Complaint.P.napoli Versus D.rubin - Supreme Court County of New York

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/20/2016 03:41 PM
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1
INDEX NO. 155162/2016

RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/20/2016
1 of 38
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

COUNTY OF NEW YORK
----------------------------------------------------------------X
PAUL J. NAPOLI,
Plaintiff,
Index No.:
COMPLAINT
-againstDENISE A. RUBIN,
Defendant.
----------------------------------------------------------------X
This complaint by Plaintiff PAUL J. NAPOLI (Napoli), by his attorneys, NAPOLI
SHKOLNIK PLLC, against the defendant, DENISE A. RUBIN (Rubin), dated June 20, 2016,
(the Complaint), states the following:
INTRODUCTION
1.
Napoli was a Senior Partner with Napoli Kaiser & Bern LLP, Napoli Kaiser Bern &
Associates LLP, Worby Groner Edelman & Napoli Bern LLP, and Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik,
LLP (collectively the law firms) from 1997 until 2015.
2.
During this time, all acts performed by Napoli were performed within the scope of
his employment and as a partner of the law firms.

3.
Rubin is an attorney duly licensed in the state of New York, who resides in New
York, New York.

4.
From time to time Rubin received raises and changes in title, holding various
positions, including associate and subsequently General Counsel to the law firms.
5.
As General Counsel to the law firms, she represented the law firm Partners at
various times in matters as their counsel.
2 of 38
6.
As General Counsel to the law firm she represented law firm Partner Marc J. Bern
(Bern) at various times as his counsel.

7.
As general counsel to the law firm she represented law firm Partner Napoli at various
times as his counsel.

8.
Rubin was the General Counsel of each of the law firms.
9.
As the General Counsel Rubin owed a duty of loyalty, good faith, and fair dealings in
her actions related to the firms.

10.
Rubin as General Counsel was required to act in the best interests of the law firms.
11.
Rubin as General Counsel was required at all times to protect the confidences of the
law firms.
12.
Rubin as General Counsel was required at all times to advance the best interests of
the law firms.

13.
Rubin as General Counsel was required at all times to ensure that the law firms
partners, lawyers, non-professional staff, and agents acted in accordance with the rules of law and
ethics.
14.
As to Paragraphs 9 through 13, Rubin failed in every aspect of her responsibilities to
the detriment of the law firms.

15.
Rubin entered into an at will employment agreement with Napoli Kaiser & Bern
LLP and Napoli Kaiser Bern & Associates LLP as an attorney in 2003.
16.
Rubins employment was terminated on September 4, 2014.
17.
Rubin subsequently filed a frivolous lawsuit against Napoli, Rubin v. Napoli Bern Ripka
Shkolnik, LLP, No. 154060/2015 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Apr. 24, 2015), alleging, among other things that
she had been subjected to sex discrimination as an employee of the law firms.
3 of 38
18.
Rubin then caused to be published various defamatory statements against Napoli in a
Law 360 article.

19.
Rubin never was a partner in any of the law firms.
20.
Rubin never contributed any capital contributions to any of the law firms, either for
operations or overhead.
21.
Rubin was not a rainmaker, that is, she rarely, if ever, referred matters or business
to the law firms.

22.
Rubins referrals over the 11 years amounted to no more than 6 cases.
23.
The revenue to the law firms from those cases was minimal, at best.
24.
At no time during Rubins eleven year at will employment with the firms did
Rubin allege that she was being discriminated against by the law firms.
25.
As General Counsel, Rubin drafted the Employee Handbook for the law firms.
26.
As General Counsel, Rubin set policies and procedures, including for harassment
and discrimination.
27.
As General Counsel, Rubin would be the person people in the firm would go to if
they had a harassment or discrimination issue.

28.
As General Counsel, Rubin would report such issues to the insurance carriers.
29.
As General Counsel, Rubin would meet with outside counsel, both in person, and
via phone and email to discuss such issues.

30.
As General Counsel, Rubin was fully familiar with the issues involving harassment
and discrimination.
31.
Rubin was familiar with the reporting requirements.
32.
Rubin was familiar with the policies and procedures of the law firms.
4 of 38
33.
Rubin was party to emails and correspondence on such issues with the carriers and
outside counsel having helped develop and enforce those policies.

34.
Rubin allege that she was being harassed by the law firms.
35.
Rubin allege that she was being discriminated against by Napoli.

36.
Rubin allege that she was being harassed by Napoli.

37.
Rubin made no report of harassment or discrimination in 2003.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
Rubin was and always has been during her employment an at will employee of the
law firms.
50.
Even as general counsel, Rubin was and always has been an at will employee.
5 of 38
51.
Rubin assisted in drafting each of the firms at will employment agreements,
including her own.

52.
Rubin knows and did know what at will means under the law and in the context of
her employment.
53.
Rubin knew what at will meant to other employees, because she wrote the
agreements in her position as General Counsel.

54.
Rubin assisted in drafting partnership agreements within the law firms.
55.
Rubin had access to the partner contracts within the law firms.
56.
Rubin knew that there were and have been woman partners at the law firms at
various times.
57.
Rubin knew that to say otherwise was reckless and untruthful.
58.
Rubin knew that there were and have been women in higher positions than Rubin at
various times who made more money than her and more money than men in similar positions.
59.
60.
Rubin knows that there are documents, which she either had access to, created, or
read, that show that there were woman partners at the law firms.
61.
Rubin knew that there were and have been men in lower positions at the law firms at
various times who had similar responsibilities and who made less money than her.
62.
63.
Rubin knows that there are documents, which she either had access to, created, or
read, that prove her allegations that men in a similar position made more than her are an outright lie.
64.
What Rubins animosity is really about is Rubin and Berns failed attempt to take
over the law firms while Napoli was incapacitated.

65.
Rubin and Bern developed a plan in the summer of 2014 to take over the law firms.
5
6 of 38
66.
Bern enticed Rubin to join him in the plan by promising her a partnership.
67.
Bern enticed Rubin to join him in the plan to take over the firm by Bern paying
Rubin money.
68.
From the end of May 2014 till early September 2014, Rubin and Bern worked in
concert to hide firm business from Napoli and met with law firm employees to fashion a web of lies
to undermine Napolis authority and to fashion a way to prevent Napoli and his family from
benefiting from the law firms profits and assets.
69.
Rubin improperly utilized the law firms computers and phone lines to carry out the
plan to help take over the law firms.

70.
Rubin improperly used the law firms personnel to carry the plan to help take over
the law firms.

71.
Rubin was caught in her lies and deceit.
72.
In early September 2014, Rubin and Berns plan to take over the law firms was
uncovered.
73.
In early September 2014, Rubin and Berns conspiracy was exposed.
74.
On September 4, 2014, Rubins at will employment was terminated due to her
violations of the Employee Handbook she helped create as General Counsel for lying, extreme
insubordination, threatening behavior, and participating in the conspiracy against Napoli and the law
firms.
75.
After her discharge, Rubin continued the conspiracy with Bern, adding additional
conspirators to their scheme.

