Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Reply in Opposition to Affirmation Opposing Motion to Compel

Reply in Opposition to Affirmation Opposing Motion to Compel

Ratings: (0)|Views: 99|Likes:
Published by SLAVEFATHER
Reply in Opposition to Affirmation Opposing Motion to Compel
NOTICE OF MOTION TO COMPEL REQUEST FOR ADMISSION AND INTERROGATORIES
Reply in Opposition to Affirmation Opposing Motion to Compel
NOTICE OF MOTION TO COMPEL REQUEST FOR ADMISSION AND INTERROGATORIES

More info:

Published by: SLAVEFATHER on Sep 24, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

12/15/2013

pdf

text

original

 
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT RETURN DATE: September 13, 2013EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------xIN THE MATTER OF:ELENA SVENSON, CASE NO. 1-12-43050-essDebtor. CHAPTER 7--------------------------------------------------------xMICHAEL KRICHEVSKY,Plaintiff/Creditor,v.ELENA SVENSON, Adversary Proceeding No. 12-01229-essDefendant/debtor,BOARD OF MANAGERS OF OCEANACONDOMINIUM NO. TWO; INTERNALREVENUE SERVICE, INC.,Defendants/Creditors,VICTORIA EDELSTEIN, DDS; BORISKOTLYAR, COOPER SQUARE REALTY, INC;LANA KAPLUN, personally; FARIDBADALOV, personally; BORIS MEYDID, personally;JOHN DOE and JANE JOHNS, personally (fictitious names to be discovered),Defendants.------------------------------------------------------------------xVICTORIA EDELSTEIN, DDS and BORISKOTLYAR,Cross-Claimants,v.MICHAEL KRICHEVSKY,Cross-Defendant.-----------------------------------------------------------------x
REPLY AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL
MICHAEL KRICHEVSKY, Pro Se, says:1.
 
That I am the plaintiff in the within action.2.
 
I make this reply affidavit in opposition to affirmation opposing MOTION TO COMPELDefendant SVENSON and her attorney, Lorna LaMotte, to answer the Request for Admissionand Interrogatories propounded to SVENSON and Request for Admission to Lorna LaMotte.3.
 
KRICHEVSKY is tired from Ms. L
aMotte’s continuous practice of twisting facts and law
in an
 
 
2effort to mislead the court and confuse KRICHEVSKY. In the instant motion to compelKRICHEVSKY stated in ¶¶ 4 and 5:
Above-mentioned discovery requests, are relevant to my motion to disqualifyLorna LaMotte, Exhibit B. Additionally, I am working on my motion for sanctionsdue to bad faith, dilatory litigation and baseless denials of facts in my 1
st
, 2
nd
and 3
rd
 amended complaints, which she will be a party.Lorna LaMotte replied by objection to the request for admission addressed personally to her, Exhibit C. Her objection is that even though she is a party to mymotion to disqualify her, she is not a party to the action. These discovery requestswere served together with the motions to disqualify and for default judgment.
Accordingly, this objection is baseless.”
 4.
 
Her baseless position that she does not have to answer the request for admission andinterrogatories addressed and related to the motion to disqualify because she is not a party tothe bankruptcy proceedings. In ¶ 7 of her affirmation in opposition she states:
“Plaintiff 
seems
to state in his application that
I acknowledged being a party tohis motion to disqualify.
I made no such admission or reference to his motion todisqualify in my objection to the within request. I maintain that I am not a party tothis action.
I am the subject of his motion to disqualify
but that does not make me
a party to the action.”
[Emphasis added]5.
 
This is a bad faith, frivolous argument. The fact that Ms. LaMotte is not the named defendantin this lawsuit is irrelevant in relation to a motion to disqualify. Motion to disqualify Ms.LaMotte was personally served on her and she was the
named party
in the motion. She doesnot have to admit that she is a party
 – 
it presumed by issue to be decided. Motion to disqualifyis an action by itself. Motions to disqualify
do not have “SUBJECTS” that must be disqualified
 (unless Ms. LaMotte changed her name and now calls herself SUBJECT)
 – 
attorneys aredisqualified as parties to the motion. Ms. LaMotte appeared by answering the motion in formof Affirmation In Opposition To Motion To Disqualify Lorna LaMotte, Esq., exhibit A. Thisact in itself 
 – 
an admission that she is a party and gives jurisdiction to the court. By contrast,
 
 
3her colleague
attorney Mr. Losardo did not appear in KRICHEVSKY’s motion to disqualify
him, defaulted in that action and disappeared from this whole bankruptcy proceeding .6.
 
If Ms. LaMotte’s argument that she is not a party to the motion, but rather a SUBJECT is not
frivolous, then she seems to hallucinate that she is a GHOST. Then she also seems tohallucinate that if KRICHEVSKY files a motion for sanctions naming her a party and askingfor costs, the court would not be able to sanction her because she would tell the court that she isa SUBJECT or GHOST to the motion and court can sanction only parties to the motion.7.
 
The information requested is also relevant and necessary for the preparation of plaintiff's casefor dispositive motions and/or trial and seeks discoverable information per FRCP 36(a)(1)(A).WHEREFORE, it is respectfully requested that this motion be granted in itsentirety, and for such other and further relief as to this Court seems just and proper,including the costs of this motion.I, Michael Krichevsky, Pro Se, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, under penalty of perjurydeclare that the foregoing is true and correct.Dated: Brooklyn, New York September 12, 2013 __________________________________ Michael Krichevsky, Pro Se

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->