Friedman v. Landau et al

Filing 121

ORDER ADOPTING 103 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. The court ADOPTS IN FULL the R&R dismissing the Revised Second Amended Complaint and imposing Rule 11 sanctions against Borzouye. The Clerk of Court is respectfully DIRECTED to en ter judgment for Defendants. The determination of the monetary sanction imposed on Borzouye and due to Self H elp Defendants is REFERRED to Magistrate Judge James Orenstein for a Report and Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a). Plaintiff's requests for leave to further amend the Complaint are D ENIED. (Dkts. 105, 110, 111, 113, 116, 120.) Plaintiffs request for a pre-motion conference is DENIED. (Dkt. 116.) Plaintiffs requests for oral argument are DENIED. (Dkts. 104, 110, 111, 113, 116, 117.) Plaintiffs requests for leave to subpoena materials are DENIED. (Dkts. 104, 110, 111, 113, 116, 117.) So Ordered by Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis on 3/17/2015. (c/m to pro se; fwd'd for jgm) (Lee, Tiffeny)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

---------------------------------------------------------------------)(
ROBERT FRIEDMAN,

MEMORANDUM & ORDER
Plaintiff,
11-CV-3210 (NGG) (JMA)

-againstSELF HELP COMMUNITY SERVICES, et al.,
Defendants.

---------------------------------------------------------------------)(

NICHOLAS G. GARAUFIS, United States District Judge.

Prose Plaintiff Robert Friedman brings this action against Morris and Phyllis Friedman
("Friedman Defendants"); the New York Department of Social Services, Adult Protective
Services and its employees, New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation, Coney Island
Research Institute and its employees, the New York City Comptroller's Office, and the New
York City Police Department and its employees (collectively, "City Defendants"); and United
Jewish Appeal, Inc., United Jewish Appeal-Federation of Jewish Philanthropies of New York,
United Jewish Appeal Federation ofNew York Charitable Fund LLC, and Self Help Community
Services and its employees (collectively, "Self Help Defendants"). (Revised 2d Am. Compl.
(Dkt. 49).)
The action arises from a March 17, 2010, incident that occurred at the apartment of
Plaintiff's father, Benjamin Friedman; as a result of the incident, law enforcement was called to
the apartment, and Plaintiff was ultimately involuntarily committed to a psychiatric hospital for
several months. (See generally kl:) In brief, according to Plaintiff:
This case ultimately involves a long term plan, scheme, and
enterprise, through conspiracy and collusion with several parties
herein named in this action, to unlawfully, forcibly, evict the
Plaintiff Robert Friedman, from his elderly father's home without
due process oflaw, by Stephanie Haik, an unlicensed social worker
1

employed by Self Help Community Services of Brooklyn New
York. By Stephanie Haik falsely placing a telephone call to the
NYCPD 911 emergency phone number without any actual
personal knowledge, and without any actual probable cause, any
actual direct evidence, any proper investigation or any due
diligence on the part of Ms. Haik or anyone whatsoever employed
by Self Help Community Services or any other agency involved.
To substantiate a belief that the Plaintiff had either committed or
was about to commit a crime, or was physically or mentally ill, or
was an imminent danger to his father, himself or to the public.
Stephanie Haik then went on to convince[] the NYPD, EMS and
Coney Island Hospital staff to unlawfully, forcibly, involuntarily,
psychiatrically commit the Plaintiff against his will, and without
his informed consent, and without any form of medical evidence
whatsoever, and without ever having spoken with the Plaintiff to
learn exactly what if any, medical and/or psychiatric disorders that
the Plaintiff may suffer from.
(Id.~ 29.) 1 Plaintiff now seeks $200 million in damages for violations of his constitutional

rights, federal and state antidiscrimination statutes, the Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act ("HIPP A"), and a variety of state common law torts. (See generally Revised
2d Am. Compl.)
All Defendants moved to dismiss the Revised Second Amended Complaint under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. (See Friedman Defs.' Mot. to
Dismiss (Dkt. 53); Self Help Defs.' Mot. to Dismiss (Dkt. 59); City Defs.' Mot. to Dismiss
(Dkt. 71).)2 In addition, Self Help Defendants moved for s~ctions pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 11 against Plaintiff's former counsel, Richard Borzouye, and his law firm, The
Borzouye Law Firm. (See Self Help Defs.' Mot. for Sanctions (Dkt. 68).)3 By Order dated
1