76.
Rubin and Bern added Alan Ripka (Ripka), a former employee of Napoli Bern
Ripka Shkolnik, LLP, to their conspiracy to wrest the rightful ownership interest in the law firms
from Napoli and deprive the law firms of their partner and cases.
6
7 of 38
77.
Rubin and Bern added Michael Rongomas (Rongomas), a former employee of
Napoli Bern Ripka Shkonik, LLP, to their conspiracy to wrest the rightful ownership interest in the
law firms from Napoli and deprive the law firms of their partner and cases.
78.
Rubin and Bern added Mahesh Raghunandan (Mahesh), to their conspiracy to
wrest the rightful ownership interest in the law firms from Napoli and deprive the law firms of their
partner and cases.
79.
Rubin and Bern added Satish Raghunandan (Satish) to their conspiracy to wrest
the rightful ownership interest in the law firms from Napoli and deprive the law firms of their
partner and cases.
80.
Rubin and Bern added Chris Martuscello (Martuscello) to their conspiracy to wrest
the rightful ownership interest in the law firms from Napoli and deprive the law firms of their
partner and cases.
81.
Rubin continued her concerted efforts with these people through the beginning of
2015 to destroy Napoli, the law firms, and the reputation of Marie Kaiser Napoli (Marie) and her
husband Napoli.
82.
Bern continued to promise Rubin cash for her support after she was terminated on
September 4, 2014.
83.
Bern continued to pay Rubin directly for her allegiance and actions against Napoli.
84.
Ultimately, finding her efforts useless, Bern abandoned his alliance with Rubin,
leaving her alone with no support.

85.
Eventually, Bern stopped paying Rubin, and their plot together was cancelled by
Bern.
8 of 38
86.
Napolis claims herein are for intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent
infliction of emotional distress, tortious interference with contractual relations, defamation, and
defamation per se.
VENUE
87.
Venue in this action is based on the residence of Defendant in New York County.
PARTIES
88.
Plaintiff Napoli is a resident of Nassau County, New York.
89.
Defendant Rubin is a resident of New York County, New York.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND
90.
In 1997, Napoli and Marie, a woman, formed the law firm Napoli Kaiser &
Associates, LLP (NKA).

91.
In late 1997, Napoli and Marie hired Bern as an at will employee at NKA.
92.
After several years a new firm was formed, Napoli Kaiser & Bern, LLP and Napoli,
Kaiser, Bern & Associates LLP (together known as NKB), naming Bern as a non-equity partner to
the firms.
93.
In 2001 and 2002, other equity partners, including Marie, left the firm.
94.
Subsequently, in late 2004, Napoli made Bern a 50% equity partner in the firm.
95.
During his employ, Bern had several adulterous affairs, divorcing his fourth wife
after meeting his future-fifth wife.

96.
Subsequently, after he married his fifth wife, Bern continued to have such affairs
taking him away from home and work for long stretches of time.
97.
Marie learned of these affairs and challenged Bern to stop.
98.
Instead of taking Maries advice, Bern developed a deep animosity towards Marie.
9 of 38
99.
Bern understood that under the existing partnership agreements, Marie was to act on
Napolis behalf in case of his incapacity.

100.
Bern and Rubin knew that Marie would be the managing partner if Napoli was
incapacitated.
101.
As a result of the requirement that Marie would become the managing partner of the
firms, Rubin assisted Bern in undermining Marie and thereby the law firms.
102.
Napoli and Bern had a longstanding personal friendship that extended to both of
their families.
103.
Napoli was the best man at Berns fifth wedding, and the families of Bern and
Napoli traveled together regularly and the children of each couple referred to the other as aunt and
uncle
104.
After Bern had worked for many years at Napolis family firm, Napoli had made him
a 50% partner.
105.
Rubin knew of the longstanding personal friendship and professional relationship
between Napoli and Bern.

106.
Several years after Bern was already a full partner, his child, Jessie Bern, developed a
heroin addiction.
107.
Jessie Bern asked his biological father Bern, who was a multimillionaire at the time,
for financial help so that he could enter rehab.

108.
Bern refused, and within a year Jessie Bern was found dead of an overdose at a crack
house in his home town.

109.
Napoli and Marie, in support of their friend Bern, flew down with Bern and his fifth
wife to identify his sons body at the morgue.

110.
Jessie Berns mother was distraught and blamed MB for the death.
9
10 of 38
111.
Berns actions and demeanor became more and more erratic over time.
112.
Bern began leaving home and spending more time in LA. He claimed to have work
in the area, but this was really a cover story. His real purpose in traveling to LA was to visit and
party with prostitutes.
113.
By this time, Bern had all but stopped working and had left Napoli alone to run the
firm and worry about bills and overhead.

114.
Berns only involvement with the law firms was to tell Napoli how much money he
would need to finance his extravagant and lurid lifestyle.

115.
Bern conceived a child in 2014 with one prostitute, Olga A. Belousous.
116.
Bern was travelling back and forth to California, and all but living there, using the
law firms resources and finances to be with his pregnant prostitute girlfriend.
117.
Bern ultimately rejected and abandoned his prostitute girlfriend after his wife learned
about her.
118.
Bern requested this child from Olga and asked that they name the child Jessie after
his son whom he had abandoned and let overdose. Ultimately she named the child Marc Jay Bern Jr.
rather than Jessie.
119.
After her abandonment, she was left unable to work in her profession and support
her child. The child had neurological problems and needed expensive medical care.
120.
Berns office computer hard drive was replete with email solicitations with madams
and prostitutes and also pictures of naked women and his unborn baby.
121.
Rubin was aware of Berns sordid personal life, including his increasingly erratic
behavior, his disengagement from the law firms, his profligate and debased LA lifestyle, and his
child with Olga.
10
11 of 38
122.
In January of 2013, Marie was stricken with breast cancer. It was devastating news to
Napolis entire family.

123.
In April of 2013, while Marie was fighting cancer, the Napoli family was victimized
by a sexual deviant and sex addict, Vanessa Dennis (Dennis) who Bern hired to work alongside
Napoli. See Affidavit of Mr. Fallick, Denniss attorney admitting Dennis, a serial adulterer and sex
addict, received treatment at NY Pathways, a facility that solely treats sex addiction, attached hereto
as Exhibit 1.
124.
Maries husband rejected Dennis and the couple went through great lengths to
restore their family and relationship.

125.
Bern, with his ongoing infidelity and issues with prostitutes, found nothing wrong
with Denniss adulterous and deviant sexual attacks on the Napoli family.
126.
Bern hid his lifestyle from Marie because he knew that Maries entire life was
devoted to her family and children and that she had distain for adulterous behavior.
127.
Bern was at odds with Maries views on family and monogamy and developed
resentment for Marie.

128.
Bern wanted to silence Marie regarding the victimization of her family.
129.
Bern was verbally abusive to his wife and expected Marie to submit the abuse she
sustained from Dennis during Maries bout with cancer.

130.
Dennis vindictively drafted a defamatory and vile complaint laden with falsehoods
and inaccuracies for the purposes of extorting large sums of money from the law firms and silencing
Marie from exposing Denniss true character.
131.
On Memorial Day weekend of 2014, Napoli became ill with Acute Myeloid
Leukemia.
132.
Napoli was hospitalized and underwent induction chemotherapy.

11
12 of 38
133.
At that time, Napolis chances for survival were very low as his type of mutation was
very aggressive.
134.
Napoli worked and continued to run the firm through his entire induction
chemotherapy at the hospital through computer and telephone access.

135.
Napoli came out of the hospital after a month and went through consolidation
chemotherapy and re-entered the hospital in September 2014 for conditioning chemotherapy
treatment and a bone marrow transplant.
136.
Rubin was aware of the intense personal and medical struggles that both Napoli and
Marie were undergoing.

137.
Bern was dealing with his own issues involving the separate life he was leading with
his pregnant prostitute girlfriend. He became further unhinged by the fear of having to run the
successful law firms Napoli had built and run over the years and feared Marie stepping into her
husbands shoes during Napolis incapacity and/or death.
138.
Bern did not know how to run the law firms and in fact had done very little work in
139.
Bern did not even understand the law firms internal computer system.
140.
Bern lost the only cases he had tried in recent years because he was focusing on his
years.
unborn child and his prostitute girlfriend, whom he was putting up in hotel rooms during his trial,
rather than his trial work.
141.
All the weight of the law firms had been on Napolis shoulders for years.
142.
Bern realized that if Napoli died, Berns former boss Marie would take over Napolis
interest in the firm.

143.
Rubin was aware of Berns lack of involvement with the law firms and inability to
competently manage and run the firms.

12
13 of 38
144.
Despite her knowledge of Bern and Napolis longstanding friendship, Berns
personal problems and erratic behavior, Marie and Napolis extreme personal challenges, and Berns
lack of ability to successfully manage the law firms, she nevertheless assisted Bern in his efforts to
undermine Napoli in his role as partner and his attempt to wrest control of the law firms from
Napoli.
145.
Bern became distrustful of his longtime friend and partner Napoli, and Rubin fed
that distrust, which interfered with the partnership, ultimately leading to the partnerships demise.
146.
At some point during Napolis illness, when he was weak and undergoing a bone
marrow transplant, Bern decided to try to take the firm away from him.
147.
Bern at this point was acting erratically and said to law firm employees that things
were going to change in the law firm in a week, referencing Napolis bone marrow transplant the
following week.
148.
Rubin conspired with Bern and waited until Napoli went into his bone marrow
transplant and was in the ICU receiving his last rites to attempt to take over the law firms.
149.
Bern fired everyone who was loyal to and worked closely with Napoli in running the
law firms.
150.
Bern fired the office manager, the human resource department, and Napolis 72-
year-old father, who was the highest producer in the personal injury department.
151.
Bern attempted to cut off all off Napolis communication with the firm by telling the
IT Department to give Bern all of Napolis emails and calls.

152.
Bern started spending millions of dollars that was set aside by Napoli for overhead
and salaries during his incapacity.

153.
Bern tried to justify his outrageous behavior by falsely blaming Napoli for misdeeds.
13
14 of 38
154.
Rubin was aware of Berns efforts to seize control of the law firms, and she
conspired with and assisted him in his efforts.

155.
Rubin fed into Berns erratic behavior and fears by feeding his distrust and alienation
of Napoli.
156.
Marie, the stricken and grieving wife, had to leave her husbands deathbed in the
ICU after Napolis last rites in an attempt to save and protect the law firms on behalf of her
husband.
157.
This conduct by Rubin and Bern was unconscionable, planned, and deliberate. Bern
and Rubin waited until Napoli was at his weakest to attack and take over the firm.
158.
It was unconscionable for Rubin, a trusted employee, to help Bern, a supposed
friend, in Napolis darkest hour, try to take over the firm, and to cut off Napolis communication
when he was dying and receiving his last rites, leaving the stricken and grieving wife, Marie, already
fighting for her husbands life to fight Bern and Rubin as well.
159.
On November 5, 2014, Bern was going to attach Denniss vile and libelous
statements to a legal action totally unrelated to Denniss claims, knowing that they would be picked
up by the newspapers and published to the world and republished on the internet over and over, all
to the detriment of the law firms and their members.
160.
Bern came up to Marie with an evil smirk on his face on the morning of his
publication of the libelous statements and said Hello Marie. This was after months of radio silence
and ignoring Maries pleas for Bern to come to the hospital to see his best friend so that his
friendship could positively affect Napolis recovery.
161.
While Napoli was still in the ICU close to death, Bern was beaming with pride about
what he had done to the law firms, Marie, and Napoli.
14
15 of 38
162.
The New York Post picked up the story and defamed the law firms, Napoli, and
Marie on the front page, Page Six, various other pages, and then again on the New York Post online
version. Moreover, many national and international websites published and republished the vile
libelous statements.
163.
This was all done at a time when Napoli was fighting for his life in ICU at Sloan
Kettering Hospital and was unlikely to survive. The vile libelous statements were published and
republished to every single person in the law firms, and to Napoli and Maries community, church,
schools, friends, childrens friends, acquaintances, and employees.
164.
Rubin was aware of Berns efforts to defame Napoli and Marie.
165.
At this same time, Bern with the help of Rubin, attempted to cut off Napolis
contact with the firm, telling staff not to contact Napoli, falsely stating it was at Napolis familys
request.
166.
Bern and Rubin tried to have the Information Technology Department forward all
of Napolis emails and phone calls to Bern, thereby cutting off Napoli and Maries access to the
firm.
167.
Bern and Rubin together intimidated many people into turning their backs on Napoli
at his weakest moments. They told firm employees to disregard Napolis authority because Napoli
was dying and Bern would be taking over the firm and would make Rubin a partner.
168.
Rubin made a conscious decision to attack Napoli and his family at this most
vulnerable time and to work hand-in-hand with Bern in the attempt to oust the already dying
Napoli.
169.
Rubin betrayed Napoli at this vulnerable time.
170.
Rubin betrayed the law firms.
171.
Rubin betrayed her position as General Counsel.

15
16 of 38
172.
Rubin betrayed the employees of the law firms.
173.
Rubin betrayed the trust expected of a General Counsel.
174.
Rubin disregarded her ethical responsibilities to the firm.
175.
Rubin disregarded her duties of trust to the law firms.
176.
Rubin disregarded her oath as a lawyer.
177.
Rubin violated her employment contract.
178.
Rubin violated the terms of her employment.
179.
Rubin conspired with Bern, who held the keys to Rubins future employment, rather
than the law firms and her dying colleague Napoli who had always been good to Rubin.
180.
It appears Rubin was frustrated at not making partner. Despite having worked
closely with Napoli for years, it appears this resentment caused her to turn on Napoli and stab him
in the back at his weakest moment.
181.
In fact, Rubins performance did not warrant a partnership.
182.
This was not based on her sex. There have been many female partners at the firm.
183.
Previous female partners include Marie Kaiser, Joan Gasior, and Lousie Caro.
184.
Rubin learned in mid-April 2010 that Joan Gasior, a woman, had become a partner.
This infuriated Rubin, as shown by Rubins notes to herself on her office computer. Rubin was also
upset with Ms. Gasiors higher salary.
185.
The truth of the matter is, Rubin was not partnership material. She was tardy,
belligerent, did not listen to direction, and was apparently extremely disloyal.
186.
There was no requirement that the firm make her partner.
187.
Rubin was one of the highest paid lawyers, but Rubin was never satisfied.
16
17 of 38
188.
If Rubin was unhappy with her at will employment she had every right to leave,
but instead chose to engage in the scheme to take over the firm based upon promises of partnership
in the future entities.
189.
Rubin was at this time already performing her duties poorly.
190.
Rubin would arrive late daily, usually not until the afternoon, since she would go to
the gym in the mornings.

