A judge has set a September court date for a hearing on stalking accusations made against “Real Housewives of Miami” star Lisa Hochstein by her estranged husband’s girlfriend. Model Katharina Mazepa, who is dating Dr. Lenny Hochstein, requested a restraining order against Lisa Hochstein in July. A judge granted a temporary order that will remain in effect until the hearing, where Lisa Hochstein’s attorneys will have a chance to present evidence requesting the order be dismissed.
Lisa and Lenny Hochstein separated in May after more than 12 years of marriage. Their ongoing divorce case has been growing increasingly hostile and escalated to the point where Mazepa accused Lisa Hochstein of cyberstalking and harassing her through phone calls and posts made on fake social media accounts. Hochstein’s attorneys have denied any wrongdoing. Lenny Hochstein and Mazepa have denied that they were having an affair before the couple separated. Mazepa is also going through a divorce from her husband, court records show.
A domestic violence hearing is set for September 12 in Miami-Dade County court, records show. Judge Ayana Harris extended the temporary restraining order until the hearing date. Hochstein is barred from contacting Mazepa and could face jail time if she violates the order, according to court documents.
Mazepa Accused Hochstein of Using Fake Instagram Accounts to Try to ‘Destroy’ the Model’s Public Image
In the application for a restraining order, Mazepa accuses Hochstein of using a fake Instagram account to post comments on her page, which has 1.7 million followers. According to Mazepa’s attorneys, Hochstein used the “finsta’ to call Mazepa a “home wrecker” and falsely accuse her of violating immigration laws. The attorneys said a phone number tied to the account belongs to Lisa Hochstein.
According to court documents, Mazepa is also accusing Lisa Hochstein of making threatening phone calls, including threats of using her role on the “Real Housewives” to “destroy” Mazepa’s public image. The court document states, “The phone call made directly by LMH to KM and the threatening statements include but are not limited to the following: ‘You are going to pay,’ ‘You dont you know who I am,’ ‘I am going to destroy you,’ ‘You home wrecking whore,’ ‘You dont know who i am, i have a TV show and I am going to destroy you.'”
Lisa Hochstein told Page Six, “Regarding his girlfriend, I am working with my attorney on a legal response to her ridiculous allegations which everyone knows are untrue. What a waste of their time and money.”
She added in a statement to US Weekly, “She didn’t have any respect for my life, my children, or my family … why should I have any respect for her attempt at a sob story? I’m not going to waste my time and energy responding to a woman who is a self-proclaimed home-wrecker who does nothing but lie. She’s writing her own version of reality, and I can’t wait for my day in court to showcase the truth.”
In a court filing, Hochstein’s attorneys say the accusations made by Mazepa don’t rise to the level of requiring a restraining order. They wrote that, “There is no ‘credible threat’ of imminent harm, at best, it is merely an insult from a heartbroken wife to the husband’s new paramour. Moreover, there has been no alleged misconduct since May 2022, now three months ago.”
Lisa Hochstein Has Sought to Have Mazepa’s Attorney Removed From the Case Because He Represented Her & Her Husband in Previous Legal Matters
Lisa Hochstein’s lawyers have sought to have a judge remove Mazepa’s attorney from the case because of a possible conflict of interest, according to court filings made in advance of the September hearing. According to court documents, attorney Lorne Berkeley, of Daniels Rodriguez Berkeley Daniels & Cruz, represented Lisa and Lenny Hochstein “for many years,” during their marriage. Hochstein said Berkeley represented her, ” in several matters, including matters related to unauthorized use of her image, disputes with employees, disputes with vendors, libel law issues, and event planning contracts.”
Hochstein’s filing also notes that Berkeley advertises on his website that she has been a client and said on the site, she is a “well-known, reality TV star from the Bravo TV Real Housewives franchise” and has assisted her “with copyright, trademark and other intellectual property and Libel Law issues.”
Her lawyers said Berkeley, “has substantial privileged and confidential information” about her, “Mr. Berkeley cannot use confidential information against Respondent. The attorney-client relationship between them was never terminated, although Respondent has not used Mr. Berkeley’s services in some time. In any event, the duty of confidentiality continues after termination of the attorney-client relationship. … Mr. Berkeley cannot represent ex-husband and whoever ex-husband happens to be dating at the time (at present, a position filled by Ms. Mazepa, ex-husband’s girlfriend), when Mr. Berkeley previously represented Respondent individually and jointly with ex-husband during their marriage.” The filing to disqualify Berkeley adds:
Petitioner’s goal is blatantly obvious – to besmirch Respondent in public, gain an unfair advantage in this action, and harm Respondent in her divorce proceedings with her ex-husband. In fact, Mr. Berkeley, who is clearly aligned with Respondent’s ex-husband, inappropriately injects matters and filings from the pending divorce proceedings into this Petition on behalf of the ex-husband’s new girlfriend.
Mr. Berkeley’s willingness to violate his attorney-client relationship with Respondent should not be countenanced by this Court. Mr. Berkeley must be disqualified, given his relationship with Respondent.
Berkely responded in his own court filing, “The basis for the disqualification is founded upon unsubstantiated, unsupported, and meritless allegations within the motion that due to prior representation of Hochstein by the undersigned. Therefore, the need for disqualification exists.”
Berkeley added, “The motion further states without any substantiation, evidence, or otherwise in further support of the disqualification the undersigned has “substantial privileged and confidential information about respondent which gives petitioner an advantage in the action. This assertion again is unfounded and provides no particular details or documentation in which to support this claim of ‘substantial privileged and confidential information about respondent.’ In fact, the only documentation submitted in support of this motion is a vague reference on the undersigned’s website biography.” He added:
The undersigned‘s most recent representation of Lisa Hochstein and Doctor Hochstein together concerns a lawsuit against their interior designer. This matter was resolved last year through a successful trial verdict on behalf of Hochstein. The issues involved in that matter, which are public record, consisted of the interior design of their home and a breach of contract by the interior designer concerning same. Clearly, this representation is a subject matter which does not relate at all, let alone, substantially relate to the interest which are materially adverse the Respondent in the instant matter. As such, this representation serves as no basis whatsoever to warrant a disqualification.
Berkeley said he also represented Hochstein when she was the target of a defamatory Facebook post and past cases when he would assist her “with the improper use of her image and likeness and so take down letters would be sent out to various businesses. In addition, preparing contracts for the use of her home for parties. Again, nothing related to the current matter.” He said Hochstein, “has several other attorneys which handle her matters such as Bravo Programming, and other related work she performs.”
Berkeley concluded, “Based upon these corrected facts and circumstances, it is clear the bald, general allegations which lack any specifics pertaining to the allegations of the undersigned having ‘substantial privileged and confidential information” are in fact false.'”