Breach of Fiduciary Duties—Recission—Constructive Trusts—Trial In This Case by a Special Referee Was Inappropriate "Largely Due To Its Complexity, Deliberately Confusing Advocacy, and the Lack of Authority To Enforce Deadlines"—Both Sides "Unduly Complicated and Prolonged These Proceedings"—Failure To Send Cash Call Notice or Deficiency Notice Before Making Loan—Doctrine of "Falsus unum, Falsus In Omnibus" (False In One Thing, False In Everything)—"Both Parties Have Abused the Court Process For Decades to a Degree This Court Has Never Seen. Neither Seem To Care About the Court's Time or That Their Endless Vendetta Against Each Other Has Used Up Resources That Could Have Been Spent On Other Litigations"—Abuse of Process Claim Based On a Party Suing an Arbitrator in the Course of an Arbitration Dismissed

The court opined that the subject case "rivals the long running dispute in Charles Dickens' novel, Bleak House, and will end no better." These cases have been pending since 1996. In 2006, a judge held a trial and "ruled in ("A's") favor on her claim for rescission of four apartment sales." The court found that ("B") had "duped ("A") into selling the apartments."

The court ordered that the "sales [be] rescinded and that the purchase price refunded." It further ordered that partnership ("C"), be "dissolved and the assets distributed 'equitably.'" It also imposed a "constructive trust upon defendants for the rent and profits from the rental of the four apartments and named ("C") as the recipient of that constructive trust…." The parties then engaged in "all sorts of motion practice to vacate and renew." The Appellate Division had affirmed.