An Attorney and his Ex-Girlfriend
B. David Mehmet, July 17, 2014
I am going to leave it up to you to decide whether the attorney Thomas Hillgardner and his Ex-Girlfriend, Ruth Baumann, are bad people.
To start you off, let me tell you the following about these two individuals and how Mr. Hillgardner’s legal career started. He was admitted as an attorney in 1994 and in 1995 he and his girlfriend, Ruth Bauman, did the following:
More Evidence of Hillgardner’s and Ruth Buamann’s BAD CHARACTER
In 1995, hillgardner was representing the Defendant in a hold-over action under H.E.G. v. Melvin L&T Index 87335/95. He uncovered that the Plaintiff landlord’s corporate filing had dissolved. He then got his girlfriend, Ruth Baumann, to incorporate the same name as the Plaintiff landlord, H.E.G.. He then represented his girlfriend under the H.E.G name in Supreme Court and sued the Plaintiff landlord claiming it was using the name of his girlfriend’s company and he asked for an injunction to stop the landlord from suing Melvin in the L&T Court. Hillgardner LOST because he could NOT understand the legal concept and rights of a “de facto corporation”. HOWEVER, this further uncovers the disgusting bad character of Hillgardner besides the fact that he is a bad lawyer who has trouble understanding fundamental legal concepts as in a de facto corporation. A good lawyer would have understood the legal rights of a de facto corporation and the lawyer would have NEVER sued for an injunction because the lawsuit would have failed as it did with Hillgardner.
#1 H.E.G. Development & Management Corp. v. Patricia Melvin L&T Index 87335/95
Ruth Baumann (Hillgardner’s girlfriend at that time
#2 H.E.G Development & Management Corp. v. Naomi Blumberg 656 N.Y.S.2d 127
NOTE: Naomi Blumberg was the original owner of H.E.G who was suing Hillgardner’s client, Melvin. After Hillgardner’s girlfriend, Ruth Buamann, incorporated an identical name as H.E.G., Hillgardner then sued Naomi Blumberg with Ruth Baumann acting as the Plaintiff in that case. Hillgardner then tried to get an injunction to stop Naomi from suing his client, Melvin in the L&T action. Talk about a despicable attorney and his cohort. This is the type of bad character Hillgardner has. His conduct defines him as a “bad person. In a deposition on July 2, 2014, Ruth Baumann stated on the record that she does NOT remember this case. Hillgardner, who was representing her in that depositon, stated he remembered this case; but Baumann does NOT remember this case.
Hillgardner Abused his own Client and Violated Ethical Rules
Here is a letter I received from one of his clients that he wrongly solicited in Court:
Hillgardner has Been Arrested Twice for Harassing Behavior
Not only has Hillgardner been arrested twice for harassing behavior; but when he sued the State of New York for his arrest after his harassing behavior toward a Court officer, he made the following statement at his deposition quote “I know how to push peoples’ buttons and I felt there was NO down side to pushing a button or two at that point” uquote (Hillgardner has been approached multiple times by Court Officers in Court for his misconduct in front of a Judge).
Mehmet v. Ruth Buamann Index No. 64682/14
Here is a Notice of Cross-Motion dated July 15, 2014 for sanctions against Thomas Hillgardner and Ruth Baumann for making INTENTIONAL FALSE STATEMENTS to a Court of law. How Hillgardner is still allowed to practice law is beyond me. However, it appears that immediate action should be taken against him to have him suspended or disbarred. No attorney should be allowed to continue practicing law when they have made intentional false statements to the Court and conducted themselves in such a bad manner (A complaint is being filed with the Disciplinary Committee and other political parties are being contacted to have Hillgardner suspended or disbarred).
