| Philip Seldon |
| Philip Seldon Harassment from Philip Seldon, New York |
| 24th of Apr, 2011 by User311980 |
| Philip Seldon was my renter to me and he rent me room. I trad him clean serives for the rent and was the dial. He regular came into room no invate and try to see me naked or after shower. He try to get me drunk many time for take photos me. He is pervert to women. He use photos for make money for hold over me. He tell me he delete frem camera and computer. he lie to me and al was on computer when time me to move. He no want me move so make bad news and story he no not real story. He has many cash business so no pay tax for gevernmont. He try to get me to sign documint to do ilegil thangs for pay pal money business. Leslie do now for him and pay him cash. Money come in mail every month in big cash boxes from him $11,000 and he pay rent for cash. He try to get me to do with cash. I no do since he scare me. I want him to leave alone but he harass my love sine he no have me more in life. He verry bad man and police tel me they watch. I afrid of Philip Seldon he do thangs to make calls and mail and make riun life. I tel him to stay away from me and my love. He keps calls and mail to make problem. He very sick and I tell police. I afrid he try to get me drink wine for sex to rape. He rape me past for me a forign women so no can report hem. He make me drink much may pils in drink wine for women he do. He take pictires of me naked. He no leave me or my life out his. I scare Philip Seldon. He try hurt me and say my money his money. He no stay away so me afrid. I no more rape from him or see me naked. |
|
|
|
|
Please contact us at the below listed number to make a report for your
incident. Rape is a sexual crime and you can help the next woman by preventing it from happening to her. We have legal assistance to help bring your case to court in a dignified manner. A Certified Sexual Assault Forensic Examiner (SAFE) will be assigned to your case and all information is strictly confidential. It's never too late to report your aggressor and assilant of this violent sexual crime.
Intake Cases:
St Luke's Roosevelt Hospital
Crime Victims Treatment Center
411 West 114th St.
Suite 2C
New York NY 10025
Hotline (212) 523-4726
Fax (212) 523-4781 |
|
|
|
| http://www.ovs.ny.gov/helpforcrimevictims/helpforcrimevictims.aspx |
|
|
|
GET HELP!
I'm a female that was raped by a man while living with him as co-tenants. I was afraid to report the rape until one day I decided that my spirit was so broken, I couldn't face myself any longer. The rapist is now in jail serving a 15 year prison sentence. I knew this man for many years as friends. We went on occasional dates for dinner and often to the movies. One night the rapist served me, on purpose, too much alcohol, came into my bedroom and raped me. I couldn't move out due to my limited budget. I was afraid to report it to the police. The situation got worse. He continued to rape me several more times over the course of a year. The rapist even told me I was his girlfriend. Date or relationship rape is not legal. I was horrified and didn't know how to react. I was scared that he would hurt me. The rapist called my daughter and told her he was protecting me financially and friendship wise to keep me safe in life.
One day, I decided to call a rape hot-line and asked how to report a rape. My last rape happened several weeks prior so the evidence reporting procedures were different. The police came to the hospital, a woman officer, and helped me with the papers to be completed. I was assigned a rape crisis center social worker. Legal assistance was provided to me. That same day the rapist was arrested and brought to trial. I had to testify and look at him. It was not easy. The rapist is now in jail for 12 more years.
If your rapist is contacting you, get a judge to issue a restraining order against him. Send the rapist a letter asking to stop contacting and harassing you and your family. Keep a copy of it. If he violates it, he can be arrested before the rape charges warrant is issued by the courts and police. Find a safe place to live since stalking and violence could take place from the rapist. My rapist sent me many letters, emails, and voice mails threatening me. He requested to talk with me and to see him to discuss our relationship. NEVER contact him since it could endanger your safety.
You need to file a report with a rape crisis hot-line or police department. If you use a crisis hot-line, they will call the police for you. I was scared at first to be humiliated by filing a report, but the rapist took away all of my dignity when the rape took place. Subsequently, several other women came forward to report the same man had also raped them, using alcohol over friendship dinners at his or their apartments. Many cases were prosecuted and jail sentences were issued.
When women help prevent rape- it works for safety. Women must report rape. Stop men that rape. Be responsible and report your rape. |
|
|
|
| http://law.justia.com/cases/new-york/appellate-division-first-department/2007/2007-05146.html |
|
|
|
I tried to call you back but your phone wasn't working. As exhibited by public records, I have won many judgement cases and in my opinion, can possibly win you a large monetary judgement settlment after you file criminal charges against the rapist. Call me again at my office.
