SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF QUEENS
_____________________________________
ASHMEEN MODIKHAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
GOLDEN TOUCH TRANSPORTATION,
Defendant.
Case No. 706339/2015
OPPOSITION OF COUNSEL’S NEW FILINGS
COMES NOW Plaintiff ASHMEEN MODIKHAN (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and files this
Opposition of Counsel’s New Filings (hereinafter “the OPPOSITION”). In support thereof, the
Plaintiff state as follows:
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed this personal injury and Worker’s Compensation matter on or about June 8,
2015. Plaintiff had sustained injury while working for American Airlines. Accordingly, Plaintiff
hired attorney Frank Cassisi (hereinafter “the attorney”) to help in the case.
Since 2015, after Plaintiff filed the case, he requested severally that the Defendant may
forward a copy of any settlement offer in writing. No offer was sent.
On or about June 23, 2022 the attorney’s office emailed Plaintiff a letter dated June 6,
2022 from Naomi J. Skura the attorney for the Defendant, confirming a settlement offer of $500,
000.00 for the first time.
On Saturday June 25, 2022, Plaintiff received via US Postal Mail a motion from the
Trustee Alan Nisselson in the Bankruptcy Proceeding filed on June 22, 2022 claiming
jurisdiction over this case.
The attorney was then terminated as Plaintiff’s counsel on August 5, 2022. After
terminating the service to Plaintiff, the attorney was hired by Alan Nisselson, the Trustee in the
Bankruptcy Proceeding filed on June 22, 2022.
Plaintiff therefore files this opposition to any and all new filings of the attorney on the
grounds of conflict of interest.
ARGUMENTS
i. Frank Cassisi’s representation of the Trustee raises a conflict of interest
According to Rule 1.7(a) of the New York Rules of Professional Conduct (2022), a
lawyer shall not represent a client if a reasonable lawyer would conclude that either: the
– 2 –
representation will involve the lawyer in representing differing interests. Rule 1.0(f) defines
“differing interests” to include “every interest that will adversely affect either the judgment or
the loyalty of a lawyer to a client….” Further, the commentary to Rule 1.7 further provides that
Rule 1.7 (b)(3) prohibits representation of opposing parties in the same litigation, regardless of
the clients’ consent.
For conflict of interest to exist, there must be established: (1) the existence of a prior
attorney-client relationship; (2) that the former and current representations are both adverse and
substantially related; and (3) that the interests of the present and former client are materially
adverse. See Solow v WR Grace & Co , 83 NY 2d 303 (1994).
Here, Frank Cassisi abandoned the Plaintiff as counsel, and was dismissed as Plaintiff’s
counsel. The former and current representations of the attorney are adverse and substantially
related. Specifically, Plaintiff seeks to protect her assets, while the Trustee has severally
exhibited conduct on the contrary. It is also notable that the interests of the Plaintiff are
materially adverse since Plaintiff has challenged the Trustee’s conduct in another related case.
ii. Frank Cassisi’s firm has engaged in fraudulent conduct
Under New York law, the five elements of a fraud claim include: (1) a material
misrepresentation or omission of fact (2) made by defendant with knowledge of its falsity (3) and
intent to defraud; (4) reasonable reliance on the part of the plaintiff; and (5) resulting damage to
the plaintiff. See Schlaifer Nance & Co. v. Estate of Warhol, 119 F.3d 91, 98 (2d Cir.1997);
Centro Empresarial Cempresa S.A. v. América Móvil, S.A.B. de C.V., 17 N.Y.3d 269, 276
(2011). Fraud may also be based on a “material omission of fact.” Mandarin Trading Ltd. v.
Wildenstein, 16 N.Y.3d 173, 178 (2011).
“A contract induced by fraud, however, is subject to rescission, rendering it
unenforceable by the culpable party.” Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Wise
Metals Group, LLC, 19 A.D.3d 273, 275 (1st Dept. 2005).
Frank Cassisi’s law firm presented falsified retainer agreements in support of their
erroneous, malicious and/or frivolous allegations against Plaintiff. Notably, Matthew Maloney,
of Frank Cassisi had appended his signatures on the Court Filings in the State Supreme Court.
However, Mathew Maloney’s signatures in the Court filings are materially different from his
signatures in the three Retainer Agreements.
– 3 –
It is also notable that Matthew Maloney was not employed by Cassisi & Cassisi in April
2015, when the retainer dated April 16, 2015 was signed.
The attorney(s) knew that the signatures in the Retainer Agreements were false and/or
forged. The forged signatures were made with the intent to defraud Plaintiff into entering the
agreement(s). Plaintiff reasonably relied on the said representation, and ended up suffering
damages to wit, costs and fees in challenging the attorney(s) actions and/or inactions. It follows;
the agreement induced by fraud is void.
CONCLUSION
WHEREFORE, due to the foregoing averments, Plaintiff requests that this Court
prevents attorney Frank Cassisi from making any filing in this Honorable Court, by reason of the
said conflict of interest. Plaintiff also prays this Court give any other order it deems just.
Respectfully,
____________________ ___________________
ASHMEEN MODIKHAN Date
94-22 Magnolia Court, Unit 1B
Ozone Park, NY 11753
– 4 –
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that a copy of this Motion was served on [ENTER DATE] to the following:
Attorneys for Defendant
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP
Golden Touch Transportation
77 Water Street, Suite 2100
New York, NY 1005
(212)232-1300
Plaintiff’s Previous Attorney
Frank J. Cassisi, Esq.
114 Old Country Road/Suite 440
Mineola, New York 11501
(516)294-5050
____________________ ___________________
ASHMEEN MODIKHAN Date
94-22 Magnolia Court, Unit 1B
Ozone Park, NY 11753
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 )
