SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS ______________________________________________________ Filed:_____________ _ INDEX NO.

24714/2010 MICHAEL KRICHEVSKY, Plaintiff, Plaintiff designates Kings County as the place of trial. –against– AMENDED VERIFIED YONATAN LEVORITZ, ESQ, YORAM NACHIMOVSKY, ESQ, COMPLAINT ELENA SVENSON, The basis of venue is Defendants. the County in which the causes of action aroused JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Plaintiff, Pro Se and for his Verified Complaint, respectfully alleges, upon information and 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 is a resident of the County of Kings and the State of New York. 3. The defendant, YONATAN LEVORITZ, Esq., at all times herein mentioned was and still 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 and still 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 was and 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 was and 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 from services 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 a resident of the County of Kings and the State of New York. 9. The causes of action aroused out of “assisted” by lawyers-defendants litigation between defendant 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 Family Court 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 in Kings County Family Court and Kings County Supreme Court action against plaintiff bearing index No 33343/2008 5. YORAM NACHIMOVSKY, ESQ. – lawyer still secretly representing defendant SVENSON (as landlady) and codefendants VICTORIA EDELSTEIN and BORIS KOTLYAR (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 BORIS KOTLYAR (as tenants) in Kings County Landlord & Tenant Court against each other in eviction action. 7. YORAM NACHIMOVSKY, ESQ. – lawyer who in 2009 represented co-defendants SVENSON (as landlady) and VICTORIA EDELSTEIN and BORIS KOTLYAR (as tenants) in Kings County Civil Court action bearing index No 99601/2009. 1. FACTS AND UNREBUTTED ALLEGATIONS AS ADMISSIONS OF FACTS COMMON 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 son DAVID 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

4. Plaintiff, employed at that time with Wittenstein and Associates, PC, financially supported whole family. 5. Defendant SVENSON was unemployed during party’s relationship starting in 1992. 6. SVENSON and KRICHEVSKY own condominium unit located at 120 Oceana Drive West, apt 5D in Brooklyn, New York, which later became the subject of litigation in Supreme court action bearing Index No 33343/2008 7. Said condominium was rented by VICTORIA EDELSTEIN and BORIS KOTLYAR for $2575 per month on a month to month tenancy starting from December of 2006. 8. VICTORIA EDELSTEIN and BORIS KOTLYAR later became defendants in the above action for, inter alia, torturous interference with prospective economic relationship. 9. Plaintiff was solely and contractually responsible for first and second mortgage payments to the banks. 10.Mortgage plus condominium fees expenses were more than the monthly rent and owners were trying to sell this condo in order to stop losing money. 11.During 2008, SVENSON and KRICHEVSKY were in discussions of future child support, how to fairly divide their assets and to go their own ways. 12.Due to SVENSON’s complete ignorance of law and fairness principles, as well as lack of trust, plaintiff was having a hard time in negotiations and suggested that she hire an attorney to negotiate with plaintiff. 13.She promised to do this and let plaintiff know when she was ready.

Michael Krichevsky v. Levoritz, et al

Page 4 of 30 Index No:24714/2010

14.On or about July of 2008 plaintiff found an interested buyer of the above mentioned condo, but tenants refused to let this buyer in to see this apartment. 15.On or about July of 2008, after discussing this incident with SVENSON, plaintiff hired attorney Robert Rosenblatt to represent them in an eviction proceeding against VICTORIA EDELSTEIN and BORIS KOTLYAR in order to recover control over the condo. 16.During October-November court appearances attorney Rosenblatt learned that SVENSON was simultaneously represented by lawyer YORAM NACHIMOVSKY against plaintiff. 17.Rosenblatt informed plaintiff that SVENSON allegedly signed a lease to VICTORIA EDELSTEIN and BORIS KOTLYAR for $2850 per month starting from October 1, 2008, and she received first month rent and deposit in the total amount of $5700. 18.Rosenblatt informed plaintiff that NACHIMOVSKY prepared, and SVENSON signed a stipulation discontinuing the eviction action against tenants. 19.Due to the events in paragraphs 16-18, Rosenblatt started litigation in Supreme Court action bearing Index No 33343/2008 to protect plaintiff’s interests and force the sale of said condominium to above mentioned buyer. 20.At the same time SVENSON became verbally abusive toward plaintiff. 21.At the same time SVENSON blackmailed plaintiff and threatened to report plaintiff to FBI and IRS.