191.
Rubin would regularly ignore the direction of the partners and do the exact opposite
of what she was told.

192.
In fact, there are emails between Bern and Rubin, showing Bern complaining about
her performance and regular tardiness. For example, in December 6, 2012, Bern wrote: I am pissed.
It WAS NOT AT MY DIRECTION that you reached out nto [sic] Coppiner [sic]. I specifically
told you at least 3 times during our conversation to speak to Paul before reaching out.I certainly
never expected you would call him at home late in the evening, I was shocked when I read this email
at 6:30 in the morning. GET INTO THE OFFICE AT 9AM like all the other lawyers, that is a
DIRECTIVE Marc.
193.
Again in March of 2014, Rubin went rogue and ignored Napolis direction. In an
email dated March 7, 2014, Napoli was frustrated at Rubins defiant behavior in a case called
Watkins. Napoli states: What was unclear about not doing anything on this case without consulting
me?!! I dont even see the order Can you take a breath Maybe I have a strategy you did not
think of!!! That is why I said UNEQUIVOCALLY THIS IS PART OF A CONCERTED EFFORT
AROUND THE COUNTRY DONT DO A THING WITHOUT RUNNING IT BY ME
AND THAT YOU WERE OFF THE MATTER. YOU INSTEAD CONTINUE TO DO
THINGS WITHOUT CONSULTING ME AND ITEJECT YOURSELF IN THIS CASE. THIS
IS EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT I SAID TO DO.
17
18 of 38
194.
Rubins work in the partners opinions was substandard. An email dated February 21,
states: I would never ask too much but this sucks.

195.
There are emails between Bern and PN dated August 20, 2010 that reflect this.
Bern wrote: Rubin says you promised her 5% on MTBE!!!!..... I am so f[***]ing pissed.. It
should be noted Rubin later admits there was no promise, as Napoli did not have the authority to
promise any amount without approval but that he had opened a dialog. Rubin states in an email on
August 20, 2010 He [Napoli] did not expressly say five percent.
196.
Rubin was already being paid a higher salary than most attorneys in the Firm. Rubin,
however, failed to appear in the office in a timely manner and performed sub-standard work. This
amount was more than she was worth as now, working on her own, she takes in only a small
percentage of that amount of money.
197.
Prior to Napolis sickness, Bern was generally unkind to Rubin.
198.
Napoli, on other hand was generally very kind and they had a close working
relationship. This is not to deny that at times he became frustrated with Rubins performance of her
duties, failure to take direction, defiance, and tardiness, but overall they had a close and positive
working relationship.
199.
Examples of Berns unkind behavior towards Rubin can be seen in his emails. Bern
would make fun of Rubins heavy stature. Bern wrote, in an email dated August 20, 2010, I am so
f[***]ing pissedwait till she has her fat f[***]ing hand out on [World Trade Center cases].
200.
In fact once during a Christmas party speech, Bern likened her to a pig and threw a
snickers bar in the air, something Napoli chastised Bern for.

201.
Another unkind email between Rubin and Bern is dated April 25, 2012: Rubin: As I
stated when this process or an earlier version thereof was announced last year, this program does
18
19 of 38
not address those of us, like myself, who do not have a case list per se, and whose assigned cases,
such as they are, are not in our own control. Bern: None[,] who cares about you[?].
202.
Bern was generally unkind and would rule the office with an iron fist. He would rule
through intimidation. Bern believed in using negative reinforcement to motivate workers, whereas
Napoli believed in positive reinforcement promoting positive pay bonuses for workers that
brought in money.
203.
Examples of Berns way of motivating workers through negative reinforcement and
intimidation can be seen in Berns emails.

204.
In an email to the entire office dated February 8, 2012, Bern wrote: Damnit if
everyone worked as much as you all email pointless crap maybe something would get done.
205.
Another example of Bern showing his negative motivation of workers is seen in an
email to Gloria Werle, the office director of operations: . Gloria I am very concerned about the
things you take responsibility for when you are clueless.
206.
In an email to an employee on November 01, 2013, Bern wrote: WTF is going
207.
In an email on April 17, 2012, Bern wrote: .wtf Also asked for another 50 cases-
here
goddamn I am sick of this sh[*]t

208.
Bern would take joy in firing people and asserting his authority, wearing a Donald
Trump T-shirt with the words Youre Fired. The staff was afraid of Bern generally.
209.
An example of Berns callous behavior regarding firing people is seen in an email
dated April 21, 2010. Bern wrote: Berman if you dont call this client by 1pm you are fired and I
dont give a rats ass about excuses. I will replace you in 10 seconds
210.
By contrast, prior to Napoli illness, Napoli was nothing but kind and considerate to
Rubin.
19
20 of 38
211.
Napoli had a close working relationship with Rubin who would constantly call him
darling and affectionate names.

