From this
tweet by Keith Lee, I learned of
this fascinating Complaint filed on Sunday in the New York County Supreme Court. Lee takes note of the first two paragraphs of the Complaint, which are admittedly colorful:
1. The date, September 7, 2017, is a date that shall live in infamy in Staten Island history. On September 7, 2017, the circus came to town. The Defendant, DENNIS W. QUIRK (“QUIRK”) in his individual and personal capacity exploded on the courthouse steps as part rabid-dog and part carnival-barker, in a dangerous, intentional, outrageous, and malicious manner. QUIRK caused serious, substantial, unconscionable, intentional, and malicious harm to the Plaintiff, MICHAEL J. PULIZOTTO (“PULIZOTTO”), in the center of the public square – the steps of the Richmond County Courthouse – all to advance QUIRK’s own personal and political agenda.
2. The date, September 7, 2017, shall always and hereafter be known as “THE DAY OF THE RAT” in Richmond County.
The Complaint goes on to allege that Quirk set up a large inflatable rat outside the parking lot of the courthouse in an effort to ridicule Pulizotto, among many other things. Notably, in Paragraph 2, Pulizotto does not only use "THE DAY OF THE RAT" as shorthand for future reference in the document (as he does with "QUIRK" and "PULIZOTTO"), but dramatically states that September 7, 2017 shall be known as "THE DAY OF THE RAT" in Richmond County. It is unlikely that the Court has the authority to make such a declaration (as such a declaration would likely be within the province of county authorities), but Pulizotto does not seek the labeling of that date in his prayer for relief.
While I found much of the Complaint entertaining, due to its length and excessive hyperbole, I was not able to read the entire thing. But as I skimmed through, these two paragraphs caused me to chuckle:
56. Merriam Webster Dictionary defines “BULLY” as a blustering, browbeating person; especially: one who is habitually cruel, insulting, or threatening to others who are weaker, smaller, or in some way vulnerable.
57. QUIRK is a BULLY.
As it turns out, these two paragraphs end up being relevant to Pulizotto's causes of action, specifically, his cause of action for declaratory judgment. For those who need to brush up on their remedies,
a declaratory judgment is: "A binding judgment from a court defining the legal relationship between parties and their rights in the matter before the court" which does not provide for enforcement.
What sort of declaratory judgment does Pulizotto seek?
AS AND FOR A SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF(DECLARATORY JUDGMENT)
181. Plaintiff, PULIZOTTO, repeats, realleges, and restates all paragraphs above as if fully set forth herein and further states as follows.
182. As specifically plead above, a bona fide, justiciable, and substantial controversy exists as between the Defendant, QUIRK, and the Plaintiff, PULZOTTO [sic].
183. The Defendant, QUIRK, and the Plaintiff, PULZOTTO [sic] have adverse legal interests.
184. A judgment would serve a useful purpose in clarifying or settling the legal issues as between the Defendant, QUIRK, and the Plaintiff, PULZOTTO [sic].
185. There is a clear and ascertainable standard for the Court to rule on this issue, to wit: Merriam Webster Dictionary defines “BULLY” as a blustering, browbeating person; especially: one who is habitually cruel, insulting, or threatening to others who are weaker, smaller, or in some way vulnerable.
186. A judgment would finalize the controversy and offer relief from uncertainty as to whether the Defendant, DENNIS W. QUIRK is a “BULLY”.
And in addition to the $25 million in compensatory and punitive damages that Pulizotto seeks in his Prayer for Relief, he also asks for:
G. a declaration that: “DENNIS W. QUIRK IS A BULLY.”;
Declaratory judgments may be used to
stop litigation "bullies" from sending repetitive demand letters or making meritless threats of litigation, but this is the first instance of which I am aware in which a party has sought to use the remedy to give its name calling the force of law. While Quirk likely
does not want to be called a "Bully," the "BULLY" label that Pulizotto seeks is of no legal consequence and bears no apparent relevance to the parties' legal relationship or rights, the Court will almost certainly refuse to grant Pulizotto the requested relief on this cause of action.
Pulizotto may well have strong, negative feelings toward Quirk, but incorporating such a petty and futile cause of action into his Complaint will likely do nothing but harm his credibility before the Court in future proceedings. This Complaint and its dramatic language therefore join the vast ranks of pleadings that are amusing, yet awful examples of how litigants should act.
[UPDATE, 10/18/2017]
Another no-no I just noticed in the drafting of the Complaint is that the Plaintiff repeatedly misspells his own name. I have updated the above quotes with [sic]'s so that readers do not accuse me of shoddy copying and pasting.