Michael Krichevsky v. Levoritz, et al

Page 5 of 30 Index No:24714/2010

22.In the summer of 2008, SVENSON and plaintiff’s son moved out of apartment on Manhattan Avenue into her cooperative apartment at 2620 Ocean Parkway, apt 3K in Brooklyn. 23.At that point plaintiff still supported them with cash. 24.On or about October 21, 2008 SVENSON looted plaintiff’s apartment on 4336 Manhattan Avenue in Brooklyn. 25.On October 27, 2008 SVENSON filed false Family Offence Petition against plaintiff. 26.On October 27, 2008 after she, ex-parte, obtained order of protection against plaintiff (but unknown at that time to plaintiff), she brought party’s son DAVID to plaintiff’s place of work, and together harassed plaintiff’s employer, Mr. Wittenstein, and demanded that he fire plaintiff. 27.In order to avoid contact with SVENSON, protection of personal belongings, and possible provocation of violence by SVENSON, plaintiff on October 21, 2008, after apartment looting incident, changed locks on 4336 Manhattan Avenue. 28.In the beginning of November 2008, plaintiff was served with order of protection at his work by city marshal. 29.Fear of being arrested as a STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE by police enforcing order of protection, plaintiff abandoned apartment and became homeless. 30.In December of 2005 plaintiff’ bought a house located at 4221 Atlantic Avenue in Brooklyn, New York that needed renovation. 31.Plaintiff was and still is the sole owner and mortgage payor of said house.

Michael Krichevsky v. Levoritz, et al

Page 6 of 30 Index No:24714/2010

32.In June of 2008 plaintiff started renovation of said house with assistance of construction company LEON CONSTRUCTION, which provided financial assistance as well. 33.During the times that SVENSON blackmailed plaintiff, she also told him:”I am going to make sure that you will not finish renovation, and instead file for bankruptcy”. 34.During November 2008, Family Court appearance, NACHIMOVSKY blackmailed plaintiff and tried to coerce him into short sale of mentioned condo to VICTORIA EDELSTEIN and BORIS KOTLYAR. 35.NACHIMOVSKY told plaintiff that they will “reveal in open court all machinations of plaintiff and it will cost him much much more (implying criminal prosecution) than what they ask”. 36.NACHIMOVSKY refused to first mediate child support issue, and gave plaintiff an ultimatum of temporary child support amount of $2500 per month. 37.That incident was reported to Rosenblatt and demand was made by plaintiff that NACHIMOVSKY resign from the case due to outrageous conflict of interest and unprofessional conduct. 38.NACHIMOVSKY told Rosenblatt that he will NO longer represent SVENSON, VICTORIA EDELSTEIN and BORIS KOTLYAR. 39.Plaintiff learned that it was hoax. 40.NACHIMOVSKY still represents above mentioned people through puppet - puppeteer scheme. 41.NICOLAS RATUSH, ESQ. – employee of NACHIMOVSKY, ESQ.
Michael Krichevsky v. Levoritz, et al Page 7 of 30 Index No:24714/2010

42.NICOLAS RATUSH, ESQ. – lawyer-puppet as employee of NACHIMOVSKY, lawyer-puppeteer. 43.RATUSH represents VICTORIA EDELSTEIN and BORIS KOTLYAR in Supreme Court action bearing Index No 33343/2008 against plaintiff. 44.RATUSH represents VICTORIA EDELSTEIN and BORIS KOTLYAR in Kings County Civil Court action bearing Index No 99601/2009 against plaintiff. 45.YONATAN LEVORITZ, ESQ. – lawyer-puppet, through which NACHIMOVSKY represents SVENSON by continuous pattern of blackmail, fraud and extortion. 46.MICHAEL BIANCANELLO, ESQ. - lawyer-puppet, recently resigned, represented SVENSON against plaintiff in Supreme Court action bearing Index No 33343/2008 against plaintiff. 47.NACHIMOVSKY, LEVORITZ, BIANCANELLO AND RATUSH hired to act, acted and/or continue to act in capacity of “contractual assassins” to harm plaintiff. 1. CAUSES OF ACTION COUNT I: AIDING AND ABETTING THE COMMISSION OF TORT AS TO ALL OF THE DEFENDANTS
1.1

1. All allegations above are incorporated by this reference as if fully restated herein. 2. SVENSON, under pretense of seeking to protect the best interest of the child, started a war and hired NACHIMOVSKY to commit, advice, aid and abet her in all further stated torts and criminal activities in order to gain financially and harm plaintiff.

