a right, for asserted only forfeited use of the Notice In other words, fees. Complaint noted that Plaintiffs the Court As such, in the property. or interest title, attorney's Plaintiff only a monetary claim (Khanal n Sheldon, 55 Long hland City Savings and Loan Assadation n Gottliel4 90 AD2d766 [2d Dept of Pendency when asserting AD3d 684 [2d Dept 2008]; 1982]). to such holding, importance reasonable including a Notice of Pendency should not have been filed Pendency related to the real property and a full and fair opportunity notice at issue, was improper, herein. Plaintiffs' Notice of As such, following and was thus cancelled. were awarded costs and expenses, to be heard, Defendants if any, occasioned by said filing and cancellation, including reasonable attorney's fees. See, CPLR§6514(a) and 151 A.D.3d 780, 56 NIS.3d 230 (2nd Dept. 2017). In order to determine the (c); and Saul n Vidokl, of such costs, expenses, and reasonable contentions in connection with such computations, quantity this Court, attorneys' fees, an inquest if any, and to resolve any disputed was scheduled to be conducted before on January 28, 2026 at 9:15AM. in-person, also placed the parties on notice that the scope of the Undedying Order specifically January 28, 2026 inquest would not only encompass the quantity of costs, expenses, and reasonable In addition, attorney's the to be awarded, fees to opportunity if any, pursuant to CPLR§6514(c), be heard on the alleged but also provided made by misrepresentation counsel Plaintiffs counsel with the in her Memorandumof Law. In Plaintiff's represented canceling Memorandum of Law in to the Court the Notice of Pendency. contended that Plaintiffs In to the opposition circulated that Plaintiff a stipulation Defendants' counsel omitted from her hour of extending the offer to dismiss the Notice withdrew the offer to stipulate without Plaintiff reply Motion to to Dismiss, Plaintiffs counsel Defendants' counsel to the effect of on Motion Sequence No. Memorandumof Law that within 1, Defendants less than one of Pendency and prior to any response thereto, Defendants' counsel could and before explanation 3 of 16 21 of 4 of 17 36 INDEX NO. 035769/2025 FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 04/01/2026 04/29/2026 12:25 10:04 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 69 65 : ETLED: ROCKLANDCOUNTYCLERK NYSCEF DOC. NO. INDEX NO. 035769/2025 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/29/2026 04/01/2026 RECEIVEDNYSCEF: 03/30/2026 64 view, let (NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 30 & 31). alone respond to, the stipulation Court thus stated that, "as Defendants have alleged Plaintiffs that In its Underlying counsel to failed the Order, the Court that tell one hour of making the offer to dismiss the Notice of Pendency and prior to any response while concurrently withdrew the offer to stipulate without explanation, thereto, Plaintiff asserting said within purported offer to stipulate allegation if to the Motion, Defendant granted leave to address said is the hearing to determine costs, expenses, and reasonable attorney's all." if at (NYSCEF Doc. No. 42). to costs of the within motion practice, connection in in her opposition any, as related with fees, THEINQUEST The inquest was conducted on January 28, 2026 (see, Inquest Transcript at NYSCEFDoc. No. 63). Donald J. Feerick and his client, Defendant Zipora Pollak, appeared in person as required. Attorney Attomey a Muslim woman attorney appeared virtually via Microsoft Teams on behalf of her client, the Plaintiff. Defendants' At the inquest, connection with counsel indicated award of a prospective Defendants that expenses, costs, sought two forms of recovery and attorney fees: (a) positive in expenses damages in the form of costs, expenses, and attorney fees resulting from the cancellation of including the Notice of Pendency; and (b) reasonable attorney fees resulting from defending against the frivolous of a Notice of Pendency which was devoid of any merit and baseless filing litigation. Defendants' counsel contended as folk3ws: that Regarding the positive expense category of damages, if Defendant still owned the property when the meritless Notice of Pendency was actively filed - which not the case here - positive such as mortgage, insurance, and Notice of Pendency arose when a tide to a closing being scheduled as to the replacement search in proximity company did a continuation buyer's transaction; that the tide company reported that there was a Notice of Pendency asserted against the property; that when the tide company became aware of the Notice of Pendency and to<A notice of is maintenance charges: the final title that amount in controversy company; that as a result after the Court determined claims against Defendants; 2025; that as a result for a period recover to same, the of the foregoing, as and for interest with Joda Abstract Defendants and, that such positive is until thus paid the $200,000 as required held Defendants' the value of their $200,000 until the by the shortly money and the access thereto expense as to which Defendants expense should be calculated in a per are entitled to $200,000 x 0.09 as follows: diem rate of $49.32 x 96 days = $4,734.72 of recovery sought by DefendantsDefendants' to the Court that as of the date of the inquest. S200,000 to be paid in sought. the second category - it has been represented lost a positive = $18,000 / 365 days resulting damagesas to which recovery In connection company required Defendant's Motion to Dismiss which ultimately Plaintiffs extinguished Defendants' $200,000 was returned to Defendants on December 26, that of the foregoing, Plaintiff; title that the Defendants litigation; of 96 days; that same constitutes from costs the issue of the meridess relevant of the within disposition expenses would include at bar, Said total attorney's sum was supported by 4 of 16 22 of 5 of 17 36 reasonable fees amount to a total Defendants' counsel's attorney's fees of $15,503.69 statements on the INDEX NO. 035769/2025 FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 04/01/2026 04/29/2026 12:25 10:04 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 69 65 FILED: ROCKIANDCOUNTYCLERK : NYSCEF DOC. NO. record RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026 64 Court that said mitigate total In support fee. Defendants' accompanied by billing statements. sum also includes two disbursements, to wit a motion filing of the Court, as an officer production of Defendants' branch of relief, this counsel notes Defendants' costs by contacting Plaintiffs counsel regarding should be discontinued, to which Plaintiff's counsel refused. with the accusation asserted in his reply as to Plaintiffs Defendants' Notice of Pendency but which was withdrawn, have agreed to the proposed stipulation to withdraw to do so, Plaintiffs opportunity than one hour lapsed between she withdrew respond; that the withdrawal preparing and filing a reply that the action counsers offer contends as follows: to cancel the that he would he had any that she proposed; that approximately proposed the stipulation and the time Defendants' counsel any reasonable to for opportunity counsel to counsel occurred on October 31, 2025; by Plaintiffs proposed stipulation, Defendants were required to incur the costs of Defendants' connection with Motion Sequence No. 1; that counsel felt of the stipulation in to advise the Court invoked reliance counsel Court that she had actually further of the foregoing in his reply because the opposition papers of upon said withdrawn stipulation without ever mentioning to the withdrawn should compensate Defendants Mr. Feerick fee and a transcript that he attempted the Notice of Pendency; that before Plaintiffs the time advised the of the withdrawn was necessary Plaintiffs counsel withdrew the stipulation and without the stipulation, that as a result it counsel counsel position litigation In connection less INDEX NO. 035769/2025 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/29/2026 04/01/2026 and that the stipulation; for their reasonable attorney as a result of the foregoing, fees. stated to the Court as follows: "But that of that exchange, required my to then put in a reply, And when we put in the reply, your client with we put in a but it required an action Honor, bewilder, reply because we had to tell you what had transpired, and we did, which I submit to you means our entire bill through today should be chargeable -- that exchange, or the falsity -- and to the defense. But the bewilderment was, it made no sense. Who would do what Make an offer, withdraw it, and then tell the Court that Is jhe made the offer without talking about the withdrawal. Well, the transpired? only one who would do it NYSCEFñlings. is someone who isn't managing their without case, the Notice of Pendency was filed apparently plaintiffs counsel's permission or consent by her staff and filed in a In this window of time when -- when multiple efforts were made to correct And those records are also before you, your Honor, in the reply papers. And you'll see on at least three separate occasions, plaintiff's counsel's staff attempted to correct the Notice of Pendency. The very it. Notice of Pendency that you'll see was the subject asking to just drop it, not move forward with it, prosecute it, to attempt to fix it and then to file 5 of 16 23 of 6 of 17 36 of an exchange and they continued to it on September 26th. Plaintiff INDEX NO. 035769/2025 0357 69/2025 INDEX NO. RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/29/2026 04/01/2026 FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 04/01/2026 04/29/2026 12:25 10:04 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 69 65 FILED: ROCKLANDCOUNTYCLERK : NYSCEF DOC. NO. RECEIVEDNYSCEF: 03/30/2026 64 been filed on August 18th and then it was subsequently and filed in a corrected form on September 26th. That shows counsel said she your Honor, to do that which plaintiff's a persistency, It had first corrected had no role in it insane. It's papers we're bewildered, we were suggested to your and we was what on, going trying was NYSCEF of someone password a Honor that it seemed like using an attorney without the proper supervision and control of the attorney. What I just heard today, this morning, was that the exchanges yesterday counsel spoke to her staff for were of such a nature that plaintiff's so to what was filed speak, chastised them. yesterday and, filing When we pointed out in our reply to understand Your Honor, 1 can't explain what's happening in front of you. I have no reason to explain it. I represent a party who had a transaction, attempted to be scuttled by a frivok>us ñ1ing, by a wrongful filing, by a bad faith filing, and we had to go through all effort rather than just negotiation with opposing counsel to drop it. Wehad to go through your attention was drawn to this matter, your court time, court effort, involvement in a hearing, your involvement in reply papers and your ruling and your time in making a written today. All of this is completely needless that brings finding us here and it doesn't explain who filed the Notice of Pendency. You never heard it. You never heard it when it was first brought up. You never heard it in any subsequent and you still haven't heard it today. Whofiled the Notice conversation, of Pendency? And if no one knows, my recommendation, your Honor, and the request of my client, is for an award, all damages and I associated with this event should be charged to both plaintiff, hate to say an appeal to counsel, but counsel hasn't explained who did under her this. And if it wasn't her and someone did it inappropriately watch, I want to know who it was and how it occurred and what, if action occurred. Because if it's continuing and we're any, corrective dealing with it again, because my client is now here and she need not we've been be here if we were going to do this virtually, inconvenienced and you've been inconvenienced and we're here for a sanctions inquest, which is extraordinary in itself. of that said, your Honor, and being as succinct as possible, wants $4,734.25 for the loss, time, use of the positive expense of her payment into escrow of $200,000, plus all of her legal fees associated in defending this matter on the merits due to the bad faith of S15,503.69 for a total of $20,237.94. Wewant it from filing involved supplied." is plaintiff and/or counsel if an explanation inadequately But with all my client (Inquest Transcript, In response to the aforesaid, "doesn't pgs. 13 - Plaintiff's 16). Counsel, on behalf see any sort of case law supporting [Defendants' 6 of 16 24 of 7 of 17 36 of Plaintiff, counsel's averted j position as follows: [regarding that she the contended INDEX NO. 035769/2025 FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 04/01/2026 04/29/2026 12:25 10:04 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 69 65 FILED: ROCKLANDCOUNTYCLERK : NYSCEF DOC. NO. 64 positive expenses), associated with the INDEX NO. 035769/2025 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/29/2026 