Coffee With A Counselor: My EXCLUSIVE Sit Down With Attorney James Kridel – Teresa Giudice Bankruptcy Lawsuit Update

Posted on Apr 8 2015 - 12:51pm by Stacy Slotnick, Esq.

RHONJ_James Kridel_AllAbout The Tea_Stacy Slotnick Blog

You asked for it. Your judicious legal questions surrounding Teresa Giudice’s legal malpractice suit against James Kridel in the matter of Teresa Giudice v. James A. Kridel, Jr., d/b/a The Kridel Law Group, Index No. 161885/2014, have been burning up the threads for the past few months. Now is the time to spill the tea and dish on Mr. Kridel’s side of the story.

READ: Teresa Giudice’s Erroneous Lawsuit Against James Kridel: Evidence Teresa LIED In New Lawsuit

On Saturday, April 4 I met with attorney, Mr. Kridel – who represented Mrs. Giudice during her 2009 bankruptcy filing – for a one-on-one exclusive interview in the affluent village of Ridgewood, New Jersey. The Starbucks was crawling with soccer moms and business moguls when Mr. Kridel and I spoke for the better part of two hours about Teresa Giudice’s suit against him for legal malpractice; breach of contract; and breach of a fiduciary duty.

Our talk began with analysis of the Order dated March 26, 2015 extending Plaintiff’s time to serve the Summons. The Court granted Plaintiff’s 120 day extension request ex parte, meaning it was approved for the benefit of one party only, and without notice to or contestation by any person negatively interested (Mr. Kridel).  Said extension will expire on July 30, 2015.

Kridel Lawsuit doc - Stacy Slotnick

CPLR §306-B requires that upon the timely filing of the summons and complaint, the plaintiff must serve same upon the defendant within 120 days after such filing (Leader v. Maronev, Ponzini & Spencer, 97 NY2d 95, 100 [2001]). Where service is not made within 120 days of timely filing, the statute allows plaintiff to seek an extension of time to effect service, upon good cause shown, or in the interests of justice (Khedouri v. Equinox, 73 A.D.3d 532 [1st Dept. 2010]). A “good cause” extension requires a showing of reasonable diligence in attempting to effect service upon a defendant (Henneberry v. Borstein, 91 A.D.3d 493 [1st Dept. 2012]).

Was Plaintiff reasonably diligent in its effort to effect service upon Mr. Kridel? The documents supporting such requests for an extension must be aboveboard. Bradley Kasten, a licensed processed server, maintained in his Affidavit In Support Of Motion To Extend Time To Serve Summons (“Affidavit”):

“Defendant Kridel is counsel of record for one of the parties in Chong vs. 457 West 22nd Street [“Chong Case”]….I have attempted to serve Defendant Kridel at 60 Centre Street on the following dates at which there were appearances scheduled in the Chong Case….Defendant Kridel was not present at any of the motion submission dates set forth in Paragraph 4.”

While extensions to serve a summons are granted as a matter of course, Mr. Kridel explained his absence at 60 Centre Street on the dates referred to by Mr. Kesten: “We were dismissed from that case.” Specifically, Mr. Kridel’s firm represented Tambrio Corp. in the Chong Case, and according to Mr. Kridel, Tambrio Corp. was not a party to the action when Plaintiff attempted to perfect service.

“Why didn’t he just serve me in New Jersey?” exclaimed Mr. Kridel.  It is axiomatic that efforts could have been made to serve Mr. Kridel at his law office in New York or New Jersey. When examining the bounds of permissible service of process, Mr. Kridel intoned, “There is nothing that says he has to serve me in New York.  If he would just call, we’d accept service.” 

Mr. Kasten alleged in his Affidavit that he attempted to serve the Defendant in the Chong Case on December 2, 2014; December 15, 2015 [an error since December 15, 2015 is a date that has not yet come to pass]; January 21, 2015; February 10, 2015; and March 17, 2015. Additionally, Plaintiff’s attorney asserted in his Affirmation, “Plaintiff has made various attempts to personally serve the Plaintiff in New York” (see ¶10). Plaintiff should not be trying to serve itself. Clearly another glaring typo has reared its ugly head. All documents should be proofread for clarity and accuracy. What is telling is that the so-called “various attempts” were made at one location in which Mr. Kridel had no reason to be present on the dates Plaintiff attempted service there.   

Both personal jurisdiction and proper service of process must exist in order for a court to exercise its authority over a defendant. Remember that without perfected service, the suit against Mr. Kridel goes nowhere. Besides, Mr. Kridel is not loath to accept service of pleadings. On the contrary, he volunteered to me that since Plaintiff filed this lawsuit in December he has been served in other unrelated matters without issue.  What makes Teresa Giudice’s lawsuit different?

The answer may be found in email correspondences sent by Plaintiff’s counsel to Defendant’s attorney on December 19, 2014 and January 5, 2015 in which Plaintiff requested Defendant execute an Acknowledgment of Service and consent to personal jurisdiction in New York.

James Kridel Email

James Kridel Email 2 RHONJ

First-year law students learn that parties must attempt to preserve all defenses, including lack of causation; statute of limitations; comparative negligence; lack of damages; and personal jurisdiction. No defendant would consent to a waiver of issues. Plaintiff is trying to win on the merits – by removing a defense from Mr. Kridel’s arsenal – before the Summons and Complaint has effectively been served. 

Should a New York court even hear the legal malpractice suit? 

“None of the transactions between Teresa and I occurred in New York; all witnesses are in New Jersey; Teresa resides in New Jersey; the documentary evidence is in New Jersey; and anytime she came to the office, it was to our New Jersey location,” rationalized Mr. Kridel. There is no connection to New York besides the fact Mr. Kridel has an office there.

Plaintiff’s counsel endeavored to further disparage Mr. Kridel in his Affirmation In Support of Motion To Extend Time To Serve Summons, commenting in paragraph 24, “It was reported in the New York Post that the Defendant has ‘scoffed’ at this lawsuit. Defendant should not be adverse to defending against the merits of this lawsuit.” There are three fundamental problems with that statement, which are: 

  • 1) The New York Post piece has no bearing whatsoever on service of process issues, especially as the electronic filing by Plaintiff’s counsel was done “incorrectly,” according to Mr. Kridel.  The article has no relevancy at this juncture to the case. Inserting said article into the consciousness of the Court could be perceived as underhanded and inappropriate. 
  • 2) “scoffed” is how the New York Post couched Mr. Kridel’s statements, and that categorization can only be attributed to the paper, not Mr. Kridel. Additionally, the New York Post credited the following quote to Mr. Kridel“We can only rely on the facts that were provided to us.  I don’t wish her any ill-will, but I would have preferred a ‘thank you’ rather than a lawsuit.” Does that account sound like Mr. Kridel ridiculed the suit?
  • 3) “adverse” was indecorously used in this context.  It is easy to confuse adverse and averse but their meanings are different. Adverse means unfavorable, and it is not applied to humans (ex. “The Weather Channel said Northern California would experience adverse weather conditions over the next two days.”) Meanwhile, averse means unwilling as well as having a strong feeling against and is always followed by the preposition “to.” It applies to a person and is used like this: “He was averse to discussing the trial.” 

The service of process mêlée is the tip of the iceberg. I have dozens of pages of notes from my meeting with Mr. Kridel, who maintains,

“There is no merit to any of her allegations.”

Stay tuned for Part 2 of my “Coffee With A Counselor” blog. Grab your gavel, join the conversation, and tell us what you think about these latest legal developments.

 

“Like” us on Facebook  “Follow” us on Twitter and on Instagram 

About the Author

Stacy Slotnick, a.k.a. The Foxy Jurist, holds a J.D., cum laude, from Touro Law Center and a B.A., summa cum laude, from the University of Massachusetts Amherst Commonwealth Honors College. Stacy is the recipient of the Honors Deans Award; Simon and Satenig Ermonian Memorial Scholarship; College of Social and Behavioral Sciences Opportunity Scholarship; and College of Humanities and Fine Arts Scholarship. She is also a William F. Field Alumni Scholar, an honor bestowed upon the most academically distinguished students. In law school, Stacy won two CALI Excellence For The Future Awards® and received an Achievement Scholarship. She is a member of the New York Bar. As an entertainment lawyer, Stacy counsels clients on contracts, branding, and public relations strategy. She negotiates with agents, producers, production companies, and lawyers to secure rights to projects on behalf of high-profile clients. Her clever, spirited, no holds barred legal analysis can be found in articles for The Huffington Post. * Facebook
 
* LinkedIn
 
* Twitter

  • WestCoastFeed

    Thank you once again, Stacy. And, oh my!! Just what great advantage would Teresa’s lawyer gain from having the suit heard in New York rather than New Jersey?

    • Stacy Slotnick

      You are welcome, WestCoastFeed. I know you have all been waiting ages for an update! There isn’t an advantage per se, but Plaintiff’s counsel’s law office is in Yonkers, NY. Case will head to NJ.

      • WestCoastFeed

        Is it likely that we will all have to wait until July for the papers even to get served?

