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

24714/2010 MICHAEL KRICHEVSKY, Plaintiff, Plaintiff designates Kings County as the place of trial. -againstAMENDED VERIFIED YONATAN LEVORITZ, ESQ, YORAM NACHIMOVSKY, ESQ, COMPLAINT ELENA SVENSON, The basis of venue is the County in which the Defendants. causes of action aroused JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Plaintiff, Pro Se and for his Verified Complaint, respectfully alleges, upon his firsthand knowledge and upon information and belief:

1. JURISDICTION 1. This is civil action for declaratory relief, money damages and/or equitable relief in excess of jurisdictional limits of all lower courts. 2. This action is simultaneously a violation of civil rights matter since lawyers-defendants as officers of the court violated Plaintiff’s civil rights and due process during litigation in Kings county courts. 3. All lawyers-defendants violated their oath of office to support and protect the Constitutions of United States of America and the State of New York. 4. The plaintiff, MICHAEL KRICHEVSKY, at all times herein mentioned was and still is a resident of the County of Kings and the State of New York. 5. The defendant, YONATAN LEVORITZ, Esq., at all times herein mentioned was and still is a resident of the County of Kings and the State of New York. 6. The defendant, YONATAN LEVORITZ, Esq., at all times herein mentioned was and still is conducting a business in the County of Kings and the State of New York.
Michael Krichevsky v. Levoritz, et al Page 1 of 35 Index No:24714/2010

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

7. The defendant, YORAM NACHIMOVSKY, Esq. at all times herein mentioned was and still is a resident of the County of Kings and the State of New York. 8. The defendant, YORAM NACHIMOVSKY, Esq. at all times herein mentioned was and still is conducting a business in the County of Kings and the State of New York. 9. At all times herein mentioned lawyers-defendants derived substantial revenue from services rendered in the County of Kings and the State of New York. 10. The defendant, ELENA SVENSON, at all times herein mentioned was and still is a resident of the County of Kings and the State of New York. 11. The causes of action aroused out of “created and/or assisted” controversies by lawyers-defendants between defendant SVENSON against Plaintiff in numerous courts and actions in County of Kings and the State of New York. 2. PARTIES 12. MICHAEL KRICHEVSKY – victim, damaged and personally injured plaintiff. 13. ELENA SVENSON – former girlfriend of plaintiff with whom plaintiff has son, DAVID SVENSON. 14. YONATAN LEVORITZ, ESQ. - lawyer representing defendant SVENSON under secret supervision of YORAM NACHIMOVSKY, ESQ. in the Kings County Family Court action against plaintiff. 15. YORAM NACHIMOVSKY, ESQ. – lawyer representing defendant SVENSON in Kings County Family Court and Kings County Supreme Court action against plaintiff bearing index No 33343/2008 16. YORAM NACHIMOVSKY, ESQ. – lawyer still secretly representing defendant SVENSON (as landlady) and codefendants VICTORIA EDELSTEIN and BORIS KOTLYAR (as tenants) in Kings County Supreme Court action against plaintiff bearing index No 33343/2008. 17. YORAM NACHIMOVSKY, ESQ. – lawyer who in 2008 represented petitioner SVENSON (as landlady) and respondents VICTORIA EDELSTEIN and BORIS KOTLYAR (as tenants) in Kings County Landlord & Tenant Court against each other in eviction action.
Michael Krichevsky v. Levoritz, et al Page 2 of 35 Index No:24714/2010

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

1 2 3

18. YORAM NACHIMOVSKY, ESQ. – lawyer who in 2009 represented co-defendants SVENSON (as landlady) and VICTORIA EDELSTEIN and BORIS KOTLYAR (as tenants) against each other in Kings County Civil Court action bearing index No 99601/2009. 3. FACTS, UNREBUTTED OR UNREBUTTABLE ALLEGATIONS AS ADMISSIONS OF FACTS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION 19. YORAM NACHIMOVSKY, ESQ. makes his profit by litigating controversies in courts. 20. YORAM NACHIMOVSKY, ESQ. makes his profit by creating controversies in courts. 21. YORAM NACHIMOVSKY, ESQ. does not participate in mediations. 22. YORAM NACHIMOVSKY, ESQ. charged Defendant SVENSON to litigate against Plaintiff. 23. YORAM NACHIMOVSKY, ESQ. most of the time wins child support payments for the women with child custody. 24. YORAM NACHIMOVSKY, ESQ. most of the time gets his fees awarded against men by the court. 25. YORAM NACHIMOVSKY, ESQ. knew that Family Court discriminate against men. 26. YORAM NACHIMOVSKY, ESQ., knew above mentioned statistics and facts. 27. YORAM NACHIMOVSKY, ESQ. during consultation with Defendant SVENSON in some shape or form explained this statistics to her. 28. YORAM NACHIMOVSKY, ESQ. charged Defendant SVENSON and Codefendants VICTORIA EDELSTEIN and BORIS KOTLYAR (as tenants) in Kings County Landlord & Tenant Court against each other in eviction action. 29. YONATAN LEVORITZ, ESQ. makes his profit by litigating controversies in family courts. 30. YONATAN LEVORITZ, ESQ makes his profit by creating controversies in courts. 31. YONATAN LEVORITZ, ESQ does not participate in mediations. 32. YONATAN LEVORITZ, ESQ. allegedly charged Defendant SVENSON $300 per hour to litigate against Plaintiff.

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Michael Krichevsky v. Levoritz, et al

Page 3 of 35 Index No:24714/2010

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

33. YONATAN LEVORITZ, ESQ. most of the time wins child support payments for the women with child custody. 34. YONATAN LEVORITZ, ESQ. most of the time gets his fees awarded against men by the court. 35. YONATAN LEVORITZ, ESQ. knew that Family Court discriminate against men. 36. YONATAN LEVORITZ, ESQ knew above mentioned statistics and facts. 37. YONATAN LEVORITZ, ESQ during consultation with Defendant SVENSON in some shape or form explained this statistics to her. 38. On or about January of 2008 KRICHEVSKY and SVENSON, unmarried couple, decided to break apart as a family. 39. At that time they lived at 4336 Manhattan Ave, Brooklyn, New York with their son DAVID SVENSON. 40. DAVID SVENSON was 14 years old teenager attending school. 41. Plaintiff, employed at that time with Wittenstein and Associates, PC, financially supported whole family. 42. Defendant SVENSON was unemployed during party’s relationship starting in 1992. 43. SVENSON and KRICHEVSKY own condominium unit located at 120 Oceana Drive West, apt 5D in Brooklyn, New York, which later became the subject of litigation in Supreme court action bearing Index No 33343/2008 44. Said condominium was rented by VICTORIA EDELSTEIN and BORIS KOTLYAR for $2575 per month on a month to month tenancy starting from December of 2006. 45. VICTORIA EDELSTEIN and BORIS KOTLYAR later became defendants in the above action for, inter alia, torturous interference with prospective economic relationship. 46. Plaintiff was solely and contractually responsible for first and second mortgage payments to the banks.