Law Offices of Andrew J. Spinnell, LLC
286 Madison Avenue, at 40th Street
Suite 2100
New York, New York 10017
Phone: 212-684-0317
Fax: 212-696-2611 |
|
|
|
Rape crisis center has your report. Please call us since the phone number is not working and your message wasn't clear with your new number. I wiil forward it to the police after I talk with you.
Intake Cases:
St Luke's Roosevelt Hospital
Intake Investigations:
Crime Victims Treatment Center
411 West 114th St.
Suite 2C
New York NY 10025
Hotline (212) 523-4726
Fax (212) 523-4781 |
|
|
|
sprint pcs sprint and insurance partner are fraud to the consumer overland park, Kansas
6th of Jun, 2011 by User343724
I am a very long time customer for sprint and there insurance partner but it came to my realization that this very company we investing our money really doesnt care bout us. Ater been with them over 6yrs, for one time my phone that i purchases like almost 1 and half yrs ago was defective so i called the insurance to see what they can do to help instead they sent me a refurbished phone which didnt last me over 7month. i paid over 400 dollars for it and pay my insurance every month but yet when i need the insurance they asked me to pay my deductable, which i had no problem payin but i realise i was only paying for a used phone. i paid n 7 dollars for over 6yrs and a 100 deductable for a use phone? tell me how that not fraud on there part? my problem is that i was already eligible for upgrade 150 dollars towards a new phone and i have insurance, but yet i was refused to a new phone from the insurance company instead they they insisting of give me a used handset which might not have any gaurantee on it because that why i'm going through this problem in the first place. Because im having problem with the used handset they replace my new one with. I am so frusrated and disappointed with sprint for them to asked me to pay out of my pocket to buy a new phone even though i have an insurance and eligible to 150 towards a new phone. So please people stay away from sprint and this phone company and there insurance partner. because they are nothing but fraud.
hopefully the government would start investigating all this company that taking advantage of there customer. |
|
|
|
Scott Emerton, David Emerton, Scott david Emerton, Scott Waller
Con Man, Scammer, Low Life, Race Horse Programmer, Race Horse Scammer.
20th of Aug, 2011 by Scott Ripped me off
I have noticed a little activity on the internet of late regarding scott emerton, does anyone know what name he is using now ???? Scott emerton, David emerton, Scott David Emerton, Scott waller ????? Scott emerton is a low life and has scammed me out of money, i would like to find out where this man works now ?????? if anyone could help me to locate Scott Emerton or David Emerton, Scott david Emerton, Scott Waller that would be greatly appreciated. if you know where his wife vikki works that would also help with locating this con man. |
|
|
|
Inland American Real Estate Trust, Inc Will not transfer shares to sucessive trustrees of a family trust Oak Brook, Illinois
21st of Mar, 2011 by User196665
Have not been able to transfer shares of Inland American Real Estate Trust from the original trustees (Mother and Father, both deceased) to designated trustees (Sons) without obtaining seperate medallion signature guarantees. The sons live on opposite ends of the United States and it is impossible and not practical for both to appear at the same time and place to sign. It was finally agreed for each son to sign separately and submit their respective forms collectively, which was done. However in the process, Inland American Real Estate Trust changed transfer agents and would not accept one of the forms because it was from the previous transfer agent. This was not our fault that Inland American decided to change transfer agents and both forms should have been accepted. Now Inland American wants both brothers to appear at the same time and sign the form in front of a medallion guarantee individual which is not easy to find. My recommendation is to never get involved with this organization. They took our money without all the complexities but when it is time to carry out what is called for in the family trust documents, they are not customer friendly. No other brokerage firm that I have dealt with similar requests have gone to this extreme and have been very easy to deal with. Again, stay away from Inland American Real Estate Trust |
|
|
|
MTN Nigeria
illegal deduction of my entire credit
2nd of Aug, 2011 by john otolo
I got my mobile line 08035033528 credited this afternoon via sell & share in the sum of N200 no sooner than my account was credited that I found out that mtn debited the whole of the credit I e N200 without making a call this is not the fisrst time it. Happened to me last month I was frustrated by the inabity of cusromer care to reverse it after several calls I will appreciiate that my axcount is credited back by mtn nig thank you |
|
|
|
Linebarger Goggan Blair & Sampson - E-470 Public Highway Authority Beware - E470 Public Highway Authority and Linebarger Goggan Blair & Sampson work
17th of Aug, 2011 by User331426