|CIVIL COURT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORKCOUNTY OF NEW YORK———————————————————————–X
B. DAVID MEHMET
|Index No.: 64682/11
NOTICE OF CROSS-MOTION
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that upon the attached affidavit of the Plaintiff, sworn to on the 15th day of July 2014, and the exhibits attached thereto, and upon all the proceedings in his case to date, Plaintiff will move this Court at 9:30AM. on the 1st day of August 2014, Part 34, Room 419 at the Civil Courthouse located at 111 Centre Street, New York, NY, or soon thereafter for the parties or their counsels to be heard, for an Order granting the Plaintiff’s request for SANCTIONS on the grounds of the Defendant’s and her attorney’s filing of a frivolous motion supported by the intentional and malicous false statements of Thomas Hillgardner, and for such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
Date: New York, NY
July 15, 2014 ________________________
B. David Mehmet
319 Lafatette Street, Ste 161
New York, NY 10012
To: Thomas J. Hillgardner
for Defendant Baumann
82-63 170th Street
Jamaica, NY 11432
|CIVIL COURT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORKCOUNTY OF NEW YORK———————————————————————-X
B. David Mehmet,
|Index No. L&T: 64682/11
AFFIDAVIT IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS AND IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S CROSS-MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
STATE OF NEW YORK }
COUNTY OF NEW YORK }
B. DAVID MEHMET, sworn under the penalty of perjury, deposes and says:
1. That I am the Plaintiff in the above captioned matter and I have personal knowledge of the statements made herein. I am submitting this affidavit in opposition to the Defendant’s Motion for attorney fees and costs and in support of my Cross-Motion for sanctions on the grounds that the Defendant and her Ex-boyfriend attorney, Thomas Hillgardner, have filed a clearly frivolous motion supported by intentional and malicous false statements that has NO legitimate purpose except to harass the Plaintiff.
Defendant and her Ex-boyfriend Attorney, Thomas
Hillgardner, FALSELY Accused the Plaintiff of FRAUD
2. In paragraph 8 of the Defendant’s Attorney Affirmation, it states “8. Thirdly, upon information and belief, Mr. Mehmet’s claim that he was at a closing, made by his employee on his behalf in his absence on May 15, 2014, is a falsehood…..Contributing to my belief that Mr. Mehmet perpetrated a fraud upon the court with regard to his whereabouts on May 15, 2014 is the fact that it appears he has done this before.”
3. NYC County Clerk Records found on the ACRIS website CONCLUSIVELY PROVE that the Plaintiff was at a mortgage closing on May 15, 2014. The NYC County Clerk records also conclusively priove that the mortgage documents were recorded and made available for public viewing on the ACRIS website on June 2, 2014, which was over one (1) month before the Defendant and her attorney filed and served their current frivolous motion dated July 3, 2014, which FALSELY accused the Plaintiff of FRAUD (i.e. the Defendant and her attorney NEVER reviewed the ACRIS public files before filing their frivolous motion). See copy of ACRIS records conclusively proving the Plaintiff’s attendance at a mortgage closing on May 15, 2014 attached hereto as Exhibit “A”1
4. THEREFORE, the Defendant and her Ex-boyfriend attorney, Thomas Hillgardner, with intentional reckless disregard and malice did FASLELY accuse the Plaintiff of FRAUD for the purpose of filing a frivolous motion that had NO legitimate purpse except to HARASS the Plaintiff.
Plaintiff was FALSELY Accused of
Making “no efforts” to Perform Legalization
Work within the Apartment Occupied by the Defendant
5. In paragraph 12 of the Defendant’s attorney affirmation, it states “owner has made no efforts whatsoever to perform the work required in Ms. Baumann’s unit, choosing instead to conduct this present harassment campaign against her”
6. The statements in paragrpah 12 of the Defendant’s attorney affirmation are contradicted by the architect, landlord, Dept. of Building and Court records which show that the Defendant had repeatedly REFUSED ACCESS to the Plaintiff to perform the required legalization work within the apartment she is solely utilizes as her principal place of business for Baumann Resource Group, Inc. The Defendant is continuing to refuse access to the apartment to complete the legalization work on the false grounds that she utilizes the apartment for “actual living purposes”. In fact, the Defendant has NOT slept in the apartment for the last four (4) years, which she admitted in her deposition held on July 2, 2014 within the office of the Plaintiff’s attorney, Rosenthal and Estis. See NY Suprme Court Order from Judge Rakower witnessing the Defendant’s multiple refusals to allow access to the landlord and the Dept. of Buildings attached hereto as Exhibit “B”.2
7. Since the Plaintiff’s company took ownership of the building in August 2013, the Plaintiff (1) filed new buiding plans and obtained DOB approval on January 8, 2014, (2) obtained 7-B Compliance (fire and safety) in December 2013, (3) withdrew multiple DOB applications that were unnecessary for the building’s legalization, (4) obtained a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for the storefront, (5) obtained a DOB sign-off for the hallway sprinkler system, (6) installed new flooring and painted the hallways and installed a new staircase treads and risers, (7) installed a new boiler and stove in apartment 1R, (8) completely renovated apartment 2F, (9) painted, installed new lights and bathroom sink in apartment 2R, (8) professionally inspected the roof and ceiling, (9) rust proof and painted the rear fire escape, (10) install a new building security camera system from front to back. See DOB and Architect records attached hereto as Exhibit “C” .3
8. NEVERTHELESS, due to the prior landlords failure to complete the legalization of the buiding due in part to the Dendant’s hinderance, the Plaintiff’s company was NOT allowed to extend the Multiple Dwelling Law (MDL) compliance deadlines because he was related to the prior owner. THUS, the Defendant took advantage of this fact by refusing to pay the Plaintiff rent for the past three (3) years. The Defendants Ex-boyfriend attorney, Thomas Hillgardner then began to collude with the Defendant to prevent the legalization of the building by intentionally and malicously making false statements to the Loft Board and the Courts in his legal documents as he has done in his present Motion for attorney fees and costs.
