SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELATE DIVISION: SECOND JUDUCIAL DEPARTMENT

_____________________________________________________
Michael Krichevsky,
INDEX NO. 19478/13
Falsely Accused, Claimant,
Appellate Division Docket
-againstNo
CHARLES F. SANDERS, ESQ, Assistant Attorney General of
THE STATE OF NEW YORK;
BERNADETTE BAYNE, Judge of KINGS COUNTY SUPREME
COURT;
NOAH NUNBERG, ESQ; MARIAN RICE, ESQ; CANDICE B.
RATNER, ESQ; ELAINE SABINO, ESQ;
L'ABBATE, BALKAN, COLAVITA & CONTINI, L.L.P
Respondents.
_____________________________________________________

NOTICE OF PETITION

COUNSELORS:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that upon the annexed Petition of Michael Krichevsky, sui
juris, dated the 17th day of February, 2015, and upon all the pleadings and proceedings
heretofore had herein, the undersigned will move this Court at a term thereof to be held at 45
Monroe Place, Brooklyn, New York, 11201, on the 20 day of March, 2015, at 9:30 o'clock in the
forenoon of that date, or as soon thereafter as counsel can be heard:
For an order and a judgment pursuant to C.P.L.R. Article 78 for reliefs requested as
follows:
That the body or officer proceeded, is proceeding, or is about to proceed without or in
excess of jurisdiction (prohibition).
And for such other and further relief as to this Court may seem just and proper.
This action is not on the trial calendar.
TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that all answering papers, if any, shall be served at least 20
days before the return date of this Petition. In case you failed to appear, the judgment by default

will be taken against you for the relief demanded.

Dated: Brooklyn, New York
February 16, 2015
______________________________
Michael Krichevsky, sui juris
4221 Atlantic Ave
Brooklyn, New York 11224
(718) 687-2300
L'ABBATE BALKAN COLAVITA & CONTINI, LLP
Attorneys for Respondents
1001 Franklin Avenue
Garden City, New York 11530
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Attorneys for Defendant
120 Broadway
New York, New York 10271
BERNADETTE BAYNE
360 Adams Street, Part
Brooklyn, NY 11201
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELATE DIVISION: SECOND JUDUCIAL DEPARTMENT
_____________________________________________________
INDEX NO. 19478/13
Michael Krichevsky,
Falsely Accused, Claimant,
-against-

Appellate Term Docket No

VERIFIED PETITION
UNDER DURESS

CHARLES SENDERS, ESQ, Assistant Attorney General of THE

STATE OF NEW YORK;
BERNADETTE BAYNE, Judge of KINGS COUNTY SUPREME
COURT;
NOAH NUNBERG, ESQ; MARIAN RICE, ESQ; CANDICE B.
RATNER, ESQ; ELAINE SABINO, ESQ;
L'ABBATE, BALKAN, COLAVITA & CONTINI, L.L.P
Respondents.
_____________________________________________________
Michael Krichevsky, sui juris, self-governed alive man under protest and duress; by special

appearance to challenge jurisdiction and authority of the States run Family Court, Attorney General, other
attorneys and acting in self-defense says:
INTRODUCTION
1.

I have firsthand knowledge of the following facts and could competently testify thereto, except as to
those matters, which I stated upon information and belief.

2.

I challenge falsely presumed, unlawful continuous jurisdiction of family court due to corruption, bias,
and harassment; and without consent to any of its administrative proceedings against me. I aver that no
jurisdiction exists, existed over me without my consent and demand that the STATE finally enters
evidence of jurisdictional facts and elements on the record.

3.

I am Falsely Accused victim in the within simulated, fictitious actions of Barratry, Personage and
Human Trafficking; and demand the STATE and its actors cease and decease its criminal practice.

4.

This Petition is another of my numerous failed attempts to report Federal Crimes of Treason and
Misprision of Treason to the judge, as well as violations of Code of Judicial Conduct and New York Rules
of Professional Conduct to New York Tribunal per Rule 8.3 Reporting Professional Misconduct.
When an honest man, honestly mistaken, comes face-to-face with undeniable and
irrefutable truth, he is faced with one of two choices, he must either cease been mistaking
or cease being honest. Amicus Solo

5.

Starting from 2008, until present I was continuously, maliciously persecuted by numerous public
fiduciaries, calling themselves court officers support magistrates, court clerks, judges and lawyers. It did
not take me a long to realize that Svenson through her attorney, Yonatan Levoritz (Levoritz), bribed
support magistrate John Fasone (Fasone) to extort money and railroad me for Levoritz and Svensons
profit.

6.

The scheme that Respondents operated under and against me described in the book The Importance

of Being Honest by Law Professor Steven Lubet (available at AMAZON). In Chapter 31 on page 174
Professor relates, In California, Judge Gregory Caskey was publicly admonished for sending the
following e-mail to an attorney:
I am considering summarily rejecting [opposing counsels] requests. Do you
want me to let [opposing counsel] have a hearing on this, or do we cut [opposing
counsel] off summarily and run the risk [of] the [Court of Appeals] reversing?
I say screw [the other party] and lets cut [opposing counsel] off without hearing.
O.K.? By the way, this message will self-destruct in five seconds.
The recipient of Caskeys message replied as follows:
Your Honor, I dont feel comfortable responding ex-parte [sic] on how you should rule
on a pending case.
By return e-mail the judge sent a one-word response, stating, chicken.
JURISDICTION
7.

I make this petition under duress, in self-defense and in fear for my life.

8.

This court has jurisdiction over Respondents and the claims brought pursuant to C.P.L.R. Article 78.

9.

This court has jurisdiction over the claims for declaratory relief pursuant to C.P.L.R. 3001.
VENUE

10.

This proceeding is brought in the judiciary department where respondents' principal offices are
located and wrongdoings were done.
PARTIES

11.

Michael Krichevsky (Krichevsky) self-governed law-abiding man former taxpayer. He was

gainfully employed from 1988 until 2010. He lost his federally protected job due to corruption,
conspiracy, criminal acts and torts committed by STATE actors, officers of the court.

12.

CHARLES SENDERS, ESQ, Assistant Attorney General of THE STATE OF NEW YORK; is body
or officer, since 2014, proceeded, is proceeding, and is about to proceed without or in excess of
jurisdiction (prohibition) against Krichevsky.

13.

Upon information and belief, Mr. Senders admitted in the First and Second Judicial Departments
under contract and oath of office to honestly practice law by serving and protecting the public and State.

14.

Mr. Senders undertook unlawful, unauthorized by law malicious defense of

15.

private persons, whom Krichevsky sues in Kings County Supreme Court under Index number
19478/13.

16.

BERNADETTE BAYNE (BAYNE), Judge of KINGS COUNTY SUPREME COURT; is body or

officer, since 2010, proceeded, is proceeding, and is about to proceed without or in excess of jurisdiction
(prohibition) against Krichevsky.

17.

LABBATE BALKAN COLAVITA & CONTINI, LLP specialize in defense of corrupt lawyers they
are sued.

18.

NOAH NUNBERG, ESQ; MARIAN RICE, ESQ; CANDICE B. RATNER, ESQ; ELAINE
SABINO, ESQ are employees of law firm L'ABBATE, BALKAN, COLAVITA & CONTINI, L.L.P; is
body or officers, since 2010, proceeded, is proceeding, and is about to proceed without or in excess of
jurisdiction (prohibition) against Krichevsky.

19.

Upon information and belief, NOAH NUNBERG, ESQ; MARIAN RICE, ESQ; CANDICE B.
RATNER, ESQ and ELAINE SABINO, ESQ admitted in the Second Judicial Department under contract
and oath of office to honestly practice law by serving and protecting public.
SUMMARY OF MATERIAL FACTS

20.

Above mentioned criminal acts and torts started in the beginning of 2008, when while I was working
60 80 hours a week at law office paralegal job, unemployed for life gold digger Svenson, former
girlfriend, was working hard at my home going through my personal tax records, bank accounts and
ownership records.

21.

When she has stolen everything she needed to extort money from me, she, acting on advice of her
attorneys, quietly filed for an order of protection and immediately attempted to incarcerate me by
provoking some kind of violence on my part by visiting my employer to badmouth me. That attempt has
failed, but I had to abandon my apartment in order to avoid arrest by police when police came to arrest
me, but missed me. Thereafter, Svenson withdrew her petition for order of protection before the judge had
any opportunity to rule on it.