On July 17, 2011 I received a letter from Linebarger Goggan Blair and Sampson, LLP a collection agency based out of Texas for collection of $110.20. I was unable to access the phone number provided as well as Mr. Scott D. Wyle listed as a partner on the website. Because I was concerned about further legal action mentioned in the letter I immediately sent the amount requested. Through further research I discovered a few disturbing facts. I called a local law firm and discovered that Linebarger, Goggan, Blair and Sampson are not listed anywhere in the Colorado Legal Directory (2011). While there banner lists them as Attorneys at Law, they are NOT lawyers in the state of Colorado. I then called the E-470 Public Highway Authority was told that I had an outstanding balance of $63.50. The agent was unaware of any fees of $110.20. She stated that I had received 2 prior notices in the mail, one on June 19th and the other on July 19th, and then was turned over to collections. I never received any correspondence regarding a balance due of $63.00. She indicated that the money I had been sending was being sent to an incorrect account number and therefore not credited properly. I asked for the correct account number so I could change it in my records. She read the “correct†number which was the exact number I had set up for on-line payments. I asked her what other account number I was supposed to be using and why I was not aware of it. She had no answer for this. I insisted on some sort of resolution or at least a detailed explanation on how, exactly this happened. I explained that I had received a collection letter for Linebarger, Goggan, Blair & Sampson and from all indications this was a fraud/scam and that my lawyer had been contacted. After being put on hold for 10 minutes she stated she had “taken care of it.†My account now had a credit balance of $63.50. I verified with her that there was not and never was an amount due of $110.20 and that I was free to stop payment on the check. Something is very wrong here, and I believe that it is not only Linebarger, Goggan, Blair & Sampson who are responsible. They are clearly involved. However, they do not appear to be initiating these fraudulent charges. I will continue to pursue this, it is far from over. |
|
|
|
| i recently purchased food at a local taco bell and when i bit into my taco i bit down onto an earring that cut the roof of my mouth. i filed an incident report with them and also went to get a tetanus shot. not only am i disgusted by what happened but i also have concerns that i was put at risk of contracting some other sort of communicable disease. the owner of the local stores contacted his insurance company about the matter and a representative from the insurance company left me a message stating that they are looking into where the earring could have originated from. of course the owner claims that it could not have been in his store since they have a strict policy about jewelry which in my eyes does not guarantee it couldn't of happened locally. i intend on filing a complaint with the consumer protection agency, the health department and discussing an article with the local newspaper but am not sure if i should wait until i get legal counsel in this matter. i am not sure what taco bell intends to do about this matter but i want them to be held accountable for the obvious negligence in this case but need help or advice about what to do next |
|
|
|
| Philip Seldon was my renter to me and he rent me room. I trad him clean serives for the rent and was the dial. He regular came into room no invate and try to see me naked or after shower. He try to get me drunk many time for take photos me. He is pervert to women. He use photos for make money for hold over me. He tell me he delete frem camera and computer. he lie to me and al was on computer when time me to move. He no want me move so make bad news and story he no not real story. He has many cash business so no pay tax for gevernmont. He try to get me to sign documint to do ilegil thangs for pay pal money business. Leslie do now for him and pay him cash. Money come in mail every month in big cash boxes from him $11, 000 and he pay rent for cash. He try to get me to do with cash. I no do since he scare me. I want him to leave alone but he harass my love sine he no have me more in life. He verry bad man and police tel me they watch. I afrid of Philip Seldon he do thangs to make calls and mail and make riun life. I tel him to stay away from me and my love. He keps calls and mail to make problem. He very sick and I tell police. I afrid he try to get me drink wine for sex to rape. He rape me past for me a forign women so no can report hem. He make me drink much may pils in drink wine for women he do. He take pictires of me naked. He no leave me or my life out his. I scare Philip Seldon. He try hurt me and say my money his money. He no stay away so me afrid. I no more rape from him or see me naked. |
|
|
|
| We returned several ink cartridges on December 1, 2010 to bluedogink.com after receiving a return authorization and was promised a credit of $385.15 (I have comfirming emails from bluedogink.com). I have called and emailed them several times over the past months and still have not received the credit. I have not received a response from my latest phone call or email. |
|
|
|
| We returned several ink cartridges on December 1, 2010 to bluedogink.com after receiving a return authorization and was promised a credit of $385.15 (I have comfirming emails from bluedogink.com). I have called and emailed them several times over the past months and still have not received the credit. I have not received a response from my latest phone call or email. |
|
|
|
Atlanta Georgia dunwoody jonesboro rude myspace twitter craigslist backpage twitter escort porn Atlanta, Georgia
Irina prostitute in Atlanta, DC, and VA. has infected three other guys with genital herpes and hiv. Stay away from this girl or you will come up sick. |
|
|
|
Yoga Kim is a skank whore who goes after men with wives or girlfriends in Florida
Kim is a whore of the lowest. She goes after taken men with her partner Irena as she is such trash they can't get a single man except for old men. They have intercourse in the showers with broken cheaters. Kim and Irena shouldn't be allowed around innocent children. Both carry multiple STDs and lies habitually. Keep them away from kids and your men!!! |
|
|
|
ANDREW J. SPINNELL v. PHILIP SELDON
Share |
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-5095-08T35095-08T3
ANDREW J. SPINNELL,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
PHILIP SELDON, BIRDDOG
ASSOCIATES, INC.,
MAGAZINE EMPORIUM, INC.,
and SILENCE IS GOLDEN
FOUNDATION, INC.,
Defendants-Respondents.