The Revised Second Amended Complaint includes two separate sections with paragraphs numbered 1to99.
Here, the court cites to the first of the two paragraphs numbered "29."
2

Self Help Defendants further moved to dismiss pursuant to Rules 12(b)(4) and 12(b)(5) (Self Help Defs.' Mot. to
Dismiss at 4) and City Defendants further moved to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(l) (City Defs.' Mot. to Dismiss
at 1-4). Because the court dismisses all claims for failure to state a claim, it does not address these alternative
arguments for dismissal.
3

Self Help Defendants initially sought sanctions against both Plaintiff individually and Borzouye as Plaintiffs
counsel, but later withdrew the motion as to Plaintiff individually. (See Mar. 7, 2014, Ltr. (Dkt. 98).)

2

January 6, 2014, the court referred Defendants' motions to dismiss and Self Help Defendants'
motion for Rule 11 sanctions to Magistrate Judge Joan M. Azrack for a Report and
Recommendation ("R&R") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(B) and Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 72(b)(l). (See Jan. 6, 2014, Order (Dkt. 93).) For the reasons discussed below, the
court ADOPTS IN FULL the R&R, and accordingly, DISMISSES the Revised Second Amended
Complaint with prejudice and GRANTS Self Help Defendants' motion for sanctions.

I.

The Report and Recommendation
On June 10, 2014, Judge Azrack issued an R&R recommending that Plaintiff's Revised

Second Amended Complaint be dismissed in its entirety. (R&R (Dkt. 103) at 13-28.)4 As an
initial matter, Judge Azrack recommended that the claims be dismissed sua sponte as frivolous.
(Id. at 13-15 ("Having reviewed [P]laintiff's complaint and his accompanying submissions, I
find that all of his claims are frivolous and should be dismissed outright on that basis.").) In
addition, even ifthe claims were not deemed legally frivolous, Judge Azrack concluded that
Plaintiff failed adequately to allege any of his claims. (Id. at 15-28 (analyzing each cause of
action under Rule 12(b)(6) standard).) Judge Azrack also recommended granting Self Help
Defendants' motion for sanctions, and suggested sanctions be awarded against Borzouy.e in the
amount of Self Help Defendants' attorneys' fees and costs. (Id. at 29-31.) Judge Azrack
concluded that Borzouye filed a legally frivolous complaint without any factual support, and that
he failed to explain to the court why his conduct was permissible under Rule 11. (Id.)5

4

The court assumes familiarity with the facts of the case, and adopts the thorough summary of the relevant factual
allegations included in the R&R. (See R&R at 3-13 & n.2.) In addition, the court has reviewed the same sources of
information listed by Judge Azrack in the R&R, including the "Self Help Case File" referenced throughout the
Revised Second Amended Complaint and filed by Self Help Defendants in connection with their motion to dismiss.
(See id. at 3, 17-18; Deel. ofThomas Catalano in Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss, Ex. C (Dkt. 57-3).)
5

As Judge Azrack noted, although Plaintiff is now proceeding pro se, Borzouye signed and filed each version of the
Complaint in this action. The Revised Second Amended Complaint spans 133 pages and contains over 500
numbered paragraphs. (See generally Revised 2d Am. Compl.)

3

II.

Objections to the Report and Recommendation
During the period since Judge Azrack issued the R&R in June 2014, Plaintiff has made

numerous objections to the R&R, as well as numerous motions that tangentially address the
R&R, while also seeking additional relief from the court, such as leave to amend the complaint.
The court has reviewed each of these filings in reaching its decision to adopt the R&R. 6 These
include filings made on June 17, 2014 (Obj. to R&R (Dkt. 104)); June 24, 2014 (2d Obj. to R&R
(Dkt. 105)); July 7, 2014 (Ltr. in Resp. to Defs.' Replies (Dkt. 110)); November 3, 2014 (Mot. to
Amend Compl. and for Oral Arg. (Dkt. 111)); November 19, 2014 (Another Mot. to Amend
Compl. (Dkt. 113)); January 6, 2015 (Ltr. (Dkt. 115)); January 6, 2015 (2d Ltr. (Dkt. 116));
February 6, 2015 (Mot. for Oral Arg. and Against Dismissing the Case (Dkt. 117)); and
March 3, 2015 (Another Opp'n to R&R to Dismiss the Case and Award Sanctions (Dkt. 120)).
(See also Self Help Defs.' Reply in Opp'n to Mot. for Oral Arg. and Against Dismissing the
Case (Dkt. 118) at 2 (listing certain of Plaintiff's filings).)
Defendants oppose Plaintiff's Objections, and rely principally on their briefing before
Judge Azrack (See Self Help Defs.' Resp. to Pl.'s Objs. (Dkt. 106); City Defs.' Reply in Supp. of
R&R (Dkt. 107); Friedman Defs.' Reply in Support ofR&R (Dkt. 108).) Defendants also
oppose any attempt by Plaintiff to further amend the Complaint, or to seek a pre-motion

