Sie sind auf Seite 1von 22

Case 1:18-cv-01693-ALC-OTW

Anthony Zappin

Document 136

Filed 10/31/19

Page 1 of 22

1827 Washington Blvd. — Huntington, WV 25701 — Phone: (843) 520-6303 E-Mail: anthony.zappin@gmail.com

VIA CM/ECF

Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. United States District Judge Southern District of New York 40 Foley Square, Courtroom 435 New York, NY 10007

Re:

Zappin v. Comfort et al. – 18-cv-1693-ALC-OTW

Dear Judge Carter:

Date: October 31, 2019

I write in response to Defendant Claire Comfort’s (“Ms. Comfort”) letter motion seeking leave to file a motion to dismiss filed on October 25, 2019. In order to avoid duplication with respect to the recitation facts and legal arguments, I incorporate and refer the Court to my letter of today filed in response to the Wallack and Cohen Defendants’ request for a pre-motion conference.

Notwithstanding, I feel that I must respond to Ms. Comfort’s letter. Rather, than presenting the Court with legal arguments and bases that might justify her position that the Second Amended Complaint should be dismissed, 1 Ms. Comfort uses her opportunity before the Court to go on a screed personally attacking me and reciting facts from her delusional fantasy world that have no basis in reality. For example, she has made the claim that she has spent over $1 million in legal fees to several courts. Yet, she has failed to provide any evidence to support this claim and which is undermined by her own testimony in the District of Columbia.

To the extent she has even spent even a nickel due to the litigation, it is a result of her own doing. Indeed, Ms. Comfort has never once made an offer to settle, nor has she entertained any of my numerous offers to settle with her dating back to the inception of the matrimonial action. This included a settlement offer which would have given her exactly the custody arrangement she demanded and would have put a permanent end to any future litigation. (See Ex. 1, Supple Settlement Letter to Comfort.) The only thing I requested was that Ms. Comfort agree to stipulate to vacate Justice Cooper’s February 29, 2016 child custody order, which was laced with fabricated findings and formed the basis of the collateral estoppel disciplinary proceeding brought against me. (See id.) As the offer makes clear, I would have stipulated to the same custody arrangement or any other custody arrangement she wished. (See id.) My only desire was that the bogus and retaliatory collateral estoppel disciplinary proceeding, which Ms. Comfort and her father urged, be stopped so that I could maintain my law license and have the ability to financially support my

1 Ms. Comfort asserts that my Second Amended Complaint was filed a day late. Ms. Comfort, an attorney practicing in federal court, has apparently failed to read Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(1)(C).

Case 1:18-cv-01693-ALC-OTW

Document 136

Filed 10/31/19

Page 2 of 22

son. (See id.) To no surprise, Ms. Comfort did not even respond. It was more important to Ms. Comfort that I suffer than her child be provided for by his father. 2

So, when Ms. Comfort claims she is a “victim,” she is a liar. The only victim in this whole affair is our son, who she continues to abuse with her actions in court and her continued attempts to inflict harm on me. Indeed, in the recent modification proceeding in the District of Columbia, the matter was delayed over one (1) year as a result of Ms. Comfort deliberately misrepresenting the prior orders of the New York court, which the District of Columbia court later confirmed.

To the extent the Court needs proof that Ms. Comfort is a liar, it only need to read the Second Amended Complaint. Ms. Comfort and her counsel brought a bogus post-judgment fee proceeding against me over Justice Cooper’s strong objection. (See Ex. 2, Except of Zappin v. Comfort Trans.) She did so even though she has acknowledged she knew I would never be able to pay it. But, as she has stated in this proceeding and others, her goal was to inflict harm on me to prevent future child custody and child support modification litigation and to deprive me of the financial means to see my son.

