• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Plaintiff's presentation to New York County Supreme Court for $49 million in default claims

Plaintiff's presentation to New York County Supreme Court for $49 million in default claims



Powerpoint to supplement an oral argument for Plaintiff's complaint against several defendants including New York University, a private wealthy New York not-for-profit corporation which has an ...

Powerpoint to supplement an oral argument for Plaintiff's complaint against several defendants including New York University, a private wealthy New York not-for-profit corporation which has an endowment approaching $3 billion.

Plaintiff's claims include defamation per se, assault, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, negligence, freedom of speech violations, unjust enrichment, lack of good faith and fair dealing, front pay.

Plaintiff was expelled unjustly from an NYU affiliate, The School of Continuing Professional Studies, lost his health insurance, lost $80,000 of money spend on his education, and was literally "forced" out of NYU buildings on two occasions. This while Plaintiff maintained a exemplary track record while at the School, with a 3.74 GPA. No refund, no apology, and no justice.

Why? Plaintiff filed a lawsuit to find out....and get the justice he deserves....



Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



0 Embeds 0

No embeds



Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Plaintiff's presentation to New York County Supreme Court for $49 million in default claims Plaintiff's presentation to New York County Supreme Court for $49 million in default claims Presentation Transcript

    • Supreme Court of the State of New York Initial Appearance Date The Honourable Joan Madden Justice, Supreme Court of the State of New York New York County 31 July 2013 150622/2013 $US 49 million default claims !1
    • Plaintiffs acting pro se have unyielding Court support • CPLR 3026: "...pleadings liberally construed....defects shall be ignored..." • "Leon v. Martinez: "...facts alleged in complaint as true....benefit of every possible favorable inference.....adequately alleged for survival purposes..." • CPLR 2001: "....mistake, omission, defect, or irregularity shall be disregarded...." • CPLR 305(c): Plaintiff will correct his submissions should the Court direct him to do so [i.e. to amend to file under Article 78] !2
    • Disposal of Motion to Dismiss with prejudice guaranteed • No affidavit submitted by anyone with direct personal knowledge by defense (Mitchell v. Cantor) • Court must focus on "questions of law" and "undisputed facts" yet there are too many "questions and disputes" to grant dismissal at this juncture -- including Kilson's perjury • If only one potentially-valid claim exists, Plaintiff's case must move forward without delay • Defense has once change at dismissal as per CPLR 3211(a) -- and has failed without doubt in its attempt !3
    • Plaintiff has no statute of limitations burden • CPLR 3211(a)(5): there has been no permanent and legal expulsion of Plaintiff from NYU for any valid reason • Plaintiff maintains currently his NYU ID (which was validated recently by NYU card services) • Plaintiff maintains access to NYU systems, including University email access • Defense has failed to prove without doubt that any of the assertions classified as defamation per se by Plaintiff are true (third party oral & written communications stating as fact that Plaintiff is a criminal / diseased miscreant) • CPLR 215: ONE YEAR statute of limitations for assault, battery, false imprisonment, libel, slander, special damages for false words, privacy violations, etc. regardless !4
    • Plaintiff's individual causes of action are all valid • CPLR 3211(a)(7): Court's function at this juncture only to understand "substance" of Plaintiff's varied causes of action • Court must take all factual allegations of Plaintiff as honestly portrayed • Court must draw all reasonable inferences in Plaintiff's favor • Defense cannot bundle all causes of action under fallacious "Article 78 proceeding" statute of limitations, as each specifically-delineated cause has own statute of limitations • Settlement negotiations are ongoing with NYU Office of the General Counsel ("OGC") -- second defense settlement offer "The Second Offer" effective 28 June 2013 in Plaintiff's possession: tacit admission of culpability, with Court facilitation of commercial resolution required !5
    • Plaintiff victim of attempted murder • Plaintiff's envisioned future of completing successfully his Masters in Management & Systems and enhancing his professional stature in the field of technology has been illegally and inappropriately interrupted -- for almost one year! • Court intervention required to facilitate resolution & settlement of each and every claim, in the sum certain total of $US49 million (default against NYU & NYU-SCPS defendants only) !6
    • Plaintiff victim of Kilson's ongoing fraud • Kilson is a lawyer (NY #1638501) and not a successfully- educated or trained mental health professional • Kilson understands her responsibilities regarding perjury, given her impressive legal education and professional experiences • Kilson makes mental health diagnoses regarding Plaintiff in her Court submissions ("....emotional instability.....paranoid.....erratic behavior...histrionic personality disorder....") which compounds Plaintiff's injuries !7
    • Substantiated tort claims • Assault • Defamation per se • Negligence • Intentional infliction of emotional distress !8
    • Substantiated equity claims • Unjust enrichment • "Front pay" / lack of good faith / fair dealing !9
    • Plaintiff's bona fides • BS in Economics from Cornell University (Dean's List) • MBA in Finance from the Wharton School • CFA Charterholder • Passed FSOT written exam (the public sector's most arduous test for the Department of State) • Investment banking professional with global on-the-ground work and living expertise • Close to distinction-level performance at NYU (3.74 GPA after 18 credits) in Master of Science Program !10
