Motion To Set Aside Void Judgement of Foreclosure and For Other Relief

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF KINGS
_____________________________________________________
INDEX NO. 500130/2015
BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS
SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO LASALLE BANK NA AS
TRUSTEE FOR WAMU MOGRTGAGE; PASS-THROUGH
CERTIFICATES SERIES 2005-AR15,
US BANK NA, SUCCESOR TRUSTEE TO BANK OF
AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS SUCCESSOR
BY MERGER TO LASALLE BANK NA AS TRUSTEE FOR
WAMU MOGRTGAGE; PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES
SERIES 2005-AR15 – Unidentified, alleged Trustee not present
in this action
Plaintiff,
-against-
MICHAEL KRICHEVSKY, et al,

Defendant.
_____________________________________________________
NOTICE OF CROSS-MOTION TO SET ASIDE VOID JUDGMENT, ORDER OF FORECLOSURE

SALE DUE TO FRAUD UPON THE COURT, SET TRAVERSE HEARING, COMPEL DISCLOSURE
AND TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that upon the annexed Affidavit and Memorandum of Law sworn to the 11th day of
November, 2022 and upon all the pleadings and proceedings heretofore had herein with and without my presence,
I, Michael Krichevsky, sui juris, will cross-move, Under Duress, before this Court at an IAS Part 1, room 756, at
the Courthouse located at 360 Adams Street, Brooklyn, New York on the 5th day of December, 2022 at 9:30 a.m.
in the forenoon of that day or as soon thereafter as counsel can be heard for an order granting the relief requested
in this Omnibus Cross-Motion as follows:
1. On the day of the hearing of this motion, provide a court reporter.
2. Take Judicial Notice of Law per CPLR 4511; as a first step, set in-court identification testimony of
Plaintiff, and order alleged plaintiff’s attorney, The Margolin & Weinreb Law Group, LLP. to show authority per
New York State Agency laws to represent alleged Plaintiff by disclosing identity of the parties to retainer per
CPLR §322 (a), §3013, §3015(a) and (b), and/or order continuance to conduct disclosure.
3. Set up Traverse Hearing by Jury.

4. Order The Margolin & Weinreb Law Group, LLP. to rebut my supporting affidavit point for point with
documentary evidence in their possession per CPLR 2214(c) as I expect that they would refuse to provide it.
5. Thereafter, per CPLR 2214(c)papers to be produced on notice and per CPLR 2218 trial of issue raised on
motion compel The Margolin & Weinreb Law Group, LLP. to produce the jury proof of Plaintiffs standing and
identity; direct attorney allegedly representing coiporation or trust in court to appear with corporate charter and/or
other forming documents to rule out champerty, verify Plaintiffs status, name, address and requirement to post a
non-resident bond.
6. Dismiss the action per CPLR §321 1 (a): (2),(5),(7),(8),(10); §5015(a): (2),(3),(4).
7. In addition, for such other and further relief as to this Court may seem Just and Equitable, including the
costs of the cross-motion.
8. Alternatively, dismiss the action under doctrine of unclean hands.
This action is not on the trial calendar.
Dated: Brooklyn, New York

November 1 1, 2022
Michael Kiichevsky, Sui Juris

4221 Atlantic Ave
Brooklyn, New York 11224
(718)687-2300
The Margolin & Weinreb Law Group, LLP.

165 Eileen Way,Suite 101
Syosset, NY 11791
516-921-3838
COUNTY OF KINGS
_____________________________________________________
INDEX NO. 500130/2015
BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS
TRUSTEE FOR WAMU MOGRTGAGE; PASS-THROUGH
CERTIFICATES SERIES 2005-AR15,
US BANK NA, SUCCESOR TRUSTEE TO BANK OF
WAMU MOGRTGAGE; PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES
SERIES 2005-AR15 – Unidentified, alleged Trustee not present
in this action
Plaintiff,
-against-
MICHAEL KRICHEVSKY, et al,

Defendant.
_____________________________________________________
AFFIDAVIT AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF CROSS-MOTION TO SET ASIDE

VOID JUDGMENT, ORDER OF FORECLOSURE SALE DUE TO FRAUD UPON THE COURT, SET
TRAVERSE HEARING, COMPEL DISCLOSURE AND TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE
STATE OF NEW YORK ss.:

COUNTY OF KINGS
I, Michael Krichevsky, being duly sworn to God, per CPLR 2309(b) affirm and hereby truthfully testify as
follows:
1. I am a disabled man, falsely accused defendant, owner of a condominium apartment at 120 Oceana Drive
West, Unit 5D, in the Brighton Beach section of Brooklyn, New York (“Oceana property”), which is the property
alleged Plaintiff seeks to foreclose in this action.
2. I have a God given rights to Liberty, Property and Pursuit of Happiness.
3. The averments in this affidavit based upon my firsthand knowledge, research, foreclosure litigation from
2009, upon information, documentary evidence provided to me by this court and others, and upon inferences and
conclusions reached from obtained information and belief.
4. In fact, I am the only one amongst people involved in this action with first-hand knowledge to lawfully
sign non-hearsay, admissible affidavit without intention to mislead the court or judge, harass opponent and
without creating perjury and/or fraud on the court, and if called as a witness, I could and would competently
testify as follows below.
5. I make this affidavit in support of the CROSS-MOTION TO SET ASIDE VOID JUDGMENT, ORDER
OF FORECLOSURE SALE DUE TO FRAUD UPON THE COURT, SET TRAVERSE HEARING, COMPEL
DISCLOSURE AND TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE
INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT AND REQUEST TO TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE
2. John Waihee, Governor of Hawaii (1986-1994) speaking of foreclosure crisis in America stated, "Our
courts should not be collection agencies for crooks." This motion is not an appeal of the State Court judgment on
the merits, even though I have meritorious defenses, counter-claims and third party claims in Kings County Court,
which court denied me my due process and prevented from asserting these claims. The gist of this motion is
whether in state foreclosure proceedings banks, attorneys and servicers are above the law when they claim that
people defaulted on the loan contract, and therefore these entities can commit crimes or intentional torts in court
in order to enforce alleged creditor rights to foreclose upon homeowners accused in default. If that is the case,
then public does not need judges, attorneys and courts. Then, servicers should start hiring marshals or some thugs
and start throwing people out of their homes. I contend that this should not be the case and courts should not allow
them to cut corners of due process by filing perjurious affidavits of service with false and perjurious attorney
affirmations in order to quickly obtain default judgments, save on litigation expenses by committing robbery and
getting houses for free. I contend that the penalty for such practice and pattern of racketeering activity, among
other remedies for victims, is declaratory judgment making results of State action void per unclean hands
equitable doctrine. Then, the remedy for the creditor would be malpractice action against servicer, foreclosure
attorney or firm and process server.
3. Current motion aroused under fraud, perjury, violation of federal and state laws by Rosicki & Rosicki
(“Rosicki”) attorneys, The Margolin & Weinreb Law Group, LLP (“Margolin”) attorneys, hired by them process
servers and Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. (“SPS”) to name a few known when they started two foreclosures
against me in Kings County Supreme Court. Some started violation of these laws in 2009 and repeated with others
the same illegal and unlawful acts in 2015, which are continuing, thereby establishing continuing practice and
pattern of racketeering activity thereby equitably tolling any statute of limitation per to continuing violation
doctrine.
4. Whenever I use the phrase “upon information and belief” below without specificity, it should be presumed
that such information and belief derived from class action litigation in Second Circuit’s case Sykes v. Mel Harris
and Associates, LLC, 757 F. Supp. 2d 413 after I compared averments in this case with firsthand knowledge of
facts in my two foreclosure cases.
5. Additionally, my information and belief comes from United States complaint charging Rosicki attorneys
with violation of False Claims Act, Exhibit 1 (partial copy of United States complaint), and from settlement in
favor of United States, Exhibit 2. I give credit and thank United States Attorney Mr. Berman and FHFA-OIG for
their efforts in pursuit of the justice, law and order in their case on behalf of the public, while making this
information publicly available for people to individually use in their cases. The Office’s Civil Frauds Unit was
handling this federal case. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Cristy Irvin Phillips, Andrew E. Krause, and Lauren A.
Lively were in charge of the case.
6. The facts from these exhibits are material and relevant to this motion because I am a victim and casualty
of, among other perpetrators, Rosicki and Rosicki, their Affiliates due to their illegal foreclosure practice and
pattern of racketeering activity described by United States (Exhibit 1) and in Sykes, which caused and continue to
cause me injury in fact.
Since all people who were not properly served with process had their Traverse hearings ordered by the
court, I am too entitled to my own Traverse Hearing
7. In addition, I discovered that on March 16, 2016, the New York City Department of Consumer Affairs
(“DCA”) refused to renew the license of alleged Plaintiff’s process server Kenneth Wonica based on his “failure
to maintain standards of integrity, honesty and fair dealing required of licensees.” Attached to this Affidavit, as
Exhibit 3, is a true and accurate copy (redacted) of NYC Department of Consumer Affairs’ license denial letter to
Mr. Wonica.1
8. This DCA letter states in pertinent part:
You were previously found guilty of violating 6 RCNY § 2-236(c)(2) in the Decision and Order
issued on June 3,2014.
9. The letter also sates:
“Improper Services/False Affidavits of Service

1. HSBC Bank USA v, N.Y. Builders Supply Corp.. Arthur Gold and Bernard Gold
You swore falsely in an affidavit of service that was filed in New York County Supreme Court in
the matter of HSBC Bank USA v. N, Y. Builders Supply Corp., Arthur Gold and Bernard Gold
(Index No. 652570/12)… You also swore falsely in your affidavit of service that you “knew
the person served to be the person described as said person therein” and you “asked person
spoken to whether [he] was presently in military service of the United States Government or
of the State of New York and was informed [he] was not.” In fact, Arthur Gold died on June
23, 2012, two months prior to the date you swore in your affidavit that you personally served
him with papers, and that you asked him whether he was presently in military service.
Furthermore, you swore falsely in an affidavit of service that was filed in New York County
Supreme Court in HSBC Bank that you served defendant Bernard Gold with a summons and
complaint on August 8,2012 at 2:42 p.m. by delivering the papers to “Hank Doe” co-tenant, last
name refused… In fact, you did not deliver papers to anyone…No one was present at that
address on August 8,2012.” [emphasis mine]
10. The letter goes on and on with factual charges of false affidavits of service in numerous foreclosure cases,
which paint a clear picture of “pattern and practice” of perjury and fraud upon the court found during those
Traverse hearings.
11. I am relying on these publicly disclosed documents, Sykes v. Mel Harris and DCA letter (Exhibit 3)
mentioned.
Therefore, I move this Honorable Court to take Judicial Notice of these exhibits and contents
thereof.
Relevant Background
12. Elena Svenson and I purchased the property at 120 Oceana Drive West (not “120W Oceana Drive West”)
as stated in the complaint and the affidavits of service) in November of 2001.
13. In 2005, apartment was rented to tenants and since that time, none of us returned to live there.
1
Also available on the DCA website at:
http://www1.nyc.gov/assets/dca/downloads/pdf/businesses/DenialLetter-Kenneth-Wonica.pdf
14. In 2009, alleged Plaintiff Bank of America, NA filed against me complaint under index number
22088/2009 (“2009 Foreclosure”).
15. Rosicki’s process server did not personally serve me with summons and complaint.
16. When I finally learned of this action, I replied by Motion to Dismiss, inter alia, for lack of service and
action was abandoned due to Federal and State law enforcement investigations of illegal foreclosures by major
banks. See Exhibit 4 (4/4/2012 consent judgment-settlement with Plaintiff, Bank of America).
17. By order dated January 14, 2014, the Honorable Lawrence Knipel dismissed the 2009 Foreclosure case for
Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute.
18. Indeed, why would Rosicki abandon the case if “they were right and I was wrong?”
Brief Procedural History of this Action

19. Plaintiff commenced this residential mortgage foreclosure action on January 6, 2015 by filing the
summons and complaint. Docket #1.
20. According to Rosicki’s (see again Exhibits 1, 2 and 3) employee from its wholly owned Enterprise
Process Service, Inc. affidavit of service, on January 17, 2015 at 4:55 pm, process server Kenneth Wonica
(“Wonica”) delivered the summons and complaint to a person of suitable age and discretion named “Dmitry”
(“last name refused”), a white male, brown hair, age 40-55, height 5”10” and weight 220 pounds at “120W
Oceana Drive West, Unit 5D, Brooklyn, NY 11235, Docket #21, 22, 24, 25.”
21. Wonica allegedly “served” Elena Svenson, Michael Krichevsky, Elena Doe “last name refused”, Ivan Doe
“last name refused, and Dmitry Doe “last name refused.”
22. Dmitry did not live in my apartment as of January 17, 2015. In fact, this name does not appear in any
database connected to my apartment.
23. However, since about 2013, Ms. Natalia Karduokova lived there, which is evidenced by her sworn
affidavit filed in Housing Court case under Index # 78015/18, Exhibit A. In this affidavit, sworn in 2018, she is
respondent and states in paragraph 4 that “Respondent was given exclusive occupancy rights to the subject
premises…” I did not deny that statement. The term “Exclusive” means that she was there living alone – not as
Svenson’s or Krichevsky’s co-tenant, or even Dmitry’s co-tenant.
24. In paragraph 5 she states that she lived in my apartment for 5 years and I did not deny this fact. No
individual mentioned in this case besides her.
25. As of January 17, 2015, Ms. Karduokova was not staying in my apartment because she was traveling
overseas for about six month.
26. During Ms. Karduokova’s absence in January of 2015 and alleged service, the pipes in my apartment froze
and later burst, causing water to leak into other parts of the building because she left the balcony door open in
summer. This fact evidenced by independent, disinterested individuals who were not even aware of this action.
See Exhibit B, which speaks for itself.
27. Accordingly, Wonica did not “serve” Karduokova – the real individual residing in Oceana, and the alleged
Plaintiff did not even name her in its summons and complaint.
28. Since 2010, I have continuously resided at 4221 Atlantic Avenue, Brooklyn, New York 11224
(“Atlantic”). Attached as Exhibits C and C1, are true and correct copies of my driver licenses issued on 18th of
December, 2009 with expiration on 12-21-17 and on 03/07/2018 with expiration on 12/21/2025 respectively
showing my Atlantic address.
29. Attached as Exhibit D is a copy of refund check sent to me in 2010 from the state addressed to 4221
Atlantic Ave., Brooklyn, New York – Atlantic address.
30. Attached as Exhibit E, is a true and correct copy of the check sent me by “Independent Foreclosure
Review” from 2013 settlement by “Feds” with Chase, former “servicer” who illegally started 2009 foreclosure.
This exhibit demonstrates that even in 2013 my address was Atlantic. In Fact, this check and mail dated February,
16, 2015 – dated about a month later than the alleged Wonica’s “service.” That 2/16/15 mail I did receive at
Atlantic address.
31. Accordingly, in January of 2015 when alleged Plaintiff commenced this action and allegedly caused
service of process, my actual place of residence still was 4221 Atlantic Avenue, Brooklyn, New York 11224.
32. I did not receive the copy of the summons and complaint purportedly delivered to my Oceana
condominium from “Dmitry,” nor do I know anybody by this name who ever entered my apartment. I did not
receive a copy of the summons and complaint purportedly mailed to me in my Oceana apartment by Wonica.
33. Wonica did not “serve” Elena Svenson at her address at 2620 Ocean Pkwy, Apt 3K, Brooklyn, NY 11235,
which is evidenced by her bankruptcy petition filed in 2012, Exhibit G. Upon information and belief she resides
there from at least 2010 until present.
34. Apparently, Wonica did not repent after DCA prior charges. According to my evidence attached to this
motion, in my case Wonica “did not deliver papers to anyone...No one was present at that address on the day of
alleged service of process.” His boilerplate statements such as “co-tenant,” “last name refused” and “Doe” are
replete in his affidavits in my case and, because used, create presumption that he did not deliver any documents in
my case – similarly with other, prior cases charged him by DCA.
35. This denial of process server license destroys credibility of his affidavits of service, supports my current
motion and my entitlement for Traverse Hearing. See BANK OF AM. NAT'L TRUST & SAV. ASS'N v. Herrick,
233 AD 2d 351 - NY: Appellate Div., 2nd Dept. that states in pertinent parts:
“…where there is a sworn denial of receipt of process, the affidavit of service is rebutted, and the
plaintiff must establish jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence at a hearing.”
“A sworn denial of receipt of service containing "detailed and specific contradiction of the
allegations in the process server's affidavit" may defeat the presumption of proper service
“Moreover, even if the defendant eventually acquires actual notice and knowledge of the
lawsuit, actual notice alone will not sustain improper service, nor subject that person to the
Court's jurisdiction when there has not been compliance with the proper conditions of service.”
“Because of this conflict in facts, the court found that "there exists a conflict with respect to
whether service was properly made, and that the appellants are, therefore, entitled to a hearing on
this issue” [emphasis mine]
Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc deliberately directed Rosicki to serve me at the wrong address to obtain
default judgment
36. Plaintiff’s alleged servicer, Select Portfolio Servicing (“SPS”), has always sent me correspondence at the
Atlantic since in or about early 2014, which I rejected from the start. See a sample as Exhibit F.
37. Accordingly, alleged Plaintiff had actual notice that I resided at the Atlantic when it commenced this
action in January of 2015.
40. Since the alleged Plaintiff deliberately failed to serve Svenson, real Oceana occupant Karduokova and me
at our real addresses on numerous occasions, these failures are “pattern and practice” of deceit to defraud the court
and us by fraudulent service of process called ‘sewer service.’ The goal of this deceit is to obtain default
judgment from the court.

41. "To hit a nail on the head," in the spring of 2015 I sent certified latter of Federal TILA rescission at alleged
plaintiff’s Manhattan headquarters. Plaintiff did not challenge my rescission within 20 days in court and by
operation of law cannot claim any interest in subject property by this action due to res judicata and/or collateral
estoppels.
CONCLUSION
42. As this court knows, jurisdiction can be challenged at any time, even on appeal. Accordingly, even though
plaintiffs attorney filed affidavits of service and committed fraud upon the court and I, it is not too late to
impeach those affidavits and quash alleged service. Because 2009 action terminated in my favor, alleged Plaintiff
and Rosicki already committed tort of malicious prosecution and now, if not remedied, will harm me even more.
WHEREFORE,I respectfully move this Honorable Court to take Judicial Notice of my exhibits and law4 vacate
the void judgment and order ofsale of Judge Dear; quash service of process and set the Traverse hearing; provide
me Due Process to enable me to defend my property from this fraudulent and frivolous action; and for such other
and further relief as to this Court and interest of Justice seem just and equitable.
Michael Krichevsky, Sui

4221 Atlantic Ave
Brooklyn, NY 11224
718-687-2300
Sworn to before me this
11th day of November,2022,
)TARY PUBLIC
GALINA TESLBR
Notary Public. State of New York
NO.01TE6093000
Certified In Kings County y
Commission Expires, May 27,20£^—^
COUNTY OF KINGS
BANK OF AMERICA. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS INDEX NO. 500130/2015

TRUSTEE FOR WAMU MOGRTGAGE; PASS-THROUGH AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
CERTIFICATES SERIES 2005-AR15.
US BANK NA,SUCCESOR TRUSTEE TO BANK OF
WAMU MOGRTGAGE;PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES
SERIES 2005-AR15- Unidentified, alleged Trustee not present
in this aetion
Plaintiff.
-against-
MiCHAEL KRICHEVSKY. et aL
Defendant.
STATE OF NEW YORK SS:

COUNTY OF KINGS
T Nelli Frid. being duly sworn, say:
I am not a parly to the action; I reside at Brooklyn. New York and I am over 18 years of age. On November
11. 2022. I served the within Notice of Motion together with Supporting Affidavit, by depositing true copies
thereof, enclosed in a post-paid wrapper, in an official depository under the exclusive care and custody of the
United States Postal Service within New York State, addressed to the following at the last known address set forth
below:
The Margolin & Weinreb Law Group. LLP.

