Complaint Review: NEXTcapital

nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2017/2017_07739.htm

In the Matter of Jonathan Matthew Stein, an Attorney, Respondent.

Second Department, November 8, 2017

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Catherine A. Sheridan, Hauppauge (Daniel M. Mitola of counsel), for Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District.

Jonathan Matthew Stein, Roslyn Heights, respondent pro se.

{**155 AD3d at 90} OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

The respondent, Jonathan Matthew Stein, has submitted an affidavit sworn to on July 27, 2017, in support of his application to resign as an attorney and counselor-at-law (see 22 NYCRR 1240.10).

The respondent acknowledges in his affidavit that he is the subject of an investigation by the Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District involving allegations of professional misconduct, including the breach of his fiduciary duties and misappropriation of funds entrusted to him as a fiduciary. The respondent avers that he cannot successfully defend himself against the allegations based upon the facts and circumstances of his professional conduct. The respondent further acknowledges that his resignation is freely and voluntarily tendered; that he is not being subjected to coercion or duress by anyone; and that he is fully aware of the implications of submitting his resignation, including that the Court's acceptance and approval shall result in the entry of an order of disbarment striking his name from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law.

As to the issue of restitution, the respondent consents to the entry of an order by the Court, pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90 (6-a), directing that he make monetary restitution to Joshua Hyman. The respondent also acknowledges that the resignation is submitted subject to any future application that may be made by the Grievance Committee for an order, pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90 (6-a), directing that he make restitution or reimburse the Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection of the State of New York, and that he consents to the Court's continuing jurisdiction to make such an order.

The respondent also acknowledges and agrees that pending the issuance of this order accepting his resignation, he would not undertake to represent any new clients or accept any retainers for future legal services to be rendered and that there will be no transactional activity in any fiduciary account to which he has access, other than for payment of funds held therein on behalf of clients or others entitled to receive them.

[*2]

Lastly, the respondent acknowledges that in the event the Court accepts his resignation, the order resulting therefrom and the records and documents filed in relation to the aforementioned charges and allegations, including his affidavit, shall be deemed public records pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90 (10).

{**155 AD3d at 91}The Grievance Committee recommends that the Court grant the respondent's application for resignation.

Inasmuch as the respondent's application to resign complies with the requirements of 22 NYCRR 1240.10, the application is granted and, effective immediately, the respondent is disbarred, and his name is stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law.

Eng, P.J., Mastro, Rivera, Dillon and Roman, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the application of the respondent, Jonathan Matthew Stein, to resign as an attorney and counselor-at-law is granted; and it is further,

Ordered that pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90, effective immediately, the respondent, Jonathan Matthew Stein, is disbarred, and his name is stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondent, Jonathan Matthew Stein, shall comply with the rules governing the conduct of disbarred or suspended attorneys (see 22 NYCRR 1240.15); and it is further,

Ordered that pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90, effective immediately, the respondent, Jonathan Matthew Stein, shall desist and refrain from (1) practicing law in any form, either as principal or as agent, clerk, or employee of another, (2) appearing as an attorney or counselor-at-law before any court, judge, justice, board, commission, or other public authority, (3) giving to another an opinion as to the law or its application or any advice in relation thereto, and (4) holding himself out in any way as an attorney and counselor-at-law; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondent, Jonathan Matthew Stein, shall make monetary restitution to Joshua Hyman, in the amount of $10,000, pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90 (6-a); and it is further,

Ordered that pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90 (6-a) (a), the respondent, Jonathan Matthew Stein, shall reimburse the Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection of the State of New York for any awards made to Joshua Hyman; and it is further,

Ordered that pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90 (6-a) (d), this order may be entered as a civil judgment, and such judgment shall be enforceable as a money judgment in any court of competent jurisdiction by the party to whom payments are due hereunder in the amount set forth herein, minus any amount reimbursed by the Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection of the State of New York, or by the Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection of the State of New York when it has been subrogated to the rights of such party; and it is further,{**155 AD3d at 92}

Ordered that if the respondent, Jonathan Matthew Stein, has been issued a secure pass by the Office of Court Administration, it shall be returned forthwith to the issuing agency, and he shall certify to the same in his affidavit of compliance pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.15 (f).

nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2017/2017_07739.htm

Eddie Mehrfar's Personal lawyer and Business Partner has been Disbarred for Fraud Eddie Mehrfar's Personal lawyer and Business Partner have been Disbarred for Fraud. Jonathan Stein has resigned his law license for fraudulent activities. Stolen retainer, Application and legal fees collected. Jonathan Stein was in-house counsel for Eddie Mehrfar worked in 29 Barstow Ave Suite 203 Great Neck New York. Eddie Mehrfar's Personal lawyer and Business Partner has been Disbarred for Fraud La Jolla California

Eddie Mehrfar will have you all believe he is the only person telling the truth and everyone is just lying about him!  Read the facts of all the cases against Eddie Mehrafr and you will know that he wants you to believe over your lying eyes!  

Jonathan Stein, Eddie Mehrfar's personal lawyer, and a business partner have been disbarred for stealing fee and fraud.

 I do not know who posted the ridiculous allegation below. Anyone who knows me, knows this is not true. How could I be fired from the company I own??? The person posting this obviously intended to defame me, but since I do not know who wrote this garbage, I can not respond to any specific reason why someone would post this nonsense. The case in question involved an attempted "coup" by several employees at SCS, who thought they could take advantage of my generosity and good will. The lawsuit from which was pulled, was a suit FILED BY ME, to stop these illegal actions- which I did with the help of the court. A person need only read the complaint filed by me and the various court orders, to see that this is an absolute lie. This was a manufactured situation by people who thought they were smarter than they were. The truth is that I was the owner of SCS, there is no way to fire me.

The people who tried to do this (its all in the complaint) also access the bank account and all of the company's funds, which they proceeded to use to start a totally new entity. Since we also own the building where the office were, they actually thought they could lock me out of my own office!. Obviously, they were wrong as I was able to get my company back through the court proceeding, and move onward. AGAIN, ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS REVIEW THE COMPLAINT AND THE ENTIRE COURT FILE TO SEE HOW UNTRUE WHAT THIS 'CHAR;ES' PERSON WROTE. I am not going to waste any more time responding to this stupidity or giving the world the entire story. As I said, you are welcome to read the court filings. I guess it proves that anyone can say anything on these forums, and those that have been defamed have no real recourse, especially when the proud author does not provide any identification information to be able to do so. Whoever wrote this, why don't you come out of hiding and tell us who you are and why you would think to post these lies. i certainly hope you do, but doubtful since I would have a slam dunk case for defamation! Do not believe what your read in these posts.

You can see the court documents, listed below:  Eddie Mehrfar was Terminated 

https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=/3qlH9nuRvDx2YVfYrBRqg==

 Well, I would not expect anything different from this group. Just more lies… When this loan was submitted it was submitted as a hard equity loan with a high interest rate and points. The building was empty, had no leases, and never had any leases.  There was a six month escrow reserve built into the loan at the time of the letter of intent.  In addition, the borrower’s tax returns were used and verified to support the loan as there were no leases. There was plenty of income… 

Let’s not forget, an appraisal by the same company and the same appraiser did the appraisal again.  At the time of the term sheet they confirmed that the appraisal would only need to be updated and I had provided them with a release prior to starting the loan.    They failed to check with the appraiser prior to the term sheet and wasted 3 weeks on this.  This was an added cost to the borrower which he was not expecting. The new appraisal had all of the same information as the prior appraisal and the value increased slightly…  Next RE Capital knew the lease up period as it was stated in the first appraisal (ex of 3) prior to the term sheet. 

This whole loan was extremely neglected.  It really started going sideways when I requested numerous times to get a proof of funds.  I’m assuming they simply had no means to fund this loan otherwise it would have been provided.  After requesting the proof of funds many times, Kevin and then Stacey started talking about how the terms of the loan were going to be changing.  They mentioned an additional $1M would be needed to be put in escrow from the borrowers own funds and they would need leases in place (# 2 & 4). This loan was underwritten as a vacant building with no leases.  I would have gone to a conventional lender had we had leases…. They knew the situation of the borrower and were making it impossible to close the loan…. 

This lender charged my client a fee of $10,000 and misrepresented everything as the LOI was complete garbage.  I requested $8,000 back due to the fact that they did fly out to look at the property (# 5).  They are simply fee collectors.  Imagine collecting $10,000 per deal and you collect 10 a month. That’s a really good yearly income by anyone’s standards….  Their LOI gives them so many outs it’s ridiculous….   I have been in commercial finance for 16 years and finance for 25.  I pride myself on my responsibility, accountability, integrity and leadership to others. I have nothing to gain from this, only to protect other victims that may fall prey…. 

To conclude, the only phone call I received was the day after I posted the article.  I’m assuming they wanted me to remove this post.  Not going to happen…..

I read with disbelief the review that Joanne Scoratow filed which I know she knows is totally wrong (perhaps thats why she fails to put her name o nthe report)! 

What she fails to mention are many of the factors for the denial of this loan, including:

1.      She represented documents that were represented as "leases" which turned out to be suspcious at best.   Just reading them made it clear that they were not real and most likely (accordingn to our attorney) fraudlent.  In fact, at the beginning it was represented that since she had leases it would be leased up within a year.   

2.     We were told from the very beginning that the business plan for the building we were told was to rehab the property and build it out for these tenants and oithers.  The loan was to refinance the existing mortgage which was in default and the sposnor was going to provide the capital necessary to build out the space.   THus creating an achievable exit for repayment of the loan.   However, this was false - they eventually admitted that their plan was to refinance the property with our money, not put in any money (ev entually she told us the sponsor did not have any money) for renovations (why renovate when the leases were not real anyway) and try to sell the building for almost twice what it was worth.   This is not an underwrtable plan for obvisous reasons.   

3.  While the building did appraise for what Joanne Scoratow said above, after multiple discussions with the appraiser (CBRE), it was confirmed that the lease-up time for this building (ASSUMING IT WAS MARKETED FOR LEASE - whcih is what we were told (remeber she provided "leases") but was actually not the case) would be at least 2 years.    The loan had a one year term.   This would require a loan for at least 3 years and still there was no funds for marketing or capex or TI/LC.

4.   On November 18, 2016,Joanne Scoratow actually called to tell us her sponsor did NOT have the necessary equity to close so the deal was dead.  Then proceeded to ask whether we were willing to buy the note and be the sponsor/equity partner, while ranting and raving with disparging remarks about her sponsor.  

5.  With respect to expense funds to be returned, we reached out to her to discuss the expense funds (the amountwas $5,000 but she wanted us to give back $8,000!) -  However she never returned the calls and posted this instead.  It turns out the out-of-pocket costs to us was way more than that amount ($5,000) anyway on this deal and, in good faith, we did not even ask for reimbursement.    

6.  I have known Joanne Scoratow for many many years.   Joanne Scoratow knows full well that we are not a "fee collector".  She has during that time (maybe 10 years or so) sent us literally dozens of deals.   Most of which we rejected - in fact, this was the only deal she sent us during all those years that seemed interesting enough to sign-up (of course because of false statements as per above).   

There are many many other items that turned out not to be true or different than what this building and plan were represented to be, i just dont think its ncessary to go through each one.   However, I do find it shocking that given all the above (and there is a lot more) Joanne Scoratow would have the audicity to file what she knows is a false report and bears zero reflection to the truth or what actually happened.   

I called Joanne Scoratow many times after seeing this to discuss this with her (leaving multoople voicemails) but she did not answer any of them, nor did she respond to my emails.