Michael Krichevsky v. Levoritz, et al

Page 8 of 30 Index No:24714/2010

3. NACHIMOVSKY knowingly and willingly accepted employment and created numerous fraudulent schemes through conflict of interest in violation of code of professional responsibility. 4. One of such schemes was conspiracy to create backdated lease between SVENSON, EDELSTEIN and KOTLYAR, to present it in court and to plaintiff’s lawyer, Robert Rosenblatt, Esq. 5. That scheme resulted in profit of $34,200.00 from rent to SVENSON, while plaintiff was left with immediate loss of paying condominium expenses and necessity of starting the Supreme Court action against conspirators as eviction action failed. 6. That scheme substantially undermined and prejudiced plaintiff’s financial rights, later on resulted in loss of the buyer of condo, plaintiff’s inability to pay mortgages and loss of credit rating, which further damaged and crippled plaintiff’s finances. 7. That scheme resulted in all of the properties placed in foreclosure. 8. That scheme is still in play through NACHIMOVSKY’s lawyer-puppet RATUSH. 9. After NACHIMOVSKY’s creation of racketeering enterprise by employing his lawyers-puppets, they knowingly and willingly continued to harm plaintiff, as well as aiding and abetting SVENSON in her war against plaintiff. 10.LEVORITZ created, aided and abetted SVENSON in creation and filing of fraudulent, perjurious and misleading instruments in child support proceeding of Brooklyn Family Court. 11.Misleading and perjurious actions and testimony of LEVORITZ resulted in unfair child support order against plaintiff.
Michael Krichevsky v. Levoritz, et al Page 9 of 30 Index No:24714/2010

12.Targeted actions of LEVORITZ resulted in plaintiff’s loss of job, income and money. 13.Losses above resulted in plaintiff’s loss of credit and failure of his renovation project on 4221 Atlantic Avenue house. 14.On the Supreme Court front NACHIMOVKSY’s lawyer-puppet, BIANCANELLO, through misleading and fraudulent pleadings convinced judge that $34,200.00 profit is actually money spent on SVENSON’s son as a child support and that this issue being decided by Family Court when he knew it was not. 15.While BIANCANELLO was “protecting” interests of the child in Supreme Court, he knew that LEVORITZ is “protecting” same child by asking for child support in Family Court and while KRICHEVSKY was paying to SVENSON $627.00 per month in temporary child support pursuant to order of Family Court. 16.These acts resulted in substantial loss to plaintiff as family court ordered plaintiff to pay SVENSON $31,599.42 in arrears. WHEREFORE, the plaintiff demands judgment against each defendant awarding damages in the amount exceeding jurisdictional limits of all lower courts, together with interest and the costs and disbursements of this action, and such other and further relief as to Interest of Justice and this Court seems just and proper.
1.1

COUNT II: CONCERT OF ACTION AS TO ALL OF THE DEFENDANTS

1. All allegations above are incorporated by this reference as if fully restated herein. 2. In 2009, plaintiff’s attorney Daniel Singer filed Emergency Order to Show Cause with TRO in Supreme Court action bearing Index No 33343/2008 against SVENSON,

Michael Krichevsky v. Levoritz, et al

Page 10 of 30 Index No:24714/2010

EDELSTEIN and KOTLYAR in order to gain control over rent money to be able to pay mortgage and keep properties out of foreclosure. 3. RATUSH and BIANCANELLO stipulated with the Judge of Supreme Court Hon Bert Bunyan that SVENSON will pay $7,000.00 and EDELSTEIN with KOTLYAR $1,000.00 in escrow account of Daniel Singer, so he will pay mortgage to keep properties out of foreclosure. 4. However, all of them became in Contempt of Court and in concert failed to send checks. 5. None of the puppets contacted Mr. Singer in order to apologize or get more time to comply. 6. When Mr. Singer contacted them, all of them had arguments as to why they should not pay, even though they agreed at the time of stipulation. 7. RATUSH, instead of advising his clients to pay $1,000.00 and comply with this order, engaged in frivolous motion practice in order not to pay this $1,000.00. 8. This motion practice cost more than $1,000.00 and was designed to harm and financially wear out plaintiff. 9. Simultaneously with above mentioned frivolous motion practice, LEVORITZ engaged plaintiff in even costlier frivolous motion practice completely wearing out plaintiff financially. 10.Plaintiff had no choice but to finish Family Court hearing as Pro Se. 11.For SVENSON, having two lawyers in two different courts instead of one lawyer standing in front of one judge, was necessary to be able to claim different sets of facts,
Michael Krichevsky v. Levoritz, et al Page 11 of 30 Index No:24714/2010

ask for different reliefs, pointing to other lawyer-puppet, play stupid and confuse two different judges, to divide subject matter jurisdiction and get double recovery of child support and arrears, at which they succeeded under orchestration of NACHIMOVSKY and acting in concert. 12.That NACHIMOVSKY scheme yet another proof for aid and abet cause of action 13.Actions of all lawyers-defendants constitute Fraud upon the Court by Officers of the Court. WHEREFORE, the plaintiff demands judgment against each defendant awarding damages in the amount exceeding jurisdictional limits of all lower courts, together with interest and the costs and disbursements of this action, and such other and further relief as to Interest of Justice and this Court seems just and proper. COUNT III: CONCEALMENT OR DESTRUCTION OF EVIDENCE (EVIDENCE SPOLIATION) AS TO ALL OF THE DEFENDANTS
1.1