165 Eileen Way. Suite 101
Syosset. NY 11791
516-921-3838
Nelli Frid
Sworn to before me
on November 11, 2022
)TARY PUBLIC
GALINA TE8UUI
Notary Public, State of New York
NO.01TE6093000
Certified in Kings County _ —
Commission Expires, May 27.
EXHIBIT 1
Case l:12-cv-07199-JSR Document 22 Filed 03/27/18 Page 14 of 29
68. Rosicki, in turn, represented to the Servicers that the Enterprise and Paramount
bills reflected the cost of the services incurred, and sought and received payment for those
expenses from the Servicers, including for foreclosures involving Fannie Mae-owned loans.
69. As reflected by statements in the above-referenced April 1, 2005 email, Rosicki
was aware that the Servicers sought reimbursement from Fannie Mae for the foreclosure
expenses it submitted.
i. Enterprise
70. Enterprise engaged third-party vendors to perform the majority of the actual
process service work ostensibly performed by Enterprise. When Rosicki sent a summons and
complaint for a mortgage foreclosure to Enterprise, Enterprise would then provide those papers
to a third-party vendor, which would serve them.
71. The third-party vendors charged Enterprise approximately $15-25 per individual
served to effect in-person service of a summons and complaint. Other charges from the third-
party vendors included service on "John Doe" parties with a potential interest in the property in
question, which was typically about $10 for each "John Doe" served.
72. Enterprise would then generate an invoice for service of process that would
exponentially mark up the cost of the services as charged by the vendors. Enterprise typically
charged $75-125 for in-person service, $50 for attempted service (for which the vendors often
did not charge at all, or charged at most $5-10), and $75 for John Doe service. Enterprise
applied these substantial mark-ups despite having added little or no value to the services actually
performed by the vendors.
73. The Enterprise bills significantly exceeded competitive market rates for the
geographic areas where Enterprise operated.
14
74. Notably, in many instances where Rosicki had to submit bills for its foreclosure-
related expenses to courts for judicial approval (including in connection with Fannie Mae-owned
loans), Rosicki reported substantially lower costs for service of process than the actual bills
Enterprise and Rosicki submitted to the Servicers for comparable work.
75. Rosicki was well aware ofthe amount of mark-ups being applied to Enterprise's
bills. In fact, senior attomeys at Rosicki, including the Rosicki partners, were apprised of the
revenue margins being made on each vendor, which ranged from 300% to 750%. For example,
in an email copying the Rosicki partners dated May 7, 2009, Enterprise listed each of the
individuals who performed actual process service work on behalf of Enterprise, listed the
amounts charged by those process servers to Enterprise, and listed the extraordinary markups of
those costs billed by Enterprise. The email lists the "ratio" ofthe inflated amounts billed by
Enterprise as compared to the amounts billed by the process servers.
76. Despite being aware of its obligation to Fannie Mae to minimize the cost of
process service, and to submit only foreclosure expenses that were actual and reasonable,
Rosicki submitted the inflated and excessive Enterprise bills for service of process to the
Servicers for foreclosures involving Fannie Mae-owned loans, and was paid for those expenses.
The costs for those expenses were then passed on to and paid by Fannie Mae.
77. Nor did Rosicki adhere to its obligation to minimize foreclosure expenses in
instances where service of process was needed in a geographic area outside of Enterprise's reach.
Rather, Rosicki entered into a referral arrangement with another process service company that
charged above-market rates—some of the highest nationally—whereby Rosicki would send out-
of-state process service work to that company in exchange for referrals of New York process
service work to Enterprise. Rosicki had knowledge that the work it was referring for Fannie
15
Mae-owned loans would result in Fannie Mae reimbursing foreclosure expenses at above-market
rates, but made the referrals anyway in order to gain more business for Enterprise,
ii. Paramount
78. The structure of Paramount was very similar to that of Enterprise. Paramount
performed most of its services through third-party vendors, then applied exponential mark-ups to
the bills for those services.
79. Specifically, Paramount engaged third-party abstracters to provide the required
title documents; those vendors charged competitive rates such as a flat rate of $100,$50 plus $1
per page, or other comparable amounts. Paramount also engaged "readers" to review the title
documents, at a rate of approximately $15-20 per title report.
80. Paramount would then prepare its bill for the services performed by the third-
party vendors, and would apply a substantial mark-up despite having added little or no additional
value.
81. Notably, Fannie Mae imposed maximums of either $250 or $275 for title searches
at all times relevant, and regardless of the specifics of each title search project, Paramount
invariably charged the Fannie Mae maximum for all of its title searches. In addition, in order to
generate additional revenue above the Fannie Mae maximum. Paramount charged a $35
"document retrieval fee" in connection with the title search for every Fannie Mae loan.
82. For example, as set forth below, a third-party vendor charged Paramount $75 for a
title search; yet Paramount charged $275 for that same service. See infra 109-10.
Paramount provided its bills to Rosicki, which submitted them to the Servicers and represented
that they were the foreclosure expenses actually incurred, including for Fannie Mae-owned
loans. The Servicers paid the bills and passed on the expenses to Fannie Mae, which paid them.
16
83. Following the initial foreclosure search, Paramount continued to make revenue
through mark-ups. Specifically, for title continuation searches, vdiich are updates to the
foreclosure search performed during the course of a foreclosure action. Paramount paid its
vendor $5-25 to perform the search and then billed the Servicer $125-135 for that search.
84. With respect to both Enterprise and Paramount, Rosicki was aware that it was
violating its obligations to Fannie Mae, yet throughout the relevant time period, it represented, to
Fannie Mae as well as to the relevant Servicers, that it was fully in compliance with the Fannie
Mae requirements that it had agreed to follow.
85. Specifically, Rosicki falsely represented that the fees charged by Enterprise and
Paramount were the actual, reasonable, and necessary costs incurred in performing service of
process and title searches, and that those fees were competitive in the relevant markets.
Examples of False Claims Paid by Fannie Mae
86. The following examples represent a small fraction of the many Fannie Mae loans
for which, in connection with foreclosure proceedings. Enterprise and/or Paramount submitted
invoices for inflated expenses to Rosicki, and for which Rosicki, in tum, submitted bills for the
inflated expenses to the Servicers, which the Servicers paid. Claims for those inflated expenses
were then submitted to Fannie Mae for reimbursement, and were paid by Fannie Mae.
i. Lake Street Property
87. Fannie Mae loan number 1706147150 relates to a mortgage held by Fannie Mae
on a property on Lake Street in Angola, New York ("Lake Street Property"). A third-party
financial institution acted as the Servicer and Rosicki as the firm handling the foreclosure
procedures for the Lake Street Property.
17
Case l;12-cv-07199-JSR Document 22 Filed 03/27/18 Page 18 of 29
88. Rosicki contracted with Enterprise to effect service of process of the summons
and complaint on the two named foreclosure defendants. However, Enterprise did not serve
process on the two named foreclosure defendants, but rather engaged a third-party process server
to effectuate service on these defendants.
89. The process server served the two foreclosure defendants in May 2012, as well as
four John Doe defendants. The process server charged $20 for one named defendant, $10 for
the other, and $33.50 for service of all four Doe defendants, or $63.50 in total.
90. In submitting a bill to Rosicki for service of process. Enterprise inflated the
service charges to $50 for attempted service on each named defendant, $125 for service on each
named defendant, and $300 total for service of the four Doe defendants, for a total of$650 for
the services performed by the process server.
91. Rosicki contracted with Paramount to perform a title search, with Paramount then
engaging a third-party vendor for the performance of this service. Paramount submitted a bill
for the title search to Rosicki that included a charge of $275 for the search, the maximum amount
allowed by Fannie Mae, and a $35 document retrieval fee.
92. Rosicki then submitted claims for reimbursement to the Servicer for the amounts
charged by Enterprise and Paramount.
ii. Pine Ridge Property
on a property on Pine Ridge Terrace in Cheektowaga, New York ("Pine Ridge Property"). A
third-party financial institution acted as the Servicer and Rosicki as the firm handling the
foreclosure procedures for the Pine Ridge Property.
18
95. The process server served one named defendant and attempted service on the
other in March 2013 and completed service on the second named defendant in April 2013. The
process server charged Enterprise $20 for service of each of the named defendants and $5 for the
attempted service, or $45 in total.
96. In submitting a bill to Rosicki for service of process. Enterprise included three
charges for attempted service, each billed at $50,$75 to serve John Doe defendants, and a charge
of $125 for service on each ofthe named defendants, for a total of $475 for the services
performed by the process server. These charges are more than ten times those billed by the
actual process server.
for the title search to Rosicki that included a charge of $275 for the search, the maximum amount
allowed by Fannie Mae, and a $35 document retrieval fee. Paramount also submitted an inflated
charge of $135 for a title continuation search performed by the vendor.
iii. Creekview Propeiiy
on a property on Creekview Drive in Hamburg, New York ("Creekview Property"). A third-
19
party financial institution acted as the Servicer and Rosicki as the firm handling the foreclosure
procedures for the Pine Ridge Property.
and complaint on the named foreclosure defendant. However, Enterprise did not serve process
on the named foreclosure defendant, but rather engaged a third-party process server to effectuate
service on this defendant.
101. The process server served the named defendant and one John Doe defendant in
September 2013. The process server charged Enterprise $20 for service of the named defendant
and $9.50 for the Doe defendant, or $29.50 in total.
102. In submitting a bill to Rosicki for service of process. Enterprise included a charge
of $125 for service ofthe named defendant and $75 for service of the Doe defendant, for a total
of $200 for the services performed by the process server. These charges are more than six times
those billed by the actual process server.
engaging with a third-party vendor for the performance of this service. Paramount submitted a
bill for the title search to Rosicki that included a charge of $275 for the search, the maximum
amount allowed by Fannie Mae, and a $35 document retrieval fee. Paramount also submitted an
inflated charge of $135 for a title continuation search performed by the vendor.
iv. Ohio Avenue Property
on a property on Ohio Avenue in North Tonawanda, New York ("Ohio Avenue Property"). A
20
foreclosure procedures for the Ohio Avenue Property.
107. The process server served the two named defendants and two John Doe
defendants in November 2013. The process server charged Enterprise $20 for service of each of
the named defendants and $17.50 for service of the Doe defendants, or $57.50 in total.
of $150 total for service of the named defendants, $150 total for service of the Doe defendants,
and $50 for attempted service on one of the named defendants, for a total of $350 for the services
performed by the process server. In addition. Enterprise charged a total of $140 to perform skip
traces and address verifications for the named defendants.
engaging with a third-party vendor for the performance ofthis service. The vendor charged
Paramount $75 for the title search and $5 for a title continuation search.
110. Paramount submitted a bill for the initial title search to Rosicki that included a
charge of $275 for the search, the maximum amount allowed by Fannie Mae and over three
times the cost charged by the vendor, and a $35 document retrieval fee. Paramount also
submitted a charge of $125 for the title continuation search, which is twenty-five times higher
than the cost of the charged by the vendor.
21
V. Tamarack Street Property
on a property on Tamarack Street in Buffalo, New York ("Tamarack Street Property"). A third-
party financial institution acted as the Servicer and Rosicki as the firm handling the foreclosure
procedures for the Tamarack Street Property.
114. The process server served the named defendants, one John Doe defendant, and
one additional party in September 2013. The process server charged Enterprise $20 for service
of each ofthe named defendants, $9.50 for the Doe defendant, and $20 for service of the
additional party, or $69.50 in total.
115. In submitting a bill to Rosicki for service of process. Enterprise included an
inflated charge of$125 for service of each of the named defendants, $50 for attempted service on
each of the named defendants, and $75 for service of the party that the process server served, for
a total of$425 for the services performed by the process server.
for the title search to Rosicki that included a charge of$275 for the search, the maximum amount
allowed by Fannie Mae, and a $35 document retrieval fee.
22
vi. Hampshire Street Property
I
on a property on Hampshire Street in Buffalo, New York ("Hampshire Street Property"). A
foreclosure procedures for the Hampshire Street Property.
and complaint on the named foreclosure defendant. However, Enterprise did not serve process
on the named foreclosure defendant, but rather engaged a third-party process server to effectuate
service on this defendant.
120. The process server served the named defendant in April 2012 and charged
Enterprise $20 for his services.
of $125 for service of the named defendant, $50 for attempted service, $75 for service of John
Doe defendants, and an additional $75 for service of"John and Jane Does- Vacant," for a total of
$325 for the services performed by the process server.
engaging with a third-party vendor for the performance ofthis service. Paramount submitted a
bill for the title search to Rosicki that included a charge of $275 for the search, the maximum
amount allowed by Fannie Mae, and a $35 document retrieval fee.
23
124. The claims that Defendants caused to be submitted to Fannie Mae,for
reimbursement of inflated and excessive foreclosure expenses in violation of the applicable
standards, represent a common form offalse claim: goods and services provided in violation of
contract terms.
125. Defendants' overcharging of Fannie Mae for inflated foreclosure expenses goes
fundamentally to the essence of the contractual bargain between Fannie Mae and Rosicki, and
deprives Fannie Mae of a significant benefit of that bargain. Such conduct, if known by Fannie
Mae, would have influenced its determination to reimburse the inflated foreclosure expenses.
126. Had Fannie Mae been aware that Rosicki was submitting foreclosure expenses
that included substantially inflated markups of invoices for foreclosure-related services where
the Rosicki Affiliates added little or no value to the services performed by their third-party
vendors, Fannie Mae would not have considered those expenses to be in compliance with the
Servicing Guide requirement that all foreclosure expenses submitted by Foreclosure Firms must
be "actual, reasonable, and necessary" as a condition of reimbursement by Fannie Mae.
127. As such, pursuant to the terms of the Servicing Guide, these substantially inflated
expenses would not have been reimbursable.
FIRST CLAIM
(as against all Defendants)
Violation of the False Claims Act: False Claims

(31 U.S.C.§ 3729(a)(1)(2006), and,as amended,31 U.S.C.§ 3729(a)(1)(A))
128. The Govemment incorporates by reference each of the preceding paragraphs as if
fully set forth in this paragraph.
24
129. The Government seeks relief against all Defendants under Section 3729(a)( 1 )(A)
of the False Claims Act(formerly Section 3729(a)(1)).
130. Between at least May 27, 2009 and March 31, 2012,^ Defendants, by creating and
submitting inflated bills for foreclosure services to Servicers with knowledge that those bills
ultimately would be submitted to and paid by Fannie Mae, knowingly caused false claims to be
presented for reimbursement by Fannie Mae.
131. Specifically, Defendants knowingly caused to be submitted bills for marked-up
foreclosure expenses that were not actual or reasonable, in violation of Fannie Mae requirements.
132. Accordingly, Defendants caused to be presented false or fraudulent claims for
payment or approval in violation of 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1), and, as amended, 31 U.S.C.
§ 3729(a)(1)(A).
133. By reason of these false or fraudulent claims that Defendants caused to be
presented to Fannie Mae, a Govemment-Sponsored Entity, Fannie Mae has paid millions of
dollars in reimbursements offalse and fraudulent foreclosure expenses.
134. Because Defendants' fraudulent scheme took place contemporaneously with
Fannie Mae's receipt of billions of dollars in federal funds pursuant to the SPA,through
drawdowns that took place as recently as the first quarter of 2012, and because those funds
served a Government interest, namely stabilizing the housing markets, claims for reimbursement
offoreclosure expenses made to Fannie Mae constitute "claims" for purposes of the False Claims
Act under 31 U.S.C. § 3729(b)(2)(A)(ii). Accordingly, the United States is entitled to recover
treble damages plus a civil monetary penalty for each claim on behalf of Fannie Mae.
^ While Defendants' scheme pre-dates May 27, 2009 by a substantial period, FERA was
passed on May 26, 2009, and does not apply retroactively to claims submitted before that date.
See Pub. L. No. 111-21, § 4(f)( 1), 123 Stat. 1617, 1625 (2009).
25
SECOND CLAIM
Violation of the False Claims Act: False Statements

(31 U.S.C.§ 3729(a)(2)(2006), and,as amended,31 U.S.C.§ 3729(a)(1)(B))
135. The Government incorporates by reference each of the preceding paragraphs as if
136. The Government seeks relief against all Defendants under Section 3729(a)(1)(B)
of the False Claims Act(formerly Section 3729(a)(2)).
137. Between at least May 27, 2009 and March 31, 2012, Defendants, by creating and
submitting inflated bills for foreclosure services to Servicers with knowledge that those bills
ultimately would be submitted to and paid by Fannie'Mae, knowingly caused to be made false
records or statements that were material to getting false or fraudulent claims paid by Fannie Mae.
138. Specifically, Defendants submitted bills that reflected marked-up expenses that
were not reasonable or actual foreclosure expenses, in violation of Fannie Mae requirements.
139. By reason of these false or fraudulent records or statements that Defendants
caused to be created, Fannie Mae has paid millions of dollars in reimbursements of false and
fraudulent foreclosure expenses.
140. Because Defendants' fraudulent scheme took place contemporaneously with
Fannie Mae's receipt of billions of dollars in federal funds pursuant to the SPA, through
drawdowns that took place as recently as the first quarter of 2012, and because those funds
served a Government interest, namely stabilizing the housing markets, claims for reimbursement
offoreclosure expenses made to Fannie Mae constitute "claims" for purposes of the False Claims
Act under 31 U.S.C. § 3729(b)(2)(A)(ii). Accordingly, the United States is entitled to recover
treble damages plus a civil monetary penalty for each claim on behalf of Fannie Mae.
26
THIRD CLAIM
Violation of the False Claims Act: Reverse False Claims

