Litman v. Goldberg, Index No. 524343/2025 (NY Sup. Ct. Kings County · Hon. Brian L. Gotlieb, J.S.C.) Cause of action: NY Civil Rights Law §§ 50–51 (surviving claim) + parallel arbitration-award enforcement (Track 1) Plaintiff: Richard C. Litman, Esq. (Reg. No. 30,868), pro se Defendant: Joshua B. Goldberg, Esq. (Reg. No. 44,126) Compiled: 2026-04-27 — pursuant to Plaintiff's directive of the same date
The Plaintiff's position is not that the full $32.7M trust-receipts figure is the Revenue base for the 20% royalty calculation. The Plaintiff's position is that the gap between Defendant's $32.7M trust receipts and Defendant's $16.5M reduced revenue base requires a full equitable accounting before the Court can determine the correct base. Within that framework:
| Line | Source | Amount |
|---|---|---|
| Total RL trust receipts (Defendant's own ledger, 6/26/2025) | Trust ledger ending balance audit | $32,708,669.08 |
| Strict OUT-to-Operating (Defendant moved this to its own operating accounts) | Trust ledger transaction labels | $23,694,007.62 |
| Defendant's claimed revenue base (period billed receipts) | Defendant's reconciliation accounting | $16,506,604.92 |
| Unreconciled difference (32.7M − 16.5M) | Audit gap requiring full accounting | $16,202,064.16 |
| Defendant's claimed expense deduction | Defendant's reconciliation accounting | ($4,494,345.63) |
| Defendant's net revenue base for 20% calculation | $16,506,604.92 − $4,494,345.63 | $12,012,259.29 |
| Defendant's calculated 20% allocation | 20% × $12,012,259.29 | $2,402,451.86 |
| Defendant's claimed payments to Plaintiff | Defendant's reconciliation accounting | $2,403,125.66 |
| Defendant's claimed surplus | "$673.80 over the 20% calculation" | $673.80 |
The conservative, defensible disputed shortfall is $2,335,675.86 (Plaintiff's lead position — Strict OUT-to-Operating). Higher scenarios are alternative methodologies the Court may consider only if Defendant fails to provide entry-by-entry backup for its claimed exclusions; they should be presented as alternative ceilings, not as Plaintiff's lead claim. See § 5 below.
The Award. The arbitration award (6/14/2023) awarded Plaintiff "20% of Revenue" from Litman-Originated Clients for a five-year period commencing 6/15/2020. The Award defines Revenue broadly: "money paid, set-offs of fees owed, or similar bartering / non-cash income, excluding fees and disbursements advanced by NGM." The Award also characterized the 20% as a royalty — "payment for the privilege of servicing the lucrative client base" Plaintiff brought to NGM.
Defendant's own characterization. Defendant's motion papers and Defendant Goldberg's affirmation in this action repeatedly describe the arrangement as Plaintiff's right to a "percentage of revenue generated by clients you originated" and a "five-year continued revenue sharing period beginning June 15, 2020."
The implication. Revenue is the controlling category. The starting point is "money paid." The burden of proving any exclusion (fees-and-disbursements-advanced-by-NGM, true refunds, internal-only transfers, cost reimbursements) is on Defendant.
The trust ledger is a self-authenticating Soluno PCLaw business record under CPLR 4518(a). It was generated by Defendant's own software on June 26, 2025 at 2:10 AM for "IntroducingLawyer: RL — Richard Litman" and produced to Plaintiff in the discovery cycle.
Trust-account-level breakout (the report's own totals):
| Trust account | Receipts | Disbursements | Balance remaining |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eagle Bank Trust account ending 0495 (t23) | $4,929,597.32 | $3,754,666.92 | $1,174,930.40 |
| Bank of America Escrow account ending 8777 (t3) | $27,779,071.76 | $27,733,162.43 | $45,909.33 |
| Total | $32,708,669.08 | $31,487,829.35 | $1,220,839.73 |
Transaction-label breakout (parsed from the row-level ledger):
| Category | Amount |
|---|---|
| Direct/non-transfer "IN:" receipt rows (client deposits) | $29,900,675.52 |
| "IN: Transfer" receipt rows (excluding trivial 36372-to-submatter reallocations) | $136,700.00 |
| Total IN-labeled receipt rows | $30,037,375.52 |
| Receipt-side "TRF" rows (notation variants) | $2,671,293.56 |
| Total receipt-side movement (matches the report total) | $32,708,669.08 |
OUT-side / disbursement breakout:
| Category | Amount |
|---|---|
| "OUT" rows expressly labeled Transfer to Operating / Trust to Operating / BOA OP / Trans OP | $23,694,007.62 |
| Broader OUT including Trust Check, Pay NGM, EagleBank Operating, Trans OP variants | $23,873,424.62 |
| Other disbursement / transfer / invoice movement | $7,793,821.73 |
| Balance remaining in trust (already counted above) | $1,220,839.73 |
The unambiguous fact pattern: Of the $32.7M in trust receipts, at least $23.69M went OUT to Defendant's own operating accounts, $7.79M went to other disbursement categories, and only $1.22M remained in trust as of 6/26/2025.
Plaintiff anticipates Defendant will argue that some portion of the $32.7M is internal trust movement that should not be counted as Revenue. The trust ledger does contain internal-transfer pairs (the same X-numbered transfer appears as both an OUT entry on one matter and a paired IN entry on another). The volume of such pairs is:
| Internal-transfer category | Amount |
|---|---|
| Strict matched X-number transfer pairs (same ID on both sides) | $3,107,221.40 unique events |
| Same events double-counted as IN+OUT | $6,214,442.80 |
| Broader matched-transfer review (X-number + paired TRF From/To + BoA-to-Eagle trust-to-trust pairs) | ~$3.94M unique events |
These figures are the maximum amount Defendant can claim was internally double-counted. Even at the broadest defense-favorable reading (~$3.94M), the unreconciled gap remains very large:
Defendant's reconciliation accounting (which deducts only $4,494,345.63 in expenses, not internal transfers) does not credit a single dollar of internal-transfer netting. Defendant cannot have it both ways: the $4.5M expense deduction is independent of internal-transfer concerns, so Defendant's reduction of the $32.7M base to $16.5M is unsupported by the netting argument.
| # | Scenario | Revenue base | 20% royalty | Less paid ($2,403,125.66) | Disputed shortfall |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (A) | Defendant's accounting — period billed receipts $16.5M less $4.5M expenses | $12,012,259.29 | $2,402,451.86 | ($673.80) over | 0 (Defendant's claim) |
| (B) | Strict OUT-to-Operating (Plaintiff's lead position) — only the trust-to-operating movement Defendant itself transferred | $23,694,007.62 | $4,738,801.52 | $2,335,675.86 | $2.34M (floor) |
| (C) | Alternative ceiling — total trust receipts less broadest internal-transfer netting | $28,767,207.73 | $5,753,441.55 | $3,350,315.89 | $3.35M |
| (D) | Alternative ceiling — total trust receipts (no netting) | $32,708,669.08 | $6,541,733.82 | $4,138,608.16 | $4.14M |
Plaintiff's lead position is Scenario (B): a defensible floor of $2.34M. Defendant cannot dispute that funds it itself transferred OUT of trust to its own operating accounts were received by NGM. Those funds are squarely "money paid" under the Award's Revenue definition; the only Award-permitted exclusion is for fees-and-disbursements-advanced-by-NGM, which Defendant has not entry-by-entry proved. The OUT-to-Operating amount is the firm's own accounting characterization of the funds — a binding admission against interest.
Scenarios (C) and (D) are presented as alternative ceilings, not Plaintiff's headline claim. They become relevant only if Defendant fails to provide entry-by-entry backup for the $4.5M expense deduction or for the $16.2M unreconciled gap. Under those circumstances, the Court would shift the burden to Defendant and accept a larger Revenue base by default. Plaintiff does not seek to inflate the case by leading with the higher scenarios; Plaintiff's burden is to anchor the floor.
Plaintiff identified eight (8) trust-ledger rows for KFU bearing the explanation "JBGverbal" or "JGBverbal" — Defendant Goldberg's verbal authorization to move client funds. After de-duplicating mirror-side entries, four (4) unique transfer events remain:
| X-transfer ID | Amount | Explanation | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| X0517 | $298.00 | JBGverbal 8.18.2021 | 8/19/2021 |
| X0518 | $3,000.00 | JBGverbal 8.18.2021 | 8/19/2021 |
| X0519 | $1,100.00 | JBGverbal 8.18.2021 | 8/19/2021 |
| X0520 | $810.00 | JGBverbal 08.18.2021 | 8/19/2021 |
| Total unique JBG/JGB-authorized KFU events | $5,208.00 |
The "JGB" notation is treated as a likely typographical variant of "JBG" until Defendant explains the notation. The eight ledger rows reflect a four-event pattern of Goldberg-personally-verbally-authorized fund movement on KFU dockets — a specific, named direction by the named Defendant. This is independent direct evidence of Goldberg's personal control over Plaintiff's originated-client trust funds.
Defendant's ledgers contain 1,159 strict-label entries reading "TRF: Nath Goldberg & Meyer, in trust" totaling $5,336,968.79. Including the variant "TRF: Nath Goldberg & Meyer" (without the "in trust" suffix) brings the total to 1,819 rows / $7,169,602.18.
Important nomenclature: per Defendant's own filings, NGM = "Nath & Associates, PLLC, d/b/a Nath, Goldberg and Meyer." Therefore, Plaintiff treats "Nath & Associates", "Nath & Associates PLLC", "Nath, Goldberg & Meyer", "Nath Goldberg & Meyer", and "NGM" as related name variants. The strict TRF entries alone equal $5.34M of internal trust movement — independent of and additional to the OUT-to-operating $23.69M.
Plaintiff has separately documented a pattern of "duplicate payment," "dup pymt," and "KFU Duplicate Payments" entries in the ledgers, often paired with subsequent transfers to operating or to the 36372 general matter. These are not the same phenomenon as the matched X-number internal transfers. Examples include KFU rows labeled "dup pymt 9.30.2020" followed by a later transfer marked "JBG verbal 8.18.2021" — a 14-month gap between deposit-classification and transfer.
The legal concern. Duplicate-entry labels are a recognized mechanism by which originated-client revenue can be misclassified, reallocated, or concealed:
| Mechanism | What it does |
|---|---|
| Double-count both sides of an internal transfer | Inflates ledger movement; obscures which dollar is real revenue |
| Re-label a real client receipt as "duplicate payment" | Excludes it from the Revenue base unless Defendant proves a genuine refund |
| Move money through a general/umbrella docket (e.g., 36372 KFU general) | Breaks the connection between the originated client and the specific revenue event |
| Zero out matter balances after sweeping to operating | Makes each docket appear settled while the firm pockets the receipt |
| Use negative-IN / correction entries | Reverses receipts without a clear refund/reallocation explanation |
Plaintiff does not claim that every duplicate entry is fraudulent. Plaintiff claims that every such entry must be supported by independent backup (the original client payment, the invoice, the bank deposit, the destination account, any refund record, and how it was treated for the 20% calculation) before Defendant may exclude it from Revenue.
The Award excludes from Revenue only "fees and disbursements advanced by NGM." The trust ledger contains entries with USPTO-related labels — "Patent and Trademark Office Filing Fee," "PTO Filing Fee," "Future Filing Fee," "Future Filing fee PAID 02.19.21," and similar. Many of those entries are immediately followed by transfers to operating or invoice-payment entries.
Critical limitation: The trust ledger nowhere expressly marks any entry as "reimbursement for disbursement advanced by NGM" or "NGM advance recovered." Filing-fee labels alone are insufficient to establish the exception. Defendant must produce, for each claimed exclusion, the invoice-level backup showing: (a) the actual USPTO charge; (b) the source of payment to USPTO (firm operating funds vs. client trust); (c) the date of the USPTO disbursement; (d) the corresponding client invoice; (e) the client reimbursement (or lack thereof); and (f) the treatment of the disbursement in the 20% revenue calculation.
For every dollar Defendant seeks to exclude from the $32.7M trust-receipts base, Defendant must independently establish:
| If Defendant claims… | Defendant must prove… |
|---|---|
| The entry is an internal trust-to-trust transfer | The matched X-number on the receiving side, with a single net economic effect |
| The entry is a refund | The original receipt, the refund processing record, the bank wire reversal |
| The entry is a "fee/disbursement advanced by NGM" | The USPTO/vendor receipt, the firm-operating-account payment, the client reimbursement chain |
| The entry is a "duplicate payment" | The original payment, the duplicate, and the corrective reversal — with timing |
| The entry is a write-off | The Write-Off Journal entry, the firm policy, the disclosure to Plaintiff |
| The entry is a non-revenue retainer | The retainer agreement, the application of the retainer to subsequent invoices |
Until Defendant satisfies these requirements per entry, the entry remains in the Revenue base. The Award's Revenue definition starts with "money paid"; Defendant's burden is to remove items from that universe with backup, not to start from a pre-reduced number.
The trust ledgers Defendant itself generated show $32,708,669.08 in receipts on Plaintiff's originated-client matters and only $1,220,839.73 remaining in trust as of 6/26/2025. At least $23,694,007.62 was moved out to Defendant's own operating accounts — that figure is Plaintiff's lead Revenue base because it represents funds Defendant itself transferred into its own operating accounts and therefore squarely "money paid" under the Award. The defensible disputed shortfall is no less than $2,335,675.86 (20% × $23,694,007.62 = $4,738,801.52, minus Defendant's claimed $2,403,125.66 paid). Defendant's reconciliation accounting then reduces the Revenue base to $16,506,604.92 with no entry-level support — leaving $16,202,064.16 unreconciled and supporting an equitable-accounting cause of action. Plaintiff is not claiming the full $32.7M as Revenue; Plaintiff is claiming that the floor is $23.7M-OUT-to-Operating and that the $16.2M gap requires a Court-ordered accounting before any larger figure is determined.
Prepared 2026-04-27 by Litman Intelligence Research Team in support of Plaintiff R.C. Litman, pro se. Attorney work product — privileged and confidential. Calculations derived from Defendant's own June 26, 2025 RL Trust Ledger Report (Soluno PCLaw business record under CPLR 4518) and Defendant's reconciliation accounting produced through outside counsel.