1. All allegations above are incorporated by this reference as if fully restated herein. 2. In 2008, SVENSON, acting upon advice and/or knowledge of NACHIMOVSKY, stole plaintiff’s personal records, bills, receipts, copies of income tax filings for prior years, W-2 forms, tax bills and computer back up media. 3. That evidence was destroyed or concealed (it is unknown which) but was not produced during proceeding. 4. During child support hearings in Family Court, after NACHIMOVSKY’ substitution by LEVORITZ, he knowingly and selectively presented favorable to SVENSON plaintiff’s documents over objection of plaintiff’s attorney that they been stolen from plaintiff and, therefore, not admissible.
Michael Krichevsky v. Levoritz, et al Page 12 of 30 Index No:24714/2010

5. Then, LEVORITZ demanded documents from plaintiff knowing that plaintiff is not in possession of them. 6. Then, LEVORITZ blamed plaintiff for being evasive and uncooperative. 7. Absence of this evidence played a major role in plaintiff’s defense and rendered unfavorable order against plaintiff. WHEREFORE, the plaintiff demands judgment against each defendant awarding damages in the amount exceeding jurisdictional limits of all lower courts, together with interest and the costs and disbursements of this action, and such other and further relief as to Interest of Justice and this Court seems just and proper. COUNT IV: MALICIOUS ABUSE OF LEGAL PROCESS AS TO ALL OF THE DEFENDANTS
1.1

1. All allegations above are incorporated by this reference as if fully restated herein. 2. All of the defendants refused to mediate disputed issues with plaintiff. 3. On October 27, 2008 Defendant quietly filed fraudulent Petition for Order of Protection against plaintiff forcing him out of his apartment on 4336 Manhattan Ave in Brooklyn, New York, which defendant abandoned in summer of 2008 and moved to her apartment at 2620 Ocean Pkwy, Apt 3K, Brooklyn, New York. 4. When Police came to arrest plaintiff, but missed him, plaintiff fled this apartment for the fear of been arrested if he stayed there. 5. Plaintiff became homeless and suffered a great deal of emotional distress, as well as loss of productive time and energy. 6. That willful and malicious act caused plaintiff to suffer financial loss when he fled that apartment.
Michael Krichevsky v. Levoritz, et al Page 13 of 30 Index No:24714/2010

7. Plaintiff hired attorney Charles Gayner, Esq. to represent him in court which cost plaintiff $5,000.00. 8. During said Order of Protection hearing, this petition was withdrawn by NACHIMOVSKY, before the court had any opportunity to rule and it was dismissed. 9. Neither SVENSON, nor plaintiff’s son DAVID were afraid of contact with plaintiff as they willfully entered plaintiff’s place of work few hours after obtaining order of protection, and which they were supposed to avoid. 10.On April 22, 2010 Respondent filed Petition to modify his child support obligation due to the fact that he lost his job. 11.The hearing was adjourned by Magistrate Fasone from May 18 to August 6 over Respondent’s Objection. 12.Defendant’s reason for such a long adjournment period was the argument that her attorney Mr. Levoritz has “celebrity status and is already booked for the summer”. 13. In reality this was just another dirty trick to deny Respondent due process and to “milk more money” from Respondent’s unemployment benefits. 14.While been so busy, Mr. Levoritz failed to answer my petitions for modification and custody, and instead served plaintiff with petition to hold him in contempt for violating the court order of not paying ordered child support, even though plaintiff notified respondent that he is unemployed. 15.On June 28, 2010 after custody hearing, LEVORITZ approached respondent and “made him an offer he cannot refuse”: plaintiff withdraws his custody petition in exchange for not sending plaintiff to jail, and arrears will be converted into money judgment.
Michael Krichevsky v. Levoritz, et al Page 14 of 30 Index No:24714/2010

16.Such act constitutes extortion and is prohibited by lawyer’s Ethics as well. WHEREFORE, the plaintiff demands judgment against each defendant awarding damages in the amount exceeding jurisdictional limits of all lower courts, together with interest and the costs and disbursements of this action, and such other and further relief as to Interest of Justice and this Court seems just and proper.
1.1

COUNT V: ABUSE OF PROCESS AS TO ALL OF THE DEFENDANTS

1. All allegations above are incorporated by this reference as if fully restated herein. 2. During civil actions that defendants engaged plaintiff in, as a standard operating procedures they used frivolous motion practice as defined by NYCRR rule 130-1.1. 3. During civil actions that defendants engaged plaintiff in, as a standard operating procedures they used delay and adjournment tactics to harass and wear out plaintiff financially, emotionally and to gain more money from their acts that otherwise they will not gain. 4. Defendants went as far as been in contempt of court as officers of the court in order to deny plaintiff access to justice. WHEREFORE, the plaintiff demands judgment against each defendant awarding damages in the amount exceeding jurisdictional limits of all lower courts, together with interest and the costs and disbursements of this action, and such other and further relief as to Interest of Justice and this Court seems just and proper.
1.1

