Subin Associates RICO Lawsuits: Three Cases, Dismissal, Withdrawal

Since 2024, three insurance companies have filed federal RICO lawsuits against Subin Associates, the New York personal injury firm, accusing it of anchoring a racketeering enterprise built on staged accidents, unnecessary surgeries, and inflated claims. The first suit was dismissed in June 2025 on standing grounds, without any ruling on the fraud allegations themselves. The other two, brought by Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company and Greater New York Mutual Insurance Company, remain active in the Eastern District of New York as of mid-2026. Subin Associates has denied the allegations, and no defendant has been found liable.¹

What the Insurers Allege the Scheme Looked Like

The three complaints differ in the accidents they focus on, but they describe a similar pipeline. “Runners” allegedly recruited construction workers and other individuals to stage or fabricate accidents, whether on job sites or as trip-and-falls. Those claimants were then referred to Subin Associates, which filed personal injury lawsuits and, in some cases, parallel workers’ compensation claims. The firm allegedly steered claimants to specific medical providers who produced exaggerated diagnoses and performed unnecessary procedures, including invasive surgeries, to raise the value of the claims. Subin then collected a share of the settlement or judgment.²¹

The complaints name a wide network beyond the firm itself: other law firms, medical practices, individual doctors, litigation funders, and alleged recruiters. Jorge Arturo Gonzalez Lupi appears across several of the suits as a coordinator of claimant recruitment through companies including Amedico Legal, LLC and J & D Investigation Services Corp.²

Some allegations reach beyond the general framework. Union Mutual has alleged that litigation funding loans were issued to claimants before the dates of their supposed accidents, with paperwork post-dated to look legitimate while digital metadata told a different story.³ ABC7 New York reported that the firm allegedly used the identity of a Queens resident, Carlos Ramirez-Naranjo, to file a lawsuit claiming he was “severely disabled” from a fall at a Brooklyn construction site where he said he had never worked. Naranjo has taken legal action against the firm.¹

The Three Federal RICO Cases

Roosevelt Road Re v. Subin (Filed July 2024, Dismissed June 2025)

The first case was filed on July 19, 2024, by Roosevelt Road Re, Ltd., a Bermuda-based reinsurer, and Tradesman Program Managers, LLC, a New York management general agency. It was assigned to Judge Hector Gonzalez and named Herbert Subin, Eric Subin, and Lupi as defendants. An amended complaint followed on November 26, 2024. The plaintiffs alleged the scheme had been running since 2018 across thousands of construction-related lawsuits and workers’ compensation claims, and described a “Claimant A” allegedly directed to unnecessary medical procedures, with the firm attempting to withdraw after the defense raised fraud concerns.²

On June 19, 2025, Judge Gonzalez dismissed the amended complaint. The RICO claims were dismissed with prejudice, and the court declined to keep the remaining state-law fraud and unjust enrichment claims, dismissing those without prejudice. The court also declined to sanction Lupi and his counsel.²

Union Mutual v. Subin Associates (Filed 2025, Active)

Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company, a Vermont-based insurer, filed its case in 2025 (Case No. 25-cv-02652) before Judge Orelia E. Merchant. The first amended complaint, filed August 13, 2025, centers on “fake trip and fall accidents” and names a broader roster of defendants than the Roosevelt Road case: multiple Subin-affiliated entities, individual attorneys including Arnold Baum and Clay Evall, runner and support organizations, litigation funders such as Pegasus Legal Capital, and a long list of medical providers.⁴

The amended complaint alleges that funders provided “usurious” advances to claimants, sometimes conditioned on the claimant agreeing to undergo invasive surgery, and that money from recoveries was diverted back to the legal and support defendants. At least 12 individuals allegedly had between $25,000 and $30,000 each funneled through a litigation funder to a medical practice without their knowledge.⁵

As of June 2026, the case is active. The Lupi defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim, but initially failed to properly file the motion, prompting Judge Merchant to issue repeated orders directing them to do so by set deadlines or have the motion terminated.⁴

Greater New York Mutual v. Subin Associates (Filed January 2026, Active)

The most recent case was filed on January 27, 2026, by Greater New York Mutual Insurance Company. The complaint runs 207 pages, is assigned to Judge Carol Bagley Amon, and names 69 defendants, including multiple Subin-related entities and principals as well as numerous medical providers, doctors, litigation funders, and other law firms.⁶

The complaint alleges that since at least 2018, defendants recruited people to stage or exaggerate trip-and-fall and motor vehicle accidents, then routed them through clinics, imaging centers, and surgeons who manufactured diagnoses and performed procedures unsupported by imaging. It relies heavily on digital forensics, alleging that post-operative notes were recorded before surgeries took place and that diagnostic images carried timestamps predating patient admission. Eighty-seven pages compare claimants’ social media activity with the physical limitations they claimed in their lawsuits.⁷

As of early June 2026, the case sits in a procedural phase dominated by a motion filed by defendant Cerchione Hurowitz Law Group to disqualify the plaintiff’s counsel, with briefing still underway.⁶

Why the First Case Was Dismissed

Judge Gonzalez’s ruling in Roosevelt Road did not address whether the alleged fraud occurred. It addressed whether the plaintiffs were the right parties to sue for it. The court found they were not. Tradesman’s claimed administrative and investigative costs were a byproduct of fraud aimed at construction employers and the Workers’ Compensation Board, not at Tradesman itself, and the court noted the theory “defies economic logic” because Tradesman is in the business of processing claims for profit. Roosevelt Road’s injuries were “doubly contingent,” flowing first through construction employers and then through their primary insurers. Citing the Supreme Court’s framework in Holmes v. Securities Investor Protection Corporation, the court concluded that neither plaintiff was the intended target of the alleged scheme.²

The decision quickly reshaped adjacent litigation. In February 2026, the Eastern District of New York dismissed a parallel Roosevelt Road and Tradesman RICO action against William Schwitzer & Associates on collateral estoppel grounds, calling the factual allegations “practically indistinguishable” from the Subin case. That dismissal was with prejudice on the RICO claims.⁸

The standing problem has not, so far, ended the other Subin cases. Union Mutual is a primary insurer rather than a reinsurer, giving it a stronger argument that it was directly injured. Greater New York Mutual is likewise a primary carrier. Whether those distinctions carry them past a motion to dismiss remains open.

The Firm’s Response and the Mass Withdrawal

Subin Associates has denied the federal RICO allegations. A firm spokesperson called the initial Tradesman lawsuit “frivolous” and said the firm intended to seek sanctions against the plaintiff.¹

Separately, and before the RICO complaints were filed, Subin Associates moved in 2024 to withdraw from 200 to 300 pending personal injury cases, citing “ethical concerns” about a referral source that had brought the plaintiffs to the firm. The step followed an ABC7 Eyewitness News investigation into identity fraud allegations in one of the firm’s cases.¹ State-court judges responded unevenly. Judge Devin Cohen allowed the firm to withdraw from at least eight cases “with almost no questions asked,” according to one account.⁹ Other judges denied the requests, finding no “good and sufficient reasons” for the firm to leave.

In March 2026, after Subin Associates was dissolved, Eric Subin launched a new firm called Subin LLP.¹⁰

Where the Subin Cases Fit in New York’s Insurer Litigation Wave

The Subin lawsuits are part of a broader push by insurers to bring civil RICO claims against personal injury firms, medical providers, and litigation funders in New York. Roosevelt Road has filed sweeping suits against Subin, William Schwitzer & Associates, Liakas Law, and Gorayeb & Associates.¹¹ Uber filed a RICO action in January 2025 against Wingate Russotti Shapiro Moses & Halperin, and Allstate had filed 45 RICO lawsuits as of August 2025, largely targeting no-fault medical facilities. The New York State Department of Financial Services reported nearly 39,000 suspected no-fault fraud cases and nearly 42,000 suspected healthcare fraud reports in 2024, figures that had nearly doubled since 2020.⁵

None of the allegations against Subin Associates in any of the pending federal complaints have been proven. The Roosevelt Road dismissal was on standing, not on the substance of the alleged scheme, and the Union Mutual and Greater New York Mutual cases have yet to be tested against a motion to dismiss.

1
ABC7 New York. NYC Law Firm Subin Seeks to Walk Away From Hundreds of Lawsuits After Eyewitness News Investigation
2
GovInfo. Roosevelt Road Re, Ltd. v. Subin, Case No. 24-CV-05033
3
Harris Beach Murtha. New York Appellate Court Approves Discovery Into Litigation Funding
4
PACER Monitor. Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company et al v. Subin Associates, LLP et al
5
Judicial Hellholes. New York City
6
PACER Monitor. Greater New York Mutual Insurance Company v. Subin Associates, LLP et al
7
Best Law Firms. Insurance Company Alleges Fraud Scheme
8
Justia. Roosevelt Road Re, Ltd. et al v. William Schwitzer & Associates, P.C. et al
9
Judicial Hellholes. New York City
10
Leaders in Law. Top NYC Trial Lawyer Eric Subin Launches Subin LLP to Continue Family Legacy in Personal Injury Law
11
Insurance Journal. Federal RICO Lawsuit Alleges Staged Workplace Accidents