Mr. Gorgui Mbaye in front of State Supreme Court, Queens.
Although Queens resident Gorgui Mbaye’s divorce was finalized four years ago, he claims he’s still suffering from the legacy of a wrongful ruling by the notorious State Supreme Court Judge William A. Viscovich that froze his JP Morgan Chase investment account.
Mbaye’s wife sued for divorce on Aug. 31, 2018.
Judge Viscovich issued an order freezing access to the account in 2019.
Mr. Mbaye opened the account in 2010 with about $300,000. The money came from the $525,000—after taxes—that Mr. Mbaye received as settlement for injuries he’d sustained in a 2005 car accident.
Mr. Mbaye claimed even though Judge Viscovich and the Attorney for the Children (AFC), Terrence Worms, in the divorce proceedings knew that the settlement money wasn’t considered part of marital assets for distribution under New York law, they still tried to pressure him to give his wife between $50,000 to $80,000.
Mr. Mbaye said he felt so much pressure that he reported the matter to FBI on June 10, 2019, as previously reported in Black Star News.
He claims Judge Viscovich was angry that he’d reported him to the FBI and retaliated by awarding his wife custody of the couple’s three children.
The judge is notorious for threatening the party he disfavors in divorce proceedings and he’s been the subject of several Black Star News articles.
Meanwhile, even though the account had been frozen, Chase bank allowed Mr. Mbaye’s wife to withdraw $1,600.
On Aug. 2, 2021, Viscovich issued a revised order recognizing that the money in the Chase investment account belonged to Mr. Mbaye, an was not part of marital assets for distribution, and Mbaye forward the court document to the bank. By that time the balance had shrunk to $276,818.21, Mr. Mb aye said.
Still, JP Morgan Chase refused to allow him access to his account and money, Mr. Mbaye said.
The couple’s divorce was finalized on March 16, 2022.
In early 2023, while Mr. Mbaye was still denied access to the account, his ex-wife was allowed to garnish $31,000 from the account. “It seems like the money was only frozen from the owner of the account,” he said.
Finally, without any new court order, JP Morgan Chase granted Mr. Mbaye’s access to his account a few weeks after the June 12, 2024 article in Black Star News documented his grievances.
On Nov. 6, 2024, Mr. Mbaye filed a lawsuit against JP Morgan Chase in State Supreme Court, Queens county, demanding $600,000 in damages.
JP Morgan Chase also charged his account $20,000 in brokerage fees over the five year period that he didn’t have access, Mr. Mbaye said.
Thomas J. Cahill, partner at Duane Morris LLP, and Yudi Katie Wang, a senior associate at the firm, are representing JP Morgan Chase. Neither of them responded to an e-mail message from Black Star News seeking a response to Mr. Mbaye’s complaint.
Chase spokesperson Jami Tanner declined to comment.
Mr. Mbaye is representing himself. He says the bank didn’t respond to his complaint and that he should be granted a default judgment.
The bank instead filed a motion on Dec. 13, 2024 asking that the case be stayed and moved to binding arbitration, which Mbaye said he rejects.
Mr. Mbaye filed a motion for default judgment on Dec. 23, 2024 and on Dec. 30, 2024 filed a memorandum of law in opposition to JP Morgan Chase’s arbitration and stay request.
The bank also filed a memorandum of law in opposition to Mr. Mbaye’s default judgment motion, on Jan. 7, 2025.
“I want to find out who might have been talking to JP Morgan Chase behind my back and advising them to hold my account hostage,” Mr. Mbaye said.
Mr. Mbaye says he suffered physically, emotionally, and financially as a result of the wrongful freeze, including the three additional years by Chase Bank even after Judge Viscovich issued the second order.
As a result, Mbaye alleged, he wasn’t able to pay taxes in 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023. He also ended up accumulating three months in rent arrears, he claimed. Mbaye said he fell behind in various bills, including: Con Ed; his Internet; his phone and TV bills; storage; parking; and, his two credit cards. He was unable to service a Citibank loan, Mbaye complained.
“In 2023, defendant allowed plaintiff’s ex-wife to garnish approximately $31,000,” from the investment account, “without plaintiff’s consent,” Mr. Mbaye’s complaint states. “It is noteworthy that plaintiff,” was under “pressure from Judge William A. Viscovich of New York State Supreme Court, Queens County and the attorney for the children (AFC), Terrence Worms to share the money with plaintiff’s ex-wife,” the complaint states.
“The immediate impact of being locked out of his account caused plaintiff a surge of anxiety and stress,” Mbaye’s complaint states. “The uncertainty of not being able to access his funds led to physical symptoms including severe headaches: persistent headaches, tiredness, high blood pressure, high blood sugar and high cholesterol, blurry vision due to the stress and anxiety plaintiff was experiencing.” He claims the stress levels led to two hospital visits—one to Queens Hospital in June 2022, and the other to New York Presbyterian Queens, in June 2024.
“Plaintiff struggled with insomnia for the entire duration of the issue, leading to chronic fatigue and difficulty concentration,” the complaint states. “Emotionally, the situation was equally distressing. He felt a profound sense of helplessness and frustration. The anxiety of not knowing when or if he would regain access to his money compounded daily. Plaintiff experienced heightened levels of irritably and depressive symptoms, which were further exacerbated by the continuous uncertainty.”
“Under the duty of care, defendant was obligated to secure plaintiff’s funds in the account and to grant plaintiff access to the funds…and to release said funds upon request,” the complaint states. “Defendant breached the duty of care by denying plaintiff access to the account despite plaintiff’s incessant request for access thereof.”
The complaint states that while Mr. Mbaye was denied access to his money, the bank earned interest on the money. “Defendant has therefore been benefitting pecuniarily as a result of their withholding of plaintiff’s funds,” the complaint states.
