Motion to Amend in Andrew Leider v. Sheila Faith| Trellis.Law

On October 04, 2023 a Answer was filed involving a dispute between Andrew Leider, and Sheila Faith, for Torts - Other (Defamation) in the District Court of Orange County.

Preview
FILED: ORANGE COUNTY CLERK 11/28/2023 06:38 PM INDEX NO. EF006768-2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 21 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/28/2023

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF ORANGE
______________________________________________X

ANDREW LEIDER,
AMENDED
Plaintiff, VERIFIED ANSWER
WITH AFFIRMATIVE
-against- DEFENSES AND
COUNTERCLAIMS
SHEILA FAITH,
Index. No. EF006768-2023
Defendant.
_____________________________________________X

Defendant, SHEILA FAITH, by and through her attorneys, Gilbert & Martin

LLP, as and for her Verified Answer with Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiff’s Verified Summons

and Complaint filed on October 4, 2023 (NYSCEF Doc. No. 1), hereby provides as follows:

1. Defendant admits the allegations set forth in ¶¶ 2, 3, 7, 9, 11, 28, 52, 53, 59, 60,

89, 97, 107, 108, 109, 119, 124, and 125.

2. Defendant denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth or falsity of the allegations contained in ¶¶ 1, 18, 20, 24, 25, 35, 40, 41, 42, 50, 54, 55, 80,

96, 98, and 103.

3. Defendant denies the allegations set forth in ¶¶ 14, 16, 17, 21, 22, 23, 27, 49, 58,

61, 65, 90, 92, 99, 100, 110, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, and 127.

4. The allegations set forth in ¶¶ 4, 5, 19, 26, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39,

43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 51, 56, 62, 63, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 81, 82, 83, 84,

85, 86, 87, 88, 93, 94, 95, 104, 105, 106, 111, 112, 113, 120, 121, 122, 123, 126, 128, 129, 130,

131, 132 and the “Wherefore” clause state legal conclusions to which no response is required.

To the extent that a response is required, Defendant denies the allegations, respectfully refers all

questions of law to the Court, and leaves the Plaintiff to his proof.

1 of 18
FILED: ORANGE COUNTY CLERK 11/28/2023 06:38 PM INDEX NO. EF006768-2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 21 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/28/2023

5. Defendant admits the allegations set forth in paragraph 6 to the extent that she

was employed by Plaintiff, but denies that the employment was part time and denies that her job

duties were solely paralegal in nature.

6. Defendant admits the allegations set forth in paragraph 8 to the extent that Steven

Faith did file for divorce from Defendant, but denies that Plaintiff purchased the Premises.

Rather we contend it was conveyed to Plaintiff for Defendant’s benefit under a constructive trust.

7. Defendant admits the allegations set forth in paragraph 10 to the extent that M&T

Bank was foreclosing and Defendant was seeking help. However, Defendant specifically denies

that she begged Plaintiff for his help. Rather, Attorney Leider imposed himself on Defendant

and repeatedly affirmatively offered to help her. After insisting on helping, Attorney Leider held

himself out to be Defendant’s attorney to her and others.

8. Defendant admits the allegations set forth in paragraph 12 to the extent that

Plaintiff did offer to pay off the existing mortgages and Mr. Faith’s interest. Defendant denies

that Plaintiff originally offered to “buy” her property. Instead, Attorney Leider’s original

proposal was for him to pay off the existing debts using the cash proceeds from a separate real

estate transaction, and then hold a private mortgage for Defendant. This only changed at the last

minute as Defendant’s house was set for auction and Attorney Leider insisted that to help her

avoid foreclosure and sale, he had to temporarily take title to the Premises and apply for a

mortgage because he did not have the cash he anticipated.

