• Report: #948769

Complaint Review: Cambridge Whos Who

Thank You

Read how Ripoff Report saves consumers millions.

  • Submitted: Sun, September 30, 2012
  • Updated: Mon, October 01, 2012

  • Reported By: TalyHo — St. Louis Missouri USA
Cambridge Whos Who
498 RXR Plaza Uniondale, New York United States of America

Cambridge Whos Who Cambridgewhoswho Involved in Lawsuits in State Supreme and Federal Courts. Uniondale, New York

What's this?
What's this?
What's this?
Is this
Ripoff Report
About you?
Ripoff Report
A business' first
line of defense
on the Internet.
If your business is
willing to make a
commitment to
customer satisfaction
Click here now..

Does your business have a bad reputation?
Fix it the right way.
Corporate Advocacy Program™

SEO Reputation Management at its best!

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NASSAU

HASHARAN SETHI, Plaintiff,

-against- RANDY NAROD, ERICA LEE, DEBORAH MORRISSEY, BRIAN WASSERMAN, MITCHELL ROBBINS, JERRY MOTT, RICHARD SOMECK, DONALD TRUMP, JR. AND CAMBRIDGE WHO'S WHO PUBLISHING, INC.,

Defendants.
(Index No. 002499/2011
First Amended Complaint Plaintiff, Harsharan Sethi (hereinafter "Sethi") by his attorneys, the Law Office of
Vincent R. Fontana, P.C., complaining of defendants, respectfully sets forth and alleges,upon information and belief, the following: PARTIES

1. Plaintiff was an employee of defendant Cambridge Who's WhoPublishing, Inc. (hereinafter "Cambridge") as Director of Management InformationSystems ("MIS") for the period July 21, 2008 to May 10, 2010. He resides in Nassau County.

2. Upon information and belief, at all relevant times defendant Randy Narod (hereinafter "Narod") is President of Cambridge and is sued herein in his'individual and official capacity. Upon information and belief, Narod is a majority
stockholder in Cambridge.

3. Upon information and belief, at all relevant times defendant Erica Lee (hereinafter "Lee") was Chief Operating Officer and Chief Technical Officer for defendant Cambridge. Defendant Lee is sued herein in her individual and official capacity.

4. Upon information and belief, at all relevant times, defendant Deborah Morrissey (hereinafter "Morrissey") was Vice President of Human Resources of defendant Cambridge. Defendant Morrissey is sued herein in her individual and official
capacity.

5. Upon information and belief, at all relevant times, defendant Mitchell Robbins (hereinafter "Robbins") was Chief Executive Officer of defendant Cambridge and a stockholder in the company. Defendant Robbins is sued herein in his individual andofficial capacity.

6. Upon information and belief, at all relevant times, defendant Brian Wasserman (hereinafter "Wasserman") was the Chief Financial Officer of defendant Cambridge and a stockholder in the company. Defendant Wasserman is sued herein in his individual aqd official capacity.

7. Upon information and belief, at all relevant times, defendant Jerry Mott (hereinafter "Mort") was the Chief Information Officer of defendant Cambridge. Defendant Mort is sued herein in his individual and official capacity.

8. Upon information and belief, at all relevant times, Richard Someck ("Someck") was a principle stockholder in Cambridge.

9. Upon information and belief, at all relevant times, Donald Trump, Jr ("Trump") is a principle stockholder in Cambridge.

10. Upon information and belief, at all relevant times, defendant Cambridge was a corporation organized under the laws of the State of New York with its principle place of business located at 498 RXR Plaza, West Tower, Uniondale, New York
11556.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
11. On December 29, 2008 plaintiff asked Michael Rainone about a missing tape drive and inquired if the tape drive had been replaced.

12. Bye-mail dated December 30, 2008, plaintiff asked defendant Lee and Michael Rainone about the location of the tapes that were in the old drive that had been replaced. Lee did-not respond.

13. On several occasions during 2009 plaintiff orally advised Lee and Morrissey that tapes were missing and that the loss must be reported to the appropriate authorities.

14. Bye-mail dated January 4, 2010 plaintiff again communicated with defendants Lee, Narod, Robbins and Morrissey advising them that a set of five (5) back-. up tapes that were taken by Proactive without authorization in December 2008 were still missing. They were reminded and advised once again that these tapes contained vital company data and financials, detailed information on every member and employee of Cambridge including their credit card and social security numbers. In his January 4,2010 e-mail plaintiff inquired if the proper authorities were advised that these tapes were
missing.

15. On January 4, 2010 defendant Lee sent plaintiff an e-mail confirming that Proactive did not have any tapes but that she would investigate the matter.

16. Plaintiff received no further communication from defendant Lee on this issue.

17. Bye-mail dated February 12, 2010 (which was sent on February 14, 2010) plaintiff again communicated with defendants Narod and Robbins on this issue.