6

In this Memorandum & Order, the court refers to Plaintiff's filings collectively as the "Objections," and uses the
relevant filing date in order to refer to a particular filing by Plaintiff. The court notes that Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 72 does not authorize the filing of serial objections, nor does it authorize the filing of objections beyond
the fourteen days provided for by Rule 72(b)(2). As no Defendant has moved to strike any of Plaintiff's filings, and
in light of Plaintiff's prose status, the court has considered each of the filings in reaching its decision. See
McFadden v. Pataki, No. 06-CV-13330 (KMK) (PED), 2014 WL 1759795, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 25, 2014) ("The
Court has undertaken a careful review of all of Petitioner's submissions that postdate the R & R [including a letter
and an affidavit]."); In re Pan Am. Com., No. 98-CV-783 (RCC) (RLE), 2000 WL 254010, at *l n.I (S.D.N.Y.
Mar. 7, 2000) (in pro se bankruptcy appeal, considering several filings by pro se party objecting to a report and
recommendation). Relatedly, Judge Azrack liberally construed Plaintiff's opposition to the motions to dismiss, as
he was proceeding prose by that point in the action. (See R&R at 17.) The factual allegations in the Revised
Second Amended Complaint, however, were drafted and signed by Borzouye. ilih at 16-17.) They therefore are not
subject to a liberal, pro se pleading standard. 00

4

conference or oral argument regarding his claims. (See. e.g., City Defs.' Resp. in Opp'n to Mot.
to Amend (Dkt. 114); Self Help Defs.' Reply in Opp'n to Mot. for Oral Arg. and Against
Dismissing the Case (Dkt. 118).)
Finally, former counsel Borzouye did not file an objection to the R&R. Nor did
Borzouye respond to the motion for sanctions when previously directed to do so by this court and
by Judge Azrack. (See Mar. 6, 2014, Min. Entry (noting Borzouye's attendance at court
conference, relieving Borzouye as counsel, and ordering Borzouye to respond to the motion for
sanctions by March 14, 2014); R&R at 12-13 ("However, the Self Help [D]efendants did not
'

withdraw their sanctions motion against Borzouye, who-for the second time--chose to
disregard the Court's orders and not file a response to the Self Help [D]efendants' sanctions
motion.").) 7
III.

Discussion

The court has conducted a review of the full record, including the operative Revised
Second Amended Complaint, the parties' submissions to Judge Azrack, the R&R and the
applicable law, and the parties' post-R&R submissions to this court.
A.

Standard of Review

In reviewing a magistrate judge's R&R, the district court "may accept, reject, or modify,
in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(l). The court must make "a de novo determination of those portions of the report or
specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made." Id. To obtain this

7

Previously, in purporting to respond to Self Help Defendants' motion for sanctions, Borzouye filed a cross-motion
for sanctions that largely plagiarized the text of Self Help Defendants' own motion; the court struck the crossmotion for sanctions and ordered that Borzouye show cause why the court should not impose sanctions against him
with respect to both the allegations in the Complaint and the frivolous cross-motion for sanctions. (See
Sept. 27, 2013, Order (Dkt. 86).) To date, Borzouye has failed to respond to the court concerning his conduct in this
case.