As set forth in the Second Amended Complaint, in furtherance of this objective, Ms. Comfort lied under oath in New York County Supreme Court in December 2016 during the post- judgment fee proceeding in pursuit of seeking a $400,000 judgment against me that she knew was fraudulent. Indeed, she openly admitted and boasted about to these facts during her testimony in the District of Columbia in March 2019. (See Ex. 3, Excerpt of New York Trans.; Ex. 4, Excerpt of D.C. Trans.) Ms. Comfort does not even attempt to dispute her unlawful, fraudulent and criminal behavior. And, shamefully, in attempting to inflict crippling financial harm on me, she has only further inflicted harm and abuse on her own son.

This is truly a sad state of affairs. Ms. Comfort, an attorney admitted to practice in New York and the District of Columbia, has admitted to lying under oath to knowingly obtain a fraudulent $400,000 judgment against me. This is the type of conduct that should be examined in disciplinary and criminal proceedings, not merely the instant civil action brought by her ex- husband. More importantly, however, it begs the question what else has she lied about over the past six (6) years, which the state court was happy to obscure and paper over because she was a woman. 3 Indeed, in the face of Ms. Comfort’s repeated instances of dishonesty and abuse of the courts system, this Court appears to be chomping at the bit to dismiss my rape claim against Ms. Comfort because I am a man despite the fact that she has never denied sexually assaulting me.

2 Ms. Comfort just recently went from receiving $1,397.00 a month in child support to $287.00 a month in child support as a result of her refusal to accomplish a settlement and the loss of my law license in New York, which she urged and sought to accomplish.

3 Ms. Comfort states that she received a five (5) year order of protection against me from Justice Matthew F. Cooper. Notable, Ms. Comfort never requested an order of protection. Justice Cooper awarded it without notice and without giving me an opportunity to defend myself in an effort to sensationalize his findings for the unconstitutional collateral estoppel disciplinary proceeding. More importantly, however, only a woman would be granted an order of protection she never requested or asked for only confirming the pervasive gender bias in this matter, which I intend to elaborate on further in future filings.

2

Case 1:18-cv-01693-ALC-OTW

Document 136

Filed 10/31/19

Page 3 of 22

Ms. Comfort’s perjured testimony and her admission to abusing process is serious business. I deserve to have my day in Court based on these new revelations. The facts and claims alleged in the Second Amended Complaint, which are all virtually uncontested, certainly state a claim upon which relief can be granted making any motion to dismiss filed by Ms. Comfort futile.

So, when are we going to start holding an attorney and a woman accountable for admittedly and flippantly lying under oath to the tune of over $400,000? It bears reminding that I was disbarred in New York based on Justice Cooper’s fabricated findings that I gave false testimony during the child custody trial, where no one – not the New York Attorney Grievance Committee, not the District of Columbia Bar Counsel, not the West Virginia Disciplinary Counsel and not even Ms. Comfort – can point to the passages in the transcripts where I actually gave the purported testimony. In reality, the testimony Justice Cooper alleges I gave and used to disbar me was never actually given and does not exist in any transcript – it was a fabrication. (See Zappin v. Dopico, Case No. 19-cv-3781 (S.D.N.Y.) at Dkt. No. 1.) I think that it is only fair that we now hold Ms. Comfort to the same standard where her perjured testimony is indisputably confirmed by the transcript.

I thank the Court for its attention to this matter and its continued courtesies.

Enclosures

To:

Claire Comfort Defendant, Pro Se

Robert Wallack Defendant, Pro Se

Carol A. Lastorino Counsel for the Cohen Defendants

3

Respectfully,

Se Robert Wallack Defendant, Pro Se Carol A. Lastorino Counsel for the Cohen Defendants 3 Respectfully,

Anthony Zappin

Case 1:18-cv-01693-ALC-OTW

Document 136

Filed 10/31/19

Page 4 of 22

EXHIBIT 1

Case 1:18-cv-01693-ALC-OTW

Case 1:18-cv-01693-ALC-OTW Document 136 Filed 10/31/19 Page 5 of 22 Anthony Zappin <anthony.zappin@gmail.com> FW :

Document 136

Filed 10/31/19

Page 5 of 22

Anthony Zappin <anthony.zappin@gmail.com>

FW: Confidential settlement communication re Anthony Zappin

Supple, Richard <rsupple@hinshawlaw.com> To: "Anthony Zappin (anthony.zappin@gmail.com)" <anthony.zappin@gmail.com>

Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 6:23 PM

RichardSupple Hinshaw&CulbertsonLLP

800ThirdAvenue,13thFloor,NewYork,NY,10022

Tel:212­471­6210|Fax:212­935­1166

rsupple@hinshawlaw.com | hinshawlaw.com From: Supple, Rich ar d Sent: Thursday, Febru ar y 16,

From: Supple, Richard Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2017 6:23 PM To:'clairekcomfort@yahoo.com' Subject: Confidential settlement communication re Anthony Zappin

Dear Ms. Comfort:

Kindly see the attached letter.

Sincerely,

Rick Supple

o/b/o Anthony Zappin

RichardSupple Hinshaw&CulbertsonLLP

800ThirdAvenue,13thFloor,NewYork,NY,10022

Tel:212­471­6210|Fax:212­935­1166

Case 1:18-cv-01693-ALC-OTW

Case 1:18-cv-01693-ALC-OTW Document 136 Filed 10/31/19 Page 6 of 22 Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP is an

Document 136

Filed 10/31/19

Page 6 of 22

Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP is an Illinois registered limited liability partnership that has elected to be governed by the Illinois Uniform Partnership Act (1997).

The contents of this e­mail message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) named in this message. This communication is intended to be and to remain confidential and may be subject to applicable attorney/client and/or work product privileges. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply e­mail and then delete this message and its attachments. Do not deliver, distribute or copy this message and/or any attachments and if you are not the intended recipient, do not disclose the contents or take any action in reliance upon the information contained in this communication or any attachments.

take any action in reliance upon the information contained in this communication or any attachments. 201702161801.pdf

201702161801.pdf

221K

Case 1:18-cv-01693-ALC-OTW

Document 136

Filed 10/31/19

Page 7 of 22

Case 1:18-cv-01693-ALC-OTW

Document 136

Filed 10/31/19

Page 8 of 22

Case 1:18-cv-01693-ALC-OTW

Document 136

Filed 10/31/19

Page 9 of 22

Case 1:18-cv-01693-ALC-OTW

Document 136

Filed 10/31/19

Page 10 of 22

EXHIBIT 2

Case 1:18-cv-01693-ALC-OTW

Document 136

Filed 10/31/19

Page 11 of 22

Case 1:18-cv-01693-ALC-OTW

Document 136

Filed 10/31/19

Page 12 of 22

Case 1:18-cv-01693-ALC-OTW

Document 136

Filed 10/31/19

Page 13 of 22

Case 1:18-cv-01693-ALC-OTW

Document 136

Filed 10/31/19

Page 14 of 22

EXHIBIT 3

Case 1:18-cv-01693-ALC-OTW

Document 136

Filed 10/31/19

Page 15 of 22

303

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK - CIVIL TERM - PART: SP. REF.

-------------------------------------------------------X

ANTHONY ZAPPIN,

-against-

CLAIRE COMFORT

Plaintiff,

Defendant.

-------------------------------------------------------X

Index No. 301568-2014

60 Centre Street New York, New York December 7, 2016

B E F O R E:

MARILYN SUGARMAN, Special Referee

A P P

E A R A

N C E S:

ANTHONY ZAPPIN Plaintiff, Pro Se 1827 Washington Boulevard Huntington, WV 25701

THE WALLACK FIRM, P.C. Attorneys for the Defendant 777 Third Avenue New York, Ny 10017 BY: ROBERT M. WALLACK, ESQ. MICHAEL BELMONT, ESQ.

Lisa A. Casey Official Court Reporter

Case 1:18-cv-01693-ALC-OTW

Document 136

Filed 10/31/19

Page 16 of 22

   

407

1

 

Comfort - Plaintiff/Direct

 

2

(Whereupon, there was a pause in the

3

proceedings.)

