Rochester, NY’s Top-Tier Bankruptcy Lawyer

MR. CORLETTA USES MULTI-DISCIPLINARY SKILLS TO AVOID CLIENT LIABILITY IN CHILD VICTIM ACT CASE

With New York recently expanding Statutes of Limitations for Sexual Abuse Tort cases, meaning that allegations can go back as far as the 1960s, creative lawyering is necessary to help defend against these cases, which are often brought against elderly people.

Even if not technically criminal due to the Criminal Statutes of Limitations expiring, they are often treated in prosecutorial fashion, and aggressively by Plaintiff’s attorneys seeking cash payments from school districts, churches, and other institutions.

But what occurs when your individual client is elderly, sick, has no such insurance coverage and has only minimal retirement based assets?

Such was the case in a case Mr. Corletta handled; Anonymous v. Anonymous (Wayne Co., 3/22).

In that case, Mr. Corletta’s 76-year-old client was sued by a person claiming they had been sexually abused by Mr. Corletta’s client in the 1980s-1990s, and had suffered trauma and alcoholism. The person had children, a career, and lived in a western state.

Mr. Corletta’s client was never prosecuted for any alleged offenses. The lawsuit literally came out of the blue and threatened what minimal assets the client had. It appeared to be a “moneygrab”.

After appearing in the case and interposing an Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and other discovery-related pleadings, Mr. Corletta researched whether the client would qualify for Chapter 7 Bankruptcy, and whether Plaintiff could object to a Discharge of their claim in the client’s Bankruptcy, and what standard of proof they had to meet.

Mr. Corletta determined that while an Objection could be filed, the standard of proof to sustain the Plaintiff’s claim would be much higher in Bankruptcy Court, and would have to rise to the level of a “willful and malicious” act.

Accordingly, Mr. Corletta placed his client in Chapter 7 Bankruptcy, noticing the Plaintiff in the Child Victims Act case. Mr. Corletta not only obtained a Bankruptcy Discharge for his client, but also successfully opposed a Motion by the Plaintiff for an extension of time to file an Objection.

Plaintiff’s counsel was clearly not familiar with the Bankruptcy Code and the Rules and procedures of the Bankruptcy Court, and did not timely file an Objection to Mr. Corletta’s client’s Bankruptcy Discharge. They also didn’t retain outside Bankruptcy counsel, although claiming they were going to.

As a result, the claim was discharged in Bankruptcy and the case closed, barring Plaintiff from any further action against Mr. Corletta’s client.

Mr. Corletta’s elderly client was released from the case and was quite grateful for Mr. Corletta’s hard work and diligence, as this allowed the client to retain the minimal assets they had.

Most lawyers in these cases simply cry poverty and beg for mercy from Plaintiffs, acting in a Judgmental fashion, instead of looking for solutions to help their clients. Lawyers are not here to judge, but to advocate and help the client, no matter what the allegations are. This was an example of that principle.

K.A. v. P.U. (Mon. Co. Sup. Ct., 1/22).

MR. CORLETTA STOPS ATTEMPTED ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN JUDGMENT AGAINST FORMER BANKRUPTCY CLIENT.

In a complicated matter, Mr. Corletta showed his ability to diagnose and analyze the facts and apply the applicable law in K.A. v. P.U. (Mon. Co. Sup. Ct., 1/22).

In that case, Mr. Corletta’s client was a former Bankruptcy client who ran upon hard times after the death of a spouse. The client obtained a Bankruptcy Discharge. All of the client’s assets were exempt from the claims of creditors in the Bankruptcy, and consisted of some retirement accounts and equity in a home.

Several years prior, the client had settled their mother’s affairs upon her death in a foreign country. This involved the sale of a condominium, which the client used to pay off the mother’s expenses, and for her funeral. The condominium had already been gifted to the client several years prior.

A disgruntled relative apparently believed they were entitled to some of the proceeds from the sale of the condominium, and brought a lawsuit against the client in the foreign country, obtaining a Judgment. The client, who lived in the USA, was never served or notified of the Judgment.

The relative then obtained a lawyer in New York City to “collect”. The lawyer attempted to enforce the Foreign Judgment by filing a Motion to Enforce the Judgment in Monroe County well after Mr. Corletta’s client obtained their Bankruptcy Discharge.

In this extremely complicated fact pattern, Mr. Corletta acted quickly. He determined the Foreign Judgment should not be honored under the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act, which governed the enforcement of Foreign Judgments in the USA, for a variety of reasons. He also determined the client’s prior Bankruptcy Discharge barred enforcement of the Foreign Judgment.

Mr. Corletta quickly filed responsive papers to the Motion, as well as a Memorandum of Law. The result was a complete denial of the relative’s Motion, barring enforcement of the Foreign Judgment against the client.

Needless to say, this had all the earmarks of an attempted money grab. It caused the client a great deal of stress, since the client was somewhat elderly and had limited means. The client was grateful that Mr. Corletta was able to stop this in a quick, efficient, and decisive manner, totally defeating the mercenary relative.