Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
95Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
SUING LAWYERS YORAM NACHIMOVSKY & YONATAN LEVORITZ FOR MALICIOUS PROSECUTION AND FRAUD

SUING LAWYERS YORAM NACHIMOVSKY & YONATAN LEVORITZ FOR MALICIOUS PROSECUTION AND FRAUD

Ratings: (0)|Views: 1,163 |Likes:
Published by SLAVEFATHER
DEFENDING YOUR RIGHTS AND LIBERTY FROM SHARKS
DEFENDING YOUR RIGHTS AND LIBERTY FROM SHARKS

More info:

Published by: SLAVEFATHER on Dec 15, 2010
Copyright:Public Domain

Availability:

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

12/04/2012

pdf

text

original

 
 
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS ______________________________________________________  _ MICHAEL KRICHEVSKY,Plaintiff, –against– YONATAN LEVORITZ, ESQ, YORAM NACHIMOVSKY, ESQ,ELENA SVENSON,Defendants.JURY TRIAL DEMANDEDFiled:_____________ INDEX NO. 24714/2010Plaintiff designates KingsCounty as the place of trial.
AMENDED VERIFIEDCOMPLAINT
The basis of venue isthe County in which thecauses of action aroused
Plaintiff, Pro Se and for his Verified Complaint, respectfully alleges, upon informationand belief:
1.JURISDICTION
1.This action is for money damages in excess of jurisdictional limits of all lower courts.2.The plaintiff, MICHAEL KRICHEVSKY, at all times herein mentioned was and still isa resident of the County of Kings and the State of New York.3.The defendant, YONATAN LEVORITZ, Esq., at all times herein mentioned was andstill is a resident of the County of Kings and the State of New York.
 Michael Krichevsky v. Levoritz, et al 
 Page 1 of 30 Index No:24714/2010
 
4.The defendant, YONATAN LEVORITZ, Esq., at all times herein mentioned was andstill is conducting a business in the County of Kings and the State of New York.5.The defendant, YORAM NACHIMOVSKY, Esq. at all times herein mentioned wasand still is a resident of the County of Kings and the State of New York.6.The defendant, YORAM NACHIMOVSKY, Esq. at all times herein mentioned wasand still is conducting a business in the County of Kings and the State of New York.7.At all times herein mentioned lawyers-defendants derived substantial revenue fromservices rendered in the County of Kings and the State of New York.8.The defendant, ELENA SVENSON, at all times herein mentioned was and still is aresident of the County of Kings and the State of New York.9.The causes of action aroused out of “assisted” by lawyers-defendants litigation betweendefendant SVENSON against plaintiff in numerous courts and actions in County of Kings and the State of New York.
1.PARTIES
1.MICHAEL KRICHEVSKY – victim, damaged and personally injured plaintiff.2.ELENA SVENSON – former girlfriend of plaintiff with whom plaintiff has son,DAVID SVENSON.3.YONATAN LEVORITZ, ESQ. - lawyer representing defendant SVENSON under secret supervision of YORAM NACHIMOVSKY, ESQ. in the Kings County FamilyCourt action against plaintiff.
 Michael Krichevsky v. Levoritz, et al 
 Page 2 of 30 Index No:24714/2010
 
4.YORAM NACHIMOVSKY, ESQ. – lawyer representing defendant SVENSON inKings County Family Court and Kings County Supreme Court action against plaintiff  bearing index No 33343/20085.YORAM NACHIMOVSKY, ESQ. – lawyer still secretly representing defendantSVENSON (as landlady) and codefendants VICTORIA EDELSTEIN and BORISKOTLYAR (as tenants) in Kings County Supreme Court action against plaintiff  bearing index No 33343/2008.6.YORAM NACHIMOVSKY, ESQ. – lawyer who in 2008 represented petitioner SVENSON (as landlady) and respondents VICTORIA EDELSTEIN and BORISKOTLYAR (as tenants) in Kings County Landlord & Tenant Court against each other in eviction action.7.YORAM NACHIMOVSKY, ESQ. – lawyer who in 2009 represented co-defendantsSVENSON (as landlady) and VICTORIA EDELSTEIN and BORIS KOTLYAR (astenants) in Kings County Civil Court action bearing index No 99601/2009.
1.FACTS AND UNREBUTTED ALLEGATIONS AS ADMISSIONS OF FACTSCOMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION
1.On or about January of 2008 KRICHEVSKY and SVENSON, unmarried couple,decided to break apart as a family.2.At that time they lived at 4336 Manhattan Ave, Brooklyn, New York with their sonDAVID SVENSON.3.DAVID SVENSON was 14 years old teenager attending school.
 Michael Krichevsky v. Levoritz, et al 
 Page 3 of 30 Index No:24714/2010

Activity (95)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
1 thousand reads
Nicholas Ratush added this note
A motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action against both attorney defendants was granted. In other words a Supreme Court judge found that there was no actionable complaint against the two attorneys.
SLAVEFATHER liked this
SLAVEFATHER liked this
SLAVEFATHER liked this
SLAVEFATHER liked this
SLAVEFATHER liked this
SLAVEFATHER liked this
SLAVEFATHER liked this

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)//-->