9. Plaintiff admits the allegations set forth in paragraph 13 to the extent that she did

sign a commercial lease with Plaintiff. Plaintiff denies, however, that the lease was ever

intended to be valid and enforceable, as evidenced by the non-market terms such as the twenty-

year term. Instead, Attorney Leider told Defendant that the lease was only a formality he needed

2 of 18
FILED: ORANGE COUNTY CLERK 11/28/2023 06:38 PM INDEX NO. EF006768-2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 21 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/28/2023

to secure financing, and that Defendant Faith was, in fact, still the owner of her home, which

would be later be legally re-conveyed to her when she was able to refinance the debt.

10. Defendant admits the allegations in paragraph 15 to the extent that Defendant was

employed and had some experience as a paralegal. Defendant denies the allegations to the extent

that she drafted any of the documents relating to her transaction.

11. Defendant admits the allegations set forth in paragraph 48 to the extent that she

became acquainted with a Ms. Doreen Guiliano, but denies knowledge or information to form a

belief as to the rest of the allegations.

12. Defendant denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 57 to the extent that she

did not lie to Ms. Guiliano about any of Attorney Leider’s improper sexual advances and

conduct. Defendant avers that anything she said regarding Plaintiff’s sexual deviance or

misconduct, she believed to be true.

13. Defendant admits the allegations set forth in paragraph 64 and 66 to the extent

that she did make the quoted statement, but would respectfully refers the Court to the whole

Affidavit for a complete an accurate recitation of its contents. What this quote fails to include is

that Ms. Faith only would have altered the document if ordered to by Attorney Leider.

14. Defendant admits the allegations set forth in paragraph 91 to the extent that she

has commenced a prior action in Supreme Court and has defended herself against foreclosure by

Plaintiff. Defendant explicitly denies that she was motivated by revenge, denies that she “lied to

Plaintiff’s friends and business associates” and denies embarking on any “warpath to destroy

Plaintiff’s character,” such as it is.

15. Defendant denies the allegations set forth in paragraphs 101 and 102 o the extent

that she did not make untrue allegations. Defendant denies knowledge or information sufficient

3 of 18
FILED: ORANGE COUNTY CLERK 11/28/2023 06:38 PM INDEX NO. EF006768-2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 21 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/28/2023

to form a belief as to on what basis exactly the other members of the LLC make their claims

against Leider. Nevertheless, a review of the docket in that case (EF003969-2023) reveals that

the Petitioners in that action originally brought their petition for dissolution without any

statements from Defendant Faith, and only included her affidavit in their amended pleadings

after Leider vehemently denied altering documents in his original opposition. Therefore, Ms.

Faith’s testimony became especially salient where the central cause of action sounds in fraud,

which Leider seeks to dismiss.

16. Defendant denies any remaining allegations not specifically otherwise addressed

herein.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

17. Defendant, Sheila Faith, by and through her attorneys, Gilbert & Martin LLP, as

and for her Affirmative Defenses to the Complaint, hereby provides as follows:

18. In addition to the defenses set forth below, Defendant expressly reserves the right

to amend her Answer to assert additional defenses, counterclaims, cross-claims and/or by

instituting third-party actions as additional facts are obtained in discovery and its investigation,

which is ongoing. Defendant does not intend to concede or imply that any of the defenses set

forth below are affirmative defenses for which Defendant necessarily bears the burden of proof.

I. AS AND FOR A FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, DEFENDANT ALLEGES AS FOLLOWS:

19. Defendant repeats, reiterates and re alleges each and every allegation set forth in

¶¶ 1–18 inclusive, as if fully set forth at length herein.

20. Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

4 of 18
FILED: ORANGE COUNTY CLERK 11/28/2023 06:38 PM INDEX NO. EF006768-2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 21 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/28/2023

II. AS AND FOR A SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, DEFENDANT ALLEGES AS FOLLOWS:

21. Defendant repeats, reiterates and re alleges each and every allegation set forth in

¶¶ 1–20, inclusive, as if fully set forth at length herein.

22. Plaintiff’s harm, if any, was caused and occasioned, in part or in its entirety, by

his own failures to exercise ordinary and reasonable care to avoid the contingencies he alleges to

have occurred. In other words, Plaintiffs’ claim(s) are barred by his own culpable conduct.

