Rakofsky (Motions to Dismiss by Seddiq and Koehler)

Two more motions to dismiss are being served tomorrow, and will be filed shortly, in the defamation case that Joseph Rakofsky brought against 81 defendants (including me).

These new motions come on behalf of Washington D.C. criminal defense lawyers Mirriam Seddiq (who blogs at Not Guilty) (See: Seddiq Motion)  and Jamison Koehler (See: Koehler Motion)

Both are represented by Albany attorney David Brickman, who filed this motion to dismiss on behalf of Philadelphia personal injury attorney Max Kennerly and the Beasly Firm the other day.

For the out-of-towners reading this, New York’s statute that governs motions to dismiss is Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) 3211.

 

Tags:

5 Responses Leave a comment

  • gary e. rosenberg 2011.6.16 at 01:27 | Quote

    Doesn’t plaintiff’s attorney have an obligation to bring a non-frivolous case? And to so certify by signing his pleading? Here, plaintiff’s attorney was admitted to practice law in 2004. Might he be in this way over his head?

  • Legal Eagle Beagle 2011.6.25 at 08:48 | Quote

    @Gary E. Rosenberg

    The complaint smells of Rakowsky’s authorship and Bourzye merely signing it as attorney. That puts Bourzye on the hook for sanctions for its submission, maybe more so than Rakowsky.

    The Complaint was not even verified; but who would want to risk a perjury charge for swearing to things that are contradicted by the transcript? These attorneys (and I use the term loosely) are in for a BIG shock when the sanctions start rolling in. I bet they don’t pay the sanctions and end up in even more trouble.

Comments are closed.


The New York Personal Injury Law Blog is sponsored by its creator, Eric Turkewitz of The Turkewitz Law Firm. The blog might be considered a form of attorney advertising in accordance with New York rules going into effect February 1, 2007 (22 NYCRR 1200.1, et. seq.) As of July 14, 2008, Law.com became an advertiser, as you can see in the sidebar. Law.com does not control the editorial content of the blog in any way.

Throughout the blog as it develops, you may see examples of cases we have handled, or cases from others, that are used for illustrative purposes. Since all cases are different, and legal authority may change from year to year, it is important to remember that prior results in any particular case do not guarantee or predict similar outcomes with respect to any future matter, including yours, in which any lawyer or law firm may be retained.

Some of the commentary may be become outdated. Some might be a minority opinion, or simply wrong. No reader should consider this site (or any other) to be authoritative, and if a legal issue is presented, the reader should contact an attorney of his or her own choosing for advice.

Finally, we are not responsible for the comments of others that may be added to this site.