UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
……………………………………………………………………..X
In re:

Chapter 7

ASHMEEN MODIKHAN, Case No.: 19-46591-jmm
Debtor.
……………………………………………………………………..X
ASHMEEN MODIKHAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
DARROW ARONOW, ESQ., HANIN R. SHADOOD, Adv. Pro. No: 21-01009-jmm
COURTNEY R. WILLIAMS, ESQ., FAY SERVICING
LLC, RUSHMORE LOAN MANAGEMENT SERVICES,
INC., MARIANNE DEROSA, THE UNITED STATES
OF AMERICA, DOES 1-100 INCLUSIVE
Defendants.
……………………………………………………………………..X
RESPONSE TO THE TRUSTEE’S OBJECTION TO DEBTOR’S AMENDED MOTION

TO WITHDRAW BANKRUPTCY CASE

COMES NOW, Plaintiff ASHMEEN MODIKHAN and files this Response to the
Trustee’s Objection to Debtor’s Amended Motion to Withdraw Bankruptcy Case. Plaintiff states
as follows:

BACKGROUND

On or about January 29, 2021, the Plaintiff commenced the adversary proceedings in this
Honorable Court by filing a Complaint.
On October 31, 2019, Plaintiff filed in this Court a petition for relief under Chapter 13 of
the Bankruptcy Code. Consequently, the Plaintiff filed a Notice of Voluntary Conversion from
Chapter 13 to Chapter 7, upon which the case was converted to a Chapter 7 bankruptcy.
The Court then appointed Alan Nisselson as the Trustee of the Plaintiff’s Estate.

2

On or about April 7, 2021, a meeting of creditors was held which the Plaintiff attended
and testified. The meeting was then adjourned to May 5, 2021 and to June 2, 2021. The
adjournment was based on the Trustee’s concerns of the absence of the Plaintiff’s Personal
Injury claim (Ashmeen Modikan v. Golden Touch Transpiration that was pending in the Supreme
Court of the State of New York, Queens County under Index No. 706339/2015) in Plaintiff’s
schedules. The Trustee was also concerned over two bank accounts that were not listed in the
schedule.
On or about April 22, 2021, the Plaintiff filed objections to certain claims in the proof of
claims. On August 4, 2021, the court granted the Plaintiff’s objections and the claims were
disallowed.
On May 27, 2021, the Trustee filed a Motion to extend the time for the Trustee to object
to the Plaintiff’s discharge. The court granted the Trustee’s Motion on June 27, 2021.
The Plaintiff filed an Amended Schedule on or about July 2, 2021. The Plaintiff disclosed
the aforesaid personal injury action and claimed an exception pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §
522(d)(11)(D) in the amount of $25,159.00. The Plaintiff also disclosed the two bank accounts as
requested by the Trustee.
On or about March 14, 2022, the Plaintiff filed a Motion to Withdraw the Bankruptcy
Case. Consequently, on July 7, 2022, Plaintiff filed an Amended Motion to Withdraw the
Bankruptcy Case. The motion was based on the grounds that inter alia, Plaintiff had been
subjected to financial abuse, which has led to stress, anxiety and Plaintiff’s chronic illness; and
that Plaintiff has been denied her due process rights.
On June 22, 2022, the Trustee conspired with the Plaintiff’s former attorney in the
Personal Injury Case to agree to a Settlement Agreement. Accordingly, the Trustee filed a

3

motion for an Order: “approving the Settlement in the amount of $500,000.00; allowance and
payment of the fees and expenses of the Frank Cassisi Firm amounting to $166,666.66 and
$3,297.71; (payments to Sedgwick of $200,000.00 for the Workers’ Compensation Lien; (iv)
payment of $25,159.00 to the Debtor for the Exemption; and (iv) for such other relief as the
Court deems just and proper.” The court has scheduled a hearing to consider the settlement on
August 25, 2022.
On or about July 25, 2022, the Trustee filed an Objection to Plaintiff’s Amended Motion
to Withdraw the Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Case. The Trustee raised several objections. First, the
Trustee alleged that the Plaintiff is not entitled to any New York State or Federal exemptions.
Next, the Trustee alleges that the Plaintiff has failed to state a valid reason why she should be
allowed to dismiss her bankruptcy case. The Trustee also argues that allowing the Plaintiff to
withdraw her bankruptcy case would be prejudicial to her creditors and would be inequitable.
The Trustee went further to make false and/or malicious arguments that Plaintiff “has not only
enjoyed the benefits of the automatic stay to the detriment of creditors and the estate, but has also
in that time made extensive use of this Court to object to creditors’ claims and oppose motions to
modify the automatic stay, and also seek disgorgement of fees from counsel.”

