SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORKCOUNTY OF KINGS

MICHAEL K R I C H E V S K Y , I N D E X N O . 24714/10Plaintiff,

SUPPLEMENTAL-against- ' AFFIDAVIT OF MERIT

YONATAN LEVORITZ, ESQ; YORAM NACHIMOVSKY, ESQ,ELENA SVENS'OK

Defendants.

"...ours is a sick profession marked by incompetence, lack of training, misconduct and bad

manners. Ineptness, bungling, malpractice and bad ethics can be observed in court

houses all over this country every day these incompetents have a seeming

unawareness of the fundamental ethics of the profession."

Chief Justice Warran Burger

STATE OF NEW YORK ss.:

COUNTY OF KINGS

Michael Krichevsky. Pro Se. pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746. under the penalty of perjury,

declares and says:

1. I have firsthand knowledge of the facts and matters herein referred to by me except where

indicated to be on information and belief and where so stated I verily believe them to be true.

2. I make this affidavit in opposition to motion to dismiss my case.

3. Knowing failure to disclose material information necessary to prevent statement from

being misleading, or making representation despite knowledge that it has no reasonable

basis hi fact, are actionable as fraud under law." Rubinstein v. Collins, 20 F.3dl60,1990

4. Accordingly my case of action for fraud exists because LEVORITZ AND

NACHIMOVSKY deliberately misrepresented facts, lied during hearings and created

fraudulent documents.

5. Destroying evidence arid counseling a client to hide evidence and give untruthful answers

to law enforcement authorities warranted disbarment (see Matter ofBackal, 219 AD2d 1

[IstDept, 1996]). This is exactly what both Defendants did to SVENSON.

6. In reply to both defendants motions for sanctions, the case Simmons v. United States, 390

U.S. 377 (1968) the judge stated "The claim and exercise of a Constitution right cannot

be converted into a crime"... "a denial of them would be a denial of due process of law".

Accordingly, Plaintiff is petitioning government for redress of grievances and court must

provide him relief.

7. As the judge eloquently stated in Gonzales v. Buist, 224 U.S. 126, 56 L.Ed. 693; 32 S.Ct.

463 (1912): "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

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.

8. These whole motions consist of statements of counsels which must be disregarded by

court.

9. Plaintiff challenges any attorney to state exactly which element of which cause of action

of Plaintiff s complaint is defective and why.

10. This complaint is full of specificity as to wrongdoings and injuries.

11. Plaintiff is likely to be the only individual, now or in the future, who is willing and able

to place a sworn affidavit affirming the herein disclosed facts under penalties of perjury,

into the record of this case and as such, in absence of sworn counter-affidavit signed

under the penalties of perjury regarding these same facts, laws, case laws and evidence.

Plaintiff should be the only prevailing party. In the case Morris v National Cash Register

44 S.W. 2d 433; the judge clearly states at point #4 that "uncontested allegations in

affidavit must be accepted as true.", and the Federal case of Group v Finletter. 108 F.

Supp. 327 states. "Allegations in affidavit in support of motion must be considered as

true in absence of counter-affidavit/3

12. Plaintiff attached defendant's SVENSON blackmailing note addressed to Plaintiff in his

amended complaint. In this note she writes in Russian language (translated* by Plaintiff)

the following:

First sentence "I went to see lawyers and they told me that you are doing money

laundering."

Second sentence "Three lawyers told me not to sell apartment."

13. There is more in this note, but for the sake of argument Plaintiff will discuss just these

two sentences. Exhibit A

14. This note must be considered as a statement, unsolicited testimony and an admission

against self interest.

15. Plaintiff concludes that SVENSON brought stolen documents (probably his income tax

statements, bank statements, mortgage documents, etc.) to NACHIMOVSKY because

this note was written during his representation of her.

16. Plaintiff believes that there was Mr. Ratush present as Russian speaking interpreter as its

usual procedure in any law firm with clients whose English is second language.

17. Her English was very limited and she could not even understand legal matters in Russian

while Plaintiff was discussing their break up hence Plaintiff proposed he to get a lawyer.

18. After these consultations she changed her attitude toward the Plaintiff and became

aggressive and violent.

19. She actually admits: that was actually lawyers who advised her against selling apartment

and upon this advice began controversy with lease and tenants.

20. Who if not NACH1MOVSKY gave her that idea and advice?

21. She is not smart enough to figure out on her own that she could sign a lease without

consent of Plaintiff as her partner and keep the money to herself while Plaintiff is solely

on the hook for the mortgage and maintenance fees for condo.

22. What she did was actionable as CONVERSION and NACHIMOVSKY (RATUSH?)

aided and abated this tort.

23. NACHIMOVSKY knew that this will harm Plaintiff and that situation cannot go on

indefinitely, and that at some point Plaintiff will default, mortgages and properties will

fall apart as house of cards.

