Jury awards $232,000 in Disbarred Attorney Scam
Table of Contents
Case Background
Plaintiff Michael LaBoy filed a civil action in the Supreme Court of the State of New York against Defendants Charles J. Diven, Jr. and Anna M. Diven. The case centered on a property sale transaction and alleged fraud.
The Plaintiff referred to the transaction as a fraudulent scheme. He characterized the Defendant Charles J. Diven, Jr., as a disbarred attorney. Mr. LaBoy alleged Mr. Diven had a storied history of financial misconduct. The alleged scheme targeted the Plaintiff, who was a first-time home buyer.
Cause
The Plaintiff alleged the lawsuit sought redress from a fraudulent scheme. This scheme was purportedly perpetrated by Mr. Diven, the disbarred attorney. The Complaint asserted that Mr. Diven's ruse scammed the Plaintiff out of substantial cash deposits. The deposits were for the sale of a property and construction repairs.
Mr. Diven allegedly made false promises to the Plaintiff. These promises included his ability and willingness to sell the property. He also promised to perform necessary construction repairs on the house. Crucially, he allegedly promised to hold all up-front monies in escrow until the closing.
The Plaintiff asserted Mr. Diven instead "bled" him of over $244,000. The Defendant bypassed the escrow requirement, the Plaintiff alleged. Diven falsely claimed the cash deposits were used to pay for construction work. The Plaintiff contended this work was either incomplete, fraudulent, or performed without necessary permits.
Injury
The core injury claimed by the Plaintiff was a significant financial loss. Mr. LaBoy asserted he lost over $244,000 in cash deposits. This loss was a direct result of the alleged fraudulent scheme. The money was a substantial cash deposit from a first-time home buyer. The Plaintiff alleged the funds were intended for property purchase and repairs. He stated the Defendant used these funds improperly. The money was allegedly not held in escrow as promised. Mr. LaBoy also claimed the construction work was not completed or was performed improperly.
A subsequent injury cited was an unlawful or forcible seizure and/or eviction. This action reportedly caused the Plaintiff to incur further costs and expenses. The Plaintiff was deprived of possession of the property. This eviction added to the Plaintiff's claimed damages. The financial losses exceeded the quarter-million-dollar mark.
The injury was financial but also included the loss of a promised home purchase. The inability to close on the sale of the property was a central component of the damage. The Plaintiff characterized the entire episode as a financial scam.
Damages
The Plaintiff sought substantial relief in the lawsuit. He asked for the immediate restoration of possession of the property. The Plaintiff sought actual damages in an amount to be determined by the Court. He also requested statutory damages.
Mr. LaBoy sought treble damages against the Defendants. Treble damages represent three times the number of actual damages. He requested recovery of all costs and expenses he incurred. These expenses resulted from the Defendants' alleged unlawful eviction. The Plaintiff also sought reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, and disbursements for the action. For punitive damages, the Plaintiff asked for an amount determined by the Court. This amount was specified to be no less than the market value of Anna M. Diven’s remaining interest in the Premises.
Key Arguments & Proceedings
Legal Representation
Plaintiff: Micheal LaBoy
· Counsel for Plaintiff: Daniel J. Schneider | Michael Seth Farber
Defendant: Charles J. Diven | Anna M. Diven
· Counsel for Defendant: Hugh G. Jasne
Claims
The Plaintiff's core claims cantered on fraudulent conduct and breach of contract. This scheme involved the alleged misrepresentations about the property sale.
A key claim involved the failure to hold the funds in escrow. The Plaintiff alleged the Defendant bypassed the escrow requirement entirely and then misused the cash deposits. The money was allegedly directed toward construction work that was incomplete or fraudulent. The Plaintiff asserted a specific claim for unlawful or forcible seizure and/or eviction. This claim sought the Plaintiff's immediate access to restoration of possession.
Other claims implicitly included causes of action for fraud and breach of contract. The requested relief, including treble and punitive damages, supported claims of intentional misconduct. The Plaintiff also asked the Court to declare the termination of the sale agreement null and void.
Defense
The Defendants, Charles J. Diven, Jr. and Anna M. Diven, generally denied all allegations. The Defendants denied the existence of a fraudulent scheme. They also denied the specific allegations of misrepresentation and misuse of funds. The denials covered the allegations of bypassing escrow. They similarly denied claims regarding incomplete or fraudulent construction work. The overall defense posture was a complete rejection of the Plaintiff's claims. The Defendants requested the Court to dismiss the entire complaint. They also asked for judgment in their favor on their counterclaims.
Jury Verdict
The jury found in favor of the Plaintiff, Michael LaBoy. The verdict was based on the breach of contract dispute. The jury found the Defendants liable for the failure to perform under the purchase agreement.
The jury subsequently dismissed the Defendants' counterclaim for breach of contract. This indicated the jury rejected the claim that the contract was amended to require additional, unpaid funds. The panel awarded the Plaintiff $232,000.00 in damages. This amount was based on the funds the Plaintiff paid under the purchase contract. These payments included the $200,000 down payment and other related costs. The final award reflected the financial loss the Plaintiff suffered in the transaction.