Default Disbarment Not Set Aside

A motion to set aside a default disbarment has been denied by the New York Appellate Division for the Second Judicial Department.

We had reported on the previous order

The New York Appellate Division for the Second Judicial Department has disbarred an attorney who defaulted on allegations that he had failed to honor two civil judgments

Specifically, the petition alleges that the respondent failed to satisfy two monetary judgments entered against him in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. In Lewis Family Group Fund LP, LF Fund GP LLC, and Kelly Ann Lewis v JS Barkats PLLC, Sunny J. Barkats a/k/a Sanny Barkats, Sunny Sky Realty LLC, and J.P. Morgan Chase, N.A., Case No. 1:16-cv-5225, a judgment was entered against the defendants on September 24, 2021, for approximately $798,716. In Denisse Villalta v JS Barkats, PLLC, and Sunny Barkats, an Individual, Case No. 1:16-cv-02772, a judgment was entered against the defendant on June 17, 2021, for approximately $1.2 million.

Action

the Grievance Committee’s motion to deem the charges against the respondent established based upon his default is granted, the charges in the petition dated January 23, 2024, are deemed established, and, effective immediately, the respondent is disbarred and his name is stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law.

The Villalta case is described in an opinion of a Magistrate Judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York

Plaintiff Denisse Villalta filed this lawsuit against Sunny Barkats, presently a fugitive in France, and his law firm, JS Barkats, P.L.L.C. (“JSB”) (together, “Defendants”), seeking recourse for egregious acts of quid quo pro sexual harassment and hostile work environment. Villalta claims gender discrimination and harassment in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and sex discrimination and harassment in violation of the New York City Human Rights Law (the “NYCHRL”). After years during which Defendants failed to participate in discovery, disregarded court orders, pursued meritless ploys to derail or delay this case, threatened Villalta, and even sought to purchase her testimony, the Court entered default judgment. The matter now has been referred for inquest on damages. 

Findings

In 2014, Villalta was nineteen years old. (Compl. ¶ 2.) She was an indebted college student without health benefits. She needed a full-time job to pay thousands of dollars for tuition and health insurance. (Compl. ¶ 21.) Accordingly, on October 27, 2014, Villalta applied for a position as Receptionist/Personal Assistant at JSB. (Compl. ¶ 12.)

That same day, the firm scheduled an interview with Villalta. (Compl. ¶ 13.) Villalta interviewed for the Receptionist/Personal Assistant position at JSB on October 29, 2014. (Compl. ¶ 14.) After Villalta completed an initial interview with a female employee, Barkats summoned Villalta into his private office for what Villalta believed to  be a second interview. (Compl. ¶ 15.) Five minutes into the interview, Barkats asked Villalta to lock his office door. Villalta did as Barkats asked. (Compl. ¶ 16.)

Barkats then ordered Villalta to strip naked, claiming that he wanted to see if she would be “obedient.” (Compl. ¶ 17.) Feeling intimidated and nervous, Villalta complied. (Compl. ¶ 18.) Once Villalta was naked, Barkats forced Villalta to bend over, at which point he performed oral sex on her from behind. Barkats then unzipped his pants, pulled out his penis, and proceeded to have sexual intercourse with Villalta. (Compl. ¶ 19.)

During intercourse, Barkats told Villalta that she now belonged to him and that she would be required to have a “threesome” with him and his wife. Barkats then forced Villalta to perform oral sex on him and swallow his ejaculate, explaining that Villalta needed to do so if she wanted the job. (Compl. ¶ 20.)

In debt and in need of a job and health insurance, Villalta did as Barkats asked. In exchange, Barkats offered Villalta the job, with a starting salary of $30,000 per year and health benefits. Barkats also promised Villalta that he would personally mentor her and promote her to a paralegal position in a few months so that she could earn a higher salary - if she remained “obedient.” (Compl. ¶ 21.) Villalta accepted the job offer. (Compl. ¶ 22.)

The alleged harassment continued on the job and after she left

Barkats' attempts to contact Villalta did not cease, even after she filed this action. As recently as November 2019, Barkats texted Villalta, saying that he planned to invest in a “film” about “[his] version” of events and Villalta's that would be sexually explicit and would “propagate” on the internet and become “widespread.” Barkats even threatened that Villalta's young son would “see his mom claiming she licks assholes for $12 bucks.” At the same time, Barkats suggested that Villalta could earn “big bucks” if she testified that Barkats did nothing wrong. Then, again in early 2020, Barkats texted Villalta, urging her to contact him “and see how rewarding the truth can be.” (Villalta Decl. ¶ 15 and Ex. B at 12-13, 16.) Barkats thus not only harassed and threatened Villalta but also offered to buy her testimony.

The District Court affirmed the report

the Court adopts the Report in its entirety and grants Plaintiff's motion for default judgment against Defendants. As the Report also recommends, see id.. at 7, the Court will refer this matter back to Judge Lehrburger to conduct an inquest for determination of damages.

(Mike Frisch)