This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
SVENSON, CASE NO. 1-12-43050-ess Debtor. CHAPTER 7 --------------------------------------------------------x MICHAEL KRICHEVSKY, Plaintiff/Creditor, v. ELENA SVENSON, Adversary Proceeding No. 12-01229-ess Defendant/debtor, BOARD OF MANAGERS OF OCEANA CONDOMINIUM NO. TWO; INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, INC., Defendants/Creditors, VICTORIA EDELSTEIN, DDS; BORIS KOTLYAR, COOPER SQUARE REALTY, INC; LANA KAPLUN, personally; FARID BADALOV, personally; BORIS MEYDID, personally; JOHN DOE and JANE JOHNS, personally (fictitious names to be discovered), Defendants. ------------------------------------------------------------------x VICTORIA EDELSTEIN, DDS and BORIS KOTLYAR, Cross-Claimants, v. MICHAEL KRICHEVSKY, Cross-Defendant. -----------------------------------------------------------------x NOTICE OF MOTION TO COMPEL DISCLOSURE AND PRODUCTION COUNSELORS: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that upon the annexed supporting affidavit and memorandum of law, Michael Krichevsky moves for an order to compel disclosure and production of: a) corporate status of Cooper Square Realty Inc under F.R.C.P. rule 7.1; b) the copy of retainer between ABRAMS GURFINKEL MARGOLIS GERSON, LLP and corporate defendants; c) the copy of retainer between ABRAMS GURFINKEL MARGOLIS GERSON, LLP and BELKIN BURDEN WENIG & GOLDMAN, LLP; d) compel production of the copies of waivers of conflict of interest under New York Rules of Professional Conduct (NYRPC) rule 1.7;
e) the copy of contract between unknown insurance company and ABRAMS GURFINKEL MARGOLIS GERSON, LLP The hearing will be held by Bankruptcy Judge Honorable Elizabeth S. Stong of this Court at the Courthouse located at 271 Cadman Plaza East, at Courtroom 3585, Brooklyn, NY 11201, on the 4th day of October, 2013, at 3:00 PM of that day, or as soon thereafter as counsel can be heard; and for such other and further relief as to this Court seems just and proper. TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that, pursuant to FRCP, all answering papers, if any, shall be served at least seven (7) days before the return date of this motion. Dated: September 20 2013 Brooklyn, New York ______________________________ Michael Krichevsky, Pro Se 4221 Atlantic Ave Brooklyn, New York 11224 (718) 687-2300 firstname.lastname@example.org
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT RETURN DATE: October 4, 2013 EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------x IN THE MATTER OF: ELENA SVENSON, CASE NO. 1-12-43050-ess Debtor. CHAPTER 7 --------------------------------------------------------x MICHAEL KRICHEVSKY, Plaintiff/Creditor, v. ELENA SVENSON, Adversary Proceeding No. 12-01229-ess Defendant/debtor, BOARD OF MANAGERS OF OCEANA CONDOMINIUM NO. TWO; INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, INC., Defendants/Creditors, VICTORIA EDELSTEIN, DDS; BORIS KOTLYAR, COOPER SQUARE REALTY, INC; LANA KAPLUN, personally; FARID BADALOV, personally; BORIS MEYDID, personally; JOHN DOE and JANE JOHNS, personally (fictitious names to be discovered), Defendants. ---------------------------------------------------------------x VICTORIA EDELSTEIN, DDS and BORIS KOTLYAR, Cross-Claimants, v. MICHAEL KRICHEVSKY, Cross-Defendant. -----------------------------------------------------------------x AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL AND SUPPLEMENTAL AFFIDAVIT FOR MOTION TO RECONSIDER DENIAL OF MOTION TO DISQUALIFY AS MOOT Michael Krichevsky (KRICHEVSKY), Pro Se, sues defendants and under penalty of perjury respectfully avers upon his firsthand knowledge, except where it stated upon information and belief. I make this motion to compel and supporting affidavit for further support of my MOTION TO RECONSIDER DENIAL OF MOTION TO DISQUALIFY AS MOOT.
STATEMENT OF FACTS 1. This court scheduled motion to disqualify Mr. Losardo and preliminary conference on April 11, 2013. Everyone knows Mr. Losardo defaulted by failure to oppose this motion. I, in good faith, was trying to comply with rule 26 of Fed. R. Civ. P. to begin discovery. I was trying to avoid unnecessary motion practice, offered cooperation to other parties and expected them to do the same in return. 2. On March 6, 2013 at 4:13 PM, I interviewed Mr. Benjamin C. Kirschenbaum, ESQ, Vice President & General Counsel of Cooper Square Realty, Inc (COOPER). 3. I expressed my concern that attorney, Mr. Losardo, who allegedly represented COOPER may not be authorized to represent it and could be acting maliciously to abstract Justice or harm me. I requested a copy of retainer agreement between himself and COOPER and/or a copy of written waiver of conflict of interest. He said that he is not in possession of this information. I presume that his statement was not true because he is exactly the person who must have it or knows whether to find it. In addition, I explained him the unwaivable conflict of interest that exists between COOPER as corporation itself, OCEANA and officers or employees of COOPER and OCEANA. I explained him my concern that Mr. Losardo is not authorized simultaneously represent COOPER and other defendants. And, if I prevail in this action, obtain a judgment, it would not be enforceable and would be void for fraud upon the court. Mr. Kirschenbaum smiled and corrected me by saying that the judgment would not be void, but would be voidable. Mr. Kirschenbaum further stated that he would not care about that because it would be Mr. Losardo’s call and malpractice problem – not his. I construe his remarks as an admission that the potential for corruption and fraud is not virtual but real and continuing.
4. I inquired about malpractice insurance for defendants Mr. Farid Badalov and Mr. Boris Meydid. Mr. Kirschenbaum admitted that COOPER provides malpractice insurance for these individuals, but declined to give me information. I argued that I am entitled to report a claim to insurance carrier and they are in a better position to review my claim, pay it or deny it. He replied that COOPER is making decision whether report this lawsuit to insurance carrier or not (I presume they did not report it). If COOPER does not timely report a legal malpractice claim or lawsuit to its insurance carrier, later on KRICHEVSKY’s claim would be denied as untimely reported by the insured. If tomorrow, COOPER filed for bankruptcy or dissolved, KRICHEVSKY would not be able to collect the judgment against it. That is the reason why – THE LAW GOVERNING LAWYERS exists – to protect consumers and litigants from lawyer’s honest mistake, legal malpractice or malicious conduct. 5. Upon my information and belief, COOPER was recently either acquired by Canadian management company and/or dissolved and its assets were acquired by this company. 6. Alternatively, the same insiders of COOPER changed the name of the corporation and Incorporated in Canada to hinder, delay and obstruct Justice to me. That could be the reason why Mr. Losardo in contempt of F.R.C.P. rule 7.1 refused to file corporate disclosure. In any of the above-mentioned situations, I would need this information to amend my pleading. 7. That would be also the answer as to why Mr. Margolis, too, contemptuously refuses to file corporate disclosure per F.R.C.P. rule 7.1, produce copy of retainer or provide waivers of conflict of interest to me. ARGUMENT: both Mr. Losardo and Mr. Margolis made fraudulent and/or misleading representations to this court and other parties involved. 8. Above mentioned behavior of Mr. Losardo and Mr. Margolis leads me to believe that they attempted and/or attempting to commit fraud upon the court and fraud against me by aiding
and abating insiders of COOPER to avoid liability through some kind of machinations with corporation and its assets. Both attorneys contemptuously none disclosing relevant and material to this litigation information about name change, legal status, insurance and assets of defendant COOPER. Appearances by these attorneys in this court while willfully failing disclose corporate information per F.R.C.P. rule 7.1 should be presumed as fraudulent concealment of material fact of which this court and KRICHEVSKY are not aware, but should be interested to know. 9. Additionally, Mr. Kirschenbaum as officer of corporation COOPER was evasive. I presume that Mr. Kirshenbaum’s denial of request for information pertaining to motion to disqualify counsel, Joshua Losardo, and this lawsuit generally made in bad faith without even explaining why. It is designed to hinder, delay, abstract Justice and access to the court, as well as multiply proceedings and increase the cost of litigation. 10. Starting from the motion to lift the SVENSON’s bankruptcy stay and every other paper filed in this court going forward, including the answer to KRICHEVSKY’s amended complaint, were made unlawfully, in violation of F.R.C.P. rule 11, NYRPC in furtherance of corporate defendant’s fraud upon the court and obstruction of Justice. 11. Noticeably, both Mr. Losardo and Mr. Margolis collaborated with opposing SVENSON’s attorney, Ms. LaMotte in their concerted attempts to dismiss KRICHEVSKY’s case. Additionally, Mr. Losardo did not object to SVENSON’s discharge of her debt to OCEANA. Both Mr. Losardo and Mr. Margolis did not file cross-claim against SVENSON for nonpayment of common charges. They only wanted foreclosure of the UNIT to be done only in State court. I am at loss as to why Mr. Losardo could not start foreclosure in this court when they were joined in this action by me.
12. I am at loss as to why they did not want this court’s adjudication of the validity of OCEANA’s liens on the UNIT if they have done nothing wrong to procure these liens. 13. Upon information and belief, in return for above mentioned considerations, Ms. LaMotte did not object to this court’s order to show cause to abstain and did not file cross-claims against COOPER, OCEANA and other corporate defendants. 14. This information is also relevant and necessary to support my future motion for sanctions and costs against Mr. Losardo, Mr. Margolis and/or his alleged clients. 15. If Mr. Margolis in good faith complies with the requested information, I would be happy to withdraw this motion. ARGUMENT: conflict of interest, contemptuous behavior by Mr. Margolis as officer of the court toward FRCP and NYRPC – supports KRICHEVSKY’s argument to reconsider denial as moot – because current situation falls within the exception to mootness doctrine “capable of repetition, yet evading review.” 16. Conflict of interest that caused Mr. Losardo to self disqualify by defaulting in my motion to disqualify him is repeated by Mr. Margolis because conflict of interest, abuse, misconduct continues. Recently I was served with opposition to my motion to reconsider dismissal of motion to disqualify as moot by Mr. Margolis. I object to this opposition and demand that the motion to compel be resolved before my motion to reconsider denial to disqualify as moot. Mr. Margolis has no standing to oppose this motion – he is not Mr. Losardo, or a party to the motion. In the unlikely event that he has retainers, including waivers of conflict of interest for simultaneous representation of Mr. Losardo and other defendants in my motion to reconsider, I request copies of retainers between two firms and other corporate defendants together with personal waivers. If this court declares that Mr. Losardo was disqualified from simultaneous representation of all corporate defendants due to conflict of interest, this in turn will force Mr. Margolis to step down as well due to the same repeated continuous conflict
of interest. Additionally, this order will serve as a res judicata to any new attorney acting against KRICHEVSKY with the same repeated conflict of interests in any court. CONCLUSION 17. If Mr. Losardo or Mr. Margolis acted professionally, ethically, and without conspiracy disclosed information and filed cross-claims, this court would not have asked for an abstention. And as result, KRICHEVSKY would not be pressed to file this motion to compel and motion to disqualify Mr. Losardo thereby taking this court’s resources. This court should prevent fraud upon the court and fraud upon KRICHEVSKY and UPHOLD mandatory compliance with F.R.C.P. rule 7.1 and NYRPC rule 1.7 WHEREFORE, plaintiff moves this Court to order (a) Mr. Margolis to disclose the requested by KRICHEVSKY information and order compliance with FRCP rule 7.1 and NYRPC rule 1.7; (b) alternatively, if Mr. Margolis continues his contemptuous behavior and refuses to comply with F.R.C.P. 7.1 and NYRPC rule 1.7 by using any bad faith argument to object compliance, plaintiff moves this Court to adjudicate Mr. Margolis in contempt of court per FRCP rule 37 and award costs incurred by KRICHEVSKY; (c) grant KRICHEVSKY’s motion to reconsider and declare that Mr. Losardo was disqualified from simultaneous representation of all of the corporate defendants. Dated: September 20, 2013 Brooklyn, New York ______________________________ Michael Krichevsky, Pro Se 4221 Atlantic Ave Brooklyn, New York 11224 (718) 687-2300 email@example.com
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?