Pollack v. v. Karagodsky, D. ( 2018 )

J-A14013-18
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
VLAD POLLACK, ALLEN ALEXANDER, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
ALLCARE DENTAL GROUP, AND : PENNSYLVANIA
FAMILY DENTAL OFFICE, LLC :
:
Appellees :
:
v. :
:
DMITRY KARAGODSKY AND PERFECT :
SMILE, P.C. :
:
Appellants : No. 304 EDA 2018
Appeal from the Judgment Entered January 10, 2018
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Civil Division at No(s): 140401671
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., SHOGAN, J., and PLATT*, J.
MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED NOVEMBER 14, 2018
Appellants, Dmitry Karagodsky and Perfect Smile, P.C., appeal from the
judgment entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas,
following a bench trial verdict in favor of Appellees, Vlad Pollack, Allen
Alexander, Allcare Dental Group, and Family Dental Office, LLC, in the
underlying action for breach of a settlement agreement. We affirm.
In its original opinion, the trial court set forth the relevant facts and
procedural history of this case as follows:
Summary of Facts
In 2009, [Appellee] Vlad Pollack (“Pollack”), [Appellant]
Dmitr[y] Karagodsky, D.D.S. (“Dr. Karagodsky”) and
[Appellee] Allen Alexander (“Alexander”) orally agreed to
form a for-profit dental clinic business in Philadelphia.
[Appellant] Dr. Karagodsky was a successful dental
____________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A14013-18
practitioner operating his own separate dental clinic.
[Appellee] Pollack, a businessman, owned independent
dental clinics in Philadelphia. [Appellee] Alexander, a
successful manager of dental practices in the Philadelphia
region, worked as an employee of [an Appellee] Pollack-
owned company called Family Dental Office, LLC, aka
[Appellee] Family Dental Group (“Family Dental”).
Initially agreeing to share equally in profits, [Appellant] Dr.
Karagodsky, [Appellee] Pollack, and [Appellee] Alexander
formed an unassociated business entity which relied on
[Appellant] Dr. Karagodsky’s dental medicine license and his
insurance “provider” number to qualify for insurance
payments. [Appellees] Pollack and Alexander added their
Family Dental corporate network to the new business
venture, and they agreed to manage and administer the
new business. To keep his interest in the new venture
separate from his other clinics, [Appellant] Dr. Karagodsky
formed [Appellant] Perfect Smile, P.C., of which he was the
sole owner.
The new dental clinical business was known to the public as
“Perfect Smile.” The clinic hired dentists other than
[Appellant] Dr. Karagodsky as independent contractors to
perform most of the dental work. Initially, [Appellant] Dr.
Karagodsky agreed to provide his own dental clinical
services two days a week for the new business while
[Appellees] Pollack and Alexander agreed to perform all
administrative duties, including hiring and firing dentists,
billing, collecting accounts receivable, marketing,
purchasing, payroll, tax preparation, and developing
expansion plans for more clinics under the Perfect Smile
name.
This new dental business organized by the three men was
high volume and relied heavily on timely and accurate
insurance billing. Nothing memorializing their agreement
was set in writing. Sometime after the Perfect Smile clinic
was opened, [Appellant] Dr. Karagodsky and the other two
men agreed to change [Appellant] Dr. Karagodsky’s profit
structure allowing him to stop providing his own dental
services to the business. The men agreed that [Appellant]
Dr. Karagodsky’s annual profit would be 11 percent of gross
revenue going forward, not one-third of net profits. This
-2-
J-A14013-18
modification was not put into writing either. By 2013, when
the clinical business known as Perfect Smile was dissolved,
the men were running four clinics with gross revenue in
excess of $2,000,000.
Toward the end of their business run, [Appellee] Pollack
organized [Appellee] Allcare Dental Group LLC (“Allcare”) in
2013 with [Appellee] Alexander’s involvement. Neither
[man] told [Appellant] Dr. Karagodsky about Allcare’s
existence until [Appellant] Dr. Karagodsky saw the name on
the door of a Perfect Smile clinic was “Allcare” instead of
“Perfect Smile.” Not surprisingly, the Perfect Smile business
arrangement soon collapsed.
[Appellant] Dr. Karagodsky, [Appellee] Alexander, and
[Appellee] Pollack decided to dissolve the Perfect Smile
business amicably. With attorney involvement, the three
men negotiated a Mutual Release and Settlement
Agreement (hereinafter, the “Settlement Agreement”)
which all three men signed on November 2, 2013. This
Settlement Agreement is clear and comprehensive.
[Appellees] Pollack and Alexander agreed that [Appellant]
Dr. Karagodsky was entitled to a portion of revenue that
was still due from dental insurance carriers after November
2, 2013. [Appellees] Pollack and Alexander also agreed to
indemnify [Appellant] Dr. Karagodsky. They agreed to
reimburse him individually and/or his Perfect Smile, P.C. for
money either owed or might owe after resolution of several
lawsuits filed against them during the course of their 2009-
2013 business venture. In exchange, [Appellant] Dr.
Karagodsky agreed that [Appellee] Pollack’s Allcare Dental
Group, LLC would assume ownership of the business
formerly operating under the “Perfect Smile” name. This
included its patient charts and lists. The men agreed
[Appellee] Allcare would not use [Appellant] Dr.
Karagodsky’s dental license to certify authorization for
insurance payments.
Other Settlement Agreement terms allocated accounts
receivable from insurance companies for dental work
already performed. As part of their negotiated allocation,
the parties agreed that a lump sum of $80,000 was to be
paid to [Appellant] Dr. Karagodsky by [Appellees] Pollack
and Alexander in eight monthly $10,000 increments
-3-
J-A14013-18
beginning on November 1, 2013, running through June 1,
2014. There was no term prohibiting [Appellees] Pollack
and Alexander from paying this $80,000 from a checking
account in [Appellee] Allcare’s name.
Finally, [t]he Settlement Agreement includes a release
characterized as: “Full and Final Settlement of a dispute
between the Parties with respect to the business
arrangements, payment of management fees, distribution
of profits and operation of the Entities, as well as the
ownership of the office equipment, office supplies and
inventory.”
[Appellees] Alexander and Pollack paid more than $30,000
in three installments over the next three months. However,
a dispute arose over a portion of checks totaling $62,426.00
paid by insurance companies to [Appellant] Perfect Smile,
P.C. [Appellees] Pollack and Alexander believed a portion
of the money was due to them under the accounts
receivable allocations of the Settlement Agreement.
[Appellant] Dr. Karagodsky disagreed and refused to make
the reimbursement, thereby triggering a breach of the
Settlement Agreement. Evidence shows [Appellees] Pollack
and Alexander were in fact jointly owed $23,926.50. Upon
[Appellant] Dr. Karagodsky’s breach, [Appellees] Pollack
and Alexander withheld a $10,000 payment due on February
4, 2014. On February 19, 2014, [Appellant] Dr. Karagodsky
filed a pro se confession of judgment in the Commerce Court
in the amount of $162,000 including interest and collection
fees. This confession of judgment was struck by the
Honorable Gary S. Glazer who opened judgment on March
7, [2014]. The court found [Appellant] Dr. Karagodsky had
executed a warrant of attorney, though he is not member of
the Bar. In doing so, [Appellant] Dr. Karagodsky
impermissibly lodged liens on [Appellee] Allcare accounts.
[Appellee] Allcare owner [Appellee] Vlad Pollack paid legal
fees in the amount of $21,536.68 to dislodge the liens.
Continuous litigation in the Commerce Court has followed.
Procedural History
On April 16, 2014, [Appellees] Vlad Pollack, Allen Alexander,
and Family Dental Office (hereinafter, “Family Dental”)
-4-
J-A14013-18
(collectively hereinafter, [Appellees]) filed a complaint
against Dmitry Karagodsky, D.D.S. and Perfect Smile, P.C.
(hereinafter, collectively, [Appellants]). [Appellants] filed
counterclaims on May 12, 2014 and these were answered.
[Appellants] later filed a motion to amend their own answer
so they could add more counterclaims. These are
conversion, unjust enrichment, fraudulent
misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, and breach
of contract, civil conspiracy, tortious interference with
contractual relations, and an accompanying request for
preliminary and injunctive relief. [Appellants] also claimed
breach of contract and failure to indemnify. [Appellees] filed
preliminary objections to [Appellants’] counterclaims on
October 9, 2015. [Appellants] answered on February 2,
2016. [Appellees’] preliminary objections to [Appellants’]
counterclaims were overruled.
[Appellee] Allcare subsequently filed for protection in
bankruptcy court which lodged an automatic stay covering
[Appellee] Allcare. However, a stay of this entire case was
inadvertently docketed and a court order was entered lifting
deferral of trial involving all other parties. We also
consolidated Pollack v. Karagodsky, No. 140401671, filed
August 16, 2014 and Alexander v. Pollack, No.
150402148, filed April 21, 2015. Evidence relating to the
Settlement Agreement was common to both cases, and
consolidation was thought to be in the interest of judicial
economy.
A bench trial began on January 2[3], 2017 and continued
through January 27, 2017. After evidence on the
Settlement Agreement was completed, this court separated
the two cases and closed evidence on Pollack v.
Karagodsky. Further evidence and argument was taken
later in Alexander v. Pollack without Dr. Karagodsky who
is not a party in that case.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (hereinafter,
“Finding and Conclusions”) in Pollack v. Karagodsky were
entered on March 2, 2017. This court entered a
contemporaneous order granting judgment in favor of
[Appellees] and against [Appellant] Dr. Karagodsky in the
amount of $40,000. [This court] also entered judgment in
-5-
J-A14013-18
favor of [Appellee] Pollack and against [Appellant] Dr.
Karagodsky for an additional amount of $21,536. In our
Findings and Conclusions, [this court] stated [Appellant] Dr.
Karagodsky’s counterclaims were not supported by a
preponderance of evidence but [this court] unfortunately did
not specifically address [Appellant] Perfect Smile’s
counterclaims.
[Appellants] Dr. Karagodsky and Perfect Smile, P.C. filed a
notice of appeal to the Superior Court on March 23, 2017.
Subsequently, they filed post-trial motions (“First Post-Trial
Motions”) on April 3, 2017. On June 1, 2017, this court
entered an Opinion in response to the appeal. The Superior
Court quashed [Appellants’] appeal on grounds of lack of
jurisdiction. The appellate court observed this court had not
entered legal judgment because our purported judgment
had been entered before the ten day period to file post-trial
motions had expired. The appellate court also instructed
this court to resolve all of [Appellants’] counterclaims on
remand.
On September 13, 2017, [this court] nullified our March 2
Judgment Order and entered a new order and judgment in
favor of [Appellees] and against [Appellant] Dr. Karagodsky.
[This court] dismissed all counterclaims filed by both
[Appellants] Dr. Karagodsky and Perfect Smile, P.C. In a
separate Order also dated September 13, 2017, [this court]
dismissed [Appellants’] April 3, 2017 First Post-Trial Motions
as untimely.
Noting this court had again entered judgment prematurely,
[Appellants] filed new post-trial motions following our
September 13, 2017 judgment (“Second Post-Trial
Motions”). On review, this court understood we had again
contributed to procedural confusion—this time by including
in our order a judgment before addressing actually filed
post-trial motions. On September 27, 2017, [this court]
granted that part of [Appellants’] Second Post-Trial Motions
that sought correction of the premature judgments. [This
court] did so by vacating paragraphs 3, 4, and 5 of the
[September 13], 2017 judgment and order. These three
paragraphs had prematurely entered judgment in favor of
[Appellees] and against [Appellants’] claims and
counterclaims.
-6-
J-A14013-18
Finally, this court entered an Amended Findings of Facts and
Conclusions of Law on September 27, 2017. This document
formally states “[a]ll counterclaims of [Appellants] Dr.
Karagodsky and Perfect Smile, P.C. against [Appellees] Vlad
Pollack, Allen Alexander, and Family Dental Office, LLC are
not proved by preponderance of the evidence.” [This court]
then denied all other Second Post-Trial Motion claims as
unripe and did so without prejudice to [Appellants] filing
new post-trial motions. These were filed on October 5, 2017
(“Third Post-Trial Motions”) and are now under review here.
On the merits, [Appellants] first complain this court
improperly dismissed [Appellee] Allcare as a party to trial.
Second, [Appellants] claim this court erred by awarding
$21,536.68 in attorney’s fees to [Appellee] Pollack. They
claim it was [Appellee] Allcare and not [Appellee] Pollack
who paid these fees. Third, [Appellants] claim a joint award
to [Appellees] Pollack and Alexander in the amount of
$40,000 is wrong. Fourth, [Appellants] argue the
$21,536.68 this [c]ourt awarded in attorney’s fees after
[Appellant] Dr. Karagodsky’s pro se confession of judgment
was not supported by evidence. Finally, [Appellants] argue
the November 2, [2013] Settlement Agreement is void for
fraud, illegality, or fraudulent inducement. All these claims
fail for the reasons now explained.
(Trial Court Opinion, filed December 19, 2017, at 2-9) (all internal footnotes
omitted). The court denied Appellants’ post-trial motions on December 19,
2017. Based on an arithmetic miscalculation, the court also reduced the
insurance payment award to Appellees Pollack and Alexander from
$40,000.00 to $23,926.50. On January 10, 2018, judgment was entered on
the verdict. Appellants timely filed a notice of appeal on January 17, 2018.
The court did not order Appellants to file a concise statement of errors
complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b), and none was filed.
Appellants raise two issues for our review:
-7-
J-A14013-18
WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT SHOULD REVERSE THE
FOLLOWING TWO (2) MONETARY AWARDS AGAINST
[APPELLANT]: (A) THE $23,926.50 AWARD IN FAVOR OF
[APPELLEES] VLAD POLLACK AND ALLEN ALEXANDER FOR
INSURANCE PAYMENTS; AND, (B) THE $21,536.68 AWARD
TO VLAD POLLACK FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES.
WHETHER THE CASE SHOULD BE REMANDED BACK TO THE
TRIAL COURT TO RETRY THE CASE CONSISTENT WITH THE
TESTIMONY, DOCUMENTS, AND FACTS ESTABLISHED AT
TRIAL.
(Appellants’ Brief at 3).
A trial court’s denial of a motion for a new trial implicates the following
principles:
“[A]bsent a clear abuse of discretion by the trial court,
appellate courts must not interfere with the trial court’s
authority to grant or deny a new trial.” Harman ex rel.
Harman v. Borah, 562 Pa. 455, 466, 756 A.2d 1116, 1121-
22 (2000).
In Harman, the Court noted that the trial court must
follow a two-step process in responding to a request
for a new trial. The trial court must determine
whether a factual, legal or discretionary mistake was
made at trial. If the trial court determines that one or
more mistakes were made, it must then evaluate
whether the mistake provided a sufficient basis for
granting a new trial. Moreover, the Court noted[:] “A
new trial is not warranted merely because some
irregularity occurred during the trial or another trial
judge would have ruled differently; the moving party
must demonstrate to the trial court that he or she has
suffered prejudice from the mistake.”
The Court then set forth an additional two-step
analysis for appellate review of a trial court’s
determination to grant or deny9 a new trial. First, the
appellate court must examine the decision of the trial
court to determine whether it agrees that a mistake
was, or was not, made. In so doing, the Court noted
-8-
J-A14013-18
that the appellate court must apply the appropriate
standard of review. If the alleged mistake involved an
error of law, the appellate court must scrutinize for
legal error. If the alleged mistake at trial involved a
discretionary act, the appellate court must review for
an abuse of discretion. The Court reiterated that a
trial court abuses its discretion by rendering a
judgment that is manifestly unreasonable, arbitrary or
capricious, or has failed to apply the law, or was
motivated by partiality, prejudice, bias or ill will.
9The Court specifically held that a review of a
denial of a new trial requires the same analysis
as a review of a grant of a new trial.
If the appellate court agrees with the trial court’s
determination that there were no prejudicial mistakes
at trial, then a decision by the trial court to deny a
new trial must stand and we need not reach the
second prong of the analysis. If the appellate court
discerns that a mistake was made at trial, however, it
must analyze whether the trial court abused its
discretion in ruling on the motion for a new trial.
Ettinger v. Triangle-Pacific Corp., 799 A.2d 95, 106
(Pa.Super. 2002), appeal denied, 572 Pa. 742, 815 A.2d
1042 (2003) (internal citations omitted). We will overturn
the decision only where the trial court abused its discretion
or committed an error of law that controlled the outcome of
the case. We view the evidence in the light most favorable
to the verdict winner to determine whether a new trial would
produce a different verdict. Consequently, if there is any
support in the record for the trial court’s decision to deny a
new trial, that decision must be affirmed. Further, a new
trial is granted only where the verdict is so contrary to the
evidence as to shock one’s sense of justice, not where the
evidence is conflicting or where the court might have
reached a different conclusion on the same facts.
MacNutt v. Temple University Hosp., Inc., 932 A.2d 980, 985 (Pa.Super.
2007) (en banc), appeal denied, 596 Pa. 708, 940 A.2d 365 (2007) (some
internal citations and quotation marks omitted).
-9-
J-A14013-18
A [judgment n.o.v.] can be entered upon two bases: (1)
where the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law; and/or, (2) the evidence was such that no two
reasonable minds could disagree that the verdict should
have been rendered for the movant. When reviewing a trial
court's denial of a motion for [judgment n.o.v.], we must
consider all of the evidence admitted to decide if there was
sufficient competent evidence to sustain the verdict….
Concerning any questions of law, our scope of review is
plenary. Concerning questions of credibility and weight
accorded the evidence at trial, we will not substitute our
judgment for that of the finder of fact…. A [judgment n.o.v.]
should be entered only in a clear case.
Cruz v. Northeastern Hosp., 801 A.2d 602, 607 (Pa.Super. 2002) (citing
Buckley v. Exodus Transit & Storage Corp., 744 A.2d 298, 304-05
(Pa.Super. 1999)).
When reviewing a judgment from a non-jury trial, “[w]e must determine
whether the findings of the trial court are supported by competent evidence
and whether the trial judge committed error in the application of law.
Additionally, findings of the trial judge in a non-jury case must be given the
same weight and effect on appeal as a verdict of a jury and will not be
disturbed absent error of law or abuse of discretion.” Southwestern
Pennsylvania Regional Council, Inc. v. Gentile, 776 A.2d 276, 281
(Pa.Super. 2001).
Appellants argue the trial court awarded the insurance payment
proceeds to the wrong parties. Appellants contend the payment should have
been awarded to Appellee Allcare and not to Appellees Pollack and Alexander.
Appellants maintain the only reason the money owed to Appellee Allcare was
- 10 -
J-A14013-18
awarded to Appellees Pollack and Alexander was that Appellee Allcare was
absent from the suit due to bankruptcy proceedings. Appellants also allege
the trial court improperly rendered judgment against Appellant Dr.
Karagodsky individually, where Appellant Perfect Smile received the insurance
money for its performance of dental services. Appellants reason the judgment
should have been entered against Appellant Perfect Smile instead.
Notwithstanding these arguments, Appellants further allege Appellee Allcare
is not actually owed any money at all. Appellants assert there are no
documents in evidence, including the Settlement Agreement, which assign any
payment from Perfect Smile to Allcare. Appellants instead maintain that any
insurance payments Appellants received, both before and after the alleged
Settlement Agreement, belong to Appellants Perfect Smile and Dr.
Karagodsky.
Appellants also contend the attorney fees awarded to Appellee Pollack
were improper. Appellants emphasize that only Appellee Allcare’s corporate
bank accounts were garnished, requiring Appellee Allcare to hire a lawyer to
unfreeze the accounts; so only Appellee Allcare should be awarded any
attorney’s fees, as Appellee Allcare paid for the law firm’s services.
Finally, Appellants claim the Settlement Agreement is void ab initio or,
in the alternative, breached and voidable. Appellants insist that the
Settlement Agreement was void ab initio as a result of Appellees’ unknown
fraud, illegality, or fraudulent inducement prior to execution of the Settlement
- 11 -
J-A14013-18
Agreement. Appellants aver Appellees Pollack and Alexander stole Appellant
Dr. Karagodsky’s business by doing dental work for Perfect Smile patients
using Perfect Smile dental records, while billing under their new entity,
Appellee Allcare. Alternatively, Appellants reason Appellees breached the
Settlement Agreement by stopping payment of the eight monthly installments
of $10,000 after only the third month. Appellants additionally assert Appellees
breached the Settlement Agreement by failing to defend and indemnify
Appellants in several lawsuits filed against Appellants during the course of
their 2009-2013 business venture. Based on the foregoing, Appellants
conclude this Court should vacate the judgment completely or reverse and
remand for a new trial. We disagree.
As a prefatory matter, we observe that appellate briefs must conform in
all material respects to the briefing requirements set forth in the Pennsylvania
Rules of Appellate Procedure. Rosselli v. Rosselli, 750 A.2d 355 (Pa.Super.
2000), appeal denied, 564 Pa. 696, 764 A.2d 50 (2000) (citing Pa.R.A.P.
2101). See also Pa.R.A.P. 2114-2119 (addressing specific requirements of
each subsection of brief on appeal). Regarding the argument section of an
appellate brief, Rule 2119(a) provides:
Rule 2119. Argument
(a) General rule. The argument shall be divided into as
many parts as there are questions to be argued; and shall
have at the head of each part―in distinctive type or in type
distinctively displayed―the particular point treated therein,
followed by such discussion and citation of authorities as are
deemed pertinent.
- 12 -
J-A14013-18
Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a). Importantly:
The argument portion of an appellate brief must include a
pertinent discussion of the particular point raised along with
discussion and citation of pertinent authorities. This Court
will not consider the merits of an argument which fails to
cite relevant case or statutory authority. Failure to cite
relevant legal authority constitutes waiver of the claim on
appeal.
In re Estate of Whitley, 50 A.3d 203, 209 (Pa.Super. 2012), appeal denied,
620 Pa. 724, 69 A.3d 603 (2013) (internal citations and quotation marks
omitted). See also Lackner v. Glosser, 892 A.2d 21 (Pa.Super. 2006)
(explaining appellant’s arguments must adhere to rules of appellate
procedure, and arguments which are not appropriately developed are waived
on appeal; arguments not appropriately developed include those where party
has failed to cite any authority in support of contention); Estate of Haiko v.
McGinley, 799 A.2d 155 (Pa.Super. 2002) (stating rules of appellate
procedure make clear appellant must support each question raised by
discussion and analysis of pertinent authority; absent reasoned discussion of
law in appellate brief, this Court’s ability to provide appellate review is
hampered, necessitating waiver of issue on appeal).
Instantly, Appellants cite no law whatsoever in any of the argument
sections. The only law cited on appeal is a very generic scope and standard
of review. Appellants’ failure to develop any of their claims, with citation to
relevant and supporting legal authority, precludes meaningful review and
constitutes waiver of all issues on appeal. See Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a); Pa.R.A.P.
- 13 -
J-A14013-18
2101; Estate of Whitley, supra.Moreover, Appellants’ claims would merit no relief even if properly
presented. The well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Ramy I. Djerassi fully
discusses and properly disposes of the questions presented. (See Trial Court
Opinion at 13-21) (finding: Appellee Pollack experienced personal loss when
Appellant Dr. Karagodsky improperly tried to execute a pro se confession of
judgment; Settlement Agreement required breaching party to pay reasonable
attorney’s fees and costs, which other party incurred to enforce agreement;
court awarded Appellee Pollack $21,536.68 in attorney’s fees to correct harm
Appellant Dr. Karagodsky caused when he improperly confessed judgment;
regarding $40,000.00 insurance award to Appellees Pollack and Alexander,
Settlement Agreement required Appellant Dr. Karagodsky to reimburse
Appellees Pollack and Alexander in their individual capacities; due to initial
arithmetic error, court reduced amount to $23,926.50; Settlement Agreement
is valid and enforceable contract, which Appellant Dr. Karagodsky and
Appellees Pollack and Alexander negotiated with aid of legal counsel and is
not “void by its terms,” as Appellants allege; regarding indemnity issue, when
Appellant Dr. Karagodsky breached Settlement Agreement, three indemnity
cases were still open; Appellant Dr. Karagodsky failed to supply Appellees
Pollack and Alexander with information concerning those lawsuits; while
Appellees Pollack and Alexander were figuring out with their attorneys how to
indemnify Appellant Dr. Karagodsky, he improperly confessed judgment;
- 14 -
J-A14013-18
additionally, upon Appellant Dr. Karagodsky’s anticipatory breach of
Settlement Agreement, Appellees Pollack and Alexander were not required to
make installment payment due on 2/4/14 under Settlement Agreement). The
record supports the court’s decision, and we would have no reason to disturb
it. Accordingly, we affirm.
Judgment affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 11/14/18
- 15 -