Plaintiff-Appellant's Request For Post Argument Statement Under NYCRR 1250.15d
Uploaded by
C BealePlaintiff-Appellant's Request For Post Argument Statement Under NYCRR 1250.15d
Uploaded by
C BealeSUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE DIVISION - SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
AHDY ATTALLAH,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
- against -
NEW YORK COLLEGE OF OSTEOPATHIC MEDICINE; REQUEST FOR LEAVE
NEW YORK INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY; EDWARD TO FILE POST-ARGUMENT
GUILIANO in his personal capacity and in his official capacity SUBMISSION PURSUANT
at New York Institute of Technology; BARBARA ROSS-LEE, TO RULE 1250.15[d]
D.O., in her personal capacity and in her official capacities at
New York Institute of Technology and Nassau Health Care Appellate Division
Corporation; THOMAS SCANDALIS, D.O., MARY ANN Docket No. 2016/10341
ACHTZIGER, KURT F. AMSLER, CLAIRE E. BRYANT,
Nassau Supreme Court
and JOHN DOE; each individually and in his or her official
Index No. 603317/2015
role at New York College of Osteopathic Medicine; NASSAU
UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER; NASSAU HEALTH
CARE CORPORATION; ALAN MULTZ, M.D., MARTIN
DIAMOND, D.O., and PRACHI ANAND, M.D., each
individually and in his or her official supervisory role at Nassau
University Medical Center or Nassau Health Care Corporation;
JOHN SMITH, individually and in his or her official role at
New York Institute of Technology or Nassau Health Care
Corporation; GULNARA G. CHIKVAIDZE aka Culnara G.
Chikvaidze, [ANONYMOUS] as Executor of the Estate of
deceased Respondent IVERI SHASHIASHVILI, and
TAMARA I. SHASHIASHVILI aka Tamara Chachiashvili aka
Tamara Shashiashvilli aka Tamara Shashiashivli, each in his or
her personal capacity,
Defendant-Respondents
STATE OF NEW YORK )
) ss.:
COUNTY OF NASSAU )
I, AHDY ATTALLAH, appearing pro se, being duly sworn, depose and state:
This is an appeal of (a) four CPLR §3211 pre-answer motions to dismiss and (b) denial of a
motion for sur-reply to so-called “documentary evidence” by the Nassau Supreme Court. I am
the Plaintiff-Appellant in this action.
Background: I was expelled from medical school based on false rumors circulated by my ex-
girlfriend at the county hospital. An official told the medical school to expel me. Four days
later, they did.
-1-
School officials knew these rumors were not true. But they had been suspending and
dismissing other students, with ties to the Middle East, like me, also under suspicious
circumstances. The Complaint says they over-enrolled classes, collecting tuition, and were left
with too many students to graduate. They had to shrink the class. They targeted certain ethnic
and other protected groups to shed. Some dismissed students were in their fourth year.
I attended Oral Argument Feb. 21, 2020, prepared for an honest discourse about my appeal.
I had a legal right to expect this.
The policy of this medical school was illegal. I tried to convey this fact at the Oral Argument.
Nassau Supreme Court: The Defendants, filing four CPLR §3211 motions to dismiss, assumed
the truth of the facts in the complaint, etc. But they did not actually do that. They made up
their own alarming new facts, put these in their briefs, and claimed those were facts in the
Complaint. They made up dates and statutes of limitations and distorted laws. They filed
“documentary evidence” in reply briefs. They filed dishonest published arguments.
Their documentary evidence was not irrefutable and undeniable. Defendants produced a
document I signed, with a question I answered, newly entitled “Registration Statement” and
told the judge I lied on this document. That was it.
So this filing was not irrefutable and undeniable. I filed a motion for a sur-reply.
The four CPLR motions to dismiss filed by the Defendants were granted. The court did not
grant my motion for a sur-reply. Strangely, the order states -- oblivious to my pending motion -
- that I did not respond to the documentary evidence.
So I appealed.
I am pro se. No one takes me seriously. But these assertions are easily confirmed.
My Appeal. This is still a CPLR §3211 motion to dismiss. The facts in the Complaint are still
the only facts that matter. Documentary evidence must still be irrefutable and undeniable.
Emboldened, Defendant-Respondents filed--again--appeal briefs based on their facts and dates.
There were two complaints -- my Complaint and their complaint. This was an overwhelming
exercise. I expected I would be able to shed light on this practice at Oral Argument.
But then two of them showed up at Oral Argument with even newer, additional “facts”.
In addition, an Appellate Court Judge fed them questions that had absolutely nothing to do with
a §3211 motion to dismiss or the facts in my Complaint or even their imaginary complaint.
But I am pro se. Who is going o believe me?
Some judges on the panel appeared confused about the facts in my case. But their questions
and comments indicate they do not know the facts.
-2-
I am not even sure this panel knows this was a §3211 motion to dismiss. I never once heard the
term “CPLR 3211” or “motion to dismiss” at Oral Argument.
I was not prepared to correct judges and argue brand new “facts” these lawyers made up. Judge
Maltese and counsel discussed – as detailed in my attached Memorandum of Law – “doing the
clinicals” at the county hospital. They made up a question on the admissions application. I
tried to read the real question in rebuttal; just as I got to that sentence, I was cut off.
I was cut off at the very moment I was about to read the real question on the application.
Judge Maltese is an experienced personal injury lawyer familiar with motions to dismiss.
Throughout this hearing, Judge Maltese invited the medical school’s lawyer to testify. For
example, the Complaint says I was expelled to shed students, preferring those from the Middle
East. There was no legitimate reason to do this to us. Counsel testified I was expelled because
I “lied”. Judge Maltese elicited specific pseudo-facts from both lawyers, including the young
associate who appeared for the first time in these proceedings for the county hospital.
This continuing course of conduct has been extraordinarily prejudicial to my case. There is no
rule or law that permits these attorneys to file these briefs or allows a judge to provoke unsworn
testimony by lawyers that the plaintiff “lied”.
That is my case.
Why you should accept my request:
1. I have been diligent.
After February 21 Oral Argument, I went into the Appellate Court clerk’s office and
asked about a previous instruction, i.e., “You can file a motion for anything.” Could I
file a Motion to Strike the attorneys’ testimony to the Appellate Panel? Yes, he said.
The following week, seeking to confirm this procedure, I was corrected: File an Order
to Show Cause. I was provided the Second Department’s detailed, published
instructions. They said there was no page limit to the brief.
Accordingly, I proceeded to draft – a very difficult task given current emergency
constraints. I was meticulous in the Complaint references. I explained the offending
lawyers’ strategy for making up facts. When I tried to file those documents, the papers
were rejected. Instructions and the relevant statute require that I request permission to
file a post-argument statement and include an explanation for why I deserve this.
The Court Clerk’s office can confirm these conversations.
2. The conduct is unlawful. N.Y. Rules of Professional Conduct, 22 NYCRR §§ 1200 et seq.
Rule 3.3(a)(1): “A lawyer shall not knowingly make a false statement of fact or law to a
tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the
tribunal by the lawyer.” Rule 3.3 comment warns that lawyers “must not allow [a]
tribunal to be misled by false statements of law or fact or by evidence that the lawyer
knows to be false.” “A knowing, false, and material statement of fact or law to a
tribunal is an affront to the legal profession and the justice system.” In re Brizinova, 565
B.R. 488, 500 (Bankruptcy Court, EDNY 2017).
-3-
The fabricated facts, dates and documents filed by these Defendant-Respondents are not
opinions or “rhetorical flourishes”. They are “knowing and material statements that are
false.” Geltzer v. Brizinova, 565 B.R. at 509.
Rule 3.4(d)(4): “A lawyer shall not ask any question that the lawyer has no reasonable
basis to believe is relevant to the case and is intended to degrade a witness or other
person.” This would apply to Judge Maltese’s questions. Lawyers for the medical
school and the county hospital did not correct Judge Maltese.
Rule 8.4(d): “A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the
administration of justice.” Lying to the Appellate Court is prejudicial to administration
of justice. But what message does this send to the young lawyer sent to participate in
this corrupt spectacle about powerful people and intimidation tactics? Her tense,
practiced responses to direction questions from an Appellate Justice about my
“termination” from the county hospital indicated to me that this lawyer was conflicted.
3. Defendant-Respondents are not prejudiced by this request. They can defend their
clients ethically and lawfully. Moreover, any prejudice here was self-created by them.
The conduct of these Defendant-Respondents was not only frivolous. It was egregiously
prejudicial and morally wrong. This is not He Said-They Said. These are documents filed
under oath by officers of the court and video recordings at Oral Argument of blatant lies.
If the court accepts my post-argument submission, judges on the panel will know the
Defendant-Respondents did not base their motions on the facts in the Complaint.
My Request. Attached is my proposed post-argument statement, incorrectly titled
Memorandum of Law from my rejected Order to Show Cause.
Exhibit 1 is relevant selected pages from the Record on Appeal.
Exhibit 2 is the Order of Judge Antonio Brandveen dated September 22, 20l6, granting
CPLR §3211 motions to dismiss, citing failure to state a claim, expired statutes of limitations,
and documentary evidence. He did not grant my sur-reply motion.
Exhibit 3 is my Notice of Appeal.
I request an opportunity to re-argue, i.e., to explain to the Appellate Panel the facts in the
Complaint before them, and why Judge Brandveen erred when he granted their motions to
dismiss and did not grant my motion for a sur-reply.
I request that Judge Maltese recuse himself from further participation in this case.
Finally, I request the Appellate Court to bar counsel from deviating from the Complaint. It was
their decision to file CPLR §3211 motions to dismiss. They are bound by statute to accept
these facts, and nothing else. They are also subject to 22 NYCRR §§ 1200 et seq.
-4-
As an Appellant, I have diligently complied with every rule and every law. The
Respondents have pursued a consistent pattern of violating rules and laws. They do this
because they cannot win otherwise.
In the interests of justice, my request should be gr�d.
-�
(� ��\l�. ---
1
�
Ahdy Attallah, Plaintiff Pro Se
184 Garden Street
Roslyn Heights, New York 11577
818-809-8319
ahdy [email protected]
April 1, 2020
Sw rn t9;0e e ,:ne this
C::_dJ�
p ¼
ri.,l 2020
Cathy Teevan
License #01TE6296112
Notary Public, State of New York
Qualified in Nassau County
My Commission expires 02/28/2022