COUNT VII: LEGAL FRAUD AS TO ALL OF THE DEFENDANTS

1. All allegations above are incorporated by this reference as if fully restated herein.

Michael Krichevsky v. Levoritz, et al

Page 15 of 30 Index No:24714/2010

2. During litigation induced by the defendants, perjurious documents were created and filed in courts under penalty of perjury. 3. During litigation induced by the defendants, perjurious statements were made under penalty of perjury in courts. 4. Material facts were misrepresented and plaintiff’s statements were misquoted in order to confuse judges and/or create bias against plaintiff. 5. Defendants obstructed justice every time they had an opportunity to do so. 6. Felonious witness tampering and lies were standard operating procedures. 7. Frivolous motion practice was standard operating procedure. 8. According to RES JUDICATA doctrine, LEVORITZ did not have any right to claim arrears on child support since BIANCANELLO in Supreme Court action pleaded that $34,200.00 rent money were spent on child support and SVENSON stipulated with Hon. Bert Bunyan that she will pay back $7,000.00 to plaintiff, which she also failed to do. 9. Such acts are criminal in nature and constitute Fraud upon the Court. 10.If lawyers-defendants were not hired by SVENSON to act as “contractual assassins” to harm plaintiff, than they acted in their own best interest and advised SVENSON not to mediate disputed issues with plaintiff in order to churn more legal fees for themselves. 11.These lawyers acted and gave legal advice to SVENSON which was contrary to her and/or her child’ best interests. 12.Fraud against SVENSON negatively affected plaintiff as well. 13.Acts like these destroy public confidence in our legal system and judiciary as a whole.
Michael Krichevsky v. Levoritz, et al Page 16 of 30 Index No:24714/2010

14.All lawyers are officers of the Court and their Fraud upon the Court triggers their disbarment and referral to appropriate authorities. WHEREFORE, the plaintiff demands judgment against each defendant awarding damages in the amount exceeding jurisdictional limits of all lower courts, together with interest and the costs and disbursements of this action, and such other and further relief as to Interest of Justice and this Court seems just and proper.
1.1

COUNT VIII: SLANDER AS TO LEVORITZ

1. All allegations above are incorporated by this reference as if fully restated herein. 2. On August 6, 2009 during child support hearing in Kings County Family Court, Part 27, LEVORITZ made several malicious and slanderous allegations about plaintiff on the record to support magistrate Fasone and others present: a) Your Honor, with all due respect this gentleman has complete control over his income… He works almost as a partner in a law firm, Your Honor. b) I am going to explain it. He brings in clients for the law firm and receives a percentage of the recovery on personal injury matters. c) If you look at his tax return his tax return reflects the fact that he actually owned a company and he put everything through his company and not through him. d) Because it’s not necessary reported on a W-2, Your Honor. No, in the past some of it has been reported on W-2, some of it has gone through the company. He shelters it in different…

Michael Krichevsky v. Levoritz, et al

Page 17 of 30 Index No:24714/2010

e) The Court: “His income is diverted, but that doesn’t mean his employer is giving him extra income. Unless you’re gonna tell me he’s in cahoots with these people…” LEVORITZ:”That’s exactly what I’m saying, Your Honor. As I said before, he’s a pseudo-partner in this particular business…” 1. On October 8, 2009 during continuation of child support hearing which started on August 6, 2009 in Kings County Family Court, Part 27, LEVORITZ made several malicious and slanderous allegations about plaintiff on the record to support magistrate Fasone and others present: a) Isn’t it true that you have no time to rest because you’re actually an owner of Wittenstein and Associates … b) Your Honor, unfortunately, in certain communities it does happen where nonlawyers actually own law firms, and it’s a lawyer that’s used as a front”. 1. On January 6, 2010 during continuation of said child support hearing in Kings County Family Court, Part 27, LEVORITZ made several malicious and slanderous allegations about plaintiff on the record to support magistrate Fasone and others present: a) His Affidavit of Net Worth has in excess of $200,000 in annual expenses. If he claims he made $56,000, he spent roughly four times that amount, not including what he spent on constructing the two family house… 1. LEVORITZ knew these statements were false and designed to influence bias and prejudice of the court against plaintiff. 2. LEVORITZ’ intentionally and unjustifiably made those statements. 3. Levoritz did not present any evidence to support his allegations.
Michael Krichevsky v. Levoritz, et al Page 18 of 30 Index No:24714/2010

