Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Gina Robinson, Petitioner v. Fashion District Dental, et al.
Supreme Court briefMar 12, 2025
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
ia
TABLE OF APPENDICES
Documents
Page
APPENDIX
1
Order Dismissing Appeal To The
Court Of Appeals Of The State Of
New York, December 12, 2024.......la
APPENDIX
2
New York Appellate Division, First
Department’s September 26, 2024,
Order Dismissing Case 2022-05698
Which Raised Substantial
Constitutional Questions And
Striking The Only Joint Record On
Appeal Filed Singularly By
Petitioner............................................. 3a
APPENDIX
3
1st Dept. Declines To Release SA To
Petitioner, Stays Time To Find
Outside Ortho And To Destroy Paid
Merchandise
7a
APPENDIX 4A
New York Supreme Court’s December
9, 2022, Order punishes Petitioner
with additional costs and unlawful
detention of property and only grants
Default without relief and Only 1 of
34 claims in the Summary
Judgment
11a
APPENDIX
4B
New York Supreme Court’s December
9, 2022, Grants Summary Judgment
and dismissal to Tortfeasor That
na
Falsely Stated Petitioner Already
Received Her Property Triggering
Fraud, Conversion and Petitioner’s
inability to reverse the Charges....15a
► APPENDIX
4C
New York Supreme Court’s December
9, 2022, Order punishes Petitioner
with additional costs, unlawful
detention of property, unlawfully
introduces outside party into case and
grants Summary Judgment dismissal
to all Tortfeasors aside from 1
claim
20a
APPENDIX
5
Trial Court Denies Plaintiffs OSC To
Quash Defendant's Adjournment
Stating Referee Has Addressed
Issues, Dated June 8, 2022
23a
APPENDIX
6
NYSC Denies Plaintiffs OSC To
Quash Defendant's Demand For Oral
Examinations, Erroneously Stating
They Are Entitled To Discovery As A
Motion For Summary Judgment Had
Been Filed A Month Prior, Dated
June 14, 2022
27a
APPENDIX
7
NYSC Denies Plaintiffs OSC For
Discovery Though It Was Just
Granted To Tortfeasors, Dated
August 9, 2022................................. 31a
ma
APPENDIX
8
NYSC Aug 2 Oral argument is told
Tortfeasors are concealing the Firm
name, but does not ask for it......... 35a
APPENDIX
9
1st Dept. Requests Tortfeasor Justin
Rashbaum’s Brief And Records On
Septemberl9, 2024 And Receive No
Compliance
38a
APPENDIX
10
1st Dept. Requests Tortfeasors Stein,
Abrams and Jay Rashbaum's Brief
And Records On Septemberl9, 2024
And Receive No Compliance
40a
APPENDIX
11
1st Dept. Requests Tortfeasor Justin
Rashbaum’s Brief And Records On
February 21, 2024 And Receive No
Compliance
42a
APPENDIX
12
1st Dept. Requests Tortfeasors Stein,
Abrams and Jay Rashbaum's Brief
And Records On February 21, 2024
And Receive No Compliance
44a
APPENDIX
13
Instead Of Filing The Brief And
Records Requested By The Court,
Tortfeasors File Contempt Charges
Against Petitioner
46a
APPENDIX
14
Tortfeasors 2nd Contempt Charge and
attempt to file Felony Usury Charges
against Petitioner for what they
lva
consider remittance for a "loan" but
Tortfeasors owe $250. plus interest to
Petitioner for an incomplete
contract
53a
APPENDIX
15
1st Dept. Asks Petitioner A Year
Later, To Alter Her Already Accepted
Record And Brief To Include Minor
Changes Like Titles On Resized
Pages And When She Complies It Is
Again Stricken At Tortfeasors’
Request
58a
APPENDIX
16
1st Dept. Suborns Tortfeasors’
Request That They Violate
Petitioner’s 14th Amendment Rights
To Present Evidence
62a
APPENDIX
17
New York Court Of Appeals Refers
To Petitioner’s Allegations Of
Constitutional Issues Yet Still
Dismisses The Case Sua Sponte...68a
APPENDIX
18
NY Constitution - NYCOA Order
Of Dismissal Refers To Statutes
Such As Article VI § 3(b) That Do
Not Bar Jurisdiction....................... 72a
APPENDIX
19
Petitioner's Preliminary Statement
Clearly States Constitutional’Issues
Numerous Times
74-llla
va
APPENDIX
19/20
1st Dept. Grants Tortfeasors
Everything They Ask Including
To Strike Petitioner’s Proper And
Timely Record And1 Brief.......102-105a
APPENDIX
21
Petitioner Made Appointment
by phone describing her
specifications to Tortfeasors...
112a
APPENDIX
22
Tortfeasors, in office, and by
email rescinded their promise to
produce SA per her specifications,
Petitioner restated her
specifications multiple times
by email
113a
APPENDIX
23
Petitioner paid for SA in
full on July 14, 2021, at
$1050.00.............................
118a
APPENDIX
24
The SA was delivered only to
an outside party and paid for
by Petitioner ($250.).............. . 120a
APPENDIX
25
Oct 18, 2021, Tortfeasors are
reported by Petitioner to New
York State Department of Health
and the Office for their
violations
122a
APPENDIX
26
Tortfeasors breach fiduciary duty
multiple times including several
via
counts of fraud, and theft and
conversion of the SA, for unknown
reasons
126a
APPENDIX
27
NYSC is presented with evidence
of 3 separate forgeries
131a
APPENDIX
28A-C
Tortfeasors forge Petitioners
signature on 3 separate release
forms. No copies were given to
Petitioner and used to doxx her
medical records
134a
APPENDIX
29A-E
Tortfeasors Taunt Petitioner to sue
them in court after refusing a full
refund or the SA...
140a
APPENDIX
Petitioner Developed Hives for 6
months and finally sought then
received treatment
153a
30
APPENDIX
31
Tortfeasors terminated Petitioner
as a patient with an incomplete
contract, and without cause 157a
APPENDIX
Tortfeasors refuse a refund without
Petitioner signing her rights away
with an NDA
160a
32
APPENDIX
33
Tortfeasors make false statement
that Petitioner already received
her SA
164a
viia
APPENDIX
34
Tortfeasors make false statement
she refused it for illegitimate
reasons in her doxxed
medical records
166a
APPENDIX
35
First Dept, strikes Petitioner's
Accepted Record & Brief (June 8Docs. No. 23-25) at the behest of
Defendant's Contradicting Court
Rules.
171a
APPENDIX
36
Note of Issue Still remains from
Petitioner's Accepted Record &
Brief (June 8) Stricken at the
behest of Defendants Contradicting
Court Rules
175a
APPENDIX
37
NYSC Certification Desk
Certifies Petitioner's Record
June 1, 2023.............................
178a
APPENDIX
38
AIR granted to Tortfeasors
Aug 4, 2023.............................
180a
APPENDIX
39
AIR requested by Tortfeasors
January 30, 2024 to Adjourn from
March to May 2024 Term
184a
APPENDIX
40
Tortfeasors granted permission
to file late opposition Feb 13,
2024
190a
vma
APPENDIX
41
First Dept. Continues to Uphold
Violation of Petitioner's 14th
Amendment Rights to Due Process
...........................................................196a
APPENDIX
42
First Dept, is asked to settle the
record and they refuse
201a
APPENDIX
43
First Dept. Continues to strike
Petitioner's Record and Brief even
after their recommended changes
are made
205a
APPENDIX
44
Petitioner points out that her
papers by law should not be
stricken............................ .......... 209a
APPENDIX
45
Petitioner points out there were
multiple motion sequence numbers
misidentified as outside the scope of
Motion sequence numbers 001-003
which the Court demanded......215a
APPENDIX
46
Petitioner points out the responsive
connection between documents
place them within the scope of
Motion sequence numbers 001-003
which the Court demanded. And
The Frivolous actions of Tortfeasors
do not remove their guilt
220a
ixa
APPENDIX
47
OSC to accept Service Affidavits,
Brief and Joint Record (Docs No.
185-189) deleted by First Dept.
224a
APPENDIX
48
Petitioner Timely Files Service
affidavits for the Brief and Joint
Record
,228a
APPENDIX
49
Petitioner again points out the
Seq, Nos. misidentified as outside
001-003 which the Court
demanded
233a
APPENDIX
50
Tortfeasors granted (AIR) July 30
for Extension to October 2024 term
............................................... ...........237a
APPENDIX
51
Tortfeasors filed (AIR) August 4,
2024, for extensions to the
November term (NYSCEF Doc. No.
202 & 203). They are removed but
granted anyway in Doc. No. 205
(App 2)
241a
APPENDIX
52
Accepted Joint Record and Brief
Entered April 30 2024 Amended
June 20, 2024 (Docs. No 169 &
170)
245a
APPENDIX
53
Accepted Joint Record Entered
April 30 2024 Amended June 20,
xa
2024
APPENDIX
54
250a
Accepted Brief Entered April 30
2024 Amended June 20, 202..... 253a
la
APPENDIX 1 - ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL
BEFORE THE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK,
FILED DECEMBER 12, 2024
STATE OF NEW YORK
COURT OF APPEALS
No. APL-2024-00139
SSD47
GINA ROBINSON,
Appellant,
V.
FASHION DISTRICT DENTAL, ET AL.,
Respondents.
Decided and Entered on the twelfth
day of December, 2024
Cases: NYSCEF-153436/2022, NYSCEF-2022/05698
BEFORE: Hon. Rowan D. Wilson, Chief Judge,
presiding.
ORDER
Appellant having appealed to the Court of Appeals in
the above title; Upon the papers filed and due
deliberation, it is
2a
Appendix 1
ORDERED, that the appeal is dismissed without
costs, by the Court sua sponte, upon the ground that
it does not lie (see NY Const, art VI,§ 3 [b]; CPLR
5601).
FOR THE COURT:
BY:
/S/
Heather Davis/
Clerk of the Court
3a
APPENDIX 2 - ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL
BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT OF THE
STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE DIVISION,
FIRST JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT,
FILED SEPTEMBER 26, 2024
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
No. 2022-05698
GINA ROBINSON,
Appellant,
V.
FASHION DISTRICT DENTAL, ET AL.,
Respondents.
Filed On: September 26, 2024
Cases: NYSCEF-153436/2022, NYSCEF-2022/05698
BEFORE: Anil C. Singh, Justice Presiding,
Lizbeth Gonzalez
Tanya R. Kennedy
Julio Rodriguez III
Bahaati E. Pitt-Burke,
Gina Robinson,
Motion Nos. 2024-03457
4a
Appendix 2
Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent,
Index No.
Case No.
2024-03501
2024-03730
153436/22
2022-05698
-againstFashion District Dental, et al., DefendantsRespondents,
Dr. David Stein, DMD, and Dr. Jay
Rashbaum, DMD,
Defendants-Respondents-Appellants.
An appeal and cross-appeal having been taken
to this Court from an order of the Supreme Court,
New York County, entered on or about December 12,
2022, and the appeal having been perfected,
And plaintiff-appellant, pro se, having moved
for an order accepting filing of plaintiffs affidavits of
service of the joint record on appeal and appellant’s
brief (Motion No. 2024-03457),
And defendants-respondents Dr. Justin
Rashbaum, D.M.D., individually and doing business
as Fashion District Dental having moved to strike the
joint record on appeal and brief filed by plaintiffappellant and to dismiss plaintiffs appeal (Motion No.
2024-03501),
5a
Appendix 2
And defendants-respondents-appellant having
moved separately to strike plaintiff-appellant’s joint
record on appeal and brief and to dismiss plaintiffs
appeal (Motion No. 2024-03730),
Now, upon reading and filing the papers with
respect to the motions, and due deliberation having
been had
thereon,
Case No. 2022-05698
-2-
Motion Nos. 2024-03457
2024-03501
2024-03730
It is ordered that plaintiff s motion to accept
filing of the affidavits of service is denied (Motion No.
2024-03457), and
It is further ordered that the motions by
defendants-respondents and defendants-respondentsappellants are granted to the extent of striking the
amended record and brief filed by plaintiff-appellant
on June 20, 2024, and dismissing plaintiffs appeal;
sua sponte, the time to perfect defendants. respondents-appellants’ cross appeal, now designated
the direct appeal, is extended to the February 2025
Term of this Court (Motion No. 2024-03501 and
Motion No. 2024-03730).
6a
Appendix 2
ENTERED: September 26, 2024
BY:
/S/
Susanna Molina Rojas/
Clerk of the Court
7a
APPENDIX 3 - SUMMARY STATEMENT ON
APPLICATION FOR EXPEDITED SERVICE
AND/OR INTERIM RELIEF FOR THE
APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT
FILED DECEMBER 19, 2022
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
No. 2022 - 05698
GINA ROBINSON,
Appellant,
V.
FASHION DISTRICT DENTAL, ET AL.,
Respondents.
Filed On: December 19, 2022
Cases: NYSCEF-153436/2022, NYSCEF-2022/05698
BEFORE:
Lizbeth Gonzalez, Justice Presiding,
Date: December 19, 2022
lndex/lndict/Docket#
Case # 153436/2022
8a
Appendix 3
Title Gina Robinson v. Fashion District Dental et al.
of
Matter Appeal from order dated 12/9/2022 requiring
Plaintiff-Appellant designate alternate
orthodontist to fitting device
Appeal by Order(x) Supreme(x) County New York
Plaintiff from Judgment( .) of Surrogate’s( )
Decree( ) Family( ) Court entered on 12/9, 2022
Name of
Judge • Hon. Lynn R. Kotler
Notice of Appeal
filed on -12/19, 2022
If from administrative determination, state agency
Nature of Tortious breach of contract, theft, forgery,
action or fraud, Hipaa violations, breach of fiduciary
proceeding duties resulting in Defendants' demand
for above designation by Plaintiff.
Provisions of (X) order
( ) Judgment appealed from All
( ) decree
provisions in the order to
include the designation of the alternate orthodontist
fitting the device.
This application by appellant is for An order that
respondent Defendants release
the device, as pictured Aug 3rd, 2021. immediately
via USPS with tracking or via messenger. Or Stay the
9a
Appendix 3
proceedings in the trial court pending the outcome of
the Appeal. If applying for a stay, state reason why
requested Plaintiff has attempted multiple times to
comply with the order to designate an alternate
orthodontist but the prevailing practice is for those in
that field to prohibit transferred devices for liability
involving materials and craftsmanship.
Has any undertaking been posted
amount and type________
If "yes", state
Has application been made to
court below for this relief No
Has there been any prior
Application here in this court
Yes
If "yes", state
Disposition______
If yes", state dates
and nature 2/22/2019
Has adversary been advised
of this application Yes
Does he/she .
consent Unknown
Attorney for Movant
Name Gina Robinson
Address 200 West 80th
5N
New York, NY 10024
Tel. No, 646-266-1142
Email ginarobinson2018
@gmail.com
Attorney for Opposition
Mr. Dennis M. Rothman
Street LESTER SCHWAB
KATZ & DWYER, LLP
Appearing by_______
100 Wall Street
New York, NY 10005
212 964-6611
10a
Appendix 3
Mr. Henry Schwartz, Esq
LAW OFFICES OF
HENRY SCHWARTZ
32 Court Street, Suite 908
Brooklyn, New York
11201, (718) 222-3118
DISPOSITION
Application granted only to the extent of staying (1)
the 30-day window within which plaintiff is to find an
orthodontist to install the spring aligner /retainer and
(2) defendants from destroying or otherwise disposing
of plaintiffs spring aligner/ retainer pending the
determination of plaintiffs motion, and otherwise
denied without prejudice to consideration of plaintiffs
motion by a full bench.
/si LG
Justice (LG)
Motion Date 01/30/2023
December 20, 2022
Date
Opposition 01/13/2023
Reply 01/27/2023
EXPEDITE Yes_ PHONE ATTORNEYS Yes_
DECISION BY_______
ALL PAPERS TO BE SERVED PERSONALLY
electronically/via NYSCEF
ARG
Court Attorney
No appearances had on interim application.
11a
APPENDIX 4A - ORDER BEFORE THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW
YORK, NEW YORK COUNTY,
FILED DECEMBER 9, 2022
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW
YORK, NEW YORK COUNTY
No. 153436/2022
GINA ROBINSON,
Appellant,
V.
FASHION DISTRICT DENTAL, ET AL.
Respondents.
Filed On: December 9, 2022
BEFORE:
HON.L YNN R. KOTLER, J.S.C., Justice
Presiding,
PRESENT:
HON.L YNN R. KOTLER. J.S.C.
Gina Robinson
vFashion District Dental et al
PART 8
INDEX NO:
153436-2022
MOT. DATE
MOT. SEQ. NO. 1-3
12a
Appendix 4A
The following papers were read on this motion to/for
Notice of Motion/Petition/O.S.C. - Affidavits - Exhibits
ECFS DOC No(s).__
Notice of Cross-Motion/Answering Affidavits-Exhibits
ECFS DOC No(s). _
Replying Affidavits ECFS DOC No(s)._
The parties in this action are plaintiff Gina
Robinson, pro se, and defendants Fashion District
Dental, Dr. Justin Rashbaum, DMD, Dr. David Stein,
DMD, Dr. Jay Rashbaum, DMD and Dr. Michael
Abrams, DDS. The individual defendants have
answered the complaint. There are three motion
sequences pending which are hereby consolidated for
the court's consideration and disposition in this single
decision/ order. In motion sequence 1, plaintiff pro se
moves for "summary judgment on all 34 of their
causes of action and entering a money judgment of no
less than $64,000.00 plus Court fees, expenses, pre
and post-judgment interest..." Motion sequences 2
and 3 are also brought by plaintiff and seeks the same
relief, with sequence 3 seeking such relief on default.
Defendant Justin Rashbaum, D.M.D. opposes motion
sequence 3 (NYSCEF Doc 89) and cross-moves to
dismiss and for sanctions (NYSCEF Doc 90 -104).
Defendants David Stein, D.M.D., Jay Rashbaum,
D.M.D. and Michael Abrams, D.D.S. also cross-move
to dismiss and/or for summary judgment (NYSCEF
Doc. 121-136).
13a
Appendix 4A
The parties appeared for oral argument on August 2,
2022, at which time all sides were heard on the
motions and cross-motions. A transcript of the oral
argument is filed as NYSCEF Doc. 173.
In an 86-page complaint, plaintiff is suing the
defendants "for damages and specific performance
arising from an array of civil violations, breach of
contract and crimes, regarding the fabrication and
delivery of dental Spring Aligner (SA) or Retainer".
Plaintiff alleges that the defendants promised to
fabricate the SA, breached their agreement to do so
and instead advised that the retainer would be
stationary instead, and on "August 13, 2021, after a
lengthy debate, Defendants terminated services with
Plaintiff and refused her a refund of the contract she
paid for in full." Plaintiff has asserted 34 causes of
action against the defendants. As defense counsel
explained during oral argument, defendants would
only give the retainer to another orthodontist to
ensure that the retainer fit plaintiffs mouth properly
and avoid further litigation (NYSCEF Doc. 173, p.ll).
Plaintiff admits in her complaint that the defendants
si LK
Dated: 12/8/22
HON. LYNN"R KOTLER, J.S.C.
1. Check one:
[ ] CASE DISPOSED DISPOSITION
[ ] NON-FINAL DISPOSITION
2. Check as appropriate: Motion is
[ ] GRANTED [ ] DENIED [ ] GRANTED IN PART
14a
Appendix 4A
3. Check if appropriate:
[ ] SETTLE ORDER [ ] SUBMIT ORDER [ ] DO
NOT POST
[ ] FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT [ ] REFERENCE
15a
APPENDIX 4B - ORDER BEFORE THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW
YORK, NEW YORK COUNTY,
FILED DECEMBER 9, 2022
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW
YORK, NEW YORK COUNTY
No. 153436/2022
GINA ROBINSON,
Appellant,
V.
FASHION DISTRICT DENTAL, ET AL.
Respondents.
Filed On: December 9, 2022
BEFORE:
HON.L YNN R. KOTLER, J.S.C., Justice
Presiding,
offered her a refund for the price of the SA, which was
$450, but complains that this amount was less than
the $1,050 which plaintiff paid. Defendants explain
that the difference covers services that were provided
to plaintiff. In addition, defendant Abrams asserts
that he is not a properly party to this case as he has
no affiliation with the Fashion District Dental, did not
16a
Appendix 4B
treat plaintiff and did not assist the codefendants in
their treatment of plaintiff or fabrication of the
retainer.
The court will first consider the parties'
motions for summary judgment. On a motion for
summary judgment, the proponent bears the initial
burden of setting forth evidentiary facts to prove a
prima facie case that would entitle it to judgment in
its favor, without the need for a trial (CPLR 3212;
Winegrad v. NYU Medical Center, 64 NY2d 851
[1985]; Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 NY2d 557,
562 [1980]). If the proponent fails to make out its
prima facie case for summary judgment, however,
then its motion must be denied, regardless of the
sufficiency of the opposing papers (Alvarez v. Prospect
Hospital, 68 NY2d 320 [1986]; Ayotte v. Geruasio, 81
NY2d 1062 [1993]).
