Professional Documents
Culture Documents
COUNTY OF KINGS
______________________________________________________ Filed:_____________
_
INDEX NO. 24714/2010
MICHAEL KRICHEVSKY,
Plaintiff, Plaintiff designates Kings
County as the place of trial.
–against–
AMENDED VERIFIED
YONATAN LEVORITZ, ESQ, YORAM NACHIMOVSKY, ESQ, COMPLAINT
ELENA SVENSON,
The basis of venue is
Defendants. the County in which the
causes of action aroused
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Plaintiff, Pro Se and for his Verified Complaint, respectfully alleges, upon information
and belief:
1. JURISDICTION
1. This action is for money damages in excess of jurisdictional limits of all lower courts.
2. The plaintiff, MICHAEL KRICHEVSKY, at all times herein mentioned was and still is
3. The defendant, YONATAN LEVORITZ, Esq., at all times herein mentioned was and
still is a resident of the County of Kings and the State of New York.
Michael Krichevsky v. Levoritz, et al Page 1 of 30
Index No:24714/2010
4. The defendant, YONATAN LEVORITZ, Esq., at all times herein mentioned was and
still is conducting a business in the County of Kings and the State of New York.
5. The defendant, YORAM NACHIMOVSKY, Esq. at all times herein mentioned was
and still is a resident of the County of Kings and the State of New York.
6. The defendant, YORAM NACHIMOVSKY, Esq. at all times herein mentioned was
and still is conducting a business in the County of Kings and the State of New York.
services rendered in the County of Kings and the State of New York.
8. The defendant, ELENA SVENSON, at all times herein mentioned was and still is a
1. PARTIES
1. MICHAEL KRICHEVSKY – victim, damaged and personally injured plaintiff.
2. ELENA SVENSON – former girlfriend of plaintiff with whom plaintiff has son,
DAVID SVENSON.
Kings County Family Court and Kings County Supreme Court action against plaintiff
KOTLYAR (as tenants) in Kings County Supreme Court action against plaintiff
KOTLYAR (as tenants) in Kings County Landlord & Tenant Court against each other
in eviction action.
SVENSON (as landlady) and VICTORIA EDELSTEIN and BORIS KOTLYAR (as
2. At that time they lived at 4336 Manhattan Ave, Brooklyn, New York with their son
DAVID SVENSON.
6. SVENSON and KRICHEVSKY own condominium unit located at 120 Oceana Drive
West, apt 5D in Brooklyn, New York, which later became the subject of litigation in
for $2575 per month on a month to month tenancy starting from December of 2006.
above action for, inter alia, torturous interference with prospective economic
relationship.
9. Plaintiff was solely and contractually responsible for first and second mortgage
10.Mortgage plus condominium fees expenses were more than the monthly rent and
owners were trying to sell this condo in order to stop losing money.
support, how to fairly divide their assets and to go their own ways.
12.Due to SVENSON’s complete ignorance of law and fairness principles, as well as lack
of trust, plaintiff was having a hard time in negotiations and suggested that she hire an
13.She promised to do this and let plaintiff know when she was ready.
condo, but tenants refused to let this buyer in to see this apartment.
15.On or about July of 2008, after discussing this incident with SVENSON, plaintiff hired
VICTORIA EDELSTEIN and BORIS KOTLYAR in order to recover control over the
condo.
against plaintiff.
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.
19.Due to the events in paragraphs 16-18, Rosenblatt started litigation in Supreme Court
action bearing Index No 33343/2008 to protect plaintiff’s interests and force the sale of
20.At the same time SVENSON became verbally abusive toward plaintiff.
21.At the same time SVENSON blackmailed plaintiff and threatened to report plaintiff to
Manhattan Avenue into her cooperative apartment at 2620 Ocean Parkway, apt 3K in
Brooklyn.
24.On or about October 21, 2008 SVENSON looted plaintiff’s apartment on 4336
25.On October 27, 2008 SVENSON filed false Family Offence Petition against plaintiff.
26.On October 27, 2008 after she, ex-parte, obtained order of protection against plaintiff
(but unknown at that time to plaintiff), she brought party’s son DAVID to plaintiff’s
place of work, and together harassed plaintiff’s employer, Mr. Wittenstein, and
27.In order to avoid contact with SVENSON, protection of personal belongings, and
28.In the beginning of November 2008, plaintiff was served with order of protection at his
30.In December of 2005 plaintiff’ bought a house located at 4221 Atlantic Avenue in
31.Plaintiff was and still is the sole owner and mortgage payor of said house.
as well.
33.During the times that SVENSON blackmailed plaintiff, she also told him:”I am going
to make sure that you will not finish renovation, and instead file for bankruptcy”.
plaintiff and tried to coerce him into short sale of mentioned condo to VICTORIA
35.NACHIMOVSKY told plaintiff that they will “reveal in open court all machinations of
plaintiff and it will cost him much much more (implying criminal prosecution) than
36.NACHIMOVSKY refused to first mediate child support issue, and gave plaintiff an
37.That incident was reported to Rosenblatt and demand was made by plaintiff that
NACHIMOVSKY resign from the case due to outrageous conflict of interest and
unprofessional conduct.
scheme.
lawyer-puppeteer.
against plaintiff.
1. CAUSES OF ACTION
1.1 COUNT I: AIDING AND ABETTING THE COMMISSION OF TORT AS TO
ALL OF THE DEFENDANTS
1. All allegations above are incorporated by this reference as if fully restated herein.
2. SVENSON, under pretense of seeking to protect the best interest of the child, started a
war and hired NACHIMOVSKY to commit, advice, aid and abet her in all further
stated torts and criminal activities in order to gain financially and harm plaintiff.
professional responsibility.
4. One of such schemes was conspiracy to create backdated lease between SVENSON,
Rosenblatt, Esq.
5. That scheme resulted in profit of $34,200.00 from rent to SVENSON, while plaintiff
was left with immediate loss of paying condominium expenses and necessity of starting
6. That scheme substantially undermined and prejudiced plaintiff’s financial rights, later
on resulted in loss of the buyer of condo, plaintiff’s inability to pay mortgages and loss
10.LEVORITZ created, aided and abetted SVENSON in creation and filing of fraudulent,
Court.
11.Misleading and perjurious actions and testimony of LEVORITZ resulted in unfair child
13.Losses above resulted in plaintiff’s loss of credit and failure of his renovation project
through misleading and fraudulent pleadings convinced judge that $34,200.00 profit is
actually money spent on SVENSON’s son as a child support and that this issue being
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
16.These acts resulted in substantial loss to plaintiff as family court ordered plaintiff to
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
2. In 2009, plaintiff’s attorney Daniel Singer filed Emergency Order to Show Cause with
3. RATUSH and BIANCANELLO stipulated with the Judge of Supreme Court Hon Bert
Bunyan that SVENSON will pay $7,000.00 and EDELSTEIN with KOTLYAR
4. However, all of them became in Contempt of Court and in concert failed to send
checks.
5. None of the puppets contacted Mr. Singer in order to apologize or get more time to
comply.
6. When Mr. Singer contacted them, all of them had arguments as to why they should not
7. RATUSH, instead of advising his clients to pay $1,000.00 and comply with this order,
8. This motion practice cost more than $1,000.00 and was designed to harm and
plaintiff in even costlier frivolous motion practice completely wearing out plaintiff
financially.
10.Plaintiff had no choice but to finish Family Court hearing as Pro Se.
11.For SVENSON, having two lawyers in two different courts instead of one lawyer
standing in front of one judge, was necessary to be able to claim different sets of facts,
different judges, to divide subject matter jurisdiction and get double recovery of child
12.That NACHIMOVSKY scheme yet another proof for aid and abet cause of action
13.Actions of all lawyers-defendants constitute Fraud upon the Court by Officers of the
Court.
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
plaintiff’s personal records, bills, receipts, copies of income tax filings for prior years,
3. That evidence was destroyed or concealed (it is unknown which) but was not produced
during proceeding.
plaintiff’s documents over objection of plaintiff’s attorney that they been stolen from
possession of them.
7. Absence of this evidence played a major role in plaintiff’s defense and rendered
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
3. On October 27, 2008 Defendant quietly filed fraudulent Petition for Order of Protection
against plaintiff forcing him out of his apartment on 4336 Manhattan Ave in Brooklyn,
New York, which defendant abandoned in summer of 2008 and moved to her
4. When Police came to arrest plaintiff, but missed him, plaintiff fled this apartment for
5. Plaintiff became homeless and suffered a great deal of emotional distress, as well as
6. That willful and malicious act caused plaintiff to suffer financial loss when he fled that
apartment.
Michael Krichevsky v. Levoritz, et al Page 13 of 30
Index No:24714/2010
7. Plaintiff hired attorney Charles Gayner, Esq. to represent him in court which cost
plaintiff $5,000.00.
NACHIMOVSKY, before the court had any opportunity to rule and it was dismissed.
9. Neither SVENSON, nor plaintiff’s son DAVID were afraid of contact with plaintiff as
they willfully entered plaintiff’s place of work few hours after obtaining order of
10.On April 22, 2010 Respondent filed Petition to modify his child support obligation due
11.The hearing was adjourned by Magistrate Fasone from May 18 to August 6 over
Respondent’s Objection.
12.Defendant’s reason for such a long adjournment period was the argument that her
attorney Mr. Levoritz has “celebrity status and is already booked for the summer”.
13. In reality this was just another dirty trick to deny Respondent due process and to “milk
14.While been so busy, Mr. Levoritz failed to answer my petitions for modification and
custody, and instead served plaintiff with petition to hold him in contempt for violating
the court order of not paying ordered child support, even though plaintiff notified
15.On June 28, 2010 after custody hearing, LEVORITZ approached respondent and “made
him an offer he cannot refuse”: plaintiff withdraws his custody petition in exchange for
not sending plaintiff to jail, and arrears will be converted into money judgment.
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
2. During civil actions that defendants engaged plaintiff in, as a standard operating
procedures they used frivolous motion practice as defined by NYCRR rule 130-1.1.
3. During civil actions that defendants engaged plaintiff in, as a standard operating
procedures they used delay and adjournment tactics to harass and wear out plaintiff
financially, emotionally and to gain more money from their acts that otherwise they
4. Defendants went as far as been in contempt of court as officers of the court in order to
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
3. During litigation induced by the defendants, perjurious statements were made under
4. Material facts were misrepresented and plaintiff’s statements were misquoted in order
8. According to RES JUDICATA doctrine, LEVORITZ did not have any right to claim
arrears on child support since BIANCANELLO in Supreme Court action pleaded that
$34,200.00 rent money were spent on child support and SVENSON stipulated with
Hon. Bert Bunyan that she will pay back $7,000.00 to plaintiff, which she also failed to
do.
9. Such acts are criminal in nature and constitute Fraud upon the Court.
harm plaintiff, than they acted in their own best interest and advised SVENSON not to
mediate disputed issues with plaintiff in order to churn more legal fees for themselves.
11.These lawyers acted and gave legal advice to SVENSON which was contrary to her
13.Acts like these destroy public confidence in our legal system and judiciary as a whole.
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
2. On August 6, 2009 during child support hearing in Kings County Family Court, Part
27, LEVORITZ made several malicious and slanderous allegations about plaintiff on
a) Your Honor, with all due respect this gentleman has complete control over his
b) I am going to explain it. He brings in clients for the law firm and receives a
c) If you look at his tax return his tax return reflects the fact that he actually
owned a company and he put everything through his company and not through
him.
d) Because it’s not necessary reported on a W-2, Your Honor. No, in the past
some of it has been reported on W-2, some of it has gone through the
giving him extra income. Unless you’re gonna tell me he’s in cahoots with
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
a) Isn’t it true that you have no time to rest because you’re actually an owner of
lawyers actually own law firms, and it’s a lawyer that’s used as a front”.
1. On January 6, 2010 during continuation of said child support hearing in Kings County
Family Court, Part 27, LEVORITZ made several malicious and slanderous allegations
about plaintiff on the record to support magistrate Fasone and others present:
he claims he made $56,000, he spent roughly four times that amount, not
1. LEVORITZ knew these statements were false and designed to influence bias and
stand to examine and get these allegations from her, because then she would be cross-
defendant SVENSON for deposition so that there will be no statements or facts he did
not want to know in order to be able to slander plaintiff and have slanderous
and looking for a reason to award maximum amount of child support as he has personal
“hit a home run” by ordering plaintiff to pay defendant maximum amount of money he
10.To return a favor, Fasone awarded defendant’s legal fees against plaintiff.
11.As the direct or proximate result of this tort plaintiff was fired from his job.
12.As the direct or proximate result of this tort construction company LEON
plaintiff devastated.
sustained while LEVORITZ and SVENSON were involved in harassment and slander
activity of plaintiff’s employer and contractor, which was entered into with full
knowledge of the potential hazard thereof. That the inherent risk incident to such
activity, and that such risk and any damages flowing therefrom were foreseeable,
expected and assumed upon entering into and continuing such activity.
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
2. Plaintiff had employment contract for many years with Wittenstein & Associates, PC.
3. Plaintiff had business contract with LEON CONSTRUCTION to renovate and finance
during child support proceeding brought negative results and barred no fruits.
continuing economic relationship with plaintiff in order to avoid harassment and be left
alone.
10.As direct result of forgoing, plaintiff was deprived from prospective economic
advantages.
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
2. During this litigation that defendants engaged plaintiff in, all defendants were unjustly
enriched.
3. Due to above mentioned child support order and income execution, defendants extorted
and continue to extort 65% of plaintiff’ income and unemployment insurance benefits.
4. Plaintiff was forced to defend himself and his interests by hiring lawyers.
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
2. Above mentioned act and/or series of acts were malicious and unlawful.
4. As the direct result of these acts plaintiff suffered and continues to suffer great financial
loss and personal injuries triggering award of special damages to be determined at trial.
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
2. Some or all of the acts by the defendants could be independent and/or separate from
each other.
3. However when they combined together, caused and/or produced single and/or
plaintiff.
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
2. Respondent, as the natural guardian of his son David Svenson, declares that
proceeding against plaintiff, and in the name of the best interests of the child
committed legal malpractice causing plaintiff to lose his job and other economic
opportunities.
3. Now that plaintiff is unable to fully comply with FASON’s child support order,
LEVORITZ must contribute to past, present and future compliance with plaintiff’s
child support obligation LEVORITZ illegally “won”, but made respondent injured and
unemployed.
fruits.
6. The damages aroused in this action are direct or proximate consequences of legal
malpractice and/or strict liability of all defendants, even though they could not have
been foreseen.
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
2. All of the defendants own a duty to plaintiff to be honest and conduct this proceeding
was caused to suffer serious personal injuries to mind and body, and further, that
5. The aforesaid occurrence was caused by the negligence of the defendants, without any
6. By reason of the foregoing, plaintiff was severely injured and damaged, sustained
severe nervous shock and mental anguish, great physical pain and emotional upset,
some of which injuries are believed to be permanent in nature and duration, and
Michael Krichevsky v. Levoritz, et al Page 24 of 30
Index No:24714/2010
Plaintiff will be permanently caused to suffer pain, inconvenience and other effects of
such injuries; Plaintiff incurred and in the future will necessarily incur further hospital
and/or medical expenses in an effort to be cured of said injuries; and Plaintiff will be
unable to pursue his usual duties with the same degree of efficiency as prior to this
well.
8. As a result of the forgoing, plaintiff has been injured and the defendants are liable for
all applicable damages under the law in the amount to be determined at trial, including
punitive damages; past, present and future medical expenses; loss of earnings and
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.
3. To protect public and society from future acts of the defendants, they must be punished
damages in the amount exceeding jurisdictional limits of all lower courts, together with
Michael Krichevsky v. Levoritz, et al Page 25 of 30
Index No:24714/2010
interest and the costs and disbursements of this action, and such other and further relief
2. Defendants, officers of the Court, in violation of their oath of office, have proceeded to
institute slavery and involuntary servitude in violation of the Fifth and Thirteenth
of New York as a way to harass plaintiff and deprive him of property in the form of his
3. Defendants forced plaintiff to perform unnecessary for him work without just
4. Defendants forced plaintiff to defend himself from their derogatory actions in order for
5. For more than two years plaintiff performs legal work without any just compensation.
6. Defendants obtained $31,599.42 VOID order against plaintiff and enforcing it through
7. Due to defendant’ above mentioned acts, plaintiff is unable to pay for appeal of this
8. As of 11/14/10 plaintiff owes $52,049.42 to New York City Office of Child Support
Enforcement.
or services, through the use of force, fraud, or coercion for the purpose of subjection to
10.According to the National Human Rights Center in Berkeley, California, there are
currently about 10,000 forced laborers in the U.S., around one-third of who are
domestic servants.
14.Plaintiff must be fairly compensated for his labor and time in the amount to be
damages in the amount exceeding jurisdictional limits of all lower courts, together
with interest and the costs and disbursements of this action, and such other and
further relief as to Interest of Justice and this Court seems just and proper.
1. VERIFICATION
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF KINGS
_____________________________________________________
Index NO. 24714/2010
MICHAEL KRICHEVSKY,
Plaintiff,
INDIVIDUAL
–against– VERIFICATION
MICHAEL KRICHEVSKY, being duly sworn under penalty of perjury deposes and says:
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
––––––––
MICHAEL KRICHEVSKY,
Plaintiff,
–against–
Defendants.
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
––––––––
___________________________________________________
VERIFIED COMPLAINT
___________________________________________________
By: ________________________________