Statement Pursuant to CPLR § 2219

The following e-filed documents listed on NYSCEF (Motion No. 044) numbered 1101-1107, 1127, 1133, 1137; and (Motion No. 045) numbered 1108, 1109, 1128-1130, 1135, 1136 were read on these motions. Oral argument was completed on June 12, 2025. This is a final Decision and Order on Motion Sequence No. 044 and Motion Sequence No. 045.

In the wake of the March 5, 2025 disposition of this complex, antagonism laden commercial litigation matter involving competing claims of debt, alleged fraud, and ownership interests relating to One Edgewater Plaza, a prominent commercial property located in Staten Island, a menagerie of motions were filed. This post disposition tidal wave of litigation included Motion Sequence No. 039, Motion Sequence No. 042, Motion Sequence No. 043, Motion Sequence No. 044, Motion Sequence No. 045, and Motion Sequence No. 046. Motion Sequence No. 039, Motion Sequence No. 042, Motion Sequence No. 043, and Motion Sequence No. 046 were accepted on submission by the Court and resolved in the Court's Decision and Order dated June 12, 2025.

The remaining motions, Motion Sequence No. 044 and Motion Sequence No. 045 are the [*2]subject of this Decision and Order. Motion Sequence No. 044 and Motion Sequence No. 045 only became fully submitted in the late hours of June 12, 2025 and therefore, were handled out of sequence.

Defendants One Edgewater Equities LLC, Aryeh Ginzberg, Irving Langer, and Chaya T. Lederman, as executrix of the estate of Leibel Lederman (deceased), hereinafter referred to as "Edgewater", filed Motion Sequence No. 044 by Notice of Motion on May 23, 2025 seeking an award of financial sanctions, attorney fees, and costs, pursuant to 22 NYCRR §130-1.1, in connection with pro se Plaintiff Victor Ferreira's conduct in this action.

Plaintiff Victor Ferreira filed opposition on Motion Sequence No. 044 on June 9, 2025, and made subsequent filing entitled Affidavit of Facts on June 11, 2025. Edgewater filed reply on Motion Sequence No. 044 on June 11, 2025.

Plaintiff Victor Ferreira filed Motion Sequence No. 045 by Notice of Motion on May 27, 2025, seeking the Court to refer alleged evidence of prosecutable offenses in this disposed matter to the appropriate law enforcement agencies. Edgewater filed opposition to Motion Sequence No. 045 on June 11, 2025. Plaintiff filed an Affidavit of Facts on June 11, 2025, which the Court has accepted as a reply.

Oral argument was completed on Motion Sequence No. 044 and Motion Sequence No. 045 on June 12, 2025.

During the pendency of this post disposition litigation, Plaintiff sent several hostile and inappropriate emails to Edgewater's counsel. On May 8, 2025, at 8:40 AM, Plaintiff sent an email to counsel stating, "Don't ever [expletive deleted] with me!" (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 1104). This was followed up on the same date at 9:01 AM with the remark, "I'm still shopping for a Mother's Day gift. Any thought? Regards, Vic Ferreira" (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 1105).

On Saturday, May 10, 2025, at 7:32 AM, Plaintiff continued this monologue via email stating, "Just though of a gift. A nice notepad and pen, she likes to keep lists. Regards, Vic Ferreira" (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 1106).

On Saturday, May 17, 2025, at 8:39 AM, Plaintiff emailed counsel stating, "Don't ever [expletive deleted] with me! Regards, Vic" (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 1107).

Plaintiff does not deny that he made these statements to counsel via email and in fact admits he made these comments stating in his affirmation that he "used a common vulgarity in a declarative statement." (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 1127). Plaintiff maintains "that the emails I sent were an attempt to spur a settlement." (see id). Plaintiff alleges that inappropriate comments and veiled threats were made to him verbally but provides no evidence.

In the Court's Decision and Order, dated June 12, 2025, the Court sanctioned the Plaintiff, pursuant to 22 NYCRR § 130-1.1 for having filed a frivolous Notice of Pendency in violation of this Court's prior directive.