Michael Krichevsky v. Levoritz, et al

Page 4 of 35 Index No:24714/2010

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

47. Mortgage plus condominium fees and expenses were more than the monthly rent and owners were trying to sell this condo in order to stop losing money. 48. During 2008, SVENSON and KRICHEVSKY were in discussions of future child support, how to fairly divide their assets and to go their own ways. 49. Due to SVENSON’s complete ignorance of law and fairness principles, as well as lack of trust, plaintiff was having a hard time in negotiations and suggested that she hire an attorney to negotiate with plaintiff. 50. She promised to do this and let plaintiff know when she was ready. 51. On or about January- February of 2008 Plaintiff was informed by SVENSON that she is consulting some attorney, but she is not sure if she will hire him. 52. On or about July of 2008 plaintiff found an interested buyer of the above mentioned condo, but tenants refused to let this buyer in to see this apartment. 53. On or about July of 2008, after discussing this incident with SVENSON, plaintiff hired attorney Robert Rosenblatt to represent them in an eviction proceeding against VICTORIA EDELSTEIN and BORIS KOTLYAR in order to recover control over the condo. 54. During October-November court appearances attorney Rosenblatt learned that SVENSON was simultaneously represented by lawyer YORAM NACHIMOVSKY against plaintiff. 55. Rosenblatt informed plaintiff that SVENSON allegedly signed a lease to VICTORIA EDELSTEIN and BORIS KOTLYAR for $2850 per month starting from October 1, 2008, and she received first month rent and deposit in the total amount of $5700. 56. Rosenblatt informed plaintiff that NACHIMOVSKY prepared, and SVENSON signed a stipulation discontinuing the eviction action against tenants. 57. Due to the events stated above, Rosenblatt started litigation in Supreme Court action bearing Index No 33343/2008 to protect plaintiff’s interests and force the sale of said condominium to the above mentioned buyer.
Michael Krichevsky v. Levoritz, et al Page 5 of 35 Index No:24714/2010

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

58. At the same time SVENSON became verbally abusive toward plaintiff. 59. At the same time SVENSON blackmailed plaintiff and threatened to report plaintiff to FBI and IRS, EXHIBIT A. 60. In the summer of 2008, SVENSON and plaintiff’s son moved out of apartment on Manhattan Avenue, Brooklyn into her cooperative apartment at 2620 Ocean Parkway, apt 3K in Brooklyn. 61. At that point plaintiff still supported them with cash. 62. On or about October 21, 2008 SVENSON, following Nachimovsky’ advice looted plaintiff’s apartment on 4336 Manhattan Avenue in Brooklyn. Witness affidavit and pictures attached as EXHIBIT B. 63. On October 27, 2008 SVENSON, following Nachimovsky’ advice filed false Family Offence Petition against plaintiff, EXHIBIT C. 64. In order to avoid contact with SVENSON, protection of personal belongings, and possible provocation of violence by SVENSON, plaintiff on October 21, 2008, after apartment looting incident, changed locks on 4336 Manhattan Avenue. 65. On October 27, 2008 after she, ex-parte, obtained order of protection against plaintiff (but unknown at that time to plaintiff), she brought party’s son DAVID to plaintiff’s place of work, and together harassed plaintiff’s employer, Harlan Wittenstein, Esq. and demanded that he fires plaintiff. 66. In the beginning of November 2008, plaintiff was served with order of protection at his work by city marshal. 67. Fear of being arrested as a STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE by police enforcing order of protection, plaintiff abandoned that apartment and became homeless. 68. In December of 2005 plaintiff bought a house located at 4221 Atlantic Avenue in Brooklyn, New York that needed renovation. 69. Plaintiff was and still is the sole owner and mortgage payor of said house.

Michael Krichevsky v. Levoritz, et al

Page 6 of 35 Index No:24714/2010

170. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

In June of 2008 plaintiff started renovation of said house with assistance of construction company LEON CONSTRUCTION, which provided financial assistance as well. 71. During the times that SVENSON blackmailed plaintiff, she also told him:”I am going to make sure that you will not finish renovation, and instead file for bankruptcy.” 72. During eviction proceedings of EDELSTIN and KOTLYAR NAKHIMOVSKY told ROSENBLATT that they want to buy Plaintiff’s condominium apartment. 73. NACHIMOVSKY requested and Plaintiff provided copies of mortgage statements regarding condominium apartments. 74. ROSENBLADT adjourned eviction hearings hoping to settle this matter. 75. After about a month of delay NACHIMOVSKY told ROZENBLADT that his clients withdrew their offer. 76. During 2008 Family Court appearances, NACHIMOVSKY blackmailed plaintiff and tried to coerce him into short sale of mentioned condo to VICTORIA EDELSTEIN and BORIS KOTLYAR. 77. NACHIMOVSKY refused to first mediate child support issue, and gave plaintiff an ultimatum of temporary child support amount of $2500 per month. 78. NACHIMOVSKY told plaintiff that they will “reveal in open court all machinations of plaintiff and it will cost him much much more (implying criminal prosecution) than what they ask”. 79. That incident was reported to ROSENBLATT and demand was made by plaintiff that NACHIMOVSKY resign from the case due to outrageous conflict of interest and unprofessional conduct. 80. NACHIMOVSKY told ROZENBLATT that he will NO longer represent SVENSON, VICTORIA EDELSTEIN and BORIS KOTLYAR, EXHIBITED D. 81. Plaintiff learned that it was hoax. 82. NACHIMOVSKY still represents above mentioned people through puppet - puppeteer scheme. 83. NICOLAS RATUSH, ESQ. – employee of NACHIMOVSKY, ESQ.
Michael Krichevsky v. Levoritz, et al Page 7 of 35 Index No:24714/2010

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

84. NICOLAS RATUSH, ESQ. – lawyer-puppet as employee of NACHIMOVSKY, lawyer-puppeteer. 85. RATUSH represents VICTORIA EDELSTEIN and BORIS KOTLYAR in Supreme Court action bearing Index No 33343/2008 against plaintiff. 86. RATUSH represents VICTORIA EDELSTEIN and BORIS KOTLYAR in Kings County Civil Court action bearing Index No 99601/2009 against plaintiff. 87. YONATAN LEVORITZ, ESQ. – lawyer-puppet, through which NACHIMOVSKY represents SVENSON by continuous pattern of blackmail, fraud and extortion. 88. MICHAEL BIANCANELLO, ESQ. - lawyer-puppet, recently resigned, represented SVENSON against plaintiff in Supreme Court action bearing Index No 33343/2008 against plaintiff. 89. NACHIMOVSKY, LEVORITZ, BIANCANELLO AND RATUSH hired to act, acted and/or continue to act in capacity of “contractual assassins” to harm plaintiff. 4. CAUSES OF ACTION

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

4.1

BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY AS TO NACHIMOVSKY AND LEVORITZ

90. All allegations above are incorporated by this reference as if fully restated herein. 91. When attorneys-defendants entered the court proceedings mentioned above to represent Defendant SVENSON and codefendants EDELSTEIN and KOTLYAR they entered into contract with Plaintiff, court, public and, lastly, Defendant SVENSON and Codefendants EDELSTEIN and KOTLYAR. 92. The terms of this contract are described in Corpus Juris Secundum (CJS), Volume 7, Section 4, Attorney & client: “The attorney's first duty is to the courts and the public, not to the client, and wherever the duties to his client conflict with those he owes as an officer of the court in the administration of justice, the former must yield to the latter. The office of attorney is indispensable to the administration of justice and is intimate and peculiar in its relation to, and vital to the well-being of, the court. An attorney has a duty to aid the court in
Michael Krichevsky v. Levoritz, et al Page 8 of 35 Index No:24714/2010

