The opinion
Sanders Equities LLC v Maldonado
2025 NY Slip Op 34592(U)
December 17, 2025
Supreme Court, Nassau County
Docket Number: Index No. 605681/2022
Judge: Sharon M.J. Gianelli
Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip
Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York
State and local government sources, including the New
York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service.
This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official
publication.
INDEX NO. 605681/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 311 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/17/2025
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NASSAU COMMERCIAL DIVISION - Part 7
Present: Hon. Sharon M.J. Gianelli
X
SANDERS EQUITIES LLC, NEXT MILLENNIUM Index No. 605681/2022
REALTY, LLC, AERIAL WAY AND ROBBINS LLC,
123 FROST ASSOCIATES L.P., Mot. Seq. No. 006
135 NORTH BROADWAY LLC and
69 BLOOMINGDALE LLC., DECISION AND ORDER
AFTER INQUEST
Plaintiffs,
-against-
KEVIN MALDONADO,
KEVIN MALDONADO AND ASSOCIATES, P.C.
d/b/a KEVIN MALDONADO & ASSOCIATES
d/b/a KEVIN MALDONADO & PARTNERS LLC,
MELISSA MALDONADO, KEVIN MALDONADO and
MELISSA MALDONADO, as TRUSTEES of
THE KEVIN AND MELISSA MALDONADO TRUST,
EAGLE LAKE HOLDINGS LLC,
BUSHMAN HILL REAL ESTATE LLC,
567 FOUR MILE POINT LLC,
WM WELCH ENTERPRISES LLC,
BLUE STONE AND MULCH LLC,
WMWHOLDINGS LLC, and
HART MANSION LLC,
Defendants.
X
Upon consideration of the papers and evidence submitted at inquest, the Court makes the
following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.
This is a damages inquest resulting from three written Decisions and Orders of this Court
following a series of defaults by Defendants Kevin Maldonado ("Maldonado") and Kevin
1
[* 1] 1 of 35
INDEX NO. 605681/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 311 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/17/2025
Maldonado and Associates, P.C. d/b/a Kevin Maldonado & Associates d/b/a Kevin
Maldonado & Partners LLC (the "Firm") (collectively, "Defendants").
In the first Decision and Order, this Court ruled on the Sanders Entities' motion to strike,
to preclude, or to compel under CPLR 3124 (3). The Court concluded that Maldonado and
the Firm "have shown themselves overall to be evasive, uncooperative, and dilatory" after
refusing for two years to produce disclosure, ruling that they "have just about earned" the
"drastic steps" of "[s]striking and/or preclusion."
But the Court granted them "one additional opportunity" to "fully comply with all
outstanding discovery" within "thirty (30) days from the date of entry of this Decision and
Order," with "leave" for Plaintiffs (hereinafter the "Sanders Entities") to "re-apply" for
disclosure sanctions should Maldonado and the Firm "fail to comply with this Decision
and Order" (Sanders Equities LLC v Maldonado, 2024 NY Slip Op 34593[U] [Sup Ct,
Nassau County Oct. 7, 2024, Gianelli, J.]; NYSCEF Doc. No. 170). The Court's "one
additional opportunity" became three, this Court extending its original deadline from
November 8, 2024 to January 3, 2025, then from January 3, 2025 to January 10, 2025
(see NYSCEF Doc. No. 181, ,i,i 8-22). Maldonado and the Firm never complied with this
Court's directives, and the Sanders Entities moved for leave to renew.
In the second Decision and Order, this Court ruled on the Sanders Entities' motion,
pursuant to CPLR 2221 (e), for leave to renew their prior motion, pursuant to CPLR 3124
(3), to strike Maldonado and the Firm's Answer. This Court ruled: "Defendants
Maldonado and the Firm have not only been afforded numerous opportunities to comply
2
2 of 35
[* 2]
INDEX NO. 605681/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 311 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/17/2025
with the Court's Orders, including three (3) final warnings, Defendants Maldonado and
the Firm have repeatedly and intentionally failed to comply, without reasonable
explanation." The Court "Granted" the Sanders Entities' motion to strike Maldonado and
the Firm's Answer for "willful and contumacious refusal to comply with required
discovery" (Sanders Equities LLC v Maldonado, 2025 NY Slip Op 30694[U] [Sup Ct,
Nassau County Mar. 3, 2025, Gianelli, J.]; NYSCEF Doc. No. 246).
In the third Decision and Order, this Court ruled on the Sanders Entities' motion,
pursuant to CPLR 3212, for partial summary judgment on liability. The Court held that
"the Court's striking of Defendants' Answer for failure to comply with discovery directives
is tantamount to a liability determination favorable to Plaintiffs. As such, no triable issues
of fact remain on the issue of liability." "Consequently," the Court held, "in accordance
with New York case law, Defendants are considered to have admitted liability." The Court
"Granted" partial summary judgment against Maldonado and the Firm "on the First,
Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Tenth, and Eleventh Causes of Action in the Verified
Complaint," and ordered that "an inquest to assess Plaintiffs' damages shall be held in-
person on October 8, 2025 at 9:30 a.m. before Hon. Jeffrey S. Brown (Ret.) at the Nassau
County Supreme Court" (Sanders Equities LLC v Maldonado, 2025 NY Slip Op 32439[U]
[Sup Ct, Nassau County, July 2, 2025, Gianelli, J.]; NYSCEF Doc. No. 273).
On October 8, 2025, on the day of the damages inquest, Maldonado and the Firm
defaulted again, declining to appear in Court to defend against a damages award.
3
[* 3] 3 of 35
INDEX NO. 605681/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 311 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/17/2025
"In an inquest to ascertain damages upon a default ... , if the defaulting party fails to
appear in person or by representative, the party entitled to judgment may be permitted to
submit properly executed affidavits as proof of damages" (Commonwealth Land Tit. Ins.
Co. v Islam, 220 AD3d 739,741 [2d Dept 2023] [quotations and ellipses omitted]; see 22
NYCRR § 202,46).
Pursuant to 22 NYCRR § 202,46, on October 8, 2025, the Sanders Entities applied to this
Court, and on October 14, 2025, the Court, by email, granted their application, to conduct
this inquest on papers (see NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 279- 280), which the Court now addresses.
Before turning to the Court's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Court
addresses certain rules of law governing this inquest.
All Liability Allegations Deemed Admitted
"A defendant whose answer is stricken as a result of a default admits all traversable
allegations in the complaint, including the basic allegation of liability," after which the
"sole issue to be determined at the inquest is the extent of the damages sustained by the
plaintiff' (Chalom v Elat Car & Limousine Serv., Inc., 239 AD3d 933, 934 [2d Dept 2025]
[quotations and brackets omitted]).
"[D]efaulters are deemed to have admitted all factual allegations contained in the
complaint and all reasonable inferences that flow from them" (Freedom Mtge. Corp. v
Hansen-Velazquez, 242 AD3d 1058 [2d Dept 2025] [quotations omitted]).
4
[* 4] 4 of 35
INDEX NO. 605681/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 311 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/17/2025
Based upon this rule of law, evert paragraph of the Verified Amended Complaint is
deemed admitted, with the exception of the following, all of which address damages:
Paragraphs 14, 134-135, 141-142, 148-149, 165, 173-174, 182, 190, 198, 219, and 238 (see
NYSCEF Doc. No. 91).
No Evidence Tending to Defeat Liability
"At an inquest, the defendants should not be permitted to introduce evidence to defeat
the plaintiffs cause of action" (Suburban Graphics Supply Corp. v Nagle, 5 AD3d 663,
665 [2d Dept 2004]; Dellis v Dellis, 81 AD3d 870, 871 [2d Dept 2011] ["The defendants'
answer was ultimately stricken based upon their failure to comply with discovery orders,"
so "defendants were properly precluded at the subsequent inquest on damages from
introducing any evidence tending to defeat the plaintiffs cause of action"]).
Under this principle, at an inquest, a defendant is prohibited from introducing documents
or testimony to attempt to deny or disprove liability (see e.g. Reilly v Grieco, 242 AD3d
1033 [2d Dept 2025] ["Supreme Court erred in permitting the defendant to testify that
the plaintiffs allegations of sexual abuse were untrue and that he had never sexually
abused the plaintiff. ... The defendant's testimony denying the basic allegation ofliability
prejudiced a substantial right of the plaintiff, as that issue had been decided in her favor
.... Accordingly, the court should have granted ... a new trial on the issue of damages"]).
No Consideration of Proximate Causation
"The sole issue to be determined at the inquest is the extent of the damages sustained by
the plaintiff, and the court may not consider the question of whether the defendant caused
5
[* 5] 5 of 35
INDEX NO. 605681/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 311 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/17/2025
the damages sustained by the plaintiff' (Chalom v Elat Car & Limousine Serv., Inc., 239
AD3d at 934; see e.g. Castaldini v Walsh, 186 AD3d 1193, 1194 [2d Dept 2020] [an
"inquest court should not consider the question of whether the defendant caused the
damages sustained by the plaintiff," so "there is no merit to Walsh's contention that the
Supreme Court should have granted his motion to dismiss the complaint at the close of
the plaintiffs' evidence for failure to establish causation"]).
Under this principle, at an inquest, a defendant is prohibited from introducing documents
or testimony to attempt to deny or disprove causation (see e.g. LD Acquisition Co. 9, LLC
v TSH Trade Group, LLC, 211 AD3d 928, 930 [2d Dept 2022] ["The sole issue to be
determined at an inquest is the extent of damages sustained by the plaintiff. Here, the
inquest court erred in considering the question of whether the defendants caused the
damages sustained by the plaintiff'] [citations and quotations omitted]).
No Statute-of-Limitations Defense
Where a defendant defaulted on liability, it may no longer assert a statute-of-limitations
defense (see e.g. Christiana Tr. v Victor, 224 AD3d 869, 872 [2d Dept 2024] ["Since the
defendant never vacated his default, he is precluded from raising the affirmative defenses
of lack of standing and statute of limitations"]; Deutsche Bank Natl. Tr. Co. v O'Connor,
223 AD3d 872, 877 [2d Dept 2024] ["Since the defendant failed to vacate her default, she
... was precluded from asserting a statute of limitations defense"]; Nestor I, LLC v
Moriarty-Gentile, 179 AD3d 936, 938 [2d Dept 2020] ["unless the defendants' default is
vacated or excused, the defendants waived their statute of limitations defense"]).
6
[* 6] 6 of 35
INDEX NO. 605681/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 311 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/17/2025
With these rules of law for damages inquests in mind, the Court now makes the following
Findings of Fact.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The following fact are taken from the Verified Amended Complaint (see NYSCEF Doc. No.
91), all allegations of which, except for damages, are deemed admitted (Chalom v Elat
Car & Limousine Serv., Inc., 239 at 934), the Affirmation of Steven Blaustein in Support
of Award of Damages at Inquest, dated November 21, 2025 (the "Blaustein Aff."), and the
evidentiary submissions thereto, all of which are uncontroverted.
The Court credits all of the following facts and resolves all credibility determinations and
inferences flowing from in favor of the Sanders Entities, and against Maldonado and the
Firm.
Background and the Litigated Matters
The Sanders Entities are a group of affiliated real estate ownership, management, and
leasing entities who own commercial properties in the Counties of Nassau and Suffolk.
For approximately twenty-three years, the Firm, a small law firm practice of which
Maldonado is sole principal and attorney, provided legal services to the Sanders Entities
in various matters pending in the State and Federal Courts on Long Island.
Beginning in 2016, Maldonado and his Firm worked on and billed the Sanders Entities
on the following matters:
a. Next Millennium Realty LLC, et al. v The Travelers Companies, Inc., et
7
[* 7] 7 of 35
INDEX NO. 605681/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 311 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/17/2025
al.,
Supreme Court, Nassau County, Index No. 600996/201 6 (the "Insurance
Litigation Matter");
b. The Rehabilitation Institute, Inc. v 123 Frost Associates L.P.,
Supreme Court, Nassau County, Index No. 612897/2017 (the
"Rehabilitat ion Institute Matter");
c. 101 Frost Street Associates, L.P. v United States Atomic Energy
Commission, et al., United States District Court, Eastern District of New
York, Case No. 17-cv-03585 (the "Cost Recovery Matter");
d. United States ofAmerica v IMC Eastern Corp., et al.,
United States District Court, Eastern District of New York, Case No. 18-cv-
03818 (the "Western Plume Litigation");
e. 123 Frost Associates L.P. v The Rehabilitatio n Institute, Inc.,
Supreme Court, Nassau County, Index No. 601013/2019 (the "123 Frost
Matter");
f. Hicksville Water District v Jerry Spiegel Associates, Inc., et al.,
United States District Court, Eastern District of New York, Case No. 19-cv-
06070 (the "Hicksville Water District Matter");
g. 69 Bloomingdale, LLC v Coral Graphics, et al.,
United States District Court, Eastern District of New York, Case No. 20-cv-
02613 (the "69 Bloomingdal e Road Matter");
h. Jerry Spiegel Associates, Inc. v Public Service Mutual Insurance
Company, et al., Supreme Court, Nassau County, Index No. 609148/202 0
(the "Magna Carta Litigation");
1. 135 North Broadway, LLC v. Ligita Solano, et al., Supreme Court, Nassau
County, Index No. 604700/201 9 (the "135 North Broadway Matter"); and
J. The New York Department of Environmen tal Conservatio n Matters (the
"DEC Matters");
k. The Environmen tal Protection Agency Matters (the "EPA Matters");
I. Arthur Sanders et al v Barry M. Strauss Associates Ltd., Supreme Court,
New York County, Index No. 651984/202 0 (the "Sanders Matter"); and
m. Aerial Way and Robbins LLC v Robbins Lane Service Center, Inc.,
Supreme Court, Nassau County, Index No. 601294/201 7 (the "Aerial Way
Matter").
8
[* 8] 8 of 35
INDEX NO. 605681/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 311 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/17/2025
Maldonado and his Firm referred to these adversarial and litigated matters in the Firm's
legal bills by various names, including the "Insuranc e Litigation Matter," the "Cost
Recovery Matter," the "Hicksville Water District Matter," the "Western Plume Litigation,"
the "Magna Carta Matter," the "DEC Matters," the "EPA Matters," the "69 Bloomingdale
Road Matter," the "Aerial Way Matter," the "Sanders Matter," the "135 North Broadway
Matter," the "123 Frost Matter," and the "Rehabilitation Institute Matter" (together the
"Matters").
