Brooklyn Beatdown | Judge Schack Dismissal w/ Prejudice “Counsel for plaintiff is directed never to place such a foolish statement in a cover letter to this Court”
This is another great Schack decision. This case is a tax foreclosure where the plaintiff decided it wanted to withdraw one of its motions. In so doing, it sent Justice Shack a cover letter that included the stateement “THIS LAW FIRM IS ATTEMPTING TO COLLECT A DEBT AND ANY INFORMATION OBTAINED WILL BE USED FOR THAT PURPOSE.” Read below what Justice Shack thought of that little threat:
Then, on May 23, 2011, plaintiff’s counsel faxed to me a “second request” to withdraw [*2]the instant motion for a judgment of foreclosure and sale. Again, no reason for the request was articulated. Further, at the bottom of the May 23, 2011-letter to me, it states “THIS LAW FIRM IS ATTEMPTING TO COLLECT A DEBT AND ANY INFORMATION OBTAINED WILL BE USED FOR THAT PURPOSE.” Since this statement is in a cover letter addressed to me and does not appear to be preprinted on the letterhead of the Phillips Lytle firm, the Court would like to know what debt I personally owe to the Phillips Lytle firm or THE TRUST. This statement borders upon frivolous conduct, in violation of 22 NYCRR § 130-1.1. Was it made to cause annoyance or alarm to the Court? Was it made to waste judicial resources? Rather than answer the above rhetorical questions, counsel for plaintiff is directed never to place such a foolish statement in a cover letter to this Court. If this occurs again, the firm of Phillips Lytle LLP is on notice that this Court will have the firm appear to explain why the firm should not be sanctioned for frivolous conduct.
Bottom line on this case is the fact that apparently Justice Schack did not take too kindly to being threatened and dismissed this tax foreclosure case with prejudice.