24. Simultaneously, NACHIMOVSKY represented SVENSON and RATUSH tenants

EDELSTEIN and KOTLYAR, but unknown to Plaintiff at that time that RATUSH works

for NACHIMOVSKY as well.

25. Plaintiff concludes that NACHIMOVSKY and/or RATUSH gave her legal advice on

how to deal with Plaintiff.

26. If SOMEBODY was sure that Plaintiff was committing such a serious crime as money

laundering, why he not reported Plaintiff to appropriate authorities as it was his duty as

an officer of the court? He did not do that because he knew that the Plaintiff is clean and

it was an attempt to shake down Plaintiff though blackmail -what if this works, or just

maybe Plaintiff accumulated his fortunes doing just that (money laundering)?

27. Is this why LEVORITZ told FASONE in family court: "Your Honor, unfortunately in

certain communities it does happen when non lawyers own a law firm and it is lawyer

who used as a front?"

28. Was this statement racial and implying to Fasone that Plaintiff is "Russian Mafiosi" just

as Plaintiff reads a lot in American press these days?

29. Is this why LEVORITZ accused Plaintiff in "sheltering" his income?

30. Was this family court action for child support payments and family offence petition not

regularly issued legal processes?

31. Did it not turn out to be persecution of "Russian Mafiosi" which has nothing to do with a

child support?

32. How this is not abuse of legal process which Plaintiff put in his complaint as cause of

action?

33. Was this "Russian Mafiosi" not fired from his job?

34. Did Plaintiffs son's inheritance go into foreclosure by deeds of these lawyers?

35. How was this beneficial to Plaintiffs son to lose fathers savings to lawyers instead of

having it for his college?

36. Who gave these ideas to LEVORITZ - SVENSON or NACHIMOVSKY? .

37. Plaintiff concludes that it came from NACHIMOVSKY first, and only then LEVORITZ

inherited his file.

38. Did NACHIMOVSKY tell Plaintiff s attorney Charles Gayner and Plaintiff in family

court hallway that he will reveal in open court Plaintiffs machinations if Plaintiff does

not agree to his ultimatum of $2500 monthly child support?

39. How is it not extortion, when in reply Plaintiff told him to take a hike and a few minutes

later NACHIMOVSKY went in the court room with SVENSON and withdrew his family

offence petition before judge had any opportunity to rule?

40. Did this process terminated in Plaintiffs favor?

41. Did Plaintiff lost at least $5000 for nothing while NACHIMOVSKY got maybe as much

for nothing.

42. Is it not a crime to false report a crime to police and use it to hurt Plaintiff

43. Did LEVORITZ carried on NACHIMOVSKY' heritage? - yes.

44. Did attorney Biancanello play both sides of the fence by first appearing in family court

and later on in Supreme for SVENSON.

45. Did Biancanello in Supreme Court and LEVORITZ in family two lawyers' appearances

divide subject matter jurisdiction of child support and confused Judge Bunyan?

46. Did Biancanello tell Judge Bunyan something like "oh I don't know Your Honor, Mr.

Levoritz is handling that part of..."

47. Did LEVORITZ tell to Fasone something similar?

48. Did Biancanello in SVENSON' affidavit of merit not claimed child support and wrote in

it for Judge Bunyan that Plaintiff abandoned SVENSON.

49. Did Biancanello know that after order of protection and family offence petition filed by

NACHIMOVSKY, which is regularly issued legal process, Plaintiff became a fugitive

and abandoned his apartment to avoid arrest?

50. Is this not intentional misrepresentation of material facts and did SVENSON not sign any

affidavit which was filed in court?

51. NACHIMOVSKY practiced law for 20 years (according to RATUSH) while RATUSH at

that time 2 and LEVORITZ just 3. Who was mentoring who?

52. SVENSON is not smart enough to coach LEVORITZ.

53. These slanderous statements did not come from SVENSON while she was on the witness

stand deposed by LEVORITZ - they came from LEVORITZ not on!the witness stand!

54. Did these lawyers not steal Plaintiffs and his son's fortunes though SVENSON'

payments to them?

55. Her lawyers prepared her affidavits and stated that she never worked.

56. Who did they think the money come to SVENSON - from Santa Clause or Plaintiff?

57. What did Plaintiffs son got from racketeering of his father?

58. Plaintiff can go on and on...

59. This one piece of evidence is just a tip of the iceberg of evidence that Plaintiff possesses.

60. LEVORITZ implied to Mr. Fasone that Plaintiff uses his lawyer-employer as front for

his money laundering.

61. Plaintiff believes that he knows where this idea of "front" is coming from to LEVORITZ.

62. Plaintiff is in possession of information that leads him to believe that NACHIMOVSKY

almost simultaneously with Plaintiffs cases created, aided and abetted wrongful

conveyance and conversion in unrelated case.

63. In that case NACHIMOVSKY assisted his family in unlawful torts using Mr. Ratush as

"front". Exhibits.

64. This zealous representation and advice to NACHIMOVSKY' family member resulted in

arrest of one of his family member and criminal action in Brooklyn's criminal court.

65. This conclusionary evidence shows pattern of conduct, corrupt state of lawyer's mind and

scheme employed by NACHIMOVSKY against Plaintiff which is similar to schemes

employed by NACHIMOVSKY during his representation of S YENS ON, EDELSTEIN

and KOTLYAR, and can be treated as logical evidence TO PRESUME Plaintiffs

complaint as true.

66. When Plaintiff wrote his complaint he did not have this evidence and acts did not even

happen at that time. How could the Plaintiff be sooo clairvoyant to predict the future?

IN CONCLUSION: THIS MATTER IS .JUSTICE ON TRIAL

67. Defendants in concert failed to rebut Plaintiffs complaint and instead resorted to

statements of counsels. Miss. Ratner called Plaintiffs complaint "paranoia", Mr.

Nunberg "absurd" and Mr. Ratush called Plaintiff "litigious."'

68. Defendants' lawyers in concert called defendant's corrupt behavior "zealous

representation" of their clients. God forbid others from such a zealous representation of

these lawyers in the future.

69. Do they really know their clients true facts?

70. It is a crime to hide a crime and it's a fraud to hide a fraud, not to mention frivolousness.

71. In the absence of defendant' affidavits (point for point) or any evidence to the contrary it

is "paranoia" and "absurd" as much as "defendants' litigious council's paranoia and

absurd" in their motions to dismiss.

72. Mr. Nunberg called Plaintiffs cross motion to disqualify him a ''desperate move", but the

only one thing that Plaintiff is asking is to get iminvolved other SUPER LAWYER to

play the field AGAINST him.

73. What the Plaintiff is desperate for is for JUSTICE, while Mr. Nunberg evidently and Mr.

Ratush admittedly by him are desperate for money!!!

74. What Plaintiff has in this matter is so much merit that can only be described by the phrase

-as good as it gets!

THEREFORE, it is respectfully requested that the defendants' motions be denied in their

entireties, and for such other and further relief as to this Court may seem just and proper.

Brooklyn, New YorkLate knight, December 22-23, 2011

MICHAEL KRICHEVSKY, PRO SE, All Rights reservedWithout prejudice

EXHIBIT A

EXHIBIT B

IN e W Y- 0 f K S l a t e u is i s a e u v, u u i t o ty » t c

W e b C r i m s

Case Details - SummaryCASE INFORMATION

Court: Kings Criminal CourtCase #1 2011KN089350Defendant: Melamed, Max

Defendant

Name:Birth Year:NYSID:

Melamed, Max1934183333 6 L

Incident and Arrest

IncidentDate: August 25, 2011Summons/Ticket #:CJTN: 65134388K

ArrestDate&Time; November 10/2011 11:10Arrest #: K11707328

OfficerAgency; NYPDCommand: 84

Attorney Information

Defense AttorneyName:Type: Legal AidCourt Date: November 11, 2011Court Part: APAR4/3Address: ill Livingston Street/ Brooklyn, NY 11201Phone: 718-237-2000

Assistant District AttorneyName:Assigned: November 117 2011

Next Appearance

Date; January 9, 2012Court: Kings Criminal CourtPart: AP1F

Docket Sentence

No Sentence Information on File

3pps.courfs.state.ny.usAvebcrim_attorney/Detaii?which=caseSdocketNum...

WHO IS REALLY WHO

1. Of necessity, all of my statements in this section must be treated as based upon information

and belief, based upon the research that 1 have had done on this matter.

2. The Spider Web of Relations:

a. MILLENIUM DEALS, INC., Petitioner in The Lockout Proceeding is really an

alter ego of ADDA MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC, the net lessee.

b. They are also alter egos of SCHIFF 774 DRIGGS CORP. and HOMER

HOMES INC., Defendants in The Foreclosure Proceeding, the former being the

net lessor and former owner of The Driggs Property.

c. They are all controlled by the MELAMED family which includes Defendants

MAX MELAMED a/k/a MAX MELAHAMAD, his brother, OFFER

MELAHAMAD a/k/a OFFER MELAMED, and MARGARITI MELAHAMAD

a/k/a MARGARITI MELAMED, all of them defendants in both this action and

in The Foreclosure Proceeding.

d. Orna Melamed Nachimovsky is the daughter of MAX MELAMED, one of

the defendants in both Supreme Court actions. She is married to Eric

Nachimovsky, the brother of Yoram Nachimovsky.

e. Yoram Nachimovsky is an attorney with offices at 299 Broadway, Room 605,

New York, NY 10007.

f. The attorney of record on The Lockout Proceeding is Nicholas S. Ratush, who

gives as his address the same address as the office of Yoram Nachimovsky

Comment [Rl]: Sehiff 774 and Homer 1 tomesare owned and controlled by Max, Ofer andMargariti Melamed.Millenium Deals and ADDA Management arecomroilcd by Eric Nachimovsky.Although they have family relationships, .ind are incahoots with each other, their corporations are notintertwined.

Comment [R2]: Max Melamed is married toMargatin Melamed, their son ii, Ofer (Jon) Meiamed.Eric Nachimovsky is married to Orna Melamed(Max and Margariti's (laughter).Should Eric Nachimovsky be added to this list since

1 he is Ihe one behind ADDA management?

without naming Mr. Nachimovsky. However, according to Mr.

Nachimovsky's web site,

bttp://familywiIlpackage.com/defauIt.aspx?PageID=2, Mr. Ratush is his

employee. Thus the lockout proceeding is brought by an attorney who is hiding

his employment by a close relative of the owner of one of the Respondents he is

suing, SCHIFF 774 DRIGGS CORP., the principal defendant in the Foreclosure

Proceeding.

3. 300 Hempstead Turnpike. Suite 100, West Hempstead. New York 11552 appears as a

location for the following persons from this web of relations:

a. ADDA 422 Prospect Avenue, LLC, and ADDA 633 Union Street, LLC, both of

them companies which include the word "ADDA" in their names and are

obviously related to ADDA MANAGEMENT COMPANY, the net lessee and

Petitioner in the Lockout Proceeding.

b. 320 19 Street Condominiums, LLCS whose managing member is Angelo

Vasquez, the President of MILLENIUM DEALS, INC. (Petitioner in The

Lockout Proceeding] and whose president is Eric P. Nachimovsky, the son-in-

law of Max Melamed, an owner of SCHIFF 774 DRIGGS CORP., both

individually and corporately defendants in both Supreme Court proceedings

and. most significantly, Respondent in the Lockout Proceeding. Thus one

occupant of Suite 100 is feigning suing another, through the instrumentality

of a lawyer who hides his employment by another lawyer who is a family

member of both the Petitioner and Respondent in the same proceeding.

c. Taboun Investment Group, LLC, whose authorized agent is Yoram

Nachimovsky, a close relative of an owner of SCHIFF 774 DRIGGS CORP. as

per Exhibit XXX notarized by Nicholas Ratush, the lawyer purporting to be

suing his boss's family.

4. Thus it is clear that:

d. All of the business entities other than the Plaintiffs COVERT LLC in this case

are interlocking manifestations of the Melamed family, particularly Max

Melamed, and that the law firm handling these matters for the Melamed family

through these alter egos is that of Yoram Nachimovsky, brother to the son-in-

law of Max Melamed.

JSC

At an IAS part^of the supremeCourt of the State of New YorkHeld in and for the county ofKings3orough of Brooklyn, Cityof New York on the^day of OOf.. JO/ 0

. JOINT TRIAL.ORDERINDEX #Oi^?^ /

Upon the notice of motion and due deliberation had, it is now

ORDERED, mat the motion is granted to the extent that Index #'<

are joined for the purpose of trial and it is further,

ORDERED, that each shall retain its own index number, file a separate RJI, separate notes ofissue, and file separate judgments; and it is further,

iORDERED, that the order in which the parties open and close shall be determined by the court,and it is further,

cl«k>flncl it iifofther,

ORDERED, that a.copy of this order with notice of entry be. served upon all parties in the action.

/ /^ / -T£

frvtLs ̂ ^t^^Z'

SCHNEIER

EV I «/»7

r R £HML

I N T

AUftLA£. Trial Term, Pirt36of Oe SoprtmeCourt of U» Sate of New York, beU IB tod for UKGoaty «f Ktap» at tiw Ceartbouc, bcat*d ttQvk Ctfttert Borwik of Brooklyn, City »d Stateof N«w York, OB Ux 2# d«yef Q^ ^<*/0

CtLNo.

PUintUfd) Index No,

ir/2-r/>

TV fiBiirtot papin anmhcrnt I to rod oa thtoNobc* of Motion - Oder to Show CMKnd Affidavit! (AlBrewliow) Anueaed __

Pipcn

st-^Jr^

VEA'-wvll-O* KtHTIH SCHNEI2R

EAGfcl

INDEX# DATE

PLAINTIFF vs DEFENDANT

-^f T&* &3£fr/r

ENTERED/SO ORDERED

^ JSCMARTIN scmrcmi

KINGS cowry CUR,,;

mm-8 AH 9:19