Counsel Research

Arbitration Enforcement & Damages Analysis

Contractual Payments, Section 51 Damages Theory, and Combined Recovery ($11.1M-$29.6M)
Portal Home | Counsel Dashboard | Damages | Print / PDF

ARBITRATION ENFORCEMENT AND DAMAGES ANALYSIS MEMO

Litman v. Goldberg, Index No. 524343/2025
NY Sup. Ct., Kings County — Hon. Brian L. Gotlieb, J.S.C.
Prepared: March 23, 2026 (updated March 28, 2026 with full arbitration award analysis)

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.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

  1. The Arbitration Award — What It Covers
  2. Purchase Price Payments — What Remains Due Under the Contract
  3. Enforcing the Arbitration Award in New York Courts
  4. Why the Section 51 Claim Is Separate and Additional
  5. Section 51 Damages Theory
  6. The Lump Sum Payment — What It Does and Does Not Cover
  7. Summary of All Claims and Amounts
  8. Evidence Supporting Each Component

1. THE ARBITRATION AWARD — WHAT IT COVERS

Background

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.

The Award Amount: $316,869.92

Goldberg's own spreadsheet ("Calculation of Award.xlsx") computes the award as follows:

Total: $316,869.92

What the Arbitration Addressed

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.

Critical Findings from the Full Arbitration Award (Recovered March 27, 2026)

The full arbitration award PDF was recovered from uncle's Gmail on March 27, 2026. It contains several findings that are devastating to Goldberg's defense in the Section 51 case:

Finding #1: "Treated as if he had died." The arbitrator found that the parties agreed to treat Litman "as if he had died" for purposes of the agreement, citing Goldberg's own September 17, 2020 email. A person treated "as if he had died" cannot consent to future use of his name. The estate analogy — which Goldberg himself proposed — means any post-6/15/2020 use required affirmative authorization that was never obtained.
Finding #2: "Litman's status as Senior Counsel with NGM ceased by agreement." The arbitrator found as a matter of fact that "Litman's status as Senior Counsel with NGM ceased by agreement of the parties on June 15, 2020." If his professional status ended, there is no ongoing basis for consent to use his name in a professional capacity after that date. This is a binding factual finding.
Finding #3: "Goldberg is not a party to the contracts." The arbitrator found that Goldberg personally is not a party to the Combination Agreements (NYSCEF Doc 34). If he is not a party to the contracts, he cannot derive personal authority from them to use Litman's name. His 16 POA signatures filed under Reg. No. 44126 were personal acts, not acts authorized by a contract to which he is a party. This destroys the consent defense at its foundation.
Finding #4: "Royalty" characterization. Both the arbitrator and Goldberg's own post-arbitration brief characterize Litman's 20% payments as "royalties" — not salary, not consulting fees, but royalties. This is legally significant because a royalty implies the use of intellectual property belonging to someone else. The arbitrator's use of this term confirms the commercial exploitation theory: Goldberg paid royalties on revenue generated under Litman's name, the same way a licensee pays royalties on the use of someone's intellectual property.

The $300,000 Wrongful MetLife Offset

During the period 2020-2022, NGM deducted Litman's MetLife disability insurance payments from the royalties owed to him. The firm effectively treated his disability payments as an offset against the 20% owed — reducing what they paid Litman while continuing to use his name to generate the very revenue those payments were based on.

In the arbitration filings, Litman characterized these as "baseless offsets against Litman's Royalty payments in the amount of the disability insurance payments." Goldberg later acknowledged owing approximately $300,000 in offset disability payments, agreeing to repay them in three installments over 2023.

The MetLife offset demonstrates Goldberg's pattern: exploit Litman's name to generate revenue, then find ways to reduce the amount paid to Litman for that exploitation. Using his name on 905 patents while simultaneously reducing his compensation through wrongful disability offsets is the essence of commercial misappropriation.

What the Arbitration Did NOT Address

The arbitration did not address:

These are separate legal questions that form the basis of the surviving Count V claim.

2. PURCHASE PRICE PAYMENTS — WHAT REMAINS DUE UNDER THE CONTRACT

The 20% Formula

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.

Verified Financial Summary (from Goldberg's Own Records)

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):

Current Status of Contractual Payments

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.

Outstanding Accounts Receivable

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.

Key Takeaway

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.

3. ENFORCING THE ARBITRATION AWARD IN NEW YORK COURTS

Legal Framework

Under New York law (CPLR Article 75), an arbitration award can be confirmed and converted into a court judgment:

Status of This Award

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:

  1. It establishes the contractual relationship. Judge Horne found that Goldberg owed Litman money under the Combination Agreement — confirming the agreement existed and was enforceable.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

The Critical Contradiction — Judicial Estoppel

Goldberg's position in the arbitration was that the Combination Agreement terminated on June 15, 2020. His own 53-page post-arbitration brief (May 24, 2023) argued the agreement should be "treated like death." The arbitrator agreed: Litman's status "ceased" on 6/15/2020.

Now in the NY litigation, Goldberg claims that same terminated agreement authorizes post-6/15/2020 name use. This is a textbook judicial estoppel violation. A party cannot take contradictory positions in successive proceedings after prevailing on the first.

Goldberg cannot have it both ways:

Every path through the arbitration record leads to the same conclusion: Goldberg had no authorization to use Litman's name after June 15, 2020.

4. WHY THE SECTION 51 CLAIM IS SEPARATE AND ADDITIONAL

The Contractual Claim vs. the Statutory Claim

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

Why Both Can Exist Simultaneously

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, 206+ 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.

5. SECTION 51 DAMAGES THEORY

What NY Civil Rights Law Section 51 Allows

Under Section 51, a person whose name is used for advertising or trade purposes without consent may recover:

  1. Actual damages — the harm suffered by the plaintiff
  2. Profits — the defendant's profits derived from the unauthorized use
  3. Punitive damages — if the use was knowing or willful
  4. Injunctive relief — a court order to stop the use

A. The "Profits Derived" Theory — $14.82 Million

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:

B. The "Additional Royalty" Theory — $3.71 Million

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:

C. Punitive Damages

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 (16 separate POA signings, 905 patents, 206+ 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.

6. THE LUMP SUM PAYMENT — WHAT IT DOES AND DOES NOT COVER

The $694,478.67 Payment

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.

What This Payment Covers

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.

What This Payment Does NOT Cover

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.

7. SUMMARY OF ALL CLAIMS AND AMOUNTS

Contractual Claims (Resolved or Current)

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

Section 51 Damages (Count V — Separate Cause of Action)

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

Combined Potential Recovery (Conservative Path)

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

Combined Potential Recovery (Full Profits Path)

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

8. EVIDENCE SUPPORTING EACH COMPONENT

For the Arbitration Award and Contractual Payments

For the Separate Nature of the Section 51 Claim

For Section 51 Profits / Damages

For Willfulness / Punitive Damages

QUESTIONS FOR COUNSEL

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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, 16 deliberate POA signings, blocking client notification — may support a higher multiple.

  5. 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?

  6. 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.

Litman v. Goldberg, Index No. 524343/2025 — NY Sup. Ct., Kings County
Prepared for counsel review. Confidential work product.