212.
213.
There are emails from Rubin to Napoli with the following language:
a.
November 21, 2012: Already done, darling
b.
October 10, 2013: You is late to the table, darling
c.
August 9, 2013: Darling, his number is ZERO.
d.
September 23, 2013: . I do love your consistency, my darling!
Despite Napolis years of kindness to Rubin, she betrayed him at his hour of need
and fed on Berns fears, working hand-in-hand with Bern to oust Napoli from the business and
excluding him from business matters in a firm Napoli had spent his life building. Napoli was
devastated by this betrayal when he was at his weakest.
214.
On June 4, 2014, when Napoli was in the hospital for induction chemotherapy, in
violation of her duties, loyalties, responsibilities, and ethical and contractual obligations as General
Counsel of the law firms, Rubin emailed Bern concerning an arbitration decision in which Napoli
Bern & Associates was being represented by Marc Kasowitz and James (Jim) Stricker of Kasowitz
Benson Torres & Friedman LLP. In her email, Rubin wrote that she spoke with Mr. Kasowitz about
the arbitration panels decision and that she did not forward the panels decision to Napoli nor say
anything about it to him, even though Napoli asked Rubin whether the panel had issued a decision
the day before. From this time forward, Rubin began her campaign of interfering with the
partnership agreement between Napoli and Bern by intentionally excluding Napoli from discussions
concerning NBRS and even threatening violence against Napoli.
215.
On June 20, 2014, while Napoli is still in the hospital receiving induction
chemotherapy, a person called NBRS asking for Napoli. In violation of her duties, loyalties,
responsibilities, and ethical and contractual obligations as General Counsel of the law firms, Rubin
20
21 of 38
spoke to the caller and wrote an email to Bern stating, I didnt want to pass this to Paul [Napoli]
without your ok. When Rubin emailed Bern concerning this phone call, she titled the email
strange caller for Paul [Napoli]. This is an example of Rubin again intentionally attempting to
interfere with the partnership agreement between Napoli and Bern and excluding Napoli from the
business in an attempt to assist Bern in ousting Napoli from NBRS at this vulnerable time. Rubin
continuously attempted to keep information from Napoli, the senior and founding partner at NBRS.
216.
On July 9, 2014, when Napoli was undergoing consolidation chemotherapy, in
Counsel of the law firms, Rubin began threatening behavior towards Napoli. In an email to Bern,
Rubin stated, Paul [Napoli] is so far up my behind on getting the settlement confidentiality motion
out to AIGs counsel by tomorrow that I am in need of a tube of KY. Dont worry about dealing
with him [Napoli] next week I AM SIMPLY GOING TO KILL HIM [Napoli] MYSELF,
TODAY.
217.
On July 11, 2014, while Napoli was still undergoing consolidation chemotherapy, in
Counsel of the law firms, Rubin continued her threatening behavior. In an email to Bern, Rubin
stated, You sure I cant go out there and beat the crap out of him [Napoli] now?????.
218.
On August 1, 2014, while Napoli was still receiving consolidation chemotherapy, in
Counsel of the law firms, Rubin continued to conspire in keeping information from Napoli. When
discussing the performance of an employee at NBRS, Rubin emailed Bern and stated, In light of
your warning not to say anything that would get anyone fired where Napoli could hear me, Im just
sending this to you as an FYI . . . . I DID NOT copy Paul [Napoli].
21
22 of 38
219.
On August 12, 2014, while Napoli was still in consolidation chemotherapy, in
Counsel of the law firms, Rubin continued to conspire against Napoli. In an email to Bern, Rubin
stated, Hey boss: Alan and I didn't get out of the Second Circus until almost 4 oclock. As I hadn't
eaten anything but coffee since the gym, I decided to come home and inhale a salad and work from
here. Just wanted to touch base and see if everything was okay, if you needed to talk to me about
anything, how it went last night with the Kasowitz boys and how it went today with Paul [Napoli].
Call me if you have a moment. Or just email if you need me for anything. Hope you're okay.
(...Because, ya know, I worry.).
220.
It seems at this point, Rubin had switched her affection and affiliation from Napoli,
who had run the firm and had been kind to Rubin but was now dying, to Bern, who had always been
unkind to Rubin. It was apparent that Rubin believed Bern would be taking over the firm and she
cared more about her job then what was morally and ethically right.
221.
Again, all these emails occurred during the time Napoli was fighting leukemia, in the
midst of a bone marrow transplant and while he was fighting for his life. It was disgusting.
222.
Again, Rubins subterfuge in helping to oust Napoli and cut him off from his own
firm matters can be seen in and around the time of Napolis bone marrow transplant when he was
still receiving conditioning treatment to remove his bone marrow. On September 4, 2014, at
8:40AM, in violation of her duties, loyalties, responsibilities, and ethical and contractual obligations
as General Counsel of the law firms, Rubin directly lied to Napoli regarding an email she sent Bern
containing a copy of the NBRS employee handbook and wrote, The policy on Electronic
Communications, etc is Section six on page 35 of the annexed pdf document.
223.
Bern was asking for this information because Napoli, at the recommendation of a
marriage professional, had given his wife access to Denniss and Napolis own emails from the office
22
23 of 38
server. Dennis was unable to erase or alter these emails. Marie had needed to see this information
herself to understand the true depth of Denniss sexual addiction, serial affairs, and victimization of
the family to satisfy that addiction. Full transparency was necessary to enable the couple to heal the
marriage and family from the damage Dennis had caused from her sexual pursuit of Napoli.
224.
It is important to note that the section of this employee policy at issue states that
employees have no right to privacy in the office emails, and that it may be given out to third parties
at the sole discretion of the employer, and that employees should not include in their email anything
personal or anything they do not wish third parties to be reading.
225.
Later that day on September 4, 2014, at 12:23PM, Napoli, already aware of Rubins
subterfuge and email to Bern, emailed Rubin, testing her loyalty and asking if Bern was looking for a
specific section of the handbook. Rubin in violation of her duties, loyalties, responsibilities, and
ethical and contractual obligations as General Counsel of the law firms, proved her disloyalty and
lied to Napoli when she replied that Bern was asking for the handbook and that she did not
know why or what section. Rubin knew the specific section of the handbook that Bern was looking
for, because in her email to Bern she specified stated it was Section six on page 35 . . . .
226.
Napoli read through all of Rubins emails and realized that Rubin had assisted in
undermining the law firms and Napoli as partner in those firms at this vulnerable time. Rubin had
conspired with Bern, and others whom Bern had intimidated, to oust Napoli from the firm. In an
attempt to allow Rubin to redeem herself and come clean, Napoli called Rubin and emailed her
asking if Rubin was telling the truth. Napoli told her that he knew she was lying. Rubin denied lying
and then refused to speak to Napoli, hanging up the phone on Napoli and then refusing to answer
when Napoli called back.
23
24 of 38
227.
On September 4, 2014, at 12:37PM, Napoli emailed Rubin stating, I think it is best
if you look for another job. I know that you know what section and cant believe you are lying to
me.
228.
There are more emails regarding Rubins lies to Napoli and hanging up the phone on
him. In an email exchange between Rubin and Napoli while Napoli was in the hospital receiving
conditioning chemotherapy to completely wipe out his bone marrow and white cells, he writes
following the hang up and her refusal to answer the phone on September 5, 2014: U said I dont
know you lied. And hung up on me. Dont worry you will be gone soon enough Paul.
229.
Rubin responded almost two hours later on September 5, 2014, stating. So I will be
gone soon enough? You ass. Ive already cleaned out my personal belongings out of my
officeYou have always needed me more than I have needed you. You see, that is the truly sad
thing here.you never understood that I was your friend. The messages of love and support and
friendship that I sent you. That was not because you were my boss, you idiot. It was because I
genuinely cared for you.
230.
Napoli responded within two minutes: Liar. And that was it. Rubin was gone from
NBRS. She was a liar, disloyal, and clearly not Napolis friend to do this to him at this vulnerable
time.
231.
Rubin, as seen by her emails and conduct, was lying to her boss, and being
disrespectful and insubordinate to say the least.

