TRANSCRIPT – Second Dep’t, Brooklyn Appellate Court

Feb. 21, 2020 – Attallah v New York College of Osteopathic Medicine

Ahdy Attallah, Plaintiff-Appellant

Douglas Catalano/Clifton Budd & Demaria, counsel for New York Institute of
Technology (NYIT), New York College of Osteopathic Medicine (NYCOM) et al.
Cassandra Branch/Littler Mendelson, counsel for Nassau Health Care Corporation
(NHCC), Nassau University Medical Center (NUMC or the Hospital), et al.
Judicial Panel: Angela Iannacci; Sylvia Hinds-Radix; William Mastro; Joseph
Maltese.
______________

Ahdy Attallah: Good morning, Your Honor. [Pauses to organize pages.] Good
morning Your Honor. Before I start my case I just want to uh point to one thing.
This a brief of Mr. Milstein.
Judge Mastro: Of who?
AA: Of Mr. Milstein, a respondent in the case. Let’s go page um number,
number 6. In the middle paragraph he submit before you, Your Honor, and he
said, his brief, Mr. Milstein brief, In 2007 he – me – was accepted into medical
school program for a foreign trained physician and moved alone to New York in
January, in 2008. January two thousand and eight.
Judge Maltese: Wait, wait, wait. Let me, let me find where this is. Which brief
is this? We have several volumes.
A: Mr. Milstein, he’s a respondent, page number 6.
Judge Maltese: Yah. OK.
Judge Mastro: What page?
AA: Page number 6. In the middle paragraph, and it start with, In two thousand
and seven. [Waits.]
I quote, In 2007 he was accepted into medical school program for a foreign
trained physician and moved alone to New York in January 2008, in the record,
in the record 32 page, 32, and paragraph 51, let’s go see what’s in the record,
page 32, paragraph 51. What I said, paragraph 51, In January 2008 I applied in
NYCOM, and uh he was offered a place …
Judge Mastro: All right, this is in the factual background.

-1-
AA: Yes. He twisted my factual background. What I said in my…
Judge Mastro: How is that significant?
AA: Oh yeah. That’s very significant.
Judge Mastro: Tell me how.
AA: All the brief is full of twisted facts and twisted, I’m gonna go through it
one by one and go walk through these things.
Not only him, the rest of the respondents. 75% of the lawyers, they twisted my
uh, my uh my facts in the case. This case is about facts and evidence. And I
wanna, before I go through my case through I wanna refer you to Rule 11
motion I submitted to federal court, against Mr. Catalano, Mr. Milstein and
Gary Schoer, in my uh uh uh in my record, for Mr. Catalano is 1132 all the way
to 11… 1138, and what the purpose of that, that he is making up stories about
my case.
Judge Hinds-Radix: I think what you have to concentrate, and tell us,...
AA: OK.
Judge Hinds-Radix: You’re saying that the court below got it wrong.
AA: Right…
Judge Hinds-Radix: That’s what you need, that’s what you need to be telling us.
We, we know the facts, um, in here. We’ve read that, we’ve reviewed the
documents. You need to tell us what the court got wrong, and why we should
reverse the lower court and rule in your favor.
AA: OK. So now I’m going through the, like, what you’re saying, Your Honor.
Uh, y name is Ahdy Attallah. I am plaintiff in the case. Judge Brandveen order
says my claims are time barred, my fails to state a cause of action against any
defendant, documentary evidence utterly refutes all my claims, so he dismissed
my case. Uh, that was a mistake. But I don’t blame Judge Brandveen. I blame
the Respondents because they twisting the facts and the truth and you know,
make up stories and dates and stuff like that.
So first, my discrimination claims are not time bar. I’m gonna tell you why.
I have 5 claims of illegal discrimination. The statute of limitation is 3 years. I
was expelled in 2010. I filed my federal complaint in 2 years. My original
federal complaint has, uh, uh, has uh these claims for discrimination. In the
record, page 1058 and 1059, Count 23, the last paragraph of Count 23 says this