    • Cornerstones of Plaintiff's argument • There is absolutely not one shred of proof which can show that the mistreatment of Plaintiff, which resulted in this case being filed, was warranted at all -- and the actions, inactions, and communications of defendants "shock the conscious" of any reasonable person without doubt • Plaintiff visited "NYU Wellness" on 14 August 2012 to seek help for other members of the NYU community for health and safety reasons and, as a result, became a victim of the defendants' malicious and damaging "trading places" strategy • Plaintiff was in ongoing contact with Wellness for several weeks thereafter • Plaintiff maintains two positive recommendations by NYU professors, Anne Ferraro and Edward Rogoff, and has an exemplary track record at NYU !11
    • Serious accusations and demands....with no specifics • What were defendants' grave concerns about Plaintiff's behavior? • What did Plaintiff do "wrong"? • Why was Plaintiff assaulted and coerced into an NYU public safety vehicle by NYU employees on 4 September 2012, in a criminal show of behaviour by NYU employees? • What of Plaintiff's "communications" caused Di Lorenzo to demand Plaintiff to "STOP COMMUNICATING" in an email entitled "Cease & Desist!" • Initial NYU-SCPS settlement offer ("First Offer") effective 24 October 2012 for reimbursement of all costs + $US15,000 in damages shows progress, but no resolution yet !12
    • No due process for Plaintiff • Defendants have not followed any proscribed procedures at SCPS or NYU with regards to Plaintiff's mistreatment to this day: • NYU SCPS School-wide Academic Policies & Procedures state under "Student Conduct Beyond Academic Integrity" a specific clearly-defined procedure for NYU to follow • Plaintiff's efforts have ranged from communicating about conflict resolution with professors to administrators to the Board of Trustees -- with no informal or formal hearings being granted to Plaintiff or any in-person meetings arranged or agreed • No evidence of any "administrative order" as per CPLR 7802 which Kilson asserts • NYU Code of Ethical Conduct violations (Sections I, II, III, VI, X, XII) • NYU Bylaws Section 76: Student Discipline and Section 13: Powers; duty to students, negligence, bad faith, lack of fair dealing !13
    • This is about the future of the US Educational System • Plaintiff's complaint to the Middle States Commission on Higher Education dated 31 October 2012 • Notification to the NYC Mayor's Office of Adult Education / Office of Human Capital Management on 28 January 2013 • Notification to the US Secretary of Education Duncan on 5 February 2013 !14
    • Relevant Casework • Kickertz: "....so disproportionate to the offense, in the light of all the circumstances, as to be shocking to one's sense of fairness....we feel compelled to express our view that even if NYU had substantially complied.....own guidelines and policies....would find...penalty of expulsion shocks one's sense of fairness..." • Olsson: "....whether defendants acted in good faith in their dealings with students..." • Rosenthal: "....Courts.....will disturb [university decisions] only if their actions are arbitrary, irrational, or in bad faith..." !15
    • Barnes: precedent for "Piercing the Corporate Veil" • "...qualified immunity offers complete protection....officials sued....as long as conduct violates no clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known..." • "....right to process before [plaintiff] was removed...due process requires notice and some opportunity for hearing before a student...is expelled..." • "....[student] making satisfactory academic progress and obeying the rules....has a legitimate claim of entitlement to continued enrollment..." • RESULT: University President Zaccari ordered to pay damages himself -- directly, as a bad actor !16
    • Special attention to defamation per se claims • "...the Court will examine the particular words as well as the entire communication...judged based on the effect on the average reader..." • "...under NY law....defamatory per se when charging a plaintiff with a serious crime, stating false facts which injure plaintiff in business, trade, profession....charging plaintiff has some loathsome physical or mental disease..." • Liberman: "....slander...actionable....plaintiff suffers special damage (loss of something having economic or pecuniary value)...." • Plaintiff has defeated defendants' qualified privilege as the statements made were both 1) false and 2) motivated by malice, spite, and ill-will • NYU-SCPS law required Plaintiff be provided with any complaint [the cause of the defamation per se and other causes of action] within two (2) days of occurrence (i.e. to have the Court compel the defendants under CPLP 3102(c)) !17
    • Six-point test for defamation per se under Albert • Defamatory statements of fact: "...reasonably susceptible of defamatory connotation....may induce evil opinion in minds of right-thinking persons...." • Falsity: "...a rational juror could conclude....statements were untrue..." • Publication under NY law: "...published as soon as it is read by anyone else....in New York, this rule applies even to statements made by one employee to another...." • Fault: "....publisher acted in a grossly irresponsible manner without due consideration...followed by responsible parties..." • Special harm or actionability per se: "....special harm means the loss of something having economic or pecuniary value....pleading and proof of special harm is unnecessary...." • Privilege: "...defendant forfeits qualified privilege by making a false, defamatory statement with malice of either common law or constitutional variety...Plaintiff need only establish 'actual malice' by preponderance of the evidence !18
    • Default is certain via cross motion • Defendants NYU and NYU-SCPS failed to enter their reply to Plaintiff's good and true verified complaint within the required twenty-day (20) timeframe via NYSCEF as per CPLR 3215 • Defendants NYU and NYU-SCPS accepted service on 29 January 2013 and were required to answer by 18 February 2013 -- but failed with purposeful effect to do so • Default is in the sum certain total of $US49 million and therefore the Court has the ability to enter judgment and entry as per CPLR 3215(a) • Plaintiff respectfully requests the Court to dispose of defendants' motion to dismiss with prejudice and grant Plaintiff's cross motion for default, which would result in justice being served in this matter !19
    • Delineation of claims: $US49 million • Defamation per se: $US7,500,000 • Assault: $US750,000 • Emotional distress: $US1,000,000 • False imprisonment: $US750,000 • Negligence: $US2,500,000 • Freedom of speech: $US1,500,000 • Unjust enrichment: $US20,000,000 • Front pay/good faith/fair dealing: $US5,000,000 • TOTAL COMPENSATORY: $US39,000,000 • Punitive damages: $US10,000,000 !20