SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF 
COUNTY OF QUEENS

In the Matter of the Application of Jose M. Arcaya, Esq.

Petitioner
SUPPORTING DEPOSITION SUBPOENA OF ZOLTAN BOKA AND SCOTT GREENFIELD
Index No.: 16772!?

.V5.

Zoltan Boka
Defendant

I am in receipt of Mr. Boka?s motion to quash his subpoena and welcome the information
accompanying that request. As I will indicate it has actually helped rather diminished my argument that
he unfairly diminished my reputation. Indeed, that material, I believe, has worsened rather than
advanced his defense.

I. In response to the defendant?s claim that the reason for seeking this subpoena was merely
to seek ?nancial gain. its intention was to understand Mr. Boka?s thinking when he decided to insert
his malicious rating of me in Yelp. Thankfully, among other matters, he supplied the minutes of his
April 1, 2014 hearing that shows exactly what took place during that Article 78 hearing.

2. A careful reading of that document reveals no hope ever existed to win his case along lines
intended by Mr. Boka. Bright woman that she is. Judge Rakower was fully aware of the issues at play
and ready to challenge every one of the arguments I made on his behalf (see pages 14-16.) Simply put,
the case had no ?there? there. Thus. I assert that no attorney could have ever won his case given the
facts sun'ounding Mr. Boka?s situation.

3. More speci?cally the judge noted that Mr. Boka had ample opportunity to develop and
design his original research project (serving as a pre-PhD, examination) without immediate time

pressures of any kind. She well-noted that Mr. Boka even had a second chance to complete the task if

Arcaya v. Boka 1

the ?rst submission failed. However, despite all the time in the world to complete the task properly, he
failed again.

4. Mr. Boka?s argued in that Art. 78 suit?highly edited by me?being the victim of a
conspiracy, hatched by his professors and the counsel for the UNY aimed at ejecting him from
the Speech, Hearing, and Language (SHL) program.

5. However, he fails to explain why he had been similarly ejected in 2011 by the University of
Louisiana at Lafayette (ULL) for insufficiency to do work in its Department of Communicative
Disorders (DCDJ As in the CUNY situation, his ULL complaint reinstatement was heard throughout
all university levels without success, then was argued in the lower Louisiana courts (lost), and ?nally
appealed to Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit. At that ?nal point her charged unfairness
against Dr. John  Oller, Jr. (a world renown expert in language impairment matters), other DCD
faculty members, and related ULL of?cials. Again, he lost for good.

6. Of particular interest regarding the ULL and Dr. Oller matter, the Third Circuit not only
sustained the lower court?s position, but went as far questioning Mr. Boka?s contact with reality 
Baku eon?ated the suits [against two afhis LLU pro?ssars] making arguments pertaining to the other
and even involving parties not present in the current litigation?; see Exhibits and #9 in my
original complaint.) Although in his ?quashing of subpoena? response?supposedly referring to
quashing his deposition order??he mentions everything lacking in me, no response is generated
regarding my observation of Mr. Boka?s history.

7. Unfortunately that train of confusion appears to continue until the present day:
believing that everyone is against him, blaming others for his own problems, and seeking retribution
when his questionable behavior is brought to light by others professors in his two, failed separate

programs.) Despite that his case was a loser enterprise?although I tried my best to improve it in

Arcaya v. Bake 2

every way possible?he persisted tilting windmills. I became his fall guy for not making possible such
matters as sanctioning the CUNY Ph. D. legal counselor for conniving against him with faculty
members, obtaining $87, 000 or in compensation for time wasted while pursuing his 2014 suit,
immediate reinstatement back into the CUNY Speech, Language, and Hearing Department, etc.
Instead, he blames me for being ?unprepared? and ?bumbling? without providing any counter-measure
that could have undone Hon. Rakower?s ?rm control of the courtroom and the issues at hand.

8. Mr. Boka (pg. 7 of his document) maintains I should argued his need to be ?provided
with clear, written. detailed expectations and requirements for each assigned However.
that directive (draw from Dr. Sarah Bronson examination) was not intended to
help him pass the quali?cation examination, but him master the entirety of all that constitutes a 
education. The report, as far as could tell, was aimed at providing him with accommodations in the
classroom.

9. The qualifying examination, requiring the creation of an original research
proposal that would be followed-up by measurements of real individuals, was left up to the student.
Moreover, it was a take-home activity with no need for extra-time. absence of books, or even
commiseration with fellow students. The result was that Mr. Boka received negative feedback after the
?rst exam and also on the second. In my lawsuit I noted having warned him that the failure-of-
accommodation argument would probably fail (see Exhibit #5 accompanying the original summons and
complaint.)

10. On another front he also charges me making fun of his medical condition because of my
41?] [1?14 email ?Memon problems" quip. However, in no way could that statement been have been
confused with mockery. Dr. Bronson?s June 11, 2012 report, to which Mr. Boka

refers when requesting accommodations, clearly indicates that nothing being wrong with his memory.

Arcaya v. Bake 3

As is noted in the very ?rst page of that document, Dr. Bronson reports his ?Working Memory Index"
as falling ?Very Superior? range (WMI 141). It was far from Mr. Boka?s area of weakness. Being
trained in myself?as part of my other NYS licensed profession?I
knew that Boka?s brain problem. instead, concerned spatial-visual matters. Thus, had I called him as a
?lost puppy? or something along those lines, then a mockery charge might have been relevant. In this
case it was not. Instead, my statement was ironic, fueled by the frustration of not receiving just
compensation for my long hours of work on his behalf.