_______________________________________
Submitted May 17, 2010 - Decided
Before Judges Rodríguez and Yannotti.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Middlesex County, Docket No. L-9099-07.
Andrew J. Spinnell, appellant pro se.
Rebenack, Aronow & Mascolo, attorneys for respondents Birddog Associates, Inc., Magazine Emporium, Inc., and Silence Is Golden Foundation, Inc. (J. Silvio Mascolo, of counsel and on the brief).
Respondent Philip Seldon has not filed a brief.
PER CURIAM
Plaintiff Andrew J. Spinnell appeals from an order entered by the Law Division on May 15, 2009, which denied his motion for summary judgment and granted a cross-motion for summary judgment by defendants Philip Seldon (Seldon), Birddog Associates, Inc. (Birddog); Magazine Emporium, Inc. (Magazine); and Silence Is Golden Foundation, Inc. (Silence). For the reasons that follow, we reverse.
I.
This appeal arises from the following facts. On August 3, 2006, a jury in the New York Supreme Court, New York County, returned a verdict for plaintiff and against Seldon in the amount of $500, 000. On the following day, $500, 000 was withdrawn from Birddog Associates' account in a Connecticut bank. On August 9, 2006, the $500, 000 withdrawn from the Connecticut bank was deposited in an account in the name of Birddog Associates at Sun National Bank (Sun National) in Old Bridge, New Jersey.
On November 17, 2006, a judgment for plaintiff and against Seldon was entered in the New York action in the amount of $515, 013. Plaintiff claims that on November 13, 2006, Seldon had Magazine incorporated in Delaware, with himself as President and sole shareholder. On November 20, 2006, $400, 000 was transferred from Birddog's account at Sun National to a new account opened at that bank in Magazine's name. In addition, on March 23, 2007, $200, 000 was transferred from Magazine's account to another account at Sun National in Silence's name.
Plaintiff filed an action in the New York Supreme Court seeking an order requiring that monies in Birddog's bank accounts be turned over to him to satisfy his judgment against Seldon. On June 7, 2007, plaintiff docketed his New York judgment against Seldon in the Superior Court of New Jersey.
The filing of the New York judgment apparently caused Sun National to restrict Magazine and Silence from gaining access to monies in their respective bank accounts. In July 2007, Magazine and Silence filed an action against Sun National in the Superior Court, Middlesex County, seeking to enjoin and restrain Sun National from restricting access to their accounts. This action was docketed as MID-L-5977-07.
Sun National filed an answer and third-party interpleader complaint, naming Seldon, Birddog and plaintiff as third-party defendants. Sun National sought a determination as to the parties' respective interests in the monies on deposit in Magazine's and Silence's accounts. The parties thereafter agreed that the monies in the accounts, which totaled $255, 906.52, would be deposited in the court's Trust Fund Unit, pending a decision on the parties' respective interests in those monies.
Sometime thereafter, Magazine and Silence filed a motion in MID-L-5977-07, seeking to withdraw the monies being held in the court's Trust Fund Unit, and plaintiff filed a cross-motion seeking to withdraw those monies to satisfy his judgment against Seldon. The court conducted the first of three evidentiary hearings on the motions on September 25, 2007.
