Opinion
Index No. 537601/2022Motion Seq. Nos. 111213Cal Nos. 2122NYSCEF Doc. No. 727
01-03-2024
ZURAB KAKUSHADZE, Plaintiff, v. 1913 AVENUE Z REALTY, LLC, STACEY AUSTEIN, LANCE AUSTEIN, Defendants.
Unpublished Opinion
DECISION & ORDER
HON. RUPERT V. BARRY, A.J.S.C.
Recitation, as required by CPLR 2219 (a), to be considered in the review of Petitioner ZURAB KAKUSHADZE's (hereafter "Petitioner") order to show cause pursuant to CPLR 2214, in which Petitioner alleged that he was harassed by Defendants' Counsel GREGORY SOUMAS (hereafter "Defendants Counsel') (Motion Seq. No.: 11); Defendants Counsel's motion for sanctions against Petitioner (Motion Seq. No.: 12) 373-76; 388; 609-663, and Defendants Counsel's cross- motion seeking to enjoin Petitioner from e-mailing Defendants Counsel about non-related matters and e-filing non-related matters related to the case (Motion Seq. No.: 13) NYSCEF Doc. Nos: 379, 380-386; 390-91; 392-428.
Petitioner alleges that he was harassed by Defendants Counsel and fded an order to show cause seeking to have Defendants Counsel restrain from harassing him. Petitioner alleges that Defendants Counsel has harassed him in the following ways: stalking him around the courthouse, taking pictures of Petitioner in the courtroom without his consent; calling and hanging up on Petitioner; and e-fding non-related cases involving Petitioner.
Petitioner also seeks to enjoin Defendants Counsel from e-fding unredacted documents that obtains his personal indefinable information, and an order directing the Kings County Motion Support Office to block such information (Motion Seq. No.:l 1).
Defendants Counsel in turn moved for sanctions pursuant to 22 NYCRR § 130-1.1 arguing that Petitioner engages in frivolous conduct (Motion Seq. No.: 12). Defendants Counsel also filed a cross-motion seeking to enjoin Petitioner from emailing Defendants Counsel on unrelated matters and e-filing unrelated matters (Motion Seq. No.: 13).
Petitioner's Application:
First, Petitioner alleges that Counsel stalked him around the courthouse. Penal Law § 120.45: stalking in the fourth degree reads in pertinent part:
A person is guilty of stalking in the fourth degree when he or she intentionally, and for no legitimate purpose, engages in a course of conduct directed at a specific person, and knows or reasonably should know that such conduct:
1. is likely to cause reasonable fear of material harm to the physical health, safety or property of such person, a member of such person's immediate family or a third party with whom such person is acquainted;
Petitioner's affidavit in support of his stalking assertion states that while exiting the courtroom Defendants Counsel was behind Petitioner and continued behind him as he walked towards the elevators. This Court finds that assertion insufficient to support Petitioner's assertion that Defendants Counsel was stalking Petitioner. Therefore, Petitioner request for restraining provisions as to stalking is denied. Additionally, Petitioner alleges that Defendants Counsel took pictures of him inside the courtroom without his consent. As there is no proof to support this assertion, Petitioner's request for a restraining order directed at Defendants Counsel is denied.
Petitioner submitted call logs in support of his assertion that he is being harassed by Defendants Counsel.
Penal Law § 240.26: Harassment in the second degree reads in pertinent part:
A person is guilty of harassment in the second degree when, with the intent to harass, annoy or alarm another person:
2. He or she follows a person in or about a public place or places; or
3. He or she engages in a course of conduct or repeatedly commits acts which alarm or seriously annoy such other person and which serve no legitimate purpose.
As the call logs proffered by Petitioner indicate that one call was made by Defendants Counsel to Petitioner. This Court does not find that Petitioner has presented a sufficient showing that Defendants Counsel engaged in conduct which would warrant this Court granting Petitioner's application.
Petitioner next request that Defendants Counsel be prohibited from e-filing non-related case matters in which Petitioner is a party. Petitioner further request to that Defendants Counsel be prohibited from e-filing documents that contains his personal identifiable information. These requests are granted.
Defendants Counsel's Application:
Defendants Counsel filed a cross-motion seeking to enjoin Petitioner from emailing Defendants Counsel on unrelated matters. In support of his motion, Defendants Counsel submitted numerous emails from Petitioner, the majority of which were unrelated to the matters that form the basis for the complaint file in this action. Accordingly, this Court will grant Defendants Counsel's application as to this matter.
In addition to the cross-motion, Defendants Counsel filed a motion for sanctions against Petitioner. This Court declines, at this time, to grant Defendants Counsel's application for sanctions against Petitioner (22 NYCRR § 130-1.1), For the aforementioned reasons, it is
ORDERED, that Petitioner's application (Motion Seq. No.: 11) seeking to enjoin Defendants Counsel for harassment is Granted in part and Denied in part.
(1) Denied as against Defendants Counsel on Petitioner's stalking claim.
(2) Denied as against Defendants Counsel on Petitioner's claims of Defendants Counsel taking pictures of Petitioner in courtroom.
(3) Denied as against Defendants Counsel on Petitioner's harassment claim that Defendant Counsel called and hung up on Petitioner.
(4) Granted; Defendants Counsel is enjoined from e-filing matters in unrelated cases in which Petitioner is a party.
(5) Granted; Defendants Counsel is enjoined from e-filing unredacted documents containing Petitioner's personal identifying information. In that regard, the Kings County Motion Support Office/ Clerk's Office is directed to block NYSCEF Doc. Nos.: 337 &338 of Index No.: 537601/2022. It is further
ORDERED, that Defendants Counsel's motion (Motion Seq. No.: 12) for sanctions is DENIED. It is further
ORDERED, that Defendants Counsel's cross-motion (Motion Seq. No.:13) is GRANTED. Petitioner is enjoined from emailing Defendants Counsel on matters unrelated to the complaint under Index No.: 537601/2022.
This constitutes the decision and order of this Court.
While this Court does not believe that there is a sufficient basis to grant some of the parties' application at this time, that is not to be a signal of encouragement to the applicants to seek to have their application granted in the future. It is more accurately read as a reminder to the applicants that their conduct is one they should monitor and self-correct.
*All applications not specifically addressed herein are Denied.