        • Stacy Slotnick

          Don’t you think it is ridiculous that Plaintiff has made service conditional upon waiver of personal jurisdiction? Unless Plaintiff gets creative and tries to serve without said condition and/or serves Mr. Kridel at his law firm, I could see Plaintiff asking for another extension.

          • WestCoastFeed

            It just doesn’t make sense to me. It sounds like a little kid on a playground. Play by my rules where I win no matter what. Who is going to agree to play when that is the requirement?

          • Stacy Slotnick

            The idea is that Plaintiff’s counsel wanted to make service of process conditional upon Defendant waiving a HUGE defense (personal jurisdiction).

          • WestCoastFeed

            Yes, what does Kridel lose and Cuevas gain if the case is moved to NY?

          • Stacy Slotnick

            The case was filed in NY. The Court will likely decide that based on the fact the evidence, witnesses, and parties’ residence being in NJ, the case should be tried there.

          • twifan2

            Those two deserve each other.
            Both seem to just want the spotlight in the media.

          • Stacy Slotnick

            What do you make of these service issues, twitfan2?

          • twifan2

            Down right bogus-imo.

          • Stacy Slotnick

            There is no question serving a lawyer who has two known places of businesses isn’t rocket science.

          • twifan2

            & they’re listed in the Yellow/White pages. smh over here.

          • Stacy Slotnick

            NEW INFO: SMH too at the idea that a lawsuit Carlos Cuevas refers to (Mattiucci v. Brach Eichtler, LLC) in those December 19, 2014 and January 5, 2015 letters in which Mr. Kridel sued a law firm based in NJ for legal malpractice in Supreme Court, New York County, is somehow relevant. Mr. Kridel explained to me that the circumstances leading to the suit (plaintiff’s cause of action) occurred in NY, witnesses were in NY, and other evidence was in NY. It doesn’t take a Clarence Darrow to realize that making up facts and misleading a court is frowned upon.

          • twifan2

            OMG! Can you say ‘incompetent’? Call 411 even. :/
            Can the judge do something about that? I mean in terms of publicly/on the record admonishing the lawyer for his lack of intelligence?

          • Stacy Slotnick

            It is absurd. I’m glad you see it too! Just as with the Summons and Complaint, there are a myriad of issues (untruths, misleading) with the Motion To Extend Time To Serve Summons. It is just a poor reflection on the legal profession.

  • undergroundrailroadtrain

    Thanks for the breakdown of all the legal jargon. My questions are – Doesn’t this lawsuit cost money? Is Teresa’s new attorney working pro bono? If she loses this lawsuit she would have placed herself in more debt?

    • Stacy Slotnick

      You are very welcome. My guess would be that TG’s lawyer (Carlos Cuevas) took the case on a contingency basis and the fee is payable only if there is a favorable result. They also could have worked out an agreement where TG releases Mr. Cuevas from their attorney-client privilege after the suit is over so that he can go write a book and make media appearances for which he is paid.

    • Stacy Slotnick

      Also, if you ever have any question about legal jargon absolutely do not hesitate to ask since legal terms of art can become burdensome.

  • Dani-K

    I think it is a thankless and burdensome job to work for the Giudice’s. My apologies if somebody already asked this, but will this suit eventually be dismissed without clogging up more court time?

    • Stacy Slotnick

      That’s an excellent point. Without the satisfaction of payment for one’s services, what does one get out of representing TG besides the potential to make money from speaking appearances regarding the case and/or PR that results from representation of a criminal like Teresa.

      The suit will likely be dismissed because TG will have problems establishing the elements of her causes of action. Definitely more on this point to come! Never fret over asking something somebody might have asked previously. Your comments and questions are ALWAYS appreciated.

      Do you think the case should be dismissed?

      • Dani-K

        Yes I think it should be dismissed on merit and because it’s an obvious attempt to blame others for their mistakes. None of this would have happened to them if they had just lived within their means.

        • Stacy Slotnick

          Agreed. Plus, TG’s attorney cannot be held responsible for her election to lie and falsify documents.

  • Suglo

    I don’t know where Teresa gets her attorneys. Here’s another one (Carlos Cuevas) playing fast & loose with the rules of court. Also, doesn’t she have to prove the underlying case would have been successful in a malpractice suit? This must be another publicity stunt to make money. They just don’t know when to quit.

    • Stacy Slotnick

      No doubt someone proofread the Affidavit and Affirmation In Support Of Motion To Extend Time To Serve Summons too quickly and without attention to detail.

