Barouh v Barouh
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Barouh v Barouh 2011 NY Slip Op 33536(U) December 23, 2011 Sup Ct, Nassau County Docket Number: 021154/2008 Judge: Ira B. Warshawsky Republished from New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service. Search E-Courts (http://www.nycourts.gov/ecourts) for any additional information on this case. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. ........ .......................... ....... ..... ............................................... """""""""'''' ...................................................... ........ .................................. ............................................ ........................................ ........... ....... ....................... .......................... .............. [* 1] uLf /) /I 0;\ SHORT FORM ORDER SUPREME COURT - STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NASSAU PRESENT: HON. IRA B. WARSHAWSKY, Justice. TRIALIIAS PART 7 DR. GAIL BAROUH , on behalf of herself as a shareholder of BAROUH EATON ALLEN CORP. And in the right of BAROUH EATON ALLEN CORP. , and on behalf of all other shareholders of BAROUH EATON ALLEN CORP. Plaintiff INDEX NO. : 021154/2008 MOTION DATE: 9/29/2010 MOTION SEQUENCE: 007, 010 -against - RICHARD BAROUH , individually and as Executor of the Estate of VICTOR BAROUH , ROBERT BAROUH , KATHLEEN CICCHETTI , ZOILA MOREIRA , RICARDO RODRIGO, BAROUH EATON ALLEN CORP. , and " JOHN DOE #1" through "JOHN DOE #10" , the last ten names being fictitious and unown to the plaintiff Defendant. The following papers read on this motion: Order to Show Cause/Motion Seq. No. 7 by Defendants to Dismiss Complaint under a Poisoning Theory Affirmation in Support Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Table of Exhibits 7) Plaintiffs Cross- Motion for Sanction/otion Seq. No. 10 to Motion Seq. No. Memorandum of Law in Support of Cross- Motion (including Opposition ... ........... .......... ................. ............................ ......................................................... ................................... ...................... [* 2] Defendant' s Reply Affrmation to Plaintiffs Opposition Motion to Dismiss / Combined Document Re: Motion Seq. 7 & 10 .................... Defendants Memorandum of Law in Support of their Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for Sanction Defendants Memorandum of Law in Support of its Reply to Plaintiffs Opposition to Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Reply Affrmation in furher Support of Plaintiffs Cross- Motion for Costs and Sanctions and for Leave to Renew Plaintiff s Reply Memorandum of Law in Furer Support of its Cross- Motion for Costs , Sanctions and Leave to Renew 10. 11. 12. The cour also reviewed documents produced for in camera review....................... The defendants have moved to dismiss this action under a theory of "poisoning. " That Jason Abelove , Esq. provided plaintiff with information gleaned during his representation of defendants without the permission of defendants. The defendants have argued that their former attorney, Jason Abelove , Esq. who had previously been Gail Barouh' s attorney worked for plaintiff when she bought ths -curent action in 2008. It is clear that the defendants knew that Abelove represented the plaintiff in a prior action against them in 2001 which settled in 2002; that they knowingly hired him to represent them in diverse civil litigation maners in 2004 , when Andrea Barouh brought an action against the defendants , and then at later times (2006)1 until a stock holders meeting in 2008. Abelove was, and had been , voting Gail Barouh' s proxy at diverse shareholders meetings even prior to 2000. On March 18 , 2010 , Mr. Costello , a former counsel of defendant , first raised the issue in their former lawyer having provided plaintiff and her counsel with information about the defendant corporation s internal open cour that the prosecution of the case had been poisoned by affairs , which was then used in the instant complaint , and also formed answers to interrogatories; information which they contend could not have been known to plaintiff without the insider information allegedly provided by their former lawyer, Abelove. It is clear to the court that Abelove worked initially for Dr. Gail Barouh (2000), that he I $40 000 Retainer [* 3] also worked for defendants after that; that they met with him when he represented Gail in 2000- 2001; and that he then assisted plaintiff in the prosecution of this matter. I am convinced that Dr. Barouh was unaware of Abelove s working for defendants. I am not as convinced that the defendants were unaware of Abelove s continued involvement with Dr. Barouh, both before and after she initiated the instant law suit. The cour also questioned why BEA (Barouh Eaton Allen) chose to hire Abelove of all the attorneys in the NY area. The answer given is that Vic (Victor Barouh, the founder of the corporations and the patrarch of the family) wanted to hire him. " We thought he was a good lawyer. " (Robert Barouh' s testimony) Plaintiff s counsel argues that defendants hired Abelove for the purose of conflcting him from working for Gail at some later time. Abelove was the perfect patsy for their plan. He d work for anyone who paid him and didn t consider any ethical problems. He knew Dr. Barouh would object to his working for BEA as he did in 2004 in the Andrea Barouh litigation. His two retainer agreements reflect his desire to: a). represent BEA and b. ) also represent Gail Barouh. Exhibit "T" is the 2006 retainer agreement between Abelove and BEA. The document originally was signed by Victor for O. S. Eaton , but it was for the representation of BE A. It ran from Februar 6 , 2006 through Februar 5 , 2007 for $40 000. The hourly rate was $150. 00 per hour. It refers to no specific litigation. If any of the $40 000 remained unused at the end of the year it would car over into the following year and a new agreement would be executed. Exhibit "X" is the retainer agreement from November 1 , 2004. It is executed by Victor Barouh for O. S. Eaton (Not BEA). Then his hourly rate was $300. 00 per hour. The language of the agreement is interesting. It is formally between O. S. Eaton and Abelove yet it refers to BEA litigation. Specifically it states; 2. (Abelove is retained to J consult with OS Eaton regarding corporate or litigation matters which may arise; (2) to represent Dr. Gail Barouh with respect to any matter which may arse from BEA' s defense in a suit brought by Andrea Barouh and Courey Dinsky; and (3) [* 4] advice regarding estate and trst planing. The Corporation understads and waives any potential conflct of interest caused by law firms representation of Dr. Gail Barouh. Thus OS Eaton pays Abelove the lawyer for their former adversar, to represent her (the former adversar) in an action her sister Andrea brings against BEA two years after Gail' s 2001 action settled. They also formally state: (Para 4 of Ex. X) 4. This agreement does not engage law firm as primar litigation counsel for BEA." So we have retainer with a lawyer that allows the lawyer to represent not only another client but one that formerly sued the curent client. This case is unusual enough, but when you add plaintiffs ' theory that Jason Abelove was a Manchuran Candidate just waiting to be activated by the evil defense, it stas to reach the level of Grisham fiction. Thus the scenario created by plaintiffs counsel would have Victor Barouh and his nephew Robert Barouh using Abelove , who it appears missed the ethics course in law school , to victimize Gail Barouh. They hired Abelove in 2004 to secure Gail' s stock certificate(s) so they could be exchanged as par of the Andrea litigation. So Abelove again represents Gail but he is paid by defendants to obtain her stock certificates. Gail believed he was not charging for his representing her on the stock issue. So not only was Gail not paying for Abelove s representation of her in relationship to her dealings with BEA , but Abelove was not even paid by BEA but by Eaton , a company solely owned by Victor Barouh. Numerous documents were placed in evidence and also referred to by Robert Barouh in his affidavits of May 15 2010 (pg. 3) and September 7 , 2010 (p. 3). These were both meant to support defendants ' case. The May 15 2010 affidavit was in response to Abelove s motion to quash a subpoena and the September 7 2010 affidavit was in support of the curent application. What mostly interests the cour is Robert Barouh' s argument that Abelove , who was hired to represent BEA in the Andrea Barouh litigation , (but not to be an attorney of record ( and why not?) told BEA (Robert) that he had spoken to Gail about the litigation and conveys her theories about the litigation. (Par. 7&8 of Ex. 3) And this , Robert [* 5] contends shows , he communicated with Gail. Of course it does. He told them he did and they continued to use him as their lawyer? Knowing he was talking to Gail? Their argument is that this shows Gail knew Abelove represented BEA. Perhaps it does , in 2004-2005. Then they gave him a $40 000 , one year retainer in 2006. But there is no indication she knew he was their lawyer. But more importtly, in the cours opinion , it shows that BEA knew that their lawyer was communicating with their arch enemy Dr. Gail Barouh. Either Barouh Eaton Allen is the most ignorant corporation in the State of NY, or the most Machiavellan. The 5 factors presented by Robert Barouh which he contends prove defendant' s position of the poisoning of the prosecution are: 1. The Andrigal Enterprise Andrigal is a combination of the names of three children of Victor Barouh, Andrea Richard and Gail. It is not a legal entity such as an LLC , LLP or a Corp. The complaint stated that it was a d//a of BE A and that it fraudulently converted certain propert. Robert Barouh contended that plaintiff could not have known that Andrigal was a d//a unless she had been given this information by Jason Abelove. Plaintiff argues that the failure of routine searches to reveal Andrigal was an entity of any kind , left