On October 25, 2007, plaintiff filed a four-count complaint in this case, naming Seldon, Birddog, Magazine and Silence as defendants. In his complaint, plaintiff alleged that: Seldon's transfer of $400, 000 from Birddog to Magazine was a fraudulent conveyance (count one); the transfer by Seldon and Magazine of $200, 000 to Silence was a fraudulent conveyance; Magazine's corporate veil should be "reverse pierced" and it should be liable for Seldon's liabilities and obligations (count three); and Silence's corporate veil also should be "reverse pierced" and it should be liable for Seldon's liabilities and obligations (count four).
By letter dated November 16, 2007, counsel for defendants demanded the voluntary dismissal of plaintiff's complaint, asserting that "[t]he exact issues raised" by plaintiff were being litigated in MID-L-5977-07. Counsel stated that, if the complaint was not withdrawn, he would file a motion for sanctions pursuant to Rule 1:4-8.
On November 23, 2007, plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which limited the claims in this case to the first two counts, seeking the invalidation of the transfer of $400, 000 from Birddog to Magazine and the subsequent transfer of $200, 000 from Magazine to Silence on the ground that both were fraudulent conveyances. Seldon, Birddog, Magazine and Silence filed an answer dated December 12, 2007, denying the allegations in the amended complaint.
Plaintiff's efforts to enforce its judgment in the New York courts resulted in the entry by the New York Supreme Court of an order dated January 24, 2008, which required JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. to turn over monies in Birddog's account to plaintiff to satisfy in part his judgment against Seldon. The New York court upheld a determination by a special referee, who had determined that Birddog was Seldon's alter ego and its corporate veil should be "reverse-pierced[, ]" thereby making Birddog liable for plaintiff's judgment against Seldon, up to $515, 013.
On March 20, 2008, the court rendered a decision from the bench on the cross-motions in MID-L-5977-07. The court found that: Seldon controlled the finances of Birddog, Magazine and Silence; the transfer of $400, 000 from Birddog to Magazine was a fraudulent conveyance, which Seldon had effected with the intent to defraud plaintiff; and the transfer from Magazine to Silence also was a fraudulent conveyance, which Seldon had effected with the intent to defraud plaintiff.
The court additionally found that Magazine and Silence are Seldon's alter egos, their corporate veils should be pierced, and the monies that Seldon caused to be withdrawn from their respective bank accounts should be paid to plaintiff in partial satisfaction of his judgment against Seldon.
Magazine and Silence thereafter filed a motion seeking reconsideration of the court's decision. While the motion was pending, the court entered an order dated May 20, 2008, which permitted plaintiff to withdraw $255, 906.52 from the court's Trust Fund Unit, plus the interest that had accrued on those monies. The court considered the motion on August 18, 2008, and determined that Magazine and Silence had not established any basis for reconsideration.
In its decision from the bench, the court noted that it did not find that Magazine's and Silence's corporate veils should be "reverse pierced" but reiterated its determination that these corporations were Seldon's alter egos and their corporate veils should be pierced. The court entered an order dated August 18, 2008, memorializing its decision.
On February 15, 2009, plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment in this case. He sought a monetary judgment against Seldon, Magazine and Silence to satisfy the balance that remained due on his New York judgment against Seldon. Plaintiff argued that he was entitled to judgment as a matter of law based on the findings of the court in MID-L-5977-07. Defendants opposed plaintiff's motion and filed a cross-motion for summary judgment. They argued that plaintiff's claims were barred by the entire controversy doctrine, collateral estoppel and res judicata.
A different judge considered the motions on May 15, 2009, and placed her decision on the record on that date. The motion judge determined that plaintiff's claims were barred by the entire controversy doctrine because plaintiff failed to assert them in MID-L-5977-07. The judge additionally determined that plaintiff's claims were barred by collateral estoppel because the claims had been previously decided by the court in MID-L-5977-07. The judge entered an order dated May 15, 2009, denying plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granting defendants' motion for summary judgment. This appeal followed.
II.
We turn first to plaintiff's contention that the trial court erred by finding that its claims in this action were barred by the entire controversy doctrine.
The entire controversy doctrine "embodies the principle that the adjudication of a legal controversy should occur in one litigation in only one court[.]" Cogdell v. Hosp. Ctr. at Orange, 116 N.J. 7, 15 (1989). Consequently, "all parties involved in a litigation should at the very least present in that proceeding all of their claims and defenses that are related to the underlying controversy." Ibid. The entire controversy doctrine is an equitable principle, which a court may apply in the exercise of its discretion, "based on the factual circumstances of individual cases." Brennan v. Orban, 145 N.J. 282, 291 (1996).
We are convinced that the judge erred by holding that the entire controversy doctrine precludes plaintiff from asserting his claims in this action. The doctrine is an affirmative defense and must be pleaded and, if not, is deemed waived. Brown v. Brown, 208 N.J. Super. 372 (App. Div. 1986); Kopin v. Orange Products, Inc., 297 N.J. Super. 353, 375-76 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 149 N.J. 409 (1997).
Here, defendants did not assert the entire controversy doctrine as an affirmative defense in their answer to plaintiff's complaint. Indeed, defendants did not raise the entire controversy doctrine as a bar to plaintiff's claim until plaintiff moved for summary judgment and they filed a cross-motion for summary judgment. We are convinced that, under the circumstances, defendants waived the entire controversy doctrine as a defense to plaintiff's claims in this case.
This conclusion is consistent with our decision in Brown. There, the parties had been engaged in divorce proceedings. Brown, supra, 208 N.J. Super. at 374. The plaintiff alleged that, during those proceedings, the defendant had assaulted her. Id. at 375. After the trial in the divorce action and the entry of final judgment in the divorce proceedings, the plaintiff filed a tort action against her former spouse. Id. at 376. The defendant answered the complaint and the parties engaged in discovery. Id. at 376-77. Shortly before the matter was scheduled for trial, the defendant moved for summary judgment on the basis of the entire controversy doctrine and the court granted the motion. Id. at 377.
We reversed the trial court's order concluding, among other things, that the defendant had waived the entire controversy defense by failing to plead or otherwise timely assert it. Id. at 384. We also concluded that the defendant was estopped from asserting the doctrine. Ibid. We stated that the
defendant continued to prosecute equitable distribution applications in the divorce action after he was served with and answered the tort complaint, without in any way seeking to consolidate it with the open equitable distribution issues, moving to dismiss it, or in any other way attempting to raise a preclusionary defense. Indeed, prior the summary judgment motion which he made virtually on the eve of trial, [the defendant] had vigorously defended the action over the course of a two-and-a-half year period, resorting to such maneuvers as his abortive attempt to relieve himself of the potential burden of the tort claim in the bankruptcy court and his eleventh-hour discovery motions.
[Id. at 383.]
The circumstances presented in this case are substantially similar. Here, defendants did not assert in their answer that the entire controversy doctrine was a defense to plaintiff's claims. Defendants actively litigated plaintiff's right to the monies at issue in MID-L-5977-07 and never sought to consolidate plaintiff's claims in this case with those in MID-L-5977-07. Moreover, defendants never asserted that the entire controversy doctrine barred plaintiff's claims in this case until plaintiff moved for summary judgment and they cross-moved for summary judgment. Our decision in Brown indicates that they waived their right to do so.
Our conclusion also is consistent with our decision in Kopin. In that case, the plaintiff asserted a claim seeking compensation for "business suggestions" he made while employed by the defendant. Kopin, supra, 297 N.J. Super. at 358. The defendant asserted that the claim was barred by the entire controversy doctrine because the plaintiff had previously asserted a wage claim with a state administrative agency. Id. at 374-75.
We held that the defendant waived the entire controversy defense because it did not raise that defense in its answer and defended the case "for over three years without raising or even mentioning the doctrine." Id. at 375-76. Here, as in Kopin, defendants did not raise the entire controversy defense in their answer and never mentioned the doctrine until they filed their cross-motions for summary judgment.
Even if the defendants had not waived the entire controversy defense, we are convinced that it would be inequitable to apply the doctrine in this case. When Sun National filed its third-party interpleader complaint in MID-L-5977-07, plaintiff asserted a claim to the monies in Magazine's and Silence's bank accounts at Sun National, based on his contention that the deposited funds were the product of fraudulent conveyances engineered by Seldon to place the monies beyond his reach. Because the amount of deposit in Sun National was $255, 906.52, any judgment in plaintiff's favor in MID-L-5977-07 would be limited to that amount, plus accrued interest.