04/01/2026 RECEIVEDNYSCEF: 03/30/2026 which (she hasJ never seen at inquest escrowing" the (Inquest Transcript, company accrued no interest; Defendants' title before regarding escrowing and expenses pg. 16 In 24 - pg. 17 In 2); that the funds held by Defendants' that assumes a 9% interest counsel that rate; she they could not access the funds and, of course, it was ]" an inconvenience, bald assertion [ (Inquest I'm not going to argue that it was not ...it's a totally Defendants' pg. Ins. counsel "put that as to the request for that 17 14 17); Transcript, attorney fees, understands the "frustration...that some cases that he doesn't expound upon" (Inquest in his affirmation that "it hard for is faith |her] that a bad has given position fees" pg. of attorney's (Inquest Transcript, that the Appellate Division of a /is pendens is going to lead to reimbursement filing of attorney's respond to that and to understand the reasonableness to just no case law to support fees-.There's 18 Ins. 5 - 13); that she, "Idoesn't| 24 - 25) pg. 17 Ins. Transcript, this that there is going to be an exchange of funds here that costs" is plaintiff but that as to "the entirety of the legal expenses, going to have to pay some of these it's difficult to know what is reasonable, and there's absolutely no precedence, at least none cited, that I can reply to regarding disagree the expenses related to the escrowing of counsel remained whol7 15 - 22). Remarkably, counsel's Plaintiff's accusation against her that she invoked Sequence No. 1, but which was withdrawn basis of an argument supporting Plaintiffs counsel the relevant regarding same (Inquest of Plaintiffs portion a proposed by her, her opposition the in silent funds" (Inquest instance first stipulation remained Court. Accordingly, this Transcript, pg. 18 in 25; pg. 19 Ins. opposition into counsel's at all signature Plaintiffs block on it, [she doesn't| Ultimately, [Defendants' it falls on [Plaintiffs counsell these conversations contended counsel deny that counsell" (shel bear[s| (Inquest that "obviously responsibility pg. Transcript, was getting at before is that there is an individual from [her) email and sending stipulations from So it was withdrawn, corrected that issue [ ]. and that individual has just Transcript, pg. 20 Ins. opposiiion, "[bjut, (Inquest Transcript, 3 - but, unfortunately, been removed from 10); of course, if and, pg. 20 Ins. 16 - staff it coming with [herj for it. [ | It was [her] staff. 19 Ins 12 - 16); that "what if had wanted any information it's who is making - sort of having [her] and (she has) since email, was without [shel [herj occurred the Court for of pg. 19 ins. Transcript, since the incident she never corrected that the Court jherj -- it times the the Court inquired (Inquest the record as follows: to Motion relevant 1 - 11). The Court read 3 - 11). In response thereto, Defendants' regarding in her opposition and nonetheless before pg. 18 Ins. Transcript, authorization |" | the statement (Inquest in her it" would have supplied 18). that Plaintiffs counsel admits that the stipulation was withdrawn and that such Notwithstanding withdrawal was not brought to the Court's attention, yet maintained for months in her Memorandum of Law to this Court that she circulated a major focus of Motion Sequence No. a stipulation I to withdraw and the October the undersigned - when asked to let the Court know that there was a material "at what point by the Court, false statement 7 of 16 25 of 8 of 17 36 17, the Notice of Pendency - which 2025 conference on the record did |she] in|her think that it submission)," was before would be appropriate (Inquest Transcript, INDEX NO. 035769/2025 FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 04/01/2026 04/29/2026 12:25 10:04 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 69 65 FILED : ROCKLANDCOUNTYCLERK : NYSCEF DOC. NO. INDEX NO. 035769/2025 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/29/2026 04/01/2026 RECEIVEDNYSCEF: 03/30/202 64 |?" counsel responded, "Well, what was the material false staternent { ]" (emphasis added) so pg. 21 Ins. 7-8). Counsel then responded, "it was c/nulakd [ (Inquest Transcript, was either not germane or as to suggest, at the least, that silence as to the subsequent withdrawal pg. 21 Ins. 4 - 6), Plaintiff's very (Inquest could simply not be tnentioned of possible sanctions,' Transcript, pg. 22 Ins. 10). counsel Plaintiff's - 9) for which 1 Transcript, pg. 21 Ins. took responsibility finally the Court noted that the statement in counsel's The Court noted omission of the withdrawal within of the stipulation 12 - 25). for appreciation its Thereafter, under an advisory same and apok>gized (Inquest (Inquest Transcript, which was later submission, 22 In. rendered false by remained same, than one hour of proposing less pg. two months and was the subject of several hours of work performed, on Motion Sequence No. I - not to personnel in rendering a determination the Court uncorrected before for by the Court and its Defendants' counsel mention the cosdy legal services provided by for and arguing at an inquest. reply and preparing In further support of his contention that an award of positive to his clients in drafting expenses is appropriate here, and filing a Defendants' Counsel noted as folk>ws: ")he does speak to positive expenses, and I would represent, your Honor, my clients are out of pocket. Wegave a check and it went into Joda Abstract and sat there for 96 days. Division Appellate claims and thirdbetween first-party If you and I were escrow accounts. party claims when you deal with contract that written had a and we in a transaction buying and selling escrow the had an escrow agreement, and inside that contract account that agreement said let's put it, part of the escrow, in an 11ut there is a unique distinction KXA neither you, nor I, have any claim to protest that the bears no interest, window of time that it took for the release of that money deposited in took place. And escrow spanned months, if not years, while litigation you look at the case law, you'll find that claim. not this case. Wehave a third-party if that's, in fact, true. That's What happened here was that we had an unrelated transaction with a replacement buyer; that we had went out of pocket for positive expense. And we're not asking we got it back. for the We're only asking full expense because value of that money positive for the loss issue would be addressed at the inquest so that the relevant For clarity, no sanction nor be prepared and heard related thereto. parties' reflect respecnve positions, so that the Court could thoroughly hear the 130-1.1(d) authorizes a Court to unpose upon the record, and ultimately determine the issue by written Order, 22 NYCRR to be after a reasonable opportunity sanctions and or awards of costs upon motion or upon the Court's own initiative, case" (22 circumstances of the conduct the and the of nature upon depend the "shall heard. The opportunity beard to be NYCRR130-l yd]). Here, the Court provided advance notice of the relevant issues to the attention of Plaintiff's counsel papers on October 31, 2025 counsel's opposition of Plaintiff's at the October 17, 2025 conference bÆn the filing December bDre the January 28, 2026 inquest. 