|
RCBJ-Audible (Listen For Free)
 |
The Defamation Suit By The Owner Of Colonial Plaza Against Tenant A Nu U Injectibles Medi-Spa Heading To Jury Trial; Second Suit By Tenant Alleges Fraud
Three years ago, a landlord-tenant dispute between the owner of the Colonial Shopping Center at 285 Route 303 in Congers and a Medi-spa tenant at that location found its way to Rockland County Supreme Court when the landlord sued the tenant for defamation after the tenant made a series of public statements about the landlord’s business practices, including an allegation of corruption and a payoff to Clarkstown town officials.
The statements by A Nu U Injectibles, LLC and its owner Christina Milizia, accused Charles Collishaw (and his business entities) of corruption after the Medi-spa’s complaints about noise and fumes from Dean Custom Awnings (also owned by Collishaw and operated directly under her leased business location) failed to stop the awning company’s operations, which Milizia said were disrupting her tenancy and harming her business.
Defamation is the publication of false facts about a person to a third person without any sort of privilege to do so. Some defamatory statements are so egregious that the defamed person neither has to allege nor prove actual harm, in legal parlance it’s called defamation per se. Accusing someone of a serious crime like bribery or corruption could be considered defamation per se.
Milizia, after investing heavily to build out her space in the shopping center, says her business was harmed by noise and odors from the cutting of galvanized pipe during business hours. She sought relief from Clarkstown’s building department, the NYS DEC, and the Rockland County Department of Health, but all to no avail and spoke publicly and on the internet about her experience.
In response to Collishaw’s defamation suit, Milizia counterclaimed. She claims losses of about $500,000 in lost revenue, including $100,000 she spend to build out her Medi-spa. Milizia closed her business after the landlord sued her for not submitting proof of her insurance. “She lost it all,” her attorney told RCBJ.
After more than a year of litigation, and failing to receive any relief from the Court, Milizia filed a separate lawsuit against Collishaw, charging that she was defrauded by Collishaw into signing the lease, with Collishaw having distinct knowledge of the operation of the awning company and understating its likely impact on Milizia’s medi-spa.
Collishaw denied the allegations of fraud in the complaint and claimed that the matter was already resolved in the other litigation.
Through a series of motions and several years of litigation, including a failed effort to consolidate the two actions into one, and a failed effort by Collishaw to have the Court enter summary judgment on his behalf in the defamation suit against Milizia, the defamation case is being set for trial.
A jury will decide if three statements made by Milizia back in 2023 defamed Collishaw, and if so, how to value the harm the statements caused him and his business. The first statement, which was recorded, essentially said that Collishaw was paying the town off to enable him to continue operating in that location which Milizia says is not zoned for that use.
The second statement, which was posted on Facebook, referred again to “blatant town corruption” and intimated that Collishaw’s business was part of that corruption.
The third statement, posted on the internet, mentions the fumes, noise and harmful effects stemming from the cutting of galvanized steel.
Milizia says the statements are hyperbolic and constitutionally protected opinions and don’t rise to the level of defamation. Because opinions are not facts, and generally cannot be proven to be right or wrong, they are not actionable as defamation.
A jury will decide who is right and who is wrong.
Meanwhile, the case filed by Milizia (for fraudulent inducement) is also wending its way through the courts. Earlier decisions by Justice Sherri Eisenpress set the stage for a trial, while more recent decisions by Justice Rachel Tanguay declined to have the cases heard together.
And, last month, after almost three years of litigation, Milizia’s attorney, Brian Condon, of Condon & Paxos, asked to withdraw, citing “irreconcilable differences that have resulted in the breakdown of the attorney-client relationship.” The court allowed Condon to withdraw.
Milizia’s new attorney is Eugene Bondar, of Bondar Legal PC. Collishaw is represented by Feerick, Nugent & MacCarthy PLLC of Nyack. A conference on the cases is set for March 30th.
New Law Requires Retailers To Accept Cash For Retail Transactions
A new law, effective March 21, made it illegal for a New York food store or retail establishments to refuse payment in cash for goods or services. The new statewide law mirrors a similar New York City law that has been in effect since 2020.
“New Yorkers have a right to service no matter how they choose to pay,” said Attorney General Letitia James. “Businesses cannot deny New Yorkers access to necessities like food and clothing by refusing to take cash, or charging shoppers more for paying in cash.”
Under the law, food stores and other retail establishments cannot require consumers to pay by credit card or use another cashless transaction method to complete their purchase. They also cannot charge consumers a higher price if they pay in cash. Stores that violate the new law will face maximum civil penalties of $1,000 for the first violation and $1,500 for each succeeding violation.
The new law has a few exceptions:
- Stores do not have to accept bills in denominations above twenty dollars;
- Stores do not have to accept cash for orders made by telephone, mail, or internet, unless that transaction takes place at the store;
- The new law also does not apply if a store provides a device on its premises to convert cash into a prepaid card. However, the store cannot charge a fee or require that the prepaid card be loaded with a minimum amount above one dollar.
New Yorkers who believe a store is violating the new law should contact OAG by submitting a complaint online or by calling 1 (800) 771-7755.
Stony Point Man Pleads Guilty To Securities Fraud
Solomon Lichtenstein, 30, of Stony Point pleaded guilty in federal court to fraud in the sale of securities. His victims were largely family members, friends and acquaintances who he took for more than $3 million.
Lichtenstein created two investment vehicles: Taraxa Capital Fund LP and Lightstone Trading Inc. and used these vehicles to falsely claim investment prowess and inflated returns.
Lichtenstein lied about his trading skills, his history, and his profits to induce others to invest with him in options and futures on stock indexes and exchange traded funds, promising fantastical returns.
Lichtenstein did not actually invest all of his clients’ funds, instead he used the money to pay his home mortgage, tabs at restaurants and bars, and travel. Instead of the returns he promised, clients lost more than $1.5 million.
Like similar Ponzi schemes, he posted fake returns on clients’ dashboards, and used newly invested money to pay back investors, giving the appearance that the investments were legitimate.
In addition to criminal charges, the Securities and Exchange Commission accused Lichtenstein of civil securities fraud in White Plains federal court. The civil case is on hold pending disposition of the criminal charges.
Lichtenstein is scheduled to be sentenced in the criminal case on July 8.
