Cite as 673 F.Supp. 1233 (S.D.N.Y. 1987)
APPENDIX—Continued
(k) Exhibit A, p. 5, para. 2:
“We have lost count of the lawyers … Popper, Inc. has retained now the third, fourth or fifth who apparently resigned or gave up after realizing the futility of … Popper, Inc.’s position.”
(l) Exhibit A, p. 6,
“In addition, IGAS … Monroe … Inc., had to pay legal fees to answer the actions of Popper and are now … exercising their legal right to charge such fees as incurred already and in the future to the production accounts of Popper and his clients. $7,500 has been paid to date. … Therefore … production payments will be withheld to defray the legal bills of IGAS, … Monroe … Inc., and … Monroe. … If this determination does not meet with your approval, you should contact your legally constituted agent, … Popper, Inc., directly and … Popper, individually.”
The only attorney to represent Popper and Popper, Inc. in the Kaiden Suit after Lewis Novod (sued therein as a defendant) resigned, is and has been Mark B. Brenner, Esq.
Kaiden not Popper, Inc. or Popper sued IGAS and Monroe, Inc. Monroe is not a party to the Kaiden suit.21. At the time defendants published the defamatory matter, defendants knew it was false, or failed to take the proper steps to ascertain its accuracy and instead published it with reckless disregard as to whether or not it was true.
22. The statements made by defendants were intended to and were understood to accuse plaintiffs of instituting and carrying on frivolous litigation at the expense of plaintiffs’ clients.
GUND, INC., Plaintiff,
v.
SWANK, INC., Defendant.
No. 87 Civ. 7094 (RWS).
United States District Court,
S.D. New York.
Nov. 18, 1987.