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

seeing that actions and proceedings in which he is engaged as counsel are conducted in a dignified and orderly manner, free from passion and personal animosities, and that all causes brought to an issue are tried and decided on their merits only; to aid the court…” 93. Accordingly, Plaintiff is one of the public and Defendants –attorneys did not have a license to rob the Plaintiff. 94. The terms of this contract are described in 63C Am.Jur.2d, Public Officers and Employees, §247: “As expressed otherwise, the powers delegated to a public officer are held in trust for the people and are to be exercised on behalf of the government or of all citizens who may need the intervention of the officer. [1] Furthermore, the view has been expressed that all public officers, within whatever branch and whatever level of government, and whatever be their private vocations, are trustees of the people, and accordingly labor under every disability and prohibition imposed by law upon trustees relative to the making of personal financial gain from a discharge of their trusts. [2] That is, a public officer occupies a fiduciary relationship to the political entity on whose behalf he or she serves. [3] and owes a fiduciary duty to the public. [4] It has been said that the fiduciary responsibilities of a public officer cannot be less than those of a private individual. [5] Furthermore, it has been stated that any enterprise undertaken by the public official who tends to weaken public confidence and undermine the sense of security for individual rights is against public policy. Fraud in its elementary common law sense of deceit-and this is one of the meanings that fraud bears [483 U.S. 372] in the statute. 95. The terms of this contract are described in Oath of Attorney and when attorney-defendants swore their oath of attorney, they entered into contract with God as well:

Michael Krichevsky v. Levoritz, et al

Page 9 of 35 Index No:24714/2010

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

“I do solemnly swear that I will support, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States; that I will do no falsehood, or consent that any be done in court and if I know of any I will give knowledge thereof of the judges of the court, or some one of them, that it may be reformed; I will not wittingly, willingly or knowingly promote, sue, or procure to be sued, any false or unlawful suit, or give aid or consent to the same; I will delay no person for lucre or malice, but will act in the office of attorney according to my best learning and discretion, with all good fidelity as well to the court as to my client, so help me God.” 96. Speaking of God, the terms of this contract were 10 Commandments, especially when Defendants advertise themselves as being religious Jews; this image implies faith, honesty and integrity: VII. Thou shalt not steal. IX. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. 97. The terms of this contract are described in the constitutions of United States of America and New York State. 98. The terms of this contract are described in “Judiciary Law § 466, entitled "Attorney’s oath of office," states in relevant part that: Each person, admitted as prescribed in this chapter must, upon his [or her] admission, take the constitutional oath of office in open court, and subscribe the same in a roll or book, to be kept in the office of the clerk of the appellate division of the supreme court for that purpose. The text of the oath is set forth in § 1 of Article XIII of the New York State Constitution, as follows: I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the constitution of the United States, and the constitution of the State of New York, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of [attorney and counselor-at-law], according to the best of my ability. It further states: “Upon taking the oath, an applicant becomes an officer of the courts of the State of New York. The formal title of the office is “Attorney and Counselor-at-Law.” An office, in this sense, is a
Michael Krichevsky v. Levoritz, et al Page 10 of 35 Index No:24714/2010

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

position of duty, trust, and authority, conferred by governmental authority for a public purpose (Black’s, at 1115). In his or her role as an attorney, the officer is one who is designated to transact business for another (Black’s, at 138) and as a counselor-at-law, his or her role is to give legal advice (Shorter Oxford English Dictionary [5th ed 2002], at 532).” 99. The terms of this contract are described in numerous NEW YORK RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT. 100. 101. The term of this contract was “fair play.” The terms of this contract were that attorneys will not misrepresent or fabricate any facts to harm

or deceive the Plaintiff and the court. 102. Additionally, when Defendants decided to help Defendant SVENSON to resolve issue of child-

support payments for parties’ son David Svenson, they entered into fiduciary relationship with their son as Guardian ad litem. 103. The state of trustee and fiduciary may be described as one of “uberrima fides.” The BLACK’S

LAW DICTIONARY (1968) defines uberrima fides this way: “the most abundant good faith; absolute and perfect or openness and honesty; the absence of any concealment or dissection, however slight. A phrase used to express the perfect faith, concealing nothing…" 104. 105. 106. 107. 108. As officers of the court Defendants owe fiduciary duty to all involved in court proceedings. As officers of the court Defendants owe fiduciary duty to the public and its trust. As officers of the court Defendants owe fiduciary duty to the court and must not deceive the court. As officers of the court Defendants owe fiduciary duty to the Plaintiff and must not deceive him. As officers of the court Defendants owe fiduciary duty to the Plaintiff by helping the court to

administer justice. 109. 110. Plaintiff is direct beneficiary of above mentioned duties. Plaintiff and the court relied on Defendant's authority, license to practice law, role of trustee and

fiduciary not to deceive the court and Plaintiff.
Michael Krichevsky v. Levoritz, et al Page 11 of 35 Index No:24714/2010

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

111. 112. 113. 114. 115. 116.

Plaintiff is direct beneficiary of fiduciary duties if the justice is not only served, but served timely. Defendant SVENSON is direct beneficiary of above mentioned duties. Parties’ son David Svenson is direct beneficiary of above mentioned duties. Defendants knew that they are fiduciaries and trustees as attorneys when they entered proceedings. Each of the Defendants breached their contracts, oath of the office and fiduciary duty. Defendants breached their contracts, oath of the office and fiduciary duty not only toward the

Plaintiff, but toward the whole broken family. 117. Everything that Defendants did was not in the best interest of anybody involved, except

Defendants. 118. media. 119. Defendant NACHIMOVSKY advised SVENSON to file family offense petition in Brooklyn Defendant NACHIMOVSKY advised SVENSON to steal Plaintiff’s personal records and backup

Family Court. 120. 121. That family offense petition was withdrawn by NACHIMOVSKY and dismissed by the court. Defendant NACHIMOVSKY started child support litigation in Brooklyn Family Court before any

attempt to settle this matter with Plaintiff. 122. Defendant NACHIMOVSKY advised Defendant SVENSON against mediation of child support

matters with Plaintiff. 123. 124. Both Defendants advised SVENSON, to breach contracts with and fiduciary duty to Plaintiff. Simultaneously, Defendant NACHIMOVSKY began representation of SVENSON while

RATUSH began representation of EDELSTEIN and KOTLYAR against each other and Plaintiff in landlord and tenant court despite conflict of interest. 125. 126. 127. Defendants made unnecessary motions, delays and adjournments during the court proceedings. Defendants tampered with evidence. Defendant LEVORITZ tampered with discovery process.
Page 12 of 35 Index No:24714/2010

Michael Krichevsky v. Levoritz, et al

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

128.

Defendant LEVORITZ when making his motions did not attach EXHIBITS to Plaintiff's counsel

Daniel Singer copy of motion. 129. Defendant LEVORITZ served his motions one day before the hearing surprising Plaintiff counsel

and not giving him time to prepare. 130. Defendant LEVORITZ produced and filed with the court fraudulent financial disclosure affidavit

of Defendant SVENSON. 131. Defendant LEVORITZ tampered with witness Larisa Gabber and told her not to appear under

subpoena in Brooklyn Family Court hearing. 132. 133. 134. 135. 136. 137. 138. Above mentioned acts constitute obstruction of justice and prejudiced Plaintiff’s matters. Defendant LEVORITZ coached his client Defendant SVENSON perjurious testimony. Defendant LEVORITZ misrepresented facts of the matter to the court. Defendant LEVORITZ perjuriously testified himself. Defendant LEVORITZ knew that attorneys cannot testify instead of his client. Defendant LEVORITZ injected himself in the proceedings as an expert witness. Defendant LEVORITZ knew that attorney cannot simultaneously be an expert witness on behalf

of his client. 139. In the second week of March 2010, Plaintiff called LEVORITZ and asked him whether he

received anything from Family Court. 140. 141. He replied that he did not. Plaintiff has evidence that LEVORITZ, in fact, did receive final order of child support from

Family Court. 142. During Plaintiff's appeal to judge Paula Hepner, LEVORITZ argued that Plaintiff received final

order of support on February 25. 143. When Paula Hepner denied Plaintiff’s appeal, Family Court clerk generated fake final order of

support with fake date of service.
Michael Krichevsky v. Levoritz, et al Page 13 of 35 Index No:24714/2010

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

144. 145. 146.

In the end, LEVORITZ was in possession of two different child-support orders. EXHIBIT E LEVORITZ had the fiduciary duty to report this incident to appropriate authorities, but he did not. Both Defendants manipulated child support system against Plaintiff in order to continue litigation

and controversy. 147. 148. 149. 150. 151. Nor David Svenson, neither SVENSON finally benefited from actions or inactions of Defendants. Plaintiff estimates that both Defendants through SVENSON profited in the amount of $50,000. Plaintiff wasted estimated $30,000 in attorney fees. These amounts combined could be spent on tuition for David Svenson’s college education. By contrast, SVENSON received for about three years approximately $15,000 in child support

enforcement. 152. If not for the "services and help" of Defendants she would've gotten $1500.00 per month,

voluntarily from Plaintiff, in child support which would've amounted to $18,000.00 per year. 153. Defendants did not pursue the best interest of the child and were disloyal to David Svenson,

Defendant SVENSON and Plaintiff while enriching themselves at the expense of this broken family. 154. Defendant’s actions have substantially damaged Plaintiff in an amount to be determined at trial,

but no less than $1,700,000.00. 155. Defendants’ actions were willful, wanton, fraudulent and negligent, and as such, Plaintiff is

entitled to punitive damages in the sum of no less than $750,000. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff demands judgment against defendant awarding damages in the amount exceeding jurisdictional limits of all lower courts, together with interest and the costs and disbursements of this action, and such other and further relief as to Interest of Justice and this Court seems just and proper.

4.2

AIDING AND ABETTING A BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY AS TO NACHIMOVSKY AND LEVORITZ 156. All allegations above are incorporated by this reference as if fully restated herein.
Page 14 of 35 Index No:24714/2010

Michael Krichevsky v. Levoritz, et al

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

157. 158. 159.

Plaintiff and Defendant SVENSON were in contractual relationship with each other. They owned condominium apartment together with equal share. Defendant SVENSON promised Plaintiff that after she finishes her medical school and gets a job

she will help Plaintiff to pay off mortgage on that condominium apartment. 160. Plaintiff and SVENSON agreed to rent out their condominium apartment to EDELSTEIN in order

to save money and pay mortgage on it. 161. Plaintiff and Defendant SVENSON together with their son moved in a modest apartment in 4336

Manhattan Ave., Brooklyn, NY. 162. 163. 164. Plaintiff and Defendant SVENSON were in the state of partnership with each other. Plaintiff and Defendant owed fiduciary duty to each other and their son. When parties decided to separate, Plaintiff offered and told Defendant SVENSON that it would be

beneficial to hire an attorney to help parties and to advise them on the law and procedure as to how to divide parties’ property and work out child support payments by Plaintiff. 165. Plaintiff told Defendant SVENSON that in separation or divorce matters the first attorney’s duty

would be to contact the Plaintiff and try to work out some settlement. 166. Plaintiff told Defendant SVENSON that if he will be unable to work out some settlement with that

attorney, parties have an option to go on mediation before resolving to litigation. 167. 168. Plaintiff told Defendant SVENSON that litigation will be costly and senseless to both parties. Plaintiff told Defendant SVENSON that he is willing to pay that attorney on their behalf for

services rendered. 169. 170. 171. Defendant SVENSON accepted the offer and according to her started interviewing attorneys. Parents of the child owe fiduciary duty to each other and to the child. Attorneys-defendants knew about fiduciary relationship between parties and their fiduciary duty

toward their son.

Michael Krichevsky v. Levoritz, et al

Page 15 of 35 Index No:24714/2010

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

172.

Attorneys-defendants advised Defendant SVENSON and codefendants EDELSTEIN and

KOTLYAR as to how to breach fiduciary duty toward Plaintiff. 173. Attorneys-defendants advised and assisted SVENSON in creation of void lease to Edelstein and

Kotlyar, thereby preventing Plaintiff from selling condominium apartment. 174. Defendant’s actions have substantially damaged plaintiff in an amount to be determined at trial,

but no less than $700,000. 175. Defendant’s actions have substantially damaged plaintiff in an amount to be determined at trial,

but no less than $700,000. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff demands judgment against defendant awarding damages in the amount exceeding jurisdictional limits of all lower courts, together with interest and the costs and disbursements of this action, and such other and further relief as to Interest of Justice and this Court seems just and proper.

4.3

AIDING AND ABETTING THE COMMISSION OF CONVERSION AS TO NACHIMOVSKYAND LEVOROTZ 176. 177. All allegations above are incorporated by this reference as if fully restated herein. Svenson has refused to provide plaintiff with his share of profits derived from the rental of the

subject premises. 178. As such, SVENSON has wrongfully converted plaintiff’s property to her own. Because of the

foregoing, plaintiff has sustained money damages in the sum to be determined at trial. 179. 180. Attorneys-defendants advised and assisted SVENSON in creation of conversion. Attorneys-defendants actively participated in the defense of this action knowing that this is action

for conversion. 181. Defendant's actions were willful, wanton, fraudulent and malicious, and as such, plaintiff is

entitled to punitive damages.

Michael Krichevsky v. Levoritz, et al

Page 16 of 35 Index No:24714/2010

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

182.

Defendant’s actions have substantially damaged plaintiff in an amount to be determined at trial,

but no less than $270,000.00 WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff demands judgment against defendants awarding damages in the amount exceeding jurisdictional limits of all lower courts, together with interest and the costs and disbursements of this action, and such other and further relief as to Interest of Justice and this Court seems just and proper.

4.4
183. 184.

LEGAL MALPRACTICE AS TO NACHIMOVSKY AND LEVORITZ All allegations above are incorporated by this reference as if fully restated herein. Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement this cause without leave of court. AIDING AND ABETTING THE COMMISSION OF TORT AS TO ALL OF THE DEFENDANTS All allegations above are incorporated by this reference as if fully restated herein. WHEREFORE, the plaintiff demands judgment against each defendant awarding damages in the amount exceeding jurisdictional limits of all lower courts, together with interest and the costs and disbursements of this action, and such other and further relief as to Interest of Justice and this Court seems just and proper.