-2-
is a claim for national origin discrimination, a pattern of harassing male students
from Middle East.
OK. Um, the, the law is very clear, Your Honor. The Relation Back Doctrine.
Mr. Schoer – he’s not here today, he’s an attorney for Tamara – in on his, on the
page 8, 8 of his brief, he says, the federal action and the plaintiff’s claims herein
were based upon the same facts and circumstances as the instant uh action. Page
8. The same facts and circumstances.
So Mr. Schoer, he was right. The federal complaint says, the complaint uh, the
federal complaint did not quote claim that his expulsion was based on illegal,
illegal discrimination. So I just explained, m… my lawyer took out these
discrimination claims in the amended, he took out the discrimination claims in
the amendment complaint, he filed it in the federal court, but he left paragraphs,
he left evidence, left, uh uh some evidence there, but this doesn’t matter because
it is very clear. Under the Relation Back Doctrine these claims are not time
barred.
Uh, NYCOM and uh uh, uh, cites CPLR, uh 205a, they claim it tolled causes of
action and they claim over and over discrimination claims uh are uh quote
unquote entirely new, and never quote never asserted uh uh before, uh, um, um,
before that, uh page number 13. Uh, asserting them for the first time in 2015.
Um. Section 205a quote does not apply to causes of action which are entirely
new, end quote.
So NYCOM is citing alternative facts. They have their alternative twisting facts.
I’m gonna give you what they, what they cite. They give you a case of 1978,
Van Dussen Storto Motor Inn, Van Dussen uh [stammering] Motor uh uh uh
Storto Motor Inn, uh. In 1978, 1978, the law changed. And they didn’t tell you
that to get you to believe their case. I um, uh, the only question for the court,
Did the defendants have notice of the transaction and occurrence? This is the
question for the respondents. And the, the answer, Yes, they did. Because Mr.
Schoer, the facts and uh circumstances and transaction and occurrence uh were
the same, therefore the discrimina… , my discrimination claims Relate Back.
OK Your Honor; uh, After that another case I cited, O’Halloran versus
Metropolitan Transit Authority. The plaintiff wanted to add a new claim, and
the court granted her motion because the new claims were based on quote the
same subject matter alleged in original complaint. The Defendants need not
have been uh put on notice of every factual allegation. Her complaint, her
original complaint put the defendants on notice. The defendants in my case had
a notice too.

-3-
Sss, so fi- finally, uh, uh, the discrimination rarely announce announce itself.
Uh, NYCOM claims I don’t have factual specificity uh but there is uh other
students from Middle Eastern, or Middle Eastern, like me have been expelled
too. Paragraph 751 on page 85 of the complaint describe uh describe the Middle
Eastern expulsion and Hispanic and other you know other minority.
Discrimination case, another one is [stammering] Swir Swir Swirkawitz versus
So Sor Sorema. The events leading to termination, of some of the relevant
persons, does exactly the same thing.
Uh, uh, uh, another case, is 1997 case, Venters versus City of Delphi. Uh, this is
a quote, I submit this case for you too, um. So NYCOM says my complaint
omits students outside this protected class who were treated better than us. Uh,
similarly similarly situated uh uh [stammering] co… co… comparators. This is
another one of the, uh, their alternative facts, basically. Because the complaint
has uh 3 students outside the protected class who got special treatment from
NYCOM. Paragraph 768 and 769 and paragraph 773 to 781, they were treated
uh better than Middle Eastern. One of the, one of the better treated person,
Tamara Shashiashvili herself, is a defendant, a defendant in the case, she got a
complaint about sta… stalking a plastic surgeon in the hospital and he
complained and she got a file with the associate dean, and all what they give
her, they give her warning. What they did with me, they expelled me. With no,
with no reason whatsoever.
You’re gonna hear from the defendant that a restraining order. This is wrong.
There is no restraining order. There’s no restraining order. I refer you to the
petition. Is a petition. 4 of them. In 2 state. Connecticut and New York. And
they were dismissed. All of them.
Uh, uh, u, uh page uh, uh, uh, page 24, 25, 26, and 27. 4 petition, ex parte, Your
Honor, no restraining order.
Judge Maltese: Are you licensed to practice in those jurisdictions?
AA – I’m sorry?
Judge Maltese: Are you licensed to practice in those states?
AA – No, no, sir. I’m not. I am not.
Judge Maltese: All right.
AA: She went to Connecticut first and then the judge, you know, deny her a
petition in the spot. So she came in one week after, to Nassau County, another

-4-
one, and I didn’t know about it. After one year, I knew about it after I went just
to see what’s going on, maybe she has something? Against me? And I find that
service, the uh, the uh, the police officer, saying Unable to serve. Why? Because
she put different address. So she put the first petition different address…
Judge Hinds-Radix – Is that in the re… in your brief? In the record?
AA – Yes! Yes, m’am! Yes, m’am! Different address in the first brief. She
came in, Nassau County, one week, different address. I didn’t receive anything.
In my brief.
And in my brief, and as I mentioned uh, the 4 petition, the 4 petition, of a hoax,
scam, restraining order, all horror stories from the Halloween Your Honor, trust
me. Uh uh, [laughing nervously] Yeah. Page number 24, 25, 26 and page
number 27. And related to the, you’re gonna find the brief, um, uh, uh, going to
the record, from this brief going to the record, so you can relate to the exhibits
and any… and everything in the record.
Judge Hinds-Radix – You’re running out of time. Are you gonna talk about the
$30,000? [Shakes head.]
AA – Oh yeah, yeah. OK. [Nervous laughter]
Judge Hinds-Radix – You’re running out of time.
AA – Oh, my God. I know. It’s a big case. It’s a 4 respondents, Your Honor.
OK. So, Count uh 8 and 10, Breach of Contract, uhhm, it’s a 6 year statute of
limitation. In my, uh, you know, uh uh uh, not expired in 2012. That’s when I
filed it. Uh, uh, uh, Count 9, Tortious interference with a contract, has 3 years
SOL. Not expired in 2010. That’s what I, you know, what I filed in 2012, I
expired, I uh filed my federal action.
Uh, uh, so NYCOM says I don’t give a, a rule or procedure or procedures they
didn’t follow, uh, to expel me so there’s no breach of contract. Uh, false. Page
number 693 through 793 in the complaint, uh, laws and regulations, uh, by
NYCOM must obey, exhibit, must obey. That’s Exhibit B, in the, the student
handbook, Exhibit B. So they, they don’t follow their own rule. It was, it was
illegal, illegal expulsion, basically. That’s what it was. Uhhm….
Judge Mastro: OK, so they expelled you, right?
AA: They expelled me from the school. Yes.
Judge Mastro: [Puts up his hand.] They expelled you.
AA: Yes.

-5-
Judge Mastro: Was there are hearing?
AA: That was hearing. OK.
Judge Mastro: Did you participate in the hearing?
AA: OK. I participate in the hearing….
Judge Mastro: When was the hearing?
AA: Huh?
Judge Mastro: When was the hearing?
AA: Uh, August 25th, 2010.
Judge Mastro: 2010.
AA: There’s no recording, and one of, one of them ...
Judge Mastro: [Puts up his hand.] Let me finish.
AA: Yes. Yes. Yes, Your Honor.
Judge Mastro: When did you bring this lawsuit?
AA: I bring it 2012.
Judge Mastro: 3 years later?
AA: Yes. SOL within the statute of limitation. Uh, [stammering] uh, and uh, uh,
the, regarding, uh [stammering] and it went to the federal, and the federal, the
judge dismiss only section 8, 9, 83, 1983, and he cannot rely on the
Respondents.
Judge Hinds-Radix: He wrote, he didn’t dismiss your state claims.
AA: He didn’t res…
Judge Hinds-Radix: Did you, did you commence an Article 78?
AA: Oh let me discuss that with you, Your Honor.
Judge Hinds-Radix: Answer my question. I don’t want a discussion.
AA: Le…
Judge Hinds-Radix: Did you commence an Article 78?
AA: OK. No. The answer no. I’m gonna tell you why.
Judge Hinds-Radix: You answered my question.

-6-
AA: OK. I’m gonna tell you why this case is not 78. I’m gonna tell you why. I,
I, I have a reason.
Judge Mastro: [Motioning] Don’t keep us in suspense. Tell us.
AA: I have a reason. I have a reason. This case is not 78. I’m gonna tell you
why. First of all, this a breach of contract. Is not remedy for 78. Is a plenary
action only. Dr. Diamond is a uh uh uh a county official, is a government
official.
Judge Hinds-Radix: You didn’t loan her the $30,000 under, under, that you’re
claiming here on the breach of contract for, uh,...
AA: That’s Tamara. This Tamara. $30,000 is not with the breach of contract.
Judge Hinds-Radix: Public official, Dr. Diamond. Tell me why you don’t have
to commence an Article 78 in that matter where you, where you’re claiming that
they improperly expelled you and they conducted a hearing and, and you now
want to bring a case from that.
AA: OK. First of all, this is a plenary action, not 78 procedure. I’m gonna tell
you why. Because the people is dismissed from the school based on the
academic failing, they go for 78. I didn’t expelled for academic failing. I ex…,
expelled because illegal expulsion from the program director in the county
hospital, Dr. Diamond, he was one, board of trustee of NYCOM, and he order a
hit, in his email, and phone call, email and phone calls to follow up on my
expulsion to the associate dean. Associate dean relayed back to him, with the
phone call, according to her Minutes in the Record. And, and why not, why
plenary action? Because Dr. Diamond is a public official. Why plenary action?
Because I, I demand money. I demand money for a breach of contract which is
not a remedy for 78. Is only plenary action. And Dr. Diamond he’s a public
official but he got ultra vires. What this mean that he continue and um, uh
follow up with a phone call even after my expulsion to make sure I’m done.
So, so uh uh, a case, couple of months ago, Purcell versus NYCOM. Mr.
Catalano um you know lost this case on 78 proceeding. You’re gonna hear it,
he’s gonna come and telling you, 78 proceeding, but in my situation is plenary
action not 78 proceeding.
And I can res…, I can give you some cases you know saying why plenary action
not 78 proceeding.
Here, Your Honor. [Checks notes.] Uh, OK, all right. Uh. Gally, Gally versus
Columbia. That’s a plenary action. Another one, versus Bill versus Columbia

-7-
University. This another plenary. Uh. Another one, uh, Kales versus Manhattan
College [inaudible]. I give you these cases and eh uh um uh let’s not forget
about the ultra, ultra vires decision of Dr. Diamond. Medical school official
violated repeatedly and egregiously the term of contractor relation, is, this is a,
this is a contract relationship between me, me and the school and he ordered
them to, you know, um, uh uh, expel me. They gonna, you’re gonna, you’re
gonna hear from the respondents say that Dr. Diamond he’s concerned about uh,
uh, his resident. That’s why he called.
Judge Hinds-Radix: Counsel, I mean sir, you have 5 minutes left so you better
wrap up.
AA: OK. So, all lright. So now, [checking notes] uh, all right, so I can’t see very
well here, you know, so I’m just going to see my papers here. [Checks notes.]
So the best evidence of breach of contract, in NYCOM business record, exhibit
H4, page 714 in the record, Dean Achtziger written in the minutes, I mention
uh, uh, I just mention it now.
Oh, regarding, um, let’s go regarding the $30,000. OK. Count 11 and 15, Count
11 is fraud and Count 15 unjust enrichment, and Count 16 abuse of uh process,
and that’s related to the defendant Tamara. What happen is, she borrowed, I
paid some of her loans, credit cards and car. And then when I said I am moving
out, she got hysterical. She went. I asked …
Judge Hinds-Radix: Why is this a contract and not a loan, and not a gift?
AA: Uh, uh, uh I said is fraud, unjust enrichment, there’s no contract.
Judge Hinds-Radix: OK. So why, why is it not a gift? There, there’s allegation
in the record that it was a gift.
AA: Oh, no, no, no, no. That was, uh, uh, um, oral that she is, she doesn’t have
money at this point, I can bail her ou…, bail her out for her credit card, all her
credit card and all her car loan, and even asked me $100,000 for her mom to pay
all her debts. So I said OK, so in, in the, in the process of going out of the door,
and I asked for the money, she went for a uh petition of restraining order not to
ask her back the money, and that’s what they, uh, uh, uh, uh fraud, unjust
enrichment, and abuse of power, when she or when she went to, before judges
under oath, 4 petition all wrong and were dismissed. Were dismissed.
Uh, so T… Tamara borrowed the money and uh promised to pay back. But
instead paying back, she went for the uh restraining order.
Judge Mastro: OK, can I … [holds up 2 fingers]