The Sanders Entities and Defendants did not have separate engageme nt letters for each
of the Matters. Rather, Maldonado and the Firm handled the Matters together under a
single ongoing continuou s representa tion of the Sanders Entities with no formal retainer
agreement. Except for the Rehabilitation Institute Matter, the Matters were entangled in
multiple actions surroundi ng a Superfund site, having multiple layers of complications
due to the expertise necessary to understan d the scientific and legal issues related to
environmental laws as well as the numerous numbers oflitigants. Due to the sophisticated
nature of the Matters, the Sanders Entities, in good faith, relied on Maldonado's
representations on the status of each of the Matters and the accuracy of the invoices
presented by Maldonado representi ng the work product being produced by the Firm.
As the Sanders Entities would later discover, the statuses of the Matters provided by
Maldonado were inaccurate and the invoices were a fabrication of the work product
actually produced by the Firm.
9
[* 9] 9 of 35
INDEX NO. 605681/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 311 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/17/2025
Maldonado and the Firm's Total Fees Billed and Paid
From January 2018 to April 2021, the time period for which the Sanders Entities now
seek damages in this lawsuit, Maldonado and the Firm billed and collected an exorbitant
amount oflegal fees from the Sanders Entities. The total amount of payments the Sanders
Entities made to Maldonado and the Firm for which the Sanders Entities seek recovery in
this lawsuit equals $2,037,776.85 (Blaustein Aff., Ex. 2). Put another way, the Sanders
Entities have paid Defendants a sum of $2,037,776.85, based on the following total
payments in each of the Matters:
a. The Insurance Litigation Matter: $1,275,979.19;
b. The Rehabilitation Institute and 123 Frost Matters: $88,796.58;
c. The Cost Recovery Matter: $350,776.87;
d. The Western Plume Litigation: $46,997.50;
e. The "Hicksville Water District Matter: $124,291.90;
f. The 69 Bloomingdale Road Matter: $3,402.75;
g. The Magna Carta Litigation: $3,280.00;
h. The 135 North Broadway Matter: $410.00;
1. The DEC Matters: $17,556.00;
J. The EPA Matters: $112,864.06;
k. The Sanders Matter: $262.00; and
1. The Aerial Way Matter: $13,160.00.
(Blaustein Aff., Exs. 3-14).
On July 3, 2025, the Court granted partial summary judgment against Maldonado and
the Firm "on the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Tenth, and Eleventh Causes of
10
[* 10] 10 of 35
INDEX NO. 605681/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 311 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/17/2025
Action in the Verified Complaint," and ordered that "an inquest to assess Plaintiffs'
damages shall be held in-person on October 8, 2025 at 9:30 a.m. before Hon. Jeffrey S.
Brown (Ret.) at the Nassau County Supreme Court" (the "Summary Judgment Decision")
(Blaustein Aff., Ex. 15).
The Sanders Entities proceed on damages on the following claims:
• The First Cause of Action for Attorney Deceit / Judiciary Law § 487;
• The Second Cause of Action for Fraud;
• The Third Cause of Action for Breach of Fiduciary Duty; and
• The Sixth Cause of Action for Legal Malpractice.
Based upon these Findings of Fact, the Court now makes the following Conclusions of
Law.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Burden of Proving "Reasonableness" ofFees was Upon Maldonado
and the Firm
Before turning to the individual causes, the Court will address the law governing fee
disputes between attorneys and clients. Ordinarily, the burden is upon the plaintiff to
prove the elements of his or her case by a preponderance of the evidence (see e.g. PJI
11
[* 11] 11 of 35
INDEX NO. 605681/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 311 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/17/2025
In an attorneys' fee dispute such as this, however, the burden is reversed, remaining upon
the lawyer to prove the "reasonableness" of attorneys' fees, even if the client already paid
the fee:
• Jeffrey L. Rosenberg & Assoc., LLC v Candid Litho Print., Ltd., 76 AD3d 510, 510
[2d Dept 2010] ["In cases involving disputes between attorney s and clients over
legal fees, as a matter of public policy, the attorneys have the burden of establishing
that their compens ation was fair and reasonable. In light of these considerations, .
. ., the plaintiff failed to establish its prima facie entitlem ent to judgmen t as a
matter of law since it did not demonst rate the reasonableness of the fees it
charged"] [citations omitted];
• O'Connor v Blodnick, Abramo witz and Blodnick, 295 AD2d 586, 587 [2d Dept
2002] ["The trial court granted the defendan ts judgmen t as a matter of law at the
close of the plaintiff s case on the ground that the plaintiff failed to satisfy his
burden of establishing ... that the services billed for were not perform ed at all or
were unneces sary.... As a matter of public policy, the [attorne y defendants] had
the burden of establishing that their compensation was fair and reasonable. The
fact that the fees in question were already paid to the defenda nts did not alter the
fact that the defenda nts bore the ultimate burden of proof as to the reasonableness
of their fees. A new trial must be granted to afford [the attorneys] an opportun ity
to satisfy their burden of proof'] [citations and quotatio ns omitted]; and
• Jacobson v Sassower, 66 NY2d 991, 993 [1985] [As "a matter of public policy,
courts pay particula r attention to fee arrangem ents between attorneys and their
clients. An attorney has the burden of showing that a fee contract is fair,
reasonable, and fully known and understo od by the client"] [citation omitted]).
12
[* 12] 12 of 35
INDEX NO. 605681/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 311 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/17/2025
Based upon these authorities, it was not the Sanders Entities' burden at this inquest to
prove "unreasonableness" of Maldonado and the Firm's fees - it was Maldonado and the
Firm's "ultimate burden of proof as to the reasonableness of their fees," and the "fact that
the fees in question were already paid" did "not alter the fact" that the burden of proof
remained upon Maldonado and the Firm (O'Connor v Blodnick, Abram owitz and
Blodnick, 295 AD2d at 587).
Maldonado and the Firm defaulted at the inquest, declining to attemp t to demon strate
the "reasonableness" of their attorneys' fees. Therefore, the Court concludes that the fees
Maldonado and the Firm charged the Sanders Entities were unreaso nable, and credits all
of the Sanders Entities' assertions in this regard.
The First Cause ofAction for Attorn ey Decei t/ Judici ary Law §487
This Court has granted the Sander s Entities partial summa ry judgme nt on liability on the
First Cause of Action for Attorney Deceit / Judiciary Law§ 487 (see Sander s Equities LLC
v Maldonado, 2025 NY Slip Op 32439[U] [N.Y. Sup Ct, Nassau County 2025]; NYSCEF
Doc. No. 273).
Judiciary Law§ 487 provides: "An attorne y or counselor who ... [i]s guilty of any deceit
... with intent to deceive ... any party ... or ... wilfully receives any money or allowance
for or on account of any money which he has not laid out ... forfeits to the party injured
treble damages, to be recovered in a civil action."
13
[* 13] 13 of 35
INDEX NO. 605681/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 311 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/17/2025
"Under Judiciar y Law§ 487 (1), an attorney who is guilty of any deceit ... with intent to
deceive ... any party ... may be liable to the injured party for treble damages in a civil
action" (Altman v Orseck, 235 AD3d 818, 819 [2d Dept 2025] [quotatio ns and brackets
omitted]).
"Treble damages awarded under Judiciar y Law§ 487 are not designed to compens ate a
plaintiff for injury to property or pecuniar y interests. They are designed to punish
attorneys who violate the statute and to deter them from betrayin g their special obligation
to protect the integrity of the courts and foster their truth-see king function" (Specialized
Indus . Servs. Corp. v Carter, 99 AD3d 692,693 [2d Dept 2012] [citation s and quotatio ns
omitted]).
Judiciary Law§ 487 encompa sses a claim by a client against a lawyer for "charging her
unneces sary and excessive fees" (Lauder v Goldhamer, 122 AD3d 908, 910 [2d Dept
2014] [affirming denial of dismissal of Judiciar y Law§ 487 claim as "not duplicative of
the cause of action to recover damages for legal malpractice"]). An attorney 's deceptive
conduct causing a litigant to incur false or unneces sary attorney s' fees falls within the
ambit of the statute:
• Garanin v Hiatt, 219 AD3d 958, 959 [2d Dept 2023] [a litigant's claim that an
attorney's conduct "caused him" to incur unneces sary "attorne ys' fees" is
actionable under Judiciar y Law§ 487];
• Joseph v Fensterman, 204 AD3d 766, 767 [2d Dept 2022] ["Here, the first cause
of action adequate ly pleaded a claim to recover damages for violations of Judiciar y
Law§ 487, as it alleged that the defendan ts Abrams, Fensterm an ... intention ally
14
[* 14] 14 of 35
INDEX NO. 605681/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 311 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/17/2025
interfered with the settlement of the New Franklin litigation, causing years of
additional litigation, in order to generate legal fees in the amount of $1.7 million"];
• Betz v Blatt, 160 AD3d 696, 699 [2d Dept 2018] ["A party's legal expenses in
defending the lawsuit may be treated as the proximate result of the
misrepresen tation" covered by Judiciary Law§ 487]).
Applying these authorities, Here, the record evidences that Maldonado and his Firm
engaged in a pattern and practice of grossly excessive billing or outright fraudulent billing
(i.e., billing for legal services Defendants either never provided, or which were provided
entirely by other law firms) that resulted in the Sanders Entities paying $2,037,776.85 in
legal fees to Defendants (Blaustein Aff., Ex. 2).
For example, in the latter part of 2019 and in early 2020, Maldonado and the Firm
devoted a great detail of time to Next Millennium Realty LLC, et al. v The Travelers
Companies, Inc., et al., Supreme Court, Nassau County, Index No. 600996/201 6 (the
"Insurance Litigation Matter"), including responding to a request by the Special Referee
for a catalog of all of the policies at issue (Blaustein Aff., ,i 20). Ultimately, Maldonado
billed more than $86,ooo simply to review and scan insurance policies when he
previously represented that a paralegal would be doing most of the work (Blaustein Aff.,
Ex. 3)
In addition, from January 2018 through May 2019 in the Insurance Matter, Maldonado
and the Firm's bills refer extensively to the deposition of an expert witness named
"Hughes." (id., at at 3, 27, 35, 41,43, 62, 68, 73-75, 87, 142, 148, 160-161). For that single
15
[* 15] 15 of 35
INDEX NO. 605681/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 311 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/17/2025
deposition, Maldonado and the Firm billed over 600 hours of time (id.). During that
same period, Maldonado and the Firm billed approximately 316 hours of legal time for
drafting an eight-page lawyer affirmation for a Daubert motion, an amount of time which
is criminally dispropor tionate to the work product produced (id.).
In the United States ofAmerica v IMC Eastern Corp., et al., United States District Court,
Eastern District of New York, Case No. 18-cv-03818 (the "Western Plume Matter"),
Maldonado and the Firm billed over 300 hours for approximately $131,000 in legal fees
just to defend (not to take) the depositions of three witnesses (Blaustein Aff., Ex. 6).
Finally, in Hicksville Water District v Jerry Spiegel Associates, Inc., et al., United States
District Court, Eastern District of New York, Case No. 19-cv-06070 (the "Hicksville Water
District Matter"), Maldonado and the Firm billed over 60 hours for approximately
$25,000 in legal fees for filing simple motion papers in support of a co-defendant's
dismissal motion (Blaustein Aff., Ex. 7). Because of this misconduct, in July 2021, we
terminate d Maldonado and the Firm (Blaustein Aff., ,i 26).
All of the claims on which the Sanders Entities proceeded at this inquest, without
exception, arose from Maldonado and the Firm's dishonesty, misrepres entation, and
deceit by rendering false and inflated legal bills in connection with underlying, pending
litigations, or from concealing the striking of an answer by another Justice of this Court
in one of the underlying litigations (see e.g. Matter of D'Angelo, 158 AD3d 107, 116 [2d
Dept 2017] [an attorney's "self-dealing" is a "type of dishonesty" and "deceitful conduct"];
Matter of Myerson, 250 AD2d 41, 42 [1st Dept 1998] ["false billing ... is, in and of itself,
egregious conduct warrantin g severe penalty"]; Matter of Aaron, 232 AD2d 119, 124-25
16
[* 16] 16 of 35
INDEX NO. 605681/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 311 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/17/2025
effective
[2d Dept 1997] [order ing attorn ey "disba rred from the practice of law,
work not
immediately," after he "inflated his legal fees and expenses by charging for
actually performed"]).
forth below
Therefore, under Judici ary Law§ 487, the Court grants treble damages, as set
41 NY3d
(see e.g. Suzuk i v Greenberg, 220 AD3d 604, 604-05 [1st Dept 2023], lv denied
atively
908 [2024] ["the court proper ly award ed treble damages" becaus e "affirm
ct under
misrep resent ing . . . information" is "sufficient to establish egregious condu
Judiciary Law§ 487''] [quota tions omitted]).
The Secon d Cause ofActio nfor Fraud
y on the
This Court has grante d the Sande rs Entities partial summ ary judgm ent on liabilit
NY Slip
Second Cause of Action for Fraud (see Sanders Equities LLC v Maldonado, 2025
Op 32439[U] [N.Y. Sup Ct, Nassau County 2025]; NYSCEF Doc. No. 273).
resent ation
"The elemen ts of a cause of action sound ing in fraud are [1] a materi al misrep
reliance
of an existing fact, [2] made with knowledge of the falsity, [3] an intent to induce
(Abraham
thereo n, [4] justifiable reliance upon the misrep resent ation, and [5] damages"
Joseph v
v Torati, 219 AD3d 1275, 1279 [2d Dept 2023] [quota tions omitte d];
requir e a
Fensterman, 204 AD3d at 768 ["The elemen ts of a cause of action for fraud
reliance,
material misrep resent ation of a fact, knowledge of its falsity, an intent to induce
of action
justifiable reliance by the plainti ff and damag es .... Here, the second cause
firm and
pleaded with the necessary particu larity the elemen ts of fraud agains t the law
Howard Fenste rman" ]).
17
[* 17] 17 of 35
INDEX NO. 605681/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 311 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/17/2025
Where an attorne y induces a client to pay the attorne y money based upon false, misstated,
or inflated legal bills, it is a fraud:
• Vermon t Mut. Ins. Co. v McCabe & Mack, LLP, 105 AD3d 837, 839-40 [2d Dept
2013] ["Here, the compla int alleged that the defend ants commi tted fraud by
misrep resentin g that they made a motion for a default judgme nt when they never
made, filed, or drafted such a motion, that the plaintif f relied on the
misrep resenta tion, and that the defend ants billed the plaintif f for drafting the
motion. Those allegations were sufficient to state a cause of action to recover
damages for fraud"] [quotat ions omitted];
• Tsimer man v Janoff, 40 AD3d 242, 242 [1st Dept 2007] [denying dismissal of
client's fraud claim alleging that "defend ant law firm ... padded bills, overbilled,
farmed out work to a lawyer who was not a membe r of the firm" and provided a
"false stateme nt of services rendered"]; and
• In re Weinstein, 4 AD3d 29, 36 [1st Dept 2004] ["respo ndent's double billing ...
was a violation of DR 1-102 (A) (4)" prohibi ting "dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or
misrepr esentat ion"]).
Turning to damages, the "true measur e of damage" for fraud "is indemn ity for the actual
pecuniary loss sustain ed as the direct result of the wrong, or what is known as the 'out-
of-pocket' rule" (Glob. Granite Sales Corp. v Sabovic, 166 AD3d 587,58 9 [2d Dept 2018]
[quotat ions omitted ]). "Under this rule, the loss is compu ted by ascertaining the
difference betwee n the value of the bargain which a plaintiff was induced by fraud to make
and the amoun t or value of the consideration exacted as the price of the bargain" (id.
[quotations omitted ]; see also e.g. Maisano v Becka.ff, 2 AD3d 412, 413-14 [2d Dept 2003]
18
[* 18] 18 of 35
INDEX NO. 605681/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 311 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/17/2025
["Damages are to be calculated to compensate plaintiffs for what they lost because of the
fraud .... The plaintiff's own testimony established that his actual out-of-pocket loss as
a result of the fraud was $427,000, or the difference between the amount which he
invested and the amount which he received back"]).
Here, record evidence demonstrate s that the representatio n of Plaintiff Next Millennium
Realty, LLC ("Next Millennium") in the Insurance Litigation Matter (Blaustein Aff., Exs.
3, 16) constituted a fraud. Specifically, between June 2019 and April 2021, Maldonado
and the Firm billed, and the Sanders Entities paid, $263,255.80 related to Defendants'
alleged provision of legal services in connection with filing a motion for summary
judgment on behalf of Next Millennium and opposing four pending motions for summary
judgment (Blaustein Aff., Ex. 3, at 194-195, 200-201, 210-211, 215-216, 231-233, 253, 261,
266,270,27 4,278,282, 286).
In reality, the motions for summary judgment were not written by Maldonado or the
Firm, but another law firm, Whiteman Osterman & Hanna LLP ("WOH") (Blaustein Aff.,
,r,r 30, 31, 36-37). The only work product that Maldonado and the Firm actually delivered
to the Sanders Entities was a three-page client affidavit that was virtually entirely
rewritten by the Sanders Entities' General Counsel, Steven Blaustein (Blaustein Aff., Ex.
19). The fraud was eventually discovered by the Sanders Entities in May 2021, when the
Sanders Entities received two bills, one from Maldonado and the Firm for $73,737.50,
and one from WHO for approximately $65,000, for the exact same work on the motions
for summary judgment (Blaustein Aff., Exs. 17, 18, 20; ,r,r 32-37, 40).
19
[* 19] 19 of 35
INDEX NO. 605681/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 311 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/17/2025
This amount constitu tes "definite, measura ble out-of-pocket damages resulting from the
alleged fraud" (Vice, Inc. v Stapp, 209 AD3d 794, 797 [2d Dept 2022]). Therefore, the
Court awards the Sanders Entities money damages on the Second Cause of Action for
Fraud in the amount of $263,255.80.
The Third Cause ofAction for Breach ofFiducia ry Duty
This Court has granted the Sanders Entities partial summar y judgmen t on liability on the
Third Cause of Action for Breach of Fiduciary Duty (see Sanders Equities LLC v
Maldonado, 2025 NY Slip Op 32439[U] [N.Y. Sup Ct, Nassau County 2025]; NYSCEF
Doc. No. 273).
"The elements of a cause of action to recover damages for breach of fiduciary duty are (1)
the existence of a fiduciary relationship, (2) miscond uct by the defendan t, and (3)
damages directly caused by the defenda nt's misconduct" (Sneider v Great S. Bay Surgical
Assoc., 235 AD3d 685, 687 [2d Dept 2025] [quotations omitted] ).
"The relationship of client and attorney is one of unique fiduciary reliance which imposes
on the attorney the duty to deal fairly, honestly and with undivide d loyalty including
maintain ing confidentiality, avoiding conflicts of interest, operatin g competently,
safeguarding client property and honoring the clients' interests over the lawyer's" (St.
Annes Dev. Co. v Batista, 165 AD3d 997, 997-98 [2d Dept 2018] [quotatio ns, brackets,
and ellipses omitted] ).
20
[* 20] 20 of 35
INDEX NO. 605681/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 311 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/17/2025
Any attorneys' fee dispute necessarily "begins with a reflection on the nature of the
attorney-client relationship," because the "greatest trust between people is the trust of
giving counsel" (Matte r of Cooperman, 83 NY2d 465, 471-72 [1994] [quotat ions and
brackets omitted]).
"This unique fiduciary reliance, stemmi ng from people hiring attorne ys to exercise
e
professional judgme nt on a client's behalf -'giving counse l'-is imbued with ultimat
trust and confidence," so the "attorney's obligations, therefore, transce nd those prevailing
in the commercial market place" (id. at 472 [quotations omitted]). "To the public and
clients, few features could be more paramo unt than the fee--the costs oflegal services ...
. Accordingly, attorney-client fee agreem ents are a matter of special concern to the courts
and are enforceable and affected by lofty principles different from those applicable to
commonplace commercial contrac ts" (id.).
Under these principles, an attorney's overbilling or false billing of a client is a breach of
fiduciary duty:
• Sobel v Ansanelli, 98 AD3d 1020, 1021-23 [2d Dept 2012] ["The plaintif fs breach
of fiduciary duty claims, set forth under the first and second causes of action, were
premis ed upon allegations that the defend ants had charged excessive legal fees
totaling over $44,00 0 .... Contrary to the defend ants' contention, the Supreme
Court properly denied those branch es of their motion which were pursua nt to
CPLR 3211 (a) (1) and (7) to dismiss the first and second causes of action alleging,
in effect, breach of fiduciary duty premis ed on the theory that the defend ants
21
[* 21] 21 of 35
INDEX NO. 605681/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 311 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/17/2025
charged excessive legal fees" because such allegations "are sufficient to state a
cause of action soundin g in breach of fiduciary duty"];
• Reiver v Burkha rt Wexler & Hirschberg, LLP, 73 AD3d 1149, 1150 [2d Dept 2010]
["The plaintiffs comme nced this action against their former attorneys, alleging ...
that the attorne ys breache d their fiduciary duty to them by charging them
excessive legal fees .... Contrar y to the defend ants' content ions ... , the allegations
of the compla int are sufficient to state a viable cause of action soundin g in breach
of fiduciary duty"]; and
• U.S. Ice Cream Corp. v Bizar, 240 AD2d 654, 655-56 [2d Dept 1997] [client's
allegations the "defend ant law firm engaged in numero us instanc es of improp er
billing in the underlying litigation in which it represe nted the plaintiffs"
demon strated breach of the lawyer's "fiduciary" obligation "to exercise the highest
degree of good faith, honesty, integrity, fairness , and fidelity" and to "not have
persona l interes ts antagon istic to those of his client"]).
Turning to damages, the Sander s Entities pled their breach of fiduciary duty claim as one
for disgorgement of compen sation under the faithless servant doctrine:
• NYSCEF Doc. No. 91, ,i 7 ["the many remedies to which the Sander s Entities are
entitled from Maldonado and the Firm under New York law .. . include . ..
disgorg ement of all attorneys' fees and other compen sation Maldonado and the
Firm received from the Sander s Entities during the period of their disloyalty"];
• id., ,i,i 146, 149 ["Maldonado and the Firm .. . breache d their fiduciary duties by
self-dealing, by placing their own financial interest s above the duties ofloyal ty and
candor they owed their own clients, the Sander s Entities . . . . Therefore, under
22
[* 22] 22 of 35
INDEX NO. 605681/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 311 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/17/2025
common law, the Sanders Entities are entitled to disgorgemen t of all compensatio n
received by Maldonado and the Firm during the period of their disloyalty to the
Sanders Entities in an amount to be determined at trial"]; and
• id. at 32, "WHEREFORE Clause ["On the Third Cause of Action against Maldonado
and the Firm, disgorgemen t of all compensatio n received by Maldonado and the
Firm during the period of their disloyalty to the Sanders Entities in an amount to
be determined at trial"]).
"The faithless servant doctrine provides that one who owes a duty of fidelity to a principal
and who is faithless in the performance of his or her services is generally disentitled to
recover his or her compensatio n, whether commissions or salary" (R & G Brenner Income
Tax Consultants v Gilmartin, 233 AD3d 819, 822 [2d Dept 2024] [quotations and
brackets omitted]). "The faithless servant doctrine applies when an employee-agent
breaches their duty ofloyalty owed to the employer-principal" (id. [quotations omitted]).
"It makes no difference" under the faithless servant doctrine "that the services were
beneficial to the principal, or that the principal suffered no provable damage as a result
of the breach of fidelity by the agent" (Panos v Mid Hudson Med. Group, P.C., 204 AD3d
1016, 1018 [2d Dept 2022] [quotations omitted]).
"An employee forfeits his right to compensatio n for services rendered by him if he proves
disloyal" (Visual Arts Found., Inc. v Egnasko, 91 AD3d 578, 579 [1st Dept 2012]
[quotations omitted]). "Where, as here, defendants engaged in repeated acts of disloyalty,
complete and permanent forfeiture of compensation, deferred or otherwise, is warranted
23
[* 23] 23 of 35
INDEX NO. 605681/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 311 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/17/2025
under the faithless servant doctrine" (William Floyd Union Free Sch. Dist. v Wright, 61
AD3d 856, 859 [2d Dept 2009]).
The faithless servant doctrine applies to disloyal or self-dealing attorneys:
• Barasch & McGarry, PC v Marcowitz, 219 AD3d 1242, 1242-43 [1st Dept 2023],
lv dismissed 41 NY3d 996 [2024] ["plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment as
a matter oflaw" for breach of the "duty ofloyalty, grounded in the faithless servant
doctrine" because defendant "does not dispute that he referred a matter to another
law firm without plaintiffs knowledge or consent and collected more than
$140,000 in referral fees"];
• Chung v Williams Schwitzer & Assoc., P.C., 200 AD3d 514, 515 [1st Dept 2021]
["Supreme Court correctly concluded that, as a matter oflaw, Chung breached his
duty of loyalty to WSA by referring cases to another attorney while still employed
by WSA"]; and
• Dawes v J. Muller & Co., 176 AD3d 473, 474 [1st Dept 2019] ["plaintiffs motion
for summary judgment on her faithless servant claim should have been granted as
to liability . . . as the parties do not dispute that decedent breached his duty of
loyalty to the plaintiff. ... Thus, plaintiff is entitled to a disgorgement of the fees
which were paid to decedent individually"].
"Where, as here, forfeiture is part of the recovery sought in the action, the issue of whether
the attorney should be required to disgorge the compensation received during the period
of alleged disloyalty is properly entertained on a full record after trial" ( Ulico Cas. Co. v
Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, 56 AD3d 1, 9, 13 [1st Dept 2008]).
24
[* 24] 24 of 35
INDEX NO. 605681/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 311 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/17/2025
Under the faithless servant doctrine, "forfeiture is limited to compensation paid during
the time period of disloyalty" (Owen v Hurlbut, 240 AD3d 1199, 1203 [4th Dept 2025]).
The forfeiture arises upon misconduct and disloyalty which substantially affect the
contract of employment," meaning the first date of onset of a "persistent pattern of
disloyalty" (G.K. Alan Assoc., Inc. v Lazzari, 44 AD3d 95, 104 [2d Dept 2007], affd 10
NY3d 941 [2008]).
Here, a "persistent pattern of disloyalty" began no later than January 7, 2018, based on
the following time entry in the Insurance Litigation Matter: "Review docs and prep for
depositions of insurance witnesses" (Blaustein Aff., Ex. 3, at 3). At that time, the Sanders
Entities were only aware of a single upcoming deposition of an insurance witness,
defendant United States Fire Insurance Company ("U.S. Fire") (Blaustein Aff., ,i 47).
Between January 7, 2018 through January 24, 2018, Defendants billed a total of 131.25
hours of preparation time for the January 25, 2018 deposition of U.S. Fire (Blaustein
Aff., Ex. 3, at 3-4).
During this period, the Sanders Entities received no work product or any deposition
transcript of U.S. Fire (Blaustein Aff., ,i 49). The Sanders Entities later discovered that
Maldonado and the Firm abruptly ended the deposition after a dispute over a discovery
ruling by Special Referee (Blaustein Aff., Ex. 20). Adding insult to injury, despite the
deposition not going the full seven (7) hours, Maldonado and the Firm billed the Sanders
Entities eleven (11) hours in connection with the deposition (Blaustein Aff., Ex. 3, at 4
[January 25, 2018 time entry]).
25
[* 25] 25 of 35
INDEX NO. 605681/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 311 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/17/2025
Maldonado and the Firm's disloyalty continued throughout their representation of the
Sanders Entities in the Matters. For example, between June 2019 and April 2021,
Maldonado and the Firm billed, and the Sanders Entities paid, a total of $263,255.80, for
work the summary judgment motions that was performed by a different law firm, WOH
(Blaustein Aff., Exs. 3, 16-20). Additionally, Maldonado and the Firm billed excessive
hours in the Western Plume Matter (300 hours to defend three depositions) and
Hicksville Water District Matter (60 hours for a motion to dismiss) (Blaustein Aff., Exs.
6 and 7). In short, Defendants disloyalty continued through the conclusion of Maldonado
and the Firm's representation of the Sanders Entities, on April 5, 2021, when the Sanders
Entities made the final payment of Maldonado and the Firm's final legal bill (Blaustein
Aff., Ex. 2).
Therefore, on the Third Cause of Action for Breach of Fiduciary Duty, the Court awards
the Sanders Entities disgorgement of all compensation paid to Maldonado and the Firm
from January 7, 2018, the first date of disloyalty, through April 5, 2021, the date of last
payment to Maldonado and the Firm, in the amount of $2,037,776.85. As a consequence
of their default, Maldonado and the Firm may "not dispute" they "breached" their "duty
ofloyalty," and, therefore, the Sanders Entities are "entitled to a disgorgement of the fees
which were paid" under the "faithless servant claim" (Dawes v J. Muller & Co., 176 AD3d
at 474).
26
[* 26] 26 of 35
INDEX NO. 605681/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 311 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/17/2025
The Sixth Cause ofActionfor Legal Malpractice
This Court has granted the Sanders Entities partial summary judgment on liability on the
Sixth Cause of Action for Legal Malpractice (see Sanders Equities LLC v Maldonado,
2025 NY Slip Op 32439[U] [N.Y. Sup Ct, Nassau County 2025]; NYSCEF Doc. No. 273).
The Sanders Entities' legal malpractice claim involves entirely different conduct, and
different damages, than the fraud and breach of fiduciary duty claims. The Sixth Cause of
Action is not for fraudulent billing, but for professional malpractice for refusing to comply
with disclosure, causing this Court (Bucaria, J.), to strike the Sanders Entities' answer in
a litigation Maldonado and the Firm defended, captioned The Rehabilitation Institute,
Inc. v 123 Frost Associates L.P., Supreme Court, Nassau County, Index No. 612897/2017,
concealing it from the Sanders Entities afterwards, forcing the Sanders Entities to settle
the case, causing them damages as a result of the settlement of $350,000.
"In an action to recover damages for legal malpractice, a plaintiff must demonstrate [1]
that the attorney failed to exercise the ordinary reasonable skill and knowledge commonly
possessed by a member of the legal profession and [2] that the attorney's breach of this
duty proximately caused plaintiff to sustain actual and ascertainable damages" (Berkovits
v Berkovits, 190 AD3d 911, 918 [2d Dept 2021] [quotations omitted]).
An attorney who causes his or her client's default or loss on liability for noncompliance
with disclosure demands or order departs from the standard of care, committing
malpractice:
27
[* 27] 27 of 35
INDEX NO. 605681/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 311 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/17/2025
• Carasco v Schlesinger, 222 AD3d 476, 477 [1st Dept 2023] ["Between February
2017 and July 2018, Supreme Court, New York County issued orders dismissing
the underlying action based . . . on plaintiffs failure to provide discovery. Plaintiff
then commenced this legal malpractice action against J & S, Morelli Law Firm, and
Schlesinger.... The court correctly determined that Schlesinger failed to establish
prima facie" his entitlement to dismissal of the claim for legal malpractice"];
• RTW Retailwinds, Inc. v Colucci & Umans, 213 AD3d 509, 511-12 [1st Dept 2023]
["contrary to the motion court's conclusions, and viewing the evidence in the light
most favorable to plaintiffs, the documentary evidence submitted by defendants
did not utterly refute plaintiffs' allegations that defendants failed to produce
discovery" on an "affirmative defense and that this led to the exclusion of certain
evidence at trial. ... Accordingly, defendants have not conclusively established a
defense" to a claim oflegal malpractice, requiring reversal of grant of dismissal];
and
• 4777 Food Servs. Corp. vAnthony P. Gallo, P.C. , 150 AD3d 1054, 1054-55 [2d Dept
2017] [reversing pre-answer dismissal of an "action to recover damages for legal
malpractice," where "the complaint alleges that the defendants, Anthony P. Gallo,
P.C., and Anthony P. Gallo . .. , who represented the plaintiff' in an underlying
lawsuit "negligently failed to respond to certain discovery demands ... , which
resulted in the Supreme Court . . . precluding the introduction of evidence"]).
"A settlement and release in an underlying action" entered into to "obviate the full damage
that would otherwise have flowed from his attorney's negligence" does "not preclude a
subsequent action for legal malpractice where the settlement was compelled because of
28
[* 28] 28 of 35
INDEX NO. 605681/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 311 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/17/2025
the mistakes of former counsel" (Lattimore v Bergman, 224 AD2d 497, 497 [2d Dept
1996]; Maroulis v Friedman, 153 AD3d 1250, 1251 [2d Dept 2017] [a lawyer remains
liable for legal malpractice "despite settlement of the underlying action, if it is alleged that
settlement of the action was effectively compelled by the mistakes of counsel"]
[quotations omitted]).
Where a client is forced to pay money out of pocket to resolve a litigation because of a
lawyer's mistakes, "the settlement was effectively compelled by defendants' malpractice"
and is a recoverable form of damage (Stevens v Wheeler, 216 AD3d 537, 538 [1st Dept
2023]). In other words, "a legal malpractice plaintiffs damages may include litigation
expenses incurred in an attempt to avoid, minimize, or reduce the damage caused by the
attorney's wrongful conduct" (I.M.P. Plumbing & Heating Corp. v Munzer & Saunders,
LLP, 199 AD3d 569, 570 [1st Dept 2021] [quotations omitted]), including a settlement
Here, the basis of the Sanders Entities Sixth Cause for Legal Malpractice involves
Maldonado and the Firm's representation of the Sanders Entities in the following two
matters (i) The Rehabilitation Institute, Inc. v 123 Frost Associates L.P., Supreme Court,
Nassau County, Index No. 612897/2017 (the "Rehabilitation Institute Matter"); and (ii)
123 Frost Associates L.P. v The Rehabilitation Institute, Inc., Supreme Court, Nassau
County, Index No. 601013/2019 (the "123 Frost Matter") (Blaustein Aff., Ex. 22-23).
Specifically, the Rehabilitation Institute Matter was a lawsuit brought by a commercial
tenant of 123 Frost Associates L.P. ("123 Frost") alleging breach of a lease agreement,
including claims against 123 Frost for declaratory judgment, breach of contract, breach of
the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and reformation (Blaustein Aff., ,i 58). The
29
29 of 35
[* 29]
INDEX NO. 605681/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 311 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/17/2025
123 Frost Matter is a closely related matter to the Rehabilita tion Institute Matter, in which
123 Frost brought claims for breach of contract, declaratory judgment, tortious
interference with contract, and single enterprise liability (id., ,i 59).
In the Rehabilitation Institute Matter, Maldonado and the Firm repeatedly and
consistently violated routine requests for productio n of pre-trial disclosure (e.g.,
responses to discovery demands and interrogatories, and produce a corporate
representative from 123 Frost for a noticed deposition) (Blaustein Aff., Ex. 22) However,
Maldonado and the Firm failed to ever update 123 Frost and/ or the Sanders Entities about
any of these pre-trail discovery failures (Blaustein Aff., ,i 60). Because of these repeated
failure on or about December 13, 2018, the Hon. Stephen A. Bucaria issued a Short Form
Order striking the Answer of 123 Frost to the extent that 123 Frost was precluded from
offering certain evidence at trial supportin g its defense (Blaustein Aff., Ex. 24). Despite
the Court striking the Answer in December 2018, Maldonado and the Firm actively
concealed that fact from 123 Frost and the Sanders Entities throughou t the litigation of
both matters (Blaustein Aff., ,i 62).
On May 4, 2020, 123 Frost entered into a settlemen t agreemen t (the "Settleme nt
Agreement"), whereby 123 Frost agreed to settle the Rehabilitation Institute and 123 Frost
Matters by paying $350,000 .00 (Blaustein Aff., Ex. 25). When the Settlemen t Agreement
was executed, 123 Frost and/ or the Sanders Entities were still unaware that the Answer
was stricken in the Rehabilitation Institute Matter (Blaustein Aff., ,i 64).
30
[* 30] 30 of 35
INDEX NO. 605681/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 311 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/17/2025
Therefore, the Court awards the Sanders Entities money damages on the Sixth Cause of
Action for Legal Malpractice in the amount of $350,00 0.
Prejud gment Interes t
On the First Cause of Action for Attorney Deceit/ Judiciar y Law§ 487, the record shows
that Maldonado and the Firm acquired funds from the Sanders Entities through "deceit"
and "with intent to deceive," depriving them of the use of their money (Altman v Orseck,
235 AD3d at 819).
This claim involved "an act or omission depriving or otherwise interferi ng with title to, or
possession or enjoyme nt of, property" - taking of a law firm client's fund through
dishonesty - for which prejudgm ent interest is recoverable as of right (CPLR § 5001 [a]).
Therefore, the Court awards prejudgm ent interest on the First Cause of Action (see e.g.
Stein v Einhorn, 74 AD3d 1185, 1185 [2d Dept 2010] ["Supreme Court properly calculated
prejudgm ent interest on the treble damages awarded"]; Mohassel v Fenwick, 5 NY3d 44,
47 [2005] ["In this rent overcharge proceeding, the issue is whether a rent stabilized
tenant was properly granted prejudgm ent interest on a treble damages award. We
conclude that he was."]).
On the Second Cause of Action for Fraud, a plaintiff who prevails on a claim for fraud is
entitled to prejudgm ent interest (see e.g. Huang v Sy, 62 AD3d 660, 661 [2d Dept 2009]
["Supreme Court properly awarded pre-verdict interest as a matter of right pursuan t to
CPLR § 5001 (a) upon the principal sum awarded in connecti on with the plaintiffs' causes
31
[* 31] 31 of 35
INDEX NO. 605681/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 311 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/17/2025
of action to recover damages for fraud"]; see also e.g. Whittemore v Yeo, 117 AD3d 544,
545-46 [1st Dept 2014] ["The court properly awarded prejudgment interest, as defendant
had the advantage of using the money that plaintiff was fraudulently induced to
contribute and plaintiff was deprived of his use thereof'] [citations omitted]). Therefore,
the Court awards prejudgment interest on the Second Cause of Action.
On the Third Cause of Action for Breach of Fiduciary Duty, a plaintiff who prevails on a
claim for breach of fiduciary duty is entitled to prejudgment interest (Huang v Sy, 62
AD3d at 661 ["Supreme Court properly awarded pre-verdict interest as a matter of right
pursuant to CPLR § 5001 (a) upon the principal sum awarded in connection with the
plaintiffs' causes of action to recover damages for ... breach of fiduciary duty"]). "[S]uch
an award is virtually mandated in situations where fiduciaries failed to properly account
for many years, during which time the fiduciary enjoyed the benefit of the injured
[principal]'s money" (Sexter v Kimmelman, Sexter, Warmfiash & Leitner, 43 AD3d 790,
795 [1st Dept 2007] [quotations omitted]). Therefore, the Court awards prejudgment
interest on the Third Cause of Action.
On the Sixth Cause of Action for Legal Malpractice, a plaintiff who prevails on a claim for
legal malpractice is entitled to prejudgment interest (Lovino, Inc. v Lavallee Law Offices,
96 AD3d 910, 913 [2d Dept 2012] ["The defendants contend that the assessment of
prejudgment interest on the entire principal amount is an impermissible double recovery
.... This contention is without merit"]; Barnett v Schwartz, 47 AD3d 197, 208 [2d Dept
2007] ["CPLR § 5001 operates to permit an award of prejudgment interest from the date
of accrual of the malpractice action in actions seeking damages for attorney malpractice"]
32
[* 32] 32 of 35
INDEX NO. 605681/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 311 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/17/2025
[quotations omitted]). Therefore, the Court awards prejudgm ent interest on the Sixth
Cause of Action.
The applicable rate of interest on all of the causes of action is 9% per annum (see CPLR §
5004 [a]; see e.g. Scotti v Barrett, 166 AD3d 698, 699 [2d Dept 2018] ["interest is to be
awarded at the statutory rate of 9% per annum"]).
The sole remaining question is from when interest should run. The default rule is that
prejudgm ent interest "shall be computed from the earliest ascertainable date the cause of
action existed .... " (CPLR § 5001 [b]). The exception is that where "damages were
incurred at various times, interest shall be computed upon each item from the date it was
incurred or upon all of the damages from a single reasonable intermedi ate date" (id.).
Here, because of Maldonado and the Firm's dishonesty and deceit of their longtime
clients, and their disregard for this Court's orders over three years of litigation, the Court
exercises its discretion and awards prejudgm ent interest from the "earliest ascertainable
date the cause of action existed" (CPLR § 5001 [b]), which is January 7, 2018, through the
date of entry of judgment (see e.g. Ecoline, Inc. v W.H. Peepels Co., Inc., 153 AD3d 786,
787 [2d Dept 2017] [the "award of interest on the judgment should be calculated as of the
earliest ascertainable date the cause of action existed"]).
33
[* 33] 33 of 35
INDEX NO. 605681/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 311 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/17/2025
Accordingly,
It is
ORDERED, that Plaintiffs are awarded damages as follows: (i) on the First Cause of
Action for Attorney Deceit/ Judiciary Law§ 487, awarding treble damages on the amount
awarded on the Third Cause of Action, $2,037,776.85, for a total treble award of
$6,113,330.55; (ii) on the Second Cause of Action for Fraud, awarding money damages of
$263,255. 80; (iii) on the Third Cause of Action for Breach of Fiduciary Duty, awarding
disgorgem ent of compensa tion under the faithless servant doctrine of $2,037,776.85; (iv)
on the Sixth Cause of Action, awarding money damages of $350,000 .00; and
It is
ORDERED, that Plaintiffs are awarded prejudgm ent interest on the total principal award
at the rate of 9% per annum from January 7, 2018, through the date of entry of judgment;
and
It is
ORDERED, that Plaintiffs shall submit Judgment on Notice to the Nassau County Clerk
in accordance with this Decision and Order within thirty (30) days of the date of entry;
and
It is
ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall serve a copy of this Decision and Order with Notice of
Entry upon Defendan ts within seven (7) days of the date of entry of this Decision and
Order.
34
[* 34] 34 of 35
INDEX NO. 605681/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 311 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/17/2025
This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court after Inquest.
Dated: Mineola, New York
December 17, 2025
35
[* 35] 35 of 35