Parsoff v Dehan
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Parsoff v Dehan 2012 NY Slip Op 30559(U) March 1, 2012 Supreme Court, Suffolk County Docket Number: 36132-2011 Judge: Emily Pines 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] SHORT FORM ORDER INDEX NUMBER: 36132-2011 SUPREME COURT - STATE OF NEW YORK COMMERCIAL DIVISION, PART 46. SUFFOLK COtJNTY Pre.\·ent: nON. EMILY PINES J. S_ C. Original Motion Date: Motion Submit Date: Motion Sequence No.: 12-06-2011 12·13-2011 001 MOTD l ]FINAl. r x 1 NON FINAL x Attornev for Plaintiffs Harold M. Hershman, Esq. 425 Broad Hollow Road Suile 203 Melville, New York 11747 NEIL M. PARSOFF, NEIL M. PARSOFF & ASSOCIATES, P.c., DONALD SPANTON and SPANTON & PARSOFF, LLC, Plaintiffs, -against- Attorney for Defendant Dehan Law Offices of Matthew B_ Kogan, PC 445 Broadhollow Road Melville, New York 11747 AUDRA E. DEHAN and CABLEVISION SYSTEMS CORPORATION, Defendants. x In this dispute over telephone numbers, utilized by several law practices over a period of years, the Plaintiffs move, by Order to Show Cause (motion sequence # 00 I) for an Order granting them Preliminary Injunctive Relief. Specifically, Plaintiffs seek an Order enjoining the Defendants and their assignees from disturbing, transferring, canceling and/or re-assigning Plaintiffs' exclusive use of four telephone numbers and a fifth number utilized for faxing purposes. Defendant, Audra Dehan ("Dehan") opposes the motion hath based on her view that she and not the Defendants is the proper account owner of the subject telephone lines and because she states that she [* 2] has and intends to continue to protect the Plaintiffs via use of a recorded message providing contact and forwarding information for the two named defendants so that all respective clients will have access to the three different law firms with which Plaintiffs and Defendant Dehan are now engaged. Defendant Cablevision has submitted papers setting forth that as a stakeholder it has no position on the dispute as to ownership of the telephone numbers in question. According to Plaintifl; Neil Pm'soff, his former law partner, eo- plaintiff Donald Spanton established an account with Verizon in 1991 in which the original law finn, specializing in the areas of Wills, Estates & Trusts, was assigned the subject telephone numbers. In 2002, the law firm of Spanton & Parsoff, still assigned the same telephone numbers, hired Defendant, Audra Dehan, as an associate attorney. In 2007, the law firm of Stanton & Parsoff dissolved, forming two new law firms. Parsoff formed NMP PC and Spanton and Dehan formed Spanton & Dehan, LLP. Both firms retained their law offices at the same location, and both continued to utilize the same telephone numbers, which were important for both their clients and the families of clients for assistance in probating wills. As both firms were remaining in the same space, Spanton and Parsoff formed Spanton & Parson; LLC for the purpose of assuming the obligations ofa sublandlord at suite 203 of 425 Broad Hollow Rd in Melville NY. The purpose orthe LLC was to continue to operate and maintain the common space and common equipment including internet service provided by Cablevision as well as the telephone and fax numbers provided by Verizol1. They utilized telephone menus as well as a receptionist to direct calls coming into the office space. In 2009, according to Parsoff, NMP PC and Spanton & Dehan decided to transfer their telephone service from Verizon to Cablevision and assigned Dehan to take the required steps to effectuate the change, which would allow them all to keep the same telephone and fax numbers. However, Parso ff avers that Dehan created a new account Page 2 of' 5 [* 3] with Cablevision, unbeknownst to Parsoff or her partner, at the time, Stanton, in which the account would be solely under Dehan's direction and control. funding for the telephone service was drawn on the bank account of Spanton & Parsoff, LLC which itselfwas funded by joint contributions from NMP PC and Spanton & Dehan. In August, 20 I I, Dehan announced that she was withdrawing from the law linn of Spanton & Dchan LLP and moving to another Melville [ocation, She then directed Cablevision to remove and terminate the existing telephone service to plaintiffs' suite and to relocate the numbers to herselfat her home in COl1lmack, New York. Plainti ffs assert that they have been utilizing these telephone and fax numbers for 20 years, that they arc necessary for them to have proper contact with their clients, and that they will suffer