Respondent

Michael Foster
128 E BWDY
Unit# 260
New York, NY 10002

04/20/2021

Honorable. Louis L. Nock

111 Center Street.
Rm 1166
New York, NY 10007

Re: Gildred v. Foster Index No. 153554/2017

Dear Judge good morning:
(cc: Good morning opposing Counsel –via ecf)

Judge, as I have alluded to in previously filed ecf.Doc.#228 Exhibit Ex.3. The

certified Stenographers report and Doc.ecf.#225,Ex1.Affirmed Stipulation of Settlement
proposed.
I wanted your Honor to note that respondent have been able to retrieve the said certified
stenographers minutes reported and upon request respondent will email this Exhibit to your
Honor’s Clerk attention on email rwoody@nycourts.gov if that sufficed during the course of
this morning’s video conference as I do not have a proper scanner at my convenience currently.

In furtherance and hopes of a conclusion to this matter if not today soon you’re Honor.
Respondent’s request for the Court’s considerations of Sanctions for Breach of Fiduciary duty
upon the Law office of Mr. Brian Figeroux, Though Mr. Brian Figeroux and his law firm acted
if it's a representative of respondent in this matter truth be told your Honor nothing can be
further from the truth.
Your Honor, I recommend that the Court impose sanctions and that your Honor recommend
disciplinary actions against Attorney Mr. Brian Figeroux for:
1. Client falsifying and misrepresentation in this matter. At no time your Honor did respondent
hired or acquiesced to hiring especially Mr. Figeroux as a representing attorney. Indeed
respondent’s business and this attorney's office ended in sometime around 2001 as Mr.
Figeroux and I had a dispute over: CaribbeanE.com CaribbeanTimes.org which remains in
respondent’s possession. The immigrant Journal Legal and Educational Fund, The
immigrant Journal, and ICE, immigration cultural explosion remained in Mr. Figeroux
possessions.
2. Mr. Figeroux and I shared office at 26 Court St. at which time my company Foster's
 maintained a commission based partnership in all of Mr. Figeroux marketing endeavors. Mr.
Figeroux was at the time an aspiring matrimonial litigation attorney.
3. In 2016 during complainant’s neuroma-symptomatic period respondent confidently awarded
complainant Mr. Figeroux's background, his cell phone and office contact and briefed her
on his history in managing complicated divorce settlement issues.
4. Mr. Figeroux is yet to follow up on his presumptuous application to represent respondent.
Indeed opposing Counsel over multiple filings attempted to exhume the debunk notion that
respondent is being represented by this law office. Nothing can be further from the truth.
The very initial filing from Mr. Figeroux was rejected by the clerk as incorrect filing.
5. Respondent forward movement was in good faith when respondent ended this business
relationship 20 years ago.

With that your Honor, I look forward to the video conference later on.

cc: Opposing sides Mr. Rafkin via efc