 

4

 

THE SPECIAL REFEREE: Okay.

Sorry.

It fell

5

off the rail.

 

6

 

(Whereupon, a document was handed to the

 

7

witness.)

 

8

 

THE SPECIAL REFEREE: At some point, I don't

 

9

believe I have Exhibits 6 and 7.

I think I said that

10

yesterday.

 

11

 

MR. ZAPPIN:

I don't think they are in

 

12

evidence, your Honor.

 

13

 

THE SPECIAL REFEREE: Okay. Go ahead. Ask

 

14

whatever you need to ask, Mr. Zappin.

 

15

DIRECT EXAMINATION

 

16

BY MR. ZAPPIN:

17

Q

Ms. Comfort, did you review Mr. Wallack's billing

 

18

statements?

 

19

A

Yes, I have.

20

Q

When did you review each of the statements?

 

21

A

I don't know exactly when I reviewed them. I

 

22

reviewed them --

 

23

Q

Did you ever object to any of Mr. Wallack's billing

24

entries?

25

A

I have not.

26

Q

Ms. Comfort, where are you employed?

 

Lisa Casey - Official Court Reporter

Case 1:18-cv-01693-ALC-OTW

Document 136

Filed 10/31/19

Page 17 of 22

   

408

1

Comfort - Plaintiff/Direct

2

MR. WALLACK: Objection.

3

MR. ZAPPIN: Sorry, your Honor. How about

4

this:

5

Q

Ms. Comfort, you are an attorney; is that correct?

6

A

Yes.

7

Q

As an attorney, you enter time entries; isn't that

8

correct?

9

A

Yes.

10

Q

When you entered time entries, are they usually

11

descriptive?

12

 

MR. WALLACK: Objection. Relevance.

13

THE SPECIAL REFEREE: What's the basis for the

14

question, Mr. Zappin?

15

 

MR. ZAPPIN: Well, your Honor, the basis is

16

that

Ms. Comfort is an attorney. Ms. Comfort is

17

practicing law at a large law firm. She entered billing

18

entries, just like I had to enter billing entries, and

19

quite frankly, I wouldn't have been able to get away

20

with

billing entries like Mr. Wallack's, and I'm certain

21

Ms. Comfort wouldn't be able to get away with them, so

22

I'm just curious why she would not object.

23

 

THE SPECIAL REFEREE: She didn't object. You

24

are free to ask her why she didn't object.

25

 

MR. ZAPPIN: Okay.

26

Q

Ms. Comfort, there are several entries in

Lisa Casey - Official Court Reporter

Case 1:18-cv-01693-ALC-OTW

Document 136

Filed 10/31/19

Page 18 of 22

EXHIBIT 4

Case 1:18-cv-01693-ALC-OTW

Document 136

Filed 10/31/19

Page 19 of 22

 

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FAMILY DIVISION

-

-

-

- -

- -

-

-

- -

-

- -

- x

 

:

ANTHONY ZAPPIN, Plaintiff,

 

:

Docket Number: 2017 DRB 003832

:

 

:

 

vs.

:

 

:

CLAIRE COMFORT, Defendant.

 

:

:

 

:

Monday, March 11, 2019 Washington, D.C.

-

-

-

- -

- -

-

-

- -

-

- -

- x

 

The above-entitled action came on for a hearing

before the Honorable WILLIAM W. NOOTER, Associate Judge, in

Courtroom Number JM-5.

 
 

APPEARANCES:

 

On Behalf of the Plaintiff:

Pro se

 

On Behalf of the Defendant:

MATTHEW B. ANDELMAN, Esquire Washington, D.C.

 

19-04720

Deposition Services, Inc.

12321 Middlebrook Road, Suite 210 Germantown, MD 20874 Tel: (301) 881-3344 Fax: (301) 881-3338 info@DepositionServices.com www.DepositionServices.com

lw

Case 1:18-cv-01693-ALC-OTW

Document 136

Filed 10/31/19

Page 20 of 22

1

in the child’s best interest that I have a $400,000

2

judgment against me and that I --

3

 

THE COURT:

Do you?