4. LEVORITZ intentionally and unjustifiably did not put defendant SVENSON on the stand to examine and get these allegations from her, because then she would be crossexamined by plaintiff’s attorney. 5. LEVORITZ intentionally and unjustifiably refused to depose plaintiff and produce defendant SVENSON for deposition so that there will be no statements or facts he did not want to know in order to be able to slander plaintiff and have slanderous accusations and arguments during hearing. 6. LEVORITZ made unsworn testimony, making it look as if he has firsthand knowledge of facts after due diligence done by him when he did not. 7. LEVORITZ knew that he will not be cross-examined by plaintiff’s lawyer. 8. LEVORITZ knew that magistrate Fasone labeled KRICHEVSKY as moneyed party and looking for a reason to award maximum amount of child support as he has personal interest in the outcome of this case. 9. As result of LEVORITZ’s “pitching” this slanderous accusations to Fasone, Fasone “hit a home run” by ordering plaintiff to pay defendant maximum amount of money he could possibly come up with. 10.To return a favor, Fasone awarded defendant’s legal fees against plaintiff. 11.As the direct or proximate result of this tort plaintiff was fired from his job. 12.As the direct or proximate result of this tort construction company LEON CONSTRUCTION terminated renovation of 4221 Atlantic Avenue house living plaintiff devastated. 13.LEVORITZ achieved his goal as “assassin”.
Michael Krichevsky v. Levoritz, et al Page 19 of 30 Index No:24714/2010

14.As the direct or proximate result of that tort, the damages alleged by the plaintiff were sustained while LEVORITZ and SVENSON were involved in harassment and slander activity of plaintiff’s employer and contractor, which was entered into with full knowledge of the potential hazard thereof. That the inherent risk incident to such activity, and that such risk and any damages flowing therefrom were foreseeable, expected and assumed upon entering into and continuing such activity. WHEREFORE, the plaintiff demands judgment against each defendant awarding damages in the amount exceeding jurisdictional limits of all lower courts, together with interest and the costs and disbursements of this action, and such other and further relief as to Interest of Justice and this Court seems just and proper.
1.1

COUNT IX: INJURIOUS FALSEHOOD AS TO LEVORITZ AND SVENSON

1. All allegations above are incorporated by this reference as if fully restated herein. 2. Plaintiff had employment contract for many years with Wittenstein & Associates, PC. 3. Plaintiff had business contract with LEON CONSTRUCTION to renovate and finance 4221 Atlantic Avenue project. 4. Defendants knew about existence of said relationships. 5. Defendants’ intentional and unjustifiable interference with plaintiff’ personal business during child support proceeding brought negative results and barred no fruits. 6. Due to slanderous utterance and publication of false statements, plaintiff’s reputation was damaged in the eyes of above mentioned persons. 7. By harassment activities against them, they were threatened to be involved in this litigation, incur financial loss, loss of productive time and energy.
Michael Krichevsky v. Levoritz, et al Page 20 of 30 Index No:24714/2010

8. Through harassment activities against them, they were induced to refrain from continuing economic relationship with plaintiff in order to avoid harassment and be left alone. 9. Above mentioned persons terminated their economic relationship with plaintiff. 10.As direct result of forgoing, plaintiff was deprived from prospective economic advantages. WHEREFORE, the plaintiff demands judgment against each defendant awarding damages in the amount exceeding jurisdictional limits of all lower courts, together with interest and the costs and disbursements of this action, and such other and further relief as to Interest of Justice and this Court seems just and proper. COUNT X: EQUITABLE SUBROGATION AS TO ALL OF THE DEFENDANTS
1.1

1. All allegations above are incorporated by this reference as if fully restated herein. 2. During this litigation that defendants engaged plaintiff in, all defendants were unjustly enriched. 3. Due to above mentioned child support order and income execution, defendants extorted and continue to extort 65% of plaintiff’ income and unemployment insurance benefits. 4. Plaintiff was forced to defend himself and his interests by hiring lawyers. WHEREFORE, the plaintiff demands judgment against each defendant awarding damages in the amount exceeding jurisdictional limits of all lower courts, together with interest and the costs and disbursements of this action, and such other and further relief as to Interest of Justice and this Court seems just and proper.
Michael Krichevsky v. Levoritz, et al Page 21 of 30 Index No:24714/2010

COUNT XI: INTENTIONAL OR MALICIOUS HARM TO ANOTHER AS TO ALL OF THE DEFENDANTS (PRIMA FACIE TORT)
1.1

1. All allegations above are incorporated by this reference as if fully restated herein. 2. Above mentioned act and/or series of acts were malicious and unlawful. 3. These acts were made without legitimate excuse or justification. 4. As the direct result of these acts plaintiff suffered and continues to suffer great financial loss and personal injuries triggering award of special damages to be determined at trial. WHEREFORE, the plaintiff demands judgment against each defendant awarding damages in the amount exceeding jurisdictional limits of all lower courts, together with interest and the costs and disbursements of this action, and such other and further relief as to Interest of Justice and this Court seems just and proper.

COUNT XII: INVISIBLE HARM CAUSED BY SEPARATE TORTFEASORS AS TO ALL OF THE DEFENDANTS
1.1

1. All allegations above are incorporated by this reference as if fully restated herein. 2. Some or all of the acts by the defendants could be independent and/or separate from each other. 3. However when they combined together, caused and/or produced single and/or successive and/or subsequent injuries which is impossible to distinguish from each other and/or determine who caused more damage. 4. Such injuries are impossible to apportion amongst all of the tortfeasors.

Michael Krichevsky v. Levoritz, et al

Page 22 of 30 Index No:24714/2010

5. Therefore all defendants jointly and severally liable for harm and injuries caused to plaintiff. WHEREFORE, the plaintiff demands judgment against each defendant awarding damages in the amount exceeding jurisdictional limits of all lower courts, together with interest and the costs and disbursements of this action, and such other and further relief as to Interest of Justice and this Court seems just and proper.

COUNT XIII: RECOVERY OR CONTRIBUTION FROM TORTFEASORS AS TO ALL OF THE DEFENDANTS
1.1

1. All allegations above are incorporated by this reference as if fully restated herein. 2. Respondent, as the natural guardian of his son David Svenson, declares that LEVORITZ, during his “zealous” representation of SVENSON in child support proceeding against plaintiff, and in the name of the best interests of the child committed legal malpractice causing plaintiff to lose his job and other economic opportunities. 3. Now that plaintiff is unable to fully comply with FASON’s child support order, LEVORITZ must contribute to past, present and future compliance with plaintiff’s child support obligation LEVORITZ illegally “won”, but made respondent injured and unemployed. 4. LEVORITZ’ intentional and/or negligent interference with plaintiff’ personal business during representation of defendant SVENSON brought negative results and barred no fruits.

Michael Krichevsky v. Levoritz, et al

Page 23 of 30 Index No:24714/2010

5. As the direct result of plaintiff’s injury and loss of his job, he breached contract with LEON CONSTRUCTION and owes damages to LEON CONSTRUCTION. 6. The damages aroused in this action are direct or proximate consequences of legal malpractice and/or strict liability of all defendants, even though they could not have been foreseen. WHEREFORE, the plaintiff demands judgment against each defendant awarding damages in the amount exceeding jurisdictional limits of all lower courts, together with interest and the costs and disbursements of this action, and such other and further relief as to Interest of Justice and this Court seems just and proper. COUNT XIV: NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS AS TO ALL OF THE DEFENDANTS
1.1

1. All allegations above are incorporated by this reference as if fully restated herein. 2. All of the defendants own a duty to plaintiff to be honest and conduct this proceeding against plaintiff according to Law and Lawyer’s Ethics. 3. All of the defendants breached that duty and are liable. 4. Solely as a result of the defendants' negligence, carelessness and recklessness, plaintiff was caused to suffer serious personal injuries to mind and body, and further, that plaintiff was subjected to great physical pain and mental anguish. 5. The aforesaid occurrence was caused by the negligence of the defendants, without any culpable conduct on the part of plaintiff. 6. By reason of the foregoing, plaintiff was severely injured and damaged, sustained severe nervous shock and mental anguish, great physical pain and emotional upset, some of which injuries are believed to be permanent in nature and duration, and
Michael Krichevsky v. Levoritz, et al Page 24 of 30 Index No:24714/2010

Plaintiff will be permanently caused to suffer pain, inconvenience and other effects of such injuries; Plaintiff incurred and in the future will necessarily incur further hospital and/or medical expenses in an effort to be cured of said injuries; and Plaintiff will be unable to pursue his usual duties with the same degree of efficiency as prior to this action, all to Plaintiff's great damage. 7. As result of defendants’ negligence plaintiff will be susceptible to future injuries as well. 8. As a result of the forgoing, plaintiff has been injured and the defendants are liable for all applicable damages under the law in the amount to be determined at trial, including punitive damages; past, present and future medical expenses; loss of earnings and enjoyment of life; economic loss. WHEREFORE, the plaintiff demands judgment against each defendant awarding damages in the amount exceeding jurisdictional limits of all lower courts, together with interest and the costs and disbursements of this action, and such other and further relief as to Interest of Justice and this Court seems just and proper. COUNT XV: PUNITIVE DAMAGES DUE FROM TORTFEASORS AS TO ALL OF THE DEFENDANTS
1.1

1. All allegations above are incorporated by this reference as if fully restated herein. 2. Acts of all of the defendants were wanton, reckless and malicious. 3. To protect public and society from future acts of the defendants, they must be punished to prevent similar acts in the amount to be determined by the Jury. WHEREFORE, the plaintiff demands judgment against each defendant awarding damages in the amount exceeding jurisdictional limits of all lower courts, together with
Michael Krichevsky v. Levoritz, et al Page 25 of 30 Index No:24714/2010

interest and the costs and disbursements of this action, and such other and further relief as to Interest of Justice and this Court seems just and proper.