(31 U.S.C.§(a)(1)(G))
141. The Government incorporates by reference each of the preceding paragraphs as if
142. The Government seeks relief against all Defendants under Section 3729(a)(1)(G)
of the False Claims Act, for all false and fraudulent claims that Defendants caused to be
submitted from the start of Fannie Mae's quarterly dividend payment obligation pursuant to the
Third Amendment to the SPA and continuing to the present.
143. Because the Third Amendment obligates Fannie Mae to make quarterly dividend
payments of its net revenues in excess of a capital reserve, and because any monies that Fannie
Mae uses to pay its servicing expenses necessarily results in a decrease to its net revenues, the
monies that Fannie Mae paid for reimbursement of Defendants' false and fraudulent foreclosure
expenses have decreased the amount of dividend payments to which the United States otherwise
would have been entitled and received.
144. Accordingly, as set forth above, by knowingly causing falsely inflated foreclosure
expenses to be submitted to Fannie Mae, specifically by generating bills for marked-up
foreclosure expenses that were neither reasonable nor actual. Defendants knowingly caused to be
made or used false records and/or statements to conceal, avoid, or decrease obligations to pay or
transmit money or property to the United States.
145. From the start of Fannie Mae's quarterly dividend payment obligation pursuant to
the Third Amendment to the SPA and continuing to the present, the Government has incurred
27
losses in the form of decreased quarterly dividend payments from Fannie Mae because of
Defendants' fraudulent conduct.
146. By virtue of the false records or statements made by Defendants, the Govemment
suffered damages and therefore is entitled to treble damages under the False Claims Act, to be
determined at trial, and a civil penalty as required by law for each violation.
28
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE,the United States demandsjudgment against Defendants as follows:
A. Treble the United States' damages, in an amount to be established at trial,
plus a statutory penalty for each false claim submitted in violation of the
False Claims Act;
B. Award of costs pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 3792(a)(3); and
C. Such further relief as the Court deems proper.
Dated: New York, New York

March 27, 2018
GEOFFREY S. HERMAN
United States Attorney
Southem District of New York
Attomey for the United States of America
By: y Cristine Irvin Phillids

CRISTINE IRVIN PHILLIPS
ANDREW E. KRAUSE
LAUREN A. LIVELY
Assistant United States Attomeys
86 Chambers Street, Third Floor
New York, New York 10007
Telephone Nos.(212)637-2696/2769/2689
Facsimile Nos.(212)637-2702/2786/2717
cristine.phillips@usdoj.gov
andrew.krause@usdoj.gov
lauren.lively@usdoj.gov
29
EXHIBIT 2
Case l:12-cv-07199-JSR Document 223 Filed 11/27/18 Page 1 of 19 _
CMK SOW
DOC CM: N'T
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ELEC 'f- N.'CALLYFILED
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DOC
DATF
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ex rel PETER D.
GRUBEA, 12 Civ.7199(JSR)
Plaintiff,
STIPULATION AND
V.
^[PgppeSfiD]ORDER OF
SETTLEMENT AND
DISMISSAL
ROSICKI,ROSICKJ & ASSOCIATES.P.C., et al.
Defendants.
WHEREAS, this Stipulation and Order of Settlement and Dismissal ("Stipulation") is
entered into by and among plaintiff the United States of America (the "United States" or
"Government"), by its attorney, Geoffrey S. Berman, United States Attorney for the Southern
%
District of New York; the relator Peter Grubea("Relator"), by his authorized representatives; and
defendants Rosicki, Rosicki & Associates, P.C. a law firm specializing in mortgage foreclosures
("Rosicki"), Enterprise Process Service, Inc., a process service company wholly owned by two
Rosicki partners ("Enterprise"), and Paramount Land, Inc., a title search company wholly owned
by the same two Rosicki partners ("Paramount"; collectively with Rosicki and Enterprise,
"Defendants"; and together with the Government and Relator, the "Parties"), by their authorized
representatives;
WHEREAS,on or about September 24, 2012, the Relator filed a complaint under the qui
tarn provisions ofthe False Claims Act("FCA"),31 U.S.C.§ 3729 etseq., against Defendants and
others alleging, inter alia, that Defendants violated the FCA by falsely inflating expenses for
Case 1:12-gv-07199-JSR Document 223 Filed 11/27/18 Page 2 of 19
foreclosure-related services and passing those inflated expenses on to the Federal National
Mortgage Association ("Fannie Mae")and others;
WHEREAS,on or about February 28, 2013,the Relator filed a First Amended Complaint
and on or about June 27, 2014, the Relator filed a Second Amended Complaint (the "Relator's
Complaint");
WHEREAS, on or about Mai'ch 27, 2018, the Government filed a Complaint-in-
Intervenlion against Defendants;
WHEREAS,on or about July 12,2018,the Government filed a First Amended Complaint,
(the "Government Complaint") against Defendants, alleging that fiom 2009 to July 12,2018(the
"Covered Period"), Defendants engaged in a scheme whereby they generated false and inflated
expenses for service of process, title searches, and other expenses attendant to mortgage
foreclosures or evictions, and submitted those expenses to various mortgage servicers with
knowledge that the expenses ultimately would be paid by Fannie Mae. The conduct described in
this Paragraph is the "Covered Conduct" for purposes ofthis Stipulation; and
WHEREAS, the Parties have, through this Stipulation, reached a mutually agreeable
resolution addressing the claims asserted against Defendants in the Government Complaint and
the Relator*s Complaint, for the Covered Conduct, as well as identical conduct by Defendants
pertaining to expenses attendant to evictions during the Covered Period, in which those expenses
ultimately were paid by the United States Department of Veterans' Affairs (the "VA Covered
Conduct");
NOW,THEREFORE,upon the Parties' agieement,IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
TERMS AND CONDITIONS
1. The Parties agree that this Court has subject matterjurisdiction over this action and
consent to this Court's exercise of personal jurisdiction over each ofthem.
2. Defendants admit, acknowledge and accept responsibility for the following
conduct:
a. Rosicki is a New York law firm whose main practice area is mortgage
foreclosures. Duiing the Covered Period, the two founding partners of
Rosicki also owned affiliated entities that performed services attendant to
mortgage foreclosures, including Enterprise, which is a process service
company,and Paiamount, which is a title search company.
b. During the Covered Period, Rosicki was the primary client of Enterprise
and Paramount, which also shared Rosicki's human resources, information
technology, payroll, and corporate accounting departments. Additionally,
Enterprise shared office space with Rosicki in its Batavia,New York office.
c. At all times during the Covered Period, Rosicki was approved by Fannie
Mae to perform all legal work associated with foreclosures on residential
properties for which Fannie Mae owned the mortgage loans, and entered
into a retention agreement with Fannie Mae for this purpose. That retention
agreement incorporated all ofthe requirements in the Fannie Mac Servicing
Guide(the "Servicing Guide").
d. To receive payment for the costs and expenses of performing work on
behalf of Fannie Mae in connection with a mortgage foreclosure, Rosicki
submitted invoices to the mortgage sei-vicer responsible for servicing the
mortgage loan associated with the foreclosure, and the mortgage servicer
approved and paid those invoices. Rosicki understood that generally the
mortgage servicer then submitted a claim to Fannie Mae for reimbursement
ofthe costs and expenses submitted by Rosicki to the servicer.
Case 1.12-cv-07199-^^^ Document 233 Filed 12/04/18 Page 4 of 22
Case l:12-cv-07i99-JSR Document 223 Filed 11/27/18 Page 4 of 19
e. At all times during the Covered Period, the Servicing Guide required that
all foreclosure costs and expenses billed by a foreclosure law firm to a
mortgage serviccr—which would then be submitted by the mortgage
servicer to Fannie Mae for payment—^must be "actual, reasonable and
necessary." The Servicing Guide also stated that foreclosure law firms
"must make every effort to reduce foreclosure-related costs and expenses in
a manner that is consistent with all applicable laws."
f. Rosicki understood the requirements of the Servicing Guide and
represented at vaiious times, to Fannie Mae and to mortgage servicers, that
it was complying with those requirements.
g. In fact, however, during the Covered Period, certain of the costs billed by
Enterprise and Paramount for services related to foreclosures and evictions
were not consistent with the Sei-vicing Guide. Specifically, on certain
invoices for service of process (i.e., delivery or attempted delivery of legal
papers) upon defendants and other interested parties, Enterprise added
additional charges to the costs charged by independent contractors and
otherwise took actions that increased costs and expenses. Similarly, on
certain invoices for foreclosure seai'ches and title continuations, Paramount
added additional charges to the costs charged by independent contractors
and othemise took actions that increased costs and expenses.
h. Rosicki submitted the expenses described above to the mortgage servicers
for payment,with the understanding that the servicers generally would pass
some or all ofthose expenses on to Fannie Mae and that Fannie Mae would
reimburse for them.
3. Defendants shall pay to the Government within 30 days ofthe Effective Date
(defined below in Paragraph 27)the sum of$4,600,000 plus interest, which shall be
compounded annually at a rate of2.72% accruing from the Effective Date to the date of
the payment(the "Settlement Amount"),in accordance with instructions to be provided
by the Financial Litigation Unit ofthe United States Attoraey's Office for the Southem
Cê l;12-cv-07199-JSR Document 233 Filed 12/04/18 Page 5 of 22
District ofNew York. Ofthe Settlement Amount,$2,300,000 constitutes restitution to
the United States. Defendants shall be jointly and severally liable for the Settlement
Amount.
4. Defendants shall undertake the following steps;

I
a. Within 30 days of the Effective Date, Defendants shall provide a copy of
this Stipulation to each oftheir employees and to all independent contractors
who perform tasks for or on behalf of Defendants related to service of
process or title searches (collectively, the "Distributees").
b. Within 90 days of the Effective Date, Rosicki shall submit to the United
States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York and the
Federal Housing Finance Administration ("FHFA"), in conformity with
Paiugraph 26 herein, a compliance plan that sets forth in detail the steps
Rosicki will take to ensure that, for foreclosure-related or eviction-related
services performed on behalf of any agency of the United States or a
government-sponsored enterprise ("GSE"), the foreclosure-related or
eviction-related expenses charged by Defendants comply with the
requirements promulgated by the relevant agency or GSE, including all
policies and procedures that Rosicki will implement for this purpose. Also
within 90 days of the Effective Date, Rosicki shall furnish a copy of the
compliance plan to the other Defendants, as well as the Distributees, and
thereafter shall fumish a copy ofthe compliance plan to all new Distributees
hired or engaged by the Defendants. Defendants also shall conduct an
annual training for all employees on adherence to the compliance plan.

Case r.l2-cv-07199-JSR Document 223 Filed 11/27/18 Page 6 of 19
c. Starting six months after the Effective Date and continuing annually for five
years thereafter, and so long as Rosicki provides services to any agency of
the United States or a GSE, Rosicki shall generate a written report that
details 1)the steps that Rosicki took to ensure that Defendants' foreclosure
expenses met the applicable agency or GSE standards; and 2)any changes
to the compliance program in the previous period. Rosicki shall certify the
report and submit it to the United States Attorney's Office and the FHFA in
conformity with Paragraph 26 herein.
d. Rosicki shall publicly disclose its affiliation with Enterprise and Paramount
on its website,
5. Defendants agree to cooperate fully and truthfully with the United States'
investigation of individuals and entities not released in this Stipulation. Upon reasonable notice.
Defendants shall encourage, and agree not to impair, the cooperation of their directors, officers,
and employees, and shall use their best effoi-ts to make available, and encourage, the cooperation
of former directors, officers, and employees for interviews and testimony, consistent with the
rights and privileges of such individuals. Defendants further agree to furnish to the United States,
upon request, complete and unredacted copies of all non-privileged documents, reports,
memoranda of interviews, and records in their possession, custody, or control concerning any
investigation ofthe Covered Conduct or the VA Covered Conduct they have undertaker, or that
has been performed by another on their behalf.
6. Subject to the exceptions in Pai'agraphs 10 and 15 below (concerning excluded
claims and bankr uptcy proceedings), and conditioned upon Defendants' full compliance with the
terms of this Stipulation, including lull payment of the Settlement Amount to the United States
pursuant to Paragraph 3 above,the United States releases Defendants,including their subsidiaries
and corporate predecessors, successors and assigns, from any civil or administrative monetary
claim that the United States has for the Covered Conduct and the VA Covered Conduct under the
FCA, the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3801-3812, and the common law
theories of fraud, payment by mistake, and unjust enrichment. For avoidance of doubt, this
Stipulation does not release any current or former officer, director, employee, or agent of
Defendants from liability of any kind.
7. Defendants fully and finally release the United States, its agencies, officers,
employees, servants, and agents from any claims (including attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses
of every kind and however denominated)that Defendants have asserted, could have asserted, or
may assert in the future against the United States, its agencies, officers, employees, servants, or
agents related to the Covered Conduct and the VA Covered Conduct and the United States'
investigation, prosecution and settlement thereof.
8. Conditioned on Defendants' timely payment of the full Settlement Amount
pursuant to Paragraph 3 above,the Relator,for himselfand his heirs, successors, attorneys, agents,
and assigns, releases Defendants, including their subsidiaries and corporate predecessors,
successors and assigns, as well as all of their current and former officers, directors, employees,
attorneys, and other agents,from any and all manner of claims, proceedings, liens, and causes of
action ofany kind or description that the Relator has against Defendants arising from the Covered
Conduct as alleged in the Relator's Complaint; provided, however,that nothing in this Stipulation
shall preclude Relator from seeking to recover his reasonable expenses and attorneys' fees and
costs pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 3730(d). For avoidance of doubt, this release does not include
Relator's claims against Defendants in the Relator Complaint as to which the United States did not
intervene.
9. In consideration ofthe execution ofthis Stipulation by the Relator and the Relator's
release as set forth in Paragraph 8 above, Defendants, including their subsidiaries, predecessors,
and corporate successors and assigns, as well as all of their cuirent and former officers, directors,
employees, attorneys, and other agents, release the Relator and his successors, heirs, assigns,
attorneys, and other agents, from any and all manner ofclaims, proceedings, liens, and causes of
action of any kind or description that Defendants have against Relator arising from the Covered
Conduct as alleged in the Rclator's Complaint.
10. Notwithstanding the releases given in Paragraph 6 above, or any other term ofthis
Stipulation, the following claims ofthe Government are specifically reserved and are not released
by this Stipulation:
a. any liability arising under Title 26, United States Code (Internal
Revenue Code);
b. any criminal liability;
c. except as explicitly stated in this Stipulation, any administrative liability,
including but not limited to the suspension and debarment rights of any federal
agency;
d. any liability to the United States(or its agencies)for any conduct other than the
Covered Conduct and the VA Covered Conduct;
e. any liability based upon obligations created by this Stipulation; and
f. any liability ofindividuals.