5

de novo review, an objecting party "must point out the specific portions of the report and
recommendation to which [that party] object[s]." U.S. Flour Coro. v. Certified Bakery, Inc.,
No. 10-CV-2522 (JS), 2012 WL 728227, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 6, 2012); see also Fed. R. Civ.
P. 72(b)(2) ("[A] party may serve and file specific written objections to the [R&R]."). If a party
"makes only conclusory or general objections, or simply reiterates his original arguments, the
Court reviews the Report and Recommendation only for clear error." Pall Corp. v. Entegris,
Inc., 249 F.R.D. 48, 51(E.D.N.Y.2008); see also Mario v. P&C Food Mkts., Inc., 313
F.3d 758, 766 (2d Cir. 2002). Portions of an R&R to which a party makes no objection are also
reviewed for clear error. U.S. Flour, 2012 WL 728227, at *2.
Where a prose party objects to an R&R, "the court reads his objections 'liberally and
will interpret them to raise the strongest arguments that they suggest."' Velasquez v. Metro Fuel
Oil Corp., 12 F. Supp. 3d 387, 398 (E.D.N.Y. 2014) (quoting Burgos v. Hopkins, 14
F.3d 787, 780 (2d.Cir. 1994)). However, a court "need not argue a prose litigant's case nor
create a case for the prose which does not exist." Molina v. State ofN.Y., 956 F. Supp. 257,
259 (E.D.N.Y. 1995). Under this charitable standard, the court finds that Plaintiff has put
forward certain specific Objections to the R&R; below, the court reviews de novo those portions
of the Objections. The remaining Objections, however, are conclusory, general, or repetitive of
the briefing before Judge Azrack, and therefore require only clear error review, along with those
portions of the R&R to which Plaintiff does not object.

B.

General Objections

As discussed above, Plaintiff made several submissions objecting to the R&R. For the
most part, however, the voluminous submissions merely repeat arguments that he made in
opposition to Defendants' motions to dismiss or state conclusory, general objections to the R&R.

6

(See, e.g., June 24, 2014, Obj. at 2 ("Your Honor I once again ask you not to dismiss the case in
the int[e]rests of justice and due process. The Ma[g]istrate is totally wrong when she wrote the
case should be dismissed because it is frivo[]lous because it is [delusional] and having
fantasies.").) Cf. Owusu v. N.Y. State Ins., 655 F. Supp. 2d 308, 312 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) ("The
Court has reviewed Plaintiffs objections and, though voluminous, finds them lacking any
specific argument for the Court to analyze; Plaintiffs objections only rehash arguments already
addressed by the Magistrate Judge."). The court has considered each and every submission made
by Plaintiff, including the submission filed as recently as March 3, 2015, but has not attempted to
log every statement contained in the numerous filings. Suffice it to say, sheer length and
repetition of an argument do not transform a general objection into the specific. The court has
reviewed for clear error the portions of Judge Azrack's R&R covered by Plaintiffs general
Objections and finds none. Accordingly, the court ADOPTS those portions of the R&R.
C.

Specific Objections

Below, the court analyzes specific sections of the R&R on which Plaintiff focuses his
Objections. Applying de novo review, the court ADOPTS each of those portions of the R&R
specifically objected to.
1.

Intentional and Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress

Plaintiff focuses on various alleged statements made by certain Defendants to law
enforcement. (See, e.g., July 7, 2014, Obj. at 1 (Defendants "illegally [called] the police and ems
to my motel room trying to readmit me to the hospital by making up lies to the police and ems ..
these two actions by itself are grounds for intentional infliction of emotion distress [("IIED")]
because it meets the three elements the actions were extreme and outrageous since it was illegal
to make those phone calls which were malicious lies not accidental false ....");Mar. 3, 2015,

7

Obj. at 2 ("At about 9 am the self help workers once again made another felonious criminal
phone call to the police and the ems on me even though my father or no one else was in room,
the reason they did this was to make another prank call to try to have me readmitted.").) But, as
Judge Azrack concluded, '"allegations of providing false information to the police ... do not
suffice' for a claim of IIED absent additional outrageous behavior." (R&R at 22 (quoting Rivers
v. Towers, Perrin, Forster & Crosby Inc., No. 07-CV-5441 (DGT) (RML), 2009 WL 817852,
at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2009)).) Based on the facts alleged by Plaintiff, the communications
between Defendants and law enforcement certainly were not outrageous.
Plaintiff also argues that although Judge Azrack may have been correct that HIPP A does
not provide a private right of action (see R&R at 28), Defendants here committed a criminal
HIPPA violation, and that such a violation serves as the basis of the claim of IIED (see
June 24, 2014, Obj. at 3). But even ifthe various conversations alleged by Plaintiff between
hospital staff and Defendants occurred (see July 7, 2014, Obj. at 2), considering the totality of
the circumstances, these alleged conversations certainly do not rise to the level of"extreme and
outrageous conduct," as required by New York state law. See Rivers 2009 WL 817852, at *8.
Moreover, Judge Azrack correctly concluded that the negligent infliction of emotional
distress ("NIED") claim fails for two independent reasons. First, Plaintiff has only alleged
intentional conduct by Defendants, foreclosing an NIED claim. (R&R at 22.) Second, to the
extent Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Haik acted negligently, "it is not plausible that ... she
acted negligently in calling the police." (MJ
2.