Plaintiff filed this action in order to preserve his right to assert claims to the balance of the monies he alleged had been fraudulently conveyed. Defendants were well aware of those claims. They were filed in the same vicinage and were pending while the parties actively litigated MID-L-5977-07. Furthermore, if defendants had timely asserted that the entire controversy doctrine required plaintiff to assert all of his claims in MID-L-5977-07, plaintiff could have filed a motion to consolidate the two actions. Defendants did not raise this issue until they filed their cross-motion for summary judgment in this case. We are satisfied that, under these circumstances, the entire controversy doctrine is not a bar to plaintiff's claims in this case.
III.
We turn to plaintiff's contention that the judge erred by finding that his claims in this case were barred by collateral estoppel.
The collateral estoppel doctrine, like the doctrines of issue preclusion and res judicata, "serve the important policy goals of 'finality and repose; prevention of needless litigation; avoidance of duplication; reduction of unnecessary burdens of time and expenses; elimination of conflicts; confusion and uncertainty; and basic fairness[.]'" First Union Bank v. Penn Salem Marina, Inc., 190 N.J. 342, 352 (2007) (quoting Hackensack v. Winner, 82 N.J. 1, 32-33 (1980) (alteration in original)). Collateral estoppel will be applied if the party asserting the bar establishes that:
(1) the issue to be precluded is identical to the issue decided in the prior proceeding; (2) the issue was actually litigated in the prior proceeding; (3) the court in the prior proceeding issued a final judgment on the merits; (4) the determination of the issue was essential to the prior judgment; and (5) the party against whom the doctrine is asserted was a party to or in privity with a party to the earlier proceeding.
[Hennessey v. Winslow Twp., 183 N.J. 593, 599 (2005) (quoting In re Estate of Dawson, 136 N.J. 1, 20-21 (1994) (citations omitted)).]
Here, the judge found that all of the elements for collateral estoppel were present. The judge stated that the issues to be decided in this case were whether Magazine's and Silence's corporate veils should be pierced and these issues had been decided in MID-L-5977-07. The judge also stated that the decision on these issues was essential to the judgment in MID-L-5977-07, which gave plaintiff ownership of the $255, 906.52 that had been on deposit in Sun National and was being held in the court's Trust Fund Unit. The judge additionally stated that the orders entered in MID-L-5977-07 indicated that the court had refused to find that Magazine's and Silence's corporate veils should be "reverse-pierced" and the judge could not reverse those orders in this case.
We are convinced that the judge erred by applying collateral estoppel to plaintiff's claims. In both cases, plaintiff sought determinations that the transfers of $400, 000 from Birddog to Magazine and $200, 000 from Magazine to Silence were fraudulent conveyances engineered by Seldon. The relief sought in MID-L-5977-07 was the $255, 906.52 that had been on deposit in Magazine's and Silence's bank accounts at Sun National. In this case, plaintiff sought a judgment for the balance of the monies that were allegedly fraudulently transferred by Seldon and the other defendants.
Although the judge in this case suggested that the judgment entered in MID-L-5977-07 had limited Magazine's and Silence's liabilities to the monies that had been on deposit at Sun National, the court made no such ruling. Rather, the court limited its findings and conclusions to the claim before it, a claim to the $255, 906.52 in dispute. Thus, the issue raised by plaintiff's claims in this matter were not resolved in MID-L-5977-07.
We recognize that the court in MID-L-5977-07 refused to include language in its order indicating that Magazine's and Silence's corporate veils should be "reverse-pierced." The court in Sweeney, Cohn, Stahl & Vaccaro v. Kane, 6 A.D.3d 72, 75-76, 773 N.Y.S.2d 420, 425 (2nd Dept. 2004), explained that:
[p]iercing the corporate veil is an equitable concept that allows a creditor to disregard a corporation and hold its controlling shareholders personally liable for the corporate debt. Reverse-piercing flows in the opposite direction and makes the corporation liable for the debt of the shareholders. In both situations there is a disregard of the corporate form, and the controlling shareholders are treated as alter egos of the corporation and vice versa.
[(citations omitted).]
The court in MID-L-5977-07 did not find that Magazine's and Silence's corporate veils could not be "reverse-pierced." Rather, the court determined that a ruling on that issue was not required in order to resolve the question of whether plaintiff was entitled to the $255, 906.52 that had been on deposit in Magazine's and Silence's bank accounts at Sun National. Therefore, the orders entered in MID-L-5977-07 do not reflect a determination by the court that the "reverse-piercing" doctrine could not be applied.