1.1

VIOLATIONS OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND DUE PROCESS

1. Above mentioned acts by defendants enticed plaintiff into slavery under 18 U.S.C. 1583 and Involuntary Servitude under: 18 U.S.C. §1589 (3) 2. Defendants, officers of the Court, in violation of their oath of office, have proceeded to institute slavery and involuntary servitude in violation of the Fifth and Thirteenth Amendment of Constitution of United States of America and Constitution of The State of New York as a way to harass plaintiff and deprive him of property in the form of his labor, time, money and servicing. 3. Defendants forced plaintiff to perform unnecessary for him work without just compensation for his labor, energy and time. 4. Defendants forced plaintiff to defend himself from their derogatory actions in order for them to make profit from their activities. 5. For more than two years plaintiff performs legal work without any just compensation. 6. Defendants obtained $31,599.42 VOID order against plaintiff and enforcing it through attempt to jail plaintiff. 7. Due to defendant’ above mentioned acts, plaintiff is unable to pay for appeal of this unfair and void child support order. 8. As of 11/14/10 plaintiff owes $52,049.42 to New York City Office of Child Support Enforcement.
Michael Krichevsky v. Levoritz, et al Page 26 of 30 Index No:24714/2010

9. The recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision, or obtaining of a person for labor or services, through the use of force, fraud, or coercion for the purpose of subjection to involuntary servitude, peonage, debt bondage, or slavery is prohibited by LAW. 10.According to the National Human Rights Center in Berkeley, California, there are currently about 10,000 forced laborers in the U.S., around one-third of who are domestic servants. 11.Through manipulation of justice system, defendants violated plaintiff’s constitutional right to due process. 12.Defendants tortuously interfered with federally protected right for employment. 13.Defendants tortuously interfered with federally protected right to be recipient of federal unemployment insurance program through unlawful seizure of his funds. 14.Plaintiff must be fairly compensated for his labor and time in the amount to be determined by the Jury.

WHEREFORE, the plaintiff demands judgment against each defendant awarding damages in the amount exceeding jurisdictional limits of all lower courts, together with interest and the costs and disbursements of this action, and such other and further relief as to Interest of Justice and this Court seems just and proper.

Dated: Brooklyn, New York November 21, 2010 ______________________________ Michael Krichevsky, Pro Se 4221 Atlantic Ave Brooklyn, New York 11224
Michael Krichevsky v. Levoritz, et al Page 27 of 30 Index No:24714/2010

718-687-2300

1. VERIFICATION
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS _____________________________________________________ Index NO. 24714/2010 MICHAEL KRICHEVSKY, Plaintiff, –against– YONATAN LEVORITZ, ESQ, YORAM NACHIMOVSKY, ESQ, ELENA SVENSON, _____________________________________________________ INDIVIDUAL VERIFICATION

STATE OF NEW YORK) ) ss.: COUNTY OF KINGS ) MICHAEL KRICHEVSKY, being duly sworn under penalty of perjury deposes and says:

Michael Krichevsky v. Levoritz, et al

Page 28 of 30 Index No:24714/2010

I have prepared the foregoing Verified Complaint and know the contents thereof and the same is true to the best of my knowledge, except as to those matters herein stated to be alleged upon information and belief and that as to those matters, I believe them to be true. Sworn to before me this day of , 2010 __________________________________ MICHAEL KRICHEVSKY, PRO SE _______________________ NOTARY PUBLIC

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS Index No. 24714/2010 ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– –––––––– MICHAEL KRICHEVSKY, Plaintiff,

–against– YONATAN LEVORITZ, ESQ, YORAM NACHIMOVSKY, ESQ, ELENA SVENSON, Defendants. ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– ––––––––

___________________________________________________ VERIFIED COMPLAINT ___________________________________________________
Michael Krichevsky v. Levoritz, et al Page 29 of 30 Index No:24714/2010

The documents herein are hereby certified pursuant to 25 NYCRR 130–1.1–A By: ________________________________ Michael Krichevsky, Pro Se. 4221 Atlantic Ave Brooklyn, New York 11224 AGNOWLEGMENT OF IN-HAND SERVICE: In-Hand Service of the within document is hereby acknowledged on this _____ day of ____________ 2010, at _________ am/pm

Michael Krichevsky v. Levoritz, et al

Page 30 of 30 Index No:24714/2010

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful