Discrepancies Emerge in Frank Seddio’s Testimony During Sanctions Hearing

Former Brooklyn Democratic Party Chair Frank Seddio faced a third day of testimony this week in a Kings County Supreme Court sanctions hearing, where his defense regarding his role in a contentious real estate case has come under scrutiny. Seddio is currently being questioned over his representation of businessman Sam Sprei and the entity Olden LLC, who are accused of orchestrating a scheme to prevent investors from reclaiming $2 million held in escrow.

Throughout the hearing, Seddio has maintained that he lacked fundamental knowledge of the case’s progression. He testified that his legal associates and clients frequently filed documents and submitted sworn affirmations in his name without his direct consultation or oversight. When pressed by Kings County Supreme Court Justice Francois Rivera on whether his staff could swear to legal facts on his behalf without his knowledge, Seddio confirmed that they could. Justice Rivera noted that such actions, if verified, could constitute perjury by those associates.

However, court transcripts from a July 2025 hearing appear to challenge Seddio’s assertion that he was kept in the dark. During that appearance, Seddio represented Olden LLC and engaged in a discussion with Justice Steve Mostofsky regarding the status of the escrow funds. In that same session, opposing counsel Lauren Zimmerman outlined arguments suggesting the lawsuit was frivolous, to which Seddio responded by dismissing the claims as "outrageous."

Seddio testified on Monday that he only became aware of "erroneous" filings in November 2025, at which point he moved to discontinue the case. This timeline contradicts the record of his active participation in the litigation months prior.

The underlying dispute involves investors Angelos Metaxas and Perthshire Investments, who allege that Seddio utilized a sham lawsuit to secure a temporary restraining order, effectively freezing their assets. While Seddio has suggested he relied entirely on the information provided by his associates, Justice Rivera emphasized that the court must determine if Seddio was aware of the lawsuit's nature to decide on the sanctions motion. The hearing remains ongoing as the court evaluates the validity of the legal actions taken in Seddio’s name.