Moreover, the court in MID-L-5977-07 never held that Magazine's and Silence's liabilities were limited to the $255, 906.52 at issue in that case. In addition, the court in MID-L-5977-07 never addressed Seldon's liability for his role in conveyances found to be fraudulent. Therefore, we conclude that the judge erred by finding that plaintiff was collaterally estopped from pursuing his claims against defendants.
IV.
Plaintiff additionally argues that the judge erred by denying his motion for summary judgment. We decline to address this contention.
The judge merely determined that plaintiff's claims were barred by the entire controversy doctrine and collateral estoppel. As we have explained, we are convinced that the judge erred in doing so. We remand the matter to the trial court to determine whether there are any genuine issues of material fact relevant to plaintiff's claims and whether he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. R. 4:46-2(c).
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.
The court's order was affirmed in Spinnell v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 59 A.D.3d 361, 873 N.Y.S.2d 626 (1st Dept.), leave to appeal denied, 13 N.Y.3d 713, 921 N.E.2d 610, 893 N.Y.S.2d 842 (2009).
Although the record suggests that the court previously entered an order dated April 29, 2008, it was not provided to us as part of the record on appeal. |
|
|
|
A 71-year-old Washington man accused in the 1957 kidnapping and killing of a 7-year-old Illinois girl has been charged in a separate case with sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl from the same small town.
Illinois State Police announced the grand jury indictment of Jack McCullough on Friday but didn't say when the sexual assault happened. He was indicted this summer on felony murder, kidnapping and abduction charges in the death of Maria Ridulph of Sycamore.
McCullough was arrested in Seattle in July in one of the oldest cold-case murders in the nation to be reopened. He has been held on $3 million bail in a jail about 65 miles west of Chicago.
The 14-year-old girl told investigators McCullough raped her when she was 14 in Sycamore, prosecutors and state police said. He's now also charged with one count of child sexual assault and four counts of indecent liberties with a child. In recent years, past rape and sexual crimes are being prosecuted more often with the help of better technology and women coming forward reporting the guilty man.
"Sadly, we have another victim, and for the families of all victims, the pain never goes away, " Illinois State Police director Hiram Grau said in a news release.
DeKalb County public defender Regina Harris did not immediately return telephone and e-mail requests for comment Sunday.
Maria was abducted as she played outside her home in December 1957. Her body was found the following spring in a wooded area about 120 miles away. Her case made national headlines, and President Dwight Eisenhower and FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover reportedly requested daily updates on the massive search for her.
In a July 7 jailhouse interview with The Associated Press, McCullough said he didn't kill the girl and maintained the same alibi he gave when first questioned by investigators when he was 18 — that he could not have committed the murder because he had traveled to Chicago that day for military medical exams before enlisting in the Air Force. |
|
|
|
| The pricing system on the site is foolish and odd and it uses the lady as a moneymaking tool without a senior citizen discount. For eg. if a woman is already servicing alot of gentlemen communicating with her the price for those gentlemen to purchase credits remains the same but should a new gentleman want to begin communicating with the same lady the price for services will increase. This will be for the amount of credits that the new gentleman needs to purchase in order to meet this lady and if another new gentleman next joins and he communicates with the same lady the prices increases even more with him. How ridiculous! Its like gambling with your money and one is not certain if one will even get the lady. One can at the end of the day end up losing the lady to another gentleman but gets to pocket all the earnings it ended up making from you even if you ended up becoming the loser without the lady. The lady is therefore used as a moneymaking tool to see how much money she can make from the many men servicing her when by the way she has been charging with all these men all the time! Women are interested in you but at the end of the day they are more interested in the money they can earn from dating you. There is a case for borrowing of profiles from other sites. I remember writing a girl on nycgirl.com and looking but I see her picture there on the same site and the profile content is not the same as it was on others. Plus I saw a girl there on two other sites on the internet as well! If a girl is on another site her profile never changes! If her profile changes then there is cause for suspicion! The site is ethnically backward. This site says that it is an "international dating service" on its top banner advertising! If it is catering to an international group of catbirds should not those people have representations of their ethnicities seen also as well? So we must ask where are the other ethnicities that should be seen on its banner advertising? There are none! Why only display one ethnicity anyway? Its a disgrace in terms of ethnic balance and no wonder it is ethnically backward! Sites like these escorts have no problems taking your money if you are of another ethnicity but have problems displaying your ethnicity on their homepage! |
|
|
« Previous 1 2 Next »
Post your Comment
|
|
|
