It is, however, a large lawsuit, filed by Famous Ben’s current co-owner, John Notaro, against the pizzeria’s original owner (and widow of the real-life Famous Ben), Debbie Aliotta. According to Mr. Notaro, Ms. Aliotta violated the non-compete agreement she made when she sold her slice of the business to him in 2011.

According to the non-compete agreement, Ms. Aliotta originally promised that she would not involve herself with a business that "sells individual pizza slices, individual square pizza slices, or round or square pizza pies greater than 12 inches in diameter within a five-block radius of [Famous Ben's]" until November 2014.

But in August 2011, Ms. Aliotta opened Bella Donna Café and Pizzeria at 191 Prince Street—just two blocks away from Famous Ben’s. And from what we can deduce from Bella Donna’s online pizza menu, Ms. Aliotta is selling round and square slices and pies. We’ll admit it: that might have been a cheesy move.

The lawsuit currently filed against Ms. Aliotta states, “As a result of [Ms. Aliotta’s] wrongful conduct, [Famous Ben’s] has lost substantial business and customers,” DNAinfo reports.

But Ms. Aliotta, who founded Famous Ben’s with her late husband in 1979, insists that Mr. Notaro and his fellow co-owners, John and Ronald Pasquale, are just being really crusty.

"They took something that was originally mine and my husband's and they forced me out," Ms. Aliotta told DNAinfo. "I'm 59 years old and I don't know what they want from me. They got everything." Ms. Aliotta also maintains that Famous Ben’s current owners are still using her late husband’s old recipes.

"They would have never done this to my husband," she said. "And if it had been him who died instead, we wouldn't have done this to his wife."

We’re no professional mediators, but it seems to us like these feuding SoHo pizza vendors should just head on over to Rice to Riches and make up over a tub of Hazelnut Chocolate Bear Hug.

Please sir, can I have some more?

Bernard Bey is not a happy camper. The formerly incarcerated 36-year-old is homeless and unemployed, and he knows exactly whose fault it is.

In a self-written lawsuit, Mr. Bey is asking $200,000 in damages from his parents, who he claims abused him emotionally and physically, causing him to enter the shelter system at age 16.

"I feel like my parents should want the best for their children and grandchildren so we have something to pass down for generations so we don't have to live like this," he told NBC.

And right when we were feeling sorry for him ...

Bey is asking the court for more than $200,000 in damages. He wants his parents to mortgage their family home and purchase two franchises like Domino's Pizza.

Okay, like Domino's Pizza, or actually Domino's Pizza? And does he mean he wants his parents to purchase the franchises and run them, or does he want them to leverage their house and then he gets to run the franchises? Are they two separate franchises (like one would be Domino's and one would be an IKEA), or just two of the same franchise?

Mr. Bey didn't explain, but did mention that he'd drop the entire lawsuit if his family would just sit down to dinner with him.

"Let's work together, and definitely, I'll drop the suit," he said.

Reconciliation does not seem to be in the cards, however.

Bey's parents, who live in public housing, said they're not in a position to give up any money. His stepfather named in the suit, Bernard Manley, had some choice unprintable words and maintained Bey is not his biological son.

Imagine all the people, living life in peace.

Are the days of airing the Dakota's dirty laundry finally nearing an end? Hedge fund manager Alphonse Fletcher Jr.’s lawsuit against the board of the fabled Upper West Side co-op still stands, but he and the lawsuit are standing all by themselves.

The two law firms representing Mr. Fletcher have been allowed to withdraw from the case, according to The Wall Street Journal, citing unpaid bills and irreconcilable differences—the culprits that seem to end every once-happy relationship.

The unpaid bill part is particularly bad news from Mr. Fletcher, given that the crux of his lawsuit against the co-op board is that he was financially fit to buy another apartment neighboring his own and that the board's denial of his bid amounted to discrimination (Mr. Fletcher is black). The board has claimed that the turn-down was the result of Mr. Fletcher's shaky financials.

