Papers Considered: Notice of Motion, Affirmation & Exhibits Annexed 1-4 Affirmation in Opposition & Exhibits Annexed 5-6 Affirmation in Further Support of Motion to Dismiss 7 DECISION AND ORDER Upon the foregoing papers and for the following reasons, the Motion by Defendant State of New York (hereinafter “State”) to dismiss the Claim by Claimants Robert Rosenblatt, Esq. and A. Balsamo & Rosenblatt, P.C. (hereinafter “claimants”), is granted and the Claim hereby dismissed. On April 4, 2023, claimants, who are landlord-tenant attorneys, filed the instant Claim seeking to recover damages against the State and its Attorney General, alleging causes of action for violation of their constitutional rights, violation of their due process rights, intentional infliction of emotional distress, slander, defamation, abuse of process and tortious interference, purportedly arising from an investigation into the claimants’ lawfirm’s practices in representing landlords in eviction and non-payment proceedings in Housing Court (see id. at 6, 27). Specifically, the claimants allege that the Attorney General has unfairly investigated and initiated frivolous litigation against them out of “a deep animosity” by the head of the Attorney General’s Housing Unit, Assistant Attorney General Brent Meltzer, Esq., who “has been lying-in-wait to exact revenge for whatever reason he has for his enmity toward” them (id. at 4, 6). The Claim goes on to vaguely discuss an ongoing Supreme Court case which originated three years ago when claimants were “tricked by a landlord’s agent [to] settle a case in federal court to make victim tenants whole,” and where Mr. Meltzer had an “in” to investigate them for alleged wrongdoing (id. at 4, 7). At numerous times over the past two years, the claimants alleged that they have unsuccessfully requested for Mr. Meltzer to recuse himself from the pending matter, but that he has continued to target claimants to settle an “old score” thereby creating a conflict of interest (id. at 4, 9). Claimants then reference a Decision and Order (Engoron, J.) dated February 2, 2021, where the New York County Supreme Court partially granted their motion to quash a subpoena by the Attorney General seeking hundreds of files from claimants’ cases (see id. at 4, 7; State of New York, by Letitia James, Attorney General v. Balsamo Rosenblatt & Hall, P.C., Index No. 452576/2020, Sup Ct, NY County, Engoron, J., February 2, 2021). The Claim makes further allegations surrounding a proposed Consent Agreement related to the ongoing proceeding that Mr. Meltzer wanted them to sign, but they refused to sign (see id. at 4-5,
12 to 16).2 In a conclusory fashion, the claimants allege that the agreement placed them in a competitive disadvantage, that Mr. Meltzer refused to offer them the same terms and conditions as offered to 17 other firms, that the proposed consent was designed to put them out of business, and that Mr. Meltzer’s actions were motivated by discriminatory and retaliatory animus against them (see id. at 5,
