Emerging Issues Archive

Waldorf Wedding Shooter Turns Tables, Sues Waldorf

September 15th, 2015. By LucyC

It’s all fun and games—or dancing and dessert tables—until someone’s firearm goes off. And BAM! Party over. Well, that’s the backstory of this wedding tale gone litigious.

So now…to over-react or not to over-react, that is the question. It’s also the premise of a lawsuit brought against the venerated Waldorf Astoria Hotel—a brand that infers good taste and behavior—at a minimum. BUT—you knew there was a BUT—one day, in the city of New York, back in the month of June, a man went to a wedding packing his Ruger 9mm, as one does. Problem was, it went off, grazing a fellow wedding guest’s head. The Waldorf management, acting in the best interests of their guests’ safety, shut down the party immediately afterwards. Sounds reasonable, right?

Well, not if you’re Vladimir Gotlibovsky, owner of the Ruger with a mind of its own. He’s being sued by the bride, one Anna Goldshmidt, for, quite believably, ruining her $750,000 “dream wedding.” Well, look on the bright side, it would certainly put your vows into perspective.

So Gotlibovsky, who doesn’t seem to understand why the event was shut down, is suing the hotel, saying they over-reacted to the incident. Really? I wasn’t aware that random misfiring of guns is the usual run of events at society weddings. But hey, haven’t been to one for while.

Gotlibovsky claims the hotel should pony up at least half the sum he is being sued for. He’s claiming the hotel “unilaterally and without justification canceled the reception.” Guess he thought it was time to circle ’round for Hava Nagila. Wonder what he thought would justify shutting it down, bodies on the floor?

Gotlibovsky, owner of a Brooklyn liquor store “was not responsible for the cancellation of the wedding reception,” his lawyer, Christopher Chang, says in the filing. Ok…

“The fact of the matter is after the firearm discharged, the hotel was secure and the reception could have gone forward,” Chang told The New York Post. The firearm discharged—so it’s an animate object…

I don’t know—if this were a plot on Hawaii 5-0 there would have been a SWAT team descending on the hotel, helicopters, ambulances, the entire neighborhood would have been locked down, Steve McGarrett would’ve been on the scene and you’d be hearing “Book’em Danno” in the time it takes you to say “maybe shoulda left the gun at home”. Now that’s likely over-reacting. But closing the reception? Seems pretty SOP to me.

A Waldorf spokesman did not return a request for comment. Silence is golden indeed.

According to Gotlibovsky’s lawyer, the couple’s parents paid for the June wedding, so the newlyweds cannot sue to recover the costs of the party that went wrong, just for emotional damages. (Huh?)

Needless to say, the bride is pissed—make that PISSED. Turns out Gotlibovsky is a relative—and his behavior is known. In her lawsuit, The Post reports, Goldshmidt states that Gotlibovsky was drunk and failed to holster his pistol even though he’d accidentally discharged it in the past. That would certainly liven up the dinner conversation. Better practice your witty repartee in case your table mate is packing. Being dull could prove lethal.

As for the guest who was grazed—Maya Rafailovich? She was taken to an ambulance after her close encounter with the bullet.

Goldshmidt claims in her lawsuit that the incident caused her “severe embarrassment in front of all her friends, relatives and other guests.” At a minimum, I would think.

“Her dream wedding was canceled and can never be recaptured…there will never be a wedding album; [and] what was to be the happiest day of her life turned into a disaster,” the suit states.

According to The Post, David Jaroslawicz, attorney for the bride, noted that Gotlibovsky’s case against the Waldorf “doesn’t talk about the fact that he handed [the gun off to his brother] and it disappeared,” meaning hotel management didn’t know it “was an accident and not a willful shooting.” Ah!

However, he agreed that the event shouldn’t have been called off. “I think they panicked and canceled it,” Jaroslawicz said of the Waldorf. He believes that security could have screened guests as they moved from the lobby reception to the ballroom. So now there needs to be security screenings for weddings? Would that include removing shoes and belts? Where do you draw the line? Maybe there should just be a wee note at the bottom of the wedding invitation—something like “no firearms allowed”. That’s clear enough. Certainly you wouldn’t want anyone bringing a gun to the actual wedding—what if they “object” ?

FYI—Gotlibovsky holds a permit for the gun and has not been criminally prosecuted over the incident.

You just cannot make this stuff up.

Posted in Crazy Sh*t Lawyers See, Emerging Issues | No Comments »

Whoa! This Could be a New Record for Most Lawsuits Filed!

April 21st, 2015. By LucyC

We all know the squeaky wheel gets the most attention, and that filing lawsuits can be a bit of a pastime for some people but Dale Maisano has taken the exercise to new heights. This guy—who is currently serving a 15-year sentence for aggravated assault, in Florence, AZ has, since 1991, filed over 6,000 federal lawsuits, mostly about prison food and lack of what he considers to be proper health care. You can sue for that?

Sixty-two-year old Maisano has filed more than 1,800 lawsuits in Nashville alone and most of the lawsuits have been filed in the past two years.

Note—maybe it’s time the baton was passed to Maisano for the record for most lawsuits filed. Currently, according Google search results, that crown belongs to Jonathan Lee Riches. BUT…a quick PACER search shows that Maisano’s 6,150 lawsuits filed (as of 4/21/15) completely blow away the 3,683 ponied up by Riches. Heck, that’s almost 2,500 more lawsuits!

So, not wishing to reinvent the wheel—most of Maisano’s lawsuits are identical. For example: “Stop the torture and give me food that will not make me ill.” And: “Daily I’m given a diet that causes the Plaintiff to be severely ill.” And what’s his anticipated pay out? Ten trillion dollars (either in U.S. dollars or gold). Good luck on that one—I’d try lottery tickets—the odds have to be better.

But he does have a broad range of target—the lawsuits take aim at governors, wardens, attorneys general and Nashville-based Corizon Health, which provides medical care for inmates.

Despite all his hard work, he’s not optimistic about his chances. “I don’t have any delusions I’m going to get that kind of money. I don’t have any delusions I’m going to get any money,” Maisano told USA Today, in a recent interview. “A lot of them are just nuisance suits. We’re trying to get our point across.”

And what point would that be, precisely? He claims the inmates aren’t being given proper food and health care. Not surprisingly, the Arizona Department of Corrections says that just ain’t true. FYI—according to a piece in the Washington Post in March of this year Arizona prisons are not known for luxurious accommodation. Last October, the American Civil Liberties Association settled a case representing some 33,000 Arizona inmates. The ACLU had “discovered abuses like excessive use of solitary confinement for mentally ill prisoners and an “extraction only” dental care policy.” Hmm.

And the feds take on all this? “Inmate Maisano has access to appropriate health care and his diet needs are met,” said Doug Nick, the spokesman for the Arizona Department of Corrections. “The sheer volume of the lawsuits he has filed and the financial demands he makes speak for themselves.”

Ok—wait—about the food thing—meeting dietary needs and having good food are, arguably two different things. Astronauts’ dietary needs are met when they’re in space—but would you want to eat that stuff on a regular basis?

So, Maisano’s not giving up. And the sheer number of lawsuits do speak for themselves. He’s gotten the attention of multiple federal judges, just not the favorable kind. In fact, in 1992, a judge attempted to stop the nuisance suits by forbidding Maisano from filing any lawsuits without the court’s permission. Maisano ignored the order but did slow down his production over the following years. However, since 2013, he seems to be making up for lost time. USA Today reported that in 2014 he filed more federal lawsuits than all the federal cases lodged in the states of Maine, New Hampshire and Wyoming combined. Wow! Wouldn’t that earn him some kind of honorary degree? Apparently, he filed 249 lawsuits in one day…

Maisano told USA Today that he’s not crazy but “could use some mental health help.” Despite having thousands of his complaints dismissed just as quickly as he’s filed them, he believes his hard work is making an impression—”If I would have filed five cases and let them go,” he said, “would you be talking to me?”

Uhh, probably not.

Posted in Crazy Sh*t Lawyers See, Emerging Issues | No Comments »

Sisterhood causing a Ruckus in the Neighborhood?

April 6th, 2015. By LucyC

Oh saints preserve us! The nuns that own one of New York’s oldest preschools have decided they want to get into the real estate game—shut the school, sell the building, maybe, and pocket several million, most likely. Problem is, the parents are mad as hell and have filed a lawsuit.

The school’s two brick brownstones, located in Chelsea, could be worth a cool $20 million—not exactly chump change, and the possibilities are likely not lost on the Sisters. Located on West 15th Street, the sisterhood bought the facility for $5,000 in 1901 then set it up as a school for the children of women (read single mothers) who worked in the meat packing district. Nice.

Over time the demographics have changed, and the school now looks after 55 little people—2-6 year olds, under the banner Nazareth Nursery Montessori. And it costs—both the parents and the nuns. The parents pony up $10,000 a year per child, which apparently makes it the cheapest Montessori school in the borough. The Sisters employ 14 lay teachers who they oversee.

According to school officials, the facility is losing $100,000 a year. So the school announced it would close in August. The parents, once they had collected themselves, filed for an injunction to stop the closure.

Praise the Lord and pass the Paperwork! According to the parents, the nuns at first gave no reason why the school was closing—it wasn’t until after the announcement of closure that school officials claimed the facility “was losing $100,000” and that “the building structure is precarious.”

The parents also allege that there are no building violations with the city and that the “financial state of the school and the corporation is excellent,” citing IRS documents showing revenue of $570,000 in 2013.

The parents say that “At no time over the past four years was any parent told that the school was having financial problems and might close.” So they have concluded that the only reason for the closure is, naturally, to capitalize on their asset.