      Yes, Teresa does have to prove the elements of her causes of action for legal malpractice, breach of contract; and breach of a fiduciary duty. That discussion will take place in a new blog next week! Mr. Kridel revealed oodles of goodness in that department. We will painstakingly pick apart Teresa’s legal malpractice claim. But in the meantime, tell us what you mean by publicity stunt? Do you think her claims are baseless?

      • Babson_Chick

        or to put it simply – IMO it does seem that Teresa is just a sore loser and keeps trying to get a better deal or just finds her atty. not to her liking and moves on to the next one. Don’t think she is as smart as she thinks she is and we aren’t as dumb as she thinks either.

        • Stacy Slotnick

          Well said, especially your last sentence. Consider writing for Hallmark and/or one of those inspirational but smart quotation books. 🙂 What most irks you about this lawsuit Teresa filed against her former attorney?

          • Babson_Chick

            Thanks for your kind remarks but there are many on here with better writing skills. (but I try lol) What irks me the most – she is unable to face the facts – there’s no easy way out – can’t blame everyone else – she just will not own up and try to grow up which drives me up the wall and down again.

          • Stacy Slotnick

            You are right on the money. From a purely PR standpoint, if she continues on the path of not being accountable and transparent, her career in the spotlight will fade. People want to see evolution on reality shows. You have to reinvent “the act” and shifting blame or deflecting 24/7 just won’t hold viewer’s attention.

        • Shy-ra

          Agree! It’s like she’s an IMMATURE sore loser, and when she discovered she’d be going to the pokey, she had to save face and file this lawsuit. Her thought process might be that the last stragglers of her dwindling fan base would have something to believe in? Last ditch effort for credibility so she doesn’t have to “own” her crimes. In my best screechy voice -“It’s the lawyer’s fault – I’m a goooood person and I just love love love everybody”

          • Stacy Slotnick

            The problem is, did her lawyer tell her that suing Mr. Kridel could open up the possibility that the attorney-client privilege would be waived? That is a huge deal if she is put under oath at a deposition or during trial. There may be crimes for which she was never charged that will be revealed or she could commit perjury by lying in her lawsuit against Mr. Kridel. I don’t know what to make of why she filed this lawsuit but perhaps your theory concerning failure to be accountable for one’s own actions is a big part of it. Thanks Shy-ra.

          • Imstillstanding666

            Now she’s going to sue her new attorney for not warning her she shouldn’t sue her old attorney. My head is spinning

          • Stacy Slotnick

            “Litigious terms, fat contentions, and flowing fees.” -John Milton
            It’s the wonderful, litigious society that we live in. One of the reasons I admire the procedural structures of arbitration and mediation is because parties have more of a chance to “own” the final result by ushering in whatever evidence they want and creating a workable solution. The entertainment industry is certainly heading in that direction more so than it did five years ago.

          • Babson_Chick

            Yes – it’s always the fault of someone else!!

  • Tammy

    Thank you for this discussion. Sorry if my question is off topic but here goes….
    How is it that Guidices are selling these prison photos or possibly getting another tv show despite owing millions and claiming destitution? Is it legal to profit from these crimes that they admitted to and not pay the people they defrauded?

    • Stacy Slotnick

      Feel free to raise this type of legal issue anytime, anywhere on AATT. The market in which notorious individuals could potentially exploit their crimes in order to earn a profit has steadily expanded with the advent of social media. A Son of Sam law, which you have described, keeps criminals from profiting from the publicity of their crimes. The relationship between the crime for which Teresa pled guilty and the photos for which she received a profit isn’t linear or direct. Those images did not involve her selling information about her crimes. Son of Sam laws most often apply when a convicted criminal writes a book or collaborates on a movie project. They are designed to seize the criminal’s profits and give the money to the victims or the victims’ families. If a case can be made for the photos revealing something about her crimes, profits from those photos may be seized and dispersed to victims.

      • colleen

        Hi Stacy, I believe Tammy was asking if the money made from the Giudice prison photo shoot can be seized and go towards the amount due to victims. I know, and perhaps Tammy knows as well, The Son of Sam law wasn’t a concern

        • Stacy Slotnick

          Great question. Generally, yes, the money Teresa earned from the photo shoot will be allocated to her victims. Tammy did ask can Teresa profit from her crimes, hence the Son of Sam discussion above. There have been attempts to deal with this problem by assigning fraud investigators to track the assets of suspected perpetrators. The U.S. Attorney’s Office Financial Litigation Unit (FLU) is charged with enforcing orders of restitution, and monitors efforts in enforcing a Judgment if defendant has assets or income, as in the photo shoot. Does that help?

          • colleen

            Yes, It helps a great deal. And yes, Tammy asked you about profiting from their crimes– Right there in black and white–as big as an elephant! My face is red and I’m so embarrassed! Sorry, Stacy. My eyes are crossing from too much reading.

