Complaint Review: THOMAS J. HILLGARDNER ESQ. - Jamaica New York

THOMAS HILLGARNER WAS SANCTIONED BY THE JUDGE!

On June 8, 2015, Admin Judge Spooner of NYC OATH SANCTIONED Hillgardner for failing to provide discovery, failing to meet deadlines and failing to act in a professional manner. The Judge refused to accept Hillgardner's ridiculous excuses for his repeated failures and made the following statement to admonish Hillgardner for his bad conduct:  

"For his [Hillgardner's] unprofessional behavior in this case, I hereby formally admonish Mr. Hillgardner and warn him that, if he appears before this tribunal in the future, he must adhere to all deadlines mandated by OATH rules or by orders of OATH judges, and generally conduct himself professionally at all times, or he should expect to receive more drastic sanctions. Admin Judge Spooner"

Matter of Stone OATH Index No. 1945/14, mem. dec. (June 8, 2015) [Loft Bd. Dkt. No. TR-0889]

OATH DECISION:

archive.citylaw.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/17/oath/14_Cases/14-1945md2.pdf

THOMAS HILLGARDNER CALLED EVIL AND A LUNATIC

On August 26, 2015, I received the following email from another person who experienced Hillgardner's bad character and conduct. People are waking up to Hillgardner's character that I have witnessed for years.

"I wish you the best in any action against that evil, Godless lunatic [Hillgardner]. He harassed me and a host of others on Facebook with defamatory comments (e.g., death wishes, you name it) over political issues which he commenced commenting upon with his over-the-top self-pitying Marxist trash. Glen Fogarty"

If Thomas Hillgardner has harmed you, please contact me and I will help you obtain a just remedy.

HILLGARDNER LIES TO THE COURT TO STOP THESE POSTINGS

Thomas Hillgardner is so desperate to stop me from posting the TRUTH about his bad conduct on RipoffReport.com that he filed counter-claims to my defamation lawsuit against him and he repeatedly LIED to the Court in his attempt to restrict my FREEDOM OF SPEECH on RipoffReport.com by asking the court for an INJUNCTION.

The following Answers to Hillgardner's counterclaims is being filed with the NYC Supreme Court to prove Hillgarder is a LIAR. A motion to strike his many ridiculous affirmative defenses is being filed in Court and to dismiss his ridiculous counterclaims that do NOT establish defamation because they are ALL TRUE. In addition, Hillgardner foolishly filed a DUPLICATE counterclaim that pertained to a breach of a settlement agreement which was already pending in another court action. That will be dismissed immediately. 

                        B. David Mehmet, as and for his answer to the counterclaims of Defendant Hillgardner herein, respectfully shows to this Court, and alleges as follows:

            1.         Plaintiff admits paragraph 19 of Defendant Hillgardner’s counterclaim.

            2.         Plaintiff admits paragraph 20 of Defendant Hillgardner’s counterclaim.

            3.         Plaintiff denies paragraph 21 of Defendant Hillgardner’s counterclaim on the grounds that the Court did rule against Hillgardner’s request for an injunction due to the legal rights of a de facto corporation.

            4.         Plaintiff denies paragraph 22 of Defendant Hillgardner’s counterclaim on the grounds that it was the Plaintiff’s OPINION that a licensed attorney knows or should have known that a de facto corporation could maintain a previously filed lawsuit, which would have caused the attorney NOT to file an injunction to stop the de facto corporation from maintaining a previously filed lawsuit. And if an attorney filed a request for an injunction that attorney had NO knowledge of the right of a de facto corporation to maintain a previously filed lawsuit. Thus, the Plaintiff’s OPINION that Hillgardner had NO knowledge of the rights of a de facto corporation to maintain a previously filed lawsuit is supported by the Court’s ruling against Hillgardner when it denied his injunction request. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s statement also rings of TRUTH.

            5.         Plaintiff denies paragraph 23 of Defendant Hillgardner’s counterclaim on the grounds that the Plaintiff exercised his CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT of FREEDOM OF SPEECH and his OPINION about a public Court Order that proved Defendant Hillgardner had NO knowledge of the rights of a de facto corporation to maintain a previously filed lawsuit. If Defendant Hillgardner had such knowledge, he either INTENTIONALLY filed a frivolous motion for an injunction or he would have NOT filed the motion. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s speech was protected and it also rings of TRUTH.

            6.         Plaintiff admits paragraph 24 of Defendant Hillgardner’s counterclaim.

            7.         Plaintiff denies paragraph 25 of Defendant Hillgardner’s counterclaim on the grounds that Defendant Hillgardner did file DEFECTIVE papers within the NY Surrogate Court that were REJECTED by the court on FUNDAMENTAL grounds and the rejection of papers by a Court of law COULD result in the dismissal of a lawsuit if the statute of limitations had passed and those defective papers were entitled “Complaint”. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s statement rings of TRUTH.

            8.         Plaintiff denies paragraph 26 of Defendant Hillgardner’s counterclaim on the grounds that the Plaintiff exercised his CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT of FREEDOM OF SPEECH and his OPINION about the Court’s REJECTION of Defendant Hillgardner’s defective papers. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s speech was protected and it also rings of TRUTH.

