A celebrity nanny who once dished dirt on Katie Couric is Mary Poppin-off again about another multimillionaire mom.
In papers filed in Manhattan Supreme Court, Upper West Side mother Carol Feinberg says nanny Nancy Poznek “embarked upon an intentional and malicious campaign to harm, harass and disparage” her, sending dozens of mean-spirited and highly revealing notes to Feinberg’s family and friends since getting canned last year.
At least one of the notes was sent to Feinberg’s 8-year-old son, disguised as a child’s party invitation, said her lawyer, Arthur Aidala. Court records quote one letter as saying “Why does your mother look like Morticia from the ‘Addams Family?’ ” It also referred to Feinberg as “a regal bitch. She is totally artificial, inside and outside.”
Feinberg, 50, told The Post she’s so shaken by the bizarre campaign of “harassment” that she’s had to hire bodyguards for their kids.
“We’re just trying to protect our family,” Feinberg said. “I don’t want money from her. I want her to cease and desist. I want her to go away.”
Poznek, 60, called the suit “absurd,” and Feinberg “one of these typical rich bitches that have nothing else to do and it’s all about her.”
The suit notes it’s not the first time Poznek has trash-talked a former employer. In 1994, Poznek was fired from her position as a nanny for the child of NBC newswoman Katie Couric and “engaged in a similar campaign to disparage Ms. Couric and her late husband, attorney Jay Monahan.”
Couric allegedly canned Poznek after the nanny told her Monahan was complaining about Couric behind her back.
Poznek said she’s also worked for the likes of Diana Ross and Mick Jagger, then spent the next few years dishing the limited dirt she picked up in her three years working for Couric. She revealed to Star magazine that the perky “Today” show host “drinks milk straight from the carton with the refrigerator door hanging open,” and is “so tired on weekends that sometimes she doesn’t bother to bathe.”
Feinberg said she and her husband, auto-dealer magnate Kenneth Gilman, didn’t know about Poznek’s tattling when they hired her in 1997.
Aidala said the couple was generally happy with Poznek’s work taking care of their two young kids over the years, but they fired her because they got fed up with her rudeness to Gilman’s adult daughter. “She was just nasty,” Aidala said.
He said the parting was “as amicable as it could have been, given the circumstances.”
But Poznek said she was “devastated” by the firing, and that Feinberg canned her by phone while she was at the couple’s second home on Long Island. “She said, ‘This is your last day,’ but I still had to do the shopping for her,” Poznek said.
Feinberg soon discovered just how unhappy Poznek was.
The nanny sent out about 30 fliers to Feinberg’s friends, her husband’s business associates and the parents of her kids’ classmates, that began, “Why is Carol Feinberg (Gilman) known as the $6 million woman?” It went on to detail various plastic surgery procedures Feinberg allegedly received throughout the years.
The suit says some of Poznek’s info was “exaggerated” and some of it was based on records the nanny had wrongfully snooped through.
Poznek admitted she designed the flier “to get to” Feinberg, “and obviously it did.”
“I know she was very vain about her appearance,” she added.
Feinberg said Poznek also sent her and her husband a threatening fax last September, that said “she would take whatever action was necessary for her survival.”
The mom said Poznek also crossed the line when she sent the “most inappropriate” note to her son, which prompted her to call the police.
Poznek was charged with aggravated harassment, but the case was thrown out this past April, said the nanny’s lawyer, Glenn Wolther. “It was a slam dunk,” he said. “She has freedom of speech.”
Feinberg said the nanny sent out a new round of mailings to her friends in the last few weeks, which prompted her to file suit. “They feel harassed,” Feinberg said.
The legal action seeks unspecified money damages, as well as a court order barring Poznek from contacting Feinberg’s acquaintances.
Wolther called the suit “absurd” and “frivolous.” “It has no First Amendment basis,” he said, adding that Poznek is now “contemplating litigation against the city [over the arrest] and Feinberg.”