232.
The NBRS Employee Handbook provides a few examples of bases for which the at-
will employees can be discharged. This includes, but is not limited to, insubordination and disrespect
toward fellow employees and employers.
24
25 of 38
233.
As a result of Rubins violations of the NBRS Employee Handbook, lying, extreme
insubordination, and threatening behavior, and her attempt to oust Napoli from his own law firm,
Rubins at will employment was terminated.
234.
In mid-September 2014, Napoli finished his conditioning chemotherapy and a bone
marrow transplant to treat his leukemia. His blood became septic due to the lack of white blood
cells so his body could not even fight the natural and normally healthy bacteria in his body. He had
no white blood cells to keep even his natural bacteria in check, and they were killing him. Napoli
could not breathe; his heart rate and oxygen were dropping; he was in extreme pain and would
become delirious and hallucinating on heavy narcotics. Napoli was moved to the ICU and received
his last rites.
235.
After Rubin was fired for cause, she became irate. She continued to deny her
wrongdoing. Rubin began to attempt to extort money from Napoli, causing him severe emotional
distress during a time he should have been convalescing. Despite the years of kindness Napoli had
shown, Rubin turned on him at his most vulnerable time.
236.
The partnership had begun on the road to its ultimate dissolution with Rubins
assistance.
237.
Bern hired Rubin personally after she was fired from NBRS, but stopped paying her.
238.
Rubin, in violation of her duties, loyalties, responsibilities, and ethical and contractual
obligations as General Counsel of the law firms, had helped Bern to recruit several other employees
to assist in his quest to oust Napoli from the law firms. These included Alan Ripka (Ripka) (a
partner in name only but in reality an Employee), Martuscello (Berns Driver), Mahesh and Satish
(brothers who worked in IT), and Rongomas, who had also worked closely with Napoli. As part of
their scheme, Ripka instructed Mahesh to lie to the IT personnel employed by the law firms in an
effort to steal passwords to the firms internal data network.
25
26 of 38
239.
After Napolis release from the ICU in early October of 2014, Rubin, Ripka,
Martuscello, Mahesh, Satish, Rongomas, and Bern realized their opportunity to oust Napoli had
been thwarted. Since they had lost the opportunity to win over control of the firm, they conspired to
download firm data for their own personal use a scheme to steal firm clients, open a new law
firm, and take the clients with them.
240.
obligations as General Counsel of the law firms, conspired with Ripka and the others, including both
current employees (Mahesh, a member of the law firms IT department) and fired employees (Satish
had already been fired), to hack into the server, upload firm files, and steal firm computer
equipment.
241.
The night before the burglary, Bern removed significant pieces of the firms
monitoring systems. Shortly thereafter, Martuscello (who has no computer expertise) was seen
snooping around the room that houses the firms primary server.
242.
Ripka, with Rubins knowledge, succeeded in accessing the data by instructing the
others to call a supervisor in the law firms IT department and misrepresent that they needed the
administrative password to install a Skype update.
243.
Ripka, with Rubins knowledge, conspired with Satish (a former employee who was
fired by the firm) to come into the firm after hours and attach external hard drives to Berns
computer to upload the information they were seeking.
244.
Berns computer was selected to avoid detection of the external drives (they had to
be in place over 24 hours to upload the data).

245.
This also provided cover because Bern, who was the ring leader, could easily tell
others they were doing something for him.
26
27 of 38
246.
It was not until several employees and building security reported Satish hanging
around the office that the IT department began their own investigation which uncovered the
hacking and stealing of firm data and equipment.
247.
Initially Fred Kaiser (Kaiser) and Robert Gali (Gali), who headed the companys
IT department, thought there was an attempt by a former employee to hack the law firms server
and began to look at anything unusual in the logins.
248.
There had already been a security breach in the years past by an employee stealing
client personal data, and the DA was prosecuting that former employee.
249.
Kaiser and Gali, frightened by a possible breach, noticed that someone had logged
into Berns computer at a time when he was not in the office; they further investigated and found
that there were two external hard drives attached to his computer. To preserve evidence, Kaiser and
Gali copied the hard drives. During that process, Bern came into the office, saw what they were
doing, and fired them both. They were ultimately reinstated.
250.
There is no video footage of the incident because, as part of the plan and without
authorization from Napoli, Martuscello removed the DVRs that recorded all of the video feed from
the cameras protecting the firm.
251.
Bern called the police as a result of this incident and falsely reported a burglary,
naming Kaiser and Gali as perpetrators.

