Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
LEVORITZ' AFFIDAVIT FOR MTD

LEVORITZ' AFFIDAVIT FOR MTD

Ratings:

5.0

(1)
|Views: 26 |Likes:
Published by SLAVEFATHER
LAWYERS - PUBLIC SERVANTS - ARE IMMUNE FOR INTENTIONAL CRIMINAL ACTS, FRAUD AND TORTS AGAINST CHILDREN AND FAMILIES.
LAWYERS - PUBLIC SERVANTS - ARE IMMUNE FOR INTENTIONAL CRIMINAL ACTS, FRAUD AND TORTS AGAINST CHILDREN AND FAMILIES.

More info:

Published by: SLAVEFATHER on May 18, 2014
Copyright:Traditional Copyright: All rights reserved

Availability:

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

07/26/2014

pdf

text

original

 
CIVIL COURT
 OF THE
 CITY
 OF
 NEW
 YORKCOUNTY
 OF
 KINGS
NEW
 CENTURY FINANCIAL SERVICES
INC.
Plaintiff
-against-
MICHAEL KRICHEVSKY
Defendant.
:
 Index
 No.
 056717/13
AFFIDAVIT
 OF:
 YQNATAN
 LEVQRITZ. ESQ.CIVIL COURT
 OF THE CITY OF NEW
 YORKCOUNTY OF KINGS
MICHAEL
 KRICHEVSKY Third-Party
 Plaintiff
-against-
JOHN FASDNE
YONATAN
 LEVOPJTZ
VICTOR KATKALOV KINGS COUNTYCHILD SUPPORT COLLECTION UNIT ELENA SVENSONThird-Party Defendants.
STATE
 OF NEW
 YORKCOUNTY
 OF
 KINGS
 
ss.:
 
YONATAN
 LEVORITZ,
 ESQ.
being duly sworn deposes and
 says:
1.
 I am an attorney duly admitted to practice law in the Courts of the
 State
 of New
York
 and before
 this
 Court. I am a Third-Party Defendant in this action and I make this
 
affidavit
 in support of the motion for summary judgment to dismiss each of the causes of actionalleged
 in the
 Third-Party Complaint against
 me.2. A
 copy
 of the
 Third-Party Complaint
 is
 annexed hereto
 as
 Exhibit
 A .
3. A
 copy
 of my
 answer
 to the
 Third-Party Complaint
 is
 annexed hereto
 as
 Exhibit
 B .
 The
 allegations
 in my
 Answer
 are
 true
 to my
 knowledge,
 and the
 Affirmative
 Defenses
 are
appropriate in this frivolous Third-Party Action improperly commenced against me and my
paralegal,
 Victor Katkalov.4. I deny any wrongdoing alleged against me. All the allegations made against me
arise
 out of my role as counsel for Elena Svenson in her Family Court Proceeding againstMichael Krichevsky
 for him to
 fulfill
 his
 fundamental duty
 to pay
 child support. Similarly,
 all of
the
 allegations against
 Mr.
 Katkalov arise
 out of his
 role solely
 as my
 paralegal
 in
 that
 FamilyCourt proceeding. Neither of us did anything wrong to justify this frivolous
 Third-Party
 Actioncoomenced in bad
 faith
 against
 us by Mr. Krichevsky.5. I succeeded in obtaining an award of child support enforceable against Mr.Krichevsky, and he appears to claim that caused him to be unable to pay his credit card bills. To
the
 extent Mr. Krichevsky cannot pay his credit cards, that has nothing to do with my role as hisadversary's counsel in the Family Court proceeding to enforce his parental duties, which hesimply ignored.6. Mr. Katkalov performed his paralegal duties in that matter under my supervision,
and
 he did
 nothing
 to justify Mr.
 Krichevsky's
 nonsensical claims against him.7. There is no
 basis
 for a Third-Party Action to be made against me or Mr. Katkalovbecause we owe no duty to Mr. Krichevsky, and there cannot possibly be a reason that my
-2-
 
successful legal representation of Ms. Svenson can be used to hold me or my paralegal liable topay Mr. Krichevsky's credit debts.8. Therefore, this Third-Party Action should be dismissed based upon CPLR
 1007
because neither my paralegal nor I can be
 found
 liable to Mr. Krichevsky for all or part of the
claim
 made by New Century Financial
 Services,
 Inc. based upon Mr. Krichevsky defaults inpayment of his credit card debt.
9. Additionally,
 although
 Mr.
 Krichevsky grossly overstates
 his
 frivolous claims,
 he
seeks
 to recover
 $1,000,000.
 That demand is well in excess of the monetary jurisdiction of thisCourt pursuant
 to the New
 York City
 Civil
 Court
 Act § 202,
 which
 is
 limited therein
 to
 $25,000.
10.
 More importantly, Mr. Krichevsky unsuccessfully attempted to sue me on
 the'
very same grounds
 hi
 the Supreme Court, Kings County, in an action entitled
 Krichevsky
 v.Levoritz, Index No.
 24714/10,
 which was dismissed with prejudice.11. Mr. Krichevsky previously commenced
 virtually the same
 lawsuit
 against
 me and
co-third-party
 defendant, Elena Svenson in Supreme Court of the City of New York, County ofKings under Index No.
 24714/10
 (the
 Kings
 County Supreme Action )- The Complaint in that
action
 was dismissed
 with prejudice
A copy of the Court Order dismissing
 that
 action isannexed as
 Exhibit C .
12. Thus, it has already been determined in the Kings County Supreme Action that
Mr.
 Levoritz
 has no
 liability
 to
 Plaintiff.
 As
 such,
 in
 addition
 to the
 fact
 that Plaintiffs instantThird-Party Complaint is completely frivolous, Plaintiff is collaterally estopped from bringingvirtually the same lawsuit
 against
 Mr. Levoritz and Mr.
 Levoritz'
 employee, Mr. Katkalov.
13.
 The
 Order
 dismissing
 the
 Kings
 County Supreme Court Action
 against
 me was
entered by the Court based upon my
 Affidavit,
 sworn to December 21, 2010 ( Levoritz
-3-

You're Reading a Free Preview

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