Defamation

Plaintiff argues that Judge Azrack erred in dismissing his claims of defamation and
defamation per se. (See, e.g., July 7, 2014, Obj. at 2.) According to Plaintiff, a private

8

individual can bring a defamation claim against another private individual where the speaker
made the defamatory statements with malice. (See iQJ Indeed, as Judge Azrack noted in the
R&R, there is a qualified privilege for statements made to police about another individual's
suspected crimes, which requires a plaintiff challenging these statements to allege that the
speaker acted with actual malice or with common law malice. (See R&R at 26 (citing Toker v.
Pollak, 44 N.Y.2d 211, 220 (1978); Liberman v. Gelstein, 80 N.Y.2d 429, 437-39 (1992).) As
Judge Azrack correctly concluded, Plaintiff failed plausibly to allege malice-in other words,
that Defendants knew that the statements they made to the police (e.g., that Plaintiff has
schizophrenia and that he was abusing his father) were false. (See iQJ
3.

Frivolousness and Rule 11 Sanctions Against Borzouye

With respect to the motion for sanctions, Plaintiff objects to Judge Azrack's
recommendation of imposing sanctions against Borzouye (see, e.g., June 17, 2014, Obj. at 11
("Finally, I once again ask that you don't impose sanctions against my former attorney. Even
though I personally filed a grievance against him, Self Help[,] the 3 UJA charities, or their law
firm should not be unjustly enriched from Self Help's criminal activities."); id. at 12 ("Richard
Borzouye should not have to pay sanctions because this is absolutely not a frivolous case.");
Mar. 3, 2015, Obj. at 3 ("There never was an intention to harass we were and I still am seeking
justice from the harm that was inflicted by defendants ....").)
Even if construed as a specific objection to the imposition of sanctions against Borzouye,
rather than generalized and conclusory remarks, the court adopts Judge Azrack's analysis.
Documents submitted by Self Help Defendants indicate that Borzouye lacked a sufficient factual
basis to file any of the complaints in this action, including the operative Revised Second
Amended Complaint. (R&R at 30-31.) When faced with a request from Self Help Defendants to

9

withdraw the pleading before they were forced to file a motion to dismiss (see id. at 29 n.10),
Borzouye failed to respond G.Q,_ at 29-30). The court notes, as well, that Borzouye included at
least one cause of action in the Revised Second Amended Complaint that has absolutely no basis
in law. (See id. at 28 (concluding that HIPP A does not provide for a private right of action and
citing cases).)
Plaintiff argues that the case is not frivolous, and therefore sanctions against Borzouye
are not appropriate. (See, e.g., Nov. 19, 2014, Obj. at 9.) To the extent Plaintiff objects to Judge
Azrack's conclusion that the Revised Second Amended Complaint is legally frivolous, the court
has reviewed de novo that portion of the R&R and adopts Judge Azrack's reasoning. (See, e.g.,
R&R at 14 ("The notion that numerous government employees and agencies would conspire
with the Friedmans to help secure the Friedmans' inheritance by falsely arresting and civilly
committing [P]laintiff sounds delusional, because it is delusional."); id. ("The frivolousness of
[P]laintiff's claims is underscored by the fact that, as part of the Mental Hygiene Court's
proceedings, two independent doctors concluded that [P]laintiff has 'Bipolar Disorder with
psychotic features.'" (quoting sworn declarations of independent psychiatrists who examined
Plaintiff after the March 17, 2010, incident)).) See also Scanlon v. Vermont, 423 F. App'x 78,
78 (2d Cir. 2011) (summary order) ("An action is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in law or
fact-i.e., where it is 'based on an indisputably meritless legal theory' or presents 'factual
contentions [which] are clearly baseless."' (quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327
(1989))); Fitzgerald v. First E. Seventh Street Tenants Corp., 221 F.3d 362 (2d Cir. 2000) (per
curiam).
Plaintiff urges the court to allow him to file a further amended complaint due to
Borzouye's misconduct and poor performance on the case. (See Nov. 19, 2014, Obj. at 1-3

10

(explaining that Plaintiff filed a grievance against Borzouye and that Borzouye was suspended
from practicing law).) The fact that Borzouye engaged in sanctionable conduct before this court
and that he may be suspended by the relevant authorities, however, does not mean that further
amendment would cure the deficiencies in the Revised Second Amended Complaint. Indeed, as
discussed below, the court finds that further amendment of the Complaint would be futile. If
Plaintiff believes that Borzouye compromised his case, his proper recourse is a separate action or
proceeding against Borzouye. Cf. Williams v. Woodhull Med. Health Ctr., 891 F. Supp. 2d 301
(E.D.N.Y. 2012). The court notes, again, that sanctions have not been imposed against Plaintiff
himself.
Finally, Judge Azrack did not address the specific monetary sanction, and noted that Self
Help Defendants have yet to have an opportunity to submit a particularized fee application.
(R&R at 31 n.12.) Accordingly, the determination of the specific monetary sanction imposed on
Borzouye and due to Self Help Defendants is REFERRED to Magistrate Judge James Orenstein
for a Report and Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 72(a). 8
D.

Remainder of the Report and Recommendation

Portions of the R&R to which a party makes no objection are reviewed for clear error.
U.S. Flour, 2012 WL 728227, at *2. The court therefore reviews for clear error the portions of
Judge Azrack's R&R that were not objected to and finds none. Accordingly, the court also
ADOPTS those portions of the R&R.

8

On January 13, 2015, this case was re-assigned to Magistrate Judge Orenstein.

11

IV.

Plaintiff's Other Requests
In addition to filing Objections to the R&R, Plaintiff has made several requests for relief

from the court. The court DENIES each of these requests.
First, Plaintiff requests leave to further amend the Complaint, arguing that Borzouye's
"incompetence jeopardized the status of my case ...." (See, e.g., Nov. 19, 2014, Obj. at 2.)
Whether or not Borzouye adequately represented Plaintiff in this case, amendment would be
futile. See Cuoco v. Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99, 112 (2d Cir. 2000) (affirming denial of prose
Plaintiffs request for leave to amend, since "[t]he problem with [plaintiff's] causes of action is
substantive; better pleading will not cure it. Repleading would thus be futile"); Fed. R. Civ.
P. 15(a)(2). Plaintiff has already amended the Complaint several times, and has had ample
opportunity to defend the lengthy allegations contained in the Revised Second Amended
Complaint. Accordingly, Plaintiffs requests for leave to amend the Complaint are DENIED.
Second, and in connection with his requests for leave to further amend the Complaint,
Plaintiff requests a pre-motion conference before the court. (See, e.g., Jan. 6, 2015, Obj. at 1.)
Given the court's denial of Plaintiffs requests for leave to amend, the request for a pre-motion
conference is DENIED as moot.
Third, Plaintiff requests oral argument. (See, e.g., Feb. 6, 2015, Obj. at 1.) The requests
for oral argument are DENIED. Although a party may request oral argument before the court, it
is in the court's discretion whether to hear oral argument. See Individual Rule III.D. Here, the
voluminous record and Judge Azrack's thorough analysis provide the court with a satisfactory
basis on which to adopt the R&R and to deny Plaintiffs various requests without the need for
oral argument from the parties.

12

Finally, Plaintiff requests leave to subpoena various materials, including, inter alia, "the
conversation Self help employees had with Medicaid to pay the hospital bill [and] the letters that
Self help employees wrote to the late Judge Anthony Cutrona to keep me falsely imprisoned in
the hospital." (See, e.g., Nov. 3, 2014, Obj. at 1-2.) As the court is dismissing all claims with
prejudice, Plaintiffs requests are DENIED as moot.
V.

Conclusion
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above:
•

The court ADOPTS IN FULL the R&R dismissing the Revised Second Amended
Complaint and imposing Rule 11 sanctions against Borzouye. The Clerk of Court
is respectfully DIRECTED to enter judgment for Defendants.

•

The determination of the monetary sanction imposed on Borzouye and due to Self
Help Defendants is REFERRED to Magistrate Judge James Orenstein for a
Report and Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 72(a).

•

Plaintiff's requests for leave to further amend the Complaint are DENIED. (Dkts.
105, 110, 111, 113, 116, 120.)

•

Plaintiffs request for a pre-motion conference is DENIED. (Dkt. 116.)

•

Plaintiffs requests for oral argument are DENIED. (Dkts. 104, 110, 111, 113,
116, 117.)

13

•

Plaintiffs requests for leave to subpoena materials are DENIED. (Dkts. 104, 110,
111, 113, 116, 117.)

SO ORDERED.

s/Nicholas G. Garaufis
Dated: Brooklyn, New York
March!}, 2015

kICHOLAS G. GARAUFI\j
United States District Judge

14