III. AS AND FOR A THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, DEFENDANT ALLEGES AS FOLLOWS:

23. Defendant repeats, reiterates and re alleges each and every allegation set forth in

¶¶ 1–22, inclusive, as if fully set forth at length herein.

24. Plaintiff’s recovery on his injuries, if any, is barred by Plaintiff’s own failure to

mitigate damages, if any.

IV. AS AND FOR A FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, DEFENDANT ALLEGES AS FOLLOWS:

25. Defendant repeats, reiterates and re alleges each and every allegation set forth in

¶¶ 1–24, inclusive, as if fully set forth at length herein.

26. Plaintiff’s claim(s) are barred because the allegedly injurious statement(s)

Defendant made are truthful.

V. AS AND FOR A FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, DEFENDANT ALLEGES AS FOLLOWS:

27. Defendant repeats, reiterates and re alleges each and every allegation set forth in

¶¶ 1–26, inclusive, as if fully set forth at length herein.

28. Plaintiff’s claims are barred because in whole or in part because Defendant was

engaging in protected free speech.

5 of 18
FILED: ORANGE COUNTY CLERK 11/28/2023 06:38 PM INDEX NO. EF006768-2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 21 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/28/2023

VI. AS AND FOR A SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, DEFENDANT ALLEGES AS FOLLOWS:

29. Defendant repeats, reiterates and re alleges each and every allegation set forth in

¶¶ 1–28, inclusive, as if fully set forth at length herein.

30. Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole or in part because the statements were

intended to solely represent Defendant’s opinion.

VII. AS AND FOR A SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, DEFENDANT ALLEGES AS

FOLLOWS:

31. Defendant repeats, reiterates and re alleges each and every allegation set forth in

¶¶ 1–30, inclusive, as if fully set forth at length herein.

32. Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole or in part because the damages, if any, are

speculative or de minimis in nature.

VIII. AS AND FOR AN EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, DEFENDANT ALLEGES AS

FOLLOWS:

33. Defendant repeats, reiterates and re alleges each and every allegation set forth in

¶¶ 1–32, inclusive, as if fully set forth at length herein.

34. Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole or in part due to his knowledge and/or

consent.

IX. AS AND FOR A NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, DEFENDANT ALLEGES AS FOLLOWS:

35. Defendant repeats, reiterates and re alleges each and every allegation set forth in

¶¶ 1–34, inclusive, as if fully set forth at length herein.

36. Plaintiff’s claim(s) are barred by his own unclean hands.

6 of 18
FILED: ORANGE COUNTY CLERK 11/28/2023 06:38 PM INDEX NO. EF006768-2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 21 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/28/2023

X. AS AND FOR A TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, DEFENDANT ALLEGES AS FOLLOWS:

37. Defendant repeats, reiterates and re alleges each and every allegation set forth in

¶¶ 1–36, inclusive, as if fully set forth at length herein.

38. Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole or in part due to his own fraudulent or

illegal conduct.

COUNTERCLAIMS

STATEMENT OF FACT

1. The story begins on or about January 19, 2015 when Plaintiff/Cross-claim

Defendant Andrew B. Leider, Esq., retained Defendant/Cross-claim Plaintiff as a paralegal and

executive assistant for his law offices located at 2629 Route 302, Middletown, NY 10941.

2. Approximately two months prior to Defendant’s start date with Attorney Leider in

January 2015, on or about October 15, 2014, Steven Faith—her husband of ten years—

unexpectedly filed for divorce. This left Ms. Faith devastated and vulnerable both emotionally

and financially.

3. At the time, Ms. Faith and her then-husband owned the property commonly

known as 231 Celery Avenue, New Hampton, New York, 10958 (“Premises”), which was

financed and titled in the name of both spouses.

4. During the Faith’s marriage, Steven Faith was responsible for making the

mortgage payments, while Mrs. Faith paid for other expenses to maintain the household and their

children.