-8-
AA: Uh, petition. Yes, yes sir.
Judge Mastro: Two minutes.
AA: OK. All right.
Judge Mastro: Give us your strongest point.
AA: OK. OK. The Count 17, prima facie tort is 3 years [26:23+]. I pleaded, uh,
uh, uh, according to uh the uh the state law, New York State law.
Uh, uh, count, uh count, u, count, [stammering] the defamation, is 1 year
according to the state law. Yeah 1 year. But when the Defendants and the
Respondents, I mean when the Respondents and the lawyers engage in
fraudulent concealment to conceal the evidence and they know that this
evidence will arise a new claim, this is consider equitable estoppel. So I am
asking you Your Honor for this uh to move the time the clock started once they
give me the evidence and they give me the evidence 2013. They give me the
evidence 2013. The clock should start in 2013, which I came in with the, within
of course the time frame. The defamation number 18, 19 and 20. And uh
number 21, I withdraw it. Count number 21. I withdraw.
So you gonna hear, is a 78, He didn’t go 78 within the 4 months. No Your
Honor, I don’t have to go for 70 months, this is plenary action, not uh, uh, uh,
78. Dr Diamond is a public official. He engage in the expuls…, illegal
expulsion, me from the uh school, uh, and I’m asking for a damage for a breach
of contract from the school. And this money is, 78 is not a remedy for, not a
remedy for a money damage. And Purcell, Purcell, I’m gonna give you the uh,
[stammering] uh, name of that student, he, he was John Purcell, P-U-R-C-E-L-
L, versus NYCOM, Mr. Catalano, of course he was defendant there, and uh two
months ago, and the judges went with Purcell the student they expelled him for
the reason.
So, so, so and there’s no state, no New York State law command me to go for
78. Wh…, where’s the law, where’s the New York State law to command me to
go for 78. You know what I mean? And if the criteria for plenary action is
warranted, and I have...
Judge Mastro: I get your argument. You’re saying you’re entitled to bring a
plenary action in th ...
AA: Yeah, yes, yes sir. Yes sir.
Judge Mastro: I understand. Thankyou.

-9-
AA: You’re welcome, sir. You’re welcome. Thank you Your Honor. Thank
you. Thank you.
Douglas Catalano – My name’s Douglas Catalano, I represent N-Y-I-T, uh,
Respondents Defendants. Um, the cases are legion that in fact there have been 2
cases which I argue are law of the case, or res judicata, in matters between
NYIT and Mr. Attallah, where both Judge Bianco and Justice Murphy said he
should have commenced an Article 78 proceeding in connection with his claims
to somehow rescind his expulsion, which occurred in August….
Judge Maltese: Aside from all of these procedural issues – and, and you’re
correct on the procedural issues – what was the reason why he was expelled?
Catalano: Uh, …he, …
Judge Maltese: What was the underlying reason?
Catalano: Uh, because he lied on a number of occasions with respect to his
history which is required by New York State as far as …
Judge Maltese: Like?
Catalano: With, he, there was a bench warrant…
Judge Maltese: His background?
Catalano: There was a bench warrant uh outstanding in Nebraska. He had been
arrested in California. Uh, the, uh, NYIT admissions as well as ongoing
procedures asked him along with all other students…
Judge Maltese: Had he disclosed it or you found that out later? The arrests? The
charges?
Catalano: Uh, we …
Judge Maltese: Did he disclose those on his application? Yes or no?
Catalano: No. And in addition he didn’t disclose it when there was an additional
document that he was required to sign, Since your admission to NYIT have you
ever been arrested or convicted of a crime of otherwise. Article 23A in fact does
not apply and the Corrections Law, this is not an employment circumstance, and
this, of course, like attorneys, it goes to, uh those issues that would …
Judge Maltese: Character issues.
Catalano: Character issues. He lied. He went to the interview, he omitted them.
When he went to the interview they said, OK we’re gonna do a criminal
background check, we’re gonna check. Then he said, Oh well by the way, and

-10-
this is the same thing you just heard here today, there are all this, these uh mala
fides somehow being uh set upon him by others. It’s a simple issue. It…
Judge Hinds-Radix: Wasn’t a Background Check done prior to admission?
Catalano: Not that I’m aware of, Your Honor.
Judge Hinds-Radix: So what precip..., precip… precipitates this, this uh, uh,
criminal, uh, uh, in his case?
Catalano: Because circumstances came to our attention that there were ongoing
disputes otherwise, and uh, I think…
Judge Maltese: You’re talking about the ex-girlfriend?
Judge Hinds-Radix: So how does the ex-girlfriend cause that --?
Catalano: Yes, the ex-girlfriend and through Dr. Diamond, Dr. Diamond, there
are clinical trials. One doesn’t really go to medical school. He or she goes to
Nassau University Medical Center. As an example, and does clinical trials…
Judge Maltese: He’s a doctor from Egypt, correct?
Catalano: Correct.
Judge Maltese: So he’s trying to become licensed in New York.
Catalano: Yes sir. And that’s what happened. So uh he was expelled after an
appropriate uh student uh disciplinary procedure, which was followed to the T.
Given an opportunity to be heard. He was there uh and they expelled him in
August of 2010. He commenced uh no action within 4 months under state law,
the Article 78 proceedings are Kickertz as well as the 2 cases that pertain to him,
Judge Bianco, Justice Murphy, when he sued Milbank Tweed, and he also sued
NYIT under federal statute. Uh, with respect to what he characterizes as, other
-- looking back I think is the term he used, I think what he meant was tolling.
He did not commence any New York State Human Rights Law or New York
City Administrative Code violation in his action, which he commenced in 2012.
He sought to amend his complaint three additional times, three amendments,
fourth, a … amendment…
Judge Maltese: Was he always pro se or did he have a lawyer back then?
Catalano: At one juncture he had an attorney, and that’s Milbank Tweed, and uh
they got sued. Uh…
Judge Maltese: Because they didn’t file, they didn’t file the proper procedures.

-11-
Catalano: I believe so Your Honor. Uh, I, uh. So, uh then uh, there is no tolling,
first of all there was no state law claims asserted in 2012. That was dismissed by
Bianco. …
Judge Maltese: It was, it was in federal court then.
Catalano: Yah. Judge Bianco. Eastern District. And it went to the Second
Circuit and it was affirmed. So he was, and Judge Bianco said specifically he
had to commence an Article 78 proceeding among other things.
With respect to his discrimination case, now, he commenced this action in 2015,
far beyond the 4-month or the 3 years that one would look to. Uh, but this is
appropriately, because he was expelled, an Article 78 proceeding, because as the
court is aware, one needs to defer somewhat to the academics as to whether or
not uh, certain uh either academic or procedural uh regulations set forth by the
university. So that has to be given great deference. But the cases are uniform,
and any number of students have been dismissed from NYIT apart from Mr.
Attallah.
Uh, he, so, his second amended, uh amended complaint before Judge Bianco,
which he characterized it was his second amended complaint he characterized as
the fourth, but they were never filed or permitted to be amended.
Uh, even if the time limits were not dispositive of this case, which I argue most
respectfully that those time limits, 4 months, is the actual time limit, 3 years, if
one were, look to those, here we are, he commences an action in 2015.
Um, there are no con…, even if one went to the merits, there are no facts which
would infer a case of discrimination. At one juncture he says in his complaint,
Well I’m of Coptic Egyptian ancestry. Well, I happen to be of Italian American
ancestry. By itself that’s meaningless. And of course it was never raised that
there are no statements, and of course it’s not the case. Uh, if one were to even
be charged with going to what the comparators are.
Uh, so there is no breach of contract. Those cases similarly are legion. This is
an Article 78 proceeding. But if one were to look at a breach of contract, there’s
nothing that in the bylaws or in the student handbook or anything that he could
refer to that was allegedly breached. So as with his prior lawsuits against others
I would respectfully submit that the claim was appropriately dismissed below.
Thankyou.
Cassandra Branch: Good morning, Your Honors, Cassandra Branch, for
defendants Nassau Health Care Corporation and Nassau University Medical

-12-
Center, Drs. Anand and doc… Multz. I’m going to keep this brief as the
majority of …
Judge Maltese: He was doing the clinicals there, uh in conjunction with his uh,
uh enrollment, at uh New York Institute of Technology.
Cassandra Branch: Right.
Judge Maltese: The hospital.
Cassandra Branch: It was Dr. uhh Shashiasvili.
Judge Maltese: Yah.
Cassandra Branch: Uh, the plaintiff’s ex-girlfriend.
Judge Maltese: Yah. Who worked for the ho… who worked for the medical
center.
Cassandra Branch: Correct, who worked for our clients. Um, I’m going to keep
this brief as the majority of the plaintiff’s arguments um here today have
nothing to do really with the uh clients um, who I represent, and we’ve
addressed the, most of the remainder of plaintiff’s arguments on on the papers,
and we’ve addressed the most of the plaintiff’s arguments on the papers. Um,
with respect to the, the court’s order, the lower court’s, the court’s decision
should, uh, be affirmed, and the complaint was properly dismissed, uh, for
several reasons.
First, the plaintiff failed to file a notice of claim. The defendants in, in our case
are uh are government entities, Nassau County Health Care Corporation and the
University Medical Center. And the New York County Law 52 required a notice
of claim to be filed which plaintiff failed to do. His claims accrued in August of
2010. And he did not um bring any notice of claim at any time afterwards.
Judge Maltese: Was he, was he terminated for, uh, any academic shortcomings?
Cassandra Branch: No.
Judge Maltese: So this is purely uh this character issue, uh.
Cassandra Branch: Correct. For failure to, for failure to provide information
relevant to his application.
Um, next the claims that plaintiff has brought are, were properly dismissed as
time barred. Again, they accrued in August of 2010. And he was required to
bring such claims, uh, with respect to his state law claims at least by 2013. He
failed to do so until 2015. And those claims were properly dismissed.

-13-
Um, with respect to the merits the plaintiff appellant failed to state a cause of
action as to Nassau Health Care Corporation and Nassau University Medical
Center.
There are no allegations that Drs. Anand and Multz had any employer
relationship to him and the plaintiff appears to be relying on wholly unsupported
allegations of conspiracy by them. Uh, he appears to be stating they were, that
they were somehow bent on dismissing persons of Middle Eastern, uh Middle
Eastern heritage, and that has nothing to do with the plaintiff’s claims here. And
there, there, there are no allegations in the complaint that substantiate those very
broad, uh conclusory statements.
Um, finally, there, uh, uh, the plaintiff does have aiding-abetting claims which
for the reasons was I just explained as Drs. Anand and Multz were not
employers should have been dismissed and were properly dismissed. And the
same goes for the plaintiff’s tortious interference claims, which uh I believe he
just touched on briefly. Uh, as there was no employer relationship he cannot
establish that he was, had any sort of contract, employment contract with uh
Nassau, Nassau University Medical Center or the corporation was breached.
For those reasons the decision, uh, was pro… uh, that the lower court’s decision
was properly made. Thankyou.
AA: Rebuttal two minutes.
Judge Mastro: No rebuttal.
AA: No rebuttal?
Judge Mastro: No. I said that at the beginning.
AA: I just wanna address the, uh, uh, Mr. Catalano, um, uh that I didn’t disclose
my criminal record or something. I just wanna, two minutes.
Judge Mastro: You’re saying there’s a mistake in the facts?
AA: Yes! I’m gonna tell you right now.
Judge Mastro: One minute.
AA: Yes, one minute, Your Honor. Yes. Please. Please. One minute. Go Your
Honor page 1213 in the record.
Judge Hinds-Radix: To what?
AA: 1213.
Judge Hinds-Radix: Of…?

-14-
AA: 1213, which is the um, the um uh um, the registration form. The
registration form says, Have you ever been charged or arrested for any felony
misdemeanor or violation since acceptance! Acceptance and enrollment in the
medical school? I said no. And that was the truth. Never arrested since the uh uh
uh the um uh um the enrollment and the uh uh the acceptance. OK let’s go to the
application. The application.
Judge Mastro: One minute.
AA: I’m done?
Judge Mastro: Yes. Have a nice day. Case number 14.

##

-15-