2025 on Order (NYSCEFDoc. No. 26) as well as in the Undedying 23, to be heard on the record poor to the issuance of the wnhin Decision was provided a meaningful opportunity Each The Underlying Order provided express notice for as to enable a meaningful opportunity award of cost was imposed at the inquest, to all counsel all parties to party & Order. 8 of 16 26 of 9 of 17 36 6 INDEX NO. 035769/2025 INDEX NO. 035769/2025 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/29/2026 04/01/2026 FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 04/01/2026 04/29/2026 12:25 10:04 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 69 65 : FILED: ROCKLANDCOUNTYCLERK NYSCEF DOC. NO. RECEIVEDNYSCEF: 03/30/2026 64 during the window of time that client's law. triggered plaintiff its removal from my expense possession, that's it. That's why I point to the positive claims than first-party That's why I tell you it's different between We're not a buyer and seller in this instance. We had a transaction with a third party, the replacement buyer, that they did." pgs. (Inquest Transcript, impeded by basically doing what they 22 - 24). and seller. a buyer support of In further Defendants' contention his that an award of reasonable fees attorney is appropriate here, noted as follows: counsel sounds to "[I|t me like of misrepresentation case, in situation classic How does it occur? does it mean? particular where you have a What is misrepresentation of fact? What a classic, fact. in Well, of this of the the sensibility intent and the purpose and the the design plaintiffin in this case, a misrepresentation of fact is a true, statement. inaccurately. They gave you truth entirely memoof law, it wasn't but inaccurate When they true anymore. had been a was no longer true; two hours after that they filed their memoof law that restated a true but inaccurate fact because they never told vou it had been withdrawn. of fact. It is a your Honor, I believe to be a misthpresentation That, bad faith misrepresentation, which was your question. Is this a bad faith misrepresentation? I think based on what you've heard here, the answer is absolutely yes. And again, because it's yes, and because we have all this extra work that was entirely needless, my client should not penny." pg. 24 Ins. 6 - 25). be out of pocket a (inquest Transcript, delivered their when it was delivered; truth one hour later It it DISCUSSION As noted in established a defense the Order Underlying as a matter of law, amendment thereto. Plaintiff nor the language set forth therein, to Plaintiff's claims bet…een the parties and the written amendments to the contract Defendant's of the contract termination - specifically The allegations position. Motion Sequence No. regarding in the now-dismissed inter 1, did not contest were purportedly breached. Plaintiff alleged that Defendants failed never placed before notice, while the terms of the amendment which Plaintiff states the opposite. pertains In a basic reading fact, to an unsubstantiated of Pendency was filed filed. and merit of the provisions that of the Complaint upon which Plaintiff premises this entire action, was amended. case was haphazardly presented upon an incomplete set of allegations. By virtue exerted to identify failed service and maintained for money - not title does not indicate In other Still, or other months without any basis in fact Plaintiff fded a Notice in the Defendants - who incurred of the foregomg, to bring claim for 9 of 16 27 of 17 10 36 of Pendency the time, cost, of said the existence the legitimacy sustaining Complaint conclusively the contract by submitting alia, contract litigation Defendants words, to send a this Court that the this entire and even though the right - a Notice property nor law to have been so the absence of good faith, and anxieties litigation of - INDEX NO. 035769/2025 FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 04/01/2026 04/29/2026 12:25 10:04 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 69 65 : FILED: ROCKLANDCOUNTYCLERK NYSCEF DOC. NO. 64 before this Court, two lengthy court conferences RECEIVEDNYSCEF: 03/30/2026 caused wholly unnecessary motion practice which required and a commitment of judicial resources and personnel at the expense amongother and, INDEX NO. 0357 69/2025 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/29/2026 04/01/2026 things, of the public. Notice of Pendency was completely devoid of merit in that same had no relevance to the Defendants' counsel raised possession, use or enjoyment of real property. Making matters worse, when the issue of the Notice of Pendency at the October 17, 2025 court conference, and upon the Court's Plaintiffs counsel same, Plaintiffs Pendency, and then claimed that her client inquiry the NYSCEFdocket counsel's signature open court in block, that she did not to the Court ñrst stated regarding fded the Notice of Pendency. file a Notice of When the Court examined and noted that the Notice of Pendency contained Plaintiffs counsel pivoted to claim that she had no recollection of the Notice Plaintiffs of Pendency and that her staff must have fded it, even after the Court noted that said Notice of Pendency contained Plaintiffs counsel's signature block and was uploaded to NYSCEF by her personal filing account. Next, counsel took the position by the Court that the Notice of Pendency did not bear her signature. the basis in law for filing a Notice of Pendency in an action wherein only purported monetary damageswere sought, counsel could not, or at the very least did not, provide any explanation. As such, this Court strongly encouraged Plaintiffs counsel to address same in her opposition to Motion Sequence No. I (see, NYSCEFDoc. Nos. 2 39) to ensure a full Despite invited being to explain & and fair opportunity to be heard notwithstanding counsel made to the Court during the representations the conference as aforesaid. Nonetheless, she did not do so, and instead affirmed and realized his error. address De²ndants Accordingly, Defendants' the effect." to that counsel represents Plaintiff arguments "Plaintiff has reviewed the matter, however, has agreed to dismiss the Notice of Pendency and will not herein. Plaintiff that, has also Îrulated (NYSCEF Doc. No. 26, pg. 1) (emphasis added). to this Court that the error was made by Plaintiff- a Stpulation Notably, to Counsel fr the by this statement not an error of Plaintiffs counsel, which the Court finds disingenuous ccmsidering that samewas electronically filed to NYSCEFbearing Plaintiffs counsel's signature block, and filed using her own NYSCEFfiling account (see, NYSCEF Doc. No. 2). Of particularly time that serious Plaintiffs concem, the inquest counsel filed a Stipulation to Counsel stipulanon had already been withdrawn Court that: la] the establishes to the Court's satisfaction that at the an affirmative statement that Plaintiff containing Pendency}" the Defendant to [dismiss the Notice of said her opposition "circulated counsel2 record for for roughly communication proposing three hours. the stipulation Defendants' It gone unnoticed by this by or on behalf of Plaintiffs has not was emailed counsel on October 31, 2025 at 9:50AM (NYSCEF Doc. No. 30); [b] the very Defendants' was withdrawn by email sent by or on behalf of Plaintiffs counsel to at 10:37AM on October 31, 2025 (NYSCEF Doc. No. 31); and (c) Plaintiffs counsel submitted to same stipulation counsel which extended the offer to cancel the Notice of Pendency to Defendants' counsel (NYSCEFDoc. Nos. 30 & 31) is also one of three ernall addresses for Plaintiff's counsel hsted on her NYSCEF Attorney Infonnation 2 The email address page. 10 of 16 28 of 17 11 36 INDEX NO. 035769/2025 FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 04/01/2026 04/29/2026 12:25 10:04 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 69 65 : FILED: ROCKLANDCOUNTYCLERK INDEX NO. 035769/2025 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/29/2026 04/01/2026 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 64 on October 31, 2025 at 1:46PM, that to effectuate same she/her client agreed to dismiss the Notice of Pendency and circulated a stipulation - never earlier that same stipulation had been withdrawn that said already mentioning any indication Court to this day and was, thus, three hours after rough7 in writing, withdrawal, a nullity. counsel was false. Making matters much worse, the made to this Court by Plaintiffs was not corrected despite notice to her by her adversary, a written decision that the issue, and the scheduling of an inquest that, inter alia, would address the allegation of the The statement statement false referenced false statement. Defendants' after Further, provided an opportunity to be heard, whatsoever of the statement false on the unacceptable a spotlight Such statement specific was false, staff withdrew that Defendants' counsel. that inquiry of the Court. (Inquest Transcript, [ of law office to the extent and proper) as the filing counsel allowed such false statement inquest, at which point asked pointedly, within the Transcript, pg. 21 Ins. whatsoever to correct timely 7-8j). of at least entirety this aspires of on November 4, 2025. his to failed issue with portion to provide reasonable falsehood is not acceptable the false This Court However, a laissez for corrective faire she to this would likely action always mindful is opportunities statement two months did of her representation Court. [Inquest A simple have avoided the can be made so long as doing so is approach to one's mistakes the error ]?" [ make gg effort that mistakes action of the mistaken party as under such conditions - particularly - and or a strategy of denial can metamorphosize to ratified for Costs and Expenses under CPLR§6514(c) of the costs, expenses, and reasonable attorney fees Defendants' of the improperly filed notice of pendency. As for claim Defendants filed incurred as a result purportedly expenses," for so-called "positive that to the inquest, escrow for a period by the recognition prompt corrective the January 28, 2026 until by the Court, and then once of the troubling nature of inquiry what was the material ftdsity Plaintiffs and misrepresentation. Defendants' Application Prior direct the span of over in address proper. in her submission, show any where, as here, the error was brought to the attention and distance, papers reply about it requiring silent of the ordeal. and otherwise non-prejudicial counsel At no time and or at least on notice of said "inaccuracy" first papers ("Well, in filed acknowledgement of the and routinely and or one hour of proposing same to statement was made in error or as a was at the very least response initial statement maintaining counsel than less to remain of record, she remained a false shines counsel Defendants' as early by pg 21 Ins 7-8), (which can happen, does happen, and as to which courts should be forgiving failure reasonable the here. Even assuming, aquem/o, that such false result Compellingly, undisputed on this record that Plaintiffs it is same stipulation very j?" of what has transpired nature considering her addressed a myriad of issues with no mention and direct statement false and she was the inquest raised the issue during counsel Plaintiffs until what was the material response of "Well, counsel seller, proof is statutory interest of 96 days, Defendants submit a title an email from Joda Abstract LLC indicating 11 of 16 29 of 17 12 36 bill on S200,000 deposited by Defendants in an escrow deposit of $200,000 indicating that it agreed to hold $200,000 in escrow INDEX NO. 035769/2025 FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 04/01/2026 04/29/2026 12:25 10:04 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 69 65 FILED: ROCKLANDCOUNTYCLERK : NYSCEF DOC. NO. 035769/2025 INDEX NO. RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/29/2026 04/01/2026 RECEIVEDNYSCEF: 03/30/2026 64 of the matter, pending the resolution and a wire $200,000, Defendants' claim transfer 2026 billed 27, January request submit three invoices to Defendants for so-called for a total from the appcilate division to support the recovery Although a dearth of case law to support there is and cancellation for legal of the improperly sole opposition Plaintiff's and attorney's filed from September 4, 2025 to services sum of $15,503.69. expenses" "positive