Mr. Fletcher has, apparently, had problems paying off his legal teams in the past. The Journal reports that court filings by Mr. Fletcher's fund show that when it filed for bankruptcy-court protection, it owed more than $2 million to law firms.

The allegations in Mr. Fletcher's lawsuit extended well beyond his own personal situation (he claimed, among other things, that the board made ethnic slurs against prospective residents and denied another black resident, Roberta Flack, the right to install a bathtub in her apartment), but it could be much harder for Mr. Fletcher to win his suit if there are strong indications that the board had good reason to think he couldn't afford to carry a third apartment.

Moreover, finding another firm to take the case pro-bono seems unlikely. Law firms don't usually do charity work for Wall Street tycoons who are miffed that their application to buy a third apartment in a tony c0-op was rejected.

Mr. Fletcher has until December 20 to hire a new lawyer, although extensions often allow lawsuits to live on for years and years, so we don't necessarily expect to see much change in the next few weeks. But who knows? Maybe Mr. Fletcher will drop the lawsuit, maybe co-op board president Bruce Barnes will decide he doesn't want to sell his palatial apartment for $29.6 million after all, maybe by next year's autumn potluck the building, if not the world, will live as one.

kvelsey@observer.com

- Rob Lowe, Stephen Colbert, and the cast of Modern Family will be filling in for Robin Roberts on Good Morning America this week while the ABC host undergoes a bone marrow transplant. Hey, we'd take a soggy piece of bread over last week's substitute, Jessica Simpson.

- Would you like to go bowling with Paul Rudd, Rashida Jones, Denis O'Hare, John Oliver, and not one but two stars of a Law&Order franchise? Of course you do. We don't even need to mention that the whole thing's for charity. You were already sold.

- Candace Bushnell keeps having to resettle the same old lawsuit with former manager (and alleged Stanford inspiration) Clifford Streit. She keeps giving him money for his part in helping her get Sex and the City on HBO, and he keeps telling her its not enough. She should just stop and ask herself, WWCBD?

-Alec Baldwin's dream Portlandia role: "A meat salesman with all kinds of charts and graphs of the loins and the sections of the pig and the cow and the organs." Just no pig, please...we're keeping kosher this week.

Kate Middleton, Duchess of Cambridge. (Getty Images)

Call it a culture gap: The French just don't see what's wrong with bare breasts.

As you undoubtedly know by now, Duchess of Cambridge Kate Middleton was shot sunbathing topless by French paparazzi for the French magazine Closer. Now the royal family is making motion to file a proper lawsuit against the publication, according to a royal rep. To which the magazine has responded, "What is ze big deal?"

"These photos are not in the least shocking," Closer editor Laurence Pieau told reporters from AFP. "They show a young woman sunbathing topless, like the millions of women you see on beaches."

Maybe this editor needs to be reminded that there are no topless beaches in London, due to their chilly weather and even chillier reception of public nudity. Ms. Pieau continued:

"One shouldn't dramatize these pictures. The reaction has been a little disproportionate. It is a young couple that has just been married. They are in love. They are beautiful. She is the princess of the 21st century.

These are pictures that are full of joy. They are not degrading. Similarities have been drawn with the pictures of Harry. They are not similar. These are not degrading."

So far, the the royal family has taken quite a different stance, calling the photos "grotesque." Which actually does seem like a poor word choice, in this context.

The defendant, Jennifer Eymere. (Patrick McMullan)

Fashion Week has gotten so violent this year! First we had the news of Milk Studios founder Mazdack Rassi getting sucker-punched at the Alexander Wang after party, and now PR maven Lynn Tesoro has slapped Jennifer Eymere, editor of the French magazine Jalouse with a million-dollar lawsuit for physically assaulting her at the Zac Posen show last weekend.

The dust-up began on Sunday, when the fire department yanked 60 seats from the front row of Avery Fisher Hall, causing VIPs to lose their seats for Posen's spring collection. One of these people happened to be Jalouse’s publisher--and Ms. Eyemere's mother--Marie-Jose Susskind-Jalou.

Ms. Tesero, whose firm HL Group has Mr. Posen as a client, was trying to explain the situation to disgruntled fashionistas, but Ms. Eymere didn't appreciate the tone the flack was using with her parent. As Ms. Eymere told WWD:

"I said 'Don't speak to my mom like this ... Be careful. I am going to slap you.' And she kept doing it and it just happened."

In just 72 hours, Ms. Tesero had filed a suit for $1 million against Ms. Eymere, for "assault, battery, emotional distress, slander and/or libel."

And who said fashion doesn't pay?

Courtney Love and Frances Bean in better times (Getty Images)

The tempestuous relationship between Frances Bean Cobain and her mother Courtney Love have been making headlines for as long as the now-19-year-old has been able to talk. (Her first word? 'Adoption.') Though the two have been able to occasionally set aside their differences and smile for the press, much more often we hear about the skirmishes: the hotel fights, the custody battles, and most recently, a Twitter skirmish in which Ms. Cobain asked the creators of micro-blogging platform to ban her mother once and for all.

But now the only daughter of Kurt Cobain finally has gained what might be the ultimate leverage on mommy dearest: the rights to her father's likeness.

This comes from an exclusive from TheFix.com, who obtained sealed documents that allegedly show that after losing custody of Frances Bean Cobain in 2010, Ms. Love sold away the rights to Kurt Cobain's likeness for a quick loan...to her estranged daughter:

The documents show that Love agreed to step down as Acting Manager of End of Music LLC—the business entity responsible for generating cash from Cobain’s publicity rights—once she’d received a $2.75 million loan from Frances’ trust fund in 2010. The massive loan was transferred from Frances’ fund to EOM in Los Angeles, and then into an account held by Courtney’s then-lawyers, Pryor Cashman, in New York. Until Courtney pays it back, she won’t receive a dime from Kurt’s name, likeness or appearance from the deals formed by Frances and her advisers since December 2010.

The interesting part of this whole (or Hole?) saga is as usual, how Courtney Love has worked against her own best interest. Didn't she learn how much Kurt Cobain's public image was worth after she sold it on the sly to Activision for a Rock Band avatar just a year before taking the loan from Frances Bean? And more importantly....how is she going to sustain her Adderall and Klonopin diet without those residuals?

Julie Taymor and Bono (Getty Images)

Recently, the public got its hands on the 35-page complaint that Julie Taymor and her company LOH Inc. filed in response to the countersuit launched by the producers of Spider-Man: Turn Off the Dark.

To catch up: Ms. Taymor sued the producers of the show for using her material after firing her, won a ton of money, but is still suing them for more money. The defendants in the case -- 8 Legged Productions, LLC, Hello Entertainment LLC, Goodbye Entertainment LLC, Michael Cohl, Glen Berger, Jeremiah Harris, and Savior Productions LLC -- include the producers who recently launched the countersuit, claiming that Ms. Taymor's detrimental influence on the production hurt the show and cost them money. Also, her co-author for the book, Glen Berger. Back and forth, forever and ever.

While we're waiting for this mess to get untangled (spider web pun!) in court, Ms. Taymor's complaint contains enough juicy dirt on show creator Bono and his cohorts to keep us entertained for the rest of the week. Here are the 10 most soap opera moments from the document, so you don't have to slog through the paperwork yourself.