Granting a motion for summary judgment is
the functional equivalent of a trial, therefore it is a
drastic remedy that should not be granted where
there is any doubt as to the existence of a triable issue
(Rotuba Extruders v. Ceppos, 46 NY2d 223 [1977]).
The court's function on these motions is limited to
"issue finding," not "issue determination" (Sillman v. .
Twentieth Century Fox Film, 3 NY2d 395 [1957]).
Plaintiff has asserted numerous causes of action, the
bulk of which are meritless. At the outset, defendant
17a
Appendix 4B
Abrams has established prima facie entitlement to
summary judgment as he was not personally involved
with the underlying transaction at issue. Since
plaintiff has failed to raise a triable issue of fact on
this point, Abrams' cross-motion for summary
judgment dismissing plaintiffs complaint against him
is granted and the respected portions of plaintiffs
motions against Abrams are denied.
Otherwise, Plaintiff has failed to allege the
elements of conversion because defendants have
agreed to transfer the retainer to any orthodontist
that plaintiff designates so that the retainer can be
properly fitted. The court does not find defendants'
stipulation that the retainer not be delivered to
plaintiff herself tantamount to an improper
interference with plaintiffs right to possession. This
is a professional fabricated device which must be
custom fit and defendants may rightfully refuse to
transfer it directly to plaintiff. Plaintiffs only
potentially availing claim sounds in breach of
contract, the terms of which she has failed to
establish. The remaining causes of action are
improperly duplicative of her breach of contract claim.
The court will therefore grant plaintiff 30 days to
designate an orthodontist to which defendants shall
transfer the retainer to. Plaintiffs failure to so
designate within the time provided herein shall be
deemed an abandonment of the retainer. The court
will not award plaintiff reimbursement for the
18a
Appendix 4B
retainer since it was fabricated at plaintiffs request.
As for the remaining $600 which plaintiff paid to
defendants, there is no dispute on this record that
this amount was paid for services which defendants
already rendered. Therefore, plaintiff is not entitled
to same, either.
Accordingly, plaintiffs motion for summary
judgment is granted as to the third cause of action for
breach of contract only to the extent that within 30
days from the date of service of this order with notice
of entry, plaintiff shall designate in writing the name
of an orthodontist licensed in New York and deliver
such designation to counsel for the defendants Dr.
Justin Rashbaum, DMD, Dr. David Stein, DMD, Dr.
Jay Rashbaum, DMD and upon such designation, said
defendants shall deliver the retainer to the
orthodontist selected by plaintiff. The balance of
plaintiffs motions for summary judgment is denied
and the cross-motion by defendants Dr. Justin
Rashbaum, DMD, Dr. David Stein, DMD, Dr. Jay
Rashbaum, DMD is granted to the extent that all but
plaintiffs third cause of action is severed and
dismissed.
Plaintiff has moved for a default judgment
against the defendants. All but Fashion District
Dental have answered the compliant. Therefore,
plaintiff may only obtain a judgment by default
against Fashion District Dental, which she has
19a
Appendix 4B
otherwise established was properly served with a copy
of the summons and compliant and has failed to
timely appear in this action or obtain an order from
the court extending its time to do so. While a default
in answering the complaint constitutes an admission
of the factual allegations and the reasonable
inferences which may be made therefrom (Rokina
Optical Co., Inc. v. Camera King, Inc., 63 NY2d 728
[1984]}, plaintiff is entitled to default judgment in its
favor,
20a
APPENDIX 4C - ORDER BEFORE THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW
YORK, NEW YORK COUNTY,
FILED DECEMBER 9, 2022
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW
YORK, NEW YORK COUNTY
No. 153436/2022
GINA ROBINSON,
Appellant,
V.
FASHION DISTRICT DENTAL, ET AL„
Respondents.
Filed On: December 9, 2022
BEFORE:
HON.L YNN R. KOTLER, J.S.C., Justice
Presiding,
provided it otherwise demonstrates that it has a
prima facie cause of action (Gagen v. Kipany
Productions Ltd., 289 AD2d 844 [3d Dept 2001 ]). For
the reasons already stated herein, only plaintiffs
third cause of action has merit, and to the extent that
she seeks the same relief against the individual
defendants as Fashion District Dental, her motion for
a default judgment is granted in a manner consistent
with the relief accorded to plaintiff against defendants
21a
Appendix 4C
Dr. Justin Rashbaum, DMD, Dr. David Stein, DMD,
Dr. Jay Rashbaum, DMD.
Defendants' request for sanctions is denied, since this
action arose from a legitimate dispute and
despite the voluminous nature of the papers filed in
this action which is disproportionate to the nature of
the parties' dispute, the court does not find plaintiffs
actions frivolous at this juncture. This determination,
however, does not preclude the defendants from
requesting sanctions on a future date in the event
plaintiff does in fact engage in frivolous action or
motion practice within the meaning of the court rules.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that motion sequence numbers 1,2
and 3 are granted to the extent that plaintiff is
entitled to summary judgment against defendants Dr.
Justin Rashbaum, DMD, Dr. David Stein, DMD, Dr.
Jay Rashbaum, DMD on her third cause of action for
breach of contract and a default judgment against
Fashion District Dental on her third cause of action;
and it is further.
ORDERED that within 30 days from the date
of service of this order with notice of entry, plaintiff
shall designate in writing the name of an orthodontist
licensed in New York and deliver such designation
to Fashion District Dental and counsel for the
22a
Appendix 4C
defendants Dr. Justin Rashbaum, DMD, Dr. David
Stein, DMD, Dr. Jay Rashbaum, DMD and upon such
designation, said defendants shall deliver to the
retainer to the orthodontist selected by plaintiff; and it
is further
ORDERED that the balance of plaintiffs
motions for summary judgment is denied; and it is
further
ORDERED that the cross-motion by defendant
Dr. Michael Abrams, DPS is granted and plaintiffs
claims against defendant Dr. Michael Abrams, DPS
are severed and dismissed; and it is further
ORDERED that the cross-motion by defendants
Dr. Justin Rashbaum, DMD, Or. David Stein,
DMO, Or. Jay Rashbaum, DMO is granted to the
extent that all but plaintiffs third cause of action is
severed and dismissed.
Any requested relief not expressly addressed
herein has nonetheless been considered and is
hereby expressly rejected and this constitutes the
decision and order of the court.
Dated: 12/8/22
New York, New York
So Ordered:
s/LK
Hon. Lynn R. Kotler, J.S.C.
23a
APPENDIX 5 - DENIED - PETITIONER'S OSC
TO QUASH TORTFEASORS’ ADJOURNMENT
BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT OF THE
STATE OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK COUNTY,
FILED JUNE 8, 2022
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW
YORK, NEW YORK COUNTY
No. 153436/2022
GINA ROBINSON,
Appellant,
V.
FASHION DISTRICT DENTAL, ET AL„
Respondents.
Filed On: June 8, 2022
BEFORE:
HON.L YNN R. KOTLER, J.S.C., Justice
Presiding,
TRIAL COURT DENIES PLAINTIFF'S OSC TO
QUASH DEFENDANT'S ADJOURNMENT
STATING REFEREE HAS ADDRESSED ISSUES,
DATED JUNE 8, 2022 [712-713]
24a
Appendix 5
At a Term of the Supreme Court of the
State of New York held in and for the
County of New York at the Court House
Street New York, NY 10002 13 on the
___ day of
, 20 22^
PRESENT:
Hon.
Lynn R. Kotler
Justice of the Supreme Court
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
X
GINA ROBINSON,
Plaintiff,
Index No: 153436/2022
-againstFASHION DISTRICT DENTAL;
DR. JUSTIN RASHBAUM, DMD;
DR. DAVID STEIN, DMD;
DR. JAY RASHBAUM, DMD;
DR. MICHAEL ABRAMS, D.D.S.,
Defendants,
ORDER TO
SHOW CAUSE
TO QUASH
DEFENDANTS
ADJOURN
MENTS OF
BOTH
DEFAULT
JUDGMENT
AND SUMM
ARY JUDGMENT
25a
Appendix 5
MS # 4: INJUNCTION
RESTRAINING
ORDER
Upon reading and filing the affidavit of Plaintiff,
Gina Robinson, sworn to on June 3, 2022, a copy of
supporting documents, as well as, documentation that
opposing counsel was notified that such an Order
would be sought, and the exhibits thereto, in Support
of Petitioner's Order to Show Cause to quash
Defendants adjournments, and no previous
application having been made for the relief requested
herein Pursuant to CPLR 2214 (d),It is horoby,
ORDERED LET Defendants, or counsel, show
cause before a Term of this Court to be held at the
Courthouse located 60 Center 80 Centre Street, New
York, NY on
, 20_22 at
o'clock in
the.
or as soon as the parties to this proceeding
may be heard, why an order should not be issued,
providing the following relief:
Quash both of Defendants adjournments of two
separate motions. Plaintiffs Motion for Default, dated
May 18.2022. with a return date of May 25th, and
Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment, dated May
13, 2022, with a return date of June 2, 2022.
and such other and further relief as may to the
court seem just and proper, for the reasons that: They
26a
Appendix 5
were both sufficient and should by adjudicated
promptly; Defendants offered no valid reason for the
adjournments: the Defendants did not follow the
proper procedure for requesting the adjournments;
the referee offered no reasons the adjournments
were granted; and the referee did not clearly state
what adjournments corresponded to what motions.
ORDERED THAT, Sufficient cause appearing
therefor, let service of a copy of this order, and the
other papers upon which this order is granted upon
all Defendants by mail on or before the_day of, 20 22
SHALL be deemed good and sufficient. An affidavit or
other proof of service shall be presented to this Court
on the return date directed in the second paragraph of
this order.
ENTER:
XXX
J.S.C.
The court declines, to sign this order to show cause as
it lacks merit.
Issues regarding submission of the motions that are
the subject of this proposed order to show cause were
properly addressed by the Referee in the Motion
Submissions Part.
SO ORDERED:
s/ LK
________________
J.S.C.
HOT.LYNNR. KOTLER J.S.C.
Dated 6/8/22
27a
APPENDIX 6 - DENIED - PETITIONER'S OSC
TO QUASH TORTFEASORS’ DEMAND FOR
DISCOVERY BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK,
NEW YORK COUNTY,
FILED JUNE 14, 2022
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW
YORK, NEW YORK COUNTY
No. 153436/2022
GINA ROBINSON,
Appellant,
V.
FASHION DISTRICT DENTAL, ET AL„
Respondents.
Filed On: June 14, 2022
BEFORE:
HON.L YNN R. KOTLER, J.S.C., Justice
Presiding,
At a Term of the Supreme Court of the
State of New York held in and for the
County of New York at the Court House
Street New York, NY 10007 15 on the
____day of
, 20 22
28a
Appendix 6
PRESENT:
Hon.
Lynn R. Kotler
Justice of the Supreme Court
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
X
GINA ROBINSON,
Plaintiff,
Index No: 153436/2022
-againstFASHION DISTRICT DENTAL;
DR. JUSTIN RASHBAUM, DMD;
DR. DAVID STEIN, DMD;
DR. JAY RASHBAUM, DMD;
DR. MICHAEL ABRAMS, D.D.S.,
Defendants,
ORDER TO
SHOW CAUSE
TO QUASH
DEFENDANTS
DEMANDS FOR
ORAL EXAM
INATIONS
MS #5: OTHER QUASH
Upon reading and filing the affidavit of
Plaintiff, Gina Robinson, sworn to on June.14,13,
2022, a copy of supporting documents, as well as,
documentation that opposing counsel was notified
that such an Order would be sought, and the exhibits
thereto, in Support of Petitioner's Order to Show
Cause to quash Defendants adjournments, and no
previous application having been made for the relief
29a
Appendix 6
requested herein Pursuant to CPLR 2214 (d).
Let Defendants, or counsel, show cause before a
Term of this Court to be held at the Courthouse
located at 80 Center CENTRE Street, New York, NY
on
.20 22 at
o'clock in the or as soon
as the parties to this proceeding may be heard, why
an order should not be issued, providing the following
relief:
Quash all four of Defendants demands for oral
examinations currently scheduled for July 11, 12.
and 13,2022, and October 12, 2022.
and such other and further relief as may to the
court seem just and proper, for the reasons that:
Based on the astonishing record of the evidence, there
is no new information that will change the
overwhelming facts in this case. Defendants
committed egregious violations against Plaintiff as
well as the State of New York, including theft, forgery,
doxing a patients medical records to two banks, refusal
to allow an amended record, and lying to those banks
about their theft of the Plaintiffs rightfully owned
merchandise. Plaintiff was not culpable in any
manner in the outcome of these events. There is a
contemporaneous written transcript detailing the
events clearly laid out in emails and exhibits which
defendants have had since April. Defendants demand
30a
Appendix 6
four separate oral examinations across four separate
days and across four months. There is nothing to
question the Plaintiff about concerning the facts of
the case and it is scheduled for after the response (the
brief) is due for summary judgment. This demand is
dilatory, a form of harassment in an attempt to
intimidate the Plaintiff and abuse of judicial process.
ORDERED that, sufficient cause appearing
therefor, service of a copy of this order, and the other
papers upon which this order is granted upon all
Defendants by mail on or before the__ day of____,
20
shall be deemed good and sufficient. An
affidavit or other proof of service shall be presented to
this Court on the return date directed in the second
paragraph of this order.
ENTER:
J.S.C.
Decline to sign this order
To show cause
As it lacks merit
Parties are entitled to conduct
Discovery.
So ORDERED
LK
JSC 6/14/22
HON. LYNN R KOTLER
31a
APPENDIX 7 - DENIED - PETITIONER'S OSC
REQUESTING DISCOVERY BEFORE THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW
YORK, NEW YORK COUNTY,
FILED AUGUST 9, 2022
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW
YORK, NEW YORK COUNTY
No. 153436/2022
GINA ROBINSON,
Appellant,
V.
FASHION DISTRICT DENTAL, ET AL.
Respondents.
Filed On: August 9, 2022
BEFORE:
HON.L YNN R. KOTLER, J.S.C., Justice
Presiding,
At a Term of the Supreme Court of the
State of New York held in and for the
County of New York at the Court House
thereof, located at 80 Centre Street New
York, NY 10013 on the
____day of
, 20 22,
32a
Appendix 7
PRESENT:
Hon.
Lynn R. Kotler
Justice of the Supreme Court
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
X
GINA ROBINSON,
Plaintiff,
Index No: 153436/2022
-againstFASHION DISTRICT DENTAL;
DR. JUSTIN RASHBAUM, DMD;
DR. DAVID STEIN, DMD;
DR. JAY RASHBAUM, DMD;
DR. MICHAEL ABRAMS, D.D.S.,
Defendants,
ORDER TO
SHOW CAUSE
TO COMPEL
DEFENDANTS’
COMPLIANCE
WITH
PLAINTIFFS
DEMAND FOR
BILL OF
PARTICULARS
Upon reading and filing the affidavit of Plaintiff,
Gina Robinson, sworn to on July 29, 2022, a copy of
supporting documents,' as well as, documentation that
opposing counsel was notified that such an Order would
be sought, and the exhibits thereto, in Support of
Petitioner's Order to Show Cause to quash Defendants
adjournments, and no previous application having been
33a
Appendix 7
made for the relief requested herein Pursuant to CPLR
§ R3042.
Let Defendants, or counsel, show cause before a
Term of this Court to be held at the Courthouse
located at 80 Centre Street, New York, NY on____
.20 22 at o'clock in the
or as soon as the parties
to this proceeding may be heard, why an order should
not be issued, providing the following relief:
Compel Defendants to comply with Plaintiffs
demand for her Bill of Particulars filed June 28, 2022
with a return date of July 18, 2022, and Pursuant.
and such other and further relief as may to the
court seem just and proper, for the reasons that:
Plaintiff filed a demand for Bill of Particulars from
Defendants on June 28, 2022. The return date
for this response was July 18, 2022. Defendants did
not answer the Bill of Particulars until after
Plaintiff pointed out in her reply papers to
Defendants cross motion, filed July 25th, that
Defendants had not complied with her bill of
Particulars. Defendants have filed for sanctions
against Plaintiff for "frivolous and vexatious conduct"
related to her motion for Default judgment
filed on May 18, 2022, claiming that Plaintiff sought a
default judgment against the wrong firm
name, but Defendants are actively concealing the
34a
Appendix 7
rightful firm name so that Plaintiff cannot seek
default against it. Plaintiff complied with Defendants
demand for a Bill of Particulars on May 31st,
2022 and provided adequate answers. Please note
that oral arguments are already scheduled for
August 2, this would be an ideal time to discuss this
matter.
ORDERED that, sufficient cause appearing
therefor, service of a copy of this order, and
the other papers upon which this order is granted
upon all Defendants by mail on or before the
___day of___ , 20_ shall be deemed good and
sufficient. An affidavit or other proof
of service shall be presented to this Court on the
return date directed in the second paragraph of
this order.
ENTER
J.S.C.
Decline to Sign. Application Lacks Merit.
LK
HON. LYNN R KOTLER
8/9/2022
35a
APPENDIX 8 - TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL
ARGUMENTS DATED AUGUST 2, 2022 BEFORE
THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF
NEW YORK, NEW YORK COUNTY,
FILED SEPTEMBER 2, 2022
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK: CIVIL TERM : PART 8
No. 153436/2022
GINA ROBINSON,
Plaintiff,
V.
FASHION DISTRICT DENTAL; DR. JUSTIN
RASHBAUM, DMD; DR. DAVID STEIN, DMD;
DR. JAY RASHBAUM, DMD; DR. MICHAEL
ABRAMS, DDS,
Defendants.
Filed On: September 2, 2022
BEFORE:
(Via Microsoft Teams)
HON.L YNN R. KOTLER, J.S.C.,
Justice Presiding,
APPEARANCES: (Via Microsoft Teams)
GINA ROBINSON
Plaintiff Pro Se
36a
Appendix 8
200 West 80th Street
New York, New York 10024
LESTER, SCHWAB, KATZ & DWYER, LLP
Attorneys for Defendant
Fashion District Dental and
Justin Rashbaum, DMD
100 Wall Street
New York, New York 10005
BY: DENNIS ROTHMAN, ESQ.
(Continued on the next page.)
LAURA L. LUDOVICO
SENIOR COURT REPORTER
1 of 25
== excerpt ==
Page 6
Proceedings
1. motions.
2. Okay. Go ahead, Ms. Robinson.
3. MS. ROBINSON: Sure. Are you able to hear me
4. clearly?
5. THE COURT: Now I can.
6. MS. ROBINSON: Okay, great.
7. Well, this is a civil case. It basically
8. involves fraud and at this point theft of my device
that I
37a
Appendix 8
9. paid for. I have two motions that are pending; one
is for
10. summary judgment and the other one is for
default against
11. the firm because the firm never answered. I don't
have a
12. name for the firm. I do believe that defendants are
13. keeping that to themselves. They're concealing the
firm
14. name because I guess they don't want it to be
defaulted
15. against, I'm not sure.
16. And the other motion is for the Order to Show
17. Cause to compel them to comply with my demand
for the Bill
18. of Particulars in which I ask them to give me the
name of
19. the firm.
20. THE COURT: All right. That's not today.
21. MS. ROBINSON: Sure.
22. THE COURT: Okay. What else do you want to tell
23. me about your three motions that you filed, the
ones for
24. summary judgment? Tell me about those.
25. MS. ROBINSON: The summary judgment is — I
filed
Laura L. Ludovico, SCR
6 of 25
38a
APPENDIX 9 - EMAIL: FIRST DEPT.
REQUESTS TORTFEASOR JUSTIN
RASHBAUM’S BRIEF & RECORD BEFORE THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW
YORK APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT,
DATED SEPTEMBER 19, 2024
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
DIANNE T. RENWICK
Presiding Justice
DOUGLAS C. SULLIVAN
Deputy Clerk of The Court
SUSANNA MOLINA
ROJAS
Clerk of The Court
VICTORIA L. CHOY
Deputy Clerk of The Court
September 19, 2024
Dennis Michael Rothman
Lester Schwab Katz & Dwyer, LLP
100 Wall St
New York, NY10005-3701
Re: Robinson v Fashion District Dental
Lower Court No. 153436/2022
Appellate Division Case No. 2022-05698
39a
Appendix 9
Dear Sir/Madam:
Our records indicate that you represent
respondent(s) Fashion District Dental, Justin
Rashbaum in the above matter. This matter is
currently on the Court's calendar for the November
2024 term.
A brief must be filed on your client's behalf by
October 2, 2024. If you do not intend to file a brief,
please submit a letter notifying the court by this date.
If you do not file a respondent's brief by this
date, the Court will decide the matter without
considering any points that may have been raised on
your client's behalf.
Please note that if you fail to notify the Court
without good cause that a matter should not be
calendared for any reason, you may be subject to
sanctions pursuant to 22 NYCRR§1250.2.(c).
For additional information, please call the
calendar clerk at 212-340-0422.
Yours Truly,
Maria L. DeLeon
Calendar Clerk
27 Madison Avenue New York, NY10010-2201
Tel: (212) 340 0400 Internet: Nycourts.Gov/Courts/Adt/
40a
APPENDIX 10 - EMAIL: FIRST DEPT.