252.
Mahesh admitted what they did, what his part was, and that he knew he did
something wrong.
253.
They stole the sensitive data in furtherance of Berns plan to start their own law firm
without Napoli and to loot the law firms most valuable asset, their clients.
254.
A phone recording reveals that they plotted to misappropriate confidential
Partnership data as recently as November 10, 2014, and that Ripka knew what was done was wrong.
27
28 of 38
In one such telephone communication between Mahesh and Ripka, Mahesh confirmed that he has
the stuff copying. Well aware of their wrongdoing, Ripka immediately told Mahesh to stop
talking and to come into his office so they could continue their conspiratorial communication in
private. Ripka knew of the office policy that phone conversations were recorded.
255.
Bern had hated Ripka prior to Napolis illness and was unkind to Ripka during his
tenure at the firm. Napoli would attempt to broker peace. Bern, in order to gain favor with Ripka
and join forces in his attempt to steal the firm, promised Ripka an equity partnership and gave him
over $300,000.00, money Ripka was not entitled to a payoff. Ripka knew that fact, yet
misrepresented to the Partnership that this was an amount he was owed.
256.
As a result, Ripka was overpaid by approximately $300,000.00.
257.
Ripka has also advised members of the Partnership to refer out certain cases without
Napolis authorization in other words, stealing the law firms cases. Ripka did so to further the
plan of starting a new firm, in the process breaching his employment agreement, duty of loyalty, and
partnership fiduciary duty.
258.
In their plan to loot the partnership assets, Bern, Ripka, Martuscello, Mahesh, Satish,
and Rongomas conspired with Rubin, in violation of her duties, loyalties, responsibilities, and ethical
and contractual obligations as General Counsel of the law firms, to tortiously interfere with the
partnership agreements and to aid and abet the breach of fiduciary duty. Lawsuits ensued. Napoli
filed for arbitration against the looting parties, and they retaliated, some in their own drummed up
lawsuits and some in their motion to stay arbitration.
259.
All this misconduct has directly caused damage to Napoli. The stress of this all came
during a time when Napoli was recovering from a near-fatal illness and should have been
convalescing. Napoli was told that stress could affect his recovery, but has had no choice but to
defend himself and protect the firm and his family at a vulnerable time.
28
29 of 38
260.
Rubins participation in this scheme, in violation of her duties, loyalties,
responsibilities, and ethical and contractual obligations as General Counsel of the law firms, was
outrageous.
261.
Napoli was not the aggressor. He was undergoing treatment for months at Memorial
Sloan Kettering Hospital with a small chance of recovery when he was attacked by Bern and his
cohorts, including Rubin, in violation of her duties, loyalties, responsibilities, and ethical and
contractual obligations as General Counsel of the law firms, in order to take the firm away from
Napoli and his family.
262.
Bern and Rubin did this out of greed and to advance their own personal financial
agenda, and believing their friend and partner and boss was dying, to prevent his family from taking
its rightful interest in the firm once Napoli passed. Bern and Rubin had called Napoli friend for
years. Napoli obviously meant nothing to Rubin and Bern. It was clear Bern was going to discard
Napoli and his family like he had done before with his multiple wives. Napoli had made Bern
millions. Rubin was no better.
263.
After Rubins at will employment with NBRS ended, she vindictively represented
the former NBRS employees, looters, and co-conspirators in the dispute, and upon information and
belief was compensated by Bern.
264.
As the prior General Counsel to NBRS for eleven years, Rubins representation was
clearly a conflict.
265.
In February 2015, Napoli, in an attempt to convalesce, informed Ripka and co-
conspirators that the circumstances that gave rise to the arbitration against them had changed, and
that he was hoping to accomplish a global resolution of the pending litigation in which he was
involved. He therefore offered to dismiss the arbitration, without prejudice. Ripka accepted this
29
30 of 38
offer, and the arbitration against him was dismissed. Co-conspirators rejected the offer through their
attorney Rubin.
266.
Napoli then offered to permanently dismiss the arbitration against the co-
conspirators. His counsel explained the offer over the phone and followed up with an e-mail to
ensure the co-conspirators understood the offer. Specifically, Napoli explained that the core relief
requested in the petition is a permanent dismissal of the arbitration. He noted that the coconspirators cannot move for a dismissal on the merits in these circumstances they must await
the time to file a CPLR 3211 motion or file a motion to dismiss in the arbitration itself. Thus,
Napoli was offering the core relief Rubin sought in the co-conspirators Petition.
267.
The co-conspirators, by Rubin, again rejected the offer. This time, however, Rubin
coupled their rejection with a threat that the ABA has called criminal extortion. ABA Formal Op.
94-383, at 4 (1994). Co-conspirators counsel wrote that she would be alleging disciplinary violations
against Napoli if he proceeded with the case. She asked Napoli to [i]magine how [the Second
Department] might view the entire last year of [his] conduct and then told him he can do one of
two things by the end of the weekend: sign a stipulation agreeing to a briefing schedule or propose
a stipulation of dismissal, with prejudice. Rubin then added to this wrongdoing by threatening to file
accusations of harassment against Napoli if he didnt make substantial monetary payments to three
of her clients.
268.
Rubin, in an order to show cause, requested that Napoli be enjoined from pursuing
any litigation against co-conspirators in any forum or harassing co-conspirators. The court
rejected this request as a component of a TRO at a December 2014 argument regarding coconspirators request for a TRO.
30
31 of 38
269.
It was clear that co-conspirators had manufactured slanderous allegations in an effort
to extract concessions and monetary payments from Napoli and distract the court from their own
wrongdoing and their counsels conflict of interest.
270.
Moreover, Rubins request for this relief had no place in that order to show cause.
The co-conspirators had not filed employment claims against Napoli; they were simply responding
to Napolis demand for arbitration. Co-conspirators could not use that forum and procedural
mechanism to pursue their trumped up employment grievances which, not coincidentally, have
never been filed.
271.
Rubin knew her application was improper.
272.
This was not the first time for co-conspirers counsel, Rubin. See Transcript of
Proceedings, Gilmartin v. Gilmartin, No. 151042/2012, at 4:38 (June 13, 2012) (transcript of Judge
Coin chastising Rubin for scorched earth tactics and gamesmanship for, among other things,
seeking relief related to the underlying judgment here when you know this is not the forum in
which you can do it. You know that.).)
273.
The seriousness of these threats also underscored the need to disqualify Rubin as the
co-conspirators counsel: her threat to make allegations about Napolis purported conduct during
the entire last year overlaps with the time she represented Napoli.
274.
Judge Coins descriptions of Rubins conduct in the Gilmartin matter scorched
earth and potentially sanctionable would be understatements here. See Transcript of

Proceedings, Gilmartin v. Gilmartin, No. 151042/2012, at 4:68, 11:911 (June 13, 2012). See also id.
at 9:2010:2, 10:1720 (opposing counsel noting that, while on the phone with Judge Coins clerk,
Rubin said to me that shes going to have my ass. That was a threat and noting that Rubin filed an
ethics complaint against him even though the court noted it was Rubin who engaged in
potentially sanctionable conduct).
31
32 of 38
275.
Despite the unreasonableness of Rubins position, in violation of her duties, loyalties,
responsibilities, and ethical and contractual obligations as General Counsel of the law firms, her
conflict of interest, and the unethical threat against Napoli, Napoli in the hopes of convalescing, still
urged co-conspirators to reconsider his offer to dismiss the arbitration permanently and gave coconspirators fair notice that he would seek to recover the costs he incurs to move forward.
276.
Rubin was fully aware that Napoli during this time was fighting for his life,
undergoing a bone marrow transplant, and in need of convalescing. That the undue stress of Napoli
having to protect himself, the firm, employees and his family from Bern and Rubin and their coconspirators in attempt to oust Napoli from the firm and thereafter to loot the firm of its clients and
assets was unconscionable.
277.
Rubins conduct at this vulnerable time was unconscionable, wanton, deliberate,
intentional, and with malice.

278.
After all this, Rubin filed a frivolous lawsuit against Napoli, Rubin v. Napoli Bern Ripka
Shkolnik, LLP, No. 154060/2015 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Apr. 24, 2015), alleging, among other things that
she had been subjected to sex discrimination as an employee of the law firms.
279.
Rubin then caused to be published various defamatory statements against Napoli in a
Law 360 article which is attached hereto as Exhibit 2, the exact language incorporated herein.
280.
obligations as General Counsel of the law firms, through her conspiracy to oust Napoli from his
own firm, caused the publication of multiple false articles published against Napoli and his family.
These articles are attached hereto as Exhibit 3 and the exact language is incorporated hereto.
281.
These articles are entirely false.
282.
Rubins conduct was wanton, reckless, intentional, and unconscionable
32
33 of 38
283.
This all has caused great damage to Napoli and his family. It has damaged their
reputations, damaged them socially, personally, physically, professionally, and economically. It has
undermined and destroyed the firm Napoli spent his entire life building.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress)
284.
Napoli repeats and realleges the allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs as
if fully set forth herein.

285.
Rubins threats of violence, her campaign to interfere with Napolis partnership
agreement with Bern, attempts to help oust Napoli from the firm at a vulnerable time, and threats of
extortion against Napoli in violation of the disciplinary rules are shocking, extreme, and outrageous.
286.
Rubin intended, and continues to intend, to cause a severe emotional distress to
Napoli through her threats of violence while he was fighting for his life against leukemia, receiveing
a bone marrow transplant, and on his death bed in ICU, through her campaign to interfere with
Napoli partnership agreement with Bern, and through her threats of extortion.
287.
Additionally, Rubins actions evinced a reckless disregard that her conduct and
actions would cause Napoli severe emotional distress at a time such distress could push him over the
edge in his fight for life.
288.
Rubins actions against Napoli were such that it was substantially certain that her
actions would cause Napoli severe emotional distress and possible death.
289.
Rubins actions against Napoli caused Napoli severe emotional distress and made his
recovery more difficult and less likely.

290.
By reason of Rubins actions, Napoli was unable to properly recover from his
leukemia diagnosis, was unable to eat or sleep normally at a time rest was of utmost urgency.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress)
33
34 of 38
291.

