Supreme court of the state of new york
County of nassau
&) (
Hasharan sethi,
Plaintiff,
-against-
Randy narod, erica lee, deborah
Morrissey, brian wasserman, mitchell
Robbins, jerry mott, richard someck,
Donald trump, jr. And cambridge who's
Who publishing, inc.,
Defendants.
) (Index No. 002499
First Amended Complaint
Plaintiff, Harsharan Sethi (hereinafter "Sethi") by his attorneys, the Law Office of
Vincent R. Fontana, P.C., complaining of defendants, respectfully sets forth and alleges,
Upon information and belief, the following:
Parties
1. Plaintiff was an employee of defendant Cambridge Who's Who
Publishing, Inc. (hereinafter "Cambridge") as Director of Management Information
Systems ("MIS") for the period July 21 to May 10. He resides in Nassau
County.
2. Upon information and belief, at all relevant times defendant Randy
Narod (hereinafter "Narod") is President of Cambridge and is sued herein in his'
Individual and official capacity. Upon information and belief, Narod 1S a majority
Stockholder in Cambridge.
3. Upon information and belief, at all relevant times defendant Erica Lee
(hereinafter "Lee") was Chief Operating Officer and Chief Technical Officer for
Defendant Cambridge. Defendant Lee is sued herein in her individual and official
Capacity.
4. Upon information and belief, at all relevant times, defendant Deborah
Morrissey (hereinafter "Morrissey") was Vice President of Human Resources of
Defendant Cambridge. Defendant Morrissey is sued herein in her individual and official
Capacity.
5. Upon information and belief, at all relevant times, defendant Mitchell
Robbins (hereinafter "Robbins") was Chief Executive Officer of defendant Cambridge
And a stockholder in the company. Defendant Robbins is sued herein in his individual and
Official capacity.
6. Upon information and belief, at all relevant times, defendant Brian
Wasserman (hereinafter "Wasserman") was the Chief Financial Officer of defendant
Cambridge and a stockholder in the company. Defendant Wasserman is sued herein in his
Individual aqd official capacity.
7. Upon information and belief, at all relevant times, defendant Jerry Mott
(hereinafter "Mort") was the Chief Information Officer of defendant Cambridge.
Defendant Mort is sued herein in his individual and official capacity.
8. Upon information and belief, at all relevant times, Richard Someck
("Someck") was a principle stockholder in Cambridge.
9. Upon information and belief, at all relevant times, Donald Trump, Jr
("Trump") is a principle stockholder in Cambridge.
10. Upon information and belief, at all relevant times, defendant
Cambridge was a corporation organized under the laws of the State of New York with its
Principle place of business located at 498 RXR Plaza, West Tower, Uniondale, New York
11556.
Factual allegations
11. On December 29 plaintiff asked Michael Rainone about a
Missing tape drive and inquired if the tape drive had been replaced.
12. Bye-mail dated December 30, plaintiff asked defendant Lee
And Michael Rainone about the location of the tapes that were in the old drive that had
Been replaced. Lee did-not respond.
13. On several occasions during 2009 plaintiff orally advised Lee and
Morrissey that tapes were missing and that the loss must be reported to the appropriate
Authorities.
14. Bye-mail dated January 4 plaintiff again communicated with
Defendants Lee, Narod, Robbins and Morrissey advising them that a set of five (5) back-
. Up tapes that were taken by Proactive without authorization in December were still
Missing. They were reminded and advised once again that these tapes contained vital
Company data and financials, detailed information on every member and employee of
Cambridge including their credit card and social security numbers.in his January 4
E-mail plaintiff inquired if the proper authorities were advised that these tapes were
Rrussmg.
15. On January 4 defendant Lee sent plaintiff an e-mail confirming
That Proactive did not have any tapes but that she would investigate the matter.
16. Plaintiff received no further communication from defendant Lee on
This issue.
17. Bye-mail dated February 12 (which was sent on February 14,
2010) plaintiff again communicated with defendants Narod and Robbins on this issue.
18. A copy of plaintiff's February 12 e-mail was also sent to the
Nassau County District Attorney, the New York State Attorney General, the Internal
Revenue Service.
19. Following the issuance of these e-mails defendants engaged in a
Pattern and official policy of harassment of plaintiff. This harassment included verbal and
Physical threats, calling him derogatory names, and suspending him.
20. Bye-mail dated May 7 plaintiff again communicated with
Defendant Morrissey on the issue of the missing tapes.
21. As a direct result of this and the other e-mails plaintiff was terminated
As ofMay 11.
22. Immediately after his termination defendants and their counsel
Embarked on a campaign to prevent plaintiff from further communicating with the
Appropriate state agencies concerning these missing tapes/discs.
23. On May 12 defendant Cambridge instituted an action in the
Supreme Court, Nassau County, Index No. 9175 specifically designed to preclude
Plaintiff from speaking out on this issue.
24. Simultaneously with the filing of this complaint, defendant
Cambridge sought and was granted a Temporary Restraining Order ("TRO") precluding
Plaintiff from communicating with anyone, in any manner concerning the missing tapes.
However, by Order dated September 7 the Court denied Cambridge's request for a
Preliminary injunction.
25. On October 25, after Cambridge was denied a preliminary
Injunction, plaintiff sent an e-mail to the New York State Attorney General's office,
Security Breach Notification Department, the Consumer Frauds and Protection Bureau,
The New York State Office of Cyber Security, and the New York State Consumer
Protection Board concerning these missing tapes.
26. On November 23, defendant Cambridge again brought on a
Motion for a TRO to preclude plaintiff from communicating with the appropriate state
Agencies concerning the missing tapes.
27.By Order dated January 25 the court denied Cambridge's
Request.in doing so the court specifically held that "defendant's [Sethi's]
Communications concerning the data loss are constitutionally protected..." In reaching
That conclusion the court further held: "the claimed data loss, involving social security
Numbers and credit card information, implicates the economic interests of a large number
Of people. Thus the content of defendant's communication is a matter of public concern
...' (Emphasis added).
28.in support of Cambridge's November 23 request for a TRO,
Cambridge submitted affidavits from Randy Narod, Erica Lee and Deborah Morrissey,
Each of whom sought to interfere with plaintiffs constitutional rights and obligations to
Address issues of public concern by contacting the appropriate state agencies.
As and for a first
Cause of action against
All defendants for
Violating labor law
Section 740
29. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation set forth in
Paragraphs "1" through "28" as if fully set forth herein.
30. Upon information and belief, at all relevant times Narod IS an
Employer as defined by Labor Law 740 (1) (b).
31. Upon information and belief, at all relevant times Cambridge is an
Employer as defined by Labor Law 740 (1) (b).
32. Upon information and belief, at all relevant times Wasserman is an
Employer as defined by Labor Law 740 (1) (b)
33. Upon information and belief, at all relevant times Lee is an employer
As defined by Labor Law 740 (1) (b).
34. Upon information and belief, at all relevant times Morrissey is an
Employer as defmed by Labor Law 740 (1) (b).
35. Upon information and belief, at all relevant times Robbins IS an
Employer as defined by Labor Law 740 (1) (b).
36. Upon information and belief, at all relevant times Mott is an employer
As defined by Labor Law 740 (1) (b).
37. Upon information and belief, at all relevant times Someck 1S an
Employer as defined by Labor Law 740 (1) (b).
38. Upon information and belief, at all relevant times Trump 1S an
Employer as defined by Labor Law 740 (1) (b).
39. During the period January to May 7 plaintiff, orally and
Bye-mail, advised defendants herein that several tapes/discs containing confidential
Financial information of approximately 400,000 members of Cambridge, as well as
Thousands of Cambridge employees, were missing and Uflaccounted for.
40. Defendants were further advised that Cambridge's members and
Employees must be notified that these tapes/discs were missing and UflaccoUflted for and
That they should take precautions against catastrophic financial loss and identity theft.
41. Defendants were also advised that the appropriate state agencies and
Relevant financial institutions must be advised that certain tapes/discs were Uflaccounted
For as required by various state laws.
42. Defendants repeatedly failed and refused to notify its members and
Employees, and the appropriate state agencies and financial institutions that the
Tapes/discs were unaccounted for.
43. On several occasions, plaintiff notified the appropriate state agencies that
Several tapes/discs had been missing and that defendants had failed and refused to notify
The members and employees of Cambridge ofthat fact.
44. The failure to notify Cambridge's members and employees, and the
Appropriate state agencies constituted a substantial danger to the financial health and
Safety of Cambridge's 400,000 members, 1500 employees, and the thousands of financial
Institutions with which they did business.
45.in retaliation for advising defendants of the missing and unaccounted for
Tapes/discs, plaintiff was harassed and ultimately fired in May.
46. Defendants continue to retaliate against plaintiff by filing suit against
Him in the State Supreme Court, Nassau County, Index No. 9175.in furtherance of
Their conspiracy and retaliation against plaintiff defendants have, on two separate
Occasions, sought an injunction barring plaintiff from advising the appropriate authorities
Of the missing and unaccounted for tapes/discs.
47. Because of defendants' attempts at securing an injunction against
Plaintiff, he has incurred substantial expenses in defending these motions.
WHEREFORE, it is hereby requested that plaintiff be awarded:
(1) An injunction to prevent further violations of Labor Law 740;
(2) Reinstatement with full benefits;
(3) Back pay;
(4) Attorneys fees and costs;
(5) and such other and further relief as to the Court may be justified.
As and for a second
Cause of action against
Narod and cambridge
For assault
48. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation set forth ill
Paragraphs "1" through "47" as if fully set forth herein.
49. On or about 1:30 P.M. On September 9, plaintiff was quietly
Having lunch at RXR Plaza, in a restaurant open to the general public when
Defendant Narod, approached plaintiff and demanded, without authority, to
Know why plaintiff was at that location. When told by plaintiff he was merely
Having a quiet lunch, Narod verbally assaulted plaintiff and threatened him with
Permanent physical harm.
50. At no time did plaintiff consent to this verbal abuse and threats of
Physical harm.in fact, in fear for his life, plaintiff called 911 for help.
51. Upon information and belief, Narod was acting within the scope of
His employment and with the consent and authority of Cambridge.
52. Narod's behavior caused plaintiff to experience physical and
Emotional pain, suffering and embarrassment, and to be in fear of his personal
Safety.
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully requested that this Court enter judgment in favor
Of plaintiff in an amount to be determined at trial.
As and for a third
Cause of action against
Narod, lee, morrissey,
Someck, and camaridge
For assault
53. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in
Paragraphs "1" through "52" as if fully set forth herein.
54.in or about November, defendant Narod threatened the physical
Wellbeing of plaintiff in the presence of defendants Lee, Morrissey and Someck.
55.in or about November, defendant Narod physically pushed plaintiff
In the presence of defendants Lee, Morrissey and Someck.
56.in or about November, defendant Narod physically charged
Plaintiff in the presence of defendants Lee, Morrissey and Someck
57.in or about November, defendant Narod slapped plaintiff in the
Face in the presence of defendants Lee, Morrissey and Someck.
58. At no time did plaintiff consent to any physical contact with defendant
Narod.
59. Upon information and belief, defendant Narod was acting with the full
Authority, consent and approval of defendants Lee, Morrissey, Someck and
Cambridge who stood by and watched as defendant Narod assaulted plaintiff.
60. Defendants Narod, Lee, Morrissey, Someck and Cambridge caused
Plaintiff to experience, physical and emotional pain, suffering and
Embarrassment.
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully requested that this Court enter judgment in favor
Of plaintiff in an amount to be determined at trial.
As and for a fourth
Cause of action against
Defendants lee, narod,
Morrissey and cambridge
For conversion
61. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in
Paragraphs "1" through "60" as if fully set forth herein.
62. While employed by defendant Cambridge plaintiff had several personal
Effects in or about his work station. They included the following: a pair of men's
Glasses with gold eyeglass case; direct deposit check stubs; a Circuit City
Discount card; several family pictures; personalized coffee cups with children's'
Pictures printed on them; several computer books; personal papers relating to
Various family trusts, including tax returns and other relevant documents;
Personal Parker pen set; cell phone charger, personal address/phone book; and
Alarm clock.
63. Notwithstanding several requests by plaintiff for the return of these
Items, defendants Lee, Narod, Morrissey and Cambridge have failed and refused
To return these personal items to plaintiff.
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully requested that this Court enter judgment in favor
Of plaintiff for the loss of these personal items in an amount to be determined at
Trial.
As and for a fifth cause
Of action against narod,
Robbins, someck, wasserman,
Trump and cambridge to pierce
The corporate veil
64. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in
Paragraphs "1" through "63" as if fully set forth herein.
65. Upon information and belief, defendants Narod, Someck, Trump,
Wasserman and Robbins are the principle stockholders of Cambridge owning
Approximately 92% of its stock.
66. Upon information and belief, at all relevant times, defendants Narod,
Someck, Trump, Wasserman and Robbins approved the use of cash and other
Assets of Cambridge to pay employees of other companies owned or controlled
By the defendants to the detriment and financial harm to Cambridge. Upon
Information and belief, these other business entities include Bellmore Bagel Cafe,
Butera's Restaurant, DaVinci's Restaurant, Long Beach Bagel Cafe and Sugar
Li.
67. Upon information and belief, at all relevant times, defendants have
Approved, or did not object to, the use of Cambridge assets for their personal use
Including but not limited to, utilizing Cambridge's telephone systems for personal
Calls unrelated to business; and utilizing Cambridge's computer systems and
Employees for the defendants' other business interests.
68. Upon information and belief, defendants have approved relatives
Employed in other personal businesses of defendants to obtain employment
Benefits from Cambridge normally available only to actual employees of
Cambridge.
69. Upon information and belief, at all relevant times, defendants exercised
Complete domination of Cambridge and its assets and approved the use of cash
And other assets to pay defendants' personal expenses and obligations, to
Plaintiffs detriment.
70. For the reasons set forth herein, if the Court does not pierce
Cambridge's corporate veil and impose personal liability on defendants Narod,
Robbins, Someck, Wasserman and Trump, plaintiff will be denied the ability to
Recover damages he has suffered as a result of defendants' wrongful conduct.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff hereby demands that the Court enter judgment against
Defendants Cambridge, Narod, Robbins, Someck, Wasserman and Trump
Piercing the corporate veil and awarding such damages against each defendant
As may be determined at trial.
As and for a sixth
Cause of action for
Defamation against
Randynarod
71. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in
Paragraphs "1" through "70" as if fully set forth herein.
72. Upon information and belief, defendant Narod made numerous false
And defamatory statements against plaintiff accusing him of attempting to "extort"
Money from defendant Cambridge.
73. Upon information and belief, defendant Narod made these statements
To Jose Martinez, a staff writer for the New York Dailey News, with the
Understanding and expectation that these statements would be published in the
Newspaper.
74. Upon information and belief, these statements were published in the
Newspaper on or about February 22.
75. The statements made against the plaintiff were untrue and were of
Such a character as to be irresponsible, careless, reckless, and malicious.
76. The statements made hold the plaintiff up to public contempt, scandal,
And disgrace and injure his standing in the community.
77. The statements made constitute slander per se as they imput the
Commission of a crime ("extortion").
78. Upon information and belief, said statements have and will continue to
Affect plaintiff's ability to secure employment in his chosen profession.
79. Upon information and belief, defendant Narod was acting within the
Scope of his employment as president of defendant Cambridge.
WHEREFORE, as a result of defendant Narod's defamatory comments,
Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount to be determined at trial but not less
Than $30,000, 000.00.
As and for a seventh
Cause of action against
Cambridge and does one
Through ten
80. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in
Paragraphs "1" through "79" as if fully set forth herein.
81. Upon information and belief, on or about February 22, defendant
Cambridge through its officers and directors, Randy Narod and Does One
Through Ten, while acting within the scope of their employment, made false and
Injurious statements of fact concerning the plaintiff.
82. Upon information and belief, defendants told Jose Martinez, a reporter
For the New York Daily News, that plaintiff was trying to "extort" money from
Cambridge and that plaintiff was "trying to shake them down".
83. That on or about February 22 the specific statements were
Published by the New York Daily News.
84 That the specific statements have exposed the plaintiff to hatred,
Aversion, contempt, and/or caused plaintiff to suffer an unsavory opinion of
Himself in a substantial number of people within the state of New York.
85. That the specific statements as set forth above were published by the
Defendants in written form, constituting libel.
86. That the specific statements as set forth above were published by the
Defendants in oral form, constituting slander.
87. That the statements made against plaintiff were untrue and were of
Such a character as to be irresponsible, careless, reckless and malicious.
WHEREFORE, as a result of defendants' defamatory comments, plaintiff has
Been damaged in an amount to be determined at trial but not less than
$30,000, 000.00.
Dated: Garden City, New York
March 15
Yours, etc
Law Office of Vincent R. Fontana P.C.
Vincent R. Fontana (Attorney for Plaintiff)
Attorneys for Plaintiff
1010 Franklin Avenue, Suite 200
Garden City, New York 11530
(516) 640-4505
Fax: (516) 640-4983
TO: Randy Zelin (Attorney for Defendents)
Moritt Hock & Hamroff, LLP
Attorneys for Defendants
400 Garden City Plaza
Garden City, New York 11530
0 comments