            9.         Plaintiff admits paragraph 27 of Defendant Hillgardner’s counterclaim.

            10.      Plaintiff denies paragraph 28 of Defendant Hillgardner’s counterclaim on the grounds that Defendant Hillgardner did file a DUPLICATE claim in the NY Supreme Court and within the Civil Court that requested BOTH Courts to hold the Plaintiff liable for an IDENTICAL breach of contract on the same settlement agreement. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s statement rings of TRUTH.

            10.      Plaintiff denies paragraph 29 of Defendant Hillgardner’s counterclaim as it calls for a determination of law that is to be determined by the Court.

            11.      Plaintiff denies paragraph 30 of Defendant Hillgardner’s counterclaim on the grounds that a paralegal did draft the legal OPPOSITION papers that were reviewed by an attorney and which defeated Defendant Hilgardner’s motion to vacate the settlement agreement in the Civil Court. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s statement rings of TRUTH.

            12.      Plaintiff denies paragraph 31 of Defendant Hillgardner’s counterclaim on the grounds that the Plaintiff exercised his CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT of FREEDOM OF SPEECH and his OPINION about the Court’s DENIAL of Defendant Hillgardner’s motion to vacate a stipulation of settlement and the filing of a DUPLICATE claim within the NY Supreme and Civil Courts. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s speech was protected and it also rings of TRUTH.

            13.      Plaintiff admits paragraph 32 of Defendant Hillgardner’s counterclaim.

            14.      Plaintiff denies paragraph 33 of Defendant Hillgardner’s counterclaim on the grounds that Defendant Hillgardner did file a motion with the Civil Court requesting that the Plaintiff be sanctioned for fraudulently requesting an adjournment on May 15, 2014 by claiming he was at a closing. In fact, the Plaintiff was at a closing on May 15, 2014, which was proven by his signature on ACRIS public closing records dated May 15, 2014. The Civil Court DENIED Defendant Hillgardner’s request for sanctions. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s statement rings of TRUTH.

            15.      Plaintiff denies paragraph 34 of Defendant Hillgardner’s counterclaim on the grounds that the Plaintiff exercised his CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT of FREEDOM OF SPEECH and his OPINION about Defendant Hillgardner’s Civil Court motion that requested the Plaintiff to be sanctioned on Defendant Hillgardner’s false claim of fraud. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s speech was protected and it also rings of TRUTH.

            16.      Plaintiff admits paragraph 35 of Defendant Hillgardner’s counterclaim.

            17.      Plaintiff denies paragraph 36 of Defendant Hillgardner’s counterclaim on the grounds that Defendant Hillgardner and Defendant Baumann did FALSELY accuse the Plaintiff, they knew to be the President of 26 Bond Street Management, LLC, of threatening to “Kill” Defendant Baumann 23 years ago.

            18.      Plaintiff denies paragraph 37 of Defendant Hillgardner’s counterclaim on the grounds that Defendant Hillgardner did falsely write that the Plaintiff threatened to “kill” Baumann 23 years ago within Court documents he AFFIRMED and filed within the Civil Court captioned 26 Bond Street Management, LLC v. Baumann (Civ. Ct. NY Co., L&T Index No. 65389/2012).

            19.      Plaintiff denies paragraph 38 of Defendant Hillgardner’s counterclaim on the grounds that Defendant Hillgardner did falsely state that the Plaintiff was ARRESTED for threatening to “kill” Defendant Baumann 23 years ago within Court documents he AFFIRMED and filed within the Civil Court captioned 26 Bond Street Management, LLC v. Baumann (Civ. Ct. NY Co., L&T Index No. 65389/2012).

            20.      Plaintiff denies paragraph 39 of Defendant Hillgardner’s counterclaim on the grounds that the Plaintiff exercised his CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT of FREEDOM OF SPEECH and his OPINION about Defendants’ false murder allegations and a defamation cause of action has been pled against the Defendants within this action based on their false murder allegations. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s speech was protected and it also rings of TRUTH.

            21.      Plaintiff admits paragraph 40 of Defendant Hillgardner’s counterclaim.

            22.      Plaintiff denies paragraph 41 of Defendant Hillgardner’s counterclaim on the grounds that Defendant Hillgardner did falsely write that the Plaintiff threatened to “kill” Defendant Baumann 23 years ago within Court documents he AFFIRMED and filed within the Civil Court captioned 26 Bond Street Management, LLC v. Baumann (Civ. Ct. NY Co., L&T Index No. 65389/2012).

            23.      Plaintiff denies paragraph 42 of Defendant Hillgardner’s counterclaim on the grounds that Defendant Hillgardner did tell the Civil Court in his opposition papers that quote “Regardless, even if petitioner does make a prima facie case of entitlement to judgment on the principal motion papers, Baumann’s affidavit submitted on this motion compels this court to enter summary judgment in her favor”. The Defendants in that case then went on to include irrelevant and unnecessary facts to emotionally incite the court. For example, they falsely accused the Plaintiff of threatening to “kill” Defendant Baumann 23 years ago.