1. Julie Taymor is a genius, says co-author.
In a private e-mail correspondence, the book's co-author Glen Berger effusively gushed to Ms. Taymor about what an honor it was to work with such a brilliant auteur.

i’ve been meaning to point this out for a while, but today, as people could sense something alchemical was going on in how the story was working—it’s—your directing and designing on this thing aside—your understanding of theatre has enabled you to
create a profoundly effective story. yeah, I wrote more of the words in the script, but the beat-to-beat narrative—that was totally your vision (I was your boy wonder) – and by figuring how to send the audience high, then plunging them low immediately after, then sending them high again, and on and on—well,anyway, just a few hundred hurdles to go, so I won't get into it...it seems to work on the audience on a physiological level—putting them in a state where they're wholly open—prepared to engage in the story on a deep deep emotional level...(Emphasis added) but just wanted to say what a gift, what a mind-cracking, heart-swelling gift it’s been having these front-row tickets to you....

2. Mr. Berger later changed his mind and went behind her back to help develop the nefarious-sounding Plan X in an attempt to change the show to make it more coherent, which is bitchy but we're pretty sure is not illegal.

As the series of unforseen events unfolded, Berger and Tsypin apparently began privately to discuss a plan to re-write the Book of the Musical such that, among other things, the culmination of the current Act I—a dramatic fight scene between Spider-Man and the villain Green Goblin—would move to the end of Act II. Berger called this plan “Plan X.”212.

Among other things, and unbeknownst to Taymor, Plan X appears to have been conceived as a way to avoid the technical challenges Tsypin and his team were having with staging the finale called for by the Book of the Musical co-authored by Taymor.

3. Bono, Mr. Kohl, and Mr. Berger all emailed each other about the problems with the show! Without CC'ing Ms. Taymor!

On December 29, 2010, for example, Berger sent an e-mail to Tsypin stating that it was “best not to mention anything to J.” Tsypin responded: “I won’t say a word.”

Upon information and belief, Berger and Tsypin, without Taymor’s knowledge,then reached out secretly to Cohl, Harris, Bono, and Edge in an effort to further their clandestine plan. To this end, Berger and Tsypin apparently sent e-mails to Cohl and Harris describing their plan and imploring the producers to “please don’t let JT know I’m sending this.

4. Bono et. all were going to come clean to the director about the changes in a meeting set in a hotel room at night (where most meetings take place), only to show up drunk with super models. Come on, Bono was just trying to lighten the mood!

Upon information and belief, on January 13, 2011, Cohl, Berger, and Bono met with Taymor in the VIP room of the Foxwoods Theater. Unbeknownst to Taymor, Berger apparently understood that the purpose of the meeting was to finally disclose Plan X to Taymor. As Berger recounted in a later e-mail, however, “that meeting never happened”:

[t]he meeting was postponed until 11 p.m., when Bono was going to show up –except he showed up in our room with Christy Turlington and a couple other supermodels, and he had already had a few beers, rendering him useless — so the producers postponed the meeting till the next afternoon–but that meeting never happened.

(More importantly, since when does a "few beers" render an Irishman useless? And Christy Turlington isn't just any old floozy...she probably lent some actual class to the proceedings.)

5. Apparently, Turn of the Dark actually got some great early reviews...but no one read them because they were too busy focusing on how cast members were being put in mortal danger.

On February 7, 2011, critics published pre-emptive reviews of the Musical five weeks before the then-scheduled opening night of March 15. While some of the reviews contained criticism of the show, those that praised it praised elements that had been conceived and implemented largely by Taymor: “As a stager . . . Taymor is bold, elegant, and eloquent”;“The flying is thrilling, a full-tilt leap into the extraordinary”; “‘Spider-Man’ deftly spins substance and spectacle”; “The state-of-the-art visuals can be stunning”; “Taymor delivers”; “A visual feast.”

6. And the stuff that wasn't even reviewed?? Even better.

By many accounts, the version of the Musical as it was being performed in late February 2011—which version was never reviewed by the press—had greatly improved since the version that had been reviewed by the press at the beginning of February 2011.247.

On February 18, 2011, for example, Glenn Orsher, Cohl’s Executive Producer,sent an e-mail to Taymor stating: “Wow! What a great show!

7. Even after she was fired, the press was (apparently) still applauding Ms. Taymor, despite the producer's claims that the show was entirely revamped. (Though she's still listed as the author of Spider-Man's book.)

Rather Taymor’s substantial creative contributions to the Musical, including her work as co-author of the Book, remain an integral part of the Musical and a substantial reason for its success. The myriad press reviews of the revised Musical that the producers have touted on the Musical’s website promoting the show confirm this: “A fun, high-flying adventure”; “There's more flying than ever-And you can't help but feel a thrill as Spider-Man and the Goblin battle it out just a few dozen feet above your head!”; “it’s a fantastic spectacle”; “Thrilling high-flying acrobatics”; “dazzling sequences unprecedented on Broadway!”; “It was one of the most dazzling theatrical experiences we have ever seen! And, most of that, we think, can be attributed to the bold and inspired work of Julie Taymor”; “[e]ssential elements of [the Original]

8. Ms. Taymor barely had time to eat dinner, that's how hard she was working!
From disclosed email correspondence between Ms. Taymor and Bono.

It is nine pm in NYC. I am just about to sit down to a home cooked meal. I have been at it on [Spider-Man] nonstop. Glen has as well. We are writing lyrics, lines of dialogue, changes in music–all in service to the ending, to clarity. We know what the story is, we understand the stakes–but we do not have the lyrics to support it. I would like to talk to you before midnight my time– after I eat– to go over the situation and beg for lyrics. We need you. It is not easy to change anything but now I think it is a matter of lyrical and musical changes — and perhaps cutting a scene or two from a second act.

9. Most incredibly: Julie Taymor spent seven years on Spider-Man and still couldn't get it to opening night.

In total denigration of Taymor’s over seven years of work on the Musical and with obvious malice, defendants assert in paragraph 10 of their counterclaims that “[t]he show is a success despite Taymor, not because of her.”

10. Spider-Man's ticket sales have not increased since the show opened and Ms. Taymor was fired.

The producers also have not created a more financially viable production than Taymor’s original production. The first version of Spider-Man consistently ranked as the second- or third-highest grossing show on Broadway, despite the lack of promotion of the show to encourage ticket sales during the prolonged preview period. Its box office receipts were almost identical to the box office receipts that the revised version has earned since Taymor was dismissed from the production.

So basically: Julie Taymor did everything, Glen Berger is a jerk, and even though the show is entirely different now--scrapping entire elements and characters of the original and creating new content--Ms. Taymor should also be getting credit for this. (Except for the parts of the show which were a flop, in which case it was the fault of Bono being drunk.)

Also Spider-Man: Turn Off the Dark made a ton of money under Ms. Taymor's guidance, got rave reviews, everything was perfect, and nothing hurt. (Except for those internal injuries suffered by the show's actors.)

Photo via Rob Delaney

Rob Delaney is a prominent figure on the alt-comedy Twitter scene. He has an impressive 239,672 followers, and is oft-retweeted by no less impressive figures than Samantha Ronson, Mindy Kaling, and Juliette Lewis. Still, the comedian is inviting a world of pain with his latest stunt: suing Kim Kardashian (along with Ryan Seacrest, E!, and Comcast) for $18 million...the amount of income he claims she made off her wedding shows.

Why? Well, maybe a better question would be, "Why not?"

Though Mr. Delaney has told every media outlet available that he is serious about the lawsuit, he doesn't have much legal ground to stand on. He doesn't necessarily even have a logical leg to stand on, as became obvious during an interview with The Village Voice, where the comedian told Rosie Gray his reasoning behind suing a recent divorcee:

It's egregious. If you're going to get paid that much, you can stick it out for a little while longer. They have over 70 Kardashian shows; If they're going to foist that on us and involve us in that commitment, if I'm a guest at their wedding, then they need to stick it out. Put in the time. It's not like you have to live together, my God. Just fake it for us for a little bit.