1 1. Thus, a more ridiculous assertion could not be made than Mr. Boka?s claim that the
memory quip was a deliberate effort on my part to "attempt to mock or exploit his to
telling a man with hearing problems that he must have misheord you when he didn The respondent
was well within his right to conclude that the Petitioner ?s comment was  on nnderhonded reference to
Respondent?s medical issues. It would be equivalent to making fun of Michael Jordan by
?underhandedly? claiming him a lousy basketball player when all facts point in another
direction.

12. Regarding the matter of whether ?absolute scumbag? should be deemed defamation per
se rests with the present court. Mr. Boka trots out a series of cases indicating the word ?scum? and
?scumbag? do not fall in that category. However, by adding the word ?total? he impugns everything
about me, including character and capacity to carry-out legal work. It coincides well with the Dillon-
standard of defamation per se: a maliciously intended attack on my professional capabilities, an all-
encompassing put-down ?absolute scum". not just ?scumbag? or ?scum"), questionable evidence
supporting the denunciation (my memory quip). and outlandisth using my statement ?Memory

problems completely out of context.

Arcaya v. Boka 4

13. Beyond all of the preceding there is a strong whiff in this case of intimidation. Two days
after serving Mr. Boka with my summons and complaint I was called by an unknown individual, Scott
Green?eld. He claimed to be well-known blogger arena. He also stated that his call was intended to be
friendly advice that I should not continue with this case lest, if I won, then the consequence would be
that ?hundreds of thousands? individuals bent on keeping the intemet ?free? would attack internet
presence.

14. He claimed that the ?gang? would never see the light of my website, pro?le, or any
anything related to my person on the intemet. It would follow therefore, Green?eld indicated, that my
professional standing would be at an end. He added that not being part of that group, but took it on
himself to call me because another blogger told him that danger was on my horizon (or words to that
effect.) After listening to all that he said, I told Mr. Green?eld that I would call him back following the
?nishing of work that then needed my attention.

15. A couple of hours later I returned his call, asserting that I was still going forward with
the lawsuit. 1 also thanked him for his ?warning?, but left with the deep suspicion that he probably was
talking for himself, not for someone else (the mysterious second blogger.)

16. In any case, his call was made on l1f21f14 which I then traced back to Green?eld?s
of?ce?ironically quite close to my own. I was surprised to discover that, beyond being a blogger,
Green?eld was also was also a licensed NYS attorney.

17. On 236/15 he was served with a Notice to take Deposition Upon Oral Examination. Its
purpose was to determine what he knew of that supposed cyber gang. I also sought information about
any dealings he might have had with Mr. Boka. However, he summarily refused to accept the subpoena
(the process server reported that Mr. Green?eld ordered that it be given to his secretary while he

sequestered himself behind his closed, office-door) Soon after that failed summons he called me,

Arcaya v. Bolts 5

declaring that he would not attend my March 19?1 deposition request. He also warned me that if I
insisted in pursuing the matter, he would seek sanctions ?pursuant to Rule 130?1.] et seq., of the Rules
of the Chief Administrative Judge. That message was followed-up with written correSpondence stating
the same (see Exh. 

18. Abandoning any further attempt to have him testify, I wrote instead to the Supreme
Court, Appellate Division, First Judicial Department requesting that Attorney Green?eld be
investigated relative to his associates and the threat he delivered. Again, while I have no evidence that
he was part of that illegal gang, as a lawyer Green?eld still should not have served as a conduit for that
criminal enterprise. Rather than calling me Green?eld should have contact the Attorney General?s
of?ce or the police to denounce what he had learned. Because of his failure to uphold the principle of
propriety as a server of the law, I lodged a complaint the First Department's Discipline Committee (see
dr1?103 [1200.4]. ?Discovery of information to authorities?) (See Exh. 

19. Furthermore the Green?eld exchange causes me to suspect Mr. Boka involvement in the
11i21l14 phone call. How did Green?eld or the ?other blogger know so readily of the Boka lawsuit?
The call came two days after the Boka summons. Only two possibilities explain what happened: either
Mr. Boka asked Green?eld to carry-out the intimidation himself or got another blogger to pass the
word on to Green?eld??Get Arcaya."

20. If only to explore that matter more thoroughly I assert that my deposition request should
be quashed. More than ever it is needed to discover the machinations bent on frustrating or destroying
my lawsuit.

21. With respect to the fee business (VI. Fiduciary Claims), Mr. Boka does not complain in
his 04/01f14 email where I request further payment (Exh. 4 of original complaint.) He instead

denounces Judge Rakower for making inaccurate claims, failing to pay attention to the Bronson report,

Arcaya v. Boka 6

failing to investigate if CUNY complied with NYC human rights, etc. Further while acknowledging
having paid me just $6000, he does not challenge my request for the ?nal $2000 still due. Also his last
pay-out check is absent any ??nal payment? notation, as is customary with the ending of most contracts.
Thus, Mr. Boka knew that more money was due me given my service to his cause, but
withheld payment because he did not get his on this case.

22. Time pressures at this point limit me from writing a longer response to Mr. Boka?s claim.
I must have assurance that the requested deposition can take place on March 191h of this year at 10:00
AM. In the meantime I will keep Honorable Taylor of all happenings occurring in the meantime. At the

very least I certainly expect that Mr. Green?eld will not be happy with this turn of events.

Dated: March 11, 2015
New York, New York

 

Attorney per se

244 West 54?11 Street, Suite 801
New York, NY. 10019

(914) 953-2803

Fax?{914) 931?1627

Arcaya v. Bo ka 7