            24.      Plaintiff denies paragraph 43 of Defendant Hillgardner’s counterclaim on the grounds that the Plaintiff exercised his CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT of FREEDOM OF SPEECH and his OPINION about Defendant Hillardner’s statements within his opposition papers to the Civil Court. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s speech was protected and it also rings of TRUTH.

            25.      Plaintiff admits paragraph 44 of Defendant Hillgardner’s counterclaim.

            26.      Plaintiff denies paragraph 45 of Defendant Hillgardner’s counterclaim on the grounds that Defendant Hillgardner did on May 10, 2015 send an email to the Estate attorney, Jeffrey Nogee, Esq., which stated quote “Gentlemen: It seems apparent that [the heir] has failed to consider the repercussions should I, on behalf of Ms. Baumann and myself, elect not to enter into any settlement agreement in this matter.” Defendant Hillgardner filed a claim on behalf of Defendant Baumann in the Surrogate Court for attorney fees on a pending L&T matter that had a new Petitioner and who was liable for any such attorney fees NOT the Estate of the prior Petitioner. Hillgardner further filed his own claims for attorney fees in the Surrogate Court on a pending Queens Civil case where the Judge NEVER awarded him any attorney fees. Thus, the Defendants’ claims filed in the Surrogate Court for attorney fees were frivolous and they were never awarded any attorney fees by the Surrogate Court. Thus, Defendant Hillgardner’s email inferred that the Defendants would NOT settle their FRIVOLOUS claims for attorney fees.

            27.      Plaintiff denies paragraph 46 of Defendant Hillgardner’s counterclaim on the grounds that a group of attorneys for the Estate matter did have a private meeting and the attorneys did laugh at Hillgardner’s abnormal behavior at a conference at the Surrogate Court.

            28.      Plaintiff denies paragraph 47 of Defendant Hillgardner’s counterclaim on the grounds that a group of attorneys did have a private meeting and one attorney did call Defendant Hillgardner “disturbed” and another Estate attorney stated quote “You know how Hillgardner is in filing frivolous lawsuits”. Furthermore, there was also a private meeting with the Surrogate Court where the Court official inferred that the Defendants’ claims for attorney fees were frivolous.

            29.      Plaintiff denies paragraph 48 of Defendant Hillgardner’s counterclaim on the grounds that the Executrix, who is the sister of the Plaintiff, did previously inform the Plaintiff that she hated Defendant Hillgardner with a passion after he had written a letter to the NYC Loft Board falsely accusing her of abusing her tenants. The Estate attorneys and the Executrix agreed to remove Defendant Hillgardner  with “pleasure” from that settlement negotiations after he sent them the email of May 10, 2015. The Executrix then signed the settlement agreement after the Estate attorneys, upon the Executrix’s approval, removed Defendant Hillgardner from that settlement agreement.

            30.      Plaintiff denies paragraph 49 of Defendant Hillgardner’s counterclaim on the grounds that Defendant Hillgardner was “kicked out of a settlement” when the Executrix signed a settlement agreement after she agreed to remove his name from that settlement agreement when he sent the May 10, 2015 email to the Estate attorneys.

            31.      Plaintiff denies paragraph 50 of Defendant Hillgardner’s counterclaim on the grounds that the Plaintiff exercised his CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT of FREEDOM OF SPEECH and his OPINION about Defendant Hillgardner being removed from a settlement agreement. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s speech was protected and it also rings of TRUTH.

            32.      Plaintiff denies in part paragraph 51 of Defendant Hillgardner’s counterclaim on the grounds that the website Ripoffreport.com is also a website that accepts complaints from anyone against any business or individual that harmed them. The site further assists harmed individuals by referring them to attorneys and the media.

            33.      Plaintiff admits paragraph 52 of Defendant Hillgardner’s counterclaim.

            34.      Upon information and belief, Plaintiff denies in part paragraph 53 of Defendant Hillgardner’s counterclaim on the grounds that Ripoffreport.com has NOT violated any Court Order where they were instructed by the Court to remove a defamatory posting.

            35.      Plaintiff denies paragraph 54 of Defendant Hillgardner’s counterclaim on the grounds that Defendant Hillgardner provides “legal services”. Furthermore, it is within the discretion of the management of Ripoffreport.com to accept any complaints they sees fit for its own website.

            36.      Plaintiff denies paragraph 55 of Defendant Hillgardner’s counterclaim. Plaintiff chooses to post to Ripoffreport.com in exercising his constitutional right of freedom of speech as with any other individual on that website.

            37.      Beyond a basic understanding, Plaintiff denies paragraph 56 of Defendant Hillgardner’s counterclaim.

            38.      Plaintiff denies paragraph 57 of Defendant Hillgardner’s counterclaim. It is obvious that Defendant Hillgardner has NO understanding of “Search Engine Optimization”. If Hillgardner had a basic understanding of the concept, he would know that the only way to optimize a website for search engine results is if a person had access to the source code of Ripoffreport.com and Google. The Plaintiff has NO access to the source code of ripoffreport.com nor Google.

            39.      Plaintiff denies paragraph 58 of Defendant Hillgardner’s counterclaim. As witnessed above, the Plaintiff made NO defamatory statements about Defendant Hillgardner on the Ripoffreport.com website nor any other website. And Defendant Hillgardner is merely attempting to silence the Plaintiff from exercising his constitutional right of freedom of speech and from having the Plaintiff report the TRUTH about Hillgardner’s conduct.

            40.      Plaintiff denies paragraph 59 of Defendant Hillgardner’s counterclaim on the grounds that the Plaintiff made NO FALSE STATEMENTS about Defendant Hillgardner to cause his reputation to be harmed. In other words, merely reporting the TRUTH does NOT result in the destruction of one’s reputation if that truth exhibits good conduct.  It is the bad conduct created by that person that destroys his reputation when the TRUTH is reported. Thus, if there is any reputation being destroyed here, it is only by the bad conduct of Defendant Hillgardner who is accountable for his own actions. Therefore, if Defendant Hillgardner wants a good reputation, he needs to do good and the TRUTH will bear witness. Defendant Hillgardner is only complaining now because the TRUTH is bearing witness.

41.       Plaintiff denies paragraph 60 of Defendant Hillgardner’s counterclaim on the grounds that Defendant Hillgardner does NOT have a good reputation as an attorney because multiple Disciplinary Complaints have been filed against him by multiple individuals, which includes his own client. Defendant Hillgardner has engaged in repeated acts of aiding and abetting misconduct by third parties he represents. For example, Defendant Hillgardner has intentional and maliciously engaged in conduct to defame another. He has filed repeated frivolous motions with the Court and frivolous application with the NYC Loft Board. In one such act, Defendant Hillgardner falsely accused a building owner of fraudulently signing documents and that the owner should be reported for criminal prosecution. In another incident Defendant Hillgardner filed a false Loft Board application accusing a building owner of not registering his building in 2013 and that the owner should be sanction when the building was registered. Defendant Hillgardner has solicited clients in Court when he knows its forbidden. In addition, Defendant Hillgardner was arrested twice for his harassing behavior. He was also reprimanded in Court by multiple Judges and he was also recently removed from Judge Spears Courtroom by two court officers for verbally abusing the Judge. These are just a few of the many examples of Defendant Hillgardner’s bad character. This includes Defendant Hillgardner’s frivolous counter-claims above for defamation. Defednant Hillgardner does NOT have a good character.

42.       Plaintiff denies in part paragraph 61 of Defendant Hillgardner’s counterclaim on the grounds that the Plaintiff did NOT optimize the website source code of Google or Ripoffreport.com to make any search results appear on top of any search engine results. Plaintiff lacks any knowledge or information as to who saw or read any postings by the Plaintiff on the Internet about Defendant Hillgardner nor who spoke to Defendant Hillgardner about said postings.

            43.      Plaintiff lacks any knowledge or information as to paragraph 62 pertaining to who saw or read any postings by the Plaintiff on the Internet about Defendant Hillgardner nor who spoke to Defendant Hillgardner about said postings.

            44.      Plaintiff denies in paragraph 63 of Defendant Hillgardner’s counterclaim on the grounds that the Plaintiff made NO false posting about Defendant Hillgardner. And Defendant Hillgardner is claiming that the TRUTH, which he created, is “malicious”.

            45.      Plaintiff denies paragraph 64 as it is a statement of law to be determined by the Court.

HILLGARDNER KICKED OUT OF A SETTLEMENT

On May 10, 2015, this foolish Hillgardner told a group of attorneys in a Surrogate matter that one of the heirs did NOT realize the "repercussions" if Hillgardner and his ex-girlfiend, Ruth Baumann, did not settle their frivolous claim in that matter. The group of attorneys laughed at Hillgardner in a private meeting and called him disturbed. The attorneys then kicked Hillgardner out of the settlement negotiations and settled the claim privately with the heir. Hillgardner suffered from delusions of grandeur and he could NOT even comprehend the fact that it was the heir who was holding the cards and the group of attorneys had a fiduciary duty to that heir and the Executrix was the heir's sister who hated Hillgardner with a passion and agreed to kick him out with great pleasure...lol...Hillgardner keeps proving himself to be a very * lawyer.

ESTATE OF BAHIA BIN CHAMBI (4450/D,E/12) 

HILLGARDNER SUED FOR DEFAMATION

On June 1, 2015, Thomas Hillgardner and his ex-girlfriend, Ruth Baumann, were sued for defamation. This foolish attorney falsely accused the Plaintiff of threatening to commit MURDER 23 years ago in a pending 2015 landlord and Tenant case that had nothing to do with it. He made the false allgations because he was on the losing side and he wanted to emotionally incite the court. Believe it or not Hillgardner actually wrote the Court in his legal papers that quote "Regardless, even if petitioner does make out a prima facie case of entitlement to judgment on the principal motion papers, Baumann’s affidavit submitted on this motion compels this court to enter summary judgment in her favor." WHAT?...Hillgardner told the L&T Court that even if the law is on the side of the Plaintiff, the Court should ignore the law and rule in favor of his ex-girlfriend, Ruth Baumann. Hillgardner then went on to FALSELY inform the court that 23 years ago the Plaintiff threatened to kill his ex-girlfriend and that he should win....WHAT?...Not only was that false accusation irrelevant and immaterial to the L&T matter BUT it was devoid of any QUALIFIED and ABSOLUTE privilege defense. In other words, he just got him and his ex-girlfriend UNNECESSARILY sued for defamation and now they have to go back 23 years to prove the element of TRUTH.

HOWEVER, since this will be a matter of he said she said and his ex-girl friend has already been caught committing perjury at an OATH Trial in May 2015 plus other lies, the jury is less inclined to believe her. The bottomline: Good attorneys argue the law. Bad attorneys try to emotionally incite the court when they have a losing case. Idiot lawyers get sued for defamation.

I feel sorry for anyone who has Hillgardner as their attorney. You are winessing exactly what I have seen in Hillgardner for years.  He is a despicable human being who intentionally and maliciously took action to harm someone. I have worked in the legal industry for 20 years and I have dealt with good and bad lawyers BUT Hillgardner is the worst I have ever encountered as a human being and as a lawyer. His legal arguments tend to baffle many. For example, telling a Court of law to disregard the law.

Mehmet v. Hillgardner and Baumann Index No. 100969/15 (NY Sup)

Defendants Falsely Accused

the Plaintiff of Threatening to Commit Murder

            6.         That on July 2, 2014, and in and around 10:16AM, Defendant Baumann falsely accused the Plaintiff of threatening to kill her 23 years ago (1992) when she stated on Page 35 of her Deposition under caption 26 Bond Street Management, LLC v. Baumann L&T Index No. 65389/12 that quote: “he threatened to kill me” (Dani Schwartz, Anthony Virga, Joshua Kopelowitz and Thomas Hillgardner were the third parties who received Defendant Baumann’s defamatory sworn testimony and who will be called as witnesses against Defendant Baumann at the trial).

            7.         That on or about September 23, 2014, and between the times of 9AM-5PM, Defendant Baumann did file a sworn affidavit within the New York County Supreme Court under the caption Mehmet v. Baumann Index No. 100370/14 that again falsely accused the Plaintiff of threatening to kill Defendant Baumann 23 years ago (1992) when she stated in Paragraph 4 of her affidavit that quote: “Mr. Mehmet threatened to kill me” (Judge Richard Braun, Robert Schitzer and Thomas Hillgardner were the third parties served with the Defendant Baumann’s defamatory affidavit and who will be called as witnesses against the Defendant at the trial). See Defendant Baumann’s Supreme Court Affidavit dated September 23, 2014 attached hereto.

           8.         That on or about May 11, 2015, and during the times of 9AM-5PM, the Defendants did serve and file a sworn affidavit and a Memo of Law within the New York County Civil Court under the caption 26 Bond Street Management, LLC v. Baumann L&T Index No. 65389/12 that again falsely accused the Plaintiff of threatening to kill Defendant Baumann 23 years ago (1992) when Defendant Baumann stated in Paragraph 12 of her affidavit that quote “he threatened to kill me” and on Page 3 of Defendant Hillgardner’s Memo of Law, he stated quote “he threatened to kill Baumann” and “Mehmet was arrested and Baumann obtained a temporary order of protection against Mehmet” (Judge Jack Stoller, Dani Schwartz, and Anthony Virga were the third parties served with the Defendants’ defamatory affidavit and Memo of Law and who will be called as witnesses against the Defendants at the trial). See Defendant Baumann’s Housing Court Affidavit dated May 11, 2015 attached hereto.

            9.         The Plaintiff NEVER threatened to kill Defendant Baumann, he was NEVER arrested for threatening to kill Defendant Baumann and there was NEVER an order of protection issued by the Criminal Court against the Plaintiff in favor of Defendant Baumann for threatening to kill her as the Defendants alleged. In fact, to obtain an Order of Protection that resulted after an arrest, there MUST have been a pending criminal court case but NO such criminal case ever existed.

           10.       That the Defendants intentionally, maliciously and knowingly made the false statements that the Plaintiff threatened to commit murder to third parties for NO legitimate purpose but to harass, annoy and harm the Plaintiff. The Defendants false accusations that allegedly occurred 23 years ago (1992) were immaterial and irrelevant to the pending Supreme and Housing Court actions, which has deprived the Defendants of a qualified and absolute privilege defense and now they are required to go back 23 years to prove the element of TRUTH at their trial. 

 HILLGARDNER BEING SUED FOR DEFAMATION

• On May 11, 2015, this foolish and desperate lawyer Thomas J. Hillgardner FALSELY stated that his client and ex-girlfirend, Ruth Buaumann, was threatened 23 years ago with MURDER by the President of the Plaintiff in the below pending L&T case. What an idiot....what makes his statement so stupid is that he inserted the false allegations into SWORN documents filed in a pending Landlord & Tenant case that had nothing to do with that hold-over action. Especially since it is alleged to have occurred 23 years ago (1992). NO such threat by the President was ever made and the President was NOT arrested as Hillgardner falsely claimed.
• A defamation lawsuit has been prepared and it is being filed in the NY Supreme Court against Hillgardner and his client. They now have to prove the TRUTH of that murder threat and arrest that allegedly occurred 23 years ago and because the defamatory statement accuses the President of a crime, damages are presumed. Thus, when they fail to prove the truth, which they will, they will automatically be hit with damages, which will include large punitive damages due to the malicious and aggregious false accusation made to multiple third parties.
• An IDIOT lawyer is a person who brings upon himself and his client a defamation lawsuit unnecessarily... Hillgardner just got himself and his client UNNECESSARILY sued for defamation when he inserted irrelevant and immaterial false statements into an L&T case that did NOT provide him and his client with a qualified or absolute privilege defense. THUS, he has UNNECESSARILY placed himself and his client in a position where they now have to go back 23 years and prove the element of "TRUTH". Now that's stupid.....
•  
• You are clearly witnessing the very bad charater of Hillgardner I knew of and kept reporting. He is a dispicable human being who has put his own client in UNNECESSARY trouble to satisfy his own immature desires to intentionally and maliciously harm another. And to think, he is a LAWYER who is an OFFICER OF THE COURT. If this is the type of Court Officer that our judicial system allows to represent someone, it makes me lose faith in our Court system. Especially since Court Officers become JUDGES. 
•  
• If Thomas J. Hillgardner has harmed you in any manner, please contact me and I will help you remedy the situation.

• 26 Bond Street Management, Llc v. Ruth Buamann L&T No. 065389/12

HILLGARDNER LOSES AGAIN IN COURT!

On February 18, 2015, Judge Debra Rose Samuels of the New York Civil Court DENIED Hillgardner's motion for sanctions against the Plaintiff because he falsely told the Court that the Plaintiff committed fraud by lying about being at a closing on May 15, 2014 when public ACRIS records contained the Plaintiff's signature on closing documents dated May 15, 2014. And again, a paralegal's papers defeated Hillgardner...LOOOOL!

Mehmet v. Baumann Index No. CV-064682-11/NY

HILLGARDNER LOSES AGAIN IN COURT

On August 22, 2014, an Order was entered from Judge Debra Rose Samuels that DENIED Hillgardner's request to VACATE a settlement agreement his ex-girlfriend, Ruth Baumann, signed on May 6, 2013 for her physically assaulting someone. Hillgardner foolishly filed a DUPLICATE claim in BOTH the Supreme Court and the Civil Court. He then filed a separate motion and attached the settlement agreement as an Exhibit, which WAIVED his ex-girlfriends rights to the confidentiality clause. There are NO words to explain the stupidity of those filings. I do NOT think a first year law student would even make such a fundamental legal error. Hillgardner is one of the worst attorneys I have ever met in my 24 year legal career hands down. What makes his loss here worse is that a PARALEGAL DEFEATED HILLGARDNER. Imagine what a seasoned attorney could do to him. 

Mehmet v. Baumann Index No. CV-064682-11/NY

HILLGARDNER FAILS IN COURT AGAIN

On August 13, 2014, Hillgardner appeared in the Surrogate Court to push his and his ex-girlfriend's, Ruth Baumann, ridiculous and meritless claims. The Court REJECTED his papers because they were defective. Hillgardner had NO experience in Surrogate Court and as an attorney, he was ignorant on how to file papers correctly in that Court. A good lawyer would have NEVER made such a fundamental filing error. An error like that could cause someone to lose their case before it even got started. 

In the matter of Chambi New York County Docket No. 4450/B/12

MORE EVIDENCE OF HILLGARDNER'S BAD CHARACTER

In 1995, hillgardner was representing the Defendant in a hold-over action under H.E.G. v. Melvin L&T Index 87335/95. He uncovered that the Plaintiff landlord's corporate filing had dissolved. He then got his girlfriend, Ruth Baumann, to incorporate the same name as the Plaintiff landlord, H.E.G.. He then represented his girlfriend under the H.E.G name in Supreme Court and sued the Plaintiff landlord claiming it was using the name of his girlfriend's company and he asked for an injunction to stop the landlord from suing Melvin in the L&T Court.  Hillgardner LOST because he could NOT understand the legal concept and rights of a "de facto corporation". HOWEVER, this further uncovers the disgusting bad character of Hillgardner besides the fact that he is a bad lawyer who has trouble understanding fundamental legal concepts as in a de facto corporation. A good lawyer would have understood the legal rights of a de facto corporation and the lawyer would have NEVER sued for an injunction because the lawsuit would have failed as it did with Hillgardner. 

Plaintiff Landlord

#1 H.E.G. Development & Management Corp. v. Patricia Melvin L&T Index 87335/95

Ruth Baumann (Hillgardner's girlfriend at that time

#2 H.E.G Development & Management Corp. v. Naomi Blumberg 656 N.Y.S.2d 127

NOTE: Naomi Blumberg was the original owner of H.E.G and they sued her for using her own company name after they incorporated an identical company name.

HILLGARDNER EJECTED FROM COURTROOM

On May 7, 2014, Hillgardner was ejected from Judge Spears' Courtroom by two (2) Court Officers. Hillgardner lost control and started to scream at the Judge and he started insulting her by telling her she did not know what she was doing. In fact, it was Hillgardner who had NO grasp of the legal concepts and was illogically and incorrectly arguing the law. He got his client hit with a default judgment and he failed to submit an affidavit of Merit from a person with personal knowledge in his motion to vacate the default. Hillgardner clearly has a mental issue that needs to be addressed by the Disciplinary Committee. He is harming his clients by bad lawyering. 

26 Bond St. Mngt, LLC v. Baumann Index No. 065389/12 (Civil, NY)

Hillgardner Loses Yet Again in Court

On March 20, 2014, Hillgardner appeared before Judge Spears within the Manhattan Housing Court on a frivolous Motion for a Protective Order on discovery he filed. Judge Spears could NOT even understand the oral argument he was making on his motion because as she stated it made NO sense. In fact, the logic of Hillgardner's argument was so fundamentally distorted and so absurd in the face of the facts and evidence that the opposing attorneys believed Hillgardner was mentally ill. Judge Spears obviously DENIED Hillgardner's frivolous motion. 

26 Bond St. Mngt, LLC v. Baumann Index No. 065389/12

HILLGARDNER LOSSES YET AGAIN

On December 24, 2013, the Executrix's attorney in a NYC Surrogate Court matter No. 2012-4450 DENIED Hillgardner's claims for his client on the grounds that Hillgardner FAILED to submit a verified Notice of Claim and that there was NO privity of contract with the Estate. And Hillgardner wrongly mailed the Notice to the estate's attorney instead of to the Executrix as required. Hillgardner's defects are on the level of legal malpractice. They are fundamental issues taught in law school that any good attorney would have and should have known except for Hillgardner. 

ANOTHER PERSON BELIEVES HILLGARDNER MENTALLY ILL

On December 10, 2013, a personal assistant for the Petitioner, appeared before Judge Halprin in the NY Housing Court to just inform the Judge that the Petitioner's attorney had been held up in another Court house and he needed an adjournment. Hillgardner started arguing with the Judge again to refuse the adjournment. The Judge called his argument ridiculous and gave the adjournment. Hillgardner then chased and harassed the personal assistant in the hallway. She stated that she believes Hillgardner maybe mentally ill. This is now five (5) professional people who think Hillgardner maybe mentally ill. I think that Mr. Hillgardner should be professionally evaluated by a doctor before being allowed to continue practicing law.

Chanbi v. Baumann Index No. 111569/2010

HILLGARDNER LOSES YET AGAIN IN COURT

On November 4, 2013, Judge Halprin of the NY Civil Court DENIED Hillgardner's motion for reargument and scolded him by telling him to stop showing off to his client and to the court. Hillgardner started arguing with the judge. He said he would appeal. But the Appellate Term cannot grant a stay on an Interim Order only Final Orders. Thus,the Order for discovery will result in a Motion to Preclude if he defaults again.

Chambi v. Baumann Index No. 111569/2010 (Civil NY)

HILLGARDNER WAS ARRESTED TWICE FOR HARASSING BEHAVIOR

Hillgardner has been arrested two (2) times for engaging in harassing behavior against a police officer and a Court officer. Thus, the claims from the seasoned attorneys that Hillgardner may have a mental illness could be justified by the facts. I have never heard of an attorney being arrested for this kind of conduct before. It is highly unusual and it may certainly disclose that he may be mentally disturbed. 

ATTORNEYS CLAIM HILLGARDNER IS MENTALLY UNSTABLE

On September 23, 2013, two (2) seasoned attorneys who opposed Hillgardner in oral arguments before Judge Love in Queens mentioned that they believed Hillgardner had some sort of mental illness. Hillgardner has exhibited erratic behavior in Court. He repeatedly talks and laughs to himself when no one is standing next to him. A third seasoned attorney who opposed Hillgardner in another case under Porter v. NYC in Queens informed me that the Judge in that case had to call over the Court Officer to claim Hillgardner down. This was my exact experience with Hillgardner in Mehmet v. Baumann in the New York county Civil Court. The Court Officer approached Hillgardner in my case and told Hillgardner to calm down and to control his behavior. 

Hillgardner v. Chambi 008274/10 (Queens)

HILLGARDNER LOSES AGAIN!

On September 23, 2013, Judge Love of the Queens Civil Court DENIED Hillgardner's motion to amend the complaint on fundamental grounds (The main motion was dismissed; but Hillgardner knowingly filed a cross-motion under the dismissed motion). Any good attorney would have NEVER filed a cross-motion under a dismissed motion. It makes it fundamentally defective requiring dismissal. Hillgardner could not even understand this issue.

Hillgardner v. Chambi 008274/10 (Queens)

HILLGARDNER LOSES YET AGAIN

On August 1, 2013, Hillgardner appeared in the "submission part" for a motion to vactate a default. He foolishly asked the Court clerk to give him a 45 day adjournment so he could mail Judge Oing a "LETTER MOTION". Every good lawyer knows you have to make a motion via the Motion Support Dept. and pay the $45 fee (His request to dismiss the defamation claim against him was denied).

Mehmet v. Hillgardner Index# 103282/10

HILLGARDNER LOSES AGAIN

Judge Halprin on or about July 8, 2013 issued an Order denying Hillgardner's motion to dismiss and demanding that his ex-girlfriend produce discovery. He filed a motion for re-argument; but it can be easily defeated. He does not know that one of New York's best L&T law firms is about to take over this case (He lost this case when it was filed. He just does not realize it yet because he is unfamiliar with L&T law).

Mehmet v. Baumann Index No. 065389/12

HILLGARDNER SETTLES THE ASSAULT AND BATTERY

The lawsuit filed against Hillgardner's ex-girlfriend, Ruth Baumann, for assault and battery has been settled amicably in my favor. Mr. Hillgardner and his ex-girlfriend wanted the "terms" of the settlement to be confidential.

Mehmet v. Baumann Index No. 64682/11

HILLGARDNER FAILS TO FILE NOTE OF ISSUE

This homeless tenant who was kicked out of her house with her son without being served with a Notice of Eviction was wrongly solicited in court by Hillgardner. She won a contempt order against the housing authority; but Hillgardner caused her Supreme Court case to be dismissed by failing to TIMELY file the Note of Issue. He did NOT file a motion to vacate the dismissal as of today.

Porter vs. NYC Housing Authority Index No. 017424/11 (Queens)

HILLGARDNER VIOLATES DR 2-103 (Client Solicitation in Court)

A complaint has been filed with Tenant Protection Services against Mr. Hillgardner by a former client for solicitation in Court, abandonment and mistreatment. The Disciplinary Committee is being informed and an attorney is being hired to determine whether there is a claim for legal malpractice. If Mr. Hillgardner has harmed you, contact TenantProtection dott org

Porter vs. NYC Housing Authority Index No. 017424/11 (Queens)

AND YET AGAIN HILLGARNER LOSES

On February 13, 2013, the New York City Loft Board REJECTED Hillgardner's ridiculous and foolish letter that claimed a landlord failed to comply with their Order No. 2135 and 2271 when the building plans clearly showed compliance

HILLGARDNER LOSES YET AGAIN!

On January 8, 2013, Judge Rakower immediately signed an Order denying

Hillgardner's re-argument motion she received that same day. The Judge rejected his ridiculous and flawed arguments. About 95% of the legal arguments that defeated him were drafted by a paralegal. It is my opinion that Hillgardner is a very bad lawyer. At times, his arguments are unintelligible.

Chanbi v. Baumann Index No. 111569/2010

HILLGARDNER KEEPS LOSING IN COURT

On Sep. 7, 2012, Judge Eileen A. Rakower denied Hillgardners motion to dismiss the lawsuit against his ex-girlfriend (Baumann) and she granted the cross-motion against his ex-girlfriend that was drafted by a paralegal.

Mehmet v. Baumann Index No. 111569/10

AND YET AGAIN HILLGARDNER LOSES ANOTHER MOTION

Judge Schrieber of the Housing Court is denying Hillgardner's motion to dismiss the Holdover action against his ex-girlfriend Buamann. Hillgrardner could NOT even understand the legal theory of primary residence even after the Judge informed him about the element of "actual living purposes". He foolishly argued primary residence with succession rights when they cannot co-exist.Paralegal's papers defeated him

Mehmet v. Baumann Index No. 065389/12

AND AGAIN HILLGARDNER LOSES ANOTHER MOTION IN COURT

On Aug. 29, 2012, Hillgardner again lost to a paralegal. He lost his motion to strike and his request to examine the plaintiff's clothing on the sidewalk in front of his girlfriend's apartment. The judge called him "RIDICULOUS". Hillgardner started arguing with the Judge and said he would appeal that decision too. The Court Officer had to quiet him down.

Mehmet v. Baumann Index No. 64682/11

HILLGARDNER LOSSES AGAIN

MEHMET, B. DAVID vs. HILLGARDNER, THOMAS J.

I told you that it would be proven that Hillgardner committed defamation. He lost his motion to dismiss the lawsuit against him for defamation. The case goes to trial. BTW, he re-published the same defamatory letter to someone else a couple of weeks ago. The judge has requested that the Plaintiff file a motion to amend the complaint to add this new defamation charge.

HILLGARDNER'S EX-GIRLFRIEND, RUTH BUAMANN, WAS SUED FOR ASSAULT

Hillgardner actually gave his ex-girlfriend papers in court to serve in the lawsuit filed against him. She then ran like a crazy woman through the courthouse screaming and hitting the person she was suppose to serve on the chest so hard that the plastic edge of the binder punctured his skin. A police report was filed with the fifth precinct and she was sued in the NY Civil Court under Mehmet v. Baumann Index No. 064682/11

GEICO ATTORNEY ACCUSES HILLGARDNER OF HARASSMENT

This nut Hillgardner was accused of harassing a GEICO attorney:

“This is Leah Chipkin. Never mind. I do not represent you anymore. You represented yourself in this case. It was a whole big deal. You didn't want to be represented by inhouse counsel to GEICO. So, I am going to call Tom Hillgardner and tell him that this case is no longer with me and to not harass me again.”