13. Dr. Cordero was referred to Trustee Gordon to find out how to retrieve his property. But the Trustee would not give him any information and even enjoined him not to contact his office anymore (A:353-25, 26), thus violating his duty under 11 U.S.C.§704(7) to a party in interest.
14. Dr. Cordero found out that Premier was before Judge Ninfo and applied to him for a review of Trustee Gordon’s performance and fitness to serve as Premier’s trustee. (A:353-28, 29) The Judge, however, took no action other than to pass that application on to the Trustee’s supervisor, namely, Assistant U.S. Trustee Kathleen Dunivin Schmitt. (A:29) Her office is in the same small federal building as that of Judge Ninfo’s Bankruptcy Court, Trustee Gordon’s box, the District Court, the U.S. Attorney’s Office, and the FBI Bureau; this allows for daily contacts and the development of a web of personal relationships among their officers. By contrast, Dr. Cordero lives hundreds of miles away in NYC and is, thus, a ‘diverse citizen’. Not surprisingly, Trustee Schmitt conducted a ‘quick contact’ with her supervisee, Trustee Gordon, that was as superficial as it was severely flawed. (A:53, 104) Nor did Judge Ninfo take action upon Dr. Cordero bringing to his attention (A:32, 38) that Trustee Gordon had filed with him false statements and statements defamatory of Dr. Cordero to persuade the Judge not to take any action on Dr. Cordero’s Application to review his performance (A:19, 41§II).
15. Meantime, Mr. Pfuntner had commenced an adversary proceeding on September 27, 2002, against the Trustee, Dr. Cordero, M&T Bank, and a hockey club to recover administrative and storage fees (A:22) from them (Pfuntner v. Trustee Gordon et al., no. 02-2230, WBNY; docket at A:1551). Dr. Cordero cross-claimed against Trustee Gordon and M&T Bank (A:70, 83, 88) and also brought in as third-party defendants Messrs. Palmer, Dworkin, and DeLano and Jefferson Henrietta Warehouse. (Add:534/after entry 13; 891/fn.1)
16. Trustee Gordon countered with a motion under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss only Dr. Cordero’s cross-claims against him. (A:135, 143) It was argued on December 18, 2002. By then almost three months had gone by since the commencement of Pfuntner, but the required Rule 16 and 26 meeting of the parties and disclosure had not taken place despite Dr. Cordero having disclosed numerous documents as exhibits to his papers. (A:11-18, 33-36, 45-49, 63-64, 65, 91-94)- much less had there been any discovery. Yet, disregarding the record’s lack of factual development, Judge Ninfo summarily dismissed the cross-claims notwithstanding the genuine issues of material fact that Dr. Cordero had raised concerning the Trustee’s negligence and recklessness in liquidating Premier (A:148). Similarly, the Judge disregarded the consideration that after discovery and at trial Mr. Pfuntner’s claims against the Trustee could lend support to Dr. Cordero’s claims against the Trustee.
17. Judge Ninfo even excused the Trustee’s defamatory and false statements as merely “part of the Trustee just trying to resolve these issues”, (A:275/10-12) thus condoning his use of falsehood; astonishingly acknowledging in open court his own acceptance of unethical behavior; and showing gross indifference to its injurious effect on Dr. Cordero.
18. That dismissal constituted the first of a long series of similar acts of disregard for the law, the rules, and the facts in which Judge Ninfo as well as other judicial and clerical officers at both the Bankruptcy and the District Court have participated, all consistently to the benefit of those in the web of personal relationships and to Dr. Cordero’s detriment. Such acts were initially aimed at preventing Dr. Cordero’s appeal, for if the dismissal were reversed and the cross-claims reinstated, discovery could establish how Judge Ninfo had failed to realize or knowingly tolerated Trustee Gordon’s negligent and reckless liquidation of Premier. This fact would be followed by a common sense question: What motive did he have to do so?