9. THEREFORE, the Defendant’s and her attorney’s claims that the Plaintiff has taken no effort to legalize the buiding or to perform work within the apartment occupied by the Defendant was made with NO legitimate purpose except to harass the Plaintiff and to file a frivolous Motion requesting attorney fees and costs.
DEFENDANT has Waived her Right to
the Confidentiality Clause in the Settlement
Agreement by Breaching the Confidentiality Clause
10. FIRST, the Plaintiff DENIES any violation of the Settlement Agreement dated May 6, 2013. The settlement agreement ALLOWED the Plaintiff to post a notice on the Internet that a settlement occurred, which he did. Furthermore, the Plaintiff’s attachment of the Settlement Agreement to his legal documents was NECESSARY AND RELEVANT to that case, which permits such an attachment as a matter of law. See Osowski v. Amec ConstManagement, Inc. 69 A.D.3d 99,887 N.Y.S.2d 11 (1st Dept., 2009). SECOND, The Defendant has BREACHED THE CONFIDENTIALITY CLAUSE by attaching the Settlement Agreement to her pending motion as Exhibit “1”.
11. THEREFORE, the Defendant’s breach of the confidentiality clause acts as a WAIVER of her rights and the Defendant CANNOT now come into Court and hold the Plaintiff laible for a breach she committed herself. See Exhibit “1” of the Defendant’s Notice of Motion.
Thomas J. Hillgardner was
Arrested Twice for Harassing Behavior
12. Thomas Hillgardner is known for his harassing behavior towards others, which includes harassing Judges at hearings. The Plaintiff has personal knowledge, which includes the Plaintiff’s attendance at Court hearings where the Court officers had to approach Thomas Hillgardner to control his behavior. In a recent hearing in 2014 before Judge Spears within this Courthouse, two (2) Court officers had to literally escort Thomas Hillgardner out of the Courtroom and into the hallway because he began abusing the Judge when she rejected his argument.
13. In another incident involving a Court Office, Thomas Hillgardner abused a Court Officer, which resulted in his arrest. Mr. Hillgardner sued the City and the Court Officer for the arrest and his clams were DENIED after trial. HOWEVER, during a deposition in the case, Mr. Hillgardner made the following statement on the record about harassing the court officer quote “I know how to push peoples’ buttons and I felt there was NO down side to pushing a button or two at that point” uquote. The Judge in that case stated that Mr. Hillgardner’s arrest for harassing the Court Officer was “Justified”. Here, the button pushing engaged by Mr. Hillgardner is the filing of a frivolous motion supported by his intentional and malicous false statements that have NO legitimate purpose except to harass the Plaintiff. See Thomas Hillgardner v. The State of New York, 112978, NYLJ 1202466558451, at *1 (Ct. of Clms., Decided July 12, 2010)
14. In another incident, Mr. Hillgardner was arrested again for his harassing behavior. This time, Mr. Hillgardner for harassing a police officer near the Plaintiff’s building during the time he was dating the Defendant and living with her in the Plaintiff’s building. THUS, the Plaintiff needs this Court’s protection from one of its own attorneys who has been using his law license to harass the Plaintiff and who is known for his disregard for the law and others. See NYPD Desk Appearance Ticket attached hereto as Exhibit “E”.4
Thomas Hillgardner and the Defendant
Engaged in Past Bad Conduct in Court proceedings
15. Under a prior hold-over action captioned H.E.G. Development & Management Corp. v. Patricia Melvin, Index No. L&T 87335/95, Thomas Hillgardner represented the Tenant Patricia Melvin who was being sued in a Hold-Over action for eviction. Thomas Hillgardner uncovered that the corporate landlord’s corporate filing had expired so he went and incorporated a similar company name “H.E.G. Development Management Corp.”. Mr. Hillgardner then solicitated the Defendant, Ruth Baumann, to act as a CORPORATE WITNESS for his newly incorporated company. Mr. Hillgardner then sued the landlord under H.E.G. DEVELOPMENT & MANAGEMENT CORP., PLAINTIFF, V NAOMI BLUMBERG, DEFENDANT 1997.NY.35282 , 656 N.Y.S.2d 127, 171 Misc. 2d 740 (Sup. NY, 1997). Mr. Hillgardner, in contravention of prevailing law, attempted to deprive the corporate landlord of its de facto corporation rights to continue litigating the Hold-Over case. This is the type of bad character Thomas Hillgardner and Ruth Baumann have and they continue to collude together in engaging in bad conduct against landlords to this day. (The Plaintiff’s attorneys, Rosenberg & Estis, who Defended the landlord in that Hold-Over matter brought the Defendant’s and her attorney’s prior bad conduct to the Plaintiff’s attention). See the case H.E.G. Development & Management Corp. v. Blumberg attached hereto as Exhibit “G”
16. THEREFORE, the Defendant and her Ex-boyfriend attorney, Thomas Hillgardner are BAD PEOPLE who have been using Mr. Hillgardner’s law license to harass the Plaintiff. And they are continuing their intentional and bad behavior by the filing of a clearly frivolous motion for attorney fees and costs based on their intentional and malicous false statements to this Court.
17. The Defendant and her Ex-boyfriend, Thomas Hillgardner, have repeatedly filed frivolous motions against the Plaintiff and supported them with intentional and malicous false statements in their colluded effort to continue the Defendant’s RENT FREE status within the Plaintiff’s building. Sanctions against them would surely send a strong message and protect the Plaintiff from their continued bad behavior because it is clear they have NO regard for the integrity of the Courts or the legal profession nor for honesty or the well-being of the Plaintiff. And their past history proves that they will continue this bad behavior until they are stopped by the Courts whom they are also perpetuating this wrong upon. Failure to take any action will ABSOLUTELYENCOURAGE them to continue their bad behavior against the Plaintiff, the Courts and others since they have been engaging in this bad behavior for years and there appears to be NO END to their bad behavior because the COURTS HAVE REPREATEDLY FAILED TO TAKE ACTION.5
18. THEREFORE, if there was any case that warranted sanctions as matter of law and upon a Judge’s discretion for the protection of others and the integrity of the legal profession, the Defendant’s pending Motion for attorney fees and costs supported by Mr. Hillgardner’s intentional and malicous false statements would clearly warrant those sanctions. See Patterson v. Balaqulot, 188 A.D.2d 275, 590 N.Y.S.2d 469(1st Dept., 1992) (In appropriate circumstances, baseless request for sanctions may constitutefrivolous conduct justifying imposition of sanctions on party requesting sanctions. N.Y.Ct.Rules, § 130–1.1).
WHEREFORE, the Petitioner respectfully requests an Order to (1) deny the Defendant’s motion, and (2) grant the Plaintiff’s Cross-Motion for sanctions, and for such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
Dated: New York, NY
July 15, 2014
B. David Mehmet
319 Lafayette Street, Ste 161
New York, NY 10012
Sworn to before me this _____ day of 2014
Index No. 64682/11
CIVIL COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
B. DAVID MEHMET
NOTICE OF CROSS-MOTIONFOR SANCTIONS
B. David Mehmet
319 Lafayette Street, Ste 161
New York, NY 10012
Service of a copy of the within is hereby admitted.
1The mortgage closing was scheduled prior to the filing and return date of the Defendant’s May 15, 2014 hearing and it was vital to obtain the funds to complete the legalization of the Plaintiff’s building. The adjournment was made upon the descretion of Judge Tanya R. Kennedy of this Court. THEREFORE, the Defendant should have APPEALED the adjournement NOT filed a frivolous motion for attorney fees and costs by making intentional and malicous false statements to this Court. FURTHERMORE, the term “upon information and belief”added to the Defendant’s papers do NOT save her or her attorney from being sanctioned because it was NOT made in good faith. Matter of Winston 243 A.D.2d 638, 663 N.Y.S.2d 255 (2nd Dept. 1997)(Attorney was properly sanctioned for making baseless accusations…without checking into accuracy of uderlying factual predicate supporting bias allegations…directed him to pay $7,500 to the Lawyer’s Fund for Client Protection). See also Public Adm’r of County of NY v. Cohen 634 N.Y.S.2d 106 (1st Dept., 1995).
2In a Hold-Over deposition of the Defendant held on July 2, 2014, the Defendant testified on the record that she has NOT slept in the apartment for the past four (4) years (2010-Present). The Defendant testified that she has been living with her boyfriend at 11 Riverside Dr, Apt 16PE for the last four (4) years and her testimoney uncovered that she only goes to the apartment Monday-Friday between the hours of 7AM-7PM to conduct business under Baumann Resource Group, Inc. And she rarely comes to the apartment on the weekends. The Plaintiff’s attorney at Rosenthal & Estis has informed him that the Defendant’s deposition transcripts conclusively prove NON-PRIMARY RESIDENCE and he is currently preparing a Summary Motion for an Order granting the Plaintiff’s request for possession of the aparttment. See also Defendant’s Notice to Admit response where she ADMITS to NOT sleeping in the apartment for over 6 months in 2011 attached hereto as Exhibit “D” (Building security video evidence proves that the Defendant never slept in the apartment in 2011).
3A letter dated May 30, 2014 was mailed to the Defendant to allow access to complete the legalization work within the apartment she is occupying. She REFUSED ACCESS AGAIN. This time she refused access on the false grounds that she is utilizing the apartment for “actual living purposes” and that she wants the Plaintiff to provide her with other ACCOMMODATIONS before allowing access for the work. . However, the Defendant’s sworn desposition transcripts and her response to the Notice to Admit under the Hold-Over action prove that she has been residing with her boyfriend for the past four (4) years at 11 Riverside Dr. THUS, the Plaintiff is NOT legally required to provide her with other accommodations. And her refusal is nothing more then another attempt to hinder the legalization of the buiding and continue her RENT FREE status within the apartment she uses EXCLUSIVELY as her principal place of business. See letter dated May 30, 2014 and the Defendant’s response attached hereto as Exhibit “C”.
4In the case cited by Thomas Hillgardner captioned Mehmet v. Hillgardner Index No. 103282/2010, Judge Oing DENIED Thomas Hillgardner’s Motion to dismiss the defamation claim against him filed by the Plaintiff. Judge Oing stated that the letter he mailed to the NYC Loft Board accusing the Plaintiff of FRUAD established defamation and Mr. Hillgardner’s defense of “contemplation of litigation” was an issue of fact for the Jury. Unfortunately, the Plaintiff was scheduled for a mortgage closing on the return date of the preliminary conference hearing and his absence from that hearing caused the case to be pre-maturally dismissed. HOWEVER, Mr. Hillgardner RE-PUBLISHED the defamatory letter to another third party during the pendancy of that action. And pursuant to case law, the re-publishing did create a new statute of limitation deadline for defamation. THUS, a new pending Complaint under Index No. 100369/14 was filed against Mr. Hillgardner within the NY Supreme Court for the republishing of that defamatory letter to the NYC Loft Board which is currently awaiting a decisition from Judge Lucy Billings on the issue of tolling the Statute of Limitation for defamation. See Judge Oing’s Court Transcripts attached hereto as Exhibit “F”
5In another attempt to hinder the legalization of the Plaintiff’s building for the purpose of continuing to live RENT FREE, the Defendant was approaching the Plaintiff’s contractors and defaming him in the hopes of having his contractors cease the legalization work. And in a further effort to harass the Plaintiff, Thomas Hillgardner filed a Counter-Claim in the Defendant’s Answer that pertained to the Plaintiff’s alleged violation of the confidentiality clause within the Settlement Agreement. Mr. Hillgardner then filed a DUPLICATE claim within this Court that is currently pending before Judge Debra R. Samuels under this caption and index number. See pending NY Supreme court Complaint for slander attached hereto as Exhibit “H”