Zappin v. Comfort Et Al. - Docket No. 136, Plaintiff's Letter Response

Case 1:18-cv-01693-ALC-OTW Document 136 Filed 10/31/19 Page 1 of 22
Anthony Zappin
1827 Washington Blvd. Huntington, WV 25701 Phone: (843) 520-6303
E-Mail: anthony.zappin@gmail.com
Date: October 31, 2019
VIA CM/ECF
Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr.

United States District Judge
Southern District of New York
40 Foley Square, Courtroom 435
New York, NY 10007
Re: Zappin v. Comfort et al. – 18-cv-1693-ALC-OTW
Dear Judge Carter:
I write in response to Defendant Claire Comfort’s (“Ms. Comfort”) letter motion seeking
leave to file a motion to dismiss filed on October 25, 2019. In order to avoid duplication with
respect to the recitation facts and legal arguments, I incorporate and refer the Court to my letter of
today filed in response to the Wallack and Cohen Defendants’ request for a pre-motion conference.
Notwithstanding, I feel that I must respond to Ms. Comfort’s letter. Rather, than presenting
the Court with legal arguments and bases that might justify her position that the Second Amended
Complaint should be dismissed,1 Ms. Comfort uses her opportunity before the Court to go on a
screed personally attacking me and reciting facts from her delusional fantasy world that have no
basis in reality. For example, she has made the claim that she has spent over $1 million in legal
fees to several courts. Yet, she has failed to provide any evidence to support this claim and which
is undermined by her own testimony in the District of Columbia.
To the extent she has even spent even a nickel due to the litigation, it is a result of her own
doing. Indeed, Ms. Comfort has never once made an offer to settle, nor has she entertained any of
my numerous offers to settle with her dating back to the inception of the matrimonial action. This
included a settlement offer which would have given her exactly the custody arrangement she
demanded and would have put a permanent end to any future litigation. (See Ex. 1, Supple
Settlement Letter to Comfort.) The only thing I requested was that Ms. Comfort agree to stipulate
to vacate Justice Cooper’s February 29, 2016 child custody order, which was laced with fabricated
findings and formed the basis of the collateral estoppel disciplinary proceeding brought against
me. (See id.) As the offer makes clear, I would have stipulated to the same custody arrangement
or any other custody arrangement she wished. (See id.) My only desire was that the bogus and
retaliatory collateral estoppel disciplinary proceeding, which Ms. Comfort and her father urged,
be stopped so that I could maintain my law license and have the ability to financially support my
1
Ms. Comfort asserts that my Second Amended Complaint was filed a day late. Ms. Comfort, an
attorney practicing in federal court, has apparently failed to read Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(1)(C).
son. (See id.) To no surprise, Ms. Comfort did not even respond. It was more important to Ms.
Comfort that I suffer than her child be provided for by his father.2
So, when Ms. Comfort claims she is a “victim,” she is a liar. The only victim in this whole
affair is our son, who she continues to abuse with her actions in court and her continued attempts
to inflict harm on me. Indeed, in the recent modification proceeding in the District of Columbia,
the matter was delayed over one (1) year as a result of Ms. Comfort deliberately misrepresenting
the prior orders of the New York court, which the District of Columbia court later confirmed.
To the extent the Court needs proof that Ms. Comfort is a liar, it only need to read the
Second Amended Complaint. Ms. Comfort and her counsel brought a bogus post-judgment fee
proceeding against me over Justice Cooper’s strong objection. (See Ex. 2, Except of Zappin v.
Comfort Trans.) She did so even though she has acknowledged she knew I would never be able
to pay it. But, as she has stated in this proceeding and others, her goal was to inflict harm on me
to prevent future child custody and child support modification litigation and to deprive me of the
financial means to see my son.
As set forth in the Second Amended Complaint, in furtherance of this objective, Ms.
Comfort lied under oath in New York County Supreme Court in December 2016 during the post-
judgment fee proceeding in pursuit of seeking a $400,000 judgment against me that she knew was
fraudulent. Indeed, she openly admitted and boasted about to these facts during her testimony in
the District of Columbia in March 2019. (See Ex. 3, Excerpt of New York Trans.; Ex. 4, Excerpt
of D.C. Trans.) Ms. Comfort does not even attempt to dispute her unlawful, fraudulent and
criminal behavior. And, shamefully, in attempting to inflict crippling financial harm on me, she
has only further inflicted harm and abuse on her own son.
This is truly a sad state of affairs. Ms. Comfort, an attorney admitted to practice in New
York and the District of Columbia, has admitted to lying under oath to knowingly obtain a
fraudulent $400,000 judgment against me. This is the type of conduct that should be examined in
disciplinary and criminal proceedings, not merely the instant civil action brought by her ex-
husband. More importantly, however, it begs the question what else has she lied about over the
past six (6) years, which the state court was happy to obscure and paper over because she was a
woman.3 Indeed, in the face of Ms. Comfort’s repeated instances of dishonesty and abuse of the
courts system, this Court appears to be chomping at the bit to dismiss my rape claim against Ms.
Comfort because I am a man despite the fact that she has never denied sexually assaulting me.
2
Ms. Comfort just recently went from receiving $1,397.00 a month in child support to $287.00 a
month in child support as a result of her refusal to accomplish a settlement and the loss of my law license
in New York, which she urged and sought to accomplish.
3
Ms. Comfort states that she received a five (5) year order of protection against me from Justice
Matthew F. Cooper. Notable, Ms. Comfort never requested an order of protection. Justice Cooper awarded
it without notice and without giving me an opportunity to defend myself in an effort to sensationalize his
findings for the unconstitutional collateral estoppel disciplinary proceeding. More importantly, however,
only a woman would be granted an order of protection she never requested or asked for only confirming
the pervasive gender bias in this matter, which I intend to elaborate on further in future filings.
2
Ms. Comfort’s perjured testimony and her admission to abusing process is serious business.
I deserve to have my day in Court based on these new revelations. The facts and claims alleged
in the Second Amended Complaint, which are all virtually uncontested, certainly state a claim
upon which relief can be granted making any motion to dismiss filed by Ms. Comfort futile.
So, when are we going to start holding an attorney and a woman accountable for admittedly
and flippantly lying under oath to the tune of over $400,000? It bears reminding that I was
disbarred in New York based on Justice Cooper’s fabricated findings that I gave false testimony
during the child custody trial, where no one – not the New York Attorney Grievance Committee,
not the District of Columbia Bar Counsel, not the West Virginia Disciplinary Counsel and not even
Ms. Comfort – can point to the passages in the transcripts where I actually gave the purported
testimony. In reality, the testimony Justice Cooper alleges I gave and used to disbar me was never
actually given and does not exist in any transcript – it was a fabrication. (See Zappin v. Dopico,
Case No. 19-cv-3781 (S.D.N.Y.) at Dkt. No. 1.) I think that it is only fair that we now hold Ms.
Comfort to the same standard where her perjured testimony is indisputably confirmed by the
transcript.
I thank the Court for its attention to this matter and its continued courtesies.
Respectfully,
Anthony Zappin
Enclosures
To: Claire Comfort

Defendant, Pro Se
Robert Wallack
Defendant, Pro Se
Carol A. Lastorino
Counsel for the Cohen Defendants
3
EXHIBIT 1
Anthony Zappin <anthony.zappin@gmail.com>
FW: Confidential settlement communication re Anthony Zappin
Supple, Richard <rsupple@hinshawlaw.com> Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 6:23 PM
To: "Anthony Zappin (anthony.zappin@gmail.com)" <anthony.zappin@gmail.com>
Richard Supple
Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP
800 Third Avenue, 13th Floor, New York, NY, 10022
Tel:2124716210 | Fax:2129351166
rsupple@hinshawlaw.com | hinshawlaw.com
From: Supple, Richard
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2017 6:23 PM
To: 'clairekcomfort@yahoo.com'
Subject: Confidential settlement communication re Anthony Zappin
Dear Ms. Comfort:
Kindly see the attached letter.
Sincerely,
Rick Supple
o/b/o Anthony Zappin
Richard Supple
Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP
800 Third Avenue, 13th Floor, New York, NY, 10022
Tel:2124716210 | Fax:2129351166
rsupple@hinshawlaw.com | hinshawlaw.com

Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP is an Illinois registered limited liability partnership that has elected to be governed by the
Illinois Uniform Partnership Act (1997).

The contents of this email message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) named in this
message. This communication is intended to be and to remain confidential and may be subject to applicable
attorney/client and/or work product privileges. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, or if this message has
been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply email and then delete this message and its
attachments. Do not deliver, distribute or copy this message and/or any attachments and if you are not the intended
recipient, do not disclose the contents or take any action in reliance upon the information contained in this communication
or any attachments.

201702161801.pdf
221K
EXHIBIT 2
EXHIBIT 3
303
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

COUNTY OF NEW YORK - CIVIL TERM - PART: SP. REF.
-------------------------------------------------------X
ANTHONY ZAPPIN,
Plaintiff,
-against-
CLAIRE COMFORT
Defendant.
-------------------------------------------------------X
Index No. 301568-2014 60 Centre Street
New York, New York
December 7, 2016
B E F O R E:
MARILYN SUGARMAN, Special Referee
A P P E A R A N C E S:
ANTHONY ZAPPIN
Plaintiff, Pro Se
1827 Washington Boulevard
Huntington, WV 25701
THE WALLACK FIRM, P.C.

Attorneys for the Defendant
777 Third Avenue
New York, Ny 10017
BY: ROBERT M. WALLACK, ESQ.
MICHAEL BELMONT, ESQ.
Lisa A. Casey
Official Court Reporter
407
1 Comfort - Plaintiff/Direct
2 (Whereupon, there was a pause in the
3 proceedings.)
4 THE SPECIAL REFEREE: Okay. Sorry. It fell
5 off the rail.
6 (Whereupon, a document was handed to the
7 witness.)
8 THE SPECIAL REFEREE: At some point, I don't
9 believe I have Exhibits 6 and 7. I think I said that

10 yesterday.
11 MR. ZAPPIN: I don't think they are in
12 evidence, your Honor.

13 THE SPECIAL REFEREE: Okay. Go ahead. Ask
14 whatever you need to ask, Mr. Zappin.
15 DIRECT EXAMINATION
16 BY MR. ZAPPIN:
17 Q Ms. Comfort, did you review Mr. Wallack's billing
18 statements?
19 A Yes, I have.
20 Q When did you review each of the statements?
21 A I don't know exactly when I reviewed them. I
22 reviewed them --
23 Q Did you ever object to any of Mr. Wallack's billing
24 entries?
25 A I have not.
26 Q Ms. Comfort, where are you employed?
Lisa Casey - Official Court Reporter

408
1 Comfort - Plaintiff/Direct
2 MR. WALLACK: Objection.
3 MR. ZAPPIN: Sorry, your Honor. How about

4 this:
5 Q Ms. Comfort, you are an attorney; is that correct?
6 A Yes.
7 Q As an attorney, you enter time entries; isn't that

8 correct?
9 A Yes.
10 Q When you entered time entries, are they usually
11 descriptive?
12 MR. WALLACK: Objection. Relevance.

13 THE SPECIAL REFEREE: What's the basis for the
14 question, Mr. Zappin?
15 MR. ZAPPIN: Well, your Honor, the basis is

16 that Ms. Comfort is an attorney. Ms. Comfort is
17 practicing law at a large law firm. She entered billing
18 entries, just like I had to enter billing entries, and
19 quite frankly, I wouldn't have been able to get away
20 with billing entries like Mr. Wallack's, and I'm certain
21 Ms. Comfort wouldn't be able to get away with them, so
22 I'm just curious why she would not object.
23 THE SPECIAL REFEREE: She didn't object. You
24 are free to ask her why she didn't object.
25 MR. ZAPPIN: Okay.
26 Q Ms. Comfort, there are several entries in
Lisa Casey - Official Court Reporter

EXHIBIT 4
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

FAMILY DIVISION
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
:
ANTHONY ZAPPIN, : Docket Number: 2017 DRB 003832
Plaintiff, :
:
vs. :
:
CLAIRE COMFORT, :
Defendant. :
: Monday, March 11, 2019
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x Washington, D.C.
The above-entitled action came on for a hearing
before the Honorable WILLIAM W. NOOTER, Associate Judge, in
Courtroom Number JM-5.
APPEARANCES:
On Behalf of the Plaintiff:
Pro se
On Behalf of the Defendant:
MATTHEW B. ANDELMAN, Esquire

Washington, D.C.
19-04720
Deposition Services, Inc.

12321 Middlebrook Road, Suite 210
Germantown, MD 20874
Tel: (301) 881-3344 Fax: (301) 881-3338
info@DepositionServices.com www.DepositionServices.com
lw
1 in the child’s best interest that I have a $400,000
2 judgment against me and that I --
3 THE COURT: Do you?
4 MR. ZAPPIN: Yeah, I’ve repeatedly attempted to
5 settle the case so it wouldn’t balloon to a multimillion
6 dollar case.
7 THE COURT: Overruled.
8 THE WITNESS: Can you repeat the question.
9 BY MR. ZAPPIN:
10 Q. Isn’t it true that you never contested a single
11 item in Mr. Wallick’s bills?
12 A. That, that’s not entirely true.
13 Q. What did you contest?
14 A. So, so I, I complained to Mr. Wallick and this
15 is, these are conversations between me and my counsel
16 about, about our bills but --
17 MR. ANDELMAN: So, Your Honor, then I’d instruct
18 the witness not to discuss those --
19 THE COURT: Well --
20 MR. ANDELMAN: -- communications.
21 THE COURT: -- to the extent that it was brought
22 as a fees motion, I think that those conversations are
23 waived, would have been waived in New York.
24 THE WITNESS: Well --
25 MR. ZAPPIN: Yeah, they were.
44
lw
1 THE COURT: What I know.
2 MR. ANDELMAN: Wait, wait, just so I understand
3 to make sure that we know what’s waived, we’re talking
4 about --
5 THE COURT: Her conversations about the bills.
6 MR. ANDELMAN: About the bills as it relates to
7 the fees motion.
8 THE COURT: As it relates to the fees motion,
9 correct.
10 THE WITNESS: So for one example there, there
11 was this time where they, they didn’t file, we both filed
12 divorce actions at the same time and then we, they agreed
13 with counsel to proceed under yours but we never actually
14 filed an answer. And so then what happened after you went
15 pro se is you dismissed the action in the middle of a
16 hearing on supervision, which caused a lot of fear that,
17 that, that, that you were going to abduct Reed or we would
18 file somewhere else or who didn’t know.
19 And so the response from counsel was to like
20 file lots and lots and lots of papers and it ended up
21 being a, a six-figure response in, in response to your
22 action and so that, that one I said well, you know, yes,
23 Anthony caused it but on some level you didn’t file an
24 answer. And I just, you know, didn’t foresee this coming
25 and, and so, so that, that’s sort of my agreement with
45
lw
1 counsel was somewhat, that they could recover that type of
2 thing from you but, but that, that I wasn’t going to pay
3 every last dollar of, of the bills and, and I, I haven’t
4 paid every last dollar.
5 I think I’ve paid 6, 7, $800,000 of, of what was
6 invoiced but I have not paid the, the, the over a million,
7 million dollars. So, so part of our agreement in
8 resolving them was we would do a fees hearing and they
9 could try to collect because they did do the work from,
10 from you.
11 THE COURT: Did you say you have paid them --
12 THE WITNESS: Oh, I, I, I’ve paid, I’ve paid
13 over $800,000 to, to date in, in --
14 BY MR. ZAPPIN:
15 Q. Now let’s, let’s be clear. As --
16 MR. ANDELMAN: Well hold up. Your Honor, I
17 don’t think she finished.
18 THE COURT: You can finish. You can finish.
19 THE WITNESS: Oh, he’s going, he’s going to say
20 that maybe that’s not all to Mr. Wallick so, so I, I don’t
21 keep perfect track. I, I, I’ve paid very, very large sums
22 to Mr. Wallick. He’s the majority of, of the bills but
23 I’ve paid to Ms. Cohen some, some extent and to Mr.
24 Andelman and his former firm to some extent and that this
25 is all in response to legal action pretty much fueled and
46

Zappin v. Comfort Et Al. - Docket No. 136, Plaintiff's Letter Response

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Zappin v. Comfort Et Al. - Docket No. 136, Plaintiff's Letter Response

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Case 1:18-cv-01693-ALC-OTW Document 136 Filed 10/31/19 Page 1 of 22

Date: October 31, 2019

Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr.

Re: Zappin v. Comfort et al. – 18-cv-1693-ALC-OTW

Dear Judge Carter:

To: Claire Comfort

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

THE WALLACK FIRM, P.C.

2 (Whereupon, there was a pause in the

5 off the rail.

6 (Whereupon, a document was handed to the

9 believe I have Exhibits 6 and 7. I think I said that

11 MR. ZAPPIN: I don't think they are in

12 evidence, your Honor.

14 whatever you need to ask, Mr. Zappin.

17 Q Ms. Comfort, did you review Mr. Wallack's billing

20 Q When did you review each of the statements?

21 A I don't know exactly when I reviewed them. I

23 Q Did you ever object to any of Mr. Wallack's billing

26 Q Ms. Comfort, where are you employed?

Lisa Casey - Official Court Reporter

2 MR. WALLACK: Objection.

3 MR. ZAPPIN: Sorry, your Honor. How about

5 Q Ms. Comfort, you are an attorney; is that correct?

7 Q As an attorney, you enter time entries; isn't that

12 MR. WALLACK: Objection. Relevance.

14 question, Mr. Zappin?

15 MR. ZAPPIN: Well, your Honor, the basis is

17 practicing law at a large law firm. She entered billing

18 entries, just like I had to enter billing entries, and

19 quite frankly, I wouldn't have been able to get away

20 with billing entries like Mr. Wallack's, and I'm certain

21 Ms. Comfort wouldn't be able to get away with them, so

22 I'm just curious why she would not object.

23 THE SPECIAL REFEREE: She didn't object. You

24 are free to ask her why she didn't object.

25 MR. ZAPPIN: Okay.

26 Q Ms. Comfort, there are several entries in

Lisa Casey - Official Court Reporter

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

The above-entitled action came on for a hearing

before the Honorable WILLIAM W. NOOTER, Associate Judge, in

Courtroom Number JM-5.

On Behalf of the Plaintiff:

On Behalf of the Defendant:

MATTHEW B. ANDELMAN, Esquire

Deposition Services, Inc.

1 in the child’s best interest that I have a $400,000

2 judgment against me and that I --

3 THE COURT: Do you?

4 MR. ZAPPIN: Yeah, I’ve repeatedly attempted to

5 settle the case so it wouldn’t balloon to a multimillion

7 THE COURT: Overruled.

8 THE WITNESS: Can you repeat the question.

10 Q. Isn’t it true that you never contested a single

11 item in Mr. Wallick’s bills?

12 A. That, that’s not entirely true.

13 Q. What did you contest?

14 A. So, so I, I complained to Mr. Wallick and this

15 is, these are conversations between me and my counsel

16 about, about our bills but --

17 MR. ANDELMAN: So, Your Honor, then I’d instruct

18 the witness not to discuss those --