2012 Lydia Couri Complaint V Robbins (And Couri) PDF

Case 1:12-cv-02220-TPG-FM Document 1
UNITED STAtt5;~T~~i,Nqtzni
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Filed 03/26/12 Page 1 of 75
J2
LYDIA ALEXANDRA COURl,
cv
2220
Indei~TON
Plaintiff,
- against-
-'~\~\
---'\
McLAUGHLIN & STERN, LLP, and

JON PAUL ROBBINS, ESQ.,
_.~\ri
';'" \~\\\
..~r2"
\ \J:\ \:.~"
.\\ ,\\
~..-~.. (.~ \ t.~j \ \ ~;,,'f~Jt"-.4 \ \ \t,
_w"
\\~~\';
\S:.
\\\\ \'
\.\\
\ir
. .'~.:.::,--""
.......;..,:'I"::.
\\", \"G ,,\;) \;,;~..;...,.., \\~\ \\
~.\'"
) i ."r',1
II
\;
'. "-"""'\
., \ ,
\ 1\\\ \'.:
;.',
. Defendants.
. 4. \ ", 'f \, .",. \ \
\- 1 " '1. ~. .. ,,,.,~,...,,,

\\',
\\\,,,,,,,",;\
r,., . ,... .'. '.' _._~,~
0"-'. t.
..~ N:'' .
\\
'iI
\,:\.
."",#-",)'ii"
~,.i."Q'
,c.~j
'l
;i.~;_'\1
("~_V..
_'i\-"
L ;:~' " it,.;, '0; \ .. 11 """." ""i ttl.~ i ,:Jll.
..''' ..".
\\--- C~.
1 '1 ) "" 'r,of "'.. ;,1', ~'''l ~ -t.., .-,.--
COMPLAINT
FOLKENFLIK & MCGERITY
1500 Broadway
21 st Floor
New York, New York 10036

Attorneys for Plaintif
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
LYDIA ALEXADRA COURl,

Index No.
Plaintiff,
COMPLAINT
- against-
McLAUGHLIN & STERN, LLP, and

JON PAUL ROBBINS, ESQ.,
Defendants.
Plaintiff Lydia Alexandra couri, by her attorneys Folkenflik & McGerity, for her
Complaint against McLaughlin & Stern, LLP, and Jon Paul Robbins, Esq., alleges as follows:
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF CLAIMS

1. This is an action against Jon Paul Robbins ("Robbins"), the Trustee of
the Lydia
Alexandra couri 1989 Trust (the "1989 Trust"), by the beneficiary of the 1989 Trust, Plaintiff
Lydia Alexandra coun ("Alex"). Robbins and his firm McLaughlin & Stern, LLP were also
attorneys for Alex and her father James couri ("James" or "Couri") (who sued on her behalf) in
a 1989 suit by Alex against her uncle John concerning Alex's family inheritance. The 1989
Trust was established to settle that case with the oversight and approval of the late Judge Charles
the United States District Court of
Brieant and the late Magistrate Judge Joel J. Tyler of
Southern District of
the
New York. At the time, Alex was 11 years old and living with her father, a
twice convicted felon (securities fraud and bank fraud), who had repeatedly engaged in other
frauds, and had deceived, lied to and stolen money from business associates and his own family.
That behavior was the cause of James' disinheritance by his family, which in essence was at the
core of Alex's suit.
2. In light of James Couri's disreputable background, the Court understandably
wanted the money in the 1989 Trust to be secure, and to be used for Alex's exclusive benefit,
and not for the benefit of James. The Court expressly required, and the parties and their counsel,
including Robbins, represented to the Court that the 1989 Trust would be so managed. At a
hearing before Magistrate Judge Tyler held on June 15, 1989, counsel read the stipulation
establishing the 1989 Trust as providing that "in no event shall James c. Couri receive any part
of
the distribution of
transcript of
the
the principal or interest in the Trust." Tr. 6/15/89 at 4. A copy of
the June 15, 1989 hearing is annexed hereto as Exhibit A. The Cour asked for and
received Robbins' express acknowledgement of
those terms. d. at 4-10.
3. At a later hearng on July 7, 1989, Magistrate Judge Tyler said to Robbins, "I'm
getting a little suspicious about your client (James Cour), I must say... That money is
safeguarded for this child. The only concern I have, and I am sure it is your concern as well, is
for this youngster, Alexandra couri and no one else. I want that money in there, in an interest
the transcript of
bearng account." Tr. 7/7/89 at 12-13. A copy of
the July 7, 1989 is annexed
hereto as Exhibit B. The Trust indenture for the 1989 Trust dated July 7, 1989 is anexed hereto
as Exhibit C.
4. However, Alex's interest was not Robbins' sole concern. Nor was it the sole
concern of
Robbins' firm Alkalay Handler, Robbins & Herman ("AHRH") (hereinafter referred
to together with its successors, Alkalay Handler, Robbins &Korn, Nitkin Alkalay Handler, and
Robbins'
McLaughlin & Stern, LLP, as "McLaughlin & Stern "). Throughout the period of
service as Trustee, Robbins and McLaughlin & Stern were deeply conflcted in having to choose
between Robbins' fiduciar duty to Alex and the desire to please their client James Couri. James
litigation business. Among his other
was a current and potential future source of substantial
attributes, James was a frequent and obsessive litigant, both on his own behalf and for numerous
entities which he established and/or controlled. Robbins and McLaughlin & Stem wanted to
profit off of James' obsession.
5. As a result, throughout the period in which Robbins was Trustee, Robbins and
McLaughlin & Stem consistently, indeed, uniformly, made the wrong choice and acted to benefit
James, and in some instances to benefit Robbins himself and McLaughlin & Stem, in disregard
of
Robbins' fiduciar duties to Alex. Durng that time period Robbins and McLaughlin & Stern
acted as counsel for James, his wife, Marlene couri ("Marlene"), and numerous companies
controlled by James in no less than 15 law suits.
6. Although the 1989 Trust was designed to have its corpus invested for Alex's
benefit and distributed to her between the age of25 and 32, not one penny was ever invested in
anything other than a money market fund. Virtually all of the 1989 Trust was distributed by July
1992 as "loans" to James which were never repaid. $25,000 was deposited in McLaughlin &
Stern's escrow account, used to secure a litigation bond taken out by McLaughlin & Stem and
then distributed directly to James or otherwise for his benefit.
7. The 1989 Trust paid for James' Cadilac. The 1989 Trust paid for James'
msurance. The 1989 Trust paid for James' medical expenses. The 1989 Trust made payments
and loans to James' corporations. The 1989 Trust paid for James' vacations with his wife
(without Alex) in Vermont.
8. A small minority of
these payments have been argued by Robbins to have
benefited Alex (some payments to her schools, her summer camp, her doctors), but those were
also improper under the terms of
the 1989 Trust and merely paid for expenses that James was
obligated and able to pay himself. Most of
the payments do not even have that flimsy excuse,
Robbins and McLaughlin
and were flagrantly and exclusively for James' benefit or the benefit of
& Stem.
their wrongful conduct.
9. Robbins and McLaughlin & Stem were well aware of
They had James sign an agreement in 1993 that he would not assist Alex in any claims against
the 1989
Robbins or McLaughlin & Stem concerning Robbins' breaches of duty as Trustee of
Trust. They paid Marlene $7,500 in return for that agreement and the settlement of claims James
brought against them.
10. By 1995, Robbins had disbursed over $225,000 from the Trust: $175,000
originally deposited approximately $35,000 paid in by James (then taken back out within a few
those
days); and all interest earned which amounted to approximately $15,000. The vast bulk of
distributions occurred between February 1991 and July 1992. James agreed to repay every
penny and gave written promises, formal promissory notes, and assignments of collateral, which
repayment of
included valuable ar which James directed Robbins to sell if
the loans did not
occur by specified dates. The specified dates came and went, and Robbins made no effort to
obtain any repayment, or to sell the collateral (with one exception) or to enforce the promissory
note. The one exception was a 1994 attempt to sell one piece of collateral valued to be worth at
least $700.
11. In 1998, however, James wanted his art back. Robbins knew that he could not
the loan. On information and belief,
simply give away the collateral without repayment of
Robbins also knew that James did not want to repay the loan. Robbins also became aware of
approximately 1998 James had
James' continuing and expanding obsession with litigation. By
filed over 22 lawsuits, pro se. Robbins knew that James could be persuaded to hire counsel for
some of those cases and he wanted that business for McLaughlin & Stem, which had no
relationship with James since 1993 when James had sued them. Robbins had an idea which
would get James the ar he wanted and in return McLaughlin & Stern would receive $50,000 and
could profit from the potential flood of
business James could generate.