irreparable harm if Defendant is permitted to continue to relocate those numbers to her new location. In opposition to the motion, Defendant asserts that Parsoff has never had any ownership interest in the telephone lines; but, rather, was afforded them as a courtesy by other entities for which Parsoff paid a fee. From the time she joined Spanton & Parsoff in 200 I until 2009, Dehan states that Verizon's contract was with Spanton, not Parsoff. When telephone service for the office was transferred to Cablevision in 2009, the service was provided via a contract with Spanton & Dehan, controlled by Dchan, and again not with Parsoft". In July, 20 I I when Dehan decided to relocate her law office, all three parties agreed that the telephone lines would be transferred to a third party provider named ACG Telc.com and that those callers dialing the main number would obtain forwarding information to be directed to the separate businesses. Yet, despite the agreement, according to Dehan, Parsoff or Spanton deleted Dehan's mailbox and her clients were unable to contact her. After Dchan restored the port so she could obtain service, Parsoff and Spanton called Cablevision and again terminated Dehan's port despite the fact that Dehan was still the account holder. At that point, Parsotfadded his PagcJofS [* 4] name as an account holder. During the periods that she was cut off, Dehan states she suffered business losses as her clients were unable to reach her. Finally, on September 13,20 II, all the telephone lines were restored with Dehan as the account holder. She rccorded a messagc providing contact numbers for herself, Parsoff and Stanton. Since that point, Parsoff and Stanton, have refused to pay for their continuing access to the lines. Accordingly, Dchan asserts there is no irreparable harm and no injunctive relief should be !nlth coming. It is well settled that the proponent of a motion for a preliminary injunction must demonstrate the probability of success on the underlying merits, the danger of irreparable harm in the absence of the relief sought, and a balance of the equities in the movant's favor. Aetna Ins Co v Capasso, 75 NY 2d 860,862 (1990); Doe v Axelrod, 73 NY 2d 747,750 (1988); Sheffield Towers Rehabilitation and Health Care Center v Novasso, 293 AD 2d 182, 185 (2002). While disputed facts often result in denial of this request for rather drastic relief, the injunction can also serve the salutary purpose ofmaintaining the status quo pendente lite. Gambar Enterprises, lne v Kelly Serviees lne, 69 AD 2d 297(1979). Thus, while the grant of injunctive relief should not determine the ultimate rights of the parties, Wellbilt Equip Corp v Red Eye Grill LP, 308 AD 2d 411 (2003),the denial of such should not render the final judgment ineffectual. State v City of New York, 275 AD 2d 740, 741 (2000). Applying the Jaw to the facts as set forth in the palties' papers, the COUltfinds as follows. Plaintiffs' request for restoration of the lines and prohibiting any interference with their right to utilize such lines in an exclusive manner, is overly broad since it is in effect, a final determination. On the other hand, not providing any injunctive relief could really ham1 the Plaintiffs' business as clients in the area of Will and Trusts may need advice as set forth on a regular basis. The system provided by the Defendant, while not Page 4 of 5 [* 5] necessarily the Court's final determination in this matter in which the facts are hotly contested, will provide a mechanism \vhereby all those affected by this lawsuit can maintain regular contact with their clients pendente lite. While the Defendant has set forth that she is performing this service on a voluntary basis, in order to preserve the ability of Plaintiffs' clients to contact them through the use of the same telephone numbers that they have been utilizing for 20 years, the CouI1 will grant Plaintiffs' request to the extent of Ordering the Defendant Dehan to continue to provide contact information to those attempting to reach any of the Plaintiffs in this lawsuit until further Order o I'the Court. The counsel for all parties, with the exception of Cablevision are directed to appear in this Part for a Preliminary Conference on Monday March 5, 2012 at 11:00 o'clock a.m. before the undersigned at Alan Oshrin Building, One Court Street, Second Floor, Courtroom Two, Riverhead, New York. This constitutes the DECISION and ORDER of the Court. Dated: March 1,2012 Riverhead, New York [ ] FINAL [x] NON FINAL Page 5 of 5
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.