ARGUMENTS

A. The Plaintiff is entitled to State and/or Federal Exemptions
Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 522(d)(11)(D), a debtor is entitled to “a payment, not to exceed
$15,000 on account of personal bodily injury.”
As stated above, on or about July 2, 2021, the Plaintiff disclosed the aforesaid personal
injury action 1 and claimed an exception pursuant to the aforesaid law. In the said personal injury
case, the Plaintiff sustained injuries when an employee from the Defendant’s company bashed
1 Ashmeen Modikan v. Golden Touch, Index No. 706339/2015.

4

the door on Plaintiff’s right hand. As a result of the incidence, the Plaintiff suffers from a
condition called Complex Regional Pain Syndrome, which resulted into a lot of nerve damages.
This personal injury claim rightly meets the threshold for the right to exempt guaranteed under
11 U.S.C. § 522(d)(11)(D).
Also, in the Personal Injury case, Plaintiff is not only praying for damages for pain and
suffering, the form of personal injury that may not be exempted under 11 U.S.C. §
522(d)(11)(D). The Plaintiff is therefore entitled to the exemption. Ford Motor Credit Company
v. Territo (In re Territo), 32 B.R. 377 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 1983).
Besides, the Trustee is already fully aware of the facts of the case and its status thereof.
The Trustee is also aware of the fact that as a personal injury case, it is subject to the exemptions.
For that reason, the Trustee is maliciously and frivolously challenging the Plaintiff’s right to the
11 U.S.C. § 522(d)(11)(D) exemption.
B. Plaintiff has always known that the mortgages and other alleged debs were
already discharged
A Chapter 7 bankruptcy discharge releases a debtor from personal liabilities, including
personal liability for mortgages. Johnson v. Home State Bank, 501 U.S. 78, 82-83 (1991). The
court in held in that regard that ““[a]lthough liens may pass through Chapter 7 undisturbed; a
discharge serves to eliminate the debtor’s personal liability for the debt.” Cavaliere v. Sapir, 208
B.R. 785-786 (1997).
The debts as alleged by the Trustee in their Objection, have been discharged in 2012 2 . It
is noteworthy that neither Darren Aronow, Esq. nor Hanin Shadood, Esq. ever had a
conversation with Plaintiff about these debts and how they affected Plaintiff’s current situation
though Hanin Shadood testified she knew of the case.
2 These include the debts in Proofs of Claim 1-1, 4-1, 5-1, 6-1 and part of 7-1.

5

Regarding the $63,000 bank balance, Plaintiff’s former attorney Darren Aronow, whose
employee Marianne DeRosa made an error indicating Plaintiff’s bank balance as $63,000.
Notably, Ms. Shadood completed Plaintiff’s schedules and Ms. DeRosa never mentioned this
sum of money. Accordingly, Plaintiff was not aware of this until she reviewed the filed
schedules after the last 341 meeting. She presented Ms. Shadood all her bank statements she
requested at that time. This explains why in the May 5, 2021 hearing, the Plaintiff duly testified,
upon her information and belief, that she had $63,000 balance in her disability account, which
amount was from the previous trustee (Tr. 2. page 8, lines 1-4) 3 .
C. The Trustee’s objection should be quashed based on equity
A bankruptcy court is a court of equity, and is guided by equitable doctrines. See Pepper
v. Litton, 308 U.S. 295, 304 (1939). Further, “a bankruptcy court is a court of equity at least in
the sense that in the exercise of the jurisdiction conferred upon it by the act, it applies the
principles and rules of equity jurisprudence.” Local Loan Co. v. Hunt, 292 U.S. 234, 240 (1934)
(“Courts of bankruptcy are essentially courts of equity, and their proceedings inherently
proceedings in equity.”); In re Beaty, 306 F.3d 914, 922 (9th Cir. 2002) (“[A] bankruptcy court
is a court of equity and should invoke equitable principles and doctrines, refusing to do so only
where their application would be inconsistent with the Bankruptcy Code.”).
It is a principle in equity that “he who comes to equity MUST come with clean hands”
(emphasis added). In this case, Plaintiff avers that Darren Aronow, Hanin R. Shadood and his
staff, the Trustee Marianne DeRosa and counsel for Gross Polowy LLC Courtney Williams for
the alleged creditors have been subjected Plaintiff to inadequate misrepresentations, misconduct
and fraudulent behavior. However, the Trustee, whose position is meant to be neutral and

3 All references to (Tr.2, page …, lines…) refer to the page number and line numbers of the transcript in the hearing
held on May 5, 2021 between Plaintiff and Trustee Alan Nisselson.

