Adam Leitman Bailey Fraud, misrepresetation,incompetent,liars New York, New York

Please take notice that Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. (“Plaintiff”) has initiated an action in the Superior Court of Maricopa County, Arizona, cause number CV2017-001791(“the Action”), due to allegedly false statements made by “Jack” on October 18, 2016 at http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/adam-leitman-bailey/new-york-new-york-10271/adam-leitman-bailey-fraud-misrepresetationincompetentliars-new-york-new-york-821162.

In the Action, Plaintiff seeks to subpoena the records of Xcentric Ventures, LLC for “Jack’s” identifying contact information to be sent to Manning & Kass, Ellrod, Ramirez, Trester LLP at: 3636 North Central Avenue, 11th Floor, Phoenix, Arizona 85012.

Plaintiff has filed a motion for leave to issue a subpoena on Xcentric Ventures, LLC, the company that owns and operates this website, to reveal “Jack’s” identities. You may have a right to file and serve a response to the subpoena anonymously. If you intend to file and serve a response, please do so, or notify us of your intent to do so, on or before April 3, 2017 and provide a copy to Debora L. Verdier, Esq. via email (dlv@manningllp.com) or facsimile (602-313-5499).

The client who complained obviously has beef or he would not have taken trouble to explain his grievance. He probably understands the power of Adam Leitman Bailey to entangle him in new litigation that could wear him down until he gives up. He therefore may have found it prudent to disguise a few details of the grievance, while keeping its overall thrust and nature. Accordingly, the fact that in-house deniers for the firm find fault with certain details is immaterial. What counts is what I can confirm myself as a former, though victorious opponent of the firm: Adam Leitman Bailey has a low ethical standard.

Pretending not to have received documents, pretending to have sent documents which never arrive, misquoting facts and the law, holding unnecessary hearings to drive up the cost of litigation for an opponent and billable hours for itself, procuring or creating forged documents, holding unduly prolonged depositions, refusing to sign stipulations which could save both sides unnecessary expense, and in other ways harassing an opponent are par for the course when you confront Adam Leitman Bailey. I would worry, too, about being “taken for a ride” or outright fraud if I were a client.

The firm lives in the pre-Internet age when word was slow to get out, but now that clients, opponents, and its own former employees can speak up online, the firm’s low morals are not even helping the firm, for judges are going to know that when an Adam Leitman Bailey attorney shows up, you can expect red herrings and an instinct for prevarication.

I am a landlord of a Manhattan mixed use building.  It is illegal for a landlord to charge a tenant more than the maximum allowable rent.  I would never do that.  Any landlord who does and fraudulently takes cash for the overcharge to cover it up derserves what he gets for being a criminal cheat.  Any landlord who refuses to take responsibility for a water pipe leak which damages a tenant's apartment deserves what he gets for being stupid.  Either way, this landlord has no complaint against anyone.

I have been at attorney for over 13 years and with Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. for just under 6 years.  I have reviewed the Ripoff report.  The entire report is fictional.  The type of case the fictitious complainer is discussing is a repair case in a housing court.   Housing court cases dealing with repairs do not allow depositions. So this fictitious person could not have had a deposition in such a case.  I am in charge of all of the housing court cases in my office. During my tenure we have never represented a client who had a deposition in a repair case.  In addition, we have not represented any landlord in a Bronx housing court repair case as long as I have been at the firm.  The complainer says he is a landlord that lives in the Bronx and we have never represented any landlords living in the Bronx.   We have never had an overcharge case in the Bronx.  We have never had an overcharge case that has had depositions. And we have never missed a court date.

The owner of the firm, Mr. Bailey, does not wear a head covering and he is not an orthodox Jew.

Housing court does not take adjournments over the phone so that part of the report is also not factual as a real client that is a landlord would know this fact.  In addition, the firm does not postpone hearings when representing landlords because that would deprive our clients of collecting the rent quickly.  Therefore it would be impossible for a judge to say that we sometimes never appeared or cancelled.

This rip off report is entirely fictional.

1.  I am the general bookkeeper for Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C., having served in such capacity for more than a decade.
2.  I performed a search of our records of clients since 2000 that have offices or homes in the Bronx, New York. 
3.  The only name that came up was xxxxx Holdings because their mailing address is in the Bronx, but they are situated in New Jersey.  As of date, xxxxxx Holdings is still our current client and we have never lost any of their cases.
4.  I also did a search of housing court repair cases that have cost the client hundreds of thousands of dollars as claimed in the rippoff report.   None of our clients have ever spent that much money on any housing court case.
5.  Our records indicate that none of our Bronx HP housing court cases have resulted in depositions.
6.   As I have been with the firm for over 12 years, I can also swear that that Mr. Bailey does not wear a head covering.
7.   I know for a fact that this report is entirely fictional. 

We have reviewed the complaint issued in Review # 821162 and while we appreciate the value of a venue in which law firm clients can voice complaints, the readership must know that this anonymous complaint is a complete fabrication and libel.  There is no case in our office that has even the slightest resemblance to the story told, not even enough of a resemblance to be able to identify who the author might be as the story is a total fabrication.  The author's story seems to be based on some personal grudge borne against Mr. Bailey and, given the total tissue of lies of the story in which both Mr. Bailey and the author are described both as religious Jews and cheaters, it appears that among the motivations of the author is a strong thread of anti-semitism.  There is a significant detail in the story that demonstrates that Mr. Bailey could not possibly have been where the writer claims at the time.  We therefore demand that this libel be retracted.

We have reviewed the complaint issued in Review # 821162 and while we appreciate the value of a venue in which law firm clients can voice complaints, the readership must know that this anonymous complaint is a complete fabrication and libel.  There is no case in our office that has even the slightest resemblance to the story told, not even enough of a resemblance to be able to identify who the author might be as the story is a total fabrication.

The author's story seems to be based on some personal grudge borne against Mr. Bailey and, given the total tissue of lies of the story in which both Mr. Bailey and the author are described both as religious Jews and cheaters, it appears that among the motivations of the author is a strong thread of anti-semitism.  There is a significant detail in the story that demonstrates that Mr. Bailey could not possibly have been where the writer claims at the time.

We therefore demand that this libel be retracted.