only, by inference , that it was a d//a. 2. Zoila Moreira Ms. Moreira is a long time employee of defendants (1971). It is alleged that Moreira was living rent free in a defense owned building near their offices in Brooklyn. Robert testified that Gail must have leared this from Abelove. He didn t believe Moreira would have told Gail. Moreira has been living there since 2002. The issue of her living there rent free is not in the complaint but was needed in plaintiffs response to an interrogatory in June , 2010 and during oral argument by Ms. Wabnik. Robert Barouh affirmatively stated that Zoila Moreira didn' t tell Gail about the aparent nor that it was rent free. He didn t say how he could testify to this. It is interesting how the [* 6] witness testified to what a third- part didn t say, and also what Victor Barouh , who is deceased would not have or could not have said.. 3. Employees of Barouh Eaton Allen (BEA)It is alleged that certain employees of BEA who were also relatives of Victor Barouh eared certain high salaries. (Neil & Allen Sobel et al). Robert testified that Jason Abelove had to be the source of ths information , that Vic would not have told Gail about these people and their salaries because Victor told him he would not have. Though defense claimed plaintiff had argued these were no show jobs , plaintiff never made this argument. 4. Another Employee - The Forklift Operator It is alleged that a Mr. Mankowski - another relative , received a $90 000 anual salar a Forklift Operator. Robert makes the same argument here that he made as to the other employees. (There were discovery demands for payroll records of all employee , salares and addresses which would have produced all information of items 2- 4). 5. The Canadian Subsidiar - $100 000 a month to Victor. Plaintiff has alleged that Victor Barouh received $100 000 a month from their Canadian Subsidiar. Robert initially say it isn t true and in any event this information could only have come from Jason Abelove. (Does that mean they fed Abelove invalid information intentionally knowing that it would get back to Gail?J Plaintiff says she was told this by Victor on more than one occasion. Robert testified Victor would never have told her about this. (If it was true. ) They argue , after she had sued them in 2000- 2002 and settled for a milion dollars , why would Victor tell his daughter anything? Plaintiff argues that even if plaintiff received this information from Abelove what is the advantage to plaintiff? What is the disadvantage to BEA? What evidence is their that Abelove was the conduit of this information or that Plaintiffs counsel , Debra Wabnik , received it? For a year Robert Barouh says he couldn t contact his lawyer Jason Abelove (essentially [* 7] 2009). Had he left the country? What efforts were expended? Was he really BEA' s lawyer or not at this time? The Andrigal issue. It was a non- issue , and defendant knows it. Abelove biled for work done as of November 2008 (nothing after that). Nothing stopped him from working for Gail afer that , assuming you buy into the lack of ethical strictures under which Abelove operated. As for names and salar of relative employees - Robert Barouh testified that he gave a copy of employees payroll record to Abelove and Abelove gave it to Dr. Barouh. He has failed to produce a copy of that payroll record despite being given ample opportunity to do so. There is no evidence Victor didn' t provide Gail with some information. Robert said he would not have. Is Robert Barouh a credible individual? Robert Barouh' s confidence that Abelove provided plaintiff with information about any of the five items is essentially based upon his own belief and nothing more. It is purely circumstantial evidence , if that. Facts must be proved by evidence. They may be proved by direct or circumstantiated evidence. In this case defendants have presented no direct evidence of Abelove providing to Plaintiffs what they contend is evidence , only available to defendants of their then lawyer Abelove. No direct testimony from any witness that Abelove provided any of Robert Barouh' points " to plaintiff. However , that does not mean defendants canot stil prove their case through other evidence - documents or some other circumstaces from which a reasonable inference could be drawn that a disputed fact or facts exist. Of course the facts which form the basis of an inference must be proved and the inference to be drawn must be one that may be reasonably drawn. Therefore , the circumstatial evidence, if accepted by the cour , must be of such natue that allows the cour to conclude that the fact or facts in dispute have been proved. Robert essentially testified to the state of mind of Victor - he was not capable of doing this. He argues that Victor Barouh would not have revealed these matters to Gail; that he [* 8] would not have said these things to Gail. Defendants ' Counsel , not unexpectedly, attcks the credibilty of Dr. Barouh. He argues about the incredibilty of her testimony as to her conversations with her father which allegedly