Case l:J.?;:pv-07199-JS^ Document 233 Oed 12/04/18 Page 9 of 2
22
Case ri2-cv-07lS9-JSR Document 223 Filed 11/27/18 Page 9 of 19
11. Defendants shall be in default of this Stipulation if Defendants fail to make the
required payment set forth in Paragraph 3 above on or before the due date for such payment, or if
they fail to comply materially with any other term of this Stipulation that applies to them
("Default"). The Government shall provide written notice to Defendants of any Default in the
manner set forth in Paragraph 26 below. Defendants shall then have an opportunity to cure the
Default within ten (10) calendar days from the date of deliveiy of the notice of Default. In the
event that a Default is not fully cured withm ten(10)calendar days ofthe delivery ofthe notice of
Default("Uncured Default"),interest shall accrue at the rate of 12% per annum compounded daily
on the remaining unpaid principal balance ofthe Settlement Amount, beginning ten(10)calendar
days after mailing ofthe notice of Default In the event of an Uncured Default, Defendants shall
agree to the entry of a consent judgment in favor of the United States against Defendants in the
amount ofthe Settlement Amount as attached hereto as Exhibit A. The United States may also, at
its option,(a) rescind this Stipulation and reinstate the claims asserted against Defendants in the
Government Complaint;(b)seek specific performance ofthis Stipulation;(c)offset the remaining
unpaid balance of the Settlement Amount from any amounts due and owing Defendants by any
department, agency,or agent ofthe United States; or(d)exercise any other rights granted by law,
or under the terms of this Stipulation, or recognizable at common law or in equity. Defendants
shall not contest any offset imposed or any collection undertaken by the Government pursuant to
this Paragraph, either administratively or in any Federal or State court. In addition, Defendants
shall pay the Government all reasonable costs ofcollection and enforcement under this Paragraph,
including attorneys' fees and expenses. In the event that the United States opts to rescind this
Stipulation pui'suant to this Paragraph, Defendants shall not plead, argue, or otherwise raise any
Case l:12-cv-07J*99-JSR Document 233 Filed 12/04/18 Page 10 of 22
Case l:r2-cv-07i99-jSR Document Filed 11727/18 Page 10 of 19
defenses under the theories of statute of limitations, laches, estoppel, or similar theories, to any
civil or administrative claims that relate to the Covered Conduct or the VA Covered Conduct.
12. The Relator and his heirs,successors, attorneys,agents,and assigns shall not object
to this Stipulation; Relator agrees and confirms that the terms ofthis Stipulation are fair, adequate,
and reasonable under all the circumstances, pm'suant to 31 U.S.'C. § 3730(c)(2)(B).

13. Defendants waive and shall not assert any defenses Defendants may have to any
criminal prosecution or administrative action relating to the Covered Conduct or the VA Covered
Conduct that may be based in whole or in part on a contention that, under the Double Jeopardy
Clause in the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution, or under the Excessive Fines Clause in the
Eighth Amendment of the Constitution, this Stipulation bars a remedy sought in such criminal
prosecution or administrative action.
14. Defendants represent and wan*ant that they have reviewed their financial situation,
that they are currently not insolvent as such term is defmed in 11 U.S.C. § 101(32), and that they
reasonably believe that they shall remain solvent following pajmient to the Government of the
Settlement Amount. Further, the Parties warrant that, in evaluating whether to execute this
Stipulation, they (a)have intended that the mutual promises, covenants, and obligations set foith
constitute a contemporaneous exchange for new value given to Defendants, within the meaning of
11 U.S.C. § 547(cXl); and (b) have concluded that these mutual promises, covenants, and
obligations do,in fact, constitute such a contemporaneous exchange. Further, the Parties warrant
that the mutual promises, covenants, and obligations set forth herein are intended to and do, in
fact, represent a reasonably equivalent exchange of value that is not intended to hinder, delay, or
defiaud any entity to which Defendants were or became indebted to on or after the date of this
Stipulation, within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. § 548(a)(1).
10
Case l:12-cv-071^^ Fjled 12/04/18 Paqellof22
Case r;12-cv-07l99-JSR Document 223 Filed 11/27/18 "
Pa^ 11 of* 19
15. If within 91 days of the Effective Date of this Stipulation or any payment made
under this Stipulation, Defendants commence any case, action, or other proceeding under any law
relating to bankruptcy,insolvency,reorganization,or relief ofdebtors,or a third party commences
any case, action, or other proceeding under any law related to bankruptcy, insolvency,
reorganization, or relief of debtors(a)seeking an order for relief ofDefendants' debts, or seeking
to adjudicate Defendants as bankrupt or insolvent; or(b)seeking appointment ofa receiver,trustee,
custodian, or other similar official for Defendants or for all or part of Defendants' assets.
Defendants agree as follows:
a. Defendants' obligations under this Stipulation may not be avoided pursuant to
11 U.S.C. § 547, and Defendants shall not argue or otherwise take the position
in any such case, action, or proceeding that (i) Defendants' obligations under
this Stipulation may be avoided xmder 11 U.S.C. § 547; (ii) Defendants were
insolvent at the time this Stipulation was entered into; or (iii) the mutual
promises, covenants, and obligations set forth in this Stipulation do not
constitute a contemporaneous exchange for new value given to Defendants.
b. If any of Defendants' obligations under this Stipulation are avoided for any
reason, including, but not limited to, through the exercise of a trustee's
avoidance powers under the Bankruptcy Code,the Government, at its option,
may rescind the release in this Stipulation and bring any civil and/or
administrative claim, action, or proceeding against Defendants for the claims
that would otherwise be covered by the release in Paragraph 6 above.
Defendants agree that (i) any such claim, action, or proceeding brought by the
Government would not be subject to an "automatic stay" pursuant to 11 U.S.C.
11
§ 362(a) as a result of the case, action, or proceeding described in the first
sentence ofthis Paragraph,and Defendants shall not argue or otherwise contend
that the Government's'claim, action, or proceeding is subject to an automatic
stay; (ii) Defendants shall not plead, argue, or otherwise raise any defenses
imder the theories of statute oflimitations,laches, estoppel,or similar theories,
to any claim, action, or proceeding that is brought by the Government within
60 calendar days of written notification to Defendants that the release has been
rescinded pursuant to this Paragraph, except to the extent such defenses were
available on March 27,2018;and (iii)the Government has a valid claim against
Defendants in the amount ofthe Settlement Amount and the Government may
pursue its claim in the case,action, or proceeding described in the first sentence
ofthis Paragraph, as well as in any other case, action, or proceeding,
c. Defendants acknowledge that the agreements in this Paragraph are provided in
exchange for valuable consideration provided in this Stipulation.
16. Defendants agree to the following:
a. Unallowable Costs Defined: All costs(as defined in the Office of Management
and Budget("0MB")Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles,
and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards published at 2 C.F.R. §§ 200 et
seq.; the Department of Health and Human Services adoption of the 0MB
Guidance provided at 45 C.F.R. § 75,subpart B et seq.; the Federal Acquisition
Regulation,48 C.F.R. § 31.205-47 where applicable; or otherwise as specified
by federal statutes, regulations or the terms and conditions of a Federal award)
12
Case
Case
inciured by or on behalf of Defendants, including their present or former
officers, directors, employees, and agents in connection with:
(1) the matters covered by this Stipulation;
(2) the United States* audit(s) and civil investigation(s) of matters covered by
this Stipulation;
(3) Defendants' investigation, defense, and corrective actions undertaken in
response to the United States' audit(s) and civil investigation(s) in
connection with matters covered by this Stipulation (including attorneys'
fees);
(4) the negotiation and performance ofthis Stipulation; and
(5) any payment Defendants make to the United States pursuant to this
Stipulation and any payment Defendants may make to the Relator,
including expenses, costs and attorneys' fees;
ai-e unallowable costs for government conti'acting purposes and under the
Medicare Program, Medicaid Program, TRICARE Program, and Federal
Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) (hereinafter referred to as
"Unallowable Costs").
b. Future Treatment of Unallowable Costs: Unallowable Costs shall be separately
deteimined and accounted for by Defendants, and Defendants shall not charge
such Unallowable Costs directly or indirectly to any contracts with tlie United
States.
c. Treatment of Unallowable Costs Previously Submitted for Payment: Within 90
days of the Effective Date of this Stipulation, Defendants shall identify and
13
repay by adjustment to future claims for payment or otherwise any Unallowable
Costs(as defined in this Paragraph)included in payments previously sought by
Defendants from the United States. Defendants agree that the United States, at
a minimum,shall be entitled to recoup fi'om Defendants any overpayment plus
applicable interest and penalties as a result ofthe inclusion ofsuch Unallowable
Costs on previously-submitted requests for payment Any payments due shall
be paid to the United States pmsuant to the direction of the Department of
Justice and/or the affected agencies. The United States, including the
Department of Justice and/or the affected agencies, reserves its right to audit,
examine, or re-examine Defendants* books and records and to disagree with
any calculation submitted by Defendants or any oftheir subsidiaries or affiliates
regarding any Unallowable Costs included in payments previously sought by
Defendants,or the effect ofany such Unallowable Costs on the amounts ofsuch
payments.
d. Nothing in this Stipulation shall constitute a waiver of the rights of the United
States to audit, examine, or re-examine Defendants' books and records to
determine that no Unallowable Costs have been claimed in accordance with the
provisions ofthis Paragraph.
17. This Stipulation is intended to be for the benefit ofthe Parties only. The Parties do
not release any claims against any other person or entity except as otherwise provided herein.
18. Each Party shall bear its own legal and other costs incurred in connection with this
matter,including the preparation and performance ofthis Stipulation; provided, however,nothing
14
in this Stipulation shall preclude the Relator from seeking to recover his expenses or attorneys'
fees and costs from Defendants, pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 3730(d).
19. Any failure by the Government to insist upon the full or material performance of
any of the provisions of this Stipulation shall not be deemed a waiver of any of the provisions
hereof, and the Government, notwithstanding that feilure, shall have the right thereafter to insist
upon the full or material performance ofany and all ofthe provisions of this Stipulation.
20. This Stipulation is governed by the laws of the United States. The exclusive
jurisdiction and venue for any dispute relating to this Stipulation is the United States District Court
for the Southern District ofNew York. For purposes ofconstiuing this Stipulation, this Stipulation
shall be deemed to have been drafted by all Parties to this Stipulation and shall not, therefore, be
construed against any Party for that reason in any subsequent dispute.
21. This Stipulation constitutes the complete agreement between the Parties with
respect to the subject matter hereof. This Stipulation may not be amended except by written
consent ofthe Parties.
22. The undersigned counsel and other signatories represent and warrant that they are
fully authorized to execute this Stipulation on behalf of the persons and the entities indicated
below.
23. This Stipulation is binding on Defendants' successor entities.
24. This Stipulation is binding on the Relator's successors, transferees, heirs, and
assigns.
25. This Stipulation may be executed in counterparts, each of which constitutes an
original and all of which constitute one and the same Stipulation. E-mails that attach signatures in
15
PDF form or facsimiles of signatures shall constitute acceptable, binding signatures for purposes
of this Stipulation,
26. Any notice pursuant to this Stipulation shall be in writing and shall, unless
expressly provided otherwise herein, be delivered by hand,express courier, or e-mail transmission
followed by postage-prepaid mail, and shall be addressed as follows:
TO THE UNITED STATES AND THE FHFA:
Cristine Irvin Phillips

Andrew E. Krause
Joseph N. Cordaro
Assistant United States Attorneys
United States Attorney's Office
Southern District ofNew York
86 Chambers Sfeet, Third Floor
New York,New York 10007
cristine.philUps@usdoj.gov
andrew.lcrause@usdoj.gov
joseph.cordaro@usdoj.gov
TO DEFENDANTS:
Daniel J. Hoi-witz, Esq.

Tracy Burnett, Esq.
McLaughlin & Stem, LLP
260 Madison Avenue
New York,NY 10016
dhorwitz@mclaughlinstem.com
tbumett@mclaughlinstem.coin
TORELATOR:
Brian M. Feldman,Esq.
Harter, Secrest & Emery
1600 Bausch & Lomb Place
Rochester, NY 14604-2711
bfeldman@hselaw.com
16
27. The effective date of this Stipulation is the date upon which the Stipulation is
approved by the Court(the "Effective Date").
Agreed to by:
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Dated: New York, New York

November VI,2018
GEOFFREY S. HERMAN
United States Attorney for the
Southern District of New York
•By:
CRISTINE IRVIN PHILLIPS
ANDREW E.KRAUSE
JOSEPH N. CORDARO
Assistant United States Attorneys
86 Chambers Street, Third Floor
New York, New York 10007
Tel.: (212)637-2696/2769/2689
Fax: (212)637-2702/2717
Attorneyfor the United States ofAmerica
17
lUSLATOR
Dated; uiL^Jk A//

November'Zo.2018
By:
Peter Grubea
Relator
Dated; Rochester, New York

November 2^ 2018
BRIAN M.FELDMAN,ESQ.
Barter, Seorest & Emery
1600 Bausch & Lomb Place
Rochester,NY 14604-2711
Td:(585)231-1201
bfeldmaii@hselaw.com
Attorn^sfor Relator
18
Case l:12-cv-0ZJ.99-JSR Document 233 Filed 12/04/18 Page 19 of Z
Case l;r2-cv-0T199-JSR Document Zfe Filed 11727/18 Pag6 19ofl&
DEFENDANTS
Dated: New New Yoifc

Novfin3j5«r^,2018
By: 4'if-
DANIEL J. HORWrrz,ESQ.
TRACY BURNETT.ESQ.
McLao^fJn & Stem,LLP
260 Mfidzson Avenue
New Yoiic,New Voik 10016
Td:(212)448-1100
F«:(212)448-0606
Anortttysfor Defisuiaju
Rosicki,Rosicki &.Associates, p.C.
By:
Entttprise Process Service; Inix
By.
IName] "Tfi. t> i
Paremoum Land,Inc.
P>
By:
(Nan^J J
^ o cDPk^^/L^^
19
o%(yr
EXHIBIT 3
Department of
Consumer AfVairs
Alba Pico March 16,2016

First Deputy Commtsstoner
BY FIRST-CLASS AND CERTIFIED MAIL
42Broadway
9th Floor
New Yoifc, NY 10004 Kenneth P. Wonica
nyc.gov/consumers
RE: Denial of ApDlication No.658-2016-RPSI
Dear Mr. Wonica:
You submitted to the Department of Consumer Affairs (the

"Department" or "DCA") an application to renew individual Process Server
License Number 1279283. This letter is to inform you that the Department
denies your application. As explained below, the Department's denial is based
on its determination that you are not fit to be licensed, pursuant to New York
City Administrative Code ("Code") § 20-101, due to your failure to maintain
standards of integrity, honesty and fair dealing required of licensees.
Prior Violations
On January 13, 2014, the Department issued an Amended Notice of

Hearing(NOH)to you charging you with violating Title 6 of the Rules of the
City of New York ("6 RCNY")§ 2-236(a) by failing to report to the Department
the scheduling oftwo traverse hearings; and 6 RCNY § 2-236(cX2)by failing to,
within one hundred (100)days after the scheduled date oftwo traverse hearings,
report to the Department either:(a) the final results of the hearings; or (b) that
you made attempts to learn the final results ofthe hearings but was unable to do
so. A hearing on the Amended NOH was held at the Department's
Administrative Tribunal on March 13, 2014. On June 3, 2014, the Tribunal
issued a Decision and Order finding you guilty of these charges and ordering
you to pay a fine of$800.
Service of Process Rules and Laws
6 RCNY § 2-234 states: "[Licensed process servers and process serving

agencies] shall at all times strictly and promptly conform to all laws, rules,
regulations and requirements of the federal, state and municipal authorities
relating to the conduct of licensees and the service of process in the State ofNew
York and the preparation, notarization and filing of affidavits of service and
Page 1 of4
Department of
Consumer Affairs
other documents now in force or hereafter adopted during any license period."
In civil proceedings, pursuant to Section 308 ofthe New York Civil Practice Law and Rules
("CPLR"),service upon a natural person must be made in the following manner:
1. by delivering the summons within the state to the person to be served; or

2. by delivering the summons within the state to a person of suitable age and discretion
at the actual place of business, dwelling place or usual place ofabode of the person to
be served...; or
3. by delivering the summons within the state to the agent for service ofthe person to be
served as designated under rule 318 ...;or
4. where service under paragraphs one and two cannot be made with due diligence, by
affixing the summons to the door ofeither the actual place of business, dwelling place
or usual place of abode within the state of the person to be served and by either
mailing the summons to such person at his or her last known residence or by mailing
the summons by first class mail to the person to be served at his or her actual place of
business
Improper Services/False Affidavits of Service
1. HSBC Bank USA v, N.Y. Builders Supply Corp.. Arthur Gold and Bernard Gold
You swore falsely in an affidavit ofservice that was filed in New York County Supreme Court in
the matter ofHSBC Bank USA v. N,Y. Builders Supply Corp., Arthur Gold and Bernard Gold(Index No.
652570/12)that you served defendantArthuôlîthasummow on August 8,2012 at
"personal service" You
falsely in your affidavit ofservice that you "knew the person served to be the person described as said
person therein" and you "asked person spoken to whether[he] was presently in military service ofthe
United States Government or ofthe State ofNew York and was informed [he] was not." In fact, Arthur
Gold died on June 23,2012,two months prior to the date you swore in your affidavit that you personally
served him with papers, and that you asked him whether he was presently in military service.
Furthermore, you swore falsely in an affidavit ofservice that was filed in New York County
Supreme Court in HSBC Bank that you served defendant Bernard Gold with a summons and complaint on
August 8,2012 at 2:42 p.m. by deliveringthepapei^^|Hanlô^ô-te^^ refused a person
suitable age
described "Hank Doe" as a male wittUfui^kin^rtamTeadÔ^êar^la^^âll, 180 pounds, and a
moustache. You also swore falsely in your affidavit of service that you asked Hank Doe **whether
[Bernard Gold] was presently in military service ofthe United States Government or ofthe SteteofNew
York and was informed that[he] was not." In fact, you did not deliver papers to anyone &lH[||||i
No one was present at that address on August 8,2012. In
Page 2 of4
Department of
Consumer Affairs
addition, neither ofthe two residents at that address match the physical description contained in your
affidavit ofservice.
You,therefore, violated 6 RCNY § 2-234 by failing to serve process in accordance with CPLR §
308 and swearing falsely in two affidavits ofservice in HSBC Bank.
2. Wells Fareo Bank v. Harold Knowles. et al.
You violated 6 RCNY § 2-234 by failing to serve process in accordance with CPLR § 308,and by
swearing falsely in an affidavit ofservice, in the matter of Wells Forgo Bank v. Harold Knowles, et al.
(Index No. 11044/13, Queens Sup. Ct). In particular, you swore falsely in your affidavit ofservice that
on Septemberl7j20i3at2j5lpjmjjyoiêrve^ Harold Knowles with a summons and
complaint at||||||||||||^|||||H|||mi||||H by delivering the papers to'^CHRISTINA DOE
(LAST NAME REFUSED),CO-TENANT,a person ofsuitable age and discretion." You falsely
described Christina Doe in your affidavit ofservice as a female with black skin, black hair, 40-50 years
old,5'T* tall, and 150 pounds. You also swore falsely in your affidavit ofservice that you asked Christina
Doe'Svhether said premises was the defendant's Residence and the reply was affirmative" and that you
"asked the person spoken to whether defendant was in active military service ofthe United States or ofthe
State ofNew York in any capacity whatever and received a negative reply." In fact, you did not deliver
:rs to anyone on September 17,2013. No one present
on September 17,2013 matches the physical description
contained in your affidavit ofservice. ~
3. Bank ofAmerica N.A. v. Kenneth Brooks, et al.
You violated 6 RCNY § 2-234 by failing to serve process in accordance with CPLR § 308,and by
swearing falsely in an affidavit ofservice, in the matter ofBank ofAmerica N.A. v. Kenneth Brooks, et al.
(Index No. 11044/13, Queens Sup. Ct). In particular, you swore falsely in five affidavits ofservice that
on September 10,2013 at 2:47 p.m., you served defendants Kenneth Brooks, Keith Williams, Audrey
Williams,Megan Williamsan^JatalieDoîthasu^^ by delivering the papers to
'Natalie Doe" falsely described Natalie
Doe in your affidwiôisemc^^^femal^wi3^1a^^«in^lacîair^ge 40^49j^M^]^_5^T|^taIl^nd
weighing 125-149 pounds. In fact, you did not deliver papers to anyone afi
on September 10,2013. No one present atf ^
on September 10,2013 matches the physical description contained in
your atfidavit ofservice.
Traverse Hearing Reporting Violations
6 RCNY § 2-236(c)(2)requires licensed process servers to submit a written report to the

Department, by certified mail or e-mail, stating:(a)the result ofthe traverse hearing(including any
Page 3 of4
Department of
Consumer Aflairs
judicial order or voluntary settlement resolving the challenge to service of process), within ten (10)days
oflearning the result; or that he or she made attempts to learn the result ofthe traverse hearing but was
unable to do so, within one hundred(100)days ofthe scheduled date ofthe hearing.
You violated 6 RCNY § 2-236(c)(2) by failing to, within one hundred (100)days after the
scheduled date ofthe following traverse hearings, report to the Department either the final results of the
hearings or that you made attempts to leam the final results ofthe hearings but were unable to do so:
a) Citimortgage, Inc. v. Yehuda Grossy Kings Sup. Ct., Index No.2138/13(Scheduled Traverse
Hearing Date: 4/23/15);
b) Matrix Fin. Servs. Corp. v. Wayne Maurice, Kings Sup. Ct., Index No.506417/14(Scheduled
Traverse Hearing Date: 5/14/15); and
c) Wells Forgo Bank v. Andre Sulton, Kings Sup. Ct., Index No. 508595/14(Scheduled Traverse
Hearing Date: 7/21/15).
You were previously found guilty of violating 6 RCNY § 2-236(c)(2)in the Decision and Order issued on
June 3,2014.
Fitness to Hold a Process Server License
Based on the foregoing, you fail to maintain standards ofintegrity, honesty and fair dealing and,
pursuant to section 20-101 ofthe Code,the Department determines that you are not fit to hold any
Department license and denies your application to renew your process server license.
Sincerely,
Senior Staff Attorney

Legal Division
Page 4 of4
EXHIBIT 4
Case 1:12-cv-00361-RMC Document 14 Filed 04/04/12 Page 1 of 92
EXHIBIT A
CIVIL COURT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF KINGS : HOUSING PART G
-X
MICHAEL KRICHEVSKY Index #: 78015/18

Petitioner,
-against- AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT
NATALIA KARDYUKOVA
Respondents
-X
NATALIA KARDYUKOVA,being duly sworn, deposes and says:
1. I am the named Respondents in this proceeding, and as such, I am fully familiar with the facts and
circumstances as stated herein.
2. I submit this affidavit in support of Respondent's motion, which seeks dismissal of Petitioner's
instant proceeding. For the reasons stated in the Affirmation of my attorney, and as stated herein, my
motion should be granted in its entirety.
3. Petitioner alleges that Respondent is a mere licensee, and not an actual tenant. However, Petitioner
is mistaken.
4. Respondent was given exclusive occupancy rights to the subject premises pursuant to the terms of a
oral agreement with the Petitioner. The oral agreement was that I would be able to reside in the subject
premises on a monthly rental basis. I would pay the sum of $1,800.00 to the Petitioner. I also paid the
Petitioner a security deposit.
5. I have made rent payments for the subject premises for a period of five years which has been
accepted by the Petitioner's landlord.
6. I have been advised by my attorney that based upon the above; this proceeding cannot continue as
Respondent is not a mere licensee of the Petitioner; rather. Respondent is a tenant with all of the rights
€
of such a tenant, which includes service of a proper Notice of Termination prior to the commencement
of such a proceeding as this.
7. In addition, my attorneys have advised me that the Petitioner's creation of the rental terms for the
apartment, and my payments to the Petitioner's landlord in Petitioner's name acceptance of my rent
payments created a month-to-month tenancy between myself and the Petitioner.
8. I have been further advised by my attorneys that Petitioner cannot rely on the facts of the petition in
this case hereto as a basis for a new proceeding as the Petitioner improperly sough to terminate
Respondent's tenancy with a Notice to Quit as opposed to a Notice of Termination.
9. My attorneys have informed me that even though the Petitioner can conceivably recommence this
proceeding against me, he is effectively barred from doing so until properly terminating the tenancy, if
possible. As such, the matter should be dismissed
WHEREFORE,it is respectfully requested that the instant proceeding be dismissed in its entirety; that
Respondent be granted legal fees in the amount of $2,500.00; and for such other and further relief as
this Court deems just and proper under the circumstances.
Dated: September 19, 2018

Brooklyn, NY
NatMia K
Sworn to before me this

/ f day of September 2011
STATE
^ /of NEW YORK'-.
Notary Public ; NOTARY PUBLIC: c.:
i S\(teffiesJ in Kings CounV'^
\<X\ e2HAfi3«814 /,§',■•
EXHIBIT B
I TAU B eJ
iV! A li A G E ill E r! T
Realty, LLC
Licensed Real Estate Broker
655 Third Avenue,29"' Floor
New York. NY 10017
Tel 212-288-0757 Fax 212-288-1947
February 18, 2015
Michael Krichevsky
120 Oceana Drive West
Unit 4D
Brookiyn, NY 11235
Re: Leak from your unit
Dear Mr. Krichevsky:
This ietter is in reference to a ieak In your unit that was inspected on January 9,
2015 and January 10, 2015 that effected units ID, 2D, 3D and 4D.
After investigating the ieak it has been determined that the source of the leak came
from a freezing condition in your apartment. We have attached back up information
from Smart Pii^bing and Heating, Corp.
Please be adv|^d that you are responsible for ail charges associated with the repair
and dama^^ssociated with this leak.
Joseph M. Taube
Taube Management Realty, LLC
Management • insurance • Sales • investments

INVOICE
smartplumbernyc.com
Mark Talalovsky IMP 1250, LFSC 708-0

David Talalovsky IMP 2130, LFSC 1026-B
Smart Plumbing Et Heating Corp. INVOICE #150109/10

DATE: JANUARY 19, 2015
3375 Shore Parkway, Brooklyn N.Y. 11235

Phone: 718.891.2800 Fax: 718.891.0562
E-mail: Smarti250@aol.com
WWW.smartplumbernyc.com
To: Eugene Tsirkin

From: Mark Talalovsky
Email: etsirkin@gmail.com
SERVICE JOB PAYMENT TERMS DUE DATE
120 Oceana Drive West,

Apts. ID, 2D, 3D, 4D Due upon receipt
BK, NY
QTY DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE LINE TOTAL
Service call:
Friday 01/09/15
Investigate leaks in apartments 1D,2D,3D & 4D
Labor Regular Rate 9 men hrs @ $107.00/hr 963.00

Labor Overtime Rate 3 men hrs @ $150.50/ hr 451.50
Saturday 01/10/15
Repair multiples leaks in apartment 4D.
Labor Overtime Rate 18 men hrs @ $150.50/ hr 2709.00
PRICE 4123.50
SALES TAX 365.96
TOTAL DUE 4489.46

LMP#1250,LMP# 2130 Tel: 718.891.2800
LMFSPC#708B#1026B Fax: 718.891.0562
SmartDlumbernvc.com Email: David@smartDlumbernvc.com
^gwnwr.Bnifja asAMwom
agggBfEWGg
3375 Shore Parkway, Brooklyn N.Y. 11235
Investigation Report:
To: Eugene Tslrkin
From: David Talalovsky
Date: 1/10/15
Project Name: 120 Oceana Drive.
Subject: Leak Investigation Apartment 1D,3D,4D
Eugene,
Leaks in apartment 1D, 3D, and 40, was determined to be

isolated to the 4th floor, A freezing condition in apartment 4d, was
suspected to be the cause of the leaks. The leaks were suspected to
be caused by 3 possible issues, 1. The balcony door was open, 2.
The heat was set to the lowest position, 3. The temperature outside
was 12 degrees Fahrenheit, causing pipes to freeze all over the
apartment.
Upon investigation in apartment 4D owner closed the balcony door

and temp in apartment increased. Once the temperature increased
the pipes started to thaw and rupture causing water to leak from the
th
4 floor to the cellar. While standing in apt 4D with the owner in the 4
floor master bath a sound was heard as if a rupture of pipe and water
started to leak in the 4**^ floor corridor. We opened 4th floor corridor to
locate pipe. Pipe was frozen and broken due to freezing on 3/4" cold
water line in the hallway. Upon further investigation an additional leak
was found behind the washer and dryer on the 1/2" copper cap on the
laundry box coming off the main riser. Copper Cap froze and burst
causing the leak. Further investigation showed a third leak in the
shower body 4th floor hallway bathroom. We Opened wall in the
closet to expose piping for shower. 1/2" copper elbow in the closet
froze, burst and caused an additional leak.
We Repaired 3/4" copper line in the 4th floor hallway. Removed

washer and dryer in apartment 4d, repaired 1/2" busted cap on
laundry box. Repaired leak in closet on 1/2" copper elbow due to
freezing. Turn on hot & cold water lines check for any additional leaks
in the apartment. An additional leak was found to be further down the
same copper cold water line feeding the shower on a 1/2" elbow. We
repaired 1/2" copper elbow on shower cold water supply. All leaks
repaired in overtime. All investigations done on overtime. Pictures and
broken pipe has been issued to management for record. Broken pipes
repaired. No additional leaks were found after repairs.
See attached pictures.
;
■ "■ f )'■ ■'■ ■ '■ ■ ■ ■■'■■ ■ ' 'S f[

. 'J. '.' ['.!i!')'. ;'''['i
EXHIBIT C
e;.NEW YORK STATE ^
BT ^ ', lii Mibi
DRIVER LICENSE J
ID: 595 866 267 CLASS E
KRICHEVSKY
MICHAEL
4221 ATLANTIC AVE
BROOKLYN NY 11224
DOB: 12-21-55
SEX: M EVES: BR HT: S-09
E NONE Sr
R; B
ISSUED: 12-18-09 EXPIRES 12-21-17 Z32MDJ4a)i
EXHIBIT C1
New York StateUSA NOT FOR
FEDERAL
PURPOSES
RESTRICTED USE DRIVER LICENSE
ID595 866 267 Class E

KRICHEVSKY
MICHAEL S'
4221 ATLANTIC AVE
BROOKLYN, NY 11224
Sex M Height 5'-09" Eyes BRO

DOB12/21/1955
Expires 12/21/2025
ENONE
•ftet kRV"'
RB
Issued 03/07/2018
EXHIBIT D
EXHIBIT E
EXHIBIT F
Eastern District of New York Voluntary Petition
Name of Debtor (if individual, enter Last, First, Middle): Name of Joint Debtor (Spouse) (Last, First, Middle):
Svenson, Elena
All Other Names used by the Debtor in the last 8 years All Other Names used by the Joint Debtor in the last 8 years
(include married, maiden, and trade names): (include married, maiden, and trade names):
Last four digits of Soc. Sec. or Individual-Taxpayer I.D. (TON) NoVComplete BIN Last four digits of Soc. Sec. or Individual-Taxpayer I.D. (ITIN) No./Complete EM
[if more than one, state all) (if more than one, state all)
xxx-xx-8546
Street Address of Debtor (No. and Street, City, and State): Street Address of Joint Debtor (No. and Street, City, and State):
2620 Ocean Parkway
Apt. 3K
Brooklyn, NY ZIP Code ZIP Code
11235
County of Residence or of the Principal Place of Business: County of Residence or of the Principal Place of Business:
Kings
Mailing Address of Debtor (if different from street address): Mailing Address of Joint Debtor (if different from street address):
ZIP Code ZIP Code
Location of Principal Assets of Business Debtor

'if different from street address above):
Type of Debtor Nature of Business Chapter of Bankruptcy Code Under Which

(Form of Organization) (Check one box) (Check one box) the Petition is Filed (Check one box)
Individual (includes Joint Debtors) D Health Care Business • Chapter?
See Exhibit D on page 2 of this form. D Single Asset Real Estate as defined D Chapter 15 Petition for Recognition
D Chapter 9
D Corporation (includes LLC and LLP) inllU.S.C. § 101 (51B) of a Foreign Main Proceeding
D Chapter 11
D Partnership D Railroad
D Stockbroker D Chapter 12 D Chapter 15 Petition for Recognition
D Other (If debtor is not one of the above entities, of a Foreign Nonmain Proceeding
check this box and state type of entity below.) D Commodity Broker D Chapter 13
D Clearing Bank
D Other Nature of Debts
Chapter 15 Debtors
Tax-Exempt Entity (Check one box)
Country of debtor's center of main interests:
(Check box, if applicable) I Debts are primarily consumer debts, D Debts are primarily
D Debtor is a tax-exempt organization defined in 11 U.S.C. § 101(8) as business debts.
Each country in which a foreign proceeding
under Title 26 of the United States "incurred by an individual primarily for
by, regarding, or against debtor is pending:
Code (the Internal Revenue Code). a personal, family, or household purpose."
Filing Fee (Check one box) Check one box: Chapter 11 Debtors
[ Full Filing Fee attached D Debtor is a small business debtor as defined in 11 U.S.C. § 101(510).
D Debtor is not a small business debtor as defined in 11 U.S.C. § 101(51D).
D Filing Fee to be paid in installments (applicable to individuals only). Must Check if:
attach signed application for the court's consideration certifying that the
D Debtor's aggregate noncontingent liquidated debts (excluding debts owed to insiders or affiliates)
debtor is unable to pay fee except in installments. Rule 1006(b). See Official
are less than $2,343,300 (amount subject to adjustment on 4/01/13 and every three years thereafter).
Form 3A.
Check all applicable boxes:
Filing Fee waiver requested (applicable to chapter 7 individuals only). Must Cl A plan is being filed with this petition.
attach signed application for the court's consideration. See Official Form 3B. D Acceptances of the plan were solicited prepetition from one or more classes of creditors,
in accordance with 11 U.S.C. § 1126(b).
Statistical/Administrative Information TEHS SPACE IS FOR COURT USE ONLY
D Debtor estimates that funds will be available for distribution to unsecured creditors.
• Debtor estimates that, after any exempt property is excluded and administrative expenses paid,
there will be no funds available for distribution to unsecured creditors.
istimated Number of Creditors
M n n n n n n n n n
1- 50- 100- 200- 1,000- 5,001- 10,001- 25,001- 50,001- OVER
49 99 199 999 5,000 10,000 25,000 50,000 100,000 100,000
Estimated Assets
P n n B n n n n n
$0 to SSOOOlto SI00,001 to $500,001 $1,000,001 SIO.000,001 $50,000,001 $100,000,001 $500,000,001 More than
$50,000 $100,000 5500,000 to SI to $10 to $50 to $100 to $500 to $1 billion $1 billion
million million million million million
Estimated Liabilities
D D D • n n n n n n
$0 to $50,001 to $100,001 to $500,001 $1,000,001 $10,000,001 $50,000,001 $100,000,001 $500,000,001 More than
$50,000 $100,000 S500.000 to $1 to S10 to $50 to S100 to S500 to $1 billion $1 billion
million million million Trillion million
voluntary reuuon Svenson, Elena
(This page must be completed and filed in every case)
All Prior Bankruptcy Cases Filed Within Last 8 Years (If more than two, attach, additional sheet)
Location Case Number Date Filed:
Where Filed: - None -
Location Case Number Date Filed:
Where Filed:
Pending Bankruptcy Case Filed by any Spouse, Partner, or Affiliate of this Debtor (If more than one, attach additional sheet)
Name of Debtor: Case Number Date Filed:
- None -
District Relationship: Judge:
Exhibit A Exhibit B
(To be completed if debtor is an individual whose debts are primarily consumer debts.)
(To be completed if debtor is required to file periodic reports (e.g., I, the attorney for the petitioner named in the foregoing petition, declare that I
forms 10K and 10Q) with the Securities and Exchange Commission have informed the petitioner that [he or she] may proceed under chapter 7, 11,
pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 12, 'or 13 of title 11, United States Code, and have explained the relief available
under each such chapter. I further certify that I delivered to the debtor the notice
and is requesting relief under chapter 11.) required by 11 U.S.C. §342(b).
D Exhibit A is attached and made a part of this petition. X /s/ Lorna J. LaMotte, Esq April 27, 2012
Signature of Attorney for Debtor(s) (Date)
Lorna J. LaMotte, Esq
Exhibit C
Does the debtor own or have possession of any property that poses or is alleged to pose a threat of imminent and identifiable harm to public health or safety?
D Yes, and Exhibit C is attached and made a part of this petition.
• No.
Exhibit D
(To be completed by every individual debtor. If a joint petition is filed, each spouse must complete and attach a separate Exhibit D.)
• Exhibit D completed and signed by the debtor is attached and made a part of this petition.
If this is a joint petition:
D Exhibit D also completed and signed by the joint debtor is attached and made a part of this petition.
N Information Regarding the Debtor - Venue

(Check any applicable box)
• Debtor has been domiciled or has had a residence, principal place of business, or principal assets in this District for 180
days immediately preceding the date of this petition or for a longer part of such 180 days than in any other District
D There is a bankruptcy case concerning debtor's affiliate, general partner, or partnership pending in this District
D Debtor is a debtor in a foreign proceeding and has its principal place of business or principal assets in the United States in
this District, or has no principal place of business or assets in the United States but is a defendant in an action or
proceeding [in a federal or state court] in this District, or the interests of the parties will be served in regard to the relief
sought in this District
Certification by a Debtor Who Resides as a Tenant of Residential Property
(Check all applicable boxes)
D Landlord has a judgment against the debtor for possession of debtor's residence. (If box checked, complete the following.)
(Name of landlord that obtained judgment)
(Address of landlord)
D Debtor claims that under applicable nonbankruptcy law, there are circumstances under which the debtor would be permitted to cure
the entire monetary default that gave rise to the judgment for possession, after the judgment for possession was entered, and
n Debtor has included in this petition the deposit with the court of any rent that would become due during the 30-day period
after the filing of the petition.
Debtor certifies that he/she has served the Landlord with this certification. (11 U.S.C. § 362(1)).
voluntary Svenson, Elena
(This page must be completed and filed in every case)
Signatures
Signature(s) of Debtor(s) (Individual/Joint) Signature of a Foreign Representative
I declare under penalty of perjury that the information provided in this I declare under penalty of perjury that the information provided in this petition
petition is true and correct. is true and correct, that I am the foreign representative of a debtor in a foreign
[If petitioner is an individual whose debts are primarily consumer debts and proceeding, and that I am authorized to file this petition.
has chosen to file under chapter 7] I am aware that I may proceed under
chapter 7,11,12, or 13 of title 11, United States Code, understand the relief (Check only one box.)
available under each such chapter, and choose to proceed under chapter 7. n I request relief in accordance with chapter 15 of title 11. United States Code.
[If no attorney represents me and no bankruptcy petition preparer signs the Certified copies of the documents required by 11 U.S.C. §1515 are attached.
petition] I have obtained and read the notice required by 11 U.S.C. §342(b).
[] Pursuantto 11 U.S.C. § 1511,1 request relief in accordance with the chapter
I request relief in accordance with the chapter of title 11, United States Code, of title 11 specified in this petition. A certified copy of the order granting
specified in this petition. recognition of the foreign main proceeding is attached.
X / s / Elena Svenson
X
Signature of Foreign Representative
Signature of Debtor Elena Svenson
Printed Name of Foreign Representative

Signature of Joint Debtor
Date
Telephone Number (If not represented by attorney)
Signature of Non-Attorney Bankruptcy Petition Preparer
April 27, 2012
I declare under penalty of perjury that: (1) I am a bankruptcy petition
Date preparer as defined in 11 U.S.C. § 110; (2) I prepared this document for
compensation and have provided the debtor with a copy of this document
Signature of Attorney* and the notices and information required under 11 U.S.C. §§ 110(b),
110(h), and 342(b); and, (3) if rules or guidelines have been promulgated
X / s / Lorna J. LaMotte, Esq pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 110(h) setting a maximum fee for services
chargeable by bankruptcy petition preparers, I have given the debtor notice
Signature of Attorney for Debtor(s) of the maximum amount before preparing any document for filing for a
Lorna J. LaMotte, Esq 11-7089 debtor or accepting any fee from the debtor, as required in that section.
Official Form 19 is attached.
Printed Name of Attorney for Debtor(s)
The Law Offices of Lorna J LaMotte, PLLC
Printed Name and title, if any, of Bankruptcy Petition Preparer
Firm Name
65 Broadway, Suite 839
New York, NY 10006 Social-Security number (If the bankrutpcy petition preparer is not
an individual, state the Social Security number of the officer,
principal, responsible person or partner of the bankruptcy petition
Address preparer.)(Required by 11 U.S.C. § 110.)
Email: l o r n a . l a m o t t e @ y a h o o . c o m
212-430-6516 Fax: 6 4 6 - 3 9 0 - 7 9 6 6
Telephone Number
April 27, 2012
Address
Date
*In a case in which § 707(b)(4)(D) applies, this signature also constitutes a
certification that the attorney has no knowledge after an inquiry that the X
information in the schedules is incorrect.
Date
Signature of Debtor (Corporation/Partnership)
Signature of bankruptcy petition preparer or officer, principal, responsible
I declare under penalty of perjury that the information provided in this person,or partner whose Social Security number is provided above.
petition is true and correct, and that I have been authorized to file this petition
on behalf of the debtor. Names and Social-Security numbers of all other individuals who prepared or
assisted in preparing this document unless the bankruptcy petition preparer is
The debtor requests relief in accordance with the chapter of title 11, United not an individual:
States Code, specified in this petition.
X
Signature of Authorized Individual
If more than one person prepared this document, attach additional sheets
conforming to the appropriate official form for each person.
Printed Name of Authorized Individual
A bankruptcy petition preparer's failure to comply with the provisions of
Title of Authorized Individual title J] and the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure may result in
fines or imprisonment or both. 11 U.S.C. §110; 18 U.S.C. §156.
Date
B ID (Official Form 1, Exhibit D) (12/09)
United States Bankruptcy Court
Eastern District of New York
lure Elena Svenson Case No.
Debtor(s) Chapter 7
EXHIBIT D - INDIVIDUAL DEBTOR'S STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH

CREDIT COUNSELING REQUIREMENT
Warning: You must be able to check truthfully one of the five statements regarding credit
counseling listed below. If you cannot do so, you are not eligible to file a bankruptcy case, and the court
can dismiss any case you do file. If that happens, you will lose whatever filing fee you paid, and your
creditors will be able to resume collection activities against you. If your case is dismissed and you file
another bankruptcy case later, you may be required to pay a second filing fee and you may have to take
extra steps to stop creditors' collection activities.
Every individual debtor mustfile this Exhibit D. If a joint petition is filed, each spouse must complete
and file a separate Exhibit D. Check one of the five statements below and attach any documents as directed.
• 1. Within the 180 days before the filing of my bankruptcy case, I received a briefing from a credit
counseling agency approved by the United States trustee or bankruptcy administrator that outlined the
opportunities for available credit counseling and assisted me in performing a related budget analysis, and I have
a certificate from the agency describing the services provided to me. Attach a copy of the certificate and a copy
of any debt repayment plan developed through the agency.
D 2. Within the 180 days before the filing of my bankruptcy case, I received a briefing from a credit
counseling agency approved by the United States trustee or bankruptcy administrator that outlined the
opportunities for available credit counseling and assisted me in performing a related budget analysis, but I do
not have a certificate from the agency describing the services provided to me. You must file a copy of a
certificate from the agency describing the services provided to you and a copy of any debt repayment plan
developed through the agency no later than 14 days after your bankruptcy case is filed.
D 3.1 certify that I requested credit counseling services from an approved agency but was unable to
obtain the services during the seven days from the time I made my request, and the following exigent
circumstances merit a temporary waiver of the credit counseling requirement so I can file my bankruptcy case
now. [Summarize exigent circumstances here.]
If your certification is satisfactory to the court, you must still obtain the credit counseling briefing
within the first 30 days after you file your bankruptcy petition and promptly file a certificate from the
agency that provided the counseling, together with a copy of any debt management plan developed
through the agency. Failure to fulfill these requirements may result in dismissal of your case. Any
extension of the 30-day deadline can be granted only for cause and is limited to a maximum of 15 days.
Your case may also be dismissed if the court is not satisfied with your reasons for filing your bankruptcy
case without first receiving a credit counseling briefing.
D 4.1 am not required to receive a credit counseling briefing because of: [Check the applicable
statement.] [Must be accompanied by a motion for determination by the court.]
Software Copyright (o) 1995-2012 CCH INCORPORATED -www.bestcase.com Best Case Bankruptcy
B ID (Official Form 1, Exhibit D) (12/09) - Cont. Page 2
D Incapacity. (Defined in 11 U.S.C. § 109(h)(4) as impaired by reason of mental illness or

mental deficiency so as to be incapable of realizing and making rational decisions with respect to
financial responsibilities.);
D Disability. (Defined in 11 U.,§-C. § 109(h)(4) as physically impaired to the extent of being
unable, after reasonable effort, to participate in a credit counseling briefing in person, by telephone, or
through the internet.);
D Active military duty in a military combat zone.
D 5. The United-States trustee or bankruptcy administrator has determined that th^.credit counseling
requirement of 1 l:U.S,<5l §^109(li) does not apply in this district.
I certifyuffdter penalty of perjury that the information provided above is true' and correct.
: ^ Signature of Debtor: /s/ Elena Svenson

- -t' Elena Svenson
April 21, 2012
Software Copyright (o) 1996-2012 CCHWCOKPORAlED -www.bestcase.com " Best Case Bankruptcy
EXHIBIT G

Motion To Set Aside Void Judgement of Foreclosure and For Other Relief

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Motion To Set Aside Void Judgement of Foreclosure and For Other Relief

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

MICHAEL KRICHEVSKY, et al,

NOTICE OF CROSS-MOTION TO SET ASIDE VOID JUDGMENT, ORDER OF FORECLOSURE

in this Omnibus Cross-Motion as follows:

1. On the day of the hearing of this motion, provide a court reporter.

3. Set up Traverse Hearing by Jury.

costs of the cross-motion.

8. Alternatively, dismiss the action under doctrine of unclean hands.

This action is not on the trial calendar.

Dated: Brooklyn, New York

Michael Kiichevsky, Sui Juris

The Margolin & Weinreb Law Group, LLP.

MICHAEL KRICHEVSKY, et al,

AFFIDAVIT AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF CROSS-MOTION TO SET ASIDE

STATE OF NEW YORK ss.:

alleged Plaintiff seeks to foreclose in this action.

2. I have a God given rights to Liberty, Property and Pursuit of Happiness.

conclusions reached from obtained information and belief.

testify as follows below.

DISCLOSURE AND TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE

INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT AND REQUEST TO TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE

attorney or firm and process server.

facts in my two foreclosure cases.

Lively were in charge of the case.

cause me injury in fact.

8. This DCA letter states in pertinent part:

9. The letter also sates:

“Improper Services/False Affidavits of Service

as stated in the complaint and the affidavits of service) in November of 2001.

Brief Procedural History of this Action

Svenson’s or Krichevsky’s co-tenant, or even Dmitry’s co-tenant.

judgment from the court.

Michael Krichevsky, Sui

BANK OF AMERICA. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS INDEX NO. 500130/2015

STATE OF NEW YORK SS:

T Nelli Frid. being duly sworn, say:

The Margolin & Weinreb Law Group. LLP.

69. As reflected by statements in the above-referenced April 1, 2005 email, Rosicki

to a third-party vendor, which would serve them.

geographic areas where Enterprise operated.

Enterprise and Rosicki submitted to the Servicers for comparable work.

Enterprise as compared to the amounts billed by the process servers.

the bills for those services.

79. Specifically, Paramount engaged third-party abstracters to provide the required

documents, at a rate of approximately $15-20 per title report.

Mae requirements that it had agreed to follow.

Examples of False Claims Paid by Fannie Mae

i. Lake Street Property

procedures for the Lake Street Property.

to effectuate service on these defendants.

the services performed by the process server.

allowed by Fannie Mae, and a $35 document retrieval fee.

charged by Enterprise and Paramount.

ii. Pine Ridge Property

foreclosure procedures for the Pine Ridge Property.

to effectuate service on these defendants.

attempted service, or $45 in total.

actual process server.

charge of $135 for a title continuation search performed by the vendor.

charged by Enterprise and Paramount.

iii. Creekview Propeiiy

on a property on Creekview Drive in Hamburg, New York ("Creekview Property"). A third-

procedures for the Pine Ridge Property.