4

MR. ZAPPIN: Yeah, I’ve repeatedly attempted to

5

settle the case so it wouldn’t balloon to a multimillion

6

dollar case.

 

7

 

THE COURT: Overruled.

8

THE WITNESS: Can you repeat the question.

9

BY MR. ZAPPIN:

10

Q.

Isn’t it true that you never contested a single

11

item in Mr. Wallick’s bills?

12

A.

That, that’s not entirely true.

13

Q.

What did you contest?

14

A.

So, so I, I complained to Mr. Wallick and this

15

is, these are conversations between me and my counsel

16

about, about our bills but --

17

 

MR. ANDELMAN: So, Your Honor, then I’d instruct

18

the witness not to discuss those --

19

 

THE COURT:

Well --

20

MR. ANDELMAN: -- communications.

21

THE COURT:

-- to the extent that it was brought

22

as a fees motion, I think that those conversations are

23

waived, would have been waived in New York.

24

 

THE WITNESS: Well --

25

MR. ZAPPIN: Yeah, they were.

44

lw

Case 1:18-cv-01693-ALC-OTW

Document 136

Filed 10/31/19

Page 21 of 22

1

THE COURT:

What I know.

2

MR. ANDELMAN: Wait, wait, just so I understand

3

to make sure that we know what’s waived, we’re talking

4

about --

5

THE COURT: Her conversations about the bills.

6

MR. ANDELMAN: About the bills as it relates to

7

the fees motion.

8

THE COURT:

As it relates to the fees motion,

9

correct.

10

THE WITNESS: So for one example there, there

11

was this time where they, they didn’t file, we both filed

12

divorce actions at the same time and then we, they agreed

13

with counsel to proceed under yours but we never actually

14

filed an answer. And so then what happened after you went

15

pro se is you dismissed the action in the middle of a

16

hearing on supervision, which caused a lot of fear that,

17

that, that, that you were going to abduct Reed or we would

18

file somewhere else or who didn’t know.

19

And so the response from counsel was to like

20

file lots and lots and lots of papers and it ended up

21

being a, a six-figure response in, in response to your

22

action and so that, that one I said well, you know, yes,

23

Anthony caused it but on some level you didn’t file an

24

answer. And I just, you know, didn’t foresee this coming

25

and, and so, so that, that’s sort of my agreement with

45

lw

Case 1:18-cv-01693-ALC-OTW

Document 136

Filed 10/31/19

Page 22 of 22

1

counsel was somewhat, that they could recover that type of

2

thing from you but, but that, that I wasn’t going to pay

3

every last dollar of, of the bills and, and I, I haven’t

4

paid every last dollar.

 

5

 

I think I’ve paid 6, 7, $800,000 of, of what was

6

invoiced but I have not paid the, the, the over a million,

7

million dollars. So, so part of our agreement in

8

resolving them was we would do a fees hearing and they

9

could try to collect because they did do the work from,

10

from you.

11

 

THE COURT:

Did you say you have paid them --

12

THE WITNESS:

Oh, I, I, I’ve paid, I’ve paid

13

over $800,000 to, to date in, in --

 

14

 

BY MR. ZAPPIN:

15

Q.

Now let’s, let’s be clear.

As --

16

MR. ANDELMAN:

Well hold up.

Your Honor, I

17

don’t think she finished.

18

 

THE COURT: You can finish.

You can finish.

19

THE WITNESS: Oh, he’s going, he’s going to say

20

that maybe that’s not all to Mr. Wallick so, so I, I don’t

21

keep perfect track. I, I, I’ve paid very, very large sums

22

to Mr. Wallick.

He’s the majority of, of the bills but

23

I’ve paid to Ms. Cohen some, some extent and to Mr.

24

Andelman and his former firm to some extent and that this

25

is all in response to legal action pretty much fueled and

46