22.

At the same time, she brought stolen documents to her lawyers and filed for child support.

23.

Litigation Is War! Even though her lawyers had every stolen document they needed for the child
support proceedings, they failed to exhaust administrative remedy by attempting to settle with me out of
court. Instead, they would immediately engage me in the harassment and abuse of process through
vexatious litigation and extensive discovery falsely alleging that I am hiding assets.

24.

Violating normal, court ordered discovery process where parties just exchange documents and bills,
having depositions, etc., Attorney Yonatan Levoritz refused to depose me and produce Svenson for
deposition, and instead immediately started broadcasting 16 non-party deposition subpoenas to every
possible bank in New York and my contractors who were doing renovation of my house.

25.

Because those were not information subpoenas, but deposition subpoenas, which my attorney would
have to attend we knew that this was harassment and churning of Levoritz attorneys fees in contempt
of hearing officer of Family Court, John Fasones order to conduct normal discovery. Additionally,
Levoritz started demanding from me for the last 5 years the very same documents that Svenson has stolen
from me.

26.

In reply, on September 8, 2009 my attorney filed an Order to Show Cause with TRO to Quash
Subpoenas and for Sanctions. Svenson also attempted extortion by blackmail using documents that she

has stolen from me, which is self evident from her blackmail note in my possession. However, Fasone
never gave me a chance to enter it into the evidence as well as other relevant, material documents. In this
note, Svenson writes in rusty Russian that she went to lawyers and they told her that my employer and I
doing money-laundering using law office.
27.

While I was waiting for decision on that OSC to continue normal discovery and evidentiary hearing,
Fasone scheduled a trial without any notice to parties. On February 3, 2010, Fasone convened a kangaroo
court without parties present. Using above described by Professor Lubet Judges Trick, Fasone screwed
me by summarily cutting off my discovery, evidentiary hearing and trial. After he created his void for
fraud upon the court child support order, he falsified the courts record by denying this OSC and falsely
stating that there was a hearing scheduled, but nobody appeared. The audio record misleadingly presumed
that I was notified, but did not care to show up. It stated, its 10 minutes to five and no one is
appearing... Before I had a chance to disobey Fasones void order, on March 1, 2010, child support
collection unit seized all my earnings, sabotaging my abilities to appeal.

28.

Thereafter, in same 2010, Fasone and Levoritz started malicious prosecution against me by accusing
me to be in contempt of Fasones child support order with the intent to incarcerate me.

29.

That order made me a slave by ordering to pay the child support collection unit more than I was able
to earn or had available in cash. That order resulted in me being fired due to harassment of my employer
by the court system and Svenson.

30.

My countless motions for new trial were either ignored or denied without a hearing, written findings
of fact and conclusions of law, or orders explaining the reason why. Levoritz and Fasone persecution of
me for unlawful and void order resulted in stroke to me due to stress. As direct result, I became physically
disabled and depressed. Until present, I was not able to recover from disability. My disability was largely

untreated due to the lack of insurance. That contempt petition was regretfully dismissed by Fasone due to
the lack of the evidence, which gave me a cause of action for malicious prosecution against Levoritz.
31.

In all future court appearances when I tried to get a new fair trial, I was not allowed to make an
audio record for an appeal because Fasone would constantly interrupt me, talk over me and switch
subjects, all while four six armed court officers intimidated me when I was trying to talk over Fasone
for the record.

32.

In 2011, supervising judge Hepner set aside Fasones void order, conditionally ordered him to reply
in writing to all motions that he ignored before and set up a new trial. Fasone refused to comply with
her order and in contempt of it started new trial, again without me present, and restored his void
order.

33.

In Truax v. Corrigan, 257 US 312 (1921), the court held, the due process clause
requires that every man shall have the protection of his day in court and the benefit
of the general law, a law which hears before it condemns, which proceeds not
arbitrary or capriciously but upon inquiry and renders judgment only after trial so
that every citizen shall hold his life, liberty, property and immunities under the
protection of the general rules which govern society. Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S.
516, 535. It, of course, tends to secure equality of law in the sense that it makes a
required minimum of protection for every one's right of life, liberty and property,
which the Congress or the legislature may not withhold. Our whole system of law is
predicated on the general, fundamental principle of equality of application of the
law. "All men are equal before the law," "This is a government of laws and not of
men," "No man is above the law," are all maxims showing the spirit in which

legislatures, executives and courts are expected to make, execute and apply laws.
But the framers and adopters of this Amendment were not content to depend on a
mere minimum secured by the due process clause, or upon the spirit of equality
which might not be insisted on by local public opinion. They therefore embodied
that spirit in a specific guaranty.

34.

FIRST CLAIM AGAINST NOAH NUNBERG, ESQ; MARIAN RICE, ESQ; CANDICE B.
RATNER, ESQ; ELAINE SABINO, ESQ AND FIRM L'ABBATE, BALKAN, COLAVITA &
CONTINI, L.L.P WRIT OF PROHIBITION
In 2010, I started legal proceeding against Levoritz to receive monetary compensation for torts he
committed against me. NOAH NUNBERG, ESQ; MARIAN RICE, ESQ; CANDICE B. RATNER, ESQ
and ELAINE SABINO, ESQ appeared to defend Levoritz. Doing research on the conflict of interest, I
learned that I am their client as insured employee by contract between my employers professional
corporation and the firm L'ABBATE, BALKAN, COLAVITA & CONTINI, L.L.P. Moreover, at that time,
my employer, Mr. Wittenstein, was sued by another attorney, and I was material witness in that case. I
immediately contacted Ms. Rice and told her about conflict of interest between me, Levoritz, Wittenstein
as my witness and their firm because those matters were substantially related to each other and their firm
was in possession of Wittensteins and my personal information that could be used against me and
Wittenstein as my witness. In such case, this firm was prohibited by New York Rules of Professional
Conduct to represent Levoritz against me. Ms. Rice replied that she has a different opinion and they filed
frivolous motion to dismiss my complaint and for sanctions. However, their motion was untimely and I
moved for default judgment.

35.

I also cross-moved by motion to disqualify the firm. In that motion, I explained the judge Bayne that
before she starts reviewing their motion to dismiss my complaint, jurisdictionally she has to decide

whether there is a conflict of interest and the firm should be disqualified. In that case, their motion to
dismiss would be unauthorized and should not be entertained until and unless a new attorney for Levoritz
would decide to proceed on it.
36.

However, judge Bayne and this firm too used the same Judges trick described above against me.
What transpired during that litigation briefly explained in my certified letter to Ms. Sabino and copy to
judge Bayne, Exhibit A.

37.

By failing to object to my Notice to Admit, these attorneys and the firm essentially acquiesced to
disqualification, but did not want to create documentary evidence against them because they conspired
with judge Bayne. They knew that my case would be dismissed without a hearing, albeit procedurally the
firm should be disqualified as defaulted. To add more insult to the injury, judge Bayne refused to issue a
final appealable order, and instead wrote a minute order, which as I understood was not appealable
because it didnt have findings of fact and conclusions of law. Regardless, Judges Bayne order is VOID
because of her and other participating attorneys not kosher due process and dealings against Pro Se
Plaintiff, which deprived judge Bayne of Jurisdiction. The Court in Yates v. Village of Hoffman Estates,
Illinois, 209 F.Supp. 757 (1962) held that "not every action by a judge is in exercise of his judicial
function. ... it is not a judicial function for a judge to commit an intentional tort even though the tort
occurs in the courthouse. When judges act when they do not have jurisdiction to act, or they enforce a
void order (an order issued by a judge without jurisdiction), they become trespassers of the law, and are
engaged in treason. When a judge acts as a trespasser of the law, when a judge does not follow the law,
the judge loses subject-matter jurisdiction and the judges orders are void, of no legal force or effect.

38.

In Ross v. Eveready Ins. Co., 156 AD 2d 657 - NY Appellate Div., 2nd Dept. (1989) the court
explained:

Contrary to the determination of the Supreme Court, the defendant's motion to vacate the
judgment pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (4) was not untimely. The judgment, which was
entered without acquiring personal jurisdiction over the defendant, was a nullity and did
not bind it (see, McMullen v Arnone, 79 AD2d 496, 499). Thus, the defendant was free to
"ignore the judgment, resist it or assert its invalidity at any and all times" (McMullen v
Arnone, supra, at 499; emphasis supplied); the defendant was not "`bound to appeal from
[the] void judgment'" (Hughes v Cuming, 165 N.Y. 91, 94, quoting Kamp v Kamp, 59
N.Y. 212, 215).
39.

That litigation resulted in void order,

40.

without a due process hearing and jury trial as demanded, and

41.

no record or evidence of the hearing exists,

42.

except my letter to Ms. Sabino with copy to judge Bayne as notice to her about conspiracy and fraud.

43.

In 2013, I started legal action against, inter alia, Fasone and Levoritz in an attempt to obtain monetary
compensation for their common law torts against me and to collaterally attack Fasones void order.

44.

Once again, NOAH NUNBERG, ESQ; MARIAN RICE, ESQ; CANDICE B. RATNER, ESQ;
ELAINE SABINO, ESQ employees of law firm L'ABBATE, BALKAN, COLAVITA & CONTINI, L.L.P
appeared to defend Levoritz. This time they are arguing that my action should be dismissed due to
doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel. I maintain that because I did not have a full and fair
opportunity to litigate the issues, judge Baynes order is void due to fraud upon the court. I intend to
litigate that issue and am calling these attorneys as my witnesses against Levoritz and their fraud upon the
very willing court judge Bayne, co-conspirator.

45.

Once again, the conflict of interest is apparent and even multiplied. They should be PROHIBITED to
be a counsel for Levoritz and their own witnesses on their behalf and behalf of Levoritz at the same time,
not to mention corruption, conspiracy and perjury they committed during my prior experience with them.
To let them stay on the case is to make a mockery of justice.

10

SECOND CLAIM AGAINST JUDGE BERNADETTE BAYNE WRIT OF PROHIBITION

46.

I incorporate all paragraphs above by reference herein.

47.

The issues in prior litigations boil down to premises: a) defendants unnecessary, unethical aggression
using State police power against me caused me a harm in violation of New York Rules of Professional
Conduct rule 4.4 by needlessly violating my rights, causing embarrassment and harm to me; b) to
succeed, attorneys and Svenson perjured themselves in court, causing me harm.

48.

After judge Bayne essentially repeated after Fasone the judges trick described above, judge Bayne
ruled that my cross-motions for default judgment against Levoritz and to disqualify Noah Nunberg are
moot. What really happened described in my certified mail letter to attorneys and the judge Bernadette
Bayne (Exhibit A), which still unrebutted, and therefore tacitly admitted. Accordingly, this letter is prima
facie evidence and my Offer of Proof describing events of that litigation. Therefore, no res judicata or
collateral estoppel exists because I did not have a chance fully and fairly litigate the issues in the court of
record, Law and Equity. Accordingly, this court should not give full faith and credit to the judgment of
judge Bayne. In prior litigation and most likely this one, respondents did and will call me disgruntled
litigant and will use unethical tactic called character assassination stating, how dare I try recusing the
judge? In Fritts v. Krug, 92 NW 2d 604 (1958) Supreme Court of Michigan eloquently stated about
disgruntled litigant:
A "void" judgment, as we all know, grounds no rights, forms no defense to actions
taken thereunder, and is vulnerable to any manner of collateral attack (thus here,
by habeas corpus). No statute of limitations or repose runs on its holdings, the
matters thought to be settled thereby are not res judicata, and years later, when the
memories may have grown dim and rights long been regarded as vested, any
disgruntled litigant may reopen the old wound and once more probe its depths.
And it is then as though trial and adjudication had never been.

49.

Noticeably, Judge Bayne once again appeared in 2013 action against Fasone and Levoritz, although

11

according to unified court rules assignment of the judge is a random.

50.

I am calling Judge Bayne as my witness against Fasone and Levoritz and their attorneys in my
collateral attack on all void judgments and orders that issued against me. Because of this, I filed motion to
disqualify Judge Bayne per Judiciary Law 14 direct conflict of interest, since she expects to rule on the
res judicata and collateral estoppel issues while accused of corruption and conspiracy. As such, she can
only be my witness, albeit hostile. She continued her practice and denied that motion without a hearing
and written explanation.

51.

In addition, I am planning on amending my 2013 complaint and joining her as Defendant.

52.

Accordingly, Judge Bayne should be prohibited from presiding on the current, 2013 action.
THIRD CLAIM AGAINST ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW YORK STATE
CHARLES SENDERS, ESQ WRIT OF PROHIBITION

53.

I incorporate all paragraphs above by reference herein.

54.

Mr. Senders, although the government attorney, appeared and engaged in private practice.

55.

Accordingly, taxpayers dollars and prestige of Attorney Generals office should not be used for
private matters and to inappropriately influence jury to favor defendants.

56.

Mr. Senders, in violation of CPLR and ethics rules, filed a motion to dismiss 2013 action based on his
frivolous, hearsay affidavit claiming that Defendants are immune against their criminal acts. In Gonzales
v. Buist, 224 U.S. 126, 56 L.Ed. 693, 32 S.Ct. 463 (1912) the court eloquently stated, Under no possible
view, however, of the findings we are considering can they be held to constitute a compliance with the
statute, since they merely embody conflicting statements of counsel concerning the facts as they suppose
them to be and their appreciation of the law which they deem applicable, there being, therefore, no

12

attempt whatever to state the ultimate facts by a consideration of which we would be able to conclude
whether or not the judgment was warranted.
57.

There is no evidence testimonial or otherwise that Defendants appeared in 2013 action, and therefore
are in default.

58.

Such behavior is an admission of wrongdoing by Defendants and they do not dare to make a
statement admitting or denying my averments since any statement will tend to incriminate them in
criminal conduct.

59.

Accordingly, government attorney abandoned his public post to protect people of this state and joined
criminals in their defense instead of arresting them and removing from public office.

60.

Now, Mr. Senders created unholy trinity against me to obstruct justice.

61.

Coupled with the fact that attorney general will represent Judge Bayne, attorney generals office
should be prohibited from representing Defendants and Judge in the same action.

62.

No previous application has been made for the relief requested herein.
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully requested that this Petition be granted in its entirety, and that such
other and further relief be granted as to this Court seems just and proper, including the costs of this
Petition.

Dated: Brooklyn, New York

February 17, 2015
______________________________
Michael Krichevsky, sui juris, under duress
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE DIVISION: SECOND JUDUCIAL DEPARTMENT

13

MICHAEL KRICHEVSKY,

INDEX NO.
FALSELY ACCUSED, CLAIMANT,
Appellate Term Docket No

AGAINST
CHARLES SENDERS, ESQ, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK;
BERNADETTE BAYNE, JUDGE OF KINGS COUNTY
SUPREME COURT;
NOAH NUNBERG, ESQ; MARIAN RICE, ESQ; CANDICE B
RATNER, ESQ; ELAINE SABINO, ESQ;
LABBATE, BALKAN, COLAVITA & CONTINI, LLP
RESPONDENTS.

INDIVIDUAL
VERIFICATION

STATE OF NEW YORK)

) ss.:
COUNTY OF KINGS )
Michael Krichevsky, being duly sworn, deposes and says:
That I am the Falsely Accused, Claimant in the within action.
I have read the foregoing 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.
x_____________________________
Michael Krichevsky, sui juris
Sworn to before me this
18 day of February 2015
_______________________
NOTARY PUBLIC

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELATE DIVISION: SECOND JUDUCIAL DEPARTMENT

14

_____________________________________________________ INDEX NO. 19478/13

Appellate Division
Docket No
Michael Krichevsky,
Falsely Accused, Claimant,
-againstCHARLES SENDERS, ESQ, Assistant Attorney General of THE STATE OF NEW YORK;
BERNADETTE BAYNE, Judge of KINGS COUNTY SUPREME COURT;
NOAH NUNBERG, ESQ; MARIAN RICE, ESQ; CANDICE B. RATNER, ESQ; ELAINE
SABINO, ESQ;
L'ABBATE, BALKAN, COLAVITA & CONTINI, L.L.P
RESPONDENTS.
----------------------------------------------------------------___________________________________________________
ARTICLE 78 PETITION
___________________________________________________
Michael Krichevsky, sui juris
4221 Atlantic Ave
Brooklyn, New York 11224
(718) 687-2300