Litman v. Goldberg, Index No. 524343/2025 NY Sup. Ct., Kings County — Hon. Brian L. Gotlieb, J.S.C. Prepared: March 22, 2026
DISCLAIMER: This memo is legal analysis prepared by family members to support discussion with counsel. It is NOT legal advice. All strategies, calculations, and legal theories should be reviewed and approved by a licensed attorney before any action is taken. Nothing in this memo creates an attorney-client relationship.
On June 14, 2023, Judge Horne issued an arbitration decision resolving a dispute over Goldberg's payment obligations under the Combination Agreement between Richard C. Litman and Nath, Goldberg & Meyer.
Goldberg's own spreadsheet ("Calculation of Award.xlsx") computes the award as follows:
Total: $316,869.92
The arbitration dealt with contractual payment obligations under the Combination Agreement — specifically, whether Goldberg/NGM owed Litman certain periodic payments and how much. The arbitration was a contract dispute about money owed under an existing agreement.
The arbitration did not address:
These are separate legal questions that form the basis of the surviving Count V claim.
Under the Combination Agreement, Litman is entitled to 20% of collected fees on matters where he is the originating attorney. This is the "purchase price" for the practice Goldberg acquired.
| Year | Collected Fees | 20% Due to Litman | Actually Paid | Year-End Balance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2020 | $1,653,523 | $330,705 | $255,000 | $75,705 |
| 2021 | $1,821,985 | $364,397 | $120,000 | $244,397 |
| 2022 | $2,642,940 | $528,588 | $120,000 + $694,890 lump | $0 |
| 2023 | $6,361,899 | $1,272,380 + $316,870 arb. | All paid monthly | $0 |
| 2024 | $5,102,417 | $1,020,483 | $1,020,483 | $0 |
| 2025 (Jan-May) | $943,696 | $188,739 | ~$160,299 | ~$28,440 |
Totals (2020 through May 2025):
As of May 2025, the contractual 20% payments appear to be current. After the arbitration decision in June 2023, Goldberg switched from quarterly to monthly payments and has been paying the exact 20% owed each month. The only open balance is approximately $28,440 for May 2025.
As of June 2025, there is $3,183,566 in outstanding accounts receivable attributed to "Richard Litman" as responsible lawyer. As these receivables are collected, Litman will be entitled to 20% of the fee portion, estimated at approximately $636,713 in future 20% payments.
The contractual 20% payments are a separate obligation from the Section 51 damages. Goldberg cannot argue that paying the contractual 20% satisfies any Section 51 liability. These are two different legal theories producing two different categories of damages.
Under New York law (CPLR Article 75), an arbitration award can be confirmed and converted into a court judgment:
The arbitration decision was issued June 14, 2023. Goldberg's spreadsheet calculates the award at $316,869.92 and indicates it was paid as part of the post-arbitration accounting. If the award was fully paid, enforcement may not be necessary for the award amount itself.
However, the arbitration award is significant for other reasons:
It establishes the contractual relationship. Judge Horne found that Goldberg owed Litman money under the Combination Agreement — confirming the agreement existed and was enforceable.
It establishes Goldberg's pattern of nonpayment. Goldberg failed to make 29 consecutive monthly payments. This is relevant to willfulness in the Section 51 claim.
It establishes that the relationship was adversarial. The arbitration itself proves there was no "consent" to anything — Litman had to go to arbitration just to get paid.
It fixes the timeline. Goldberg argued in the arbitration that the Combination Agreement terminated on June 15, 2020 — and Judge Horne agreed. Yet Goldberg continued using Litman's name on patent filings for five more years after the date he himself argued the agreement ended.
Goldberg's position in the arbitration was that the Combination Agreement terminated on June 15, 2020. If the agreement terminated, then Goldberg had no contractual basis to continue using Litman's name after that date. Any use after June 15, 2020 was therefore unauthorized — supporting the Section 51 claim.
Goldberg cannot have it both ways: either the agreement was in effect (meaning he owed payments, which he failed to make), or it was terminated (meaning he had no right to use Litman's name).
These are two fundamentally different causes of action:
The Arbitration / Contract Claim: - Based on the Combination Agreement - Addresses the 20% purchase price payments - Compensates Litman for the agreed sale price of his practice - Already resolved through arbitration and ongoing monthly payments
The Section 51 Claim (Count V): - Based on NY Civil Rights Law Sections 50-51 - Addresses the unauthorized commercial use of Litman's name - Compensates Litman for something Goldberg never paid for and never had permission to do - Provides for separate categories of damages: actual damages, profits from the unauthorized use, and punitive damages
The contractual payments compensate Litman for selling his practice. They do NOT compensate him for Goldberg's unauthorized use of his name on 905+ patents, 178+ USPTO documents, the firm website, and client correspondence after June 15, 2020.
An analogy: If someone buys a car from you and makes the car payments, that does not give them the right to use your driver's license. The purchase of the practice (contractual payments) is separate from the unauthorized use of Litman's personal identity (Section 51 claim).
The Combination Agreement transferred certain business assets — client relationships, accounts receivable, the "Litman Law Offices, Ltd." service mark. It did NOT transfer Richard Litman's personal name or his right to control how his professional identity is used on government filings.
Goldberg's own Nunc Pro Tunc Assignment (Reel 007281, Frame 0821) confirms this distinction: it states that Litman owns his name. Goldberg filed this document himself with the USPTO.
Under Section 51, a person whose name is used for advertising or trade purposes without consent may recover:
This is the strongest damages theory and goes as follows:
Total fees collected under Litman's name (2020-2025): $18,526,460
This entire amount was collected using Litman's name and professional identity. Every invoice went out under his name. Every patent filing listed him as attorney of record. Every client relationship was maintained in his name. Without Litman's name, Goldberg could not have collected this revenue — the firm was 76-79% economically dependent on Litman-originated work.
Litman received his contractual 20%: approximately $3,705,292
The remaining 80%: approximately $14,821,168
This $14.82 million represents the profits Goldberg derived from the unauthorized commercial use of Litman's name. Under Section 51, these profits are recoverable because they were generated through the unauthorized use.
Supporting evidence for this theory:
As an alternative (or conservative) measure:
If the contractual 20% is the price for selling the practice, then an additional 20% represents a reasonable royalty for the unauthorized use of Litman's personal name and identity — something Goldberg never bargained for and Litman never agreed to.
20% of $18,526,460 = $3,705,292 additional
This theory treats the Section 51 damages as equivalent to what a willing licensor and willing licensee would have agreed to for the right to use a prominent patent attorney's name on government filings. A 20% royalty on the revenue generated is reasonable given:
NY Civil Rights Law Section 51 authorizes punitive damages where the unauthorized use is knowing and willful. The evidence of willfulness here is overwhelming:
Goldberg knew Litman reserved his name rights:
Goldberg continued anyway:
Goldberg had financial motive:
Goldberg knew Litman was disabled and uninvolved:
Goldberg blocked client notification for 4+ years:
In New York, punitive damages in Section 51 cases are at the court's discretion and are meant to punish willful, knowing, and egregious conduct. Given the duration (5+ years), the scale ($18.5 million in revenue), the repeated nature (14 separate POA signings, 905 patents, 178+ USPTO documents), and the evidence that Goldberg knew Litman objected — a substantial punitive award would be appropriate.
Courts have historically looked at the ratio of punitive to compensatory damages. Using even the conservative $3.71 million royalty theory as the compensatory base, a 2x or 3x multiplier would yield $7.4 million to $11.1 million in punitive damages.
In late 2022 or early 2023, NGM made a lump sum payment of $694,478.67 to Litman. This payment is documented in the master summary spreadsheet and zeroed out the cumulative 20% shortfall that had built up from 2020 through 2022.
This payment covers the contractual 20% shortfall from 2020-2022:
| Year | 20% Due | Paid (Quarterly) | Shortfall |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020 | $330,705 | $255,000 | $75,705 |
| 2021 | $364,397 | $120,000 | $244,397 |
| 2022 | $528,588 | $120,000 | $408,588 |
| Total Shortfall | $728,690 |
The lump sum of $694,478.67 is close to but does not exactly match the full shortfall. The difference of approximately $34,211 may reflect adjustments, credit for Q3 2020 overpayment ($19,767 overpaid that quarter), or other reconciliation items.
The lump sum payment simply brought the contractual payments current. It is evidence that Goldberg acknowledged the debt and the ongoing obligation — but it does not satisfy any claim for unauthorized name use.
| Component | Amount | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Arbitration award | $316,870 | Paid |
| 2020-2022 lump sum shortfall | $694,479 | Paid |
| Monthly 20% payments (2023-2025) | ~$2,481,602 | Paid through April 2025 |
| May 2025 balance | $28,440 | Due |
| Future 20% on outstanding AR (~$3.18M) | ~$636,713 | As collected |
| Component | Amount | Basis |
|---|---|---|
| Profits from unauthorized use (full theory) | $14,821,168 | 80% of $18.53M collected under Litman's name |
| Additional royalty (conservative theory) | $3,705,292 | Additional 20% on collected fees |
| Punitive damages (2x conservative) | $7,410,584 | Willful, knowing conduct over 5+ years |
| Punitive damages (3x conservative) | $11,115,876 | Egregious pattern with financial motive |
| Component | Amount |
|---|---|
| Contractual payments | Current (being paid monthly) |
| Section 51 — Additional royalty | $3,705,292 |
| Section 51 — Punitive damages (2x) | $7,410,584 |
| Total Section 51 claim | $11,115,876 |
| Component | Amount |
|---|---|
| Contractual payments | Current (being paid monthly) |
| Section 51 — Profits derived | $14,821,168 |
| Section 51 — Punitive damages (1x) | $14,821,168 |
| Total Section 51 claim | $29,642,336 |
Has the $316,869.92 arbitration award been fully paid? The master summary indicates it was paid in July 2023, but counsel should confirm there is no remaining balance with interest.
Should we seek to confirm the arbitration award as a judgment? Even if paid, a confirmed judgment creates a public record of Goldberg's breach and strengthens the narrative for the Section 51 case.
Which damages theory is strongest for Section 51? The "profits derived" theory ($14.82M) has the advantage of being directly supported by Goldberg's own financial records. The "additional royalty" theory ($3.71M) is more conservative and may be easier for a jury to accept. Counsel should advise on which theory to lead with.
What is the realistic punitive damages multiplier? New York courts have wide discretion on punitive damages under Section 51. The Supreme Court's guidance in State Farm v. Campbell (2003) suggests single-digit ratios, but the egregious facts here — 5+ years of knowing misappropriation, 14 deliberate POA signings, blocking client notification — may support a higher multiple.
Should the contractual payment stream be protected? Litman continues to receive monthly 20% payments. If Goldberg faces a large Section 51 judgment, he may try to reduce or stop contractual payments. Should counsel seek a protective order or separate accounting?
What about the $3.18 million in outstanding AR? As of June 2025, $3.18 million in receivables remain under Litman's name. This represents future 20% payments of approximately $636,713. Is there a mechanism to ensure these collections flow through to Litman regardless of the Section 51 litigation outcome?
DISCLAIMER REPEATED: This memo is legal analysis prepared to support discussion with counsel. It is NOT legal advice. All legal theories, calculations, and strategies must be reviewed by a licensed attorney. The financial figures are derived from Goldberg's own records and have been cross-verified, but counsel should independently confirm all amounts before relying on them in any legal proceeding.
Prepared for the Litman family's use in consultation with counsel. All financial data sourced from Goldberg's own spreadsheets, Payment Allocation reports, and Invoice Summaries. No programmer content, scripts, or technical implementation details are included in this memo.
Rule (per Richard Litman, 04/16/2026): On any matter for which NGM has failed to produce accounting records — including the suppressed Payment Allocation Reports (see RESEARCH_LOG.md Finding #50), the Trust Register concealment (Finding #99), the missing Aug/Sep 2025 reports (Gap #21), or any matter for which the billed amount is otherwise unavailable — damages shall be calculated using the following baseline, in addition to the 20% contractual payments and the Section 51 theories set forth in §§ 1 – 8 above:
C2051472_ND0000271385, Martha Long's quoted pricing communications, and any engagement-letter fee schedules in the discovery record.Rationale: Richard Litman is not to be penalized for Goldberg's service deficiencies or NGM's discovery suppression. All quoted pricing shall be treated as applicable to the matters on which it was offered.
| Scenario | Fee Base | Litman's 20% Share |
|---|---|---|
| 905 patents × $15,000 | $13,575,000 | $2,715,000 |
| 905 patents × $20,000 | $18,100,000 | $3,620,000 |
| Post-arbitration 640 × $15,000 | $9,600,000 | $1,920,000 |
| Post-arbitration 640 × $20,000 | $12,800,000 | $2,560,000 |
| 13 post-SOL-safe × $15,000 | $195,000 | $39,000 |
| 13 post-SOL-safe × $20,000 | $260,000 | $52,000 |
The fee baseline is additive to the $14.82M "profits derived" figure (§ 5.A), the $3.18M outstanding AR future flow (§ 2), and the punitive multiplier analysis (§ 5). It does not displace them. It provides a separate, per-patent anchor that survives even if NGM succeeds in continuing to conceal the underlying accounting records.