by Robbins in 1998 and
12. Pursuant to this plan, in a transaction conceived of
apparently engineered by Robbins beginning in 1999 and consummated in 2000, Robbins agreed
to transfer the art and other collateral to James' wife Marlene, and transfer of
most ofthe
remaining assets of the 1989 Trust to the exclusive control of James as Trustee of a new Trust
ostensibly for the benefit of Alex, but in reality for the benefit of James ("the 1998 Trust"). This
transaction effectively made James a successor Trustee for assets in the control ofthe 1989
the 1989 Trust, and which
Trust, a result which is specifically prohibited by Section 4.A.2. of
was, by itself, a breach of
Robbins' fiduciary duties to the Trust and to Alex. James also agreed
to contribute assets to the 1998 Trust, but as show below, the assets were worth little or nothing,
and known by Robbins to be worth little or nothing. However, in return, James did make a
payment of cash to McLaughlin & Stern of $50,000 (ostensibly for the payment of past, but
apparently undocumented, fees due to McLaughlin & Stem), and an additional payment of
$25,000 as retainer for legal services to be provided and for the retention of
McLaughlin & Stern
as counsel for James, a variety entities controlled by James, and for a charitable foundation
James was establishing. Charity, however, did not begin at home. Nothing was paid back to the
1989 Trust. On information and belief no cash was ever received by the 1998 Trust either.
McLaughlin & Stem got paid, but Alex never received a penny from either Trust.
13. The 1989 Trust continued until at least November 2010. In November 2010, Alex
turned 32 and by its terms the 1989 Trust terminated. At that time James thought he would
shortly be dying from cancer. James had been diagnosed with Stage IV Melanoma. James
confessed Robbins' wrongdoings to Alex. At first Alex was confused. She protested to her
father, in words or substance, "but you got the money." He replied, "It's not your fault your
father is a charlatan." Alex said that Robbins would surely sue James. He replied that it was his
problem, not hers.
14. Alex was well aware of
her father's frequent involvement in lawsuits. She was
reluctant to star a suit against Robbins unless it was clear that he acted wrongfully. Alex sought
a full accounting from Robbins, and consulted an attorney. Her attorney received a box of
documents, incomplete copies of checks, deposit slips and invoices as well as some letters and
notes. There were no accounting records. However, what was retained reveals wholesale
improper conduct by Robbins as Trustee and by McLaughlin and Stem, and forms the basis of
the allegations in this Complaint. As a result, Alex has commenced this action.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE

15. This Court has
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1332(a)(2) based on diversity
of citizenship and amount. Plaintiff Lydia Alexandra Couri is a citizen of the State of California.
Defendant Robbins is a citizen of
the State of
New York. Defendant McLaughlin & Stem is a
limited liability parnership under the laws of
of
the State of
New York and with its principal place
business in New York. The matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of$75,000,
exclusive of interest and costs.

16. In addition, this Court has jurisdiction because this action arses out of the
settlement of
the action Couri v. Couri, 88 Civ. 6985 (GLG), resolved by Stipulation and
jurisdiction retained by this Court
Consent Judgment # 89,0133 WP, dated July 18, 1989, "with
if
necessary to reopen in order to enforce the settlement. . ."

17. The Southern District of
New York is proper venue under 28 U.S.C. 1391(a)(2)
and 28 U.S.c.A. 1391(a)(3). A substantial part ofthe events or omissions giving rise to the
New York.
claims in this action took place in the City and State of
THE PARTIES AND OTHER SIGNIFICANT INDIVIDUALS AND ENTITIES

18. Plaintiff
establishment of
the
Lydia Alexandra Couri ("Alex") is 33 years old, and at the time of
the 1989 Trust in question, was 11 years old. The 1989 Trust's assets were
almost fully depleted when Alex was 13 years old. Alex received a Bachelor of Arts Degree
from Washington University in St. Louis and a Masters Degree in Art History from Stony Brook
University in New York. She is currently employed in and lives in Los Angeles, CA.
the Bar of
19. Defendant Jon Paul Robbins ("Robbins") has been a member of
York since 1974. He specializes in civil
New
litigation and claims to have special expertise in trust

the firm Nitkin Alkalay Handler &
and estate litigation. Robbins was a founding partner of
Robbins, later known as Alkalay Handler, Robbins & Korn, and Alkalay, Handler, Robbins &
Herman which merged into defendant McLaughlin & Stem LLP in 1992. McLaughlin & Stern,
and the predecessor Robbins firms are herein referred to collectively as "McLaughlin & Stern."
Robbins was a personal friend of James Couri. Robbins and McLaughlin & Stern represented
James Couri in a wide variety oflegal actions over the years, before and during the periods in
which Robbins breached his fiduciar duties to the 1989 Trust and Alex.
20. Defendant McLaughlin & Stem is a long-established New York firm, currently
with over 80 attorneys, with specialties in a wide variety of legal practice areas including, in
particular, litigation and trusts and estates.
21. James Couri (sometimes referred to herein as "James" or "Couri") is Alex's
father. James is currently 72 years old and apparently judgment proof, a state which he has
sought to maintain for decades. James has a long history of dishonesty and deceit, including two
federal felony convictions, and numerous disputes and suits where his veracity and integrity have
been found wanting.
FACTS RELEVANT TO ALL CLAIMS

22. Although this action arises out of a Trust established in 1989, in order to
the Trust's creator, and the extreme
understand the genesis ofthe 1989 Trust, the intent of
departures from his fiduciary duty by Robbins acting as Trustee, it is important to understand the
type of
man one is dealing with when one deals with James Couri. James has a long and sorry
background of deception and criminal conduct. Even as a teenager, James would find ways to
swindle his relatives out of
money. As a young man, in his earliest employment, he forged his
father's name in order to gamble on a $30,000 bond purchase and lost. He borrowed money
from his family which he repaid with a fraudulent check on a closed account. He stole money
from his family business.
Filed 03/26/12 Page 10 of 75
23. On information and belief, from 1975 through early 1976, Couri was involved in
a stock manipulation scheme in the stock of Conrac Corporation, which led to his indictment on
securities fraud. Prior to that time and thereafter, he had owned an art auction house called
Plazagal International Corp. ("Plazagal") which had been sued for $ 1.8 million in demand
promissory notes by Manufacturers and Traders Trust Co. ("M&TT"). While operating
Plazagal, James was alleged to have lied to consignees of art with respect to the sale price of
that
ar and money due to the consignees. James created false financial records to secure a loan from
M&TT.
24.
Based on the misconduct with respect to Conrac and Plazagal, James was indicted
in 1980 and 1981 in two separate criminal informations. The first charged him with violating
federal securities laws with an attempt to manipulate the market for Conrac which had a
maximum penalty of $ 1 0,000 fine and 5 years imprisonment. The second felony involved
making false statements to a federally-insured bank, M&TT, for the purpose of inducing a loan.
Those charges carried a maximum penalty of $5,000 fine and 2 years imprisonment.
25. James was convicted of
against his accomplices. In summation at one of
both offenses in a plea bargain and testified at trial
those trials, he was described as "a con man, he
is a hustler, he is a liar, and he is a cheat and a very devious person. . ." Counsel also described
how James had lied in sworn statements. "He should be disbelieved in everything he said. . ."
These comments were publicly reported in a judicial opinion in United States v. Gilbert, 1981
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14098 (S.D.N.Y July 23,1981).
Filed 03/26/12 Page 11 of 75
26. After his convictions, James worked through investment management companies
Poseidon Capital Corp. ("Poseidon") and Tandem Trading Corp. ("Tandem"). At that time
James had a substantial negative net worth and
judgments filed against him. His corporations
appeared to have no assets, but he was able to convince business men to invest with him. When
they did, the investors invariably ended up suing James for fraud.
27. On information and belief, in 1983, James became involved with Herbert Scharer
who was a principal of
Federated Graphics Companies, Inc. ("Federated"). James, acting
individually and on behalf of Tandem, entered into investment agreements with Scharer and the
Federated pension funds, which led to the loss of all funds invested by Scharer and the pension
funds. Scharer and the pension funds claimed that James had misappropriated the pension fund
assets and Scherer assets, and sued in an action captioned Scharer v. Couri 007664/1984 which
was commenced in New York Supreme Court in 1984.
28. On information and belief
Robbins was a personal friend of James' who lived
near to James' home in Rye, New York. James hired Robbins and his firm McLaughlin & Stern
(then Alkalay Handler) to represent him in the Scharer action and to file a counter-suit, Couri v.
Scharer, 008421/1984, later that year.
29. In 1985, James, through Poseidon, agreed to provide investment and management
services to a company called Braintech, Inc. ("Braintech") in return for, among other things,
compensation, 300,000 Braintech shares, and certain potential payments and warrants. That
relationship led to a series oflawsuits among Poseidon, Braintech and others starting in 1985.
Couri, Poseidon and the Couri-related entities were represented by Steve Axinn, one of
(and most expensive) parners at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom.
10
the top
Filed 03/26/12 Page 12 of 75
30. In a published opinion in 1986, District Judge Haight of the Southern District of
New York, described Poseidon as having no office address other than c/o Howard Krantz
("Krantz," a Cour attorney), no telephone number, payroll, financial statements or any tax
returns filed. He described Couri as having "a checkered past," including two felony
convictions, no personal assets, a negative net worth, and judgments against him. Judge Haight
found Couri's sworn testimony to be untrue and his claimed services greatly exaggerated.
Robbins read
Drobin v. Nicolette, 631 F.Supp. 860. (S.D.N.Y. 1986). On information and belief
and was aware of Judge Haight's factual findings.

31. In 1987, James' mother, Katby T. Couri, prepared a will disinheriting James
together with a lengthy affidavit describing James' lifelong misconduct. In concluding, she
stated,
"I am sorr to say that my son James is a liar, cheat and a ruthless person who
thinks only about himself. He has no morals and has maintained his lifestyle by
cheating others. When people find out about him, they are willing to lose money
just to get away from him."

Katby T. Couri's affidavit submitted in connection with her will is submitted anexed
A copy of
hereto as Exhibit D.
32. Prior to his death in 1978, James' father, Aleer J. Couri had established a Trust for
the benefit of
family members other than James, and had left James out of
because of, among other things, James' theft of
his will excluding him
money from the family business.
33. In 1988, Robbins and his firm acted as counsel for James in filing the action that
led to the creation of
the 1989 Trust, Alexandra Couri, by her guardian, James Couri v. John
Couri ("Couri v. Couri "), 88-civ-6985.
11
Filed 03/26/12 Page 13 of 75
34. James' suit against his family was not out of desperation. He was financially
doing well at the time, and said so in front of Robbins. He lived very well. He had a taste for
acquiring ar and antiques, and once owned and ran an antique auction house. James lived in
relatively posh surroundings in the Westchester County Club. He claimed to have spent
hundreds of thousands of dollars redecorating it. That seemed possible. The walls were covered
with expensive fabric. The apartment stuffed with what appeared to be original art, antiques, and
numerous other possessions. James wore expensive Ralph Lauren custom-made suits and had
perhaps 50 of
them. He wore custom-made shirts. He dined at expensive restaurants and clubs
frequently, where he was known to the staff
by name. He purchased a new Cadillac in 1988.
35. James' fourth and present wife Marlene, whom he maried in about 1988, had a
modeling business in California which she sold her interest in and brought her assets, hundreds
of
thousands of dollars, to the mariage. James gave Marlene luxurious gifts, furs, and jewelry,
and the two of
them were active in the New York social scene.
36. Robbins was apparently a personal and social friend of James'. Robbins lived
nearby the Westchester Country Club. He knew about James' lifestyle and, on information and
belief, he had visited James' home and was aware, at least generally, of James' spending habits.
37. Couri v. Couri proceeded to trial in June 1989, and, after several days of
trial,
resulted in a settlement among the parties. Under the terms ofthe settlement, John Couri, James'
brother, contributed $175,000 to a Trust for the benefit of Alex.

38. Given James Couri's checkered history and his estrangement from his family,
the 1989 Trust. The
unsurprisingly, James was excluded completely from the supervision of
1989 Trust's proceeds were expressly agreed not to benefit James Couri. A stipulation by the
12
Filed 03/26/12 Page 14 of 75
parties read in open court stated: "in no event shall James C. Couri receive any par of
distribution of
the principal or interest of
the
this Trust." Ex. A at 4
39. However there was a problem finding a Trustee for the Trust. On information and
belief, neither John nor his attorneys wanted to be Trustee. John wanted nothing to do with his
brother, and he was concerned that even any involvement in the 1989 Trust for his niece would
embroil him with his brother, or lead to suits from his brother. James and his attorneys were
wiling to have Robbins as Trustee, but Robbins was reluctant, as he too knew what kind of man
James was.
40. At the time the 1989 Trust was created, Robbins was well aware of James Couri's
misconduct involving his
criminal background and well acquainted with James Couri's history of
family and others. On the other hand on information and belief, Robbins and McLaughlin &
Stern saw James as not only an existing client, but also a client with a potential for creating
substantial and lucrative future business. Although James concealed his assets and for all
appearances was judgment proof, he had lots of money to hire expensive counsel, as he had in
the Braintech cases. In his criminal proceeding, his counsel had been the respected, and
expensive, Washington firm of
Wiliams & Connelly.
41. On information and belief, in a pattern which would repeat itself later, to
overcome Robbins' reluctance, James offered to give McLaughlin & Stern further litigation
business. Robbins agreed to serve as Trustee, and at or about that time on June 28, 1989,
Robbins filed the first of
what ultimately became four suits on behalf of James against the
Westchester County Club ("WCC") where James and his family lived.
13
Filed 03/26/12 Page 15 of 75
judgment was entered into, a copy of
42. On July 7, 1989, a stipulation and consent
which is annexed hereto as Exhibit E. On the stipulation and consent judgment, Judge Brieant,
the
by hand, wrote an obligation for the Trustee to report annually with respect to the conduct of
Trust. On August 18, 1989 the Trust was funded with the first payment of$87,500.
43. Although the 1989 Trust contemplates that the funds would be invested on
just let them sit in a money
Alexandra's behalf, Robbins made no effort to invest the fuds and
market account when substantially higher returns were available. There is no evidence that he
ever sought investment advice for the 1989 Trust, as the 1989 Trust expressly contemplated and
allowed. There is no evidence Robbins himself
had sufficient investment management expertise
to prudently manage the fuds. For the first eight months Robbins did nothing.
44. Finally, in three separate transactions in April of 1990, Robbins disbursed
$2,238.00 to James Couri apparently for payment of James' taxes and some payments to
Greenwich Academy where Alex was in schooL. There was then no claim of need or justification
for those payments. Those withdrawals were all
loans to James Couri and he promised to pay
them back promptly. Shortly after James received that money, Robbins and his firm, acting as
James' counsel, filed the second suit against The Westchester Country Club.
45. In July of 1990, the second payment of $87,500.00 was deposited into the 1989
Trust account. On August 16, 1990, Robbins issued his first report to John Couri in accordance
with the Court's order and advised him of$2,238.00 disbursed to James Couri and James Couri's
promise to repay it. The implication from that report was that the prior payments were
exceptional and short term events. Those payments instead tured out to be the opening wedge
to the wholesale distribution of
Trust assets to James.
14
Filed 03/26/12 Page 16 of 75
46. Less than two weeks later, Robbins issued a further check to Greenwich Academy
been paying for years.
to pay for Alex's private school expenses which James Couri had himself
On this occasion, James wrote Robbins a vague claim of short term need for the trust to "advance
the tuition" for half of
the school year "due to certain financial reversals and expenses" which
James allegedly had experienced. James promised to make repayment "as soon as I can." On
information and belief, without any further inquiry or investigation, Robbins issued a check to
the school for nearly $5,000.
47. The loan to James was imprudent, unjustified, undocumented, and without clear
repayment terms. James was a man who had proven repeatedly that his word could not be
trusted. Other alternatives surely existed. Private schools are often understanding when parents
ru into short term trouble (especially after a many year relationship). Financing often can be
arranged. Yet, on information and belief, Robbins did nothing to verify James' need or protect
the 1989 Trust. He simply made the loan, and it still has not been repaid.
48. The next transaction with James was more troubling still. Just two weeks later,
James wrote to Robbins, "I have advised you that I expect a large sum of money at or about end
of Sept. 1990. Presently I must pay certain bills that Alexandra is directly or beneficially
concerned with. As you also know she is the 80% owner of JCC Capital Corp. which is pursuing
a large claim against (Geminex) Industries." If
Robbins knew anything about the Geminex
claim, he knew it was a legal morass-a wild goose chase that would consume James' money
and produce nothing. Ifhe knew anything about JCC Capital Corp., ("JCC"), he knew that
Alex never saw any benefit from the 80% interest she allegedly owned and that Alex's
"ownership" was a ruse to hide James' assets from creditors. JCC filed for Chapter 7 liquidation
15
Filed 03/26/12 Page 17 of 75
in 1992. In all events, James had talked an accountant, Albert Leon, into being responsible for
Geminex litigation expenses.
49. Although Geminex was the stated excuse for the need for money, James did not
ask Robbins for Geminex or JCC expense money. He asked Robbins to pay James' Blue Cross
Insurance, James' American Express bill, James' telephone charges and a "misc." $500 just to
round things up to $6,500. James ended his plea stating: "I hereby unequivocally commit to
return these fuds by no later than Sept 25, 1990." On information and belief, without further
inquiry, Robbins wrote the check to James out of
the 1989 Trust. September 25 came and went
and Robbins did nothing to obtain repayment, although, James did assign $100,000 of
the
"reward recovery" James claimed to be entitled to for allegedly reporting Scharer to the IRS. On
information and belief, there never was a "reward recovery" paid and the $ 1 00,000 claim appears
to be an outright fantasy. Robbins never received information other than James' claims that
there was any right to any bounty. There was a tax case which on information and belief
was for
sums too small to justify any such bounty which, on information and belief, Robbins was aware
of and Scharer ultimately won.
50. However, the fact that James would make such an assignment in such great excess
of his debt at that point or that Robbins would accept it, strongly suggests that Robbins was
counseling James to make a paper record that Robbins could use ifhe were ever sued for breach
of his duties as the Trustee of the 1989 Trust. Subsequent events support the conclusion that
Robbins was seeking to paper over the file to cover himself.
16
Filed 03/26/12 Page 18 of 75
51. On December 13, 1990, Couri again wrote Robbins requesting funds, saying that
he was short of cash because he "spent large sums on T &E regarding the (Geminex litigation)."
Why, indeed, whether, Robbins thought it was proper to use Trust funds to subsidize James'
travel and entertainment expenses, even as a loan, is unclear. However, Robbins immediately
disbursed $1,600.00 of
Trust funds to James Couri.
52. Starting in February 1991, requests came in at an accelerated pace. On or about
need for cash to pay for
February 1, James wrote to Robbins a letter with a pro-forma claim of
Alex's orthodontics, stating: "I can not afford the down payment of $1700. Please advance same
from the Trust + I will pay it back as soon as possible." On information and belief, without
further inquiry into James' claimed need, any effort to determine when and how repayment
repayment, Robbins wrote a check of$I,700.00 to the
would be made, or any terms of
orthodontist.
53. As of
March 6,1991, Robbins had made loans of$16,993.05 from the 1989 Trust,
some clearly for the benefit of James, some ostensibly for Alex's benefit, but nonetheless
benefiting James who had, and had acknowledged, the obligation to make those payments as
these loans were proper, prudent, or in
Alex's father and to repay the 1989 Trust. None of
compliance with Robbins' fiduciary duty to the 1989 Trust.

54. Far worse, on information and belief, there was never effort by Robbins to obtain
repayment, even when James had made specific commitments to repay on or by specific dates.
That, combined with the lack of any discussion or negotiation of payment terms, proves that
Robbins was egregiously failing in his fiduciary duties to the 1989 Trust. Rather than improve,
matters got dramatically worse from that point forward.
17
Filed 03/26/12 Page 19 of 75
55. On March 6, 1991, James wrote to Robbins: "I expect to have money by April
(mid). I must pay Alexandra's deposit at school $1050 - and $373. 26 in disbursements at
bookstore - I possibly might need an additional advance for Alexandra's medical insurance.
Hopefully this is the last advance I will need until I get my money that I expected. I will
immediately repay the trust for all these advances + all previous advances." Later in March,
James obliquely explained his "cash crunch" as being somehow related to the Geminex dispute.
Effectively, the 1989 Trust was being asked to fund, albeit indirectly, that dispute.
56. It is unclear what money James was expecting in mid-April, and the expenses
James requested payment for raised many questions. Some were ostensibly for Alex's benefit.
Some were clearly for James's benefit, like the payment of James' doctor bills or his medical
insurance bill (which may have been a family plan, but in that event insured James and Marlene
as well). Some were clearly not the sort of discretionary expenses a man with a short term cash
crunch should make, like going shopping for nearly $2,000 in "food and clothes" (assuming that
the claimed expense was actually made). Some of the claimed expenses were supported by an
invoice over a year old. On information and belief, Robbins did not ask any questions about the
March 1991, they totaled
expenses or the repayment. He just wrote checks. For the month of
$6,279.61. Another $1,000 was paid in the first eight days of ApriL.
57. At that point, whether because the 1989 Trust already had loaned James over
$24,000, or because James was now asking that the 1989 Trust star to directly fund James'
corporations, or, because the WCC case was going badly and McLaughlin & Stern was accruing
unpaid legal fees, Robbins apparently decided he needed to paper over his file.
18
Filed 03/26/12 Page 20 of 75
9, 1991, Robbins, as Trustee, and James entered into a written
58. On or about April
agreement (the "April 9 Agreement"). Despite repeated requests for that agreement in the
informal accounting process, Robbins has thus far refused to produce it. However some of the
terms of
the April 9 Agreement are evident from other documents. Apparently, as part of
the
April 9 Agreement, Robbins, as Trustee, agreed to loan 1989 Trust fuds to James and his
companies up to an amount of approximately $ 1 00,000 to 110,000. On information and belief,
as part of
the transaction, James delivered a promissory note to the Trust for $110,000. Despite
demand, Robbins has thus far refused to produce that promissory note.
9 Agreement, James wrote to Robbins:
59. Contemporaneously with the April
"Pursuant to the documentation + agreement we entered into today please make

the following payments.
a $6500 - to Calmar Productions Inc.
a $5000 - to Almax Enterprises Inc.
"These sums are being used to pay critical expenses that are due & owing IE:
American Express, Telephone, Nynex, Dr. Bills, Disability Insurance Premium etc.
As you are aware I am in a serious desperate cash crunch. I also have advised that
in total I wil need approx. $14,600 -15,000 to satisfy these past due obligations.
These disbursements all inure to the benefit of Alexandra as without the above
services & credit we are paralyzed. This letter & instructions are intended to be
part of
the agreements made on 4/9/91"
60. In effect James was arguing, and Robbins had apparently accepted the argument,
that what is good for James is good for Alex. Robbins thereby turned the 1989 Trust for the
exclusive benefit of Alex into a trust for the benefit of James. That interpretation of the 1989
Trust not only violated Robbins' duties as Trustee, but it was in contemptuous disregard ofthe
representations Robbins had made, acting as a partner for McLaughlin & Stem, as counsel for
James and Alex Couri in the Couri v. Couri action.
19
Filed 03/26/12 Page 21 of 75
61. In an effort to make it appear that Robbins was protecting the interest of the 1989
"collateraL." The collateral supposed "bounties" for
Trust, Robbins accepted an assignment of
turning Scharer and affiliated entities in to the IRS, and ar which James was allowed to keep in
$100,000. James promised to repay the 1989 Trust for
his apartment with a purported value of
all advances by August 1, 1991, or "sell the ar so that the cash can go to the trust by August 1."
On information and belief, neither James nor Robbins ever intended that promise to be kept and
it was not. The 1 989 Trust was never repaid. The August 1 date was ignored. The art was never
sold by the 1989 Trust or for its benefit.
62. In addition, James donated to the 1989 Trust as a "bonus," "because you + the
Trust have helped me out of a tough spot recently," a painting by Saito, estimated to be worth
$50-$75,000. James promised: "When we move or sooner I will arrange for the painting to be
delivered to the trust for ultimate sale either at auction or elsewhere." On information and belief,
neither James nor Robbins ever intended that promise to be kept and it was not. The painting
was never sold by the 1989 Trust or for its benefit.
63. Robbins simply started to pour out money to James and his companies and, in a
minority of cases, made direct payments to Alex's camp or school or other payments for which
James was obligated. Robbins made ongoing disbursements from the 1989 Trust of$19,082.44
in April 1991, and $7,000 in May 1991.
64. In June 1991, pursuant to a court order in the WCC case, James was required to
post a bond for $25,000 in favor of
bonding agency, and then, to cover itself
the wcc. McLaughlin & Stem arranged for the bond with a
from any liability to the bonding company, Robbins
took $25,000 from the Trust and had it deposited in the McLaughlin & Stem attorney's escrow
20
Filed 03/26/12 Page 22 of 75
account. Ultimately that money was used in part to pay James Couri's obligation to WCC, and
in part Robbins apparently made a payment to James directly from the McLaughlin & Stern
escrow account. Additional payments of $17,731.24 were made from the 1989 Trust in June,
mostly to persons not identified and where checks were not maintained. These payments were
all in violation of Robbins' duties as Trustee and the use of Trust funds was improper on behalf
of McLaughlin & Stern.
65. James kept promising that he would quickly repay amounts borrowed against the
1989 Trust, but no amounts were ever paid other than small deposits which were simply taken
back out. James kept
justifying his requests saying they were for Alex's benefit, but Robbins
would pay credit card bills including charges that were exclusively for James' benefit. Robbins
paid for James' car lease payments, for his insurance, for meals out with his wife, for meals that
James claimed that Alex had attended when Robbins knew for a fact that she had not, such as
when he knew she was away at summer camp and the meals were in New York City or Vermont,
hundreds of miles from where Alex was then living.
financial need were false. James had assets
66. Robbins knew that James' claims of
he could have sold, but refused to selL. James had access to money from his wife, although he
continued to pay expenses for Marlene and Marlene'sfather using funds from the Trust with
Robbins' approval. Instead of
meeting his family's needs and rather than make re-payment to
the Trust, Couri chose to spend his money on litigation, including litigation in which Robbins
was appearing as counsel and, on information and belief, Robbins knew or should have known
was unlikely to produce results which would justify the expense.
21
the 1989 Trust for James' benefit, and
67. Robbins continued to strip money out of
the benefit of
Filed 03/26/12 Page 23 of 75
his companies. By the end of 1991, $162,865.76 had been taken out and nothing
had been repaid. In the first half of 1992, there were some "repayments" by James which were
almost immediately withdrawn. On or about April 1992, Robbins, as counsel, filed the third suit
by James against the Westchester Country Club. By July of 1992, Robbins as Trustee had paid
James, or for James' benefit, $210,443.21.
68. Robbins made a few desultory inquiries about selling some of
the art "collateral,"
and a 1948 "Flamingo Road" script was offered at auction and not sold when it failed to reach
the $700 reserve. Some of the art was sent to storage, on information and belief, for the
convenience of James, and Robbins had the 1989 Trust pay moving and storage costs. No other
efforts were made to liquidate the collateral for the benefit of the 1989 Trust or to collect on the
debts from James to the 1989 Trust.
69. Throughout 1991and 1992, Robbins and McLaughlin & Stem continued to be
James' counsel and Marlene's counsel in the various WCC actions and appeals, including a
fourth suit against WCC filed in November 1992, as well as Tandem's counsel in the various
Scharer actions. Robbins and McLaughlin & Stern were counsel in a new action filed in August
1991 representing James, Marlene and several Couri companies in a suit against the New York
Athletic Club.
70. On information and belief, by early 1993, ifnot sooner, James had accrued a
substantial debt to McLaughlin & Stern for attorneys fees on his various cases. On February 3,
1993, James, Marlene, McLaughlin & Stern, and Robbins entered into a formal "Settlement
Agreement," which Robbins has refused to produce. Despite that agreement, on or about March
22
Filed 03/26/12 Page 24 of 75
15, 1993, James commenced an action by summons with notice against Robbins, McLaughlin &
Stem (naming AHRH despite the prior merger of AHRH and McLaughlin & Stem), and all of its
parners. Apparently a complaint was served, but not publically filed.
71. On information and belief, in the Complaint and in letters sent by him, James
accused the defendants of
fraud, malpractice, and conversion, among other things. James also
wrote letters accusing Robbins of
"wasting and looting" the 1989 Trust.
72. Robbins and McLaughlin & Stem entered into a second formal settlement
agreement with James dated as of
May 6, 1993, (the "May 6, 1993 Settement"). A true copy of
the May 6, 1993 Settlement is annexed hereto as Exhibit F. As consideration for the May 6,
1993 Settlement McLaughlin & Stem agreed, among other things, to pay to Marlene $7,500 "in
fees previously paid by James and/or Marlene." In return, among other things, James and
Marlene gave general releases and also entered into a "covenant not to sue (and not directly, or
indirectly cause or assist any other person or entity to sue or in suing)" the firm or any of its
partners, associates or employees, on any matter, known or unkown, arising prior to May 6,
1993. The May 6, 1993 Settlement also provided that it must be kept strictly confidential and
not disclosed to anyone other than the parties.
73. On information and belief, the "gag provisions" in the May 6, 1993 settlement
were designed by Robbins with the purpose and effect of stopping James from assisting Alex in
any suit against Robbins for breaches of
Robbins' duties as Trustee of
the 1989 Trust.
the James actions and agreed to try to settle
McLaughlin & Stem withdrew as counsel from all of
the wee actions.
23
Filed 03/26/12 Page 25 of 75
74. After the May 6, 1993 Settlement, for a period of years, even though the 1989
Trust was nearly empty of cash assets, Robbins continued as Trustee. Small disbursements were
made, for example, for the storage costs of some of the assigned art. Trust taxes were paid on
the small income earned. Ban charges were paid. Those activities continued until the end of
1996. The 1989 Trust was then out of cash assets, but the written promises, promissory notes
and collateral remained.
75. On a number of occasions in late 1993, Robbins allowed James to wash certain
payments concerning Alex through the 1989 Trust ($3,200 would be deposited in the Trust and
immediately paid out for Alex's tuition). It is unlikely that James engaged in that activity for a
legitimate purpose, or that Robbins believed James' purpose was legitimate or that the
transaction was something that was proper for the 1989 Trust.
Trust property that had
76. In May of 1997, Robbins started giving James control of
been held by the 1989 Trust. In June of 1997, Robbins allowed Marlene to take over the storage
unit lease provided that James agree (in an agreement Robbins could never police or enforce) not
to remove the 1989 Trust pieces that remained in storage. In December of 1997, Robbins
returned the "Flamingo Road" script to James "for display" and received an (unenforceable)
agreement not to sell that Trust property without the 1989 Trust's permission. Also in December
1997, Robbins confirmed that if James died and the existing life insurance policy on James' life
paid the Trust $500,000, or if James repaid his debt to the 1989 Trust, then the art would be
assigned to Marlene. On information and belief, that life insurance policy had been cancelled in
1995 and Robbins knew it.
24
Filed 03/26/12 Page 26 of 75
77. However, that was not good enough. James wanted to get back the rights to all of
the ar that was the 1989 Trust's property without having to pay the 1989 Trust. On information
and belief, James asked Robbins to figure out a way to do so. By letter dated July 2, 1998,
Robbins replied that if James established a new Trust, "by a trust instrument satisfactory to me,
and said new Trust is vested with assets having an actual value of not less than $250,000," then
Robbins as Trustee would assign to Marlene the art James had assigned to the 1989 Trust as
collateraL.
78. For James that was a perfect solution. He could establish a trust, fund it with
bogus property, and keep full control to do whatever he wanted with the Trust. James would get
his art back while giving the 1989 Trust, and Alex, nothing. That is precisely what he did.
79. For Robbins it was also a perfect solution, since he could create a false paper
record that he could try to use to defeat any claim by Alex if she ever found out Robbins had
breached his duties to the 1989 Trust. Robbins also solved the problem of having to deal with
the ar. He just gave it away. But there was more in the deal for Robbins and McLaughlin &
Stern. On information and belief, Robbins insisted that McLaughlin & Stem be paid $50,000
cash, and that they also be given future legal work.
80. In talking to James, Robbins found out that James' litigation obsession had
reached epidemic proportions. James had filed nearly 30 actions pro se in New York Supreme
Cour. He also had filed in the Federal District Courts. A number of cases both by him and
against him were moving forward. James needed legal help and he had money to fund his
litigation obsession. Robbins wanted to reestablish an attorney/client relationship between James
and McLa
&
Ste
&
so that Robbins and McLa
25
Ste
could profit from James' obsession.
Filed 03/26/12 Page 27 of 75
81. In December 1998, James created a new Trust, (the "1998 Trust"). A true copy of
the Trust indenture is anexed as Exhibit G. The 1998 Trust was funded with $10 cash. (Exhibit
G, Schedule). Part of
the entire 1998 Trust scheme involved a $500,000 life insurance policy
held by the 1989 Trust, which was taken out by James to fund his obligations to the 1989 Trust
in the event of James' death. James had let that policy lapse, but agreed to take out a new policy
the life insurance policy
for the 1989 Trust, and Robbins agreed in tum that the proceeds of
the 1998 Trust, that ensured that Alex would
would be paid over to the 1998 Trust. The terms of
never see the proceeds of
that policy.
82. The 1998 Trust appointed James as Trustee with sole and unreviewable
Trust's total
discretion. It limits Alex's rights to demand withdrawal to "up to $5,000/5% of
assets (whichever is greater)," except in respect to any amounts "made or deemed to be made by
premiums on any group term insurance policy." Otherwise, the 1998 Trust
payments of
provided that certain specified portions of income eared by the 1998 Trust (on a sliding scale
based on amount), would be "pa(id) over or appl(ied)" for the benefit of Alex. There were two
glaring problems with that payment provision: James had made it clear that anything which
benefits him personally is considered by him to be a benefit to Alex; none of the assets produced
mcome.
83. Robbins agreed that most of
the assets of
the 1989 Trust would be given to the
1998 Trust, and certain art/antique assets of the 1989 Trust would be relinquished to Marlene
because of the existence of the 1998 Trust. Robbins either drafted or assisted in drafting the
1998 Trust, reviewed it and approved its terms, or never bothered to review it at alL. Any of
those acts was a violation of Robbins' fiduciary duties to the 1989 Trust.
26
Filed 03/26/12 Page 28 of 75
84. Although the 1998 Trust had been formed with assets of only 10 dollars, Robbins
sent a letter to James on December 28, 1998, stating that the James had "represented that the
Lydia Alexandra Couri 1998 Trust ("the "1998 Trust") has been vested with assets having an
the
actual value of approximately $250,000. Furher, the 1989 Trust has assigned ownership of
term Insurance Policy numbered CL 5007052 issued by Companion Life Insurance Company to
the 1998 Trust and you have caused the conversion of that policy to a Universal permanent life
insurance policy.. .so that at your death the benefits will be paid to the 1998 Trust, the successor
trustees of
which are Marlene Couri and myself. Based on the foregoing the 1989 Trust hereby
relinquishes its right in the objects d'art previously assigned to the 1989 Trust." A copy of
that
letter is annexed as Exhibit H.

