Not that many Judiciary Law 487 cases go to trial, and fewer are successful. Josephs v AACT Fast Collections Servs. Inc. 2025 NY Slip Op 34427(U) November 18, 2025 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: Index No. 502491-2012 Judge: Peter P. Sweeney was lost at a bench trial.

“The undersigned presided over a bench trial of the above action on October 21, 2025. Ed C. Lehman appeared for the plaintiff, ELYSE JOSEPHS/ ADV AN CED ACUPUNCTURE HEALTH, P.C. (“Plaintiff’), and Frank Falcone appeared LUBARSKY & TARNOVSKY ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW P.C. (“L&B P.C.”) The purpose of the trial against L&B P.C was to determine liability and damages. The trial was also an inquest on the issue of damages as against AACT FAST COLLECTIONS SERVICES INC. (“AACT”) and KARINA MITSELMAKHER AKA KARINA PISMICHENKO (“Mitselmakher”), who were held in default during the pendency of the action. The action insofar as asserted against LEON LUBARSKY, ESQ. and RADA TARNOVSKY, ESQ. in the individual capacities was dismissed due to lack of personal jurisdiction.”

“The Amended Complaint, filed December 9, 2014, sets forth three causes of action against the various Defendants. The Plaintiff, a licensed acupuncturist, alleges that she retained the Defendants to collect outstanding and unpaid medical bills for acupuncture services from various insurance companies, beginning in or about January 2008. In the first cause of action alleged against AACT and Mitselmakher, Plaintiff alleges causes of action for breach of contract and professional negligence. The Plaintiff alleges that the collection services provided by AACT and Mitselmakher were performed carelessly, unskillfully, and negligently. Crucially, it is alleged that Defendants AACT and Mitselmakher forwarded the Plaintiffs claims to the legal codefendants (L&B P.C.) without the Plaintiffs knowledge, agreement, or consent, and failed to follow up, control, and supervise the work of those legal defendants. In the second cause of action, the Plaintiff alleges that defendants L& B P.C., Leon Lubarsky, Esq. and Rada Tarnovsky, Esq. were negligent in their representation of her in her actions against many insurance companies for the payment of her bills. Specifically, she claims that these defendants agreed to undertake collection services but committed numerous negligent acts and omissions, including failing to reasonably and adequately investigate the claims; failing to comply with relevant statutory requirements, and failing to commence timely legal actions against certain defendants and obtain jurisdiction over them, and/or failing to add proper parties, allowing all applicable statutes of limitations to expire, thereby precluding recovery on the underlying claims, and failing to attend scheduled court hearings or conferences, which caused or failed to prevent the dismissal of some of her legal claims. In the third cause of action against L&B P.C., Leon Lubarsky, Esq., and Rada Tarnovsky, Esq., the Plaintiff alleges that these defendants engaged in a willful course of conduct to deceive and defraud the Plaintiff. The complaint states that the legal Defendants violated their fiduciary duties and engaged in a II chronic and extreme pattern of legal delinquency. 11 The Plaintiff seeks general and special damages, as well as punitive and treble damages pursuant to a violation of Judiciary Law §487.”

“Plaintiffs chief complaint against L&B P.C. and the defendant attorneys is that they settled many of her cases well below what she believed was the industry standard settlement amount of between 80% and 85% of the bill without her consent. She specifically claims that in one instance, the defendant settled a bulk of her cases with GEICO for a small fraction of the amount of the bills at issue and that she received no more than 15% to 20% of the billed amount. Ms. Josephs testified she never authorized the settlement, and that defendant never requested her permission to enter into the bulk settlement.”

“After carefully considering Ms. Josephs’ testimony and assessing her credibility, the court makes the following findings of fact and conclusion of law: While the court found Ms. Josephs to be a credible witness, she did not introduce any admissible evidence at the time of trial/inquest supporting her damages claims. All her claims for damages were based on hearsay documents that were not received in evidence. Notably, the Plaintiff did not offer any of her own business records into evidence at the time of trial. She did not offer her treatment notes with respect to any of the patients she claims she treated, nor did she introduce copies of any of her bills that were submitted to the no-fault carriers that were allegedly responsible for the payment of the bills. Indeed, she did not submit any admissible proof of the claims that were submitted to the no-fault carriers, documenting the amounts that were billed for and the amounts for which the action was settled, if they were settled. Finally, she offered no admissible evidence documents that amounts she claims she lost due to defendants’ failure to properly transfer and handle her litigation cases. The Plaintiffs failure to prove damages requires that the action be dismissed.”