“It is clear that the defendants plan to close the school, stop providing education to the children of working mothers, sell the school’s property and transfer the money to the Sisters of St. Francis to use for other purposes, none of which is to educate children,” the Manhattan civil suit says.

So, let’s see, there’s one set of property ownership rules for lay people and another for religious organizations? The primary difference being motive? Really?

A school spokeswoman, one Rochelle Casella, is said to have countered that the litigious Manhattan parents are too wealthy for the nuns’ charity. Well, possibly not the best defense, but there’s likely some truth in it.

“The demographics of the area have changed,” Casella said, adding that the buildings are “not up for sale” but said the nuns have also not decided what they will be used for after the school closes. Casella has reportedly vowed to “vigorously defend our position in court.”

If this continues, it’s very likely the Sisters of St. Francis will have to sell their real estate to pay their legal bills. Now wouldn’t that be a win-win.

Posted in Crazy Sh*t Lawyers See, Emerging Issues | No Comments »

Naked Cowgirl Sues NYC

February 25th, 2015. By LucyC

What do you do when the city you love—the city you “rebuilt” arrests you? You sue, of course. Sandy Kane, the Naked Cowgirl of Times Square, is suing the city for wrongful arrest, to the tune of $2 million. Well, that should keep her off the streets for a while.

52-year old Kane is no shrinking violet. A bare-breasted busker, well actually she wears pasties—a cowboy hat and a guitar—or is that gittar—has been working Times Square for seven years. Long enough, she told a judge recently, to have “rebuilt Times Square . . . and made Manhattan and Times Square history.”

“I really feel that if there’s one thing I did in my life, I did that,” she told the New York Post. “All the Elmos and the Sponge Bobs, that wasn’t out there when I first came . . . I put a lot of people to work.” Um. So, what’s the problem? And why was she in court?

She was arrested for having an unattended package. Really. And the “package” was her guitar case. Ah, not my first guess.

Hmm. Kane acted as her own lawyer, and the judge, according to Kane, laughed while dismissing the charges against her. “I feel like I inspired Bloomberg” to turn Times Square into a pedestrian mall, she said. “I gave it to the people. I gave it to the tourists.” That defense would have been worth seeing.

All this took place last year. Cut to 2015 and Sandy is now suing the City of New York for wrongful arrest. It’s not illegal to go topless in New York, apparently, something worth noting if you’re planning on being in the Big Apple in August. So the guitar case does seem like a bit of a ruse, and New York’s finest have apparently been warned about making “controversial” arrests over public nudity. As well, there is no statute outlawing leaving a bag unattended, so, Sandy could have a slam dunk here. Well, I wish her luck and at the very least a new pair of pasties!

Posted in Crazy Sh*t Lawyers See, Emerging Issues | No Comments »

Lawsuit: Serum did not Rub on Bigger Breasts

January 29th, 2015. By LucyC

Remember the tooth fairy? When you lose a tooth, if you put it under your pillow, a fairy will come in the night and replace your tooth with some money—you remember, right? Well, apparently, if you want bigger breasts, there’s a cream that you can use that will make them larger and firmer. And then all your problems will go away. If it doesn’t work—you can file a consumer fraud lawsuit and make more money than you spent buying the dodgy product in the first place. Note—if you got a nickel from the tooth fairy and she was a no show—there was no such recourse. But hey—times have changed.

US-based Talika is being sued by a women who claims the company’s breast enhancing cream did not live up to its advertising claims, and as a result, she wasted $60. Really?

Raisbel Pena who lives in the Bronx, not that that should have anything to do with her decision-making process, has filed a lawsuit in Manhattan against Talika—the maker of Bust Serum 2.0 for $5 million (that’s some exchange rate—spend $60 get $5M…) claiming that in her month and a half of use (I’m presuming she would have followed the instructions religiously) she did not see any progress. So, she’s suing for damages alleging she could have purchased a less expensive bust serum. No comment.

It’s false advertising and unfair trading—business as usual. According to Pena’s lawsuit, Talika’s “misleading marketing campaign begins with its “deceptive product claim” that after six weeks of use breasts will grow a cup size and also experience “push up effect” and be 70 percent firmer.

Ok—who’s on drugs here? Think about it, there’s a reason plastic surgeons live well.

“Both [claims] imply that the product is not just cosmetic in nature, but will actually cause physical alterations to breasts, including increased breast volume,” the lawsuit states. “[The] defendant’s exhaustive advertising campaign builds on this deception.”

According to Pena, she bought the product in 2014 and used it for long enough that she should have noticed the promised results, that is, if the cream did what the advertising claimed it could do, regardless of how well you followed the instructions. In any event, not surprisingly, Talika USA has yet to respond to the lawsuit.

I can’t help wondering what would happen if the cream actually did work…

Here’s the YouTube promo….

 

 

 

Tags: Consumer Fraud, false advertising
Posted in Crazy Sh*t Lawyers See, Emerging Issues | No Comments »