85. Robbins relinquished 1989 Trust assets based on representations which were
clearly untrue. The 1998 Trust had $ 1 0 in assets, not $250,000. The Companion Life Insurance
Policy had been terminated for non-payment in 1995, as Robbins knew. Robbins was not a
successor Trustee to the 1998 Trust.
these problems and tried to further
86. Robbins seems to have appreciated some of
paper things over in mid-1999. On or about May 21, 1999, James created an agreement among
himself as a debtor to Alex and the 1989 Trust, Alex, and the 1998 Trust (the "May 21, 1999
Agreement"). A copy of
the May 21, 1999 Agreement is anexed as Exhibit 1. Robbins either
created the May 21, 1999 Agreement, assisted in its drafting, or read and approved it. Robbins
signed that agreement as Trustee of the 1989 Trust.
27
Filed 03/26/12 Page 29 of 75
for himself, as Trustee of
87. James signed for three parties: as himself
the 1998
Trust, and as "guardian" for Alex. James either did not know, or did not care, that because Alex
was 20 she was oflegal age and James could no longer sign contracts for her.
88. In the May 21, 1999 Agreement James admits that he "borrowed" $200,000
given to Alex from her mother, Carla Couri, in 1981 when Alex was 2 that he "borrowed"
$50,000 gifted to Alex by both parents between 1978 and 1982 that he "borrowed" $175,000
from the 1989 Trust, and that "None of these sums has been repaid..." He gave the 1998 Trust a
$825,00 Promissory Note in favor of Alex to evidence the $400,000 borrowed, and interest.
James also gave the 1998 Trust 50 shares of Couri Acquisition Corporation which Alex
beneficially owned, but James held as her nominee, and another 75 shares of Couri Acquisition
Corporation which James allegedly purchased for $75,000, although he purchased that stock
from himself or Marlene since there were no other shareholders other than Alex. He claimed
(based on the sham purchase) that the "value" of the shares was $ 110,000 and that full amount
would be deducted from the $825,000 as partial repayment (even though $44,000, if
the
valuations were to be believed, was Alex's own money).

89. James also agreed with himself
to cancel the $825,000 Promissory Note, and
replace the 1998 Trust as the Secured party on all U.C.C statements in place of
the 1989 Trust.
90. Substituting the 1998 Trust for the 1989 Trust as the Secured party on all U.C.C.
filings relinquished control of 1989 Trust assets in return for nothing. Yet Robbins agreed to this
charade and signed his consent to the agreement. It seems that at that point he, like James,
apparently was unaware that James' signature was insufficient to effectuate Alex's agreement.
When Robbins woke up to that fact, he engieered further steps to get Alex's apparent agreement.
28
Filed 03/26/12 Page 30 of 75
91. But there was still the problem ofthe value contributed to the 1998 Trust. In
December 1998. Robbins as Trustee had relinquished control of 1989 Trust-held art to Marlene
based on the "representation" that assets had been contributed to the 1998 Trust with an "actual
value" of $250,000. Yet the May 21, 1999 Agreement indicated that there were no assets in the
Trust as of
December 1998, and even in May 1999 the assets had at most (if James' sale value
were real, which, on information and belief, it was not) the total value of all assets was $ 110,000
in Couri Acquisition Corporation stock ($66,000, if Alex's own shares were not counted) and
$ 1 0 in cash. Robbins apparently did not focus on that failure until much later.
92. On information and belief, he did, however, focus on the problem of Alex's
consent in late December 1999. On information and belief, at Robbins' request, when Alex was
home from school, James handed her the May 21, 1999 Agreement and a power of attorney form
to sign. She signed the documents without reading them. This was not an unusual event. James
frequently gave his wives or Alex documents to sign, created trusts, gave stock, then took it
back, was involved in various corporate dealings and used his family members as nominal
owners rather than keeping things in his own name. In any event, the May 21, 1999 Agreement
did not seem like such a problem. On its face it seemed to acknowledge a huge debt from James
to Alex, and that he was putting property in Trust for her. He did not disclose the terms of the
1998 Trust, and other than the transfer of
Robbins' other transfers of assets of
the U.C.C. interest, the documents did not disclose

the 1989 Trust, including the art.
29
Filed 03/26/12 Page 31 of 75
the 1989 Trust and
93. James was the one person in the world that the Grantor of
Judges Brieant and Tyler had determined should not be in a position to control or benefit from
the 1989 Trust. Robbins had engineered a series of transactions which accomplished the exact
opposite result. Just days later, James paid Robbins and McLaughlin & Stem for what they had
done.
which is annexed as Exhibit J,
94. By letter dated January 7, 2000, a copy of
McLaughlin & Stem "re-established" an attorney client relationship with James, Marlene and
James' companies (the "January 7 Payment and Retainer Agreement"). James agreed to pay the
the date
firm $50,000 purportedly "in full satisfaction of all amounts due the firm from you as of
of
this agreement." However, McLaughlin & Stern had settled all billing disputes with James in
1993.
95. It is not clear what, if any, work was done by the firm after 1993, other than
Robbins' wrongful transfer of
Trust assets to Marlene and to James' control. Indeed, the January
7 Payment and Retainer Agreement provided that the $50,000 payment "is not subject to any
conditions, and it is specifically acknowledged that it is not based on any representations by us
with respect to past or future events." Even if
work had been performed and the $50,000 was not
actually a bribe to violate duties to the 1989 Trust and to Alex, Robbins was nonetheless in a
deeply conflcted position when he acted as a Trustee while also hoping to obtain payment to
McLaughlin & Stem for past services.
the same agreement,
96. The conflict ran far deeper than the $50,000. As part of
James agreed to retain McLaughlin & Stem as counsel and it was "anticipated that we
(McLaughlin & Stem) will perform services for you personally, for Marlene Couri, for the
30
Filed 03/26/12 Page 32 of 75
Marlene Couri 1999 Trust, the Lydia Alexandra Couri 1998 Trust, and various corporations with
which you (James Couri) are affiliated, such as Couri Acquisition Corp., Goldfish Enterprises,
Ltd. and Kindervest Planning Corp. and other companies with which you are affiliated." James
paid an additional $25,000 as a retainer for future legal services.
97. Robbins continued to seek to paper over his file. The day before the January 7
Payment and Retainer Agreement, Robbins wrote a letter to Alex concerning the 1998 Trust.
Alex does not recall receiving the letter and, on information and belief, it was never actually sent
to her. In all events, much of the letter is false and misleading.
98. Robbins stated that Alex's father had "caused substantial assets to be placed in the
trust." That statement was either untrue (it is not clear that the Couri Acquisition Corporation
stock was worth anything) or completely misleading because the Couri Acquisition Corp. stock
was entirely illiquid and a significant portion of
that stock was Alex's to begin with.
99. Robbins continued: "You also are aware, from the document you signed over the
Christmas holidays, that the 1989 trust has assigned the obligations owed to it by your father to
the new trust. Additionally, I want to advise you that the 1989 trust assigned the life insurance
policy it owned to the new trust, and that policy has been converted to a universal policy for the
purpose of
building cash value." Actually the 1989 Trust retained the obligations on the
$110,000 promissory note. The fact that the "assigned" insurance policy had been terminated for
non-payment was concealed and certainly materiaL. Robbins also did not disclose the
limitations on withdrawal from the trust, which would prohibit Alex from withdrawing any life
insurance proceeds.
31
Filed 03/26/12 Page 33 of 75
100. Robbins concluded: "Based on the foregoing, the 1989 trust has relinquished its
claim to the art works previously assigned to it." Actually, the relinquishment occurred before
those events had occurred.
101. At some point prior to April
2000, Robbins must have realized that he had no
record to support the fact, on which he allegedly relied, that James had contributed assets to the
1998 Trust with an "actual value" of $250,000. He obtained from Couri's accountants a
"Valuation Report" of the value of Couri Acquisition Corporation as of June 1999. A copy of
the Valuation Report is annexed as Exhibit K.

102. The report relied exclusively on information supplied by James Couri and it
comes to a value of $950,000, from which one could, but the Valuation Report does not,
calculate the convenient value of approximately $258,000 for the 125 shares given to the 1998
Trust. However, the value of minority shares of a closely held iliquid corporation are almost
never valued at the pro rata share of
the value of
the Corporation as a whole. Indeed, James

value of
Couri's own contemporaneous 1999 $110,000 estimate of
that same 125 shares based a
purchase he made (albeit a sham purchase from himself or Marlene) would probably be closer to
accurate if
the Corporation were actually worth $905,000, but the Valuation Report shows it was
not.
103. First, the valuation is essentially based on book value, but the balance sheet shows
book value is about one-half of$905,000 because of an unrecognized loss of$376,21O. The
Valuation Report states cryptically: "Although the Consolidated Balance Sheet reflects a
unrealized loss of $376,210, this position was corrected in the months following the valuation
date." Apparently it was "corrected" by James solely to inflate the valuation.
32
Filed 03/26/12 Page 34 of 75
104. On the Balance Sheet there are also notes payable to the Couri Acquisition
Corporation from James, or entities controlled by him, for $627,758. Given James' well reported
and continual status as judgment proof, and his history of non-payment of his obligations to the
1989 Trust, no professional, and certainly not Robbins, could honestly value James' liability at
anything approaching the full
amount of the debt. It was probably worth nothing.
105. The $376,260 loss and a write down of the James related receivables made the
value of Couri Acquisition Corporation less than zero. Robbins and McLaughlin & Stem, now
counsel for James and his companies, including Couri Acquisition Corporation, were satisfied.
The so-called "Valuation Report" was good enough for them. After the Valuation Report,
Robbins appears to have done nothing to assist the 1989 Trust or the 1998 Trust in collecting
anything to benefit Alex. However, he did not relinquish his position as Trustee and he and
filed tax returns for the 1989 Trust, with McLaughlin & Stem as tax return preparer, as late as
2010 (filed for 2009 taxes).
106. Alex was kept in the dark about the misconduct by Robbins with respect to the
Trust, as Robbins and McLaughlin & Stem intended. The 1989 Trust terminated by its terms in
November 2010. At that time, James believed he was likely to be dying shortly due to a
diagnosis of Stage iv Melanoma. He confessed to Alex what he and Robbins had done, and told
Alex to seek the facts from Robbins and to try to obtain redress from him. James currently has
very limited assets and no ability to remedy his part of the wrongdoing, even if he wished to do
so.
33
Filed 03/26/12 Page 35 of 75
107. Alex wrote to Robbins and through counsel sought facts and documentary
evidence. Alex was all too aware, and had been throughout her life, that her father's statements
could not be relied on. The documentary record provided to her counsel established Robbins'
and McLaughlin & Sterns' wrongdoing. Accordingly, Alex has brought this action.
AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

AGAINST BOTH DEFENDANTS
(Breach of Fiduciary Duty)
108. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege each and every allegation of each of the prior
paragraphs with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein.
109. As Trustee of
the 1989 Trust, Robbins had fiduciary duties to the 1989 Trust and
to Plaintiff, its sole beneficiary. As a result of
the above described acts, Robbins violated his
fiduciary duties as Trustee of the 1989 Trust to the 1989 Trust and to Alex as the sole beneficiary
of that Trust.
110. At all relevant times, Robbins was acting as a partner of McLaughlin & Stem and
for the benefit of McLaughlin & Stem, as well as for himself. On information and belief,
McLaughlin & Stem as a firm was a participant in many of the acts complained of, including but
not limited to, the drafting and review of documents used to accomplish the breaches of fiduciary
duty, and was aware ofthe conflict that existed for Robbins between acting as Trustee with his
sole loyalty to the Trust and its beneficiary, and Robbins desire to obtain money and work for his
law firm, McLaughlin & Stem. McLaughlin & Stem had the obligation to ensure that the
himself and McLaughlin
conflict did not compromise Robbins' acts as Trustee for the benefit of
& Stern. On information and belief, McLaughlin & Stem had a policy of receiving for the firm
any Trustee commissions charged by partners who served as Trustees of any Trust, and had firm
34
Filed 03/26/12 Page 36 of 75
policies concerning acts and practices of partners who were engaged as Trustees. McLaughlin &
Stern is primarily liable for Robbins' breaches of duties.
1 1 1. As a result of the foregoing, Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount to be

proven at trial, but no less than $1.3 million dollars.
AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

AGAINST MCLAUGHLIN & STERN
(Aiding and Abetting Breach of Fiduciary Duties)
112. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege each and every allegation of each of the prior
113. In the alternative, in engaging in the above described conduct, McLaughlin &
Stern was aware that Robbins was breaching his fiduciary duties to the 1989 Trust, or was
willfully blind or recklessly indifferent to whether such breaches were occurring.
114. In engaging in the acts specified above, including acts taken by Robbins in his
role as parner in McLaughlin & Stern, McLaughlin & Stem acted with the specific intent to
substantially assist Robbins as Trustee in his breaches of duty to the 1989 Trust and Plaintiff,
and did, in fact, substantially assist Robbins as Trustee in such breaches. McLaughlin & Stern
profited from such breaches in receiving the $75,000 in payments paid in Januar 2000, and the
business James Couri gave to McLaughlin & Stem. McLaughlin & Stern aided and abetted
Robbins' breaches of
his fiduciary duties.
115. As a result of the foregoing, Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount to be

proven at trial, but no less than $1.3 million.
35
Filed 03/26/12 Page 37 of 75
AS AND FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

AGAINST BOTH DEFENDANTS
(Accounting)
116. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation of each of the prior
117. As a result of
the foregoing, Plaintiff demands an accounting by Robbins and
McLaughlin & Stems of all transactions in or with the 1989 Trust and the 1998 Trust and of all
fees, charges and other benefits they received directly or indirectly from the 1989 Trust and the
1998 Trust, James or Marlene Couri and/or any corporation or entity affiliated directly or
indirectly with James Couri.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment as follows:
(l) with respect to the First and Second Causes of Action, for damages in an amount to
be proven at trial but no less than $1.3 million,

(2) with respect to the Third Cause of Action for an accounting,
(3) with respect to the First, and Second causes of action, because Defendants' conduct
was wrongful, wanton, wilful, intentional and evidences criminal indifference to

their civil responsibilities, Plaintiff demands punitive damages in an amount to be
proven at trial but no less than $6.5 million,
(4) with respect to First and Second Causes of Action, for prejudgment interest,
and for costs and fees, and for such other and further relief as this Court deems just.
36
Filed 03/26/12 Page 38 of 75
Dated: New York, New York

March 26, 2012
FOLKENFLIK & MCGERITY
By:
Max Fol enflik

1500 Broadway, 21st Floor
New York, New York 10036

(212) 757-0400
Attorneys for Plaintif
37
Filed 03/26/12 Page 39 of 75
EXHIBIT A
Filed 03/26/12 Page 40 of 75
Filed 03/26/12 Page 41 of 75
Filed 03/26/12 Page 42 of 75
Filed 03/26/12 Page 43 of 75
Filed 03/26/12 Page 44 of 75
Filed 03/26/12 Page 45 of 75
Filed 03/26/12 Page 46 of 75
Filed 03/26/12 Page 47 of 75
Filed 03/26/12 Page 48 of 75
Filed 03/26/12 Page 49 of 75
Filed 03/26/12 Page 50 of 75
Filed 03/26/12 Page 51 of 75
Filed 03/26/12 Page 52 of 75
EXHIBIT B
Filed 03/26/12 Page 53 of 75
Filed 03/26/12 Page 54 of 75
Filed 03/26/12 Page 55 of 75
Filed 03/26/12 Page 56 of 75
Filed 03/26/12 Page 57 of 75
Filed 03/26/12 Page 58 of 75
Filed 03/26/12 Page 59 of 75
Filed 03/26/12 Page 60 of 75
Filed 03/26/12 Page 61 of 75
Filed 03/26/12 Page 62 of 75
Filed 03/26/12 Page 63 of 75
Filed 03/26/12 Page 64 of 75
Filed 03/26/12 Page 65 of 75
Filed 03/26/12 Page 66 of 75
Filed 03/26/12 Page 67 of 75
Filed 03/26/12 Page 68 of 75
Filed 03/26/12 Page 69 of 75
Filed 03/26/12 Page 70 of 75
Filed 03/26/12 Page 71 of 75
Filed 03/26/12 Page 72 of 75
Filed 03/26/12 Page 73 of 75
Filed 03/26/12 Page 74 of 75
Filed 03/26/12 Page 75 of 75
Case 1:12-cv-02220-TPG-FM Document 1-1
EXHIBIT C
Filed 03/26/12 Page 10 of 25
Filed 03/26/12 Page 11 of 25
Filed 03/26/12 Page 12 of 25
Filed 03/26/12 Page 13 of 25
Filed 03/26/12 Page 14 of 25
Filed 03/26/12 Page 15 of 25
EXHIBIT D
Filed 03/26/12 Page 16 of 25
Filed 03/26/12 Page 17 of 25
Filed 03/26/12 Page 18 of 25
Filed 03/26/12 Page 19 of 25
Filed 03/26/12 Page 20 of 25
EXHIBIT E
Filed 03/26/12 Page 21 of 25
Filed 03/26/12 Page 22 of 25
Filed 03/26/12 Page 23 of 25
Filed 03/26/12 Page 24 of 25
Filed 03/26/12 Page 25 of 25
EXHIBIT F
Filed 03/26/12 Page 10 of 69
Filed 03/26/12 Page 11 of 69
Filed 03/26/12 Page 12 of 69
Filed 03/26/12 Page 13 of 69
Filed 03/26/12 Page 14 of 69
Filed 03/26/12 Page 15 of 69
Filed 03/26/12 Page 16 of 69
Filed 03/26/12 Page 17 of 69
EXHIBIT G
Filed 03/26/12 Page 18 of 69
Filed 03/26/12 Page 19 of 69
Filed 03/26/12 Page 20 of 69
Filed 03/26/12 Page 21 of 69
Filed 03/26/12 Page 22 of 69
Filed 03/26/12 Page 23 of 69
Filed 03/26/12 Page 24 of 69
Filed 03/26/12 Page 25 of 69
Filed 03/26/12 Page 26 of 69
Filed 03/26/12 Page 27 of 69
Filed 03/26/12 Page 28 of 69
Filed 03/26/12 Page 29 of 69
Filed 03/26/12 Page 30 of 69
Filed 03/26/12 Page 31 of 69
Filed 03/26/12 Page 32 of 69
Filed 03/26/12 Page 33 of 69
Filed 03/26/12 Page 34 of 69
Filed 03/26/12 Page 35 of 69
EXHIBIT H
Filed 03/26/12 Page 36 of 69
Filed 03/26/12 Page 37 of 69
EXHIBIT I
Filed 03/26/12 Page 38 of 69
Filed 03/26/12 Page 39 of 69
Filed 03/26/12 Page 40 of 69
Filed 03/26/12 Page 41 of 69
EXHIBIT J
Filed 03/26/12 Page 42 of 69
Filed 03/26/12 Page 43 of 69
Filed 03/26/12 Page 44 of 69
Filed 03/26/12 Page 45 of 69
Filed 03/26/12 Page 46 of 69
EXHIBIT K
Filed 03/26/12 Page 47 of 69
Filed 03/26/12 Page 48 of 69
Filed 03/26/12 Page 49 of 69
Filed 03/26/12 Page 50 of 69
Filed 03/26/12 Page 51 of 69
Filed 03/26/12 Page 52 of 69
Filed 03/26/12 Page 53 of 69
Filed 03/26/12 Page 54 of 69
Filed 03/26/12 Page 55 of 69
Filed 03/26/12 Page 56 of 69
Filed 03/26/12 Page 57 of 69
Filed 03/26/12 Page 58 of 69
Filed 03/26/12 Page 59 of 69
Filed 03/26/12 Page 60 of 69
Filed 03/26/12 Page 61 of 69
Filed 03/26/12 Page 62 of 69
Filed 03/26/12 Page 63 of 69
Filed 03/26/12 Page 64 of 69
Filed 03/26/12 Page 65 of 69
Filed 03/26/12 Page 66 of 69
Filed 03/26/12 Page 67 of 69
Filed 03/26/12 Page 68 of 69
Filed 03/26/12 Page 69 of 69

2012 Lydia Couri Complaint V Robbins (And Couri) PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2012 Lydia Couri Complaint V Robbins (And Couri) PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 1:12-cv-02220-TPG-FM Document 1

Filed 03/26/12 Page 1 of 75

LYDIA ALEXANDRA COURl,

McLAUGHLIN & STERN, LLP, and

~..-~.. (.~ \ t.~j \ \ ~;,,'f~Jt"-.4 \ \ \t,

\\", \"G ,,\;) \;,;~..;...,.., \\~\ \\

. 4. \ ", 'f \, .",. \ \

\- 1 " '1. ~. .. ,,,.,~,...,,,

1 '1 ) "" 'r,of "'.. ;,1', ~'''l ~ -t.., .-,.--

FOLKENFLIK & MCGERITY

New York, New York 10036

Case 1:12-cv-02220-TPG-FM Document 1

Filed 03/26/12 Page 2 of 75

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

LYDIA ALEXADRA COURl,

McLAUGHLIN & STERN, LLP, and

INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF CLAIMS

Brieant and the late Magistrate Judge Joel J. Tyler of

Case 1:12-cv-02220-TPG-FM Document 1

Filed 03/26/12 Page 3 of 75

the principal or interest in the Trust." Tr. 6/15/89 at 4. A copy of

received Robbins' express acknowledgement of

those terms. d. at 4-10.

bearng account." Tr. 7/7/89 at 12-13. A copy of

the July 7, 1989 is annexed

Case 1:12-cv-02220-TPG-FM Document 1

Filed 03/26/12 Page 4 of 75

was a current and potential future source of substantial

(without Alex) in Vermont.

Case 1:12-cv-02220-TPG-FM Document 1

Filed 03/26/12 Page 5 of 75

these payments have been argued by Robbins to have

obligated and able to pay himself. Most of

the payments do not even have that flimsy excuse,

Robbins and McLaughlin

9. Robbins and McLaughlin & Stem were well aware of

Robbins or McLaughlin & Stem concerning Robbins' breaches of duty as Trustee of

included valuable ar which James directed Robbins to sell if

the loans did not

Case 1:12-cv-02220-TPG-FM Document 1

Filed 03/26/12 Page 6 of 75

the loan. On information and belief,

simply give away the collateral without repayment of

James' continuing and expanding obsession with litigation. By

business James could generate.

12. Pursuant to this plan, in a transaction conceived of

Trust, a result which is specifically prohibited by Section 4.A.2. of

was, by itself, a breach of

McLaughlin & Stern

Case 1:12-cv-02220-TPG-FM Document 1

Filed 03/26/12 Page 7 of 75

her father's frequent involvement in lawsuits. She was

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1332(a)(2) based on diversity

New York. Defendant McLaughlin & Stem is a

Case 1:12-cv-02220-TPG-FM Document 1

limited liability parnership under the laws of

Filed 03/26/12 Page 8 of 75

New York and with its principal place

exclusive of interest and costs.

jurisdiction retained by this Court

Consent Judgment # 89,0133 WP, dated July 18, 1989, "with