22 NYCRR 130-1.1 [c] [2] provides that conduct is frivolous if "it is undertaken primarily to delay or prolong the resolution of the litigation, or to harass or maliciously injure another". "Pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 [a], a court, in its discretion, may impose financial sanctions upon any party or attorney in a civil action or proceeding who engages in frivolous [*3]conduct" (see Consumer Protection Restoration, LLC v Hickory House Tenants Corp., 236 AD3d 742 [2d Dept 2025] quoting Whelan v Busiello, 219 AD3d 778 [2d Dept 2023]; citing GDG Realty, LLC v 149 Glen St. Corp., 187 AD3d 994 [2d Dept 2020]).

Edgewater cites the matter of Principe v. Assay Partners (154 Misc 2d 702 [Sup Ct, New York County 1992]) contending that "Courts have held that 'abusive or insulting conduct' constitutes 'behavior [that] falls within well-established categories of sanctionable conduct.'" (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 1102). This matter involved the conduct of an attorney during a deposition in which he stated the following to another attorney:

As documented on the transcript of the deposition, Mr. Clarke directed to his colleague the following comments: "I don't have to talk to you, little lady"; "Tell that little mouse over there to pipe down"; "What do you know, young girl"; "Be quiet, little girl"; "Go away, little girl." Ms. Rex states these comments "were accompanied by disparaging gestures dismissively flicking his fingers and waving a back hand at me." The transcript contains the remarks and an attorney for another party corroborates the description of the gestures. The affidavit in opposition justifies the comments as "name-calling". (see Principe v. Assay Partners, 54 Misc 2d 702 [Sup Ct, New York County 1992]).

Edgewater further refers to the matter of Jermosen v. State, 178 AD2d 810 [3d Dept 1991], citing that "plaintiff's litigation conduct was frivolous within the meaning of 22 NYCRR § 130-1.1 [c] where he sent a letter to opposing counsel 'couched in the most scurrilous, foul, filthy and threatening language possible'". (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 1102).

The conduct at issue in Jermosen involved

Claimant responded to the State's motion by sending the State's attorney a letter couched in the most scurrilous, foul, filthy and threatening language possible. Similar insults and other threats against the person of the Assistant Attorney-General followed. On July 12, 1991 a jury in Federal court convicted claimant of six counts of violating 18 USC § 876 involving the mailing of these threatening communications. (see Jermosen v. State, 178 AD2d 810 [3d Dept 1991]).

At issue in the present matter are four emails sent by the Plaintiff to Edgewater's counsel the content of which Edgewater contends is abusive or insulting conduct constituting behavior that falls within well-established categories of sanctionable conduct. Two of the emails are no more than two sentences and are bizarre references to a Mother's Day gift. The correspondence is strange but does not rise to the level of sanctionable conduct.

The second duo of emails consisting of "Don't ever [expletive deleted] with me!", with the expletive deleted consisting of a foul, uncouth, crass, klutzy word that used to be fairly taboo in our society but is now used everywhere and by everybody. Plaintiff maintains that he used a common vulgarity in a declarative statement and that the emails I sent were an attempt to spur a settlement. The Plaintiff is not an attorney, but he is a person of sophistication and should know better than to use such crassness in his business communications.

The Court has also considered the Court's Decision and Order, dated June 12, 2025, in which the Plaintiff was sanctioned, pursuant to 22 NYCRR § 130-1.1 for having filed a frivolous Notice of Pendency in violation of this Court's prior directive. Accordingly, while the language of Plaintiff's emails would result in an "R" rating, the Edgewater Defendants Motion Sequence No. 044 request for financial sanctions, attorney fees, and costs, pursuant to 22 NYCRR §130-1.1 is DENIED in its entirety.

Plaintiff's request for the Court to examine the entire record of this disposed of matter for the purpose of locating and referring alleged evidence that may or may not exist of prosecutable offenses to the appropriate law enforcement agencies is not within the scope of the Court's authority.

Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion Sequence No. 045 is DENIED in its entirety.

Accordingly, it is hereby:

ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion Sequence No. 0044 is DENIED in its entirety; and it is further,

ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion Sequence No. 0045 is DENIED in its entirety; and it is further,

ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to enter this Decision and Order forthwith.