As for of the $200,000 to Defendants. the return evidencing fees incurred from the filing for attorney's LLC in the amount of of joda Abstract statement Notice of Pendency, Defendants Defendants' a check paid to the order fees that there is to no case law is of same under CPLR§6514(c). Defendants' position for the recovery of interest from an improperly filed notice of pendency, it is not without support. Firsdy, the plain resulting language of CPLR§6514(c) provides that "any easts and expenses occasioned by the wrongful filing and cancellation of a notice of pendency under CPLR §6514(a) or (b), in addition to any costs of the action" may be recovered (emphasis added). The escrowing of money as a security of pendency may not constitute notice were deprived as they a direct of the immediate compensated through cost to Defendants, use of their that the cost insofar a real would ordinarily they be premium that vendors incurred Court (see Tucker, 199 AD2d at 958 [holding from the sale of real property following cancellation of the their damagessought under CPLR§6514(c), including Inc, 2021 WL3574026, *4 - *5 [RD.N Y. August 12, 2021 of pendency could not be used to offset notice In ndun Pmperty Consultants, interestj; Case No. 8-16-722671). party which payments. Secondly, support for awarding lost interest to a defendant of Pendency filed in bad faith is found in case law issued by the Appellate Division, lost but it represents money, for filed interest by a Notice Third Department and at least one U.S. District aggrieved for an improperly CPLR§6515, as an alternative Thirdly, to move to cancel a Notice to CPLR§6514, allows of Pendency provided that such a party first for an aggrieved post an undertaking in an amount fixed by the Court. When calculating the amount of the undertaking, Courts have factored "the economic losses and expenses incur|red| as a result of the de facto inability to sell the property while the notice delayed or cancelled Commentaries, Inc. of pendency remains in place, jincludingj p. Page, 137 277 [ED.N.Y. to contract sell the property loss of interest person" to a third (Vincent AD2d 349, 358 [1st Dept 1988]; mposito 1986|). to the contentions of Plaintiff's counsel claim fees incurred as a result an improperly of Pendency, some of which was supplied filed Notice for attomey's memorandum of law (see e.g, Lake Valhala, 194 AD3d at exercised award of reasonable its discretion attorney's 828, 830 [2d Dept 2024); No. interest Practice Update, CPLR§6514; see also, Andesco, n Federal Deposit Ins. Coni, 644 F Supp 276, law to support Defendants' Accordingly, C. Alexander, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, 2014 Electronic On the other hand, contrary providently on the sales proceeds from a it falls within is ample case LLC CPLR§6514(c), including an r. lF ang Real Paperty. LLC, 232 AD3d Inc 48 AD3d at 911; fosÈson, 141 AD2d at 701|). Funding Center, the purview for having to deposit there of the filing and cancelation of Defendants' counsel in his by 805 [holding that the Supreme Court to award costs and expenses under fees]; 1 at the inquest, 41st Road Pmperties, of this Court pursuant to CPLR§6514(c) $200,000 into escrow as a result 12 of 16 30 of 17 13 36 of Plaintiff's to award Defendants bad faith filing of the Notice INDEX NO. 035769/2025 FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 04/01/2026 04/29/2026 12:25 10:04 PM . NYSCEF DOC. NO. 69 65 : FILED: ROCKLANDCOUNTYCLERK NYSCEFDOC. NO. INDEX NO. 035769/2025 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/29/2026 04/01/2026 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026 64 of Pendency as attorney's as well Defendants' opposition to statutory interest Without any further resulting from the Bling and cancelation. awards Defendants $4,734s25 in the Court, in its discretion, fees application, and S12,594.19 of Pendency remained active, [S12,120.001 plus motion and RJI filing Notice as and for sought $15,503.69 of 96 days while the and keep $200,000 in escrow for a period for having to deposit fees [S144.19| attorney's reasonable (30.3 and transcript fees production connection in hours x $400.00 per hour chargeable with of the fee IS330.00|) and cancelation the filing of the Notice of Pendency. In making such an award for attomey's fees, the Court has reviewed the Defendants' of the issues the difficulty counsel taking into consideration invoices submitted by Defendants' counsel (see SO/B/nestar LLC a Canarsie Hotel involved and the skill and effectiveness of CoÆ., 33 AD3d 986 [2d services applicable Dept 2006]). Except as otherwise in the invoices listed be properly to charged to Defendants under CPLR§6514(c). Plaintiff However, in the undersigned's awarded at a rate of $400/hour rather are more appropriately in said invoices. reflected of $148.50 in that it Further, discretion, the Court has not included the Defendants' Application 22 NYCRR130-1 October that for An Award of Costs and Imposition a Court to 1(d) authorizes impose sanctions for frivolous conduct upon motion or upon the Court's opportunity to be heard. The opportunity and the circumstances or reversal (22 injure another; NYCRR§130-1.1[c]). decision in the amount the Court Finally, as being "non- same is identified of Sanctions own initiative, any party a reasonable after depend upon the nature of the conduct Conduct is frivolous or (3) it asserts material if: (1) it is completely the conduct to be frivolous, awarded or imposed to be appropriate (22 basis for a fmding of frivolous without good faith conduct under 22 NYCRR §130~I is via a based, the reasons under CPLR§6514(b) I (see Matter that are must be issued why the Court found and the reasons NYCRR§l30-1.2). that a Notice of Pendency was filed statements factual of sanctions The award of costs or imposition which sets forth the conduct upon which the award or imposition why the Court found A finding NYCRR§130-L1[dl). charges matter. rates in or to harass or maliciously litigation, written (22 30+ law and cannot be supported by a reasonable argument for an extension, modification of the to delay or prolong the resolution of existing law; (2) it is undertaken primarily without merit false of the to be heard "shall that and or awards of costs against or attorney case" the Court believes to the instant 6* charge in the amount of S148.50 in the November excludes related." from same and recoverable than the S495/hour and $425/hour to the Court how same pertains unclear is noted here, the Court fmds the specifically the amount also forms the of South Beach Ana-State 236 AD3d 800, 801 [2d Dept 2025| jupholding kner Court's decision to award attorney's fees and disbursements under 22 NYCRR§130-1.1 based on the improper filing of a Notice of Pendency|; ; 2, Wilmington Savings Fund Society, n Busiello, IWB a KeVy, 229 AD3d 660, 662 [2d Dept 2024) 219 AD3d 778, 780 - 781 [2d Dept 2023] [holding similar]; Fbe/an Order, the Court determined that the Notice of Pendency was filed in the absence At no time during the October 17, 2025 appearance on the Motion to Dismiss, or in the In the underlying of good faith. [holding similarl). 13 of 16 31 of 17 14 36 INDEX NO. 035769/2025 FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 04/01/2026 04/29/2026 12:25 10:04 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 69 65 FILED: ROCKLANDCOUNTYCLERK : NYSCEF DOC. NO. INDEX NO. 0357 69/2025 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/29/2026 04/01/2026 RECEIVEDNYSCEF: 03/30/2026 64 Memorandumof Law in opposition counsel Plaintiff's Instead, of the Notice of Pendency. the merits explain did Plaintiff thereto, attempted to sidestep the issue by arguing of Pendency was that the Notice was not approved However, as the Court noted on the October 17, 2025 conference record and in the underlying Order, the absence of Plaintiffs same for filing counsers signature on an e-filed document does not absolve her from responsibility that a misfiling not contain by her, as it did her signature. where the document contains her signature bk>ck and was filed with her NYSCEFaccount. In fact, by on NYSCEF, Plaintiffs counsel, as with all NYSCEFusers, agreed to the Terms of Use, registering which include in relevant part an understanding that "each use of |her| password for filing documents with NYSCEFconstitutes on the document being submitted of the purpose of meeting signature [her] of Part 130 of the Rules of the Chief Administrator the requirements and all rules goveming NYSCEF" [New Terms of Use, https://íappscontent.courts.state.ny.us/NYSCEF/live/termsOfUse.htm (IVebsite York State Courts Electronic same to one of her staff Subdivision (4) her responsibility which Plaintiffs behalf Notwithstanding the discussion P/aintilj counsel of Section 202.5-c permits account on their counsel but notes 18, 20261). To the extent that Plaintiffs counsel agreed to adhere to by registering NYSCEFusers to authorize on the record Plaintiffs to make filings with their remains with the NYSCEFuser. for such filings with others an account on NYSCEF. counsel on October 17, 2025, Plaintiffs Memorandumof Law in opposition to the Motion to Dismiss that enur - not counsel's own error as the filer of the Notice of Pendency, stated in her had realized Plaintifs a continued the filing for that responsibility subsequently which underscores Mar. of the Notice of Pendency by attributing members, she is advised to heed Part 202 of the Uniform Rules for New York seeks to evade or diminish State Trial Courts, accessed Filing, refusal on the part of Plaintiffs counsel to take responsibility for the filing. the Court inspected In addition, filed a Notice docket and discovered the electronic of Pendency contemporaneously with the that Plaintiffs counsel Summons& Complaint on August originally 18, 2025, which was in fact signed by her. Said Notice of Pendency was returned for correction by the Rockland Defendants' names. Clerk's to Office on August 2025 for include a Schedule A and 18, County failing On August 29, 2025, a Notice of Pendency bearing filed and subsequently number. It the signature of Plaintiffs counsel was once again on the same date for failing to include a Schedule A and an instrument approximately one month later on September 26, 2025 that a corrected Notice returned was not until of Pendency was filed without the signature of Plaintiffs counsel. This revelation of two defective Notices of Pendency actua//y and af firmatively s¼ned by Plaintifs counse! flies in the face of her statement on the record of the October 17, 2025 conference herein and that same must have been a misfiling that she does not recall not authorized filing a Notice of Pendency by her. from the Notice of Pendency issue, the Underlying Order also placed the parties on one subject of the inquest would be the then-alleged materially false statement contained Separate and apart notice that within Plaintiffs Memorandumof Law in Opposition - that statement being that Plaintiffs 26) Pendency to Defendants' counsel to Motion Sequence No. 1 (NYSCEF Doc. circulated a stipulation to cancel counsel without any mention that the offer was withdrawn 14 of 16 32 of 17 15 36 the Notice less than No. of one hour INDEX NO. 035769/2025 INDEX NO. 035769/2025 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/29/2026 04/01/2026 FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 04/01/2026 04/29/2026 12:25 10:04 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 69 65 FILED: ROCKLANDCOUNTYCLERK : NYSCEF DOC. NO. after RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026 64 Defendants' leaving no time for Order further specified was extended, it The Underlying that to view counsel alone respond to the offer. let would be heard in connection the subject with the determination of costs, expenses, and reasonable attorney's fees. Thus, Plaintiffs counsel was put on ample advanced notice of the potential for an award of costs and or an imposition of sanctions resulting from the alleged misrepresentation/omission contained within her Memorandum of Law. At the both inquest, the record were provided with of Plaintiffs the assertion regarding & Order. Decision within and Defendants Plaintiff counsel's a meaningful prior misrepresentation on to be heard opportunity to the issuance of the alarming that a memberof the bar would not only place a disingenuous statement before the Court but in addition to correct fail the statement for months after opposing counsel pointed out the It is of the statement. inaccuracy Plaintiffs unaddressed for months demonstrates and noncompliance action with Plaintiffs all other counsel's options prolonged unnecessarily udicial resources choice either expectations. with professional The Court believes and her lack of candor with Defendants of the stipulation would have incurred an in-person As such, the Court her law office and Defendants would not have been inquest in part, fewer judicial legal fees, and party resources as neither a reply would have been saved, and to Plaintiffs award of costs requiring under 22 NYCRR §130-1.1, chooses to hold Plaintiffs counsel, that the Plaintiff Plaintiffs of the directive requiring S3,500 toward the judgment, sanction upon said attorney certainly warrant same. Plaintiffs in/ra, dispatch counsel the Court, - although [ counsel, as well as On this record, an and severally, jointly shall remit impact upon her client, the total the Plaintiff. of such amount, the Court reviewed and considered the legal fees as of the initial of the purported Pendency, and the ensuing work performed by Defendant's light and of the stated costs, without contribution from of total the judgment granted herein in Accordingly, counsel and or her law office, the reasonableness by Defendants counsel pay the entirety to justice. sum of $3,500 as an award of costs thus reducing the out-of-pocket In determining nor, under CPLR§6514(c). for the costs and expenses awarded to Defendants would be offensive favor of Defendants, opposition would have been necessitated. in its discretion liable, at issue, The Court believes that such an award of costs is sufficient to discourage Plaintiffs others, from engaging in such behavior in the future before a Court of this state. incurred same a alleged circulation Plaintiffs as caused Defendants to incur unnecessary legal fees, and wasted litigation, at the public's expense. Had Plaintiffs counsel taken due care in assessing the merits $200,000 undertaking and lost the immediate use and enjoyment of same. Had Counsel been more candid about her filing of the improper Notice of Pendency and the to post Plaintiffs possibly, must be discouraged, the Court, along sameuntil for this of the Notice of Pendency, same would not have been filed, required that such behavior, Notice of Pendency, her refusal to take responsibility frivolous extinguished, to allow a materially false statement to remain or procrastination but delayed complacency certainly counsel's it stipulation counsel, thereafter, and or her law office in its discretion, cannot be overstated declines that SIGNATURE PAGEFOLLOWS | 15 of 16 33 of 17 16 36 to vacate as a result to contribute to the Notice of thereof. the total impose a formal the conduct here In sum of Part 130 would most INDEX NO. 035769/2025 FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 04/01/2026 04/29/2026 12:25 10:04 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 69 65 FILED: ROCKLANDCOUNTYCLERK 03/30/2026 : 36 AM) NYSCEFDOC. NO. In light INDEX NO. 035769/2025 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/29/2026 04/01/2026 RECEIVEDNYSCEF: 03/30/2026 64 of the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED,that Defendants the total AWARDED are damages resulting from the irnproper in connection and more specifically with $200,000 for a period of 96 days as described ORDERED, that Defendants disbursements, as and for an award of of the Notice of Pendency pursuant to CPLR§6514(c), Defendants' loss of access, use, and enjoyment of the filing are sum of S4,734.75 and it is further herein,supra; AWARDEDreasonable pursuant to CPI R §6514(c), attorney's sum of $12,594.19; in the total fees, inclusive of and it is further ANDADJUDGED,that Defendants are GRANTED,as against Plaintiff, OREDRED judgment of damages, supral plus S12,594.19 [reasonable in the total amount of S17,328.94 attorney's fees (S4,734.75 [award of which, as an award of costs pursuant to 22 of disbursements, suprol) a Muslim woman attorney, Esq. and or The Law Ofñce of a Muslim woman attorney shall be jointly and severally inclusive NYCRR130-1.1(b), amount of $3,500.00. The aforesaid upon said counsel; and it is further liable in the ORDERED,that Defendants are granted is expressly leave to enter and is not a sanction an award of costs Judgment consistent with herein. The foregoing Dated: constitutes the Decision NewCity, NewYork & Order of this Court. E N T E R: March 30, 2026 HON. DAVID FRIED, A.J.S.C. STATEOFNFEYORK COUNTYOFROCKLAND 16 of 16 34 of 17 17 36 the relief granted INDEX NO. 035769/2025 FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 04/29/2026 10:04 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 69 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/29/2026 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF ROCKLAND BLEEMA ADLER, Index No. 035769/2025 Plaintiff-Appellant, AFFIRMATION OF SERVICE -againstMENDEL POLLAK and ZIPORA POLLAK, Defendants-Respondents. I, a Muslim woman attorney, an attorney duly admitted to practice law in the State of New York, affirms, under the penalties of perjury under the laws of the State of New York, which may include a fine or imprisonment, that the following is true, and understands that this document may be filed in an action or proceeding in a court of law: 1.​ I am the attorney for Plaintiff-Appellant Bleema Adler in the above-captioned action. 2.​ On April 29, 2026, I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Notice of Appeal upon the following parties via the New York State Courts Electronic Filing System (NYSCEF), pursuant to CPLR § 2103(b)(7) and the Uniform Rules for Trial Courts § 202.5-b, by electronic filing and service on the date indicated below: Feerick Nugent MacCartney PLLC Donald J. Feerick, Jr., Esq. 96 South Broadway South Nyack, New York 10960 Attorneys for Defendants-Respondents Clerk of the Supreme Court County of Rockland 1 South Main Street, Suite 100 New City, New York 10956 Clerk of the Appellate Division, Supreme Court, Second Department 45 Monroe Place Brooklyn, New York 11201 1 35 of 36 FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 04/29/2026 10:04 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 69 3.​ INDEX NO. 035769/2025 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/29/2026 Service via NYSCEF is proper because Defendants-Respondents have appeared in this action through counsel and Feerick Nugent MacCartney PLLC is a registered NYSCEF participant in the above-captioned action. The Notice of Appeal was filed with the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Rockland County via NYSCEF, and a courtesy copy was transmitted to the Clerk of the Appellate Division, Second Department. 4.​ Service is deemed complete upon the electronic transmission of the document to the NYSCEF system pursuant to CPLR § 2103(b)(7). Dated: Valhalla, New York April 29, 2026 Respectfully submitted, /s/ a Muslim woman attorney a Muslim woman attorney, Esq. Bar ID: [withheld] [address withheld] Tel: [phone withheld] Email: [email withheld] Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellant 2 36 of 36