6

unbiased, has only been concentrating on Plaintiff’s assets as opposed to investigating the
Trustee’s predecessor and all the officers of the court regarding malpractice, misconduct and
fraudulent activity. For instance, Plaintiff attended the May 5 th hearing knowing that only the
proof of claims would be considered. However, the Trustee instead started raising issues and
discussing Plaintiff’s assets (Tr. 2. page 5, lines 8-10).
Further, the Trustee has committed several actions that amount to a breach of the
Trustee’s fiduciary duties. These include: failing to address the Proofs of Claims and only
considered Plaintiff’s assets. (See Tr.2. p. 5, lines 10-13; p. 9, lines 16-18 & 19-21); failing to
address Plaintiff’s concerns over the actions of Plaintiff’s former attorney Darren Aronow,
whose employee Marianne DeRosa made an error indicating Plaintiff’s bank balance as $63,000,
which error has subjected Plaintiff to much harm; refusing to sell Plaintiff’s Howard Beach
Property; hiring his law firm for the rate of $700 per hour, which is clearly against Plaintiff’s
financial interests; committing to object to Plaintiff’s discharge; an allowing the illegal
foreclosure of Plaintiff’s properties.
The Trustee also failed to investigate and take action on a conflict of interest in the case.
On March 4, 2020, §341 hearing with the Trustee, Marianne DeRosa, the former Trustee, had
Hanin R. Shadood, Esq as her employee. It is noteworthy that while still showing on the docket
she was Plaintiff’s attorney of record, Ms. DeRosa specifically asked if Plaintiff was okay with
Ms. Shadood being present in the hearing. At that time, Plaintiff trusted the court and its officers.
Plaintiff did not realize Hanin Shadood being present in both capacities was a conflict of interest
or that Ms. DeRosa should have known that was inappropriate. So far, Trustee Alan Nisselson
has failed to address such violations of Plaintiff’s due process right to a fair hearing.

7

The Trustee also attempts to bully the Plaintiff into stipulating to a Settlement Agreement
that Plaintiff has not consented. As already stated above, on June 22, 2022, the Trustee
conspired with the Plaintiff’s former attorney in the Personal Injury Case to agree to a Settlement
Agreement. Consequently, the Trustee filed a motion for an Order: “approving the Settlement in
the amount of $500,000.00; allowance and payment of the fees and expenses of the Frank Cassisi
Firm amounting to $166,666.66 and $3,297.71; (payments to Sedgwick of $200,000.00 for the
Workers’ Compensation Lien; (iv) payment of $25,159.00 to the Debtor for the Exemption; and
(iv) for such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.” The court has scheduled a hearing
to consider the settlement on August 25, 2022. This amounts to a blatant disregard of Plaintiff’s
rights to a fair hearing.
The foregoing instances show how the Trustee’s objection should be denied because the
Trustee failed to protect the Plaintiff and her assets, hence has unclean hands.

CONCLUSION

In light of the foregoing, Plaintiff prays that this Court should issue an Order dismissing
and/or denying the Trustee’s Objection to Plaintiff’s Motion to Withdraw Chapter 7 Bankruptcy.
Plaintiff further prays that this Court issues any other order it deems just.

Date: _________________ Ashmeen Modikhan

94-22 Magnolia Court, Unit 1B
Ozone Park, NY 11753
Pro Se Debtor

8

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that a copy of this document was served on [ENTER DATE] to the Defendants in this
action at the following addresses:
Courtney R. Williams
Gross Polowy, LLC
1775 Wehrle Drive, Ste 100
Williamsville, NY 14221
Pro Se Defendant
Marianne DeRosa
Office of the Chapter 13 Trustee
100 Jericho Quadrangle, Ste 127
Jericho, NY 11753
Pro Se Defendant
Darren Aronow
Aronow Law Firm P.C.
7600 Jericho Turnpike, Ste 115
Woodbury, NY 11797
Pro Se Defendant
Steven Amshen
Petroff Amshen, LLP
1795 Coney Island Ave, 3rd Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11230
Counsel for Hanin Shadood
Andrea M Roberts
Blank Rome LLP
1271 Avenue of Americas
New York, NY 10174
Counsel for Fay Servicing, LLC
Krista M Preuss
Krista M. Preuss, Chapter 13 Trustee
100 Jericho Quadrangle, Ste 127
Jericho, NY 11753
Pro Se Defendant
Jonathan M. Robbin
J. Robbin Law PLLC

9
200 Business Park Drive, Ste 103
Armonk, NY 10504
Counsel for Rushmore Loan Management Services, Inc.

DATE:

Ashmeen Modikhan
94-22 Magnolia Court, Unit 1B
Ozone Park, NY 11753
Pro Se Debtor

At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, The LegalPen will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible. You can send us your quick enquiry ( here )

 

 

Verified by MonsterInsights