revealed the Canadian payments and employee/relative issues. He points out, and the cour agrees , that he may prove his case by circumstantial evidence. However he stil must prove his case. Counsel argues that it doesn t matter if any of the items allegedly transmitted to plaintiff by Abelove would have eventually been produced by discovery; rather, it is the transmission that forms the basis for the poisoning motion. Defendant counsel also argues that Dr. Barouh wanted to keep Abelove invisible as her attorney. There is no evidence of ths. Rather , what we have seen , repeatedly, is Abelove s pattern of keeping himself invisible as BEA' s attorney from Dr. Barouh (2004 and 2006 Retainer agreements with O. S Eaton and BEA as examples). The language of Ms. Wabnik on March 18 2010 is a concern to the cour. It is clear to the cour that , by March 2010 , Jason Abelove had assisted plaintiff in reviewing the complaint. Ms. Wabnik referred to Abelove as "prior counsel." We don t know if that referred to the prior matter , or that he no longer represented plaintiff in this matter. She also stated that he was not par of her firm. The cour is not comfortble with whatever Ms. Wabnik was doing at the time. She could have answered that he was co-counsel rather than he was not a member of the firm. However , it is not relevant to our paramount issue of poisoning. Abelove was clearly not working for defendant by March 2010. Defense counsel argues that the claim that Dr. Barouh was in the dark about Abelove representation of BEA is belied by the fact that she kept him on the board of the not for profit organizations in which they were involved. The cour rejects this theory out of hand. There is no such logical connection; also , Dr. Barouh apparently had no independent authority to so act. The court also rejects defendants ' theory that Dr. Barouh controlled the scheme that put Abelove in place as the employee of defendant (Reverse Manchurian Candidate). There is no [* 9] evidence to even create an inference that would lead to such a conclusion. The court notes that neither attorney has commented on the credibility of Jason Abelove Esq. They comment on his e-mails , his memory in light of certain e-mails , the two retainer agreements with surgical cut outs as it relates to his abilty to represent Gail Barouh , but they never comment formally on his credibility. The court wil not withdraw from such comments. Abelove s testimony was sculpted to protect Abelove s license to practice law. He clearly was credible at times, but less so at other terms. He canot be relied upon by the cour to be a truth teller. Gail Barouh appears to be a credible witness on most issues , but with memory problems on some old e-mails. Robert Barouh testified to what he thinks he knows , but when pressed he retracts from his position , frequently resulting in an admission that he " doesn t know. " He literally could not present to the court any direct evidence to support his five points. However direct evidence is not required to prove these points; they can be proved circumstantially. CONCLUSION OF LAW The defense relies on Lipin v. Bender 84 NY2d dismiss the case under a " poisoning " theory. The facts in 562 (1994), to support their motion to Bender are extreme. (Short version- plaintiff stealing of a defendants privileged documents left on the conference table concealing documents , photocopying them , keeping them accessible at the offce of her lawyer/employer retaining a set at her home , and disobeying cour order to retur " everything in her possession giving them to counsel.) The court has considered the extensive evidentiar defendants , the evidence of plaintiffs , the presentation testimony of Robert Barouh , Dr. Gail Barouh and Jason Abelove. The evidence in this case , as pointed out , is circumstantial. If it equally could support the position of the defense as well as the plaintiff then the court would rule , it would have to rule for plaintiff. However the question is not that difficult. The proof presented by the defendant is not only circumstantial , it is speculative. [* 10] Allegedly there were documents provided to Abelove; Abelove denies it , and Robert Barouh canot locate them. There are reasons given by the plaintiff for each and every one of Robert Barouh' points. They are not necessarly the strongest , most convincing reasons at least balance the scales , if not tip them in plaintiffs favor s5 , but they are suffcient to , in this circumstatial evidence case. Defendant's motion to dismiss the case under the poisoning theory (see Lipin 84NY2d v. Bender 562 (1994), and CPLR 3103 ( c ) is denied. Plaintiffs cross motion for sanctions has been given serious consideration by the cour. However there is insuffcient evidence to support a claim that defendants had no basis in law or fact to make the accusations they have brought before the cour. The cross motion is also denied. So Ordered. Dated: December 23 2011 ENTERED 2011 NASSAU COUNTY COUNTY CLERK' S OFFICE DEC 2 9
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