18. A copy of plaintiff's February 12, 2010 e-mail was also sent to the Nassau County District Attorney, the New York State Attorney General, the Internal Revenue Service.

19. Following the issuance of these e-mails defendants engaged in a pattern and official policy of harassment of plaintiff. This harassment included verbal and physical threats, calling him derogatory names, and suspending him.

20. Bye-mail dated May 7, 2010 plaintiff again communicated with defendant Morrissey on the issue of the missing tapes.

21. As a direct result of this and the other e-mails plaintiff was terminated as ofMay 11,2010.

22. Immediately after his termination defendants and their counsel embarked on a campaign to prevent plaintiff from further communicating with the appropriate state agencies concerning these missing tapes/discs.

23. On May 12, 2010 defendant Cambridge instituted an action in the Supreme Court, Nassau County, Index No. 9175/2010 specifically designed to preclude plaintiff from speaking out on this issue.

24. Simultaneously with the filing of this complaint, defendant Cambridge sought and was granted a Temporary Restraining Order ("TRO") precluding plaintiff from communicating with anyone, in any manner concerning the missing tapes.

However, by Order dated September 7,2010 the Court denied Cambridge's request for a preliminary injunction.

25. On October 25, 2010, after Cambridge was denied a preliminary injunction, plaintiff sent an e-mail to the New York State Attorney General's office, Security Breach Notification Department, the Consumer Frauds and Protection Bureau,
the New York State Office of Cyber Security, and the New York State Consumer Protection Board concerning these missing tapes.

26. On November 23, 2010, defendant Cambridge again brought on a motion for a TRO to preclude plaintiff from communicating with the appropriate state agencies concerning the missing tapes.

27. By Order dated January 25, 2011 the court denied Cambridge's request. In doing so the court specifically held that "defendant's [Sethi's] communications concerning the data loss are constitutionally protected...." In reaching
that conclusion the court further held: "the claimed data loss, involving social securit numbers and credit card information, implicates the economic interests of a large number of people. Thus the content of defendant's communication is a matter of public concern ..... ' (Emphasis added).

28. In support of Cambridge's November 23, 2010 request for a TRO, Cambridge submitted affidavits from Randy Narod, Erica Lee and Deborah Morrissey, each of whom sought to interfere with plaintiffs constitutional rights and obligations 
address issues of public concern by contacting the appropriate state agencies.

AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST
ALL DEFENDANTS FOR VIOLATING LABOR LAW SECTION 740

29. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs "1" through "28" as if fully set forth herein.

30. Upon information and belief, at all relevant times Narod IS an employer as defined by Labor Law 740(1)(b).

31. Upon information and belief, at all relevant times Cambridge is an employer as defined by Labor Law 740(1)(b).

32. Upon information and belief, at all relevant times Wasserman is an employer as defined by Labor Law 740(1)(b)

33. Upon information and belief, at all relevant times Lee is an employer as defined by Labor Law 740(1)(b).

34. Upon information and belief, at all relevant times Morrissey is an employer as defmed by Labor Law 740(1)(b).

35. Upon information and belief, at all relevant times Robbins IS an employer as defined by Labor Law 740(1)(b).

36. Upon information and belief, at all relevant times Mott is an employer as defined by Labor Law 740(1)(b).

37. Upon information and belief, at all relevant times Someck 1S an employer as defined by Labor Law 740(1)(b).

38. Upon information and belief, at all relevant times Trump 1S an employer as defined by Labor Law 740(1)(b).

39. During the period January, 2009 to May 7, 2010 plaintiff, orally and bye-mail, advised defendants herein that several tapes/discs containing confidential financial information of approximately 400,000 members of Cambridge, as well as
thousands of Cambridge employees, were missing and unaccounted for.

40. Defendants were further advised that Cambridge's members and employees must be notified that these tapes/discs were missing and unaccounted for and that they should take precautions against catastrophic financial loss and identity theft.

41. Defendants were also advised that the appropriate state agencies and relevant financial institutions must be advised that certain tapes/discs were Uflaccounted for as required by various state laws.

42. Defendants repeatedly failed and refused to notify its members and employees, and the appropriate state agencies and financial institutions that the tapes/discs were unaccounted for.

43. On several occasions, plaintiff notified the appropriate state agencies that several tapes/discs had been missing and that defendants had failed and refused to notify the members and employees of Cambridge ofthat fact.

44. The failure to notify Cambridge's members and employees, and the appropriate state agencies constituted a substantial danger to the financial health and safety of Cambridge's 400,000 members, 1500 employees, and the thousands of financial institutions with which they did business.

45. In retaliation for advising defendants of the missing and unaccounted for tapes/discs, plaintiff was harassed and ultimately fired in May 2010.

46. Defendants continue to retaliate against plaintiff by filing suit against him in the State Supreme Court, Nassau County, Index No. 9175/2010. In furtherance of their conspiracy and retaliation against plaintiff defendants have, on two separate occasions, sought an injunction barring plaintiff from advising the appropriate authorities of the missing and unaccounted for tapes/discs.

47. Because of defendants' attempts at securing an injunction against plaintiff, he has incurred substantial expenses in defending these motions.

WHEREFORE, it is hereby requested that plaintiff be awarded:

(1) An injunction to prevent further violations of Labor Law 740;

(2) Reinstatement with full benefits;

(3) Back pay;

(4) Attorneys fees and costs;

(5) and such other and further relief as to the Court may be justified.

AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST

NAROD AND CAMBRIDGE FOR ASSAULT

48. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation set forth ill paragraphs "1" through "47" as if fully set forth herein.

49. On or about 1:30 P.M. on September 9, 2010, plaintiff was quietly having lunch at RXR Plaza, in a restaurant open to the general public when defendant Narod, approached plaintiff and demanded, without authority, to know why plaintiff was at that location. When told by plaintiff he was merely having a quiet lunch, Narod verbally assaulted plaintiff and threatened him with permanent physical harm.

50. At no time did plaintiff consent to this verbal abuse and threats of physical harm. In fact, in fear for his life, plaintiff called 911 for help.

51. Upon information and belief, Narod was acting within the scope of his employment and with the consent and authority of Cambridge.

52. Narod's behavior caused plaintiff to experience physical and emotional pain, suffering and embarrassment, and to be in fear of his personal safety.

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully requested that this Court enter judgment in favor of plaintiff in an amount to be determined at trial.

AS AND FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST
NAROD, LEE, MORRISSEY, SOMECK, AND CAMaRIDGE
FOR ASSAULT

53. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs "1" through "52" as if fully set forth herein.

54. In or about November, 2009, defendant Narod threatened the physical wellbeing of plaintiff in the presence of defendants Lee, Morrissey and Someck.

55. In or about November, 2009, defendant Narod physically pushed plaintiff in the presence of defendants Lee, Morrissey and Someck.

56. In or about November, 2009, defendant Narod physically charged plaintiff in the presence of defendants Lee, Morrissey and Someck

57. In or about November, 2009, defendant Narod slapped plaintiff in the face in the presence of defendants Lee, Morrissey and Someck .

58. At no time did plaintiff consent to any physical contact with defendant Narod.

59. Upon information and belief, defendant Narod was acting with the full authority, consent and approval of defendants Lee, Morrissey, Someck and Cambridge who stood by and watched as defendant Narod assaulted plaintiff.

60. Defendants Narod, Lee, Morrissey, Someck and Cambridge caused plaintiff to experience, physical and emotional pain, suffering and embarrassment.

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully requested that this Court enter judgment in favor of plaintiff in an amount to be determined at trial.

AS AND FOR A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANTS LEE, NAROD, MORRISSEY AND CAMBRIDGE FOR CONVERSION

61. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs "1" through "60" as if fully set forth herein.

62. While employed by defendant Cambridge plaintiff had several personal effects in or about his work station. They included the following: a pair of men's glasses with gold eyeglass case; direct deposit check stubs; a Circuit City
discount card; several family pictures; personalized coffee cups with children's' pictures printed on them; several computer books; personal papers relating to various family trusts, including tax returns and other relevant documents;
personal Parker pen set; cell phone charger, personal address/phone book; and alarm clock.

63. Notwithstanding several requests by plaintiff for the return of these items, defendants Lee, Narod, Morrissey and Cambridge have failed and refused to return these personal items to plaintiff.

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully requested that this Court enter judgment in favor of plaintiff for the loss of these personal items in an amount to be determined at trial.

AS AND FOR A FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST NAROD, ROBBINS, SOMECK, WASSERMAN, TRUMP AND CAMBRIDGE TO PIERCE THE CORPORATE VEIL

64. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs "1" through "63" as if fully set forth herein.

65. Upon information and belief, defendants Narod, Someck, Trump, Wasserman and Robbins are the principle stockholders of Cambridge owning approximately 92% of its stock.

66. Upon information and belief, at all relevant times, defendants Narod, Someck, Trump, Wasserman and Robbins approved the use of cash and other assets of Cambridge to pay employees of other companies owned or controlled
by the defendants to the detriment and financial harm to Cambridge. Upon information and belief, these other business entities include Bellmore Bagel Cafe, Butera's Restaurant, DaVinci's Restaurant, Long Beach Bagel Cafe and Sugar LI.

67.Upon information and belief, at all relevant times, defendants have approved, or did not object to, the use of Cambridge assets for their personal use including but not limited to, utilizing Cambridge's telephone systems for personal
calls unrelated to business; and utilizing Cambridge's computer systems and employees for the defendants' other business interests.

68. Upon information and belief, defendants have approved relatives employed in other personal businesses of defendants to obtain employment benefits from Cambridge normally available only to actual employees of Cambridge.

69. Upon information and belief, at all relevant times, defendants exercised complete domination of Cambridge and its assets and approved the use of cash and other assets to pay defendants' personal expenses and obligations, to
plaintiffs detriment.

70. For the reasons set forth herein, if the Court does not pierce Cambridge's corporate veil and impose personal liability on defendants Narod, Robbins, Someck, Wasserman and Trump, plaintiff will be denied the ability to recover damages he has suffered as a result of defendants' wrongful conduct.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff hereby demands that the Court enter judgment against defendants Cambridge, Narod, Robbins, Someck, Wasserman and Trump piercing the corporate veil and awarding such damages against each defendant
as may be determined at trial.

AS AND FOR A SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR DEFAMATION AGAINST RANDY NAROD

71. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs "1" through "70" as if fully set forth herein.

72. Upon information and belief, defendant Narod made numerous false and defamatory statements against plaintiff accusing him of attempting to "extort" money from defendant Cambridge.

73. Upon information and belief, defendant Narod made these statements to Jose Martinez, a staff writer for the New York Dailey News, with the understanding and expectation that these statements would be published in the newspaper.

74. Upon information and belief, these statements were published in the newspaper on or about February 22, 2011.

75. The statements made against the plaintiff were untrue and were of such a character as to be irresponsible, careless, reckless, and malicious.

76. The statements made hold the plaintiff up to public contempt, scandal, and disgrace and injure his standing in the community.

77. The statements made constitute slander per se as they imput the commission of a crime ("extortion").

78. Upon information and belief, said statements have and will continue to affect plaintiff's ability to secure employment in his chosen profession.

79. Upon information and belief, defendant Narod was acting within the scope of his employment as president of defendant Cambridge.

WHEREFORE, as a result of defendant Narod's defamatory comments, plaintiff has been damaged in an amount to be determined at trial but not less than $30,000,000.00.

AS AND FOR A SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST CAMBRIDGE AND DOES ONE THROUGH TEN

80. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs "1" through "79" as if fully set forth herein.

81. Upon information and belief, on or about February 22, 2011, defendant Cambridge through its officers and directors, Randy Narod and Does One through Ten, while acting within the scope of their employment, made false and injurious statements of fact concerning the plaintiff.

82. Upon information and belief, defendants told Jose Martinez, a reporter for the New York Daily News, that plaintiff was trying to "extort" money from Cambridge and that plaintiff was "trying to shake them down".

83. That on or about February 22, 2011 the specific statements were published by the New York Daily News.

84 That the specific statements have exposed the plaintiff to hatred, aversion, contempt, and/or caused plaintiff to suffer an unsavory opinion of himself in a substantial number of people within the state of New York.

85. That the specific statements as set forth above were published by the defendants in written form, constituting libel.

86. That the specific statements as set forth above were published by the defendants in oral form, constituting slander.

87. That the statements made against plaintiff were untrue and were of such a character as to be irresponsible, careless, reckless and malicious.

WHEREFORE, as a result of defendants' defamatory comments, plaintiff has been damaged in an amount to be determined at trial but not less than $30,000,000.00.

Dated: Garden City, New York
March 15,2011
Yours, etc
Law Office of Vincent R. Fontana P.C.
Vincent R. Fontana  (Attorney for Plaintiff)
Attorneys for Plaintiff
 Franklin Avenue, Suite 200
Garden City, New York 11530
(516) 640-4505
Fax: (516) 640-4983

TO:
Randy Zelin (Attorney for Defendents)
Moritt Hock & Hamroff, LLP
Attorneys for Defendants
400 Garden City Plaza
Garden City, New York 11530




This report was posted on Ripoff Report on 09/30/2012 02:06 PM and is a permanent record located here: http://www.ripoffreport.com/r/Cambridge-Whos-Who/Uniondale-New-York-11556/Cambridge-Whos-Who-Cambridgewhoswho-Involved-in-Lawsuits-in-State-Supreme-and-Federal-Cour-948769. The posting time indicated is Arizona local time. Arizona does not observe daylight savings so the post time may be Mountain or Pacific depending on the time of year.

Ripoff Report has an exclusive license to this report. It may not be copied without the written permission of Ripoff Report.

Click Here to read other Ripoff Reports on Cambridge Whos Who

Search for additional reports

If you would like to see more Rip-off Reports on this company/individual, search here:

Search Tips
Report & Rebuttal
Respond to this report!
What's this?
Also a victim?
What's this?
Repair Your Reputation!
What's this?

Advertisers above have met our
strict standards for business conduct.