          • Stacy Slotnick

            Don’t be embarrassed. We all have days when we are trying to do a million different things perfectly, and I adore that you take a real interest in these stories and look at them from a variety of angles.

      • twifan2

        ‘Son of Sam laws most often apply when a convicted criminal writes a book or collaborates on a movie project.’ <–Does this apply to AFTER they have served their sentence?

  • CNN

    Thank you for the legal update Stacy. Once the matter of jurisdiction is sorted out, how likely will this case go to trial and can Kridel countersue for defamation?

    • Stacy Slotnick

      You are very welcome, CNN. It is probable that Mr. Kridel’s attorney will file a Motion To Dismiss in lieu of an Answer, and then the case may not even see the light of day if a judge grants this theoretical MTD. Defamation is a false statement or communication about another person that causes emotional or financial harm. I do not see any impediments for Mr. Kridel to sue TG for defamation, however, TG has many creditors to pay back and Mr. Kridel may not think it worth his time to go after a judgment-proof Defendant like TG. If he is unable to collect on a judgment for defamation, he will have spent the energy, time, and valuable legal resources without receiving compensation. Although, there are other ways of exposing the truth, and that includes talking to the media. 🙂

  • twifan2

    If & when the suit is dismissed, where does that leave Teresa & her lawyer?
    Please say no re-courses, just have to drop it.

    • Stacy Slotnick

      Mr. Kridel has a coterie of clients he represents. Mr. Kridel is not a defendant in other legal malpractice actions. Mr. Kridel accepted service of process in other matters on behalf of his clients. The point being that other attorneys had no problem or issue serving Mr. Kridel so why should Teresa’s lawyer have to ask for an extension of time to serve the Summons in Giudice v. Kridel? I believe the answer lies somewhere in the fact that service is not actually being attempted in a legitimate manner. What do you think?

      • twifan2

        Personally, imo it’s to keep BOTH their names in the media’s fore front.

  • twifan2

    Stacy OT question from this topic.
    Joe Giudice has said in an interview that he’s has a business restoring, polishing floors. Doesn’t he have to report all his business dealings/income to the court? I couldn’t find any listing on NJ’s Business records Service for his business.

    • Stacy Slotnick

      In general, the defendant’s ability to make restitution is reviewed and monitored. A
      restitution payment agreement is established. Financial investigations of the defendant are made by reviewing credit reports, credit card accounts, telephone bills, bank accounts, and other documents that reveal the defendant’s finances. Defendants are also REQUIRED to report income, debts, and restitution payments to the Probation Office on a monthly basis.

      If the defendant has not made a good faith effort to pay, the judge can revoke
      supervision and order the defendant to serve a period of incarceration.

      • twifan2

        Seems like these 2 are now having trouble coming up with the payments. As we get further into the year, I wonder what other antics they’ll come up with to get some ‘easy, fast cash’ to pay their debts.

        • Stacy Slotnick

          Oftentimes victims feel uncompensated by restitution payments and schedules. It isn’t a fair system, that is for sure. Realistically, the chance of full recovery is very low. Many defendants have already spent the money that they stole, and will not have sufficient assets to repay their victims. While defendants may make partial payments toward the full restitution owed, it is rare that defendants are able to fully pay the entire restitution amount owed.

  • A Reader

    Does Mr. Kridel have to be personally served? Is the process server authorized under NY law to leave the documents at his office with his secretary or would this not constitute service in NY?

    • Stacy Slotnick

      Great question and certainly a key attribute in this case. Service of process rules must be strictly followed, since this service gives notice that a lawsuit
      has been started and is a mechanism that formally brings the other party before the court.

      CPLR § 308 Personal service upon a natural person shall be made by any of the following methods:

      by delivering the summons within the state to the person to be served; or
      by delivering the summons within the state to a person of suitable age and discretion at the actual place of business, dwelling place or usual place of abode of the person to be served and by either mailing the summons to the person to be served at his or her last known residence or by mailing the summons by first class mail to the person to be served at his or her actual place of business in an envelope bearing the legend “personal and confidential” and not indicating on the outside thereof, by return address or otherwise, that the communication is from an attorney or concerns an action against the person to be served, such delivery and mailing to be effected within twenty days of each other; proof of such service shall be filed with the clerk of the court designated in the summons within twenty days of either such delivery or mailing, whichever is effected later; service shall be complete ten days after such filing; proof of service shall identify such person of suitable age and discretion and state the date, time and place of service, except in matrimonial actions where service hereunder may be made pursuant to an order made in accordance with the provisions of subdivision a of section two hundred thirty-two of the domestic relations law; or
      by delivering the summons within the state to the agent for service of the person to be served as designated under rule 318, except in matrimonial actions where service hereunder may be made pursuant to an order made in accordance with the provisions of subdivision a of section two hundred thirty-two of the domestic relations law;
      where service under paragraphs one and two cannot be made with due diligence, by affixing the summons to the door of either the actual place of business, dwelling place or usual place of abode within the state of the person to be served and by either mailing the summons to such person at his or her last known residence or by mailing the summons by first class mail to the person to be served at his or her actual place of business in an envelope bearing the legend “personal and confidential” and not indicating on the outside thereof, by return address or otherwise, that the communication is from an attorney or concerns an action against the person to be served, such affixing and mailing to be effected within twenty days of each other; proof of such service shall be filed with the clerk of the court designated in the summons within twenty days of either such affixing or mailing, whichever is effected later; service shall be complete ten days after such filing, except in matrimonial actions where service hereunder may be made pursuant to an order made in accordance with the provisions of subdivision a of section two hundred thirty-two of the domestic relations law;
      in such manner as the court, upon motion without notice, directs, if service is impracticable under paragraphs one, two and four of this section.
      For purposes of this section, “actual place of business” shall include any location that the defendant, through regular solicitation or advertisement, has held out as its place of business.

      • WestCoastFeed

        Yikes! There really are a few periods buried in that somewhere, I guess. I am picking out a number of places where I see it says “within this state.” Does that completely limit the process server to serve James Kridel within the state of NY? And mean he can’t cross state lines and serve him at his office in NJ?

        • Stacy Slotnick

          Leave it to NY to make things complicated. Just teasing. The process server can serve the Defendant in NJ as Mr. Kridel said he would consent to service there WITHOUT any waivers of issue attached. Mr. Cuevas, according to court documents and correspondences with Mr. Perri, wants Mr. Kridel to consent to waiver of personal jurisdiction when he is served, which obviously is not in the interests of Mr. Kridel.

          • WestCoastFeed

            Thanks. Mr Cuevas wants the game slanted in his favor to begin with. Forget that this all originally went down in NJ.

          • Stacy Slotnick

            Exactly! You AATT posters are very smart. Lawyers sometimes try and win their cases on procedural grounds and have their adversaries waive defenses before the lawsuit has even been served. It becomes a game.

  • Fritz the. At

    And To think I was pre law in college. I can’t understand anything in this article.

    • Stacy Slotnick

      What undergraduate institution did you attend? Most pre-law programs are more legal studies and less substantive based. What can we clarify for you?

      • Fritz the. At

        Stacy, it was a small college. My point is it’s probably a good thing I didnt pursue that line of work. You are too smart for me. Thanks for the offer though.

        • Stacy Slotnick

          OK, well, I’m glad you found the article to be respectable and educational. I try to be very accessible and approachable, so feel free to ask a question anytime.

  • cait

    I think Cuevas is doing a dainty dance on the shady edge of the law, hoping that Tee Gee will disappear down a dark hole, with her shifty lawsuit !

    • Stacy Slotnick

      Hey Cait! Thanks for commenting as I’m glad you pointed this out. Which “shady edge of the law” act irks you the most and do you think a judge will recognize the case against Mr. Kridel is shifty and baseless?

      • cait

        Dancing Boy finding every excuse, under the sun, not to serve papers ! Is the Judge allowed to examine the submissions from Cuevas, and deem them to be without merit or substance, thus dismissing the case ? Could the Judge rule it a malicious suit ?

        • Stacy Slotnick

          These types of motions are liberally granted and sometimes rubber-stamped by the judge’s law clerk. Moreover, the motion was granted ex parte, meaning Mr. Kridel did not have a chance to defend against the motion or point out inaccuracies in Plaintiff’s submission, which sounds totally inappropriate and injurious. If the judge had denied the motion to extend time to serve the summons, Plaintiff would’ve had only about 5 days to serve Mr. Kridel, which is in addition to when the time to serve began to run (December 2, 2014).

          I think what you are referring to is the personal injury cause of action for malicious prosecution, which is a criminal or civil case that is filed without an adequate basis and for an improper purpose, such as harassing the defendant, ruining another person’s reputation, or to knowingly place blame on someone other than the actual wrongdoer (ahem). In New York, a malicious civil prosecution is one that is

          -begun in malice,

          -without probable cause to believe it can succeed, and

          -which, after imposing a grievance akin to the effect of a provisional remedy [“special damages”],

          -finally ends in failure.

          See, Engel v. CBS, Inc., 93 N.Y.2d 195, 205 (1999). What is “special” about special injury is that the defendant must abide some concrete harm that is considerably more cumbersome than the physical, psychological or financial demands of defending a lawsuit. In a hypothetical malicious prosecution lawsuit in Kridel v. Teresa Giudice, TG could pay Mr. Kridel’s legal fees, lost wages and other monetary damages associated with the wrongful prosecution.

      • cait

        O

  • Anne Green

    Thank you for taking the time to speak to Mr. Kridel and for this most informative blog. You, once again, hit it out of the park!!!! Will your blog of next week have information on that “oh, so vague” complaint? I realize that Mr. Kridel has not yet been served that “vague” complaint but I’m sure he has knowledge of it’s lack of content. I look forward to your future tidbits of delicious information regarding this convicted felon. Thanks again for your hard work that ultimately benefits the AATT followers.

    • Stacy Slotnick

      You are entirely welcome and thank you, Anne Green, for your tremendous support and encouragement! I am very happy to be a part of the AATT family and team. We are delighted you enjoyed the blog and got some nuggets of gold. If you would like to review some of the weaknesses in the complaint, feel free to scan this blog http://allaboutthetea.com/2014/12/04/exclusive-teresa-giudices-erroneous-lawsuit-against-james-kridel-evidence-teresa-lied-in-new-lawsuit/, which covers the complaint fairly extensively.

      Next week, I am going to discuss the merits of Teresa’s lawsuit against Mr. Kridel using documents that have not seen the light of day, i.e., been published previously, as well as share more of Mr. Kridel’s statements with the rest of you!

      • Babson_Chick

        am looking forward to next week and your next installment – as the world turns so do the days of our lives snarking about our reallty shows

        • twifan2

          Thanks for the image, Babson! 😀
          I have a pic of Medusa Tre now. 😮
          CHEERS!

          • Babson_Chick

            I do what I can – Cheers!!

        • Stacy Slotnick

          I’ll toast to that! I bet Eileen Davidson and Lisa Rinna (post-war zone on RHOBH Reunion) would get a kick out of that line.

          • Babson_Chick

            Hope so!! Cheers!!

  • TartLemon

    Thanks Stacy.

    ~IMO~There’s nothing Teresa can gain from this except more negative PR. Lots of stuff will come out that will just cause need for more of her silly, incoherent excuses.

    The way I see it… Teresa/Joe weren’t convicted for filing bankruptcy. Instead, it’s the lies and fraud uncovered BECAUSE of the bankruptcy filing. I’m kinda looking forward to the details which will be revealed because Idiot Moron filed this suit.

    • Stacy Slotnick

      You completely hit the nail on the head regarding the important subtleties between Teresa filing for bankruptcy versus the fraud she committed. I will speak about that in-depth in my next blog. You must have ESP to anticipate this critically important piece of the puzzle that I will explore but I also know you are a very astute thinker.

  • TartLemon

    Teresa should have quit while she was ahead. Questionable documents will now surface. Juicy did not need the fraudulent ID to drive. It would have been less of a problem to be caught driving on a suspended license. He needed it for ‘business’ purposes. How many loans or contracts were signed using the fraudulent ID?

    • Stacy Slotnick

      Criminals oftentimes test the bounds of legality, moralism, and decency hence my article on psychiatric justice, which I think is a supremely important component in this case. Thanks for pointing out this facet which links all their criminal behavior. Feel free to peruse my article on psychiatric justice if you have a moment: http://allaboutthetea.com/2014/11/11/lies-teresa-giudice-told-psychiatric-justice/ Also, thank you so much for sharing your thoughts.

  • whose gonna do my hair!

    Thank you, Ms Stacy!

    • Stacy Slotnick

      You are very welcome. Glad you had a chance to read my interview with Mr. Kridel. Have a marvelous day!

  • teresa darienzo

    Teresa will eventually drop this nonsense lawsuit when it finally seeps into her pea brain that all sorts of things that she would rather never see the light of day will in fact be exposed. She is not the brightest bulb in the box and it just takes more time for her to eventually see what most normal people can see or deduce in a nano second.

    • Stacy Slotnick

      Thanks for the fine elucidation, Teresa Darienzo! Do you think Teresa’s new attorney informed her of the consequences (attorney-client privilege may be waived) of filing a legal malpractice suit? Was she just hoping for a fast settlement with Mr. Kridel?

      The privilege is the solid foundation upon which the relationship between the attorney and the client is built. This foundation, however, may be eliminated when an attorney and a (former) client find themselves at odds either through claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, grievances by the client to the Bar, or allegations of malpractice. In any of the aforementioned situations, the attorney may be required to reveal client confidences. The attorney’s ability to reveal a client’s confidence is actually quite broad when disclosure may be deemed in “self defense.”

      • twifan2

        Stacy, I don’t know if you’ve read the story about Tre’s former lawyer going after her future earnings for payment-but could Teresa file for bankruptcy to get these ‘liens’ removed? She would have to file after she’s released though.

        • Stacy Slotnick

          A lawyer “going after her future earnings” would need to first file suit. The number of clients who don’t pay their legal bills is quite significant. The law firm you speak of should exercise extreme care before filing suit against former client Teresa Giudice to recover a fee. Law firms suing to recover unpaid legal fees risk receiving a counterclaim, ethics complaint, and importantly, a law firm that files a claim against a client should anticipate that every aspect of its representation will be carefully scrutinized and second-guessed. If an unpaid bill has reached a level where the firm is considering filing a claim, conducting a study aimed at AVOIDING future repetitions of the same problem is almost always a useful exercise.

          As far as filing for bankruptcy to remove liens, a bankruptcy discharge eliminates debts, but it does not eliminate liens and I do not see her filing for bankruptcy primarily because her assets, income, and earnings will be exposed and carefully examined. Certain debts survive a Chapter 7 bankruptcy because they are excepted from the discharge by law: priority taxes, support, student loans, and liens are among the kinds of debts not discharged in Chapter 7. Hope this helps!

          • twifan2

            Thank you Stacy. helped a lot!
            I should have used the word ‘judgments’ instead of liens-sorry.
            I need more caffeine today.

            As far as a law firm’s reputation being scrutinized-wouldn’t the Giudices’ past behavior speak volumes against them & help the law firm’s case?

          • Stacy Slotnick

            Great! I completely agree that comparatively speaking, the poor reputation (and illegal behavior) of Teresa and Joe will hurt them in a lawsuit filed by a law firm for unpaid legal fees but what lawyer wants investigators snooping around, reviewing cases, and second-guessing their decisions? Often
            the defendant client (Giudices) will publish information about any improper billing or other business operations that was uncovered in their investigation through the media, causing OTHER clients to wonder if their representation suffered from similar
            legal problems. If they find one thing, the law firm could be opening itself up to new litigation. The stakes for a law firm may be just too high to file suit.

            Moreover, the lawyer’s work will often be compared to a “gold standard” of client service, with little concern for the fact that the client was not paying the lawyer’s bills in a timely fashion and was also likely a difficult client.

            The lesson for the law firm that didn’t receive proper payment is to scrutinize more carefully clients going forward to determine if the client can indeed foot their legal bills.

          • twifan2

            So law firms should be in ‘caveat emptor’ mode when it comes to representing the Giudices?
            I would think that still lying/withholding information before a federal judge on your sentencing day would speak volumes about that person. And could/would help Mr. Klingeman’s case-if there is one.
            Thank you for your help, Stacy! & answering my questions. 🙂

          • Stacy Slotnick

            You are entirely welcome. I’m happy to answer your questions anytime! You are absolutely right. There is no question the Giudices would be in a precarious position if they were sued for unpaid legal fees, but a lawyer has to weigh whether he or she wants authorities and investigators checking into their billing practices and business operations by filing suit. The smarter thing is to perhaps use one’s new notoriety and “fame” to get paid appearances/bookings on TV and lectures, and collect money they would have made on the case that way. I represent lawyers and doctors who make a considerable living lecturing throughout the U.S. by appearing on TV/ documentaries. Some of my clients came to the fame game/media game through representing other famous people. There are ways to get creative.

          • Babson_Chick

            I’m thinking they must want publicity because everybody knows there’s no money there – just more problems

          • misstc

            Hi Stacy! Just a quick answer if possible. In my experiences, no lawyer takes a case without getting payment first, or works on 1/3 of recovery for his/her client. The latter, I imagine, would not apply to Teresa as he was to defend her & knowing she was getting nailed on fraud, would he not demanded payment BEFORE representing her?

          • Stacy Slotnick

            Quick answer? Ha! Lawyers need to painstakingly persuade, and that can never be done in a mere sound bite. Just kidding.

            Lawyers bill using a wide variety of payment structures. The lawyer here may have charged a retainer or flat fee. A contingency fee, based on a percentage of the amount awarded in the case, as you mention, would not be appropriate under these circumstances since he was her defense attorney.

  • Pingback: EXCLUSIVE: Teresa Giudice Discontinues Legal Malpractice Suit Against Attorney James Kridel()