Yunes Doleh Arrest: Wig-Wearing Father In-Law Arrested

yunes doleh

Yunes Doleh Believed To Be Facing Felony Charges

A lawsuit took an amusing turn when a motion to dismiss was filed in New York City which alleges in court documents that a toupee-wearing father in-law, Yunes Doleh was arrested in New York after false allegations against his son in-law, a respected entrepreneur, Mazen Dayem. The lawsuit further states Mr. Doleh may be facing “felony charges” by the NYPD for breaching a court order.

Prominent NYC first amendment attorney Robert Garson of GS2Law, entered the case today and filed the motion in NY State Supreme Court, Index Number # 152518/2017. Mr. Doleh was arrested, and has been accused of repeatedly harassing his son-in law, which as the lawsuit states are part of “bizarre yet distressing course of conduct”, which has previously resulted in his arrest.

As the lawsuit says:

“Nine years ago, Mr. Dayem married the daughter of the Plaintiff which they continue enjoy to date. In or around 2013 the relationship between the Plaintiff and Mr. Dayem suffered its first fracture when, after an argument over the telephone, the Plaintiff came to the Dayem house and assaulted Mr. Dayem. The Plaintiff was arrested. However, in the spirit of familial harmony, Mr. Dayem unilaterally chose to withdraw all charges.

It is believed that a great deal of the discord has arisen from two major factors, the first being the Plaintiff’s antiquated views towards the education of his daughter, fueled by his wife’s hatred which manifested in prolonged mistreatment of her step-daughter, Mr. Dayem’s wife, and resulted in his refusal to pay for her college education, while she was living with her father, prior to marriage. The Plaintiff’s decision to have Mr. Dayem assume the debts for which he had previously promised to pay, has been a source of contention.

The second intertwined reason is believed to emanate from the considerable influence of Mrs. Dayem’s step-mother, where stoked by longstanding jealousy, which far preceded the arrival of Mr. Dayem into their lives, has driven wedges between the other family members.

On or about September 3, 2017, Plaintiff met Mr. Dayem to bury the proverbial hatchet and lay differences aside. The matter, however, descended into a verbal argument when it transpired that Plaintiff was still unwilling to make the contribution to Mrs. Dayem’s schooling as repeatedly promise. Again, to keep the peace, Mr. Dayem decided to leave the premises and get into his car. At which point, the Plaintiff pursued Mr. Dayem, who quickly closed the door to protect himself from bodily injury. Undeterred, the Plaintiff kicked out violently at Mr. Dayem’s car causing damage, proceeded to stand in from of the car, shout appalling threats at Mr. Dayem, making him fear for the safety of himself and his family and block Mr. Dayem’s egress.

Eventually able to get away, Mr. Dayem drove to the 120th Precinct on Hylan Boulevard and was met there by Lt. M. Hendrick (Retd) to report the incident. At which point the police made Mr. Dayem aware that Plaintiff was, at that very moment, attending Staten Island University Hospital and made a false complaint over 911 of being hit by Mr. Dayem’s car. Suffice to say, Plaintiff was quickly discharged as the complained-of injuries were fictitious and, unsurprisingly, Plaintiff was arrested by Officer Wolfe and Sergeant Farid for damage to Mr. Dayem’s car.

On September 4, 2017, a court imposed a restraining order upon Plaintiff which prohibited contact, direct or indirect or by any third party in order to protect Mr. Dayem from any harassment from Plaintiff (“Court Order”). See Ex. 3, ¶4. Plaintiff then proceeded to have Mr. Dayem disinvited from family functions so that Plaintiff could attend and Mr. Dayem never sought to have any further contact with Plaintiff.

On November 5, 2017, however, Plaintiff broke the terms of the Court Order in the most inappropriate circumstances. Mr. Dayem visited Beit Al Maqdis, a local community center, to give condolences to family friends on the solemn occasion of the death of a loved one. In an environment where Mr. Dayem should have felt safe, Plaintiff later arrived. Rather than abiding by the terms of the Court Order and leaving, Plaintiff stayed.

Though Plaintiff’s presence in of itself was violative, Plaintiff decided to double down and reignite his campaign of wanton harassment against Mr. Dayem. Plaintiff stood in the direct line of sight of Mr. Dayem and proceeded to grimace, snarl, gurn and gesticulate, which was made all the more menacing by the forward rake of Plaintiff’s toupee. This caused Mr. Dayem considerable harassment, alarm and distress, especially given the somber nature of the occasion at which such outlandish behavior was unbecoming.

This direct violating of the Court Order was reported to the police and it is believed that Plaintiff faces felony charges for this brazen violation.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *