FAMILY COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

COUNTY OF KINGS
_____________________________________________________
KINGS COUNTY SUPPORT COLLECTION UNIT OF KINGS DOCKET NO.
COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COCIAL SERVICES on behalf of F-28901-08/10B
ELENA SVENSON,
Petitioners,
-against- ORDER TO SHOW
CAUSE WITH TRO
MICHAEL KRICHEVSKY,
Respondent. Hon. Paula Hepner
_____________________________________________________

Upon the annexed affidavit of Michael Krichevsky, duly sworn to on the day of August,

2010, and the papers annexed hereto,

LET the petitioner(s) or petitioners’ attorney(s), show cause before this Court at the

Courthouse located at 330 Jay Street, Brooklyn, New York, on the day of August, 2010,

at 9:30 o'clock in the forenoon of that day, why an order pursuant to CPLR 6301 should not be

made and entered:

1. To DECLAR that support order against respondent dated February 3, 2010 by

magistrate John Fasone of Kings County Family Court is VOID on the grounds that it was

obtained by actual fraud, fraud upon the court, perjury, misconduct, misrepresentation, witness-
tempering, obstruction of justice and in absence of due process, as well as mistake of fact

pursuant to CPLR 5241, and immediately order a new hearing in accordance with CPLR and

Constitution.

2. As an alternative, to stay this order and income execution pending appeal and enter

temporary support order of $315.90 per month based on Respondent’s current income from

unemployment insurance benefits of $430 per week.

IT APPEARING that a cause of action exists in favor of the respondent and that

immediate and irreparable injury, loss or damages will result unless the petitioners are restrained
before a hearing can be had; and it is,

ORDERED, that pending the hearing of this application, the Petitioner(s) be and hereby

is enjoined and restrained from engaging in the conduct complained of in the annexed moving

papers.

SUFFICIENT REASON APPEARING THEREFOR, let personal service of a copy of

this Order to Show Cause with Temporary Restraining Order, together with a copy of the papers

upon which it was granted, upon the attorney(s) for the Petitioner(s) by office delivery pursuant

to CPLR 2103(b)(3) on or before the ____ day of __________ 2010, be deemed good and

sufficient service.

ENTER
____________________________
J.C.C.
FAMILY COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF KINGS
_____________________________________________________
KINGS COUNTY SUPPORT COLLECTION UNIT OF KINGS DOCKET NO.
COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COCIAL SERVICES on behalf of F-28901-08/10B
ELENA SVENSON,
Petitioner(s),
-against- AFFIDAVIT IN
SUPPORT OF ORDER
MICHAEL KRICHEVSKY, TO SHOW CAUSE WITH
Respondent. TRO
_____________________________________________________

STATE OF NEW YORK ss.:

COUNTY OF KINGS

MICHAEL KRICHEVSKY, Pro Se, being duly sworn, deposes and says:

1. I am the Respondent in the action herein.

2. I reside at 4221 Atlantic Ave, Brooklyn, New York.

3. On 2.03.10 I was ordered to pay Petitioner $31,599.42 in arrears, petitioner’s attorney

fees, about $700 per month for parties’ child health plan to pay to my employer in

addition to $2045 in monthly child support while getting gross income of $4000 per

month and respondent’s employer received income execution notice demanding $3067.50

payment for child support per month (Exhibit A).

4. This order would be impossible to comply with because after taxes respondent would

have $3694 per month in disposable income (see copies of pay stabs in Exhibit B). If he

tries to deduct from that amount $3067.50 plus $700 for child health care it would be

more (3067.50 + $700 = 3767.50) than $3694 of respondent’s disposable income, not to

mention that respondent has basic human needs too and no more than 65% would be
 possible legally to deduct pursuant to Consumer Credit Protection Act Limitations on

Withholdings for Support (15 U.S.C. 1673 (b))

5. Temporary child support order was $627 per month calculated by magistrate John Fasone

based on respondent’s $4000 per month gross income (Exhibit C).

6. Petitioner and her attorneys, Yoram Nakhimovsky, Michael Biancanello, and Yonatan

Levoritz, in the name of the parties’ child welfare in concert engaged in malicious

prosecution terrorizing respondent “as hired hit men.”

7. It started in 2008 with petitioner, at the advice of her attorney, Yoram Nakhimovsky,

stealing respondent’s personal records, files, documents and electronic backup media, not

to mention her attempts to provoke violence by, inter alia, looting respondent’s apartment

on 4336 Manhattan Avenue in Brooklyn. Attached, as Exhibit D is witness affidavit.

8. It continued with Family Offence Petition falsely reporting family offence, child abuse

and request for child support and ex parte order of protection on October 27, 2008.

Petitioner falsified facts in her petition and during hearing, this petition was withdrawn

before the court had any opportunity to rule, (Exhibit E).

9. By the end of the day after petitioner obtained this order of protection, she brought

parties’ child at respondent’s place of work. They were so afraid of respondent that they

started badmouthing respondent and harassing his employer, Harlan Wittenstein, Esq., by

demanding that he fires respondent.

10. Next, Mr. Levoritz and petitioner committed fraud upon the court by filing

fraudulent financial disclosure affidavits (Exhibit F) with the court. For example, in her

2
 family offence petition (Exhibit E) she stated that due to Mr. Krichevky’s offence she and

the child “temporary living in apartment her parents own” at 2620 Ocean Parkway in

Brooklyn. She intentionally did not inform the court that her parents are decedents and

she owns this apartment so that she could “show the court how miserable they are and

how atrocious Mr. Krichevsky is”. To be consistent in her statements she and her attorney

Mr. Levoritz intentionally and consistently with her prior statement did not list her 2620

Ocean Parkway cooperative apartment as “Other real estate owned” under II. ASSETS:

e) of post-father financial disclosure affidavit, and lists parties 120 Oceana condominium

as “Residence owned” under d) (Exhibit F). During child support hearing, she admitted

that she does not live there, but collects $2825 in rent. She kept perjuring herself by

continuing falsely testifying in court “She and child live in her parent’s apartment” rent-

free.

11. She succeeded in her attempt to confuse the court and court wrote in Findings of Fact:”

Court finds petitioner’s testimony credible...as does the court with respect to her other

testimony regarding her present financial circumstances – i.e. that she presently resides in

her parents’ apartment rent free and receives cash support from her sister in Germany.”

12. Testifying in Court that she is getting cash support from her sister in Germany is another

perjury as her sister, Larissa Gaber, is on public assistance there.

13. Her attorney Mr. Levoritz obstructed justice through witness tampering by

making her sister not to appear in court on January 6, 2010 after she was served with

subpoena (Exhibit G).

3
 14. In post-father financial affidavit, petitioner and her attorney state that with ZIRO

assets her income is $2850 per month while expenses are over $4000. This fact was

pointed out to magistrate John Fasone, but he “looked the other way”.

15. Mr. Levoritz and petitioner spoiled evidence by destroying and/or concealing (it is

unknown which) unfavorable to them evidence. Petitioner and her attorney did not deny

the fact that these documents were stolen from respondent by Svenson. (Exhibit H)

16. I am not surprised that 2003 income tax return was presented in 2009 to court “as

latest income tax return” conveniently showing over $180,000 in income over

respondent’s attorney objection that it is inadmissible. Respondent was prejudiced by not

been able to present his current income tax information as well as to file his income tax

returns on time.

17. This is how Mr. Levoritz used evidence spoilage to take advantage over Mr.

Krichevsky during hearing and manipulated court’s opinion “that Mr. Krichevsky must

be punished for atrocious conducts”:

Q. Why do you owe the IRS roughly 250 to $300,000?

A. In 2001 it was --

THE COURT: She didn't file her taxes, counsel?

MR. LEVORITZ: No, Your Honor, not at all. Fact, she

was a dependent on the respondent's taxes.

THE COURT: You have a document you want to offer that

explains all this?

MR. LEVORITZ: No. There is no one document that explains all this, your

4
Honor. There are many documents, and different places, and different time
periods. But she was a dependent back in 2001, 2002, 2003, four and five
of the respondent. And he was filling taxes on her behalf, which is one of the
things that we would have gotten to in discovery, but never got there.

18. Mr. Levoritz thought that all evidence was destroyed by stating: “Fact, she was a

dependent on the respondent’s taxes…” It turns out that some evidence survived and

points out to the fact contrary to Mr. Levoritz statement that her client did not file taxes in

2001 and was dependent on Mr. Krichevsky’s tax return. In fact, she did file her personal

2001 income tax form 1040A, but spent all her money and failed to pay tax when it was

due. Attached as Exhibit I, copy of statement dated November 8, 2010 that she owes to

IRS only $132,082.60 contrary to magnitude of their allegation of $ 250,000 - $300.000.

This document was produced in Supreme Court action by petitioner’s attorney Mr.

Biancanello to respondent’s attorney when it was convenient to them and in favor of

Petitioner. By having two sets of “evidence and facts” for two different lawyers

perjuriously stating different facts in different actions supported by different evidence, all

of them committing abstraction of justice.

Here is another dirty lawyer’s trick:

Q. Have you produced copies of your mortgage applica-

tions, as requested in this proceeding?
A. No.

THE COURT: Requested by who and when?

MR. LEVORITZ: Requested by me on August 10,

2009, Your Honor.

5
 MR. SINGER: Objection. (Inaudible) have been
served.

THE COURT: I'm sorry?

MR. LEVORITZ: He objected to every single item I
requested,bank statements, credit cards --

MR. SINGER: For five years, Your Honor. What

is this, for the entire history of the relationship?

19. Mr. Levoritz knew that I would not have a copy of my mortgage applications, bank

statements, etc. from 2004. This is done to harass respondent and “to show the court how

evasive Mr. Krichevsky is”. However, Mr. Levoritz did not ask 2009 “mortgage in

default” notices from banks.

20. If respondent had a chance to file his 2006 income tax return, it would show

$52,547 in income (Exhibit J) in contrast to 2005 income of $154,000. Then, based on

the last income tax return that order of support would be at least 3 times smaller, and

petitioner’s lawyer knew this.

21. Mr. Levoritz perjuriously testified (breaking the unsworn witness rule), inter alia,

that respondent misreporting his income to court. He testified that respondent while

reporting his income of $4000 a month is actually paying $10,000 in mortgage payments.

He knew it was perjury because while these hearings were going on there were two

foreclosure lawsuits pending in Kings County Supreme Court against respondent, one of

which was also against petitioner, and Mr. Levoritz had copies of summonses (Exhibit

K). Her lawyer, Michael Biancanello, who was handling her Supreme Court defense

6
 action, was in possession of all documents as well.

22. Finally, Respondent presents blackmail note written in 2008 by Petitioner

Svenson to Mr. Krichevsky (Exhibit L). It written in Russian with numerous grammar

errors. I, Michael Krichevsky, under penalty of perjury certify that I translated this note

to the best of my knowledge and ability: “I went to see lawyers and they told me that you

doing money laundering. Three lawyers told me not to sell apartment (meaning parties

condo). My parents supported me. (Next sentence I did not understand). We cannot stand

each other. You want to kill me. I told every body that you want to kill me. All my

friends know how you were waving your hands in front of my nose. I asked Elena for a

copy of accountant contract, but she would not give it to me. I paid for everything.” This

note sounds kind of “psychiatric”, but in the whole context of her malicious prosecution

and verbal threats to report me to FBI and IRS shows her witness character.

23. There is also mistake of fact made during this proceeding. Respondent was paying $627

in temporary child support though SCU (Exhibit M) which was never accounted for in

Final order of support.

24. Due to continuous harassment of respondent through 7 different law suits in

different courts of Brooklyn , more than one year of malicious prosecution that caused a

great deal of stress respondent’s work performance degraded. Inflicted emotional distress,

numerous personal meetings with his lawyer and court appearances burned him out and

prevented from working 60 - 80 hours per week as he used to before 2008. In the end, his

employer got fed up and laid him off.

7
25. Now, respondent is receiving unemployment insurance benefits in the amount of $430

weekly. (Exhibit N)

26. Child Support Collection Unit rubs me off my benefits and takes 65%. I am left with

$174.38 per week which is below federally set self support reserve of $14,620 and

poverty income level of $10,830 ($174 x 52 weeks = $9,048).

27. This money is not enough to fulfill my basic human needs, not to mention to pay for car

insurance, gasoline, utilities, etc.

28. I survive only with support of my friends, which cannot last forever.

29. If this situation continues I will loose my car and with it ability to find a job.

30. On May 3, 2010, respondent served petitioner with petition to modify his child

support amount due to the fact that respondent lost his job.

31. Respondent informed petitioner that he is now collecting unemployment insurance

benefits.

32. Petitioner appeared in court on May 13, 2010 alone and requested adjournment till

August 12, 2010 “due to her attorney been booked”.

33. On May 19, 2010, respondent filed petition for custody and first appearance was

set on June 14, 2010. All of a sudden, her lawyer Mr. Levoritz became available and

appeared on this day, June 18 and June 30, 2010.

34. While been so busy, Mr. Levoritz fail to answer my petitions for modification and

custody, and instead served me with petition for violating the court order for not paying

ordered child support, even though petitioner notified respondent that he is unemployed.

8
 On June 28, 2010 after custody hearing, which was adjourned till October 4, respondent’s

attorney, Mr. Levoritz, approached respondent and “made him an offer he can not

refuse”. The offer was: petitioner withdraws his custody petition in exchange for not

sending me to jail, and arrears will be converted into money judgment. Rule of

Professional conduct 3.4 - FAIRNESS TO OPPOSING PARTY AND COUNSEL states

that a lawyer shall not: (e) present, participate in presenting, or threaten to present

criminal charges solely to obtain an advantage in a civil matter.

35. This is just one of many other rules of professional conduct broken by “team

plays” of Mr. Levoritz and Magistrate John Fasone.

WHEREFORE, respondent respectfully moves this Court to sign the annexed temporary

restraining order, grant any relief in paragraphs 1 or 2 of OSC so that the status quo can be

preserved until the parties have their day in court, and for such other and further relief as Interest

of Justice for Pro Se respondent and this Court seems just and proper.

X________________________________

MICHAEL KRICHEVSKY

Sworn to before me this

___ day of July, 2010

_________________________
NOTARY PUBLIC

9
FAMILY COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF KINGS

-----------------------------------------------------------------
DOCKET No. F-28901-08/10

KINGS COUNTY SUPPORT COLLECTION UNIT OF KINGS COUNTY DEPARTMENT

OF COCIAL SERVICES, on behalf of ELENA SVENSON,
Petitioner,

-against-

MICHAEL KRICHEVSKY,
Respondent

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

___________________________________________________

JUDICIAL NOTICE, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WITH TRO

___________________________________________________

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

By: ________________________________

AGNOWLEGMENT OF IN-HAND SERVICE:

In-Hand Service of the within document is hereby acknowledged on this _____ day of ________
2010, at _________ am/pm
FAMILY COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF KINGS
_____________________________________________________
KINGS COUNTY SUPPORT COLLECTION UNIT OF KINGS DOCKET NO.
COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COCIAL SERVICES on behalf of F-28901-08/10
ELENA SVENSON,
Petitioners,
-against- JUDICIAL NOTICE

MICHAEL KRICHEVSKY, Hon. Paula Hepner

Respondent.
_____________________________________________________

COMES NOW, Michael Krichevsky, Pro Se, (Hereinafter “Respondent”)hereby respectfully

moves this Court to take JUDICIAL NOTICE:

The Courts have long held that Pro Se pleadings are to be read liberally and if there is

relief available that they have failed to request, the Courts should be lenient and the Pro Se

litigant should be afforded that available relief.

Moore v. Florida, 703 F.2d 516 (11th Cir. 1983) Reversed and Remanded which held:

“[26] ‘a court should be particularly careful to ensure proper

notice to a pro se litigant.’ Herron v. Beck, 693 F.2d at 127. See also
Barker v. Norman, 651 F.2d 1107, 1129 (5th Cir. 1981) (holding district
court abused its discretion…failing to afford to a pro se civil rights
litigant…”

“[37] The pleadings of pro se litigants…subject to less stringent rules. ‘…,

however inartfully drafted, must be held to less rigorous standards than…by
lawyers.’ Woodall v. Foti, 651 F.2d 268, 271 (5th Cir. 1981); see
Richardson v. Fleming, 651 F.2d 366, 368 (5th Cir. 1981).”

F.D.I.C. v. Hillcrest Assoc., 66 F.3d 566 (2d Cir. 1995) “reiterating general
rule and outlining exception for pro se litigants…”
“We hold pro se pleadings to a less stringent standard than pleadings
drafted by attorneys and construe them liberally.” Tannenbaum v. United
States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998)
We give a "liberal" reading to pro se filings because those litigants lack
formal legal training. See GJR Invs., 132 F.3d at 1369 ("Courts do and
should show a leniency to pro se litigants not enjoyed by those with the

2
 benefit of a legal education.").

In Grayden v. Rhodes, 345 F.3d 1225 (11th Cir. 09/17/2003) the Court held:

“The law does not entertain the legal fiction that every individual has achieved a state of legal

omniscience; … there is no presumption that all of the citizens actually know all of the law all of

the time. Practically speaking, citizens must educate themselves about the law” See West

Covina, 525 U.S. at 241, 119 S. Ct. at 682 (noting that an individual "can turn to these public

sources to learn about the remedial procedures available to him"); id. at 242, 119 S. Ct. at 682

(noting that a citizen "could not reasonably be expected to educate himself about the procedures

available to protect his interests"); United States v. Locke, 471 U.S. 84, 108, 105 S. Ct. 1785,

1799-1800 (1985)”

Mr. Krichevsky, representing himself, invokes the doctrine of staire decisis and the

United States Supreme Court’s Rulings and Rulings of other Appellate and Civil Courts

concerning Pro Se pleadings and requests this Honorable Court take Judicial Notice:

“Pro se pleadings are to be considered without regard to technicality; pro

se litigants' pleadings are not to be held to the same high standards of
perfection as lawyers.” Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1959);
Picking v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 151 Fed 2nd 240; Pucket v. Cox, 456 2nd
233
"Pleadings are intended to serve as a means of arriving at fair and just
settlements of controversies between litigants. They should not raise
barriers, which prevent the achievement of that end. Proper pleading is
important, but its importance consists in its effectiveness as a means to
accomplish the end of a just judgment." Maty v. Grasselli Chemical Co.,
303 U.S. 197 (1938)
"Where a plaintiff pleads pro se in a suit for protection of civil rights, the
Court should endeavor to construe Plaintiff's Pleadings without regard to
technicalities." Picking v. Pennsylvania Railway, 151 F.2d. 240, Third
Circuit Court of Appeals
“Pro Se parties have the right to Appeal, and submit their briefs on appeal
even though they may be inartfully drawn”, see Vega v. Johnson, 149 F.3d

3
 354 (5th Cir. 1998). “Courts will go to particular pains to protect pro se
litigant’s consequences of technical errors if injustice would otherwise
result.” U. S. v. Sanchez, 88 F.3d 1243 (D.C. Cir. 1996).
Moreover, “the court is under a duty to examine the complaint to determine
if the allegations provide for relief on any possible theory.” Bonner v.
Circuit Court of St. Louis, 526 F.2d 1331, 1334 (8th Cir. 1975) quoting
Bramlet v. Wilson, 495 F.2d 714, 716 (8th Cir. 1971).
The history of bias and prejudice against pro se litigants within the Courts
is long. Stephen Elias who had been with Nolo Press, the nation’s leading
publisher of self-help law books, back in 1997, in an article Bias Against
Pro Per Litigants… stated:
“From the moment they first contact the court system, most people who
want to represent themselves, without a lawyer, encounter tremendous
resistance. Within the closed universe of the courts, this bias is as
pernicious as that based on race, ethnic origins or sex.” “People who
cannot afford a lawyer are a rebuke to the organized bar’s monopoly…,
because that monopoly is morally—if not legally—justified…the ABA has
admitted that 100 million Americans can’t afford lawyers.”
"... the right to file a lawsuit pro se is one of the most important rights
under the constitution and laws." Elmore v. McCammon (1986) 640 F.
Supp. 905

"We cannot say with assurance that under the allegations of the pro se complaint, which we hold

to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers, it appears “beyond

doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him

to relief.” Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957). See Dioguardi v. Durning, 139 F.2D

774 (CA2 1944)." Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519.

JUDICIAL NOTICE IN REGARD TO RESPONDENT’S CASE

NEW YORK CPLR Rule 4514. Impeachment of witness by prior inconsistent statement: “In

addition to impeachment in the manner permitted by common law, any party may introduce

proof that any witness has made a prior statement inconsistent with his testimony if the

statement was made in a writing subscribed by him or was made under oath. In this case,

4
Petitioner’s statement on Family Offence Petition and two financial disclosure affidavits, as well

as her testimony during hearing are inconsistent and misleading:

a) On post-father disclosure affidavit petitioner claims zero cash and income of $2825

per month versus $4245 expense per month.

b) During hearing she testified that in 2009 she borrowed $10,000 from her sister,

Larissa Gaber to pay her lawyers, and paid $5000 each to her attorneys Levoritz

and Biancanello, while omitting the fact that before them she paid attorney Yoram

Nakhimovsky who worked on her three different lawsuits against respondent for

about six month.

Respondent served petitioner’s sister, Larissa Gaber, with witness subpoena. No excuse and/or

notice was given to respondent by adverse party regarding unavailability of her for trial –

missing witness charge and ground for MISTRIAL.

Petitioner’s attorney made the following statement on Page 70 (Exhibit A) line 2-7 of October 8,

2009 hearing: “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”. This is defamatory and

racially discriminatory statement designed to influence bias and prejudice of court against

respondent and the ground for MISTRIAL.

Hearing was forced before discovery completed, while motion was pending and respondent did

not get his chance to depose petitioner. Violation of due process law, Constitution and ground

for MISTRIAL

5
Supreme Court Decisions on Void Orders - Rulings made in violation of Due Process are void.

A judgment may not be rendered in violation of constitutional protections. The validity of a

judgment may be affected by a failure to give the constitutionally required due process notice

and an opportunity to be heard. Earle v. McVeigh, 91 US 503, 23 L Ed 398. See also

Restatements, Judgments ' 4(b). Prather v Lloyd, 86 Idaho 45, 382 P2d 910. The limitations

inherent in the requirements of due process and equal protection of the law extend to judicial as

well as political branches of government, so that a judgment may not be rendered in violation of

those constitutional limitations and guarantees. Hanson v Denckla, 357 US 235, 2 L Ed 2d 1283,

78 S Ct 1228. A void judgment is not entitled to the respect accorded a valid adjudication, but

may be entirely disregarded, or declared inoperative by any tribunal in which effect is sought to

be given to it. It is attended by none of the consequences of a valid adjudication. It has no legal

or binding force or efficacy for any purpose or at any place. ... It is not entitled to

enforcement ... All proceedings founded on the void judgment are themselves regarded as

invalid. 30A Am Jur Judgments '' 44, 45. It is a fundamental doctrine of law that a party to be

affected by a personal judgment must have his day in court, and an opportunity to be heard.

Renaud v. Abbott, 116 US 277, 29 L Ed 629, 6 S Ct 1194. Every person is entitled to an

opportunity to be heard in a court of law upon every question involving his rights or interests,

before he is affected by any judicial decision on the question. Earle v McVeigh, 91 US 503, 23 L

Ed 398.

CONCLUSION

Respondent is invoking his Rights and Immunities guaranteed him by both the State of

6
New York Constitution and The Constitution of The United States of America, and respectfully

moves the Court to take Judicial Notice of staire decisis when ruling on respondent’s pro se

pleadings.

Respectfully submitted, this day of August, 2010, Brooklyn, New York

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

Michel Krichevsky, PRO SE.