7 of 18
FILED: ORANGE COUNTY CLERK 11/28/2023 06:38 PM INDEX NO. EF006768-2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 21 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/28/2023

5. Unbeknownst to Defendant, Steven Faith had stopped paying the mortgage in

approximately June 2014. Defendant first found out that they were in default of their mortgage

in early 2015 when the bank served foreclosure papers.

6. After Defendant was served, she tried everything she could to work with the bank

to secure a loan modification.

7. Following many months in the loss mitigation negotiation process, the foreclosing

bank finally approved Defendant for a loan modification. However, Steven Faith would not

accept the terms. Instead, he insisted that Defendant buyout his interest. At that time, Defendant

did not independently have the funds or credit to do that. As a result, she was left at a complete

loss as to how to remedy her divorce and home situation.

8. Given the heavy toll this was taking on her, Defendant shared the details of her

difficult situation with her family, friends, and also her employer, Attorney Leider.

9. After Attorney Leider became aware of Defendant’s situation in 2015, he started

to pursue her, almost aggressively, in an attempt to supposedly “help” her with the divorce and

housing situation.

10. For example, Attorney Leider would show up uninvited at Defendant’s house

after work and on weekends to offer unsolicited advice.

11. In addition to their employee-employer relationship, Attorney Leider, became

close with Defendant and her family. Therefore, he would also come to family functions such as

holiday dinners and birthday parties, where he would hold himself out to Defendant’s friends and

family as not just her boss, but also as her attorney who was helping with her interrelated

housing and divorce issues.

8 of 18
FILED: ORANGE COUNTY CLERK 11/28/2023 06:38 PM INDEX NO. EF006768-2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 21 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/28/2023

12. In fact, whenever Defendant would ask Attorney Leider if I should hire an

attorney to help with her divorce or foreclosure, he would respond, “I am your attorney.”

13. Defendant’s son and daughter witnessed this and would be able to testify to that

effect.

14. Steven Faith also confirms that “throughout the foreclosure, Attorney Leider held

himself out to me and others as Sheila’s attorney in the foreclosure and also occasionally in our

divorce.” Steven Faith Aff. at ¶ 12.

15. Mr. Leider also made similar representations in front of Defendant’s sisters and

other family members, who would testify to that effect.

16. In addition to his statements where he gave Defendant advice or represented

himself as her attorney, there is concrete proof that he purported to be and acted as her attorney.

17. For example, he appeared for Defendant on multiple occasions in both the divorce

and foreclosure proceedings. The same is reflected in court records. To date, for example,

ECOURTS stills shows Attorney Leider as her representative in the foreclosure. Please see an

image of the ECOURTS search results annexed hereto as Exhibit A.

18. Therefore, from Defendant’s perspective, there was never any question as to

whether they had an attorney-client relationship, which is perhaps why that point wasn’t stressed

in previous submissions before the Supreme Court.

19. As part of his “lawyerly advice,” Attorney Leider devised a plan to supposedly

solve both Defendant’s foreclosure issue and divorce issue at the same time. More specifically,

he suggested that he would use the proceeds from one of the properties he was selling to pay off

9 of 18
FILED: ORANGE COUNTY CLERK 11/28/2023 06:38 PM INDEX NO. EF006768-2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 21 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/28/2023

Defendant’s then-existing mortgage, pay ex-husband Steven Faith for his interest, and then hold

a private mortgage so Defendant and her family could continue to remain in their home.

20. In the face of no other options, Defendant, naturally, agreed to the private

mortgage plan, which kept her and family housed.

21. Ms. Faith did not explore other options such as borrowing money from other

relatives out of trust that Attorney Leider’s private mortgage plan was in her best interest.

22. At the very last minute, however, as Defendant was up against her home going to

auction, Attorney Leider informed her that they had to change the private mortgage plan.

Specifically, instead of Defendant retaining title to the property subject to a mortgage Leider

would hold, he wanted Defendant to transfer the property to himself to hold on her behalf, in

trust, until she could come up with other financing.

23. When Ms. Faith questioned why they could not proceed with the original private

mortgage plan, Attorney Leider insisted that Defendant could not be on the deed because Steven

Faith could use that fact to bring an action against the home.

24. Faced with the mounting pressure, Defendant agreed to this new plan believing

that Attorney Leider was genuinely doing this to protect her and her interests.

25. Under Attorney Leider’s new scheme, in order to pay off the mortgage on the

Premises and pay Steven Faith, Attorney Leider drafted a lease that he advised Defendant was

for the sole purpose of securing a commercial loan.

26. This scheme is reflected in the 20-year term of the lease, which was intended to

ensure Defendant she would be able to remain in her home long-term even after title was

officially changed.

10 of 18
FILED: ORANGE COUNTY CLERK 11/28/2023 06:38 PM INDEX NO. EF006768-2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 21 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/28/2023

27. In his capacity as Defendant’s attorney, Leider drafted a contract of sale, the

lease, and all other legal documents. He then advised Defendant to sign everything for her

benefit. Defendant, out of trust, acquiesced signed the “lease” he proffered on April 26, 2017.

28. Attorney Leider never demanded or asked for rent the entire time Defendant was

his client nor while she was his employee. This is because he was getting compensated by

impermissibly withholding a portion of Defendant’s pay.

29. Because Defendant worked full-time for and received regular pay from Attorney

Leider, they decided that Attorney Leider simply would retain a portion of Defendant’s pay and

apply it toward the loan.

30. Defendant did not know that withholding wages in this way was contrary to New

York Labor law.

31. Indeed, it was when Defendant asked for a payoff amount giving her credit for the

sums he had been withholding from my pay that he fired her summarily.

32. These withheld sums total to more than $67,000, which does not include any

mandatory overtime pay.

33. These sums withheld are reflected in Defendant’s inconsistent pay history.

Attached as Exhibit B is a copy of all the checks Defendant supposedly received from Attorney

Leider’s operating account together with a table comparing those checks with her bank

statements. Therefore, the table shows all instances either where (1) Attorney Leider did not

issue Defendant a pay check at all, and (2) where Attorney Leider drafted a check to Defendant,

but never gave it to her and she never cashed it.

11 of 18
FILED: ORANGE COUNTY CLERK 11/28/2023 06:38 PM INDEX NO. EF006768-2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 21 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/28/2023

34. The instances where she never received a paycheck at all are reflected in the table,

by not having a check number or having any entry under “net pay received.” Instead, those

entries just show the pay Defendant should have received, which in turn, should have been

applied to her mortgage balance as shown in the “pay withheld for mortgage” column.

35. The instances where Attorney Leider cut a check that Defendant never received or

cashed are indicated in the table whenever there is both a paycheck number, but the “pay

withheld for mortgage” column also has an entry.

36. One particularly clear example shown by the table is that despite working for

Attorney Leider during all of 2016 and 2017, Attorney Leider did not give Defendant any checks

at all after October 7, 2016 until July 28, 2017.

37. Plaintiff admits that Defendant was employed from 2015. Verified Summons and

Complaint, NYSCEF Doc. No. 1 at ¶ 6.

38. Similarly, despite continuing to report to the office full time, Defendant did not

receive any checks between April 10, 2020 to September 17, 2021. While the office was not

open to the public due to COVID-19, the office remained open during that time.

39. In total, Attorney Leider withheld approximately $67,484.66 from Defendant’s

pay, which should have been applied to her mortgage, not including mandatory overtime.

40. In addition to the money withheld from her pay, Defendant made several other

direct payments to Attorney Leider that total more than $47,000 between 2016 and 2018. In fact,

both checks in 2018 specify in their memo that the payments are for the mortgage, not rent.

Please see a copy of those checks annexed hereto as Exhibit C.

12 of 18
FILED: ORANGE COUNTY CLERK 11/28/2023 06:38 PM INDEX NO. EF006768-2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 21 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/28/2023

41. Note, that after the closing and finalizing the divorce, Attorney Leider said that he

could not add Defendant to the deed as promised because the bank would “pull the mortgage.”

She did not question him because she trusted him as her attorney, employer and friend.

42. Steven Faith also trusted Attorney Leider on the basis of his representations as

Defendant’s lawyer. Steven Faith Aff. at ¶ 13.

43. Five years later, in June 2022 after Defendant asked Attorney Leider about the

status of the lien on the property and how to assume the loan and/or pay it off, he fired Defendant

without notice and started an eviction proceeding (bearing Index No. 22080019) against her in

the Town of Goshen Court, on the basis of the fraudulent lease.

44. Despite Ms. Faith being represented in the eviction by prior counsel, and despite

major procedural issues, the Town of Goshen Court inappropriately granted a judgment of

possession, a monetary judgment and issued a warrant of eviction all on default.

45. In response, instant counsel filed a motion to vacate the improper default and

restore the matter to the Town Court’s calendar.

46. The Town Court (Hon. Amanda Brady, Town Justice) denied that motion on

October 4, 2023.

47. Instant counsel filed a Notice of Appeal of the Town Court’s decision on

November 7, 2023.

48. On November 20, 2023, the Appellate Term (Hon. James P. McCormack) signed

an Order to Show Cause returnable December 7, 2023 staying the impending execution of the

eviction.

13 of 18
FILED: ORANGE COUNTY CLERK 11/28/2023 06:38 PM INDEX NO. EF006768-2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 21 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/28/2023

49. In conclusion, Defendant thought she was doing the right thing to save her home

by listening to her attorney—the Plaintiff—who is now evicting her and suing her in this action.

50. Defendant thought she was saving her home by listening to Attorney Leider, but

she now in much worse position than if he had not been involved.

51. Specifically, she is about to lose her home and there is a judgment that says she

owes him $170,000.00

52. Attorney Leider was acting as her attorney and, therefore she trusted him and his

plans implicitly.

53. She now knows that she shouldn’t have.

I. AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION: QUIET TITLE/CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST

54. Defendant/Cross-claim Plaintiff repeats, reiterates, and realleges each and every

allegation set forth in paragraphs “1” through “53,” inclusive, as if fully set forth at length

herein.

55. Defendant brings this cause of action pursuant to N.Y. Real Prop. Acts. Law §

1515 to compel the determination of claims to the real property commonly known as 231 Celery

Avenue, New Hampton, New York, 10958 and being designated as Section 21, Block 1, Lot 107

on the tax maps of Orange County.

56. Defendant alleges title should be quieted in her under a theory of constructive

trust.

57. As the New York Court of Appeals laid out in its oft cited opinion in Sharp v. Kosmalski,

“[g]enerally, a constructive trust may be imposed ‘[when] property has been acquired in such

14 of 18
FILED: ORANGE COUNTY CLERK 11/28/2023 06:38 PM INDEX NO. EF006768-2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 21 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/28/2023

circumstances that the holder of the legal title may not in good conscience retain the beneficial

interest’. In the development of the doctrine of constructive trust as a remedy available to courts

of equity, the following four requirements were posited: (1) a confidential or fiduciary relation,

(2) a promise, (3) a transfer in reliance thereon and (4) unjust enrichment.” 40 N.Y.2d 119, 121

(1976) (internal citations omitted) (followed by Diaz v. Diaz, 130 A.D.3d 560 (App. Div. 2nd

Dept. 2015).

58. In this case: (1) Attorney Leider had a confidential or fiduciary relationship by virtue of

his representation to her, others and the Courts that he was acting as Defendant’s attorney.

Exhibit A.

59. (2) Attorney Leider promised Defendant that he was only taking title to the premises until

she could refinance the loan and that the 20-year commercial lease was ineffectual. Others also

understood the same thing. See Affidavit of Steven Faith at ¶¶ 10–11 (“The entire time, my

understanding was that Attorney Leider was only taking title temporarily while Sheila got back

on her feet enough to pay the loan. My understanding was that Attorney Leider would

eventually return the property to Sheila when she could obtain financing. This was never

supposed to be an arms-length sale between Sheila and Andy.

60. (3) Defendant did transfer the Premises in reliance on Attorney Leider’s promises.

61. (4) Attorney Leider will be unjustly enriched by keeping Defendant’s equity upon and by

not giving her credit for deductions from her pay.

62. Upon information and belief, pursuant to N.Y. Real Prop. Acts. Law § 1515(1)(c),

Plaintiff contends that all Defendants are known and are not infants, mentally retarded, mentally

ill or alcohol abusers.

15 of 18
FILED: ORANGE COUNTY CLERK 11/28/2023 06:38 PM INDEX NO. EF006768-2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 21 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/28/2023

63. Upon information and belief, pursuant to N.Y. Real Prop. Acts. Law § 1515(1)(d),

Plaintiff contends that judgment in his favor should not affect a person or persons not in being or

ascertained at the commencement of this action, who by any contingency contained in a devise

or grant or otherwise, could afterward become entitled to a beneficial estate or interest in the

property involved. Further, Plaintiff contends that every person in being who would have been

entitled to such estate or interest if such event had happened immediately before the

commencement of the action is named as a party hereto.

64. Therefore, we ask the Court to quiet title in the name of Defendant Sheila Faith, subject

to repayment of the amount he refinanced for her, giving due credit for wages withheld, in an

exact amount to be proven at trial.

II. AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION: WAGE THEFT

65. Defendant/Cross-claim Plaintiff repeats, reiterates, and realleges each and every

allegation set forth in paragraphs “1” through “63,” inclusive, as if fully set forth at length

herein.

66. Defendant was employed full-time with Defendant at his law offices from at least 2016.

67. During all the years of her employment, Plaintiff did not provide Defendant with a

statement or notice of her rate of pay, the basis of the her rate of pay, whether the employer

intended to claim allowances as part of the minimum wage, the employees’ regular pay day, the

name, address and telephone number of the employer.

68. While she was employed, Plaintiff impermissibly withheld wages from Defendant

without written disclosure or authorization in violation of New York Labor Law §193 or

otherwise underpaid her for her services. See Exhibit B.

16 of 18
FILED: ORANGE COUNTY CLERK 11/28/2023 06:38 PM INDEX NO. EF006768-2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 21 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/28/2023

WHEREFORE, Defendant/Counter-claim Plaintiff respectfully prays for:

i. A JUDGMENT quieting title to the Premises commonly known as 231

Celery Avenue, New Hampton, New York, 10958 in the name of the

Defendant Sheila Faith subject to loan Plaintiff incurred for Defendant’s

benefit in an exact amount to be proven at trial;

ii. A JUDGEMENT for the full amount of any underpayment or due credit

against the loan amount Plaintiff incurred for Defendant’s benefit in an exact

amount to be proven at trial together with prejudgment interest;

iii. A JUDGEMENT for reasonable attorney’s fees incurred in this action;

iv. A JUDGEMENT for liquidated damages equal to 100% of the wages due or

due credit against the loan amount Plaintiff incurred for Defendant’s benefit in

an exact amount to be proven at trial.

v. DISMISSAL of the Plaintiff’s causes of action with prejudice; and

vi. TOGETHER WITH any such further relief as to this Court may seem just

and proper under the circumstances.

Dated: November 28, 2023
Middletown, NY
GILBERT & MARTIN LLP

BY:____________________
TREVOR R. MARTIN, ESQ.
Attorneys for Defendant
45-47 Wickham Avenue
Middletown, NY 10940
(845) 342-1155

17 of 18
FILED: ORANGE COUNTY CLERK 11/28/2023 06:38 PM INDEX NO. EF006768-2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 21 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/28/2023

18 of 18

Case Info

Judge

Maria S Vazquezdoles Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

November 28, 2023

Case Filing Date

October 04, 2023

County

Parties

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Answer: Andrew Leider v. Sheila Faith

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties