Judge Admonishes Lawyer In UWS 'Career Con-Artist' Rent Case: Suit

UPPER WEST SIDE, NY — A judge presiding over a court battle to locate missing rent money owed for a swanky Upper West Side studio loft has sharply curtailed the lawsuit — and pointedly criticized the landlord's lawyer for what he called "an ill-considered blunder" to allow his client to attack the defendant in the original complaint.

The admonishment last week is only the latest twist in a case that began with a landlord suing Sarid Drory, his son and nephew for over $100,000 in back rent from a luxury loft at 245 West 71st St. in a lawsuit that called Drory a "career con-artist" and accused him of masterminding an effort to hide money from every being collected.

The lawsuit's blistering litany of claims about Drory and his family bothered the judge — but evidently not as intended.

Those claims were "made solely to disparage Sarid," the judge declared in a new filing, and were totally irrelevant to the goal of the proceeding, which is to find who is currently holding the owed money.

"There are times when a lawyer, who is an officer of the court, must tell a client that certain allegations are improper and not necessary," said Supreme Court Judge Arlene Bluth, who stopped short of officially sanctioning the landlord's attorney, as requested by Drory.

"The Court will assume that the failure of petitioner’s counsel to do that here is simply an ill-considered blunder, not evidence of evil or malicious intent," said the judge.

Following a judgment last year ordering the unpaid rent money, Drory and "the next generation of fraudsters he is training" participated in a "conspiracy to hide their money through a series of voidable transfers, the suit claimed.

The complaint made various claims against Drory, stating that the family allowed a "dog defecate all over" the landlord's furniture, that the son "loudly having sex on the outdoor patio below the landlord's apartment" and various claims that the father stole his children's health insurance payments.

"Making arguments about alleged wrongdoing involving an opposing party’s children (petitioner includes an allegation about Sarid’s conduct towards his daughters who are not parties) is simply meanspirited, amateurish, and wholly unrelated to chasing the money," the judge said in the ruling earlier this month.

Those comments were declared to be "stricken as scandalous" from the suit, reads the order.

The judge also dismissed the case against all defendants — except a single limited liability corporation.

"The petitioner must meet its burden to identify respondents that currently possesses assets attributed to the judgement debtor," the judge wrote, noting that the single corporate entity is the only named defendant that the landlord's attorneys have "come close to maging those allegations against."

"We are gratified by the court’s decision and its acknowledgement not only of the weakness of the petitioner’s claims but also the untoward motives and poor judgment driving them," said Drory's attorney, Ethan Korbe, in a statement to Patch. "The decision speaks for itself."

The lawyers representing West 60th Street Associates did not reply to a request for comment.

Defamation claims, and a questionable affidavit

The case has since taken a dozen twists and turns in the pursuit of finding the missing rent payments.

Drory, for his part, pointed out that he was incorrectly named in the suit in the first place, and that "this proceeding (as to me) was a sham litigation intended as a pretext for defamation," according to an affidavit submitted by him — and says he intends to file a defamation suit against the "mafia-style attack" on him.

The suit has yet to be filed, according to court records.

Drory also claims that his son's roommate, Shachar Zeplovitch, who the landlord's attorney says is his nephew but no hint of familial relations is apparent from Drory's end, was the true mastermind of the con-job by luring in his broke son to shack up with him so they could live a "stylish" lifestyle.

"I have since explained to my son the dangers of associating with people like Mr. Zeplovitch," Drory wrote.

Zeplovitch, Drory, "is a grown man who earns a very substantial living," and denied that the tech worker was ever "under my 'spell.'"

A document claiming to be from a previous landlord that the owners claimed was forged by Drory was admitted to actually be forged by Zeplovitch, he says.

In an affidavit submitted by the landlord's attorney — which the judge pointed out as odd and "raises questions about the author, (or author[s]) of this document," since Zeplovitch is a named defendant in the case — Zeplovitch admits that he forged the document for his friend, Johnathan Drory.

The affidavit also purports to detail the complicated web of how Drory ordered the transfer of hundreds of thousands of dollars through newly-created corporate entities to hide money from their former landlord, an operation he says he was helpless to avoid.

According to the judge, Zeplovitch's affidavit of uncertain provenance ultimately suggests that "he was naïve and blames a nefarious scheme on everyone but himself."

To that end, Drory even claims that Zeplovitch has cut some sort of deal with the landlord's lawyers to reduce his debt to some degree in exchange for submitting "an affidavit in support of Petitioner, albeit replete with utter and demonstrable falsehoods."

According to court documents, Zeplovitch entered into a settlement agreement with West 60th Street Associates in January on the same day that he signed the affidavit.

This happened after Zeplovitch allegedly previously drafted a complaint to the District Attorney's office against the landlord's attorney, according to the draft complaint filed as evidence, where he complains that the landlord's legal team "targeted" his friends with no connection to the case and even put a lien on his girlfriend's bank account for $60,000.

Zeplovitch's affidavit details how Drory was skilled at hiding money — specifically from an ex-wife — and had instructed him and his girlfriend to create a series of false entities after the judgement was reached against them in late 2022 and also telling him how and when to move funds.

He even says that he took a lease out on a Mercedes for Drory, who then repaid the payments with cash, and also that he paid for Drory's movers when they were evicted from the West 71st St. apartment.

The affidavit adds that "when I was tipped off about this proceeding by a reporter from Patch," he reached out to a friend of Drory's son, who was tangentially involved in the scheme. "Shortly thereafter the Drorys contacted me urging me to run to the bank to pull all my money."

A bank statement shows that on October 30 — just days after Patch first filed a story reporting the lawsuit —$92,000 was withdrawn from Hapoel, LLC, the sole entity that the judge allowed to remain named in the proceeding.

While the "scattershot" claims against Drory and his son "attempts to paint a picture" of the family and others "moving money to try to hide it from creditors," it's all irrelevant to the case at hand, which was brought to identify money owed from a previously decided judgment.

"This is not a plenary action designed to explore allegedly fraudulent transfers," the judge wrote, while noting that the court understands that the defendants "may have been participating, and may be continuing to participate, in a scheme to hide the money."

"However, they are dismissed from this special proceeding simply because petitioner did not adequately claim that they are now holding money of the judgment debtors."