He also plans to give the money, once he wins, to his "terrible" uncle. He doesn't have a lawyer, but plans on representing himself and citizens of America in his suit. "I can't change the law but I can aim the law at whomever I want," he said, explaining what makes this country so great in just one sentence.

The only problem with this publicity stunt is it's just that: a stunt. It's a ploy to get more Twitter followers, or at least a tweet-back from Ms. Kardashian himself. When asked whether or not the reality star is even aware of her pending litigation, he shows his hand:

With the number of times that this has been mentioned on Twitter, it's certainly possible that she's aware of it...I'm a comedian so I know some celebrities, but I don't know anybody at that level of incandescent godlike fame. So she hasn't responded yet.

So what's wrong with a faux-outraged one-sinded Twitter feud? Nothing, except Mr. Delaney's insistence that this isn't a joke, that he really plans on going through with the suit, because Ms. Kardashian's income (along with E!'s complicity in the payout) really is that egregious. (Which, of course, it is.) He's playing into the stupid media spin cycle of the story while pretending to stand outside of it and admonishing everyone for paying attention to the reality celebrity.

But this is the equivalent of Leno taking an opening monologue potshot at the 72-day marriage. It's not like Mr. Delaney is trying to enact any real change...he's not even going down to protest the 1% which Ms. Kardashian is definitely a part of. That wouldn't sit well with his "celebrity friends." He's just trying to get more and more attention for himself with a fake/real civil suit. So And what is the end result of this?  That one day Mr. Delaney may have as many Twitter followers as Ms. Kardashian herself?

He better get to work: he still has 9,760,328 fans to win over.

All clear. (Photo via Flickr)

If it's true that the city's cyclists are a bunch of self-important nudniks who think they rule the roads, it did not take long for them to start taking victory laps around the pelaton after the city prevailed yesterday in the Prospect Park West bike lane lawsuit.

StreetsBlog founder, Park Slope Neighbors co-founder, bike lane local, Weinshall-Schumer-bird-flipper, Morgan Freeman fan Aaron Naparstek:

This is a resounding and definitive victory for the neighborhood, for the Department of Transportation and for advocates of safer more livable streets. We are pleased that Justice Bunyan specifically reaffirmed the legitimacy of the lengthy community-driven process that led to the redesign of Prospect Park West (pages 7 through 14 of his ruling).

We encourage the individuals who filed this law suit to join with Park Slope Neighbors and organizations like the Park Slope Civic Council, the Grand Army Plaza Coalition and Community Board 6 in the ongoing work of making Brooklyn's streets safer and more accessible for everyone.

Transportation Alternatives executive director Paul Steely White:

This decision is not just a victory for Park Slope, it’s a victory for all New Yorkers’ safety. This project is a great example of how neighborhoods can get relief from dangerous traffic: the community asked the DOT to fix a dangerous street, the DOT's proposal went through an intehttp://www.observer.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=postnse community process and, by all measures, it is extremely popular and has made Prospect Park West safer for everyone of all ages. The demise of this farcical PR stunt confirms what the vast majority of New Yorkers already know: bike lanes are good for New York. Let this victory mark the end of the misguided war on safe streets.

The response on Twitter has been robust.

Brooklyn Spoke: I am on #PPW bike lane right now with #bikenyc radicals. It's like Tahrir Square up here. Come sue us!

Times magazine editor Adam Sternbergh: "I am trying to decide which Judge I'd most like to imagine dismissing the PPW bikelane lawsuit: Wapner, Judy, Reinhold or Dredd." As for the potential for an appeal: At a certain point you have to look in the mirror and ask 'What am I doing with my life?'"

Brownstoner: Bam!

Gothamist editor John Del Signore goes for a highbrow lowbrow reference: "And the Eye of Sauron falls into the fires of Mordor!"

Deputy Mayor Howard Wolfson announced he's taking a celebratory ride to work. (Watch him ride here!)

mchaban [at] observer.com | @MC_NYC