REQUESTS TORTFEASORS STEIN,
ABRAMS AND JAY RASHBAUM'S BRIEF &
RECORD BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT OF
THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE
DIVISION, FIRST JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT,
DATED SEPTEMBER 19, 2024
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
DIANNE T. RENWICK
Presiding Justice
DOUGLAS C. SULLIVAN
Deputy Clerk of The Court
SUSANNA MOLINA
ROJAS
Clerk of The Court
VICTORIA L. CHOY
Deputy Clerk of The Court
September 19, 2024
John Patrick Anderson
Law Offices of Henry Schwartz
32 Court St Ste 908
Brooklyn, NY 11201-4404
Re: Robinson v Fashion District Dental
Lower Court No. 153436/2022
Appellate Division Case No. 2022-05698
41a
Appendix 10
Dear Sir/Madam:
Our records indicate that you represent
respondent(s) Fashion District Dental, Justin
Rashbaum in the above matter. This matter is
currently on the Court's calendar for the November
2024 term.
A brief must be filed on your client's behalf by
October 2, 2024. If you do not intend to file a brief,
please submit a letter notifying the court by this date.
If you do not file a respondent's brief by this
date, the Court will decide the matter without
considering any points that may have been raised on
your client's behalf.
Please note that if you fail to notify the Court
without good cause that a matter should not be
calendared for any reason, you may be subject to
sanctions pursuant to 22 NYCRR§1250.2.(c).
For additional information, please call the
calendar clerk at 212-340-0422.
Yours Truly,
Maria L. DeLeon
Calendar Clerk
27 Madison Avenue New York, NY10010-2201
Tel: (212) 340 0400 Internet: Nycourts.Gov/Courts/Adt/
42a
APPENDIX 11 - EMAIL: FIRST DEPT.
REQUESTS TORTFEASOR JUSTIN
RASHBAUM’S BRIEF & RECORD BEFORE THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW
YORK APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT,
DATED FEBRUARY 21, 2024
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
DIANNE T. RENWICK
Presiding Justice
DOUGLAS C. SULLIVAN
Deputy Clerk of The Court
SUSANNA MOLINA
ROJAS
Clerk of The Court
VICTORIA L. CHOY
Deputy Clerk of The Court
February 21, 2024
Dennis Michael Rothman
Lester Schwab Katz & Dwyer, LLP
100 Wall St
New York, NY10005-3701
Re: Robinson v Fashion District Dental
Lower Court No. 153436/2022
Appellate Division Case No. 2022-05698
43a
Appendix 11
Dear Sir/Madam:
Our records indicate that you represent
respondent(s) Fashion District Dental, Justin
Rashbaum in the above matter. This matter is
currently on the Court's calendar for the November
2024 term.
A brief must be filed on your client's behalf by
October 2, 2024. If you do not intend to file a brief,
please submit a letter notifying the court by this date.
If you do not file a respondent's brief by this
date, the Court will decide the matter without
considering any points that may have been raised on
your client's behalf.
Please note that if you fail to notify the Court
without good cause that a matter should not be
calendared for any reason, you may be subject to
sanctions pursuant to 22 NYCRR§1250.2.(c).
For additional information, please call the
calendar clerk at 212-340-0422.
Yours Truly,
Maria L. DeLeon
Calendar Clerk
27 Madison Avenue New York, NY10010-2201
Tel: (212) 340 0400 Internet: Nycourts.Gov/Courts/Adt/
44a
APPENDIX 12 - EMAIL: FIRST DEPT.
REQUESTS TORTFEASORS STEIN,
ABRAMS AND JAY RASHBAUM'S BRIEF &
RECORD BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT OF
THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE
DIVISION, FIRST JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT,
DATED FEBRUARY 21, 2024
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
DIANNE T. RENWICK
Presiding Justice
DOUGLAS C. SULLIVAN
Deputy Clerk of The Court
SUSANNA MOLINA
ROJAS
Clerk of The Court
VICTORIA L. CHOY
Deputy Clerk of The Court
February 21, 2024
John Patrick Anderson
Law Offices of Henry Schwartz
32 Court St Ste 908
Brooklyn, NY 11201-4404
Re: Robinson v Fashion District Dental
Lower Court No. 153436/2022
Appellate Division Case No. 2022-05698
45a
Appendix 12
Dear Sir/Madam:
Our records indicate that you represent
respondent(s) Fashion District Dental, Justin
Rashbaum in the above matter. This matter is
currently on the Court's calendar for the November
2024 term.
A brief must be filed on your client's behalf by
October 2, 2024. If you do not intend to file a brief,
please submit a letter notifying the court by this date.
If you do not file a respondent's brief by this
date, the Court will decide the matter without
considering any points that may have been raised on
your client's behalf.
Please note that if you fail to notify the Court
without good cause that a matter should not be
calendared for any reason, you may be subject to
sanctions pursuant to 22 NYCRR§1250.2.(c).
For additional information, please call the
calendar clerk at 212-340-0422.
Yours Truly,
Maria L. DeLeon
Calendar Clerk
27 Madison Avenue New York, NY10010-2201
Tel: (212) 340 0400 Internet: Nycourts.Gov/Courts/Adt/
46a
APPENDIX 13 - TORTFEASORS MOTION FOR
CONTEMPT AGAINST PETITIONER IN LEIU
OF BRIEF BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT OF
THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE
DIVISION, FIRST JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT,
FILED JANUARY 23, 2024
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
No. 2022-05698
GINA ROBINSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent,
.
V.
FASHION DISTRICT DENTAL
DR. JUSTIN RASHBAUM, DMD;
Defendants-Respondents
DR. DAVID STEIN, DMD;
DR. JAY RASHBAUM, DMD;
Defendants-Respondents-Appellants,
DR. MICHAEL ABRAMS, D.D.S.,
Defendant-Respondent
47a
Appendix 13
Filed On: January 23, 2024
Case No: 2022-05698
New York County
Index No. 153436/2022
AMENDED
NOTICE OF MOTION
WARNING
YOUR FAILURE TO APPEAR IN COURT MAY
RESULT IN YOUR IMMEDIATE ARREST AND
IMPRISONMENT FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, upon the
affirmation of Dennis M. Rothman dated January 23,
2023, the exhibits annexed thereto, and all prior
papers and proceedings, the defendant-respondent
Justin Rashbaum, D.M.D., Individually and doing
business as Fashion District Dental will move this
Court at the First Department, Appellate Division
Courthouse located at 27 Madison Avenue, New York,
NY 10010 on February 12, 2024, at 9:30a.m. for an
Order:
(a) striking plaintiffs record on appeal and
corresponding brief (NYSCEF docs. 15, 27-30),
which duplicate the papers this Court already
struck (Aug. 31, 2023 Order, NYSCEF doc. 42);
(b) dismissing the appeal with prejudice;
48a
Appendix 13
(c) pursuant to Judiciary Law § 753 and 22
NYCRR 130-U, holding plaintiff in contempt,
sanctioning plaintiff, and ordering her to pay
defendant-respondent's attorneys' fees, and such
other penalty as this Court deems proper; and
(d) granting such other relief as this Court
deems just and proper.
PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that,
pursuant to CPLR 2214(b), answering affidavits, if
any, shall be served at least seven (7) days prior to
the return date of this motion.
Dated: New York, New York
January 23, 2024
LESTER SCHWAB KATZ & DWYER, LLP
s/ Dennis M Rothman
Attorneys for Defendant Justin Rashbaum,
D.M.D., Individually and doing business as
Fashion District Dental
100 Wall Street
New York, New York 10005
(212) 964-6611
TO:
Gina Robinson
Plaintiff prose
108 W. 63rd St. No.22594
49a
Appendix 13
Kansas City, MO 64113
(646) 266-1142
ginarobinson2018@gmail.com
John P. Anderson, Esq.
The Law Offices of Henry Schwartz
32 Court Street, Suite 908
Brooklyn, NY 11201
(718) 222-3118
j anderson@henry schwartzlaw .com
Attorneys for Defendants-Respondents-Appellants
Dr. David Stein, DMD,
Dr. Jay Rashbaum, DMD and
Dr. Michael Abrams, D.D.S.
APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT OF
THE STATE OF NEW YORK
No. 2022-05698
GINA ROBINSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent,
V.
FASHION DISTRICT DENTAL
DR. JUSTIN RASHBAUM, DMD;
Defendants-Respondents
50a
Appendix 13
DR. DAVID STEIN, DMD;
DR. JAY RASHBAUM, DMD;
Defendants-Respondents-Appellants,
DR. MICHAEL ABRAMS, D.D.S.,
Defendant-Respondent
Filed On: January 23, 2024
Case No: 2022-05698
New York County
Index No. 153436/2022
NOTICE OF MOTION
COUNSELORS:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that upon the
annexed affirmation of JOHN PATRICK ANDERSON,
ESQ., duly affirmed on the 5th day of February, 2024,
and upon all of the prior papers and proceedings had
herein, and the exhibits attached thereto, DefendantsRespondents-Appellants DAVID STEIN, D.M.D. s/h/a
DR. DAVID STEIN, DMD and JAY RASHBAUM,
D.M.D. s/h/a DR. JAY RASHBAUM, DMD, and
Defendant-Respondent MICHAEL ABRAMS, D.D.S.
s/h/a DR. MICHAEL ABRAMS, DDS, by their
attorneys, LAW OFFICES OF HENRY SCHWARTZ,
51a
Appendix 13
will move this Court at the First Department,
Appellate Division Courthouse located at 27 Madison
Avenue, New York, New York 10010, on the 13th day
of February, 2024, at 9:30 in the forenoon of that day
or as soon thereafter as counsel can be heard for an
Order:
• Striking Plaintiff s Record on Appeal and
corresponding brief (NYSCEF Docs #15, #27#30), which duplicate the papers this Court
already struck n its August 31, 2023 Order
(NYSCEF Doc #42);
• Dismissing Plaintiffs Appeal with Prejudice;
• Pursuant to Judiciary Law 753 and 22 NYCRR
130-1.1, holding Plaintiff in contempt,
sanctioning plaintiff, and ordering her to pay
Defendants-Respondents-Appellants and
Defendant-Respondent’s attorneys’ fees, and
such other penalty as this Court deems proper;
and
• For such other, further and different relief as
this Court shall deem just and proper.
Dated: Brooklyn, New York
February 2, 2024
Yours, etc.,
52a
Appendix 13
LAW OFFICES OF
HENRY SCHWARTZ
s/ John Patrick Anderson
By: John Patrick Anderson, Esq.
Attorneys for Defendants
DAVID STEIN, D.M.D. s/h/a DR.
DAVID STEIN, D.M.D., JAY
RASHBAUM, D.M.D. s/h/a DR.
JAY RASHBAUM, D.M.D., and
MICHAEL ABRAMS, D.M.D. s/h/a
DR. MICHAEL ABRAMS, D.D.S.
32 Court Street, Suite 908
Brooklyn, New York 11201
(718) 222-3118
TO: GINA ROBINSON
Plaintiff Pro se
108 W. 63rd Street, No. 22594
New York, New York 10024
(646) 266-1142
ginarobinson2018@gmail.com
LESTER SCHWAB KATZ & DWYER, LLP
Attorneys for Defendant
JUSTIN RASHBAUM, D.M.D., Individually and
d/b/a FASHION DISTRICT DENTAL
100 Wall Street
New York, New York 10005
(212) 964-6611
53a
APPENDIX 14 - TORTFEASORS 2nd
CONTEMPT MOTION AND ATTEMPT TO FILE
FELONY USURY CHARGES AGAINST
PETITIONER IN LEIU OF BRIEF BEFORE THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW
YORK APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT,
FILED MAY 20, 2024
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
No. 2022-05698
GINA ROBINSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent,
V.
FASHION DISTRICT DENTAL
DR. JUSTIN RASHBAUM, DMD;
Defendants-Respondents
DR. DAVID STEIN, DMD;
DR. JAY RASHBAUM, DMD;
Defendants-Respondents-Appellants,
DR. MICHAEL ABRAMS, D.D.S.,
54a
Appendix 14
Defendant-Respondent
Filed On: May 20, 2024
Case No: 2022-05698
New York County
Index No. 153436/2022
NOTICE OF MOTION
WARNING
YOUR FAILURE TO APPEAR IN COURT MAY
RESULT IN YOUR IMMEDIATE ARREST AND
IMPRISONMENT FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, upon the
affirmation of Dennis M. Rothman dated May 17,
2024, the exhibits annexed thereto, and all prior
papers and proceedings, the defendant-respondent
Justin Rashbaum, D.M.D., Individually and doing
business as Fashion District Dental, will move this
Court at the First Department, Appellate Division
Courthouse located at 27 Madison Avenue, New York,
NY 10010 on June 3,2024, at 10:00 a.m. for an Order:
(a) dismissing the appeal with prejudice, costs,
and disbursements, including striking any
record or appellant's brief that may currently
be filed;
55a
Appendix 14
(b) pursuant to Judiciary Law $ 753 and 22
NYCRR $ 130-1.1, holding plaintiff in
contempt, sanctioning plaintiff, and ordering
her to pay defendant-respondent's attorneys'
fees and other expenses, and such other penalty
as this Court deems proper; and
(c)
granting such other relief as this Court deems
just and proper.
PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that,
pursuant to CPLR 2214(b), answering affidavits, if
any, shall be served at least seven (7) days prior to
the return date of this motion.
Dated: New York, N.Y.
May 17,2024
LESTER SCHWAB KATZ
& DWYER, LLP
s/ Dennis M Rothman
Attorneys for Defendant
Justin Rashbaum, D.M.D.,
Individually and doing
business as Fashion
District Dental
100 Wall Street
New York, New York
10005
(212) 964-6611
56a
Appendix 14
To:
All parties via NYSCEF.
36.
The precise arithmetic in plaintiffs
invoices is difficult to unravel (she also did not
submit an invoice every month), but they purport to
charge 5% monthly interest, on top of a $200 per
month late fee. By her most recent invoice, dated May
14, 2024, plaintiff claimed that Dr. Rashbaum owed
$3,973.17 on a purported February 9, 2023 principal
of $250.00. That is well in excess of the 25% annual
interest rate that constitutes attempted felony usury
Penal Law §§ 110.05, 190.40. The motion court did
not order, and Dr. Rashbaum never consented, to
reimburse plaintiff for fees charged by her new
dentist, let alone to pay plaintiffs purported late fees
and interest (proposed record at 733 35, not 720 as
the table of contents states).
Plaintiffs attempted usury is knowing
and intentional. My April 14, 2023 email to plaintiff
rejecting the invoice on behalf of Dr. Rashbaum
warned plaintiff that "You may wish to consult
counsel on the issue whether the charges and fees you
claim constitute usury under the Penal Law" (Exhibit
D). Plaintiff has continued to send invoices claiming
the accumulating usurious interest.
37.
38.
Impermissibly for the first time on
57a
Appendix 14
appeal, plaintiffs proposed appellant's brief asks this
Court to award her "the recent costs of $250. for
insertion of the SA by alternate orthodontist, with
compound interest and late fees applied, as part of
this running total" (App. Br. at 58, sic). Plaintiff has
never sued on this invoice. RXR WWP Owner LLC v.
WWP Sponsor, LLC, I 32 A.D.3d 467, 469 (I st 20 15)
("Plaintiffs request for leave to amend to add new
claims is improperly raised for the first time on
appeal" - in this case, plaintiff does not even seek
leave, but simply asserts the new claim on appeal).
Plaintiff has admitted that "this visit" to Artista
Dental Studio "took place after the entry of the
December 9 order and presented additional damages
outside those presented in the complaint and
subsequent papers" (Exhibit D, Robinson email Feb.
18, 2023 6:04 PM).
58a
APPENDIX 15 - PLAINTIFF COMPLIES:
RESIZING & CAPTIONING ACCEPTED
RECORD AND BRIEF BEFORE THE SUPREME
COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST JUDICIAL
DEPARTMENT,
FILED APRIL 30 & JUNE 20, 2024
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
No. 2022-05698
GINA ROBINSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent,
-againstFASHION DISTRICT DENTAL
A.K.A. UNDISCLOSED FIRM NAME
DR. JUSTIN RASHBAUM, DMD;
DR. MICHAEL ABRAMS, D.D.S.,
Defendants-Respondents
DR. DAVID STEIN, DMD;
DR. JAY RASHBAUM, DMD;
Defendants-Respondents-Appellants,
59a
Appendix 15
Defendant-Respondent
Filed On April 30 & June 20, 2024
Index No. 153436/2022
AMENDED
JOINT RECORD ON APPEAL
VOLUME 1 OF 1
Gina Robinson, Pro se
200 West 80th Street
New York, NY 10024
(646) 266-1142
Dennis M. Rothman
LESTER SCHWAB
KATZ & DWYER,LLP
100 Wall Street
New York, NY 10005
212 964-6611
Attorneys for Defendant
Justin Rashbaum,
D.M.D., Individually
and doing business as
Fashion District Dental
John P. Anderson, Esq.
The Law Offices of
Henry Schwartz
32 Court Street, Ste 908
Brooklyn, NY 11201
718 222-3118
Attorneys for
Defendants Dr. David
Stein,
DMD, Dr. Jay
Rashbaum, DMD and
Dr.
Michael Abrams, D.D.S.
60a
Appendix 15
== excerpt ==
[793]
TRIAL COURT SCHEDULES ORAL ARGUMENT IN
RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR
ADJOURNMENT DATED JULY 12, 2022
[FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK
07/19/2022 12:08 PM INDEX NO. 153436/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 140 RECEIVED NYSCEF:
07/21/2022
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK: PART 8
X
Gina Robinson
Plaintiff,
-againstFashion District Dental, et. al.
Defendants.
)(
INTERIM ORDER
INDEX No.: 153436-2022
Motion Seq: 001-003
Present:
Hon. Lynn R. Kotler, J.S.C.
61a
Appendix 15
Motion sequence numbers 001-003 are hereby
calendared for oral argument before the court on
August 2, 2022 at lO:OOam and will be conducted via
Microsoft Teams. There are no in-person appearances
in the Part. Counsel should have both audio and video
available for the Microsoft Teams meeting.
Invitations to the Microsoft Teams meeting will
be sent to counsel of record on NSYCEF. Any party
that needs an invitation to the meeting should contact
Steven Carney, Part Clerk, at SCARNEY@ nycourts.
gov. Please be advised that "each attorney who
receives notification of an appearance on a specific
date and time is responsible for notifying all other
parties by email that the matter is scheduled to be
heard on that assigned date and time" (Uniform Civil
Rules for the Supreme Court and the County Court §
202.23[c]).
If the above-referenced motion has been
resolved, the parties should notify the court and file a
stipulation to that affect (Uniform Civil Rules for the
Supreme Court and the County Court§ 202.28).
This constitutes the Order of the court.
Dated: New York, N.Y.
July 12, 2022
So Ordered:
s/ LK
Hon. Lynn R. Kotter, J.S.C.
62a
APPENDIX 16 - FIRST DEPT. SUBORNS
REQUEST TO VIOLATE PETITIONER’S 14™
AMENDMENT RIGHTS BEFORE THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW
YORK APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT,
FILED DECEMBER 21, 2023
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
No. 2022-05698
GINA ROBINSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent,
-againstFASHION DISTRICT DENTAL
A.K.A. UNDISCLOSED FIRM NAME
DR. JUSTIN RASHBAUM, DMD;
DR. MICHAEL ABRAMS, D.D.S.,
Defendants-Respondents
DR. DAVID STEIN, DMD;
DR. JAY RASHBAUM, DMD;
Defendants-Respondents-Appellants,
63a
Appendix 16
Filed On: December 21, 2023
Case No: 2022-05698
New York County
Index No. 153436/2022
AFFIDAVIT IN REPLY TO
RESPONDENTSOPPOSITION
TO APPLICATION FOR
INTERIM RELIEF& FOR 60
DAY STAY FILED DEC 12 2023
1. Plaintiff-Appellant, and Pro se litigant, Gina
Robinson, submits this Affidavit in further support of,
and in opposition to Defendant-Respondent’s
opposition to, Plaintiff-Appellant’s application for
Interim Relief and 60 day stay, filed December 12,
2023 (Exhibit A), which was referred to a panel and
otherwise denied December 13, 2023.
2. Defendants-Respondents-Appellants stole a
purchased device from Plaintiff-Appellant, not even
designed per her specifications, refused to give her
the device or a refund, dared her to sue them in court
numerous times, and when the Court was forced to
admit breach of contract occurred, that court refused
to give appropriate relief, and in fact, sanctioned the
Plaintiff due to various forms of discrimination.
3. Plaintiff-Appellant appealed the decision and
order dated December 9, 2022 due to bias and
64a
Appendix 16
discriminatory actions taken by the court culminating
in the violation of Plaintiffs 14th Amendment rights
to due process and to equal treatment under the law.
This was so stated in Plaintiff s’ Notice of Appeal
papers Dated December 19, 2022 (Exhibit B).
== excerpt ==
• Exhibit B: Plaintiffs NOE attachment stating
14th Amendment violations as main reason for
appeal.
• Exhibit C: Plaintiff-Appellant’s concern for
upfront costs to printers that wont confirm the
details of the documents or with bad reviews.
• Exhibit D: Appellate Printer’s general manager
drops the job because Plaintiff-Appellant asked
for a time of delivery.
DEFENDANT-RESPONDENTS CONTINUE TO
REQUEST A RECORD
THAT VIOLATES PLAINTIFFS 14TH
AMENDMENT RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS
25. Plaintiff-Appellant has stated numerous
times that the proceedings in the Trial Court were
unfair and unequal and that there was bias in favor of
Defendants and against Plaintiff.
65a
Appendix 16
26. In the most blatant instance Defendants
were allowed abusive and unnecessary discovery
against court rules, but any discovery at all was
denied Plaintiff-Appellant even after orders to show
cause were filed to compel the court to allow
discovery.
27. This is a violation of her 14th Amendment
Rights, which all Courts are sworn to uphold.
28. In the opposition to Plaintiff-Appellant’s
application for interim relief dated August 7, 2023,
Defendants-Respondent’s directly ask the Appellate
Court to bar Plaintiff-Appellant from filing any
further papers other than the curtailed RoA and Brief
which they know is a violation of her 14th
Amendment rights to due process (Affirm in Oppo.to
AIR f 4)s.
29. Plaintiff-Appellant has a right and a duty,
to prove her arguments on appeal and DefendantRespondents are trying to permanently remove
material that supports those arguments in order to
weaken and destroy Plaintiff-Appellant’s appeal.
30. That is a direct interference with due
process. Those arguments and the evidence upon
which they stand must be included lest her 14th
Amendment rights to due process be violated once
again.
66a
Appendix 16
31. The fact that Defendants-Respondents are
actively pursuing this violation says much
about their character and their concern for the
constitutional rights of average American citizens.
They did not mention the 14th Amendment even once
in this current opposition.
CONCLUSION
32. Defendant-Respondent has no standing as a
non-appealing party and has already destructively
interfered with a perfected appeal, and is now asking
the court to not only bar Plaintiff-Appellant from
defending her arguments in appeal in the JRoA, but
is also trying to run out the clock on its deadline. He
has demonstrated that he will not allow PlaintiffAppellant to submit any RoA or Brief, he will
complain about any condition it happens to be in, but
he wants no part in its production or its costs.
Defendant-Respondent-Appellants have shown
dissatisfaction with the RoA and Brief PlaintiffAppellant produced and requested (^112) that she
allow them to take the lead in getting the JRoA
produced especially since they have longstanding
relationships with these printers and PlaintiffAppellant does not. More time is needed to achieve
this nonetheless.
33. For the reasons stated above PlaintiffAppellant asks the Court to put an end to the
67a
Appendix 16
relentless interference in the process by DefendantsRespondents (Appellants), so this case can finally be
closed.
REQUESTED RELIEF
34. Plaintiff-Appellant asks an Appellate Court
Judge to grant the relief sought in the application for
interim relief dated December 12, 2023 seeking:
• To adopt the attached Briefing Schedule.
• To reconsider Motion # 4163.
68a
APPENDIX 17 - NYCOA CALENDAR
FILING REFERS TO PETITIONER’S
CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES YET DISMISSES
CASE BEFORE THE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK,
DATED OCTOBER 28, 2024
STATE OF NEW YORK
COURT OF APPEALS
State of New York Court of Appeals
Clerk’s Office
20 Eagle Street
Albany, New York 12207-1095
(518)455-7700
COURT OF APPEALS NEW FILINGS
Preliminary Appeal Statements processed
by the Court of Appeals Clerk's Office
October 18, 2024 through October 24, 2024 .
Vol. 44 - No, 42
10/28/24
Each week the Clerk's Office prepares a list of
recently-filed appeals, indicating short title,
jurisdictional predicate, subject matter and key issues,
Some of these appeals may not reach decision on the
merits because of dismissal, on motion or sua sponte,
or because the parties stipulate to withdrawal. Some
appeals may be selected for review pursuant to the
alternative procedure of Rule 500.11. For those
69a
Appendix 17
appeals that proceed to briefing in the normal course,
the briefing schedule generally will be: appellant's
brief to be filed within 60 days after the appeal was
taken; respondent's brief to be filed within 45 days
after the due date for the filing of appellant's brief; and
a reply brief, if any, to be filed within 45 days after the
due date for the filing of respondent's brief.
The Court welcomes motions for amicus curiae
participation from those qualified and interested
in the subject matter of these newly filed appeals.
Please refer to Rule 500.23 and direct any
questions to the Clerk's Office.
AL 557 DOE v CENTRAL VALLEY CSD;
APL-2024-00136
4th Dept. App, Div. order of 5/10/24; affirmance; leave
granted by the Appellate Division with certified
question 9/27/24;
Schools--Annexation of School District-Whether,
pursuant to Education Law§§1517, 1518, and/or 1804,
a plaintiff may maintain an action for damages
against a centralized school district based on tortious
conduct allegedly attributable to a former component
school district, where the statute of limitations
applicable to the plaintiffs claims had expired as of
the date of the merger and/or consolidation which
formed the newly centralized school district but was
subsequently revived pursuant to the Child Victims
Act (see CPLR 214-g);
70a
Appendix 17
Supreme Court, Herkimer County, inter alia, denied
in part the motion of defendants to dismiss the
amended complaint; App. Div. affirmed, presiding.
ROBINSON v FASHION DISTRICT DENTAL et al.:
APL-2024-00139
1st Dept. App. Div. order of9/26/24; granted motion;
sua sponte examination of whether the order
appealed finally determines the action within the
meaning of the Constitution and whether a
substantial constitutional question is directly
involved to support an appeal as of right;
Appeal-Dismissal—Whether plaintiffs appeal
was properly dismissed; alleged constitutional
violations;
Supreme Court, New York County, granted plaintiffs
motions to the extent that plaintiff is entitled to
summary judgment against defendants Dr. Justin
Rashbaum, DMD, Dr. David Stein, DMD, Dr. Jay
Rashbaum, DMD on her third cause of action for
breach of contract and a default judgment against
Fashion District Dental on her third cause of action;
ordered plaintiff to designate in writing the name of
an orthodontist licensed in New York and deliver such
designation to certain defendants and upon such
71a
Appendix 17
designation, defendants shall deliver the retainer to
the orthodontist selected by plaintiff; otherwise
denied plaintiffs motion for summary judgment;
granted the cross-motion by defendant Dr. Michael
Abrams, DDS and severed and dismissed plaintiffs
claims against Dr. Michael Abrams, DDS; granted the
cross-motion by defendants Dr. Justin Rashbaum,
DMD, Dr. David Stein, DMD, Dr. Jay Rashbaum,
DMD, to the extent of severing and dismissing all but
plaintiffs third cause of action; App. Div. denied
plaintiffs motion to accept filing of affidavits of
service, and granted motions by defendantsrespondents and defendants-respondents-appellants
to the extent of striking the amended record and brief
filed by plaintiff on June 20, 2024, and dismissing
plaintiffs appeal, sua sponte extended the time to
perfect defendants-respondents-appellants' cross
appeal, designated the direct appeal, to the February
2025 Term.
72a
APPENDIX 18 - NY CONSTITUTION STATUTES SUCH AS ARTICLE VI § 3(B) THE
NYCOA ORDER OF DISMISSAL REFERED TO
DO NOT BAR JURISDICTION
New York State
Constitution
As revised, including amendments effective January
1, 2025
KATHY HOCHUL
Governor
WALTER T. MOSLEY
Secretary of State
The Constitution of the State of New York
== excerpt ==
ARTICLE VI
JUDICIARY
§
1.
2.
3.
4.
Unified court system; organization; process.
Court of appeals; organization; designations;
vacancies, how filled; commission on judicial
nomination.
Court of appeals; jurisdiction.
Judicial departments; appellate divisions, how
constituted; governor to designate justices;
temporary assignments; jurisdiction.
73a
Appendix 18
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
Appeals from judgment or order; new trial.
Judicial districts; how constituted; supreme
court.
Supreme court; jurisdiction.
Appellate terms; composition; jurisdiction.
Court of claims; jurisdiction.
County courts; judges.
County court; jurisdiction.
Surrogate’s courts; judges; jurisdiction.
Family court; organization; jurisdiction.
Discharge of duties of more than one judicial
office by same judicial officer.
74a
APPENDIX 19 - PETITIONER'S PRELIMINARY
STATEMENTCLEARLY STATES
CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES NUMEROUS
TIMES BEFORE THE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK,
DATED OCTOBER 17, 2024
Gina Robinson
108 West 63rd Street
No. 22594
Kansas City, MO 64113
October 17, 2024
Re: First Department Appellate Division
Case: 2022105698
Barbara Underwood, Esq.
Solicitor General
Department of Law,
The Capitol,
Albany, New York 12224
Dear Solicitor General:
In compliance with 22 NYCRR § 500.9,1 am notifying
you that as the Plaintiff-Appellant in the above case I
am appealing an order from the First Department to
the Court of Appeals, pursuant to CPLR 5601(b)(1) &
(2).
Please see enclosed the Preliminary Appeal
75a
Appendix 19
Statement which includes the Notice of Appeal, filed
October 10, 2024, and the Order appealed from dated
September 26, 2024.
Your time and consideration in this matter is greatly
appreciated.
Sincerely,
s/ Gina Robinson 10/17/24
Gina Robinson
NOTARIZED STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE
Court of Appeals
State of New York
AFFIDAVIT
New York Court of Appeals
Docket No: Not Yet Assigned
First Department Case No:
2022/05698
NY Supreme Court
No: 153436/2022
1. Gina Robinson being duly swam, depose and say
that:
1.1 have notified the Solicitor General of New
York, by mail, that I have commenced an
appeal of an order from the First Department
Appellant Division of New York to the
Court of Appeals, State of New York.
2.1 have notified the other parties of my
76a
Appendix 19
notification of the Solicitor General by mail.
3. The content of the notification states the
following:
"In compliance with 22 NYCRR § 500.9,1
am notifying you that as the PlaintiffAppellant in the above case I am appealing
an order from the First Department to the
Court of Appeals, pursuant to CPLR
5601(b)(1) & (2)."
Dated: October 17, 2024
s/ Gina Robinson
Gina Robinson, pro se
Sworn to before me this _17
Day of October, 20 24
s/ Liam Ridley
Notary Public
LIAM RIDLEY
Notary Public-Notary Seal
Jackson County - State of Missouri
Commission Number 22330672
My Commission Expires Dec 26, 2026
77a
Appendix 19
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE OF MAILING
STATE OF NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS
COUNTY OF Albany) ss.:
Gina Robinson , being duly sworn, deposes and says:
On the 17_ day of October , 20 24^ I served a true copy
of the annexed List of Documents by mailing the same
in a sealed envelope, with postage prepaid thereon, to
a post office or official depository of the U.S. Postal
Service within the State of New York, addressed to
the last known addressee(s) as indicated below:
(Insert here the name(s) and address(es) of the
person(s) to whom you are mailing the papers being
filed with this Court. If necessary, attach extra pages
for additional names and addresses.)
Name & Address
Contents: List of
Documents:
Plaintiffs Notice to
Solicitor General of
appeal Commencement
to Court of Appeals,
State of NY
Name & Address
To:
Mr. Dennis M.
Rothman,
Lester Schwab Katz &
Dwyer, Up,
100 Wall Street New
York, NY 10005
78a
Appendix 19
Mr. John Anderson
Law Offices of Henry
Schwartz
32 Court Street,
Brooklyn, NY 11201
New York State Court
of Appeals
Clerk of the Court
20 Eagle Street
Albany, New York
12207
Barbara Underwood,
Esq.
Solicitor General
Department of Law
The Capitol
Albany, New York
12224
(Signature) s/Gina Robinson
(Print Name) Gina Robinson
79a
Appendix 19
Sworn to before me this 17
Day of October, 20 24
s/ Liam Ridley
Notary Public
Revised: February 19, 2014
LIAM RIDLEY
Notary Public-Notary Seal
Jackson County - State of Missouri
Commission Number 22330672
My Commission Expires Dec 26, 2026
80a
Appendix 19
PRELIMINARY APPEAL STATEMENT
NEW YORK STATE
COURT OF APPEALS
Preliminary Appeal Statement
Pursuant to section 500.9 of the Rules of the
Court of Appeals
1. CAPTION OF CASE (as the parties should be
denominated in the Court of Appeals):
STATE OF NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS
Gina Robinson
Plaintiff-Appellant(s)
-againstFASHION DISTRICT DENTAL; DR. JUSTIN
RASHBAUM,
DMD; DR. DAVID STEIN, DMD; DR. JAY
RASHBAUM, DMD;
DR. MICHAEL ABRAMS, DDS,
Defendant-Respondent(s)
2. Name of court or tribunal where case originated,
including county, if applicable:
Appellate Division, Supreme Court of State of NY
First Judicial Department
3. Civil index number, criminal indictment number or
other number assigned to the matter in the
81a
Appendix 19
court or tribunal of original instance: 153436/2022
4. Docket number assigned to the matter at the
Appellate Division or other intermediate
appellate court: 2022-05698
5. Jurisdictional basis for this appeal:
____Leave to appeal granted by the Court of
Appeals or a Judge of the Court of Appeals
____Leave to appeal granted by the Appellate
Division or a Justice of the Appellate
Division
____CPLR 5601(a): dissents on the law at the
Appellate Division
____CPLR 5601(b)(1): constitutional ground
(Appellate Division order)
____CPLR 5601(b)(2): constitutional ground
(judgment of court of original instance)
____CPLR 5601(c): Appellate Division order
granting a new trial or hearing, upon
stipulation for judgment absolute
____CPLR 5601(d): from a final judgment, order,
determination or award, seeking review of a
prior nonfinal Appellate Division order
____Other (specify)___________________________
6. How this appeal was taken to the Court of Appeals
(choose one) (see CPLR 5515[1]):
82a
Appendix 19
NOTICE OF APPEAL Date filed: October 10, 2024
Clerk's office where filed: First Dept. Appellate Div.
ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO APPEAL (civil case):
Court that issued order: N/A Constitutional Question
Date of order:_______________
CERTIFICATE OR ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO
APPEAL (criminal case):
Justice or Judge who issued order: N/A Constitutional
Question
Court:______ _ _____
Date of order: _____________
7. Demonstration of timeliness of appeal in civil case
(CPLR 5513, 5514):
Was appellant served by its adversary with a copy of
the order, judgment or determination appealed from
and notice of its entry?
ves__ no
If yes, date on which appellant was served (if known,
or discernable from the papers served): September
27, 2024
If yes, method by which appellant was served:
___ personal delivery
___ regular mail
___ overnight courier
___ other (describe NYSCEF )
Did the Appellate Division grant or deny a motion for
83a
Appendix 19
leave to appeal to this Court in this case?
yes
no
If yes, fill in the following information:
a. date appellant served the motion for leave to appeal
made at the Appellate Division:_______________
b. date on which appellant was served with the
Appellate Division order granting or denying such
motion with notice of the order's entry: No Motion
Filed , and
c. method by which appellant was served with the
Appellate Division order granting or denying such
motion:
personal service
regular mail
overnight courier
other (describe_
8. Party Information:
Instructions: Fill in the name of each party to the
action or proceeding, one name per line. Indicate the
status of the party in the court of original instance
and the party's status in this Court, if any. Examples
of a party’s original status include: plaintiff,
defendant, petitioner, respondent, claimant, thirdparty plaintiff, third-party defendant, intervenor.
Examples of a party’s Court of Appeals status include:
appellant, respondent, appellant-respondent,
respondent-appellant, intervenor appellant.
84a
Appendix 19
No. Party Name - Original Status - Court of Appeals
Status
1. FASHION DISTRICT DENTAL - Defendant Respondent
2. DR. JUSTIN RASHBAUM, DMD Defendant Respondent
3. DR. DAVID STEIN, DMD; Defendant Respondent-Appellant
4. DR. JAY RASHBAUM, DMD Defendant Respondent-Appellant
5. DR. MICHAEL ABRAMS, DDS, - Defendant
Respondent
6. GINA ROBINSON Plaintiff - Appellant-Respondent
9. Attorney information:
Instructions: For each party listed above, fill in the
name of the one law firm and responsible attorney
who will act as counsel of record, if the party is
represented. Where a litigant is self-represented, fill
in that party’s data in section 10 below.
For Party No. 1 above:
Law Firm Name: Lester Schwab Katz & Dwyer, LLP.
Responsible Attorney: Dennis M Rothman
Street Address: 100 Wall Street
City:_ New York
State: N.Y. Zip 10005
Telephone No: 2129646611 Ext.______
Email: drothman@lskdnylaw.com
If appearing Pro Hac Vice, has attorney satisfied
requirements of section 500.4 of the Rules of the
85a
Appendix 19
Court of Appeals?
yes
no
For Party No. 2 above:
Law Firm Name: Lester Schwab Katz & Dwyer, LLP.
Responsible Attorney: Dennis M Rothman
Street Address: 100 Wall Street
City: New York
State: N.Y. Zip 10005
Telephone No: 2129646611 Ext.______
Email: drothman@lskdnylaw.com
If appearing Pro Hac Vice, has attorney satisfied
requirements of section 500.4 of the Rules of the
Court of Appeals?
yes
no
For Party No. 3 above:
Law Firm Name: Law Offices of Henry Schwartz
Responsible Attorney:John Anderson/Henry Schwartz
Street Address: 32 Court Street Ste. 908
City: Brooklyn
State: N.Y. Zip 11201
Telephone No: 7182223118 Ext.______
Email: janderson@henryschwartzlaw.com
If appearing Pro Hac Vice, has attorney satisfied
requirements of section 500.4 of the Rules of the
Court of Appeals?__ yes
no
For Party No. 4 above:
Law Firm Name: Law Offices of Henry Schwartz
Responsible Attorney:John Anderson/Henry Schwartz
Street Address: 32 Court Street Ste. 908
City: Brooklyn
State: N.Y. Zip 11201
Telephone No: 7182223118 Ext.______
86a
Appendix 19
Email: ianderson@henryschwartzlaw.com
If appearing Pro Hac Vice, has attorney satisfied
requirements of section 500.4 of the Rules of the
Court of Appeals?__ yes
no
For Party No. 5 above:
Law Firm Name: Law Offices of Henry Schwartz
Responsible Attorney:John Anderson/Henry Schwartz
Street Address: 32 Court Street Ste. 908
City: Brooklyn
State: N.Y. Zip 11201
Telephone No: 7182223118 Ext._____
Email: ianderson@henrvschwartzlaw.com
If appearing Pro Hac Vice, has attorney satisfied
requirements of section 500.4 of the Rules of the
Court of Appeals?__yes
no
10. Self-Represented Litigant information:
For Party No. 1 above:
Party’s Name: Gina Robinson
Street Address: 108 West 63rd Street, No. 22594
City: Kansas City State: MO Zip: 64113
Telephone No.: (646) 266-1142 Ext._____
Email: ginarobinson2018@gmail.com
11. Related motions and applications:
Does any party to the appeal have any motions or
applications related to this appeal
pending in the Court of Appeals?
yes
no
If yes, specify:
a. the party who filed the motion or application:
87a
Appendix 19
b. the return date of the motion:
c. the relief sought:___________
Does any party to the appeal have any motions or
applications in this case currently pending in the
court from which the appeal is taken?
yes
no
If yes, specify:
a. the party who filed the motion or application: N/A
b. the return date of the motion:__________________
c. the relief sought:_____________________________
Are there any other pending motions or ongoing
proceedings in this case? If yes, please describe briefly
the nature and the status of such motions or
proceedings:_____________________________________
12. Set forth, in point-heading form, issues proposed
to be raised on appeal (this is a nonbinding
designation, for preliminary issue identification
purposes only):
Please see additional sheet attached.
13. Does appellant request that this appeal be
considered for resolution pursuant to section 500.11 of
the Rules of the Court of Appeals (Alternative
Procedure for Selected Appeals)?_____yes
no
88a
Appendix 19
If yes, set forth a concise statement why appellant
believes that consideration pursuant to section 500.11
is appropriate (see section 500.11[b]):__________ _
14. Notice to the Attorney General.
Is any party to the appeal asserting that a statute is
unconstitutional?____yes
no
If yes, has appellant met the requirement of notice to
the Attorney General in section 500.9(b) of the Rules
of the Court of Appeals?
yes
no
Question 12. Additional sheet attachment
1- The First Department, violated the Due Process
and Equal Protection Clauses of the United States
Constitution when they dismissed Plaintiff s perfected
appeal sua sponte, and without cause, despite her
appeal raising substantive issues and following the
rules of civil procedure.
2- The First Department, violated the Due Process
and Equal Protection Clauses of the United States
Constitution when they dismissed Plaintiffs perfected
appeal because Plaintiff is a Black person.
89a
Appendix 19
3- The First Department, violated the Due Process
and Equal Protection Clauses of the United States
Constitution when they dismissed Plaintiffs perfected
appeal because Plaintiff is a female.
4- The First Department, violated the Due Process
and Equal Protection Clauses of the United States
Constitution when they dismissed Plaintiffs perfected
appeal due to Plaintiffs low socio-economic status.
5- The Appellate Division violated the Due Process
and Equal Protection Clause of the United States
Constitution when they dismissed Plaintiffs perfected
appeal because Plaintiff is a pro se litigant.
6- The First Department, violated the Due Process
and Equal Protection Clauses of the New York State
Constitution when they dismissed Plaintiff s perfected
appeal sua sponte, and without cause, despite her
appeal raising substantive issues and following the
rules of civil procedure.
7- The Appellate Division violated the Due Process
and Equal Protection Clauses of the New York State
Constitution when they dismissed Plaintiff s perfected
appeal because Plaintiff is a Black person.
8- The Appellate Division violated the Due Process
and Equal Protection Clauses of the New York State
Constitution because Plaintiff is a female.
90a
Appendix 19
9- The Appellate Division violated the Due Process
and Equal Protection Clauses of the New York State
Constitution when they dismissed Plaintiffs perfected
appeal because of Plaintiffs low socio-economic
status.
10- The Appellate Division violated the Due Process
and Equal Protection Clauses of the New York State
Constitution when they dismissed Plaintiffs perfected
appeal because the Plaintiff is a Pro se litigant.
11- The First Department selectively enforced the
statutes of the rules of civil procedure and violated
the Due Process Clauses and Equal Protection
Clauses of the Constitutions of the United States, sua
sponte, and without cause.
12- The First Department selectively enforced the
statutes of the rules of civil procedure and violated
the Due Process Clauses and Equal Protection
Clauses of the Constitutions of the United States,
because Plaintiff is a black person.
13- The First Department selectively enforced the
statutes of the rules of civil procedure and violated
the Due Process Clauses and Equal Protection
Clauses of the Constitutions of the United States,
because Plaintiff is a female.
14- The First Department selectively enforced the
91a
Appendix 19
statutes of the rules of civil procedure and violated
the Due Process Clauses and Equal Protection
Clauses of the Constitutions of the United States, due
to Plaintiffs low socio-economic status.
15- The First Department selectively enforced the
statutes of the rules of civil procedure and violated
the Due Process Clauses and Equal Protection
Clauses of the Constitutions of the United States,
because Plaintiff is a pro se litigant.
16- The First Department selectively enforced the
statutes of the rules of civil procedure and violated
the Due Process Clauses and Equal Protection
Clauses of the State of New York Constitution, sua
sponte, and without cause.
17- The First Department selectively enforced the
statutes of the rules of civil procedure and violated
the Due Process Clauses and Equal Protection
Clauses of the State of New York Constitution,
because Plaintiff is a black person.
18- The First Department selectively enforced the
statutes of the rules of civil procedure and violated
the Due Process Clauses and Equal Protection
Clauses of the State of New York Constitution,
because Plaintiff is a female.
19- The First Department selectively enforced the
92a
Appendix 19
statutes of the rules of civil procedure and violated
the Due Process Clauses and Equal Protection
Clauses of the State of New York Constitution, due to
Plaintiffs low socio-economic status.
20- The First Department selectively enforced the
statutes of the rules of civil procedure and violated
the Due Process Clauses and Equal Protection
Clauses of the State of New York Constitution,
because Plaintiff is a pro se litigant.
15. ITEMS REQUIRED TO BE ATTACHED TO
EACH COPY OF THIS STATEMENT:
A. A copy of the filed notice of appeal to the Court of
Appeals (with proof of service), a copy of the order
granting leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals (civil
case), or a copy of the certificate granting leave to
appeal to the Court of Appeals (criminal case),
whichever is applicable;
B. A copy of the signed order, judgment or
determination appealed from to this Court (use
document Issued by the court, not internet version);
C. A signed copy of any order, judgment or
determination which is the subject of the order
appealed from, or which is otherwise brought up for
review (use document issued by the court, not
internet version);
93a
Appendix 19
D. Copies of all decisions or opinions relating to the
orders set forth in subsections B and C above (use
documents issued by the court, not internet versions);
and
E. If required, a copy of the notice sent to the Attorney
General pursuant to section 500.9(b) of the Rules of
the Court of Appeals.
F. If required, a disclosure statement pursuant to
section 500.1(f) of the Rules of the Court of Appeals.
Submitted by:
(Name of law firm)
Date:
(Signature of
responsible attorney)
(Typed name of
responsible attorney)
Attorneys for appellant
(Name of party)
Date: 10/17/2024
Submitted by s/ Gina Robinson 10/17/24
(Signature of appellant)
Gina Robinson
(Typed/printed name of
self-represented appellant)
94a
Appendix 19
COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF NEW YORK
GINA ROBINSON
Plaintiff-Appellant(s)
NOTICE OF APPEAL
Case No: 2022-05698
Purchased 10/10/2024
OF ORDER
MOTION NOS:
03457,03501 & 03730
-VsIndex No: 153436/2022
FASHION DISTRICT DENTAL
DR. JUSTIN RASHBAUM, DMD
DR. DAVID STEIN, DMD;
DR. JAY RASHBAUM, DMD
DR. MICHAEL ABRAMS, DDS,
Defendant-Respondent( s)
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the above named
Plaintiff Gina Robinson , Pursuant to CPLR 5601(b)
& CPLR 5515[1] - appealing as of right, CPLR
5601(b)(1)- Constitutional interpretation, and CPLR
5601 (b )(2) -Constitutional validity, hereby appeals to
the Court of Appeals, State of New York from a
decision/order of The Appellate Division Of The
Supreme Court of The State of New York First
Judicial Department entered in the office of the clerk
of said court on the 26 day September, 2024, and from
every part thereof. A true and correct copy of the
Court's September 26, 2024, Order is attached hereto
as Exhibit A. The Notice of Entry, filed on September
27, 2024, is attached hereto as Exhibit B
95a
Appendix 19
Dated: October 10, 2024
s/ Gina Robinson
(signature of appellant)
Gina Robinson
(name of appellant)
108 West 63rd street No. 22594
Kansas City , MO 64113
(address of appellant)
Copies to:
Lester Schwab Katz & Dwyer, LLP.
(name of opposing party or attorney)
100 wall street
New York, NY 10005
(address of opposing party/or attorney)
and
The Law Offices Of Henry Schwartz
(name of opposing party or attorney)
32 Court Street
Brooklyn. NY 11201
and
First Department. Division
(name of county court)
LIAM RIDLEY
Notary Public-Notary Seal
Jackson County - State of Missouri
Commission Number 22330672
My Commission Expires Dec 26, 2026
96a
Appendix 19
Exhibit A
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Hon. Anil C. Singh,
Justice Presiding,
Lizbeth Gonzalez
Tanya R. Kennedy
Julio Rodriguez III
Bahaati E. Pitt-Burke, Justices
Gina Robinson,
Motion Nos. 2024-03457
Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent,
2024-03501
2024-03730
Index No. 153436/22
Case No. 2022-05698
-againstFashion District Dental, et al., DefendantsRespondents,
Dr. David Stein, DMD, and Dr. Jay
Rashbaum, DMD,
Defendants-Respondents-Appellants.
An appeal and cross-appeal having been taken
to this Court from an order of the Supreme Court,
New York County, entered on or about December 12,
97a
Appendix 19
2022, and the appeal having been perfected.
And plaintiff-appellant, pro se, having moved
for an order accepting filing of plaintiffs affidavits of
service of the joint record on appeal and appellant’s
brief (Motion No. 2024-03457),
And defendants-respondents Dr. Justin
Rashbaum, D.M.D., individually and doing business
as Fashion District Dental having moved to strike the
joint record on appeal and brief filed by plaintiffappellant and to dismiss plaintiffs appeal (Motion No.
2024-03501),
And defendants-respondents-appellant having
moved separately to strike plaintiff-appellant’s joint
record on appeal and brief and to dismiss plaintiffs
appeal (Motion No. 2024-03730),
Now, upon reading and filing the papers with
respect to the motions, and due deliberation having
been had thereon,
Case No. 2022-05698
Motion Nos. 2024-03457
2024-03501
2024-03730
It is ordered that plaintiffs motion to accept
filing of the affidavits of service is denied (Motion No.
2024-03457), and
98a
Appendix 19
It is further ordered that the motions by
defendants-respondents and defendants-respondentsappellants are granted to the extent of striking the
amended record and brief filed by plaintiff-appellant
on June 20, 2024, and dismissing plaintiffs appeal;
sua sponte, the time to perfect defendantsrespondents-appellants’ cross appeal, now designated
the direct appeal, is extended to the February 2025
Term of this Court (Motion No. 2024-03501 and
Motion No. 2024-03730).
ENTERED: September 26, 2024
BY:
/s Susanna Molina Rojas
Susanna Molina Rojas/
Clerk of the Court
99a
Appendix 19
Exhibit B
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE DIVISION : FIRST DEPARTMENT
x
GINA ROBINSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
-againstFASHION DISTRICT DENTAL
DR. JUSTIN RASHBAUM, DMD;
Defendants-Respondents
DR. DAVID STEIN, DMD;
DR. JAY RASHBAUM, DMD;
Defendants-Respondents-Appellants,
DR. MICHAEL ABRAMS, D.D.S.,
Defendant-Respondent
Case No: 2022-05698
NY County Clerk’s
Index No. 153436/2022
NOTICE OF ENTRY
•x
100a
Appendix 19
Please take notice that the attached is a true copy of
an order entered by the Clerk of the within court in
the above-captioned action on September 26, 2024.
Dated: New York, New York
September 27, 2024
LESTER SCHWAB KATZ & DWYER, LLP
/s Dennis M. Rothman
Dennis M. Rothman
Attorneys for Defendant-Respondent
Justin Rashbaum, D.M.D., Individually and
doing business as Fashion District Dental
100 Wall Street
New York, New York 10005
(212) 964-6611
drothman@lskdnylaw. com
TO:
Gina Robinson
108 W. 63 Street, No. 22594
Kansas City, Missouri 64113
Plaintiff pro se
ginarobinson2018@gmail.com
The Law Offices of Henry Schwartz
32 Court Street, Suite 908
Brooklyn, New York. 11201
Attorneys for Defendants
101a
Appendix 19
Dr. David Stein, DMD,
Dr. Jay Rashbaum, DMD and
Dr. Michael Abrams, D.D.S.
(718) 222-3118
j anderson@henry schwartzlaw .com
102a
APPENDIX 19/20 - FIRST DEPT. STRIKE
PETITIONER’S PROPER AND TIMELY
RECORD AND BRIEF BEFORE THE SUPREME
COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST JUDICIAL
DEPARTMENT,
FILED AUGUST 31, 2023
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
No. 2022-05698
Present:
Hon. Anil C. Singh,
Justice Presiding,
Lizbeth Gonzalez
Tanya R. Kennedy
Julio Rodriguez III
Bahaati E. Pitt-Burke, Justices
GINA ROBINSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent,
- against -
FASHION DISTRICT DENTAL, ET AL„
Defendants-Respondents.
DR. DAVID STEIN, DMD, AND DR. JAY
RASHBAUM, DMD,
Defendants-Respondents-Appellants
103a
Appendix 19/20
Filed On: August 31, 2023
Motion No. 2023-03419
Index No. NYSCEF-153436/22,
Case No. 2022-05698
An appeal and cross appeal having been taken
to this Court from an order of the Supreme Court,
New York County, entered on or about December 12,
2022, and the appeal having been perfected,
And defendant-respondent Justin Rashbaum,
D.M.D., individually and doing business as Fashion
District Dental, having moved to strike plaintiffappellant respondent’s record on appeal and
appellant’s brief,
Now, upon reading and filing the papers with
respect to the motion, and due
deliberation having been had thereon,
It is ordered that the motion is granted to the
extent of striking plaintiff s record on appeal and
appellant’s brief, and directing plaintiff to re-file a
record on appeal that contains only filings made in
connection with the motions decided by the order on
appeal (Motion Sequence Nos. 001, 002 and 003) (see
CPLR 5526) and that contains a proper table of
contents briefly identifying each document included in
the record (see 22NYCRR 1250.7[b] [3]); plaintiff is
further directed to re-file the appellant’s brief,
104a
Appendix 19/20
omitting any citations, references to, or discussions of,
those materials hereby stricken from the record; said
re-filings to be made in accordance with the time
limitations for the January 2024 Term of this Court,
to which the appeal is hereby adjourned. The parties
are directed to 22 NYCRR 1250.9(f)(l)(ii), governing
the filing of joint records and appendices by the
appealing parties to a cross-appeal.
ENTERED: August 31, 2023
/s Susanna Molina Rojas
Susanna Molina Rojas/
Clerk of the Court
AFFIRMATION OF SERVICE
I affirm this 27th day of September, 2024,
under the penalties of perjury, pursuant to Rule 2106
of the CPLR, under the laws of the State of New York,
which may include a fine or imprisonment, that the
foregoing is true, and I understand that this
document may be filed in an action or proceeding in a
court of law. I affirm that I served the within Notice
of Entry upon the following persons by mail:
Gina Robinson
108 W. 63 Street, No. 22594
Kansas City, Missouri 64113
105a
Appendix 19/20
Plaintiff pro se
ginarobinson2018@gmail.com
The Law Offices of Henry Schwartz
32 Court Street, Suite 908
Brooklyn, New York 11201
Attorneys for Defendants
Dr. David Stein, DMD,
Dr. Jay Rashbaum, DMD and
Dr. Michael Abrams, D.D.S.
j ander son@henry schwartzlaw .com
Is Tasha James
Tasha James
106a
Appendix 19
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE OF MAILING
STATE OF NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS
COUNTY OF Albany) ss.:
Gina Robinson , being duly sworn, deposes and says:
On the 10_ day of October , 20 24,1 served a true copy
of the annexed List of Documents by mailing the same
in a sealed envelope, with postage prepaid thereon, to
a post office or official depository of the U.S. Postal
Service within the State of New York, addressed to
the last known addressee(s) as indicated below:
(Insert here the name(s) and address(es) of the
person(s) to whom you are mailing the papers being
filed with this Court. If necessary, attach extra pages
for additional names and addresses.)
Name & Address
Contents: List of
Documents:
Plaintiffs Notice of
Appeal from First Dept,
to New York Court of
Appeals
Name & Address
To:
Mr. Dennis M.
Rothman,
Lester Schwab Katz &
Dwyer, Up,
100 Wall Street New
York, NY 10005
Mr. John Anderson
Law Offices of Henry
Schwartz
107a
Appendix 19
32 Court Street,
Brooklyn, NY 11201
New York State Court
of Appeals
Clerk of the Court
20 Eagle Street
Albany, New York
12207
(Signature) s/Gina Robinson
(Print Name) Gina Robinson
Sworn to before me this 10
Day of October, 20 24
s/ Liam Ridley
Notary Public
Revised: February 19, 2014
LIAM RIDLEY
Notary Public-Notary Seal
Jackson County - State of Missouri
Commission Number 22330672
My Commission Expires Dec 26,
2026
108a
Appendix 19
REQUEST FOR ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF
RECEIPT OF PAPERS
Gina Robinson
108 W. 63 Street, No. 22594
Kansas City, MO 64113
Ginarobinson2018@gmail.com
New York State Court of Appeals
Clerk of the Court
20 Eagle Street,
Albany, New York 12207
Re:
October 10, 2024
Request For Acknowledgment
Of Receipt Of Papers
Gina Robinson v. Fashion District
Dental, et. al. Case No: 2022-05698
Dear Clerk of the Court,
I, Gina Robinson, Plaintiff in the above case, am
writing to notify the New York State Court of Appeals
of my intent to appeal to the First Department,
Appellate Division order, dated September 26, 2024,
from the above case.
Please accept this self-addressed stamped envelope to
return the stamped Acknowledgment of receipt of
appeal documents.
109a
Appendix 19
Respectfully Submitted,
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
On this 10th day of October, 2024 a copy of this
appeal and supporting documentation was mailed to
Mr. Dennis M. Rothman, Lester Schwab Katz &
Dwyer, Lip, I 00 Wall Street New York, NY 10005,
and to, Mr. John Anderson, Law Ollices of Henry
Schwartz, 32 Court Street, Brooklyn, NY 11201.
LIAM RIDLEY
s/ Gina Robinson
Notary Public-Notary Seal
Gina Robinson
Jackson County - State of Missouri
Commission Number 22330672
My Commission Expires Dec 26, 2026
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE OF MAILING
STATE OF NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS
COUNTY OF Albany) ss.:
Gina Robinson, being duly sworn, deposes and says:
On the 17 day of October , 20 24* I served a true copy
of the annexed List of Documents by mailing the same
in a sealed envelope, with postage prepaid thereon, to
a post office or official depository of the U.S. Postal
110a
Appendix 19
Service within the State of New York, addressed to
the last known addressee(s) as indicated below:
(Insert here the name(s) and address(es) of the
person(s) to whom you are mailing the papers being
filed with this Court. If necessary, attach extra pages
for additional names and addresses.)
Name & Address
Contents: List of
Documents:
Plaintiffs Preliminary
Statement to The New
York Court of Appeals
Name & Address
To:
Mr. Dennis M.
Rothman,
Lester Schwab Katz &
Dwyer, Up,
100 Wall Street New
York, NY 10005
Mr. John Anderson
Law Offices of Henry
Schwartz
32 Court Street,
Brooklyn, NY 11201
New York State Court
of Appeals
Clerk of the Court
20 Eagle Street
Albany, New York
12207
111a
Appendix 19
(Signature) s/Gina Robinson
(Print Name) Gina Robinson
Sworn to before me this 17
Day of October, 20 24
si Liam Ridley
Notary Public
Revised: February 19, 2014
LIAM RIDLEY
Notary Public-Notary Seal
Jackson County - State of Missouri
Commission Number 22330672
My Commission Expires Dec 26,
2026
112a
APPENDIX 21 - PETITIONER DESCRIBES
HER SPECIFICATIONS BY PHONE TO
TORTFEASORS IN MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT BEFORE NEW YORK,
COUNTY SUPREME COURT
FILED MAY 16, 2022
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW
YORK, NEW YORK COUNTY
No. 153436/2022
GINA ROBINSON,
Plaintiff,
V.
FASHION DISTRICT DENTAL, ET AL„
Defendants.
Filed On: May 16, 2022
BEFORE:
HON.L YNN R. KOTLER, J.S.C., Justice
Presiding,
Calls to 212-368-0639, 2021, New York, NY
Outgoing call
July 9, 2:47pm
Outgoing call
July 9, 3:12pm
Outgoing call
July 13, 3:06pm
7 minutes, 49 seconds
18 minutes, 38 seconds
7 minutes, 49 seconds
113a
APPENDIX 22 - TORTFEASORS, IN OFFICE &
BY EMAIL RESCIND AGREEMENT TO
PRODUCE SA PER REQUEST, PETITIONER
RESTATES HER SPECIFICATIONS MULTIPLE
TIMES BY EMAIL IN MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT BEFORE NEW YORK,
COUNTY SUPREME COURT
FILED MAY 16, 2022
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW
YORK, NEW YORK COUNTY
No. 153436/2022
GINA ROBINSON,
Plaintiff,
V.
FASHION DISTRICT DENTAL, ET AL„
Defendants.
Filed On: May 16, 2022
BEFORE:
HON.L YNN R. KOTLER, J.S.C., Justice
Presiding,
Michael Abrams <michabrams725@gmail.com> Mon,
Jul 19, 2021 at 6:59 PM
To: D & G <4garygohome@gmail.com>
114a
Appendix 22
Cc: Justin Rashbaum <drrashbaum@yahoo.com>
Hi Gina,
Glad to hear back from you! I hope you enjoyed your
weekend!
We *can* fabricate a hawley retainer for you. What I
want to make sure we are clear on is the fact that it is
passive appliance that will not move your teeth. I was
fully ready to make the appliance for you until you
mentioned that you want springs in the appliance and
for the appliance to push your teeth back into place.
As I told you in person as well at our consultation, my
staff, although highly knowledgeable, are not
orthodontists. They were asked if we can make a
hawley retainer and the answer is yes. Beyond that is
up to me, the orthodontist, to evaluate your dentition
and discuss with you if that is the correct appliance
for the desired result.
Regarding your previous orthodontist, I can happily
reach out to him to discuss your previous records and
treatment plan to better navigate how you were
treated in the past, but ultimately my job is to
evaluate where your teeth currently are and take
them where you'd like them to be. From the current
lingualized position of your teeth clinically it is
extremely unlikely that a spring aligner will move
them anywhere. However, if you would like this mode
of treatment then I would need to take a set of
complete orthodontic records on you, as I had
115a
Appendix 22
discussed with you at our consultation, so that I can
run my own analysis of your occlusion and then
present a proper treatment plan for active tooth
movement based on where your teeth currently are
and where they can move from there.
Yes, we are a cohesive group of doctors; not
individuals running our own shows. It is because we
are a cohesive group that Dr Rashbaum knows an
orthodontist requires dental clearance before
fabricating any kind of an appliance, passive or
active, and that it was recommended for you to be
examined, have radiographs taken and interpreted,
and have your teeth cleaned before you even saw me.
Additionally there was decay on one of your teeth
which requires a restoration, an issue that if
overlooked could grow into a possible root canal down
the road.
However, I am the only orthodontist at this practice.
Again, you asked for Hawleys over the phone and I
appreciate that that is what you are expecting but
based on our conversations I just don't want you to
think you're getting the wrong thing or expect
something other than what I fabricate, so I am trying
my best to clarify.
I think the best way to move forward would be
another in-person conversation to review these
options with you once again and to make sure we are
116a
Appendix 22
on the same page before I fabricate your appliance.
We can set up an appointment for this Wednesday or
Thursday if you would like, and I can go over your
scan with you so you can see how far the teeth would
need to move and why a spring aligner wouldnt
accomplish the job. Or, if youre ok with a partial
movement or no movement at all, we can solidify the
plan. There would be no charge for this visit and
discussion.
I would very much like to continue with you and get
you the treatment you would like. Lets set up that
appointment so we can get the ball rolling!
If we don't hear from you in the morning I will ask
Abby to reach out to you to schedule.
Best,
Dr Abrams
Lower Hawley
D & G <4garygohome@gmail.com> Wed, Jul 14,
2021 at 9:49 PM
To: info@fashiondistrictdental.com
Bcc: <4garygohome@gmail.com>
Hello Dr. Abrams,
It was nice meeting with you all today. I would like
117a
Appendix 22
to reschedule the pick up date for Friday August
6th at noon or whatever time is available if that's
okay.
I would also like to request a copy of my scans sent
via email if possible.
Regarding my retainer, I would like to have the
springs included in the lower Hawley retainer.
This is what I talked with your office about on the
phone. I scheduled the cleaning, exam and even
did the x-rays today in order to make the
replacement of my lost hawley possible. I was told
this was necessary to replace the lower plate. I
kept my end of the deal please include the springs
in my lower plate because this is why I agreed to
come in today.
Thank you and I look forward to hearing from you.
Gina R.
118a
APPENDIX 23 - PETITIONER PAID FOR SA
IN FULL ON JULY 14, 2021, AT $1050.00. IN
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BEFORE
NEW YORK, COUNTY SUPREME COURT
FILED MAY 16, 2022
Fashion District Dental
1410 Broadway, Suite 3004
New York NY 10018-5030
Gina Robinson
September 9, 2021
Account: 9468 Robinson
Family Member Next Visit
Transaction Receipt
6/14/2021 - 9/9/2021
Date — Patient — Description — Provider - Amount
7/14/2021 — Gina - D1110 Prophylaxis Adult Irene Silverio — $185.00
7/14/2021 - Gina - D0150 Comprehensive Oral
Evaluation - Justin Rashbaum, DMD — $135.00
7/14/2021 - Gina D0210 Intraoral- Complete
Series - Irene Silverio — $280.00
7/14/2021 - Gina - D8692 Replace Lost or Broken
Retainer - Michael Abrams, DDS - $450.00
119a
Appendix 23
7/14/2021 - Gina - P2 Payment- Credit Card —
$-450.00
7/14/2021 - Gina - P2 Payment- Credit Card —
$-135.00
7/14/2021 - Gina - P2 Payment- Credit Card —
$-465.00
Account Balance Summary
Total: $0.00 Current: $0.00 30 Days: $0.00 60
Days: $0.00 90 Days:
Fashion District Dental (212)391-1385 Fax:
120a
APPENDIX 24 - PETITIONER PAID ($250.)
FOR SA DELIVERED ONLY TO AN OUTSIDE
PROVIDER, FEBRUARY 9, 2023
Dr. Joseph Manfredi
250 Park Avenue South Ste 202
New York, NY 10003
212-995-8930
02/09/2023
Merchant ID:
Device ID:
Terminal ID:
Credit Sale:
Transaction #
Card Type:
Account:
Entry:
Amount:
STAN:
Auth Code:
Batch Number:
Response:
ACI Code:
TRANS ID:
Mode:
AID:
TVR:
I AD:
TSI:
ARC:
APPN:
12:06:52
0262
0020
PPX1.
2
Visa
xxx6
Chip
$250.00
002
0095**
6
AUTH/TKT
E
303040*********
Issuer
A0000**** ******
0000000000
QgQ-j^-^2*********
E800
80
121a
Appendix 24
TC:
ATC:
APPLAB:
12215 'kirk'k'k'k'k'k'k'k'k
08**
Visa Credit
I AGREE TO PAY ABOVE TOTAL
AMOUNT ACCORDING TO CARD ISSUER
AGREEMENT (MERCHANT AGREEMENT
IF CREDIT VOUCHER)
X
S/ GINA ROBINSON 2/9/23
ROBINSON/ GINA
MERCHANT COPY
122a
APPENDIX 25 - TORTFEASORS ARE
REPORTED BY PETITIONER TO NEW YORK
STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH &
OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL MEDICAL
CONDUCT FOR THEIR VIOLATIONS IN OSC
BEFORE NEW YORK, COUNTY
SUPREME COURT
FILED JUNE 14, 2022
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW
YORK, NEW YORK COUNTY
No. 153436/2022
GINA ROBINSON,
Plaintiff,
V.
FASHION DISTRICT DENTAL, ET AL.
Defendants.
Filed On: June 14, 2022
BEFORE:
HON.L YNN R. KOTLER, J.S.C., Justice
Presiding,
October 18, 2021
Dear Sir or Madame,
123a
Appendix 25
Gn August 31, 2021 I sent a complaint to the
New York State Department of Health and the
Office of Professional Medical Conduct regarding a
dispute with a dental group, Fashion District
Dental (FDD), that I was a patient of in New York
City. My treatment with this dental group resulted
in them not only withholding the services I made
the appointment, and came in for, but in the
dentist and his partner lying to me, misleading me
and breaking New York law multiple times. This
includes the most recent acts of, violation of
HIPPA laws, forgery, fraud and racial
discrimination. For these additional violations I
would like to file a second larger, formal complaint
that incorporates and references my earlier
complaint, dated August 31, 2021, which is
enclosed for your convenience, against:
The Dentist Dr. Justin Rashbaum, DMD drrashbaum@yahoo.com
The Orthodontist Dr. Michael Abrams michabrams725@gmail.com
The Group Fashion District Dental info@fashiondistrictdental.com
1410 Broadway, Ste. 3004, NYC 10018
212-391-1385
HIPPA VIOLATION
On August 10, 2021 I submitted a payment
124a
Appendix 25
dispute with my bank, USAA, for the charges, and
payment, for my treatment on July 14th. On
September 7th a dispute analyst sent an inquiry to
FDD in order to make a decision as to whom was
responsible for the charges. On October 6th, the
same day I had a local 11am doctors appointment,
FDD responded to USAA’s inquiry. Based on their
responses USAA decided I should only be refunded
the cost of the dental device that I originally tried
to acquire from FDD because they never gave it to
me. On October 12th, during my discussion with
USAA’s dispute analyst, Abigail, it was revealed to
me that FDD had given USAA my medical records
and xrays! Abigail stated to me: “We have your xrays right here.” Not only is this irrelevant to the
issue at hand, but it is a major HIPPA violation!
Enclosed please find three (3) pages, 16, 17 and 18,
from my complete chart sent to me on August
24th, then sent to USAA on October 6 th, without
my knowledge. See Exhibits A, B and C.
FORGERY
The HIPPA violation could not have been
committed without the next criminal act
committed by FDD, forgery. After my 11am
discussion with Abigail at USAA I finally received
the dispute/ decision documents they promised me,
at 8:05pm. In those documents not only are my
medical records and x-rays there, but there are
125a
Appendix 25
three (3) release forms with what FDD claims are
my signatures allowing them to release my
records! There is no date on the wild incoherent
“signatures.” I had never seen those release forms
in my life and they certainly did not have my
signatures on them. I always put the dates on
anything I sign and ask for copies. They were
never included in my complete chart that I had to
extract from them. I only now have copies because
they were included in the documents sent to
USAA’s dispute analyst. This is criminal forgery.
Enclosed please find three (3) pages, 19, 20 and 21,
not included in my complete chart but to USAA on
October 6th. See Exhibits D, E, and F.
126a
APPENDIX 26 - TORTFEASORS COMMIT
MULTIPLE VIOLATIONS OF FIDUCIARY
DUTY, FRAUD, AND THEFT OF THE SA,
FOR UNKNOWN REASONS IN OSC BEFORE
NEW YORK, COUNTY SUPREME COURT
FILED JUNE 14, 2022
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW
YORK, NEW YORK COUNTY
No. 153436/2022
GINA ROBINSON,
Plaintiff,
V.
FASHION DISTRICT DENTAL, ET AL.,
Defendants.
Filed On: June 14, 2022
BEFORE:
HON.L YNN R. KOTLER, J.S.C., Justice
Presiding,
Justin drrashbaum@yahoo.com
to Michael, info, me
Jul 24, 2021,
10:25 AM
Gina,
I’m happy to proceed in whichever manner you
127a
Appendix 26
choose, even refunding you the $450 cost of the
appliance as it has not been made yet (as we don’t
know what you want). Given the indecision about
what path to pursue I’m doubtful we can even get
this back by the 6th anyways at this point. Wrong.
They always knew exactly what I wanted, even in
writing, the night of July 14th. (pg 4.)
During the debate over this device FDD made so
many conflicting statements it’s hard to keep track
of them, resulting in the patient being “gas-lighted”:
1- Dr. Abrams offered ‘partial movement’
with an SA then... (See page 5)
1- Dr. Rashbaum rescinded that offer and only
wanted to give me a refund for the price of the
SA, after paying them $600. for services I
didn’t need otherwise. (See page 6)
2- Dr. Rashbaum said he never saw my SA
Maxillary plate and didn’t know I wanted one.
(See page 6)
2- Dr. Rashbaum did see it, and knew what it
was. It was used to move my teeth just fine 22
years ago.
3- Dr. Rashbaum stated that during my visit
with Dr. Abrams July 14th, I decided I wanted
(See page 6)
"ACTIVE treatment."
128a
Appendix 26
3- That's not true, at no time did I ask for
active treatment while speaking with Dr.
Abrams.
4- Dr. Rashbaum said I came in to see him to
have a cleaning and exam as if getting fitted
for the SA, and getting the other services were
two separate objectives. (See page 6)
4- This is not the case, I came in to have the
lower SA replaced, and was told the
cleaning and,exam were required in order to
get the SA fitted. I would not have come in
for those services without the promise of
getting my SA replaced
5-1 was offered a retainer (that wont move my
teeth) for $450... (See page 6)
5- and then a spring aligner (that also wont
move my teeth) for $980.
6- Dr. Rashbaum claimed that I was
indecisive!
6- Not true. I was repeatedly clear and
decisive from the July 9th phone call and
beyond. I was simply being ‘gas-lighted.’
7- When I requested copies of the Intra Oral
scans on August 13th he wrote: “Legally you
129a
Appendix 26
are not entitled to the scan. We will not send it.”
7 - Then on August 17th he wrote “if you’d
like the photos of the scan, those can be sent.”
8 - ...on August 11th Dr. Rashbaum insisted
on sending the non-activated SA to my home
against my wishes and said:
“I would keep it if I were you.” (Exhibit I)
8 - Then on August 24th he said he could not
send me the SA because it needed to be fit by
a dental professional. Where was this
professionalism and concern on August 11th?
(Exhibit J)
9 - Even though 12 days earlier I asked Dr.
Rashbaum not to send anything to my home
by mail, but...
9 - .. .on August 25th he tried to force a refund
check for $450 into my hands by mail, stating:
“Th check will be sent out regardless. You may
cash it or ignore it. We simply need
documentation it was sent.” — (Exhibit K)
10 - When I asked him how many scans there
were... - (Exhibit L)
10 - He never answered me. — (Exhibit L)
130a
Appendix 26
11- When I asked how much they cost
- (Exhibit L)
11 - He simply said $100. — (Exhibit L)
12-1 asked if that was $100 per photo or for
the group - (Exhibit L)
12- His response was “I will send those to you
too for a total fee of $100. As you stated,”
- (Exhibit L)
13-1 never stated what the total fee was,
I was asking what the total fee was.
13- Ultimately, however, Dr. Rashbaum gave
them to me for free. Why did he ever try to
sell them to me?
14- After finally seeing my chart and noticing
misstatements I asked to amend the record.
14- His response was: “No patient chart will
be amended. I'm not sure who you think you
are and that you can bully your way into getting
what you want with what you consider
legal jargon.” — (Exhibit M)
The array of misdeeds and gas-lighting was
dizzying. I responded with a request for a full
refund:
131a
APPENDIX 27 - NYSC IS PRESENTED WITH
EVIDENCE OF 3 SEPARATE FORGERIES IN
OSC BEFORE NEW YORK, COUNTY
SUPREME COURT
FILED JUNE 14, 2022
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW
YORK, NEW YORK COUNTY
No. 153436/2022
GINA ROBINSON,
Plaintiff,
V.
FASHION DISTRICT DENTAL, ET AL„
Defendants.
Filed On: June 14, 2022
BEFORE:
HON.L YNN R. KOTLER, J.S.C., Justice
Presiding,
In the meantime, below please find examples
of my actual signature in contrast to the forged
signatures that were applied to documents I never
saw at Fashion District Dental:
132a
Appendix 27
Sample A
Gina Robinson’s
signature
Exhibit A
FDD False signature
T
' ‘ #»
•*»
I (»»«•»- Mt W»
Wemtfon b
«ao wwn* 9* k*tt bt ■*) tmMt*.
iwf <wKTO'i*rn,t
SHia
K
5^
Sample B
Gina Robinson’s
signature
Exhibit B
FDD False signature
*'
itrthiit
».•
Sample C
Gina Robinson’s
signature
___jst-;__
roUMlENmLED to A con or tMS COKSEHT At Ttfi YOU ACM IT.
Exhibit C
FDD False signature
.tm
SS.
Gink Upbinsnn
133a
Appendix 27
FRAUD
In addition to this, included in the documents from
USAA was a copy of a receipt from the spring
aligner (SA) fabricators, PTW Orthodontic
Laboratory, of Scarsdale, NY, that had a post-it on
it stating: “Gina Robinson received her retainer,
Dr. Abrams.” I have never received the retainer or
SA, this is fraud. In my first complaint, dated,
August 31, 2021, I mentioned that they violated
New York law by refusing to allow me to amend
my record, or patient chart. This note on the postit was one of several misstatements that I had
intended to amend. They refused to allow me to
amend my chart. They sent two (2) copies of this
falsified document to USAA to include in the
dispute documents. Enclosed please see pages 22
& 23. See Exhibits G and H.
134a
APPENDIX 28A-C - TORTFEASORS FORGE
PETITIONERS SIGNATURE ON 3
SEPARATE RELEASE FORMS. NO COPIES
GIVEN TO PETITIONER & USED TO DOXX
HER MEDICAL RECORDS IN OSC BEFORE
NEW YORK, COUNTY SUPREME COURT
FILED MAY 16, 2022
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW
YORK, NEW YORK COUNTY
No. 153436/2022
GINA ROBINSON,
Plaintiff,
V.
FASHION DISTRICT DENTAL, ET AL.,
Defendants.
Filed On: May 16, 2022
BEFORE:
HON.L YNN R. KOTLER, J.S.C., Justice
Presiding,
135a
Appendix 28A-C
28A
Patient or Legal Guardian:
Name Relationship to Patient:
By signing this form, I certify that the above
information is true and correct to the best of my
knowledge.
Patient or Legal Guardian Signature (Use Stylus to
Sign on Screen)
Date (MM/DD/YYYY)
i
i *
Patens or Leoat Luardtan Name.
RetstFonshto to Pattern
By signing this form, j certify that the above Information {strut and correct to the best of my knowledge.
Pattern orleaal Guardian Sicnature 'Rise Stylus to Skndn'Screen).
Oate (VM/DD'YYYYti
136a
Appendix 28A-C
28B
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT OF NOTICE OF
PRIVACY PRACTICES
**You May Refuse to Sign This Acknowledgement**
I have received: reviewed a copy of this office’s Notice of
Privacy Practices
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT OF NOTICE OF PRIVACY PRACTICES
"You May Refuse to Sign This Acknowledgement"
l have received rewewed * copy of this office $ Neste of Privacy Practices
Patient'Name: ■
Patient or Legal
Guardian Signature
\
Date
Relation
.to Patient
Fashion District Dental 7/14/2021 2:40:07 PM
137a
Appendix 28A-C
28C
CONSENT FOR USE AND DISCLOSURE OF
HEALTH INFORMATION
TO THE PATIENT-PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING
STATEMENTS CAREFULLY.
Purpose of Consent By signing this form you will
consent to our use and disclosure of your protected
health information to carry out treatment payment
activities and healthcare operations.
Notice of Privacy Practices You have the right to read
our Notice of Privacy Practices before you decide
whether to sign this Consent. Our Notice provides a
description of our treatment payment activities, and
healthcare operations of the uses and disclosures we
may of your protected health information and of other
important matters about your protected health
information. A copy of our Notice is available upon
request.
We reserve the right to change our privacy policies as
described in our Notice of Privacy Practices. If we
change our privacy practices we will issue a revised
Notice of Privacy Practices which will contain the
changes. Those changes may apply to any of your
protected health information that we maintain.
138a
Appendix 28A-C
28C
You may obtain a copy of our Notice of Privacy
Practices including any revisions of our Notice at any
time by contacting the Privacy Officer at our office.
Right to Revoke You will have the right to revoke this
Consent at any time by giving us written notice of your
revocation submitted to the Privacy Officer at our office.
Please understand that revocation of this consent will
not affect any action we took in reliance on this Consent
before we received your revocation and that we may
decline to treat you or to continue treating you if you
revoke this Consent.
SIGNATURE -1 have had full opportunity to read and
consider the contents of this Consent form and your
Notice of Privacy Practices. J understand that by
signing this Consent form, I am giving my consent to
your use and disclosure of my protected health
information to carry out treatment, payment activities
and heath care operations.
Patient Name
Patient or Legal___
Guardian Signature
Date:
Relation_
to Patient:
YOU ARE ENTITLED TO A COPY OF THIS
CONSENT AFTER YOU SIGN IT.
139a
Appendix 28A- C
28C
CONSENT FOR USE AND DISCLOSURE OF HEALTH INFORMATION
T6 THE PAti£Nt-4»L£ASE REAO 7>C FOU-OWJMS STATEMENTS CAR0=UU.V.
Pitfpo** of CnrtMin' Bb
flys" :fos'*i. you Nfi innai !0 atir CJiamJ drftCaure Of.-yOte ftfoSecisd h»o5ti irfwrritfon «s cam- «m
iiesi7i4rfl
*ci5vfttti,.*nd Keatlhcp^oostySorti,
. KoOc« of PriVtcy Pnct3ce» Y6uhi-.'« A* «?gh!ie r»tf ©ji-ifsifw cf Pn/iscv Prjrtfcttbt for* jwdirtdf v-ttVtlt* to skra tht's Comers Out
]S#vTPiffl*'cfei*‘e*i-*fti!t!«fiflhiared©«.'>il6ftj ert*h» fttf'vVd diKliMeiYwf«ir«*>.»ct
protected heaihtnfcfracvo'i ’ »rd of
ortcm*. MtfUr! subtil ycKr 6t<*« hbo
kifo^ristfcm *'c wy -df our HoLic* fta vir11Jfefe ireon
&r
Ia‘lerr:ait«{iwwi,'ftiMS»i&
VWrnaV ^iM>»'cc£7ripsir'f)oiicf:«f'pii/3(i:y ■Pfaiifce* iirdWajg anywiswrisof «f fSjiiw
tens Si'.'eorrAntftg'ih* Pr int? 6)fK«f
rfl?J“1r UllVtCf S3 flOf iCriW rltflW UrTn#fJtflOu inrfiyKStKVI Ct,tr.lSt>AHff;w(
ttjtSRCe Oft,t!Vf UWtcM
Wfw8^rHM^ yoiMrcwc%nvt^{h*^^<kclTic t0OTatypi-»,^>3teiMStreffiir^yotit* yoan/otj'thii CMterii ’
.
SIGNATURE i1 hfrtt had Ml opportunity -to iwd .find eonjftta 4© contents -of fth CoOsenttonfi find ybut Ntitiw Of Pd**fiy
Ptacdcn.';i uftberstsnd <hft by-tfgnbi^ttils Ctmidm fofrh, lain’jjlVtnj) my ConSent to you* use end dltdostiic Of my protected
hMItMnfOirtistfbn to'csiiy gw ii wtr^i; pey^l wd»f6« awl h«th i#i> opW«50ni.
£%zi$L, . V
.
.
:
SSL,
YOU ARE ENTITLED TO A COPY OF THIS CONSENT AFTER YOU SIGN II.
FcfeK'Ost^f* 3eit« «/Vl£Q2! Jl-f/OJ OA
Fashion District Dental 7/14/2021 2:40:07 PM
140a
APPENDIX 29A-E - TORTFEASORS TAUNT
PETITIONER TO SUE THEM IN COURT
AFTER REFUSING A FULL REFUND OR THE
SA, IN MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
BEFORE NEW YORK,
COUNTY SUPREME COURT
FILED MAY 16, 2022
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW
YORK, NEW YORK COUNTY
No. 153436/2022
GINA ROBINSON,
Plaintiff,
V.
FASHION DISTRICT DENTAL, ET AL„
Defendants.
Filed On: May 16, 2022
BEFORE:
HON.L YNN R. KOTLER, J.S.C., Justice
Presiding,
141a
Appendix 29A-E
29A
justin rashbaum <drrashbaum@yahoo.com>
Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 5:16 PM
To: D & G <4garygohome@gmail.com>, Mike
Abrams Perio/ortho <michabrams725@gmail.com>
Gina,
I did not even read your email, as no matter what you
say, there is nothing that I can say to have you
understand any position other than your own. If you'd
like to take me to court, feel free to do so. Your threats
do not move me in any way, shape or form. I'm not even
sure if you understand how the legal system works, as it
pertains to this case. I will not be paying for any of your
court fees, which any case, would likely begin at the
minimum 3 years from now. This is a case of principle
for me, not of money. You have insulted me, my staff
and your emails are fraught with untruths. You have
taken zero responsibility in any aspect of this, which is
unfortunate, and now want compensation for rendered ‘
treatments. Your comments are beyond comprehension.
I do not believe we are under any legal obligation to give
you any portion of your money back. Anything I prior
offered was out of courtesy. No such courtesy exists any
longer. I will send you your retainer. I would keep it if I
were you, in case any court requires you to return it
upon any favorable judgment to you (which I doubt). It's
a shame it has come to this because we have been
142a
Appendix 29A-E
29A
cordial and professional up to this point, but you've
exhausted our patience with your abusive tone and
words. Please note, you will not be responded to again so
no need to send any email. I will communicate with your
credit card company or a court. That's it.
Dr. Justin Rashbaum
Fashion District Dental
1410 Broadway Suite 3004
NY, NY 10018
Ph: 212.391.1385
29B
Re: Fashion District Dental Patient Dismissal
Notification
/
D & G <4garygohome@gmail.com>
To: justin rashbaum <drrashbaum@yahoo.com>
Cc: Michael Abrams <michabrams725@gmail.com>
Bcc: <4garygohome@gmail.com>
Hello Dr. Rashbaum,
1. G: I will ask you again not to mail anything to my
home. I have asked you not to do this 12 days ago so
there is no reason for you to claim my request came too
late this time:
143a
Appendix 29A-E
29B
Fri, Aug 13, 2:39 PM (12 days ago)
Dr. Rashbaum
Please do not send me anything via mail.
2. G: I will send a messenger to pick up the "study
model" as soon as you tell me it is ready for pick up.
G: You seem to zig when I zag. If I want to go to court
you want to settle out, if I want to settle out you want to
go to court, if I dont want the retainer sent to me, you
want to force it into my hands, if I want it sent
(activated), you want to withhold it.
Aug 11, 2021, 5:17 PM
J: I will send you your retainer. I would keep it if I were
you, in case any court requires you to return it upon any
favorable judgment to you (which I doubt).
Aug 20, 2021, 3 30 PM (5 days ago)
to Michael, me
J: Gina,
You may pick up the inactivated retainer and have it
activated elsewhere.
144a
Appendix 29A-E
29B
Aug 24, 2021, 4 07 PM (19 hours ago)
to me, Michael
J: I cannot send you the retainer because it is an
appliance, that if not deemed passively fit by a dental
professional, can cause unwarranted active tooth
movement.
3. G: This is yet another of nearly 10 (ten) contradictory
or misleading statements made by you since July 14th.
4. G: I am formally requesting to amend the record and
will include an amendment statement under separate
cover and you can either make the changes in your
record and allow me to review it.
5. G: You still have not included the full collection of
scans taken by Dr. Abrams on July 14th. You are
required to provide these and you already agreed to
send hem.
August 17th
"If however, you'd like the photos of the scan
(all angles of your teeth), those can be sent.
6. G: Please remove the post-it note from the lab
prescription and resend. That comment on the post-it
note is false but I will address this in the amendment of
145a
Appendix 29A-E
29B
the chart.
justin rashbaum <drrashbaum@yahoo.com> Tue,
Aug 24, 2021 at 4:07 PM
To: D & G <4garygohome@gmail.com>
Cc: Michael Abrams
<michabrams725@gmail.com>
J: Since you do not have the retainer in your possession
(even though there is nothing wrong with the fabrication
of the appliance),
J: I cannot send you the retainer because it is an
appliance, that if not deemed passively fit by a dental
professional, can cause unwarranted active tooth
movement. Your retainer is meant to fit passively before
the springs are activated at the delivery visit to create
tooth movement.
G: This is a direct contradiction to what Dr. Abrams said
to me in the chair on July 14th. He said "I want you to
be aware that the device you will be getting will not
move your teeth, it will only keep them in place." Per
contract you were supposed to inform me of the complete
process but you did not.
J: Please expect a check in the mail.
146a
Appendix 29A-E
29B
G: Please do not mail anything to me ever.
J: We consider this matter closed on our behalf. If this is
not amenable to you, we have already outlined the other
outlets you may pursue.
G: I await your response to the above requests,
particularly regarding the options for amending the
record and sending those scans. The matter is not
closed, unfortunately, until I get what I legally
requested. Per New York Law you are required to
respond to these requests.
Sincerely,
Gina Robinson
29C
Re: Fashion District Dental Patient Dismissal
Notification
Justin <drrashbaum@yahoo.com> Thu, Aug 19,
2021 at 5:38 PM
To: D & G <4garygohome@gmail.com>
Gina,
At this point, out of principle, I would prefer a court to
decide the logic, accuracy and veracity of any of the
147a
Appendix 29A-E
29C
multitude of inaccurate statements you have made and
continue to make. The only response we will give you is
that we have rendered all the treatments for which you
paid, given you all treatment notes and xrays and will,
when you agree to accept it, send the retainer to you for
which you paid. I refuse to reason or negotiate further
with you.
Dr. Justin Rashbaum
212.391.1385
Email: drrashbaum@yahoo.com
Office website: fashiondistrictdental.com
On Aug 19, 2021, at 12:59 PM, Michael Abrams
<michabrams725@gmail.com> wrote:
............ Forwarded message.............
From: D & G <4garygohome@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 1:59 PM
Subject: Re: Fashion District Dental Patient
Dismissal Notification
To: justin rashbaum <drrashbaum@yahoo.com>
CC: Michael Abrams
<michabrams725@gmail.com>
Hello Dr. Rashbaum,
I hope we can wrap this up. I remember asking Dr.
Abrams if the scan meant they no longer had to use the
148a
Appendix 29A-E
29C
gooey stuff to make the cast and he said they don't have
to. Why was a cast of my mouth made then? Regardless,
if a rubber cast was made of my teeth it's part of my
chart and I'd like to have it.
As for the scans I hoped they would be downloadable (or
disk-able) as a 3D model as seen on shopping or real
estate sites where the whole model is able to be
maneuvered the way Dr. Abrams showed me on the
screen.
I really am not trying to be difficult. Please consider the
statement you made on August 13th "The scan we took was simply to be able to
fabricate your retainer. Legally you are not
entitled to the scan. We will not send it."
And then the one you made on August 17th
"If however, you'd like the photos of the scan
(all angles of your teeth), those can be sent."
Can you see how this can lead to misdirection? If you
say it cannot be transferred as a file then how many
images are there in total? Is the charge $100 for each of
these images? Per ADA New CDT Codes 2021 updates.
149a
Appendix 29A-E
29D
justin rashbaum <drrashbaum@yahoo.com> Mon,
Nov 22, 2021 at 3:11 PM
To: "D. & G." <4garygohome@gmail.com>
Hi Gina,
So far our office has received no word from USAA
regarding your dispute, which is past the 45 days your
credit company should have settled this matter. I will
offer you the option of the 3 of us getting on a joint call
with them as a resolution to this matter. If not,
unfortunately I will have to move forward with a small
claims lawsuit ....which I don't want to do but will do on
matter of principle if we cannot resolve this amicably.
Your credit card company will not speak to me without
you on the line.
Dr. Justin Rashbaum
Fashion District Dental
1410 Broadway Suite 3004
NY,NY 10018
Ph: 212.391.1385
150a
Appendix 29A-E
29E
Re: Fashion District Dental Patient Dismissal
Notification
justin rashbaum <drrashbaum@yahoo.com> Tue,
Aug 24, 2021 at 4:07 PM
To: D & G <4garygohome@gmail.com>
Cc: Michael Abrams
<michabrams725@gmail.com>
Gina,
Attached are your full series of x-rays, lab script and
treatment notes. We will be sending you a refund check
for $450 (the cost billed to you for your Hawley
Retainer). The reason why we are issuing you a refund
check is because, per the termination letter recently
sent, you will only be seen for emergency purposes only.
This is customary when a patient is dismissed from a
practice. As this retainer installation is not an
emergency and we do not feel comfortable seeing you in
the office due to what has transpired, we are refunding
you the cost of the retainer. All other services will not be
refunded as they are considered 'delivered services.'
Since you do not have the retainer in your possession
(even though there is nothing wrong with the
fabrication of the appliance), we do not want to keep
these funds. If you would like to pick up the study
model from which your retainer was fabricated, I will
151a
Appendix 29A-E
29E
make this available to you at no charge.
I cannot send you the retainer because it is an
appliance, that if not deemed passively fit by a dental
professional, can cause unwarranted active tooth
movement. Your retainer is meant to fit passively before
the springs are activated at the delivery visit to create
tooth movement. If we mail you the retainer without
checking for passive fit and your teeth move in a
manner we do not want, we are responsible for
remedying the case.
Please expect a check in the mail. We consider this
matter closed on our behalf. If this is not amenable to
you, we have already outlined the other outlets you may
pursue.
Dr. Justin Rashbaum
Fashion District Dental
1410 Broadway Suite 3004
NY,NY 10018
Ph: 212.391.1385
4 attachments
Gina Robinson.JPG, 293K
Gina Robinson Tx Notes.pdf, 308K
Lab Script.pdf, 12IK
Termination Letter.pdf
152a
Appendix 29A-E
29E
D&G4garygohome@gmail.com Aug 25
2021, 11:52 AM
to justin, Michael, bcc: me
G: It is not what I asked for and you should have let me
know activation was part of the process as we entered
into a contract for this device.
153a
APPENDIX 30 - PETITIONER PAID FOR
TREATMENT AFTER DEVELOPING HIVES
FOR 6 MONTHS, OCTOBER 6, 2021, AT $479.98.
IN MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
BEFORE NEW YORK, COUNTY
SUPREME COURT
FILED MAY 16, 2022
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW
YORK, NEW YORK COUNTY
No. 153436/2022
GINA ROBINSON,
Plaintiff,
V.
FASHION DISTRICT DENTAL, ET AL„
Defendants.
Filed On: May 16, 2022
BEFORE:
HON.LYNN R. KOTLER, J.S.C., Justice
Presiding,
154a
Appendix 30
BILL FROM INSTITUTE FOR FAMILY HEALTH
My Chart/ MiRecord
The Institute For Family Health
Billing Summary
Institute For Family Health
Health Care Services
Guarantor #732*** (Gina Robinson)
Patients included: You
Your Balance
$430.00
[Pay Now]
Can’t pay all at once?
sign up to pay $86.00
[Set up payment plan]
View balance details
Manage financial assistance
Contact customer service
If you would like to receive paper statements, you may
Cancel paperless billing.
155a
Appendix 30
RECEIPT FOR HIVES MEDICATION
DUANE READE"
By WALGREENS
#14165 380 AMSTERDAM AVE
NEW NY 10024
212-579-7246
156
8643 0002 10/06/2021 2:49PM
it'k'k'k'k'k'k'k
10MG Liquigel 40S
FSA •k'k'k'k'k
$19.99
Return Value $19.99
TOTAL
DEBIT CARD
AUT CODE
CHANGE
$19.99
$19.00
H36***
.00
SALE
AID A0000000098****
US DEBIT
Integrated chip card
PIN Verified
TOTAL FSA ITEMS
$19.00
TOTAL RX ITEMS
0.00
TOTAL FSA AND RX $19.00
RFN# 1416-5028-6439-****-****
156a
Appendix 30
RECEIPT FOR HIVES MEDICATION
DUANE READE"
By WALGREENS
#14165 380 AMSTERDAM AVE
NEW NY 10024
212-579-7246
145
k'kk'k
0032 10/06/2021 2:39PM
•k'k'k'k "k'k'k'k
10MG Liquidgel 40S
FSA RX***
$29.99
Return Value $19.99
TOTAL
DEBIT CARD
AUT CODE
CHANGE
$29.99
$29.00
H36***
.00
SALE
AID A0000000098****
US DEBIT
Integrated chip card
PIN Verified
TOTAL FSA ITEMS
$0.00
TOTAL RX ITEMS
$29.00
TOTAL FSA AND RX
$29.00
RFN# 1416-5324-1183-****-****
157 a
APPENDIX 31 - TORTFEASORS TERMINATE
PETITIONER AS A PATIENT WITHOUT
CAUSE AND INCOMPLETE CONTRACT,
IN MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT BEFORE NEW YORK,
COUNTY SUPREME COURT
FILED MAY 16, 2022
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW
YORK, NEW YORK COUNTY
No. 153436/2022
GINA ROBINSON,
Plaintiff,
V.
FASHION DISTRICT DENTAL, ET AL
Defendants.
Filed On: May 16, 2022
BEFORE:
HON.L YNN R. KOTLER, J.S.C., Justice
Presiding,
158a
Appendix 31
TORTFEASOR TERMINATION LETTER
FASHION DISTRICT
DENTAL
1410 Broadway, Suite 3004
New York, NY 10018
Phone: (212) 391-1385
Fax: (212) 391-8540
August 13,2021
To Gina Robinson;
Please be advised that my associates and I will no
longer be able to treat you as a patient. The termination
of our physician/patient relationship will be effective in
30 days from the date of this letter in an effort to treat
any dental emergencies that may occur before you can
reasonably find another dental provider.
As per your x-rays, clinical examination and intraoral
photo taken; a fracture line exists on the occluso-distal
of tooth #31 along with occlusal enamel caries on tooth
#30. Interceptive treatment is required to prevent these
findings from progressing. These restorations can be
completed without any modification to your fabricated
retainer.
Upon written authorization, a copy of your dental
159a
Appendix 31
record and fabricated retainer will be sent to your
new dentist. A record release form is enclosed. You
are currently in possession of your treatment notes,
dental x-rays, and intraoral photo taken.
Sincerely,
s/ Justin Rashbaum
Fashion District Dental
L.
' 3iiX-eiel}v
/
Fashion District Dental
'M *
histiri Rashfeaym & Associates
160a
APPENDIX 32 - TORTFEASORS REFUSE A
REFUND WITHOUT PETITIONER SIGNING
HER RIGHTS AWAY WITH AN NDA IN MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BEFORE NEW
YORK, COUNTY SUPREME COURT
FILED MAY 16, 2022
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW
YORK, NEW YORK COUNTY
No. 153436/2022
GINA ROBINSON,
Plaintiff,
V.
FASHION DISTRICT DENTAL, ET AL.,
Defendants.
Filed On: May 16, 2022
BEFORE:
HON.L YNN R. KOTLER, J.S.C., Justice
Presiding,
161a
Appendix 32
Fwd: Fw: (Solutionreach) A message from one
of your patients
justin rashbaum <drrashbaum@yahoo.com>
Tue, Aug 3, 2021 at 10:39 PM
To: D & G <4garygohome@gmail.com>
Cc: Mike Abrams Perio/ortho
<michabrams725@gmail.com>
Gina,
Good evening. My office has tried greatly to be
accommodating to your email requests of answering
your questions by email instead of customarily
speaking with Dr. Abrams in person and/or by phone.
Our office has tried to have you come in to try in the
appliance that was fabricated for you and answer
your questions and/or concerns with Dr. Abrams
himself. I appreciate the thought processes you have
with regard to your tooth movement (and commend
you on your interest in your oral care), but in the
end, Dr. Abrams is the only orthodontist amongst the
three of us and he has not received the courtesy of
speaking to you in person beyond your initial visit.
Surely, if there was an appliance you were ultimately
not happy with, he/we would gladly refund the
money you spent on such an appliance.
I want to be clear that per all you initial emails and
inquiries to me (and I have gone over them) , you
requested a Hawley Retainer (not a Hawley with
162a
Appendix 32
Spring Aligner), as you stated you lost your prior one
in 2017. Only after you met with Dr. Abrams did you
reveal you wanted your teeth moved, which is where
this miscommunication seemingly arose from.
I understand you only wanted the cleaning because
you thought we were holding the fabrication of your
retainer 'hostage' unless you received a cleaning.
Regardless of my feeling that you had not had a
cleaning since 2017,1 am willing to refund you the
cost of your dental cleaning. I am also willing to
refund you the cost of your retainer (and absorb the
lab fee incurred), because it seems we cannot resolve
this situation with your retainer.
However, as I was cleaning your teeth, I made you
aware of dental decay and fractures on teeth in the
lower right quadrant of the mouth, which will
continue to progress. I took photos of these and sent
them to you per your request. I also recommended a
full series of x-rays based on these intraoral findings,
which was optional, and made clear to be independent
of the retainer fabrication. As you had told me you
had not had a visit to the dentist since 2017,1
remember you saying you had "set aside money for
dental care so to go ahead and take them." At your
request, I recently sent your full series of X-rays to
you, as well.
In fairness, the cost of your dental x-rays (as you also
163a
Appendix 32
have them in your possession) and your
comprehensive dental exam (with intraoral photo)
are legitimate services that would be independent of
a refund. As prior stated, I am willing to offer you
reimbursement for your dental cleaning and the cost
of retainer to close this chapter and allow you to
pursue alternative care. I hope this is satisfactory to
you. With any refund given, we would have a
disparagement waiver for you to sign, prior to
receiving any return of funds.
I hope this is amenable to you.
Please let me know how you wish to proceed.
Hope all is well.
Dr. Justin Rashbaum
Fashion District Dental
1410 Broadway Suite 3004
NY,NY 10018
Ph: 212.391.1385
164a
APPENDIX 33 - TORTFEASORS MAKE
FALSE STATEMENT THAT PETITIONER
ALREADY RECEIVED HER SA IN MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BEFORE NEW
YORK, COUNTY SUPREME COURT
FILED MAY 16, 2022
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW
YORK, NEW YORK COUNTY
No. 153436/2022
GINA ROBINSON,
Plaintiff,
V.
FASHION DISTRICT DENTAL, ET AL.,
Defendants.
Filed On: May 16, 2022
BEFORE:
HON.L YNN R. KOTLER, J.S.C., Justice
Presiding,
165a
Appendix 33
POST-IT WITH FALSE STATEMENT IS
ATTACHED TO FABRICATOR ORDER FORM
“Gina Robinson Received Her Retainer “
Dr. Abrams
PTW
Orthodontic Laboratory
7 Appletree Lane
Scarsdale, NY 10583
914-723-7061
914-472-2502
email. PTWOrtholab@verizon.net
166a
APPENDIX 34 - TORTFEASORS MAKE
FALSE STATEMENT PETITIONER
REFUSED SA FOR ILLEGITIMATE
REASONS IN DOXXED MEDICAL RECORDS
IN MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
BEFORE NEW YORK, COUNTY
SUPREME COURT
FILED MAY 16, 2022
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW
YORK, NEW YORK COUNTY
No. 153436/2022
GINA ROBINSON,
Plaintiff,
V.
FASHION DISTRICT DENTAL, ET AL.,
Defendants.
Filed On: May 16, 2022
BEFORE:
HON.L YNN R. KOTLER, J.S.C., Justice
Presiding,
167a
Appendix34
ILLEGAL TRANSFER OF PETITIONER’S
MEDICAL RECORDS TO 3RD PARTY
INCLUDING FALSE STATEMENT
[ ] We have already processed a credit on
attach a copy of credit slip)
(Please
[ ] We have refunded card holder by other means
(Please provide supporting documents)
[ ] Other- Please provide all information available
“This patient 100% agreed to and received our
treatment rendered. She simply refused her retainer
that was made for her. She refused to evert come and
have it inserted because she felt it was not to her
liking. We did the exam, cleaning and x-rays, which
she openly admits to in email (attached). There is
nothing to suggest otherwise.”
Mail documents to Norttl American Bancard
Chargeback department
250 Stephenson Hwy
Troy, Ml 48083
Phone (877) 804-4072
Fax documents to: (248) 283-6063
Email epxescalations@myresourceportal. com
168a
Appendix 34
Transaction Record(S)
Reference Number
24377351196000*********
Card Number
*******
Merchant Number
3130032622336
Case Number
C 3 EXVU 89 J390YFK41BT
Invoice Number
3548****
Transaction Amount
1.050.00
Merchant Reference
243i735119600000804919
Authorization Code
H38803
Posting Date
2021-07-14 18:37:00
Transaction Date
169a
Appendix 34
202'-07-14
Merchant Name
Fashion District Dental
Reason
Merchandise/Services Not
Received
Authorization Record(S)
Card Number
'k'k'k'k'k
Merchant Number
3130032622336
Transaction Amount
1,050.00
Transaction Identifier
243773511960000********
Authorization Code
H38803
Authorization Amount
1,050.00
Authorization Date
170a
Appendix 34
Authorization Vendor
V
Expiration Date
POS Entry Mode
EMV Chip Read
CW Results
AVS Code
In accordance with Visa regulations the
authorization logs me being supplied as supporting
documentation.
171a
APPENDIX 35 - FIRST DEPT. STRIKES
PETITIONER'S ACCEPTED RECORD & BRIEF
(DOCS. NOS. 23-25) AT THE BEHEST OF
DEFENDANT'S, CONTRADICTING COURT
RULES, BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT OF
THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE
DIVISION, FIRST JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT,
DATED JUNE 8, 2023
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST JUDICIAL
DEPARTMENT
No. 153436/2022
GINA ROBINSON,
Plaintiff,
V.
FASHION DISTRICT DENTAL, ET AL„
Defendants.
Filed On: June 8, 2023
BEFORE: Anil C. Singh, Justice Presiding,
Lizbeth Gonzalez
Tanya R. Kennedy
Julio Rodriguez III
Bahaati E. Pitt-Burke,
172a
Appendix 35
17.
Notice Of Motion W/ Supporting Documents
Including Exhibits (Motion #2485 “Corrected”)
Motion To Certify Record And Transcript & To .
Accepts Brief, Record & Transcript As
Sufficient To Perfect Appeal
Robinson, Gina (Pro Hac/ Pro Se) Filed
05/19/2023 Received 06/02/2023
PROCESSED Confirmation Notice
18 ***DELETED***
19.
A APPLICATION FOR INTERIM RELIEF
W/SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS
INCLUDING EXHIBIT(S)
Returned For Correction
20.
LETTER REQUEST FOR EXTENSION Plaintiff-Appellant Requests 60 Day Extension
To Perfect Appeal
Robinson, Gina (Pro Hac/ Pro Se) Filed
05/22/2023
Received 05/22/2023
PROCESSED Confirmation Notice
21._
LETTER REQUEST FOR EXTENSION Defendants Stein/Jay Rashbaum CrossAppellants' Request For Extension Of Time To
Perfect Appeal
SCHWARTZ, HENRY R.
Filed: 05/23/2023
173a
Appendix 35
Received: 05/23/2023
PROCESSED Confirmation Notice
22.
ORDER
Court User Filed: 05/31/2023
Received: 05/31/2023 PROCESSED
Confirmation Notice
23 ***DELETED***
24 ***DELETED***
25 ***DELETED***
26
NOTE OF ISSUE “Corrected” robinson, gina
(Pro Hac / Pro Se) Filed: 06/08/2023 Received:
06/27/2023 PROCESSED Confirmation Notice
27.
RECORD ON APPEAL - ADDITIONAL
Returned For Correction
VOLUME -
28.
RECORD ON APPEAL - ADDITIONAL
VOLUME Returned For Correction
29.
RECORD ON APPEAL - ADDITIONAL
VOLUME Returned For Correction
30.
RECORD ON APPEAL - ADDITIONAL
VOLUME Returned For Correction
31.
AFFIDAVIT OR AFFIRMATION IN
OPPOSITION (Motion #2485) ROTHMAN,
DENNIS MICHAEL Filed: 06/13/2023
174a
Appendix 35
Received: 06/13/2023
PROCESSED Confirmation Notice
31.
AFFIDAVIT OR AFFIRMATION IN
OPPOSITION (Motion #2485) SCHWARTZ,
HENRY
R. Filed: 06/13/2023
Received: 06/13/2023
PROCESSED Confirmation Notice
175a
APPENDIX 36 - ACCEPTED NOTE OF ISSUE
REMAINS FROM PETITIONER'S FILED
RECORD & BRIEF (JUNE 8) BEFORE THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW
.
YORK APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT,
FILED JUNE 8, 2023
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
No. 2022-05698
GINA ROBINSON,
Appellant,
V.
FASHION DISTRICT DENTAL, ETAL.,
Respondents.
Filed On: June 8, 2023
Cases: NYSCEF-153436/2022, NYSCEF-2022/05698
BEFORE: Anil C. Singh, Justice Presiding,
Lizbeth Gonzalez
Tanya R. Kennedy
Julio Rodriguez III
Bahaati E. Pitt-Burke,
176a
Appendix 36
NOTE OF ISSUE
APPELLATE DIVISION - FIRST DEPARTMENT
Pursuant to Rule 600.15(c)
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE DIVISION - FIRST DEPARTMENT
x
GINA ROBINSON,
PlaintiffiPetitioner
V
NOTE OF
ISSUE
NEW YORK
COUNTY
INDEX NO.
153436/2022
FASHION DISTRICT
DENTAL; JUSTIN
RASHBAUM; JAY RASHBAUM;
DAVID STEIN & MICHAEL ABRAMS
Defendant/Respondent
APPELLATE
DIVISION
CASE NO.
2022/05698
x
1. The term for which noticed. September 2023
2. The date of the Notice of Appeal. December 19,
2022
3. The date Judgment or Order was entered.
December 9, 2022
4. Name of the Justice who made the decision. Hon.
Lynn R. Kotler
5. The nature of the appeal or cause. Abridgment of
Plaintiffs 14th Amendment rights & Conversion
177a
Appendix 36
6. The Index (153436/2022) number and Appellate
Division case number. 2022/05698
Original and one copy to be filed with proof of service.
178a
APPENDIX 37 - NYSC CERTIFICATION DESK
CERTIFIES PETITIONER S RECORD JUNE 1,
2023 BEFORE NEW YORK, COUNTY
SUPREME COURT
FILED JUNE 1, 2023
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW
YORK, NEW YORK COUNTY
No. 153436/2022
GINA ROBINSON,
Plaintiff,
V.
FASHION DISTRICT DENTAL, ET AL.,
Defendants.
Filed On: June 1, 2023
BEFORE:
HON.L YNN R. KOTLER, J.S.C., Justice
Presiding,
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW
YORK, COUNTY OF NEW YORK
Gina Robinson
Plaintiff /Petitioner
Index Number:
153436/ 2022
179a
Appendix 37
Vs.
CERTIFICATION
Fashion District Dental
Justin Rashbaum, Jay Rashbaum,
David Stein & Michael Abrams
Defendant / Respondent
I, Milton A. Tingling, New York County Clerk 5
and Clerk of the Supreme Court of New York
County, do hereby certify that the documents listed
on the attached rider constitutes the record / part of
the record we have On file.
Dated:
1st , day of
JUNE , 2023
s/ Milton A Tingling
New York County Clerk, and
Clerk of the Supreme Court,
New York County
CERTIFICATION I
180a
APPENDIX 38 - TORTFEASORS GRANTED
APPLICATION FOR EXPEDITED SERVICE
AND/OR INTERIM RELIEF BEFORE THE
APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT
FILED AUGUST 4, 2023
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
No. 2022 - 05698
GINA ROBINSON,
Appellant,
V.
FASHION DISTRICT DENTAL, ET AL.,
Respondents.
Filed On: August 4, 2023
Cases: NYSCEF-153436/2022, NYSCEF-2022/05698
BEFORE:
Lizbeth Gonzalez, Justice Presiding,
Date: August 3, 2023
Case # 2022 - 05698
lndex/lndict/Docket# 153436/ 2022
181a
Appendix 38
Title Gina Robinson v. Fashion District Dental et al.
of
Matter Fashion District Dental; Dr. Justin
Rashbaum, DMD; Dr. David Stein, DMD; Dr. Jay
Rashbaum, DMD; Dr. Michael Abrams, DPS
Appeal by Order(x) Supreme(x) County New York
Plaintiff from Judgment( ) of Surrogate’s( )
Decree( ) Family( ) Court entered on 12/9, 2022
Name of
Judge • Hon. Lynn R. Kotler
Notice of Appeal
filed on -12/19, 2022
If from administrative determination, state agency
Negligence, breach of contract, fraud,
Nature of
action or (34 causes of action in complaint) regarding
proceeding the fabrication and delivery of a dental
retainer.
Provisions of (X) order
( ) Judgment appealed from 1) Plaintiff/
( ) decree
Appellant appealed from
entire order 2) Defendants/ Respondents/ Cross —_____
Appellants Stein and Jay Rashbaum appealed from
grant of SJ to Plaintiff and denial of SJ on 3rd cause of
action.
This application by appellant is for An enlargement
of time to September 6, 2023 (October Term) to allow
182a
Appendix 38
Respondents’ /Cross -Appellants to file the
Respondents’ Brief and the Cross-Appellant’s Brief.
If applying for a stay, state reason why requested
No application for stay.
Has any undertaking been posted No
amount and type________
If "yes", state
Has application been made to
If "yes", state
court below for this relief No
Disposition______
Has there been any prior
If yes", state dates
Application here in this court
and nature Please
See attached letter below (Exhibit A)
Has adversary been advised
of this application Yes
Does he/she .
consent No
Attorney for Movant
Attorney for Opposition
Mr. Henry Schwartz, Esq Name Gina Robinson
LAW OFFICES OF
Address 200 West 80th
HENRY SCHWARTZ
5N
32 Court Street, Suite 908 New York, NY 10024
Brooklyn, New York
Tel. No. 646-266-1142
11201, (718) 222-3118
Email ginarobinson2018
@gmail.com
183a
Appendix 38
DISPOSITION
Motion granted. Appeal adjourned to the October
2023 Term.
s/ Bahaati E. Pitt-Burke
Justice
Hon. Bahaati E. Pitt-Burke
Motion Date
8 / 4, 2023
Date
___
Opposition___
Reply___
PHONE ATTORNEYS
EXPEDITE__
DECISION BY
ALL PAPERS TO BE SERVED PERSONALLY
electronically/via NYSCEF
TAF
Court Attorney
No appearances had on interim application.
184a
APPENDIX 39 - (AIR) REQUESTED BY
TORTFEASORS TO ADJOURN FROM
MARCH TO MAY 2024 TERM BEFORE THE
APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT
FILED JANUARY 30, 2024
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
No. 2022 - 05698
GINA ROBINSON,
Appellant,
V.
FASHION DISTRICT DENTAL, ET AL.,
Respondents.
Filed On: January 30, 2024
Cases: NYSCEF-153436/2022, NYSCEF-2022/05698
BEFORE: Lizbeth Gonzalez, Justice Presiding,
Date: January 30, 2024
Case # 2022 - 05698
lndex/lndict/Docket# 153436/ 2022
185a
Appendix 39
Title Gina Robinson, Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent
of
Matter Fashion District Dental; Dr. Justin
Rashbaum, DMD; Defendants-Respondents, et al.
Appeal by Order(x) Supreme(x) County New York
Plaintiff from Judgment( ) of Surrogate’s( )
Decree( ) Family( ) Court entered on 12/9, 2022
Name of
Judge • Lynn R. Kotler
Notice of Appeal
filed on -12/21 , 2022
If from administrative determination, state agency
Nature of
Negligence
action or ____________
proceeding___________
Provisions of (X) order
( ) Judgment appealed from 1) Order
( ) decree
decided motions for_____
Summary judgment
This application by appellant is for order adjourning
The appeal from the March, 22024 term to the May
2024 term
186a
Appendix 39
If applying for a stay, state reason why requested
Has any undertaking been posted No
amount and type________
If "yes", state
Has application been made to
If "yes", state
court below for this relief No
Disposition______
Has there been any prior
If yes", state dates
Application here in this court No and nature _
Has adversary been advised
of this application Yes
all other parties (yes)
Does he/she .
consent Pltf. (no);
Attorney for Movant
Attorney for Opposition
Lester Schwab Katz &
Name Gina Robinson _
Dwyer, LLP
108 West 63rd Street, No.
100 Wall Street, 27th FI
22594
New York, NY 10005
Kansas City, MO 64113
212-341-4343
Tel. No. 646-266-1142
drothman@lskdnylaw.com Plaintiff pro se_______
Dennis M. Rothman, Esq.
Attorneys for DefendantsBaum, DMD, individually
and doing business as
Fashion District Dental
Respondents Justin Rash-
187a
Appendix 39
DISPOSITION
Justice
Motion Date
EXPEDITE __
Date
___
Opposition___
Reply___
PHONE ATTORNEYS
DECISION BY
ALL PAPERS TO BE SERVED PERSONALLY
electronically/via NYSCEF
Court Attorney
No appearances had on interim application.
RIDER FOR SERVICE LIST
TO THE
SUMMARY STATEMENT ON APPLICATION FOR
EXPEDITED SERVICE AND/OR INTERIM RELIEF
LAW OFFICES OF HENRY SCHWARTZ
32 Court Street, Suite 908
Brooklyn, NY 11201
John P. Anderson, Esq.
188a
Appendix 39
(718) 222-3118
j anderson@henryschwartz.com
Attorneys for Defendants- RespondentsCross-Appellants
Dr. David Stern, DMD
Dr. Jay Rashbaum, DMD and
Dr. Michael Abrams, D.D.S.
AFFIRMATION IN SUPPORT OF ADJOURNING
APPEALS
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE DIVISION: FIRST DEPARTMENT
X
GINA ROBINSON,
Plaintiff-AppellantRespondent,
Case No. 2022-05698
New York County
Index No. 15343612022
-againstFASHION DISTRICT DENTAL
DR. JUSTIN RASHBAUM, DMD;
Defendants-Respondents,
DR. DA YID STEIN, DMD;
DR. JAY RASHBAUM, DMD;
Defendants-Respondents- Appellants,
189a
Appendix 39
DR. MICHAEL ABRAMS, D.D.S.,
Defendant-Respondent,
x
AFFIRMATION IN SUPPORT
OF ADJOURNING APPEALS
Dennis M. Rothman, a member of the New York bar,
affirms under the penalties of perjury:
1.1 am a member of Lester Schwab Katz &
Dwyer, LLP, attorneys for defendant respondent Justin
Rashbaum, D.M.D., Individually and doing business as
Fashion District Dental ("Dr. Rashbaum"). 1
2.1 submit this affirmation in support of
respondent Dr. Rashbaum's application to adjourn the
pending appeals from the March 2024 to the May 2024
Term in light of the pending motion to (a) strike
plaintiffs rc-filcd record on appeal, which duplicates her
earlier record that this Court already struck, (b) upon
striking the record for the second time, dismissing the.
1 Defendant-respondent-appellant Dr. Justin Rashbaum is a
different person, represented by separate counsel. Dr. Justin
Rashbaum has not filed an appeal and is only a respondent.
190a
APPENDIX 40 - TORTFEASORS GRANTED
PERMISSION TO FILE LATE OPPOSITION
FEB 13, 2024, BEFORE THE APPELLATE
DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT
FILED FEBRUARY 14, 2024
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
No. 2022 - 05698
GINA ROBINSON,
Appellant,
V.
FASHION DISTRICT DENTAL, ET AL„
Respondents.
Filed On: February 14, 2024
Cases: NYSCEF-153436/2022, NYSCEF-2022/05698
BEFORE:
Lizbeth Gonzalez, Justice Presiding,
191a
Appendix 40
LESTER SCHWAB KATZ & DWYER. LLP
100 WALL STREET
NEW YORK, N.Y. 10005-3701
(212) 964 -6611
FAX: (212) 267-5916
DENNIS M. ROTHMAN
Writer’s Direct Dial: (212) 341-4343
E-Mail, drolhman@lskdnylaw.com
NEW JERSEY OFFICE
61 S Paramus Road, Suite 250
PARAMUS NJ 07652
(973) 912 -9501
February 13, 2024
Motion Clerk
Appellate Division, First Department
Supreme Court of the State of New York
27 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10010
M691, Return 2/13/2024,
Request permission to file a
late opposition.
Re: Robinson v. Fashion District
Dental, et al, 2022-05698.
192a
Appendix 40
Dear Motion Clerk:
I write as counsel for defendant-respondent Justin
Rashbaum, D.M.D., Individually and doing business as
Fashion District Dental ("Dr. Rashbaum") 1 to ask this
Court to accept as timely Dr. Rashbaum's opposition
(NYSCEF doc. 158) to plaintiffs second cross-motion
(NYSCEF doc. I 56). The error occurred due to this
office's apparent misunderstanding of the interaction
between Rule 1250.4(a)(5) and this Court's October 4,
2023 notice that henceforth
Motions and applications, and original proceedings
shall be filed in digital form only (via NYSCEF or
Digital Submission Portal). No hard copy submission
is required unless requested by the Court.
(Exhibit A to this letter).
This Court should also accept as timely the
opposition flied by co-defendants respondents-appellants
(NYSCEF doc. 157), for the same reasons set forth
below.
There can be no prejudice to plaintiff because the
issues have been heavily briefed. Dr. Rashbaum's
1 Defendant-respondent appellant Dr. Rashbaum is a different
person, represented by separate counsel. Dr. Justin Rashbaum has
not filed an appeal and is only a respondent.
193a
Appendix 40
opposition contained only four sentences, referring to
the arguments already fully addressed in prior papers.
This Court's Rule (22 NYCRR) 12S0.4(a)(5)2
provides that
Answering and reply documents, if any, shall be
served within the time prescribed by CPLR 2214 (b)
or directed by a justice of the court. The originals
thereof with proof of service shall be filed by 4:00
p.m. of the business day preceding the day on
which the motion is returnable, unless, for good
cause shown, they are permitted to be filed at a
later time.
Id.
Plaintiffs notice of cross-motion states that it is
returnable on February 13, 2024. The notice of cross
motion lacks a notice requiring opposition to be served
seven days before the return date {NYSCEF doc. 156).
Therefore, under CPLR 2214(b), opposition was due two
days before the return date, on Sunday February II,
2024. General Construction Law§ 25-a pushed the
deadline past the weekend and Monday Court holiday
for Lincoln's Birthday to today,
February 13, 2024.
2. This Court's February 13, 2023 email notices rejecting the
opposition papers as untimely referred to "CPLR 1250.4(a)(S)."
There is no such provision of the CPLR, and 22 NYCRR 1250.4(a)(5)
appears to have been intended.
194a
Appendix 40
Co-defendants filed their opposition on February II,
and Dr. Rashbaum filed his opposition on February 12.
The second sentence of Rule 1250.4(a)(5) provides
that "The originals thereof with proof of service shall be
filed by 4:00p.m. of the business day preceding the day
on which the motion is returnable." I understood this to
be a reference to hard copy filing, which has been
negated by the Court's October 4, 2023 notice directing
that hard copies should no longer be filed (Exhibit
A hereto). Other language in the October 4, 2023 notice
specifically distinguishes between "original" and
"digital" copies and therefore appears to confirm the
reading of "original" as a synonym for hard copy. 3
I understand now that the Court wants e-filed
papers the Friday before the return date. My error
causes no prejudice. I ask that this Court accept as
timely all papers submitted in opposition to plaintiffs
cross-motion.
Respectfully,
s/ Dennis Rothman
Dennis M. Rothman574-1537/4891-7626-1541
SO ORDERED
s/ JRH
195a
Appendix 40
JSC:
Date: 02/13/24
3. Attorney Matters. In addition to the digital copy, the original
document (i.e., one hard copy) shall be filed with the Court"
(Exhibit A at 2).
196a
APPENDIX 41 - FIRST DEPT. CONTINUES TO
UPHOLD VIOLATION OF PETITIONER'S 14TH
AMENDMENT RIGHTS TO DUE PROCESS
BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE
OF NEW YORK APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT,
FILED FEBRUARY 6, 2024
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
No. 2022-05698
GINA ROBINSON,
Appellant,
V.
FASHION DISTRICT DENTAL, ET AL.,
Respondents.
Filed On: February 6, 2024
Cases: NYSCEF-153436/2022, NYSCEF-2022/05698
BEFORE: Anil C. Singh, Justice Presiding,
Lizbeth Gonzalez
Tanya R. Kennedy
Julio Rodriguez III
Bahaati E. Pitt-Burke,
197a
Appendix 41
APPELLATE DIVISION FIRST JUDICIAL
DEPARTMENT SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE
OF NEW YORK
x
GINA ROBINSON,
PlaintiffAppellant,
Respondent
-againstFASHION DISTRICT DENTAL;
DR JUSTIN RASHBAUM DMD;
DR. MICHAEL ABRAMS, D.D.S.,
NOTIICE
OF CROSS
MOTION
FOR
CONTEMPT
OF COURT
against
Defendants- RespodentsAppellants
Defendants-Respondents
DR. DAVID STEIN, DMD;
DR. JAY RASHBAUM, DMD;
Index No.
153436/2,022
AMENDED
Defendants-Respondents-Appellants,
x
WARNING
FAILURE TO APPEAR IN COURT MAY RESULT
IN YOUR IMMEDIATE ARREST AND
IMPRISONMENTFOR CONTEMPT OF COURT
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that upon the attached
198a
Appendix 41
affidavit(s) of Plaintiff, GINA ROBINSON, sworn to on,
date
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.