292.
Rubin has a legal duty to use reasonable care to avoid causing emotional distress to
293.
Rubins threats of violence, her campaign to interfere with Napolis partnership
Napoli.
agreement with Bern, and threats of extortion against Napoli caused Napoli emotional distress.
294.
Rubins conduct was done with negligence and a reckless disregard for her actions.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
(Tortious Interference with Contractual Relations)
295.

296.
Napoli had a partnership agreement with Bern in all the times aforementioned.
297.
Rubin knew of the existence of such partnership agreement between Bern and
298.
On June 4, 2014, Rubin began her campaign to interfere with the partnership
Napoli.
agreement between Napoli and Bern by intentionally excluding Napoli from discussions concerning
NBRS and threatening violence against Napoli.
299.
As a result of Rubins intentional attempt to interfere with the partnership agreement
between Napoli and Bern, Bern breached the partnership agreement with Napoli.
300.
As a direct result of Rubins intentional attempt to interfere with the partnership
agreement between Napoli and Bern and the partnership NBRS and oust Napoli from the
partnership, a firm Napoli spent his whole life building has dissolved, costing Napoli attorneys fees,
loss of credit, loss of reputation, loss of business, humiliation, and emotional distress. Napoli had to
work through his leukemia treatment, bone marrow transplant, and fight for his life in ICU, fighting
34
35 of 38
for his family, fighting for his employees and practice, and ultimately helping to rebuild, rather than
convalescing due to the breached partnership agreement.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Defamation)
301.

302.
Rubin, on or about April 27, 2015, in a statement to Law 360 made knowingly false
statements that defame Napolis reputation as an attorney and lawyer.

303.
These false statements are attached hereto as exhibit 2 and the exact language is
incorporated as set out in full.

304.
The false defamatory statements include but are not limited to:
a. Rubin was consistently paid far less than male attorneys with less experience
and responsibility employed by the firm. This is false, Rubin was paid more
than most attorneys and some female attorneys were in fact paid more than she
was because they were more valuable to the firm.
b. Rubin was she was fired without cause in September 2014. A partner promised
Rubin she could continue to work for the firm and be paid if she worked off-site,
but the payments soon stopped This is false, Rubin was fired for lying,
insubordination, sabotage, threatening behavior, and attempting to oust Napoli
from the firm. She had sub-standard work, was tardy, disloyal, and unethical. She
was fired for this. Bern offered to hire her privately, but ultimately stopped
paying her.
c. This case is about Paul Napoli and his firm not treating Ms. Rubin fairly and
not living up to their agreements. This is clearly untrue and depicts Napoli as
unethical and dishonest.
35
36 of 38
305.
Rubin knew these statements would be disseminated to a much larger audience.
306.
The defamatory statements have caused damage to Napoli personally, professionally,
and economically.
307.
All defamatory statements in articles caused to be published by Rubins subterfuge
and conspiracy against Napoli and his family attached hereto as Exhibit 3 and incorporated hereto
are false.
308.
Rubin knew these publications and statements were false or had a reckless disregard
for the truth.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Defamation Per Se)
309.

310.
Rubins defamatory statements are defamation per se as they claim unethical and
dishonest conduct by an attorney, implying he is not suited to work in his profession.

311.
Rubins claim of unlawful conduct on the part of Napoli is also defamation per se.
312.
These statements have caused great damage to Napoli, emotionally, personally,
professionally, in business, and economically, and because of these statements, Napoli has been
deemed a reputational risk by financial institutions.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment:

A. Awarding Plaintiff compensatory damages including but not limited to damages for
emotional distress;
B. Awarding Plaintiff compensatory damages totaling $132,500,000.00;
C. Awarding Plaintiff punitive damages;
D. Awarding reasonable attorneys fees, costs, and expenses; and
36
37 of 38
E. Granting such other legal and equitable relief as the Court may deem just and
equitable.
Dated: New York, New York
June 20, 2016
NAPOLI SHKOLNIK PLLC

By: /s/Michael Y. Hawrylchak
Attorneys for Plaintiff Paul J. Napoli
360 Lexington Avenue
11th Floor
New York, New York 10019
T: (212) 397-1000
37
38 of 38

Complaint.P.napoli Versus D.rubin - Supreme Court County of New York

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Complaint.P.napoli Versus D.rubin - Supreme Court County of New York

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/20/2016 03:41 PM

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1

INDEX NO. 155162/2016

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

his employment and as a partner of the law firms.

York, New York.

various times in matters as their counsel.

(Bern) at various times as his counsel.

times as his counsel.

Rubin was the General Counsel of each of the law firms.

her actions related to the firms.

the law firms.

As to Paragraphs 9 through 13, Rubin failed in every aspect of her responsibilities to

the detriment of the law firms.

Rubins employment was terminated on September 4, 2014.

Rubin then caused to be published various defamatory statements against Napoli in a

Law 360 article.

Rubin never was a partner in any of the law firms.

to the law firms.

Rubins referrals over the 11 years amounted to no more than 6 cases.

they had a harassment or discrimination issue.

via phone and email to discuss such issues.

Rubin was familiar with the reporting requirements.

outside counsel having helped develop and enforce those policies.

Rubin allege that she was being discriminated against by Napoli.

Rubin allege that she was being harassed by Napoli.

Rubin made no report of harassment or discrimination in 2003.

Rubin made no report of harassment or discrimination in 2004.

Rubin made no report of harassment or discrimination in 2005.

Rubin made no report of harassment or discrimination in 2006.

Rubin made no report of harassment or discrimination in 2007.

Rubin made no report of harassment or discrimination in 2008.

Rubin made no report of harassment or discrimination in 2009.

Rubin made no report of harassment or discrimination in 2010.

Rubin made no report of harassment or discrimination in 2011.

Rubin made no report of harassment or discrimination in 2012.

Rubin made no report of harassment or discrimination in 2013.

Rubin made no report of harassment or discrimination in 2014.

Rubin assisted in drafting each of the firms at will employment agreements,

including her own.

agreements in her position as General Counsel.

Rubin assisted in drafting partnership agreements within the law firms.

Rubin knew that to say otherwise was reckless and untruthful.

Rubin knew that to say otherwise was reckless and untruthful.

Rubin knew that to say otherwise was reckless and untruthful.

over the law firms while Napoli was incapacitated.

plan to help take over the law firms.

the law firms.

Rubin was caught in her lies and deceit.

In early September 2014, Rubin and Berns conspiracy was exposed.

On September 4, 2014, Rubins at will employment was terminated due to her

conspirators to their scheme.

Rubin and Bern added Michael Rongomas (Rongomas), a former employee of

Rubin and Bern added Mahesh Raghunandan (Mahesh), to their conspiracy to

leaving her alone with no support.

Plaintiff Napoli is a resident of Nassau County, New York.

Defendant Rubin is a resident of New York County, New York.

Associates, LLP (NKA).

after meeting his future-fifth wife.

Marie learned of these affairs and challenged Bern to stop.

Napolis behalf in case of his incapacity.

Rubin knew of the longstanding personal friendship and professional relationship