4.5
185.

4.6

CONCEALMENT OR DESTRUCTION OF EVIDENCE (EVIDENCE SPOLIATION) AS TO ALL OF THE DEFENDANTS 186. 187. All allegations above are incorporated by this reference as if fully restated herein. In 2008, SVENSON, acting upon advice and/or knowledge of NACHIMOVSKY, stole plaintiff’s

personal records, bills, receipts, copies of income tax filings for prior years, W-2 forms, tax bills and computer back up media. 188. That evidence was destroyed or concealed (it is unknown which) but was not produced during

proceeding.

Michael Krichevsky v. Levoritz, et al

Page 17 of 35 Index No:24714/2010

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

189.

During child support hearings in Family Court, after NACHIMOVSKY’ substitution by

LEVORITZ, he knowingly and selectively presented favorable to SVENSON plaintiff’s documents over objection of plaintiff’s attorney that they been stolen from plaintiff and, therefore, not admissible. 190. Then, LEVORITZ demanded documents from plaintiff knowing that plaintiff is not in possession

of them. 191. 192. Then, LEVORITZ blamed plaintiff for being evasive and uncooperative. Absence of this evidence played a major role in plaintiff’s defense and rendered unfavorable order

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

4.7
193. 194.

MALICIOUS ABUSE OF LEGAL PROCESS AS TO ALL OF THE DEFENDANTS All allegations above are incorporated by this reference as if fully restated herein. SVENSON, under pretense of seeking to protect the best interest of the child, started a war and

hired NACHIMOVSKY to commit, advice, aid and abet her in stated in this complaint torts and criminal activities in order to gain financially and harm plaintiff. 195. 196. 197. NACHIMOVSKY and LEVORITZ willingly and knowingly accepted employment. All of the defendants refused to mediate disputed issues with plaintiff. On October 27, 2008 Defendant quietly filed fraudulent Petition for Order of Protection against

plaintiff forcing him out of his apartment on 4336 Manhattan Ave in Brooklyn, New York, which defendant abandoned in summer of 2008 and moved to her apartment at 2620 Ocean Pkwy, Apt 3K, Brooklyn, New York. 198. When Police came to arrest plaintiff, but missed him, plaintiff fled this apartment for the fear of

been arrested if he stayed there.
Michael Krichevsky v. Levoritz, et al Page 18 of 35 Index No:24714/2010

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

199.

Plaintiff became homeless and suffered a great deal of emotional distress, as well as loss of

productive time and energy. 200. 201. That willful and malicious act caused plaintiff to suffer financial loss when he fled that apartment. Plaintiff hired attorney Charles Gayner, Esq. to represent him in court which cost plaintiff

$5,000.00. 202. During said Order of Protection hearing, this petition was withdrawn by NACHIMOVSKY,

before the court had any opportunity to rule and it was dismissed. 203. Neither SVENSON, nor plaintiff’s son DAVID were afraid of contact with plaintiff as they

willfully entered plaintiff’s place of work few hours after obtaining order of protection, and which they were supposed to avoid. 204. During civil actions that defendants engaged plaintiff in, as a standard operating procedures they

used frivolous motion practice as defined by NYCRR rule 130-1.1. 205. Defendants went as far as been in contempt of court as officers of the court in order to deny

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

4.8
206. 207. 208.

LEGAL FRAUD AS TO ALL OF THE DEFENDANTS All allegations above are incorporated by this reference as if fully restated herein. Defendants were aware of legal maxim: bad facts make bad laws. SVENSON, under pretense of seeking to protect the best interest of the child, started a war and

hired NACHIMOVSKY to commit, advice, aid and abet her in all stated in this complaint torts and criminal activities in order to gain financially and harm plaintiff.

Michael Krichevsky v. Levoritz, et al

Page 19 of 35 Index No:24714/2010

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

209.

NACHIMOVSKY knowingly and willingly accepted employment and created numerous

fraudulent schemes through conflict of interest in violation of NEW YORK RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT 210. One of such schemes was conspiracy to create backdated lease between SVENSON, EDELSTEIN

and KOTLYAR, to present it in court and to plaintiff’s lawyer, Robert Rosenblatt, Esq. 211. That scheme resulted in profit of $34,200.00 from rent to SVENSON, while plaintiff was left with

immediate loss of paying condominium expenses and necessity of starting the Supreme Court action against conspirators as eviction action failed. 212. That scheme substantially undermined and prejudiced plaintiff’s financial rights, later on resulted

in loss of the buyer of condo, plaintiff’s inability to pay mortgages and loss of credit rating, which further damaged and crippled plaintiff’s finances. 213. 214. 215. That scheme resulted in all of the properties placed in foreclosure. That scheme is still in play through NACHIMOVSKY’s lawyer-puppet RATUSH. After NACHIMOVSKY’s creation of racketeering enterprise by employing his lawyers-puppets,

they knowingly and willingly continued to harm plaintiff, as well as aiding and abetting SVENSON in her war against plaintiff. 216. LEVORITZ created, aided and abetted SVENSON in creation and filing of fraudulent, perjurious

and misleading instruments in child support proceeding of Brooklyn Family Court. 217. Misleading and perjurious actions and testimony of LEVORITZ resulted in unfair child support

order against plaintiff. 218. 219. Targeted actions of LEVORITZ resulted in plaintiff’s loss of job, income and money. Losses above resulted in plaintiff’s loss of credit and failure of his renovation project on 4221

Atlantic Avenue house. 220. On the Supreme Court front NACHIMOVKSY’s lawyer-puppet, BIANCANELLO, through

misleading and fraudulent pleadings convinced judge that $34,200.00 profit is actually money spent
Michael Krichevsky v. Levoritz, et al Page 20 of 35 Index No:24714/2010

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

on SVENSON’s son as a child support and that this issue being decided by Family Court when he knew it was not. 221. While BIANCANELLO was “protecting” interests of the child in Supreme Court, he knew that

LEVORITZ is “protecting” same child by asking for child support in Family Court and while KRICHEVSKY was paying to SVENSON $627.00 per month in temporary child support pursuant to order of Family Court. 222. These acts resulted in substantial loss to plaintiff as family court ordered plaintiff to pay

SVENSON $31,599.42 in arrears. 223. Defendant’s actions have substantially damaged plaintiff in an amount to be determined at trial,

but no less than $1,000,000.00. 224. During litigation induced by the defendants, perjurious documents were created and filed in courts

under penalty of perjury. 225. During litigation induced by the defendants, perjurious statements were made under penalty of

perjury in courts. 226. Material facts were misrepresented and plaintiff’s statements were misquoted in order to confuse

judges and/or create bias against plaintiff. 227. 228. Felonious witness tampering and lies were standard operating procedures. In 2009, plaintiff’s attorney Daniel Singer filed Emergency Order to Show Cause with TRO in

Supreme Court action bearing Index No 33343/2008 against SVENSON, EDELSTEIN and KOTLYAR in order to gain control over rent money to be able to pay mortgage and keep properties out of foreclosure. 229. RATUSH and BIANCANELLO stipulated with the Judge of Supreme Court Hon Bert Bunyan

that SVENSON will pay $7,000.00 and EDELSTEIN with KOTLYAR $1,000.00 in escrow account of Daniel Singer, so he will pay mortgage to keep properties out of foreclosure. 230. However, all of them became in Contempt of Court and in concert failed to send checks.
Page 21 of 35 Index No:24714/2010

Michael Krichevsky v. Levoritz, et al

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

231. 232.

None of the puppets contacted Mr. Singer in order to apologize or get more time to comply. When Mr. Singer contacted them, all of them had arguments as to why they should not pay, even

though they agreed at the time of stipulation. 233. RATUSH, instead of advising his clients to pay $1,000.00 and comply with this order, engaged in

frivolous motion practice in order not to pay this $1,000.00. 234. This motion practice cost more than $1,000.00 and was designed to harm and financially wear out

plaintiff. 235. Simultaneously with above mentioned frivolous motion practice, LEVORITZ engaged plaintiff in

even costlier frivolous motion practice completely wearing out plaintiff financially. 236. 237. Plaintiff had no choice but to finish Family Court hearing as Pro Se. For SVENSON, having two lawyers in two different courts instead of one lawyer standing in front

of one judge, was necessary to be able to claim different sets of facts, ask for different reliefs, pointing to other lawyer-puppet, play stupid and confuse two different judges, to divide subject matter jurisdiction and get double recovery of child support and arrears, at which they succeeded under orchestration of NACHIMOVSKY and acting in concert. 238. 239. Actions of all lawyers-defendants constitute Fraud upon the Court by Officers of the Court. According to RES JUDICATA doctrine, LEVORITZ did not have any right to claim arrears on

child support since BIANCANELLO in Supreme Court action pleaded that $34,200.00 rent money were spent on child support and SVENSON stipulated with Hon. Bert Bunyan that she will pay back $7,000.00 to plaintiff, which she also failed to do. 240. 241. Such acts are criminal in nature and constitute Fraud upon the Court. If lawyers-defendants were not hired by SVENSON to act as “contractual assassins” to harm

plaintiff, than they acted in their own best interest and advised SVENSON not to mediate disputed issues with plaintiff in order to churn more legal fees for themselves.

Michael Krichevsky v. Levoritz, et al

Page 22 of 35 Index No:24714/2010

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

242.

These lawyers acted and gave legal advice to SVENSON which was contrary to her and/or her

child’ best interests. 243. 244. 245. Fraud against SVENSON negatively affected plaintiff as well. Acts like these destroy public confidence in our legal system and judiciary as a whole. All lawyers are officers of the Court and their Fraud upon the Court triggers their disbarment and

referral to appropriate authorities. 246. Defendant’s actions have substantially damaged plaintiff in an amount to be determined at trial,

but no less than $1,000,000.00. WHEREFORE, the plaintiff demands judgment against each defendant awarding punitive damages in the amount exceeding jurisdictional limits of all lower courts, together with interest and the costs and disbursements of this action, and such other and further relief as to Interest of Justice and this Court seems just and proper.

4.9
247. 248.

SLANDER AS TO LEVORITZ All allegations above are incorporated by this reference as if fully restated herein. On August 6, 2009 during child support hearing in Kings County Family Court, Part 27,

LEVORITZ made several malicious and slanderous allegations about plaintiff on the record to support magistrate Fasone and others present: a) Your Honor, with all due respect this gentleman has complete control over his income… He works almost as a partner in a law firm, Your Honor. b) I am going to explain it. He brings in clients for the law firm and receives a percentage of the recovery on personal injury matters. c) If you look at his tax return his tax return reflects the fact that he actually owned a company and he put everything through his company and not through him.

Michael Krichevsky v. Levoritz, et al

Page 23 of 35 Index No:24714/2010

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

d) Because it’s not necessary reported on a W-2, Your Honor. No, in the past some of it has been reported on W-2, some of it has gone through the company. He shelters it in different… e) The Court: “His income is diverted, but that doesn’t mean his employer is giving him extra income. Unless you’re gonna tell me he’s in cahoots with these people…” LEVORITZ:”That’s exactly what I’m saying, Your Honor. As I said before, he’s a pseudopartner in this particular business…” 249. 250. 251. 252. There were depositions of Defendant SVENSON and Plaintiff scheduled by Mr. Fasone. LEVORITZ refused to depose Plaintiff and produce Defendant, EXHIBIT D. Plaintiff never told SVENSON that he either a partner or an owner of the law firm. If SVENSON knew that Plaintiff is the owner or the partner of the law firm, she would not go to

Plaintiff's place of work and demand that Mr. Wittenstein fires Plaintiff. 253. On October 8, 2009 during continuation of child support hearing which started on August 6, 2009

in Kings County Family Court, Part 27, LEVORITZ made several malicious and slanderous allegations about plaintiff on the record to support magistrate Fasone and others present: a) Isn’t it true that you have no time to rest because you’re actually an owner of Wittenstein and Associates … b) Your Honor, unfortunately, in certain communities it does happen where non-lawyers actually own law firms, and it’s a lawyer that’s used as a front”. Last statement [ b) ] was not material to the case. 254. 255. 256. This statement was racial, malicious and intended to smear Plaintiff. This statement was immoral toward his fellow attorney Harlan Wittenstein. This statement constituted a hateful state of mind of LEVORITZ and was designed to inflame bias

and prejudice of Mr. Fasone against Plaintiff.

Michael Krichevsky v. Levoritz, et al

Page 24 of 35 Index No:24714/2010

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

257.

On January 6, 2010 during continuation of said child support hearing in Kings County Family

Court, Part 27, LEVORITZ made several malicious and slanderous allegations about plaintiff on the record to support magistrate Fasone and others present: a) His Affidavit of Net Worth has in excess of $200,000 in annual expenses. If he claims he made $56,000, he spent roughly four times that amount, not including what he spent on constructing the two family house… 258. 259. 260. 261. 262. 263. These statements were not made under penalty of perjury. These statements were not made upon first-hand knowledge. These statements were not made upon information and belief. These statements were not made upon Svenson's testimony. These statements were not made upon any witness testimony. LEVORITZ knew these statements were false and designed to influence bias and prejudice of the

court against plaintiff. 264. 265. 266. LEVORITZ’ intentionally and unjustifiably made those statements. LEVORITZ did not present any evidence to support his allegations. LEVORITZ unjustifiably did not put defendant SVENSON on the stand to examine her and get

these allegations from her. 267. 268. LEVORITZ knew that then she could be cross-examined by plaintiff’s attorney. LEVORITZ intentionally and unjustifiably refused to depose Plaintiff and produce defendant

SVENSON for deposition, even though they were scheduled by the court. 269. 270. LEVORITZ did not want any statements or facts to come during deposition. By declining to depose Plaintiff, LEVORITZ was able to slander plaintiff and have slanderous

accusations and arguments during hearing, absent record to the contrary. 271. Because LEVORITZ knew that these statements were not true, he did not have any legal, moral,

or social duty to speak.
Michael Krichevsky v. Levoritz, et al Page 25 of 35 Index No:24714/2010

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

272.

LEVORITZ made unsworn testimony, making it look as if he has firsthand knowledge of facts

after a due diligence done by him when, in fact, he did not. 273. 274. LEVORITZ knew that he will not be cross-examined by plaintiff’s lawyer. LEVORITZ knew about doctrine of qualified immunity and proceeded to slander Plaintiff

thinking that he will not be punished. 275. LEVORITZ knew that magistrate Fasone labeled KRICHEVSKY as moneyed party and looking

for a reason to award maximum amount of child support as he has personal interest in the outcome of this case. 276. As result of LEVORITZ’s “pitching” this slanderous accusations to Fasone, Fasone “hit a home

run” by ordering plaintiff to pay defendant maximum amount of money he could possibly come up with. 277. 278. 279. To return a favor, Fasone awarded defendant’s legal fees against plaintiff. As the direct or proximate result of this tort plaintiff was fired from his job. As the direct or proximate result of this tort construction company LEON CONSTRUCTION

terminated renovation of 4221 Atlantic Avenue house living plaintiff devastated. 280. 281. LEVORITZ achieved his goal as “assassin”. As the direct or proximate result of that tort, the damages alleged by the plaintiff were sustained

while LEVORITZ was involved in harassment and slander activity of plaintiff’s employer and contractor, which was entered into with full knowledge of the potential hazard thereof. 282. Defendant’s actions have substantially damaged plaintiff in an amount to be determined at trial,

but no less than $1,700,000.00. WHEREFORE, the plaintiff demands judgment against defendant awarding punitive damages in the amount exceeding jurisdictional limits of all lower courts, together with interest and the costs and disbursements of this action, and such other and further relief as to Interest of Justice and this Court seems just and proper.
Michael Krichevsky v. Levoritz, et al Page 26 of 35 Index No:24714/2010

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

4.10 INJURIOUS FALSEHOOD AS TO LEVORITZ AND SVENSON
283. 284. 285. All allegations above are incorporated by this reference as if fully restated herein. Plaintiff had employment contract for many years with Wittenstein & Associates, PC. Plaintiff had business contract with LEON CONSTRUCTION to renovate and finance 4221

Atlantic Avenue project. 286. 287. Defendants knew about existence of said relationships. Defendants’ intentional and unjustifiable interference with plaintiff’ personal business during child

support proceeding brought negative results and barred no fruits. 288. Due to slanderous utterance and publication of false statements, plaintiff’s reputation was

damaged in the eyes of above mentioned persons. 289. By harassment activities against them, they were threatened to be involved in this litigation, incur

financial loss, loss of productive time and energy. 290. Through harassment activities against them, they were induced to refrain from continuing

economic relationship with plaintiff in order to avoid harassment and be left alone. 291. 292. Above mentioned persons terminated their economic relationship with plaintiff. As direct result of forgoing, plaintiff was deprived from prospective economic advantages. WHEREFORE, the plaintiff demands judgment against each defendant awarding damages in the amount exceeding jurisdictional limits of all lower courts, together with interest and the costs and disbursements of this action, and such other and further relief as to Interest of Justice and this Court seems just and proper.

4.11 EQUITABLE SUBROGATION AS TO ALL OF THE DEFENDANTS
293. 294. All allegations above are incorporated by this reference as if fully restated herein. During this litigation that defendants engaged plaintiff in, all defendants were unjustly enriched.

Michael Krichevsky v. Levoritz, et al

Page 27 of 35 Index No:24714/2010

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

295.

Due to above mentioned child support order and income execution, defendants extorted and

continue to extort 65% of plaintiff’ income and unemployment insurance benefits. 296. Plaintiff was forced to defend himself and his interests by hiring lawyers. WHEREFORE, the plaintiff demands judgment against each defendant awarding damages and punitive damages in the amount exceeding jurisdictional limits of all lower courts, together with interest and the costs and disbursements of this action, and such other and further relief as to Interest of Justice and this Court seems just and proper.

4.12
297. 298. 299. 300.

INTENTIONAL OR MALICIOUS HARM TO ANOTHER AS TO ALL OF THE DEFENDANTS (PRIMA FACIE TORT) All allegations above are incorporated by this reference as if fully restated herein. Above mentioned act and/or series of acts were malicious and unlawful. These acts were made without legitimate excuse or justification. As the direct result of these acts plaintiff suffered and continues to suffer great financial loss and

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

4.13 INVISIBLE HARM CAUSED BY SEPARATE TORTFEASORS AS TO ALL OF THE
DEFENDANTS (JOINT AND SEVERAL LIABILITY) 301. 302. 303. All allegations above are incorporated by this reference as if fully restated herein. Some or all of the acts by the defendants could be independent and/or separate from each other. However when they combined together, caused and/or produced single and/or successive and/or

subsequent injuries which is impossible to distinguish from each other and/or determine who caused more damage.
Michael Krichevsky v. Levoritz, et al Page 28 of 35 Index No:24714/2010

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

304. 305. 306.

This concept is based on the theory of joint liability based on alternative liability. This could also be joint liability of tortfeasors acted independently to cause a single harm. Such injuries are impossible to apportion amongst all of the tortfeasors. (see Zulauf v. State of

NY, 119 Misc. 2d 135 - NY: Court of Claims 1983: For it is well settled that where several tortfeasors cause injury to another, but it cannot be determined which injuries were caused by which tortfeasor, each is liable for the entire injury. (Hawkes v Goll, 256 App Div 940, affd 281 N.Y. 808; Musgrave v Williams, 239 App Div 802, affd 263 N.Y. 538; see 1 PJI 2d, 2:307.) Further, where it can be found that the injury was caused by the acts of only one tort-feasor, but it is not known which one caused the injury, all are liable absent a showing as to whose act was the cause. (Summers v Tice, 33 Cal 2d 80; Hall v Du Pont De Nemours & Co., 345 F Supp 353; 140*140 Ann., 5 ALR2d 98; Restatement, Torts 2d, § 433B, subd [3];) 307. Therefore all defendants jointly and severally liable for harm and injuries caused to plaintiff. WHEREFORE, the plaintiff demands judgment against each defendant awarding damages in the amount exceeding jurisdictional limits of all lower courts, together with interest and the costs and disbursements of this action, and such other and further relief as to Interest of Justice and this Court seems just and proper.

4.14 RECOVERY OR CONTRIBUTION FROM TORTFEASORS AS TO ALL OF THE DEFENDANTS
308. 309. All allegations above are incorporated by this reference as if fully restated herein. Respondent, as the natural guardian of his son David Svenson, declares that LEVORITZ, during

his “zealous” representation of SVENSON in child support proceeding against plaintiff, and in the name of the best interests of the child committed legal malpractice causing plaintiff to lose his job and other economic opportunities. 310. Now that plaintiff is unable to fully comply with FASON’s child support order, LEVORITZ must

contribute to past, present and future compliance with plaintiff’s child support obligation LEVORITZ illegally “won”, but made respondent injured and unemployed.
Michael Krichevsky v. Levoritz, et al Page 29 of 35 Index No:24714/2010

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

311.

LEVORITZ’ intentional and/or negligent interference with plaintiff’ personal business during

representation of defendant SVENSON brought negative results and barred no fruits. 312. As the direct result of plaintiff’s injury and loss of his job, he breached contract with LEON

CONSTRUCTION and owes damages to LEON CONSTRUCTION. 313. The damages aroused in this action are direct or proximate consequences of legal malpractice

and/or strict liability of all defendants, even though they could not have been foreseen. WHEREFORE, the plaintiff demands judgment against each defendant awarding damages in the amount exceeding jurisdictional limits of all lower courts, together with interest and the costs and disbursements of this action, and such other and further relief as to Interest of Justice and this Court seems just and proper.

4.15
314. 315.

NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS AS TO ALL OF THE DEFENDANTS All allegations above are incorporated by this reference as if fully restated herein. All of the defendants own a duty to plaintiff to be honest and conduct this proceeding against

plaintiff according to Law and Lawyer’s Ethics. 316. 317. All of the defendants breached that duty and are liable. Solely as a result of the defendants' negligence, carelessness and recklessness, plaintiff was caused

to suffer serious personal injuries to mind and body, and further, that plaintiff was subjected to great physical pain and mental anguish. 318. The aforesaid occurrence was caused by the negligence of the defendants, without any culpable

conduct on the part of plaintiff. 319. By reason of the foregoing, plaintiff was severely injured and damaged, sustained severe nervous

shock and mental anguish, great physical pain and emotional upset, some of which injuries are believed to be permanent in nature and duration, and Plaintiff will be permanently caused to suffer pain, inconvenience and other effects of such injuries; Plaintiff incurred and in the future will necessarily incur further hospital and/or medical expenses in an effort to be cured of said injuries; and
Michael Krichevsky v. Levoritz, et al Page 30 of 35 Index No:24714/2010

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Plaintiff will be unable to pursue his usual duties with the same degree of efficiency as prior to this action, all to Plaintiff's great damage. 320. 321. As result of defendants’ negligence plaintiff will be susceptible to future injuries as well. As a result of the forgoing, plaintiff has been injured and the defendants are liable for all

applicable damages under the law in the amount to be determined at trial, including punitive damages; past, present and future medical expenses; loss of earnings and enjoyment of life; economic loss. WHEREFORE, the plaintiff demands judgment against each defendant awarding damages in the amount exceeding jurisdictional limits of all lower courts, together with interest and the costs and disbursements of this action, and such other and further relief as to Interest of Justice and this Court seems just and proper.

4.16 VIOLATIONS OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND DUE PROCESS
322. 323. 324. 325. All allegations above are incorporated by this reference as if fully restated herein. An adversarial system of justice cannot function without effective assistance of counsel. Plaintiff had constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel. Defendants directly interfered with Plaintiff's counsel Daniel Singer ability to effectively represent

Plaintiff. 326. When Plaintiff run out of money, he had no choice but to start studying law and procedure in order

to defend himself and his rights. 327. Defendants forced plaintiff to perform unnecessary for him work without just compensation for

his labor, energy and time. 328. Defendants forced plaintiff to defend himself from their derogatory actions in order for them to

make profit from their activities. 329. Above mentioned acts by defendants enticed plaintiff into slavery under 18 U.S.C. 1583 and

Involuntary Servitude under: 18 U.S.C. §1589 (3)

Michael Krichevsky v. Levoritz, et al

Page 31 of 35 Index No:24714/2010

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

330.

Defendants, officers of the Court, in violation of their oath of office, have proceeded to institute

slavery and involuntary servitude in violation of the Fifth and Thirteenth Amendment of Constitution of United States of America and Constitution of The State of New York as a way to harass plaintiff and deprive him of property in the form of his labor, time, money and servicing. 331. 332. For more than two years plaintiff performs legal work without any just compensation. Defendants obtained VOID child support order against plaintiff and forcing to defend himself

instead of finding a paying job. 333. $0. 334. For almost 3 years Plaintiff is ensnared in the web of child support appeal in Brooklyn Family LEVORITZ, for example, got paid $300.00 an hour to ensnare Plaintiff while Plaintiff was getting

Court. 335. 336. 337. 338. Plaintiff is receiving unemployment insurance of $405 per week. After unlawful seizure of this benefit Plaintiff receives $150 per week. Plaintiff is unable to survive without outside help. Due to defendant’ above mentioned acts, plaintiff is unable to hire an appellate attorney for appeal

of this unfair and void child support order. 339. 340. As of 11/14/10 plaintiff owes $52,049.42 to New York City Office of Child Support Enforcement. The recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision, or obtaining of a person for labor or

services, through the use of force, fraud, or coercion for the purpose of subjection to involuntary servitude, peonage, debt bondage, or slavery is prohibited by LAW. 341. According to the National Human Rights Center in Berkeley, California, there are currently about

10,000 forced laborers in the U.S., around one-third of who are domestic servants. 342. Through manipulation of justice system, defendants violated plaintiff’s constitutional right to due

process. 343. Defendants tortuously interfered with federally protected right to employment.
Page 32 of 35 Index No:24714/2010

Michael Krichevsky v. Levoritz, et al

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

344.

Defendants tortuously interfered with federally protected right to be recipient of federal

unemployment insurance program through unlawful seizure of his funds. Plaintiff must be fairly compensated for his labor and time in the amount to be determined by the Jury. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff demands: a) declaratory judgment declaring child support order obtained by LEVORITZ VOID; b) judgment against each defendant awarding damages in the amount exceeding jurisdictional limits of all lower courts, together with interest and the costs and disbursements of this action, and such other and further relief as to Interest of Justice and this Court seems just and proper. Plaintiff reserves the right to amend this complaint without leave of court. Dated: Brooklyn, New York December 16, 2011 ____________________________________________________ Michael Krichevsky, Pro Se, All rights reserved without prejudice 4221 Atlantic Ave Brooklyn, New York 11224 718-687-2300

12 13

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Michael Krichevsky v. Levoritz, et al Page 33 of 35 Index No:24714/2010

1

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

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

STATE OF NEW YORK) ) ss.: COUNTY OF KINGS ) I, Michael Krichevsky, Pro Se, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, under penalty of perjury declare that the foregoing is true and correct. I have prepared the foregoing Verified Complaint and know the contents thereof and the same is true to the best of my knowledge, except as to those matters herein stated to be alleged upon information and belief and that as to those matters, I believe them to be true.

Dated: Brooklyn, New York day of , 2010 _____________________________________________________ Michael Krichevsky, Pro Se, All rights reserved without prejudice

Michael Krichevsky v. Levoritz, et al

Page 34 of 35 Index No:24714/2010

1 2 3 4 5 6

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS Index No. 24714/2010 -----------------------------------------------------------------

MICHAEL KRICHEVSKY, Plaintiff,

7 8 9 10 11 12

-against-

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

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41

-----------------------------------------------------------------

___________________________________________________

AMENDED VERIFIED COMPLAINT ___________________________________________________

The documents herein are hereby certified pursuant to 25 NYCRR 130-1.1-A By: ________________________________

Michael Krichevsky, Pro Se. 4221 Atlantic Ave Brooklyn, New York 11224 AGNOWLEGMENT OF IN-HAND SERVICE: In-Hand Service of the within document is hereby acknowledged on this _____ day of ____________ 2010, at _________ am/pm

Michael Krichevsky v. Levoritz, et al

Page 35 of 35 Index No:24714/2010

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful