Carla R.

Walworth (CW-5401)
Cynthia A. Curtin
PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY & WALKER LLP
75 East 55th St
New York, New York
Telephone: 212-318-6000
Facsimile: 212-319-4090
carlawalworth@paulhastings .com
cynthiacurtin@pauJhastings .com

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Civil Action No.

BASSET LLC; COMMERCE CENTER ACQUISITION LLC; COMMERCE CENTER MANAGER LLC; EDWARD SILVERA AN

-;;()

COMPLAINT
Capital One, National Association, by its attorneys Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker
LLP, hereby files its Complaint, and states as follows:

INTRODUCTION
).

Plaintiff Capital One, National Association, ("Capital One" or

"Bank") brings this action to recover approximately $637,982.95 owed to it by Surrey

Equities, LLC, Jacob Frydman, Edward Silvera, and Leon Silvera (hereinafter referred to
collectively as "Defendants"), wider various promissory notes, letter agreements, and
guaranties. In addition, Capital One brings this action as an Interpleader Plaintiff to assure
proper distribution of the remaining funds, approximately $556,274.12, held by
Defendants under 28 deposit accounts. Attached as Exhibit 1, is a chart of the various
deposit accounts held by Defendants with Capital One. Under the various promissory
notes, letter agreements, and guaranties, Defendants borrowed money and received other
financial accommodations from Capital One, and Defendants promised to pay certain
amounts, including principa l and interest, totaling
$637,982.95, on the conditions set forth therein. In addition, in order to induce Capital One
to extend or continue to extend credit or other financial accommodations to Defendants,
Jacob Frydman, Edward Silvera, and Leon Silvera executed various guaranties
unconditionally guaranteeing Defendants' obligations under the various promissory notes and
letter agreements. Defendants have defaulted on their obligations under the various
promissory notes, letter agreements, and guaranties. Although Capital One promptly provided
Defendants with Demand
Letters notifying Defendants' of their default, Defendants have not paid Capital One the
outstanding balance owed, regardless of the fact that Defendants, by their own admission, have
numerous checking and/or money market accounts with balances held by Capital One.
Therefore, Capital One brings this action for breaches of contract and interpleader, among
other claims, in order to recover the debt owed to it by Defendants. Capital One also brings
a count to pierce the corporate veil against the Defendants and Interpleader Defendants.

Parties

2.

Plaintiff Capital One is a national bank with its principal place of business

located at 1680 Capital One Drive, McLean, Virginia 22102. Capital One is a successor by
merger to North Fork Bank ("North Fork"), which merged with and into Capital One, N .A. on
or about August 1,2_007.
3.

On information and belief, Defendant and Interpleader Defendant Surrey Equities, LLC
("Surry,,) is a New York limited liability company with its principal place of business at 40
Fulton Street, Floor 6, New York, NY 10038. On information and belief, Surry is a citizen of
New York and_ New Jersey.

4.

On information and belief, Defendant and lnterpleader Defendant Senergy USA LLC is a
Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business at 885 Second
Avenue, New York, NY 10017 and 40 Fulton Street, 6th Floor, New York, NY 10038. On
information and belief, Defendant and Interpleader Defendant Senergy USA LLC is a citizen
of New York and New Jersey.
5.

On information and belief, Defendant and Interpleader Defendant

Jacob Frydman ("Frydman") is a New York resident, residing at 40 Fulton Street, Floor 6,
New York, NY 10038.
6.

On information and belief, Defendant and Interpleader Defendant Edward Silvera is a New
Jersey resident, residing at l O Surrey Lane, Ocean, NJ 07712.

7.

On information and belief, Defendant and Interpleader Defendant Leon Silvera is a New
York resident, residing at l O Surrey Lane, Ocean, NJ 07712.

8.

On information and belief, Interpleader Defendant Basset LLC is a

Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business in New York. On
information and belief, lnterpleader Defendant Basset LLC is a citizen of New York and New
Jersey.
9.

On information and belief, Interpleader Defendant Commerce Center Acquisition LLC is a

Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business at 1 Dag
Hammarskjold Plaza, 885 Second Avenue, 34th Floor, New York, NY 10017 and 40 Fulton
Street, Floor 6, New York, NY 10038. On information and belief, Interpleader Defendant
Commerce Center Acquisition LLC is a citizen of New Jersey.

10.

On information and belief, Interpleader Defendant Commerce Center

Manager LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with
its principal place of business at 1
Dag Hammarskjold Plaza, 885 Second Avenue, 34th Floor, New York, NY 10017 and 40

Fulton

Street, Floor 6, New York, NY 10038. On information and belief, Interpleader Defendant
!
I

Commerce Center Manager LLC is a citizen of New York and New Jersey.

'

11.

On information and belief, Interpleader Defendant Edward Silvera and Eve Silvera is a
New York resident, residing at 10 Surrey Lane, Ocean, NJ 07712.

12.

On information and belief, Interpleader Defendant Jafco Holdings LLC is a New York
limited liability company with its principal place of business at 40 Fulton Street, 6th Floor,
New York, NY 10038. On information and belief, Interpleader Defendant Jafco Holdings

LLC is a citizen of New York.

13.

On information and belief, lnterpleader Defendant Leon Edward Silvera by Edward

Silvera, Custodian is a New York resident, residing at 10 Surrey Lane, Ocean, NJ
07712.

14.

On information and belief, Interpleader Defendant Sawmill Investors LLC is a Delaware

limited liability company with its principal place of business at 885 Second Avenue, Room
3400, New York, NY 10017 and 40 Fulton Street, 6th Floor, New York, NY 10038. On
information and belief, Interpleader Defendant Sawmill Investors LLC is a citizen of New
York and New Jersey.

15.

On information and belief, Interpleader Defendant Sawmill Management Corp. is a New

Jersey and New York company with its principal place of business at 40 Fulton Street, 4th
Floor, New York, NY 10038. On information and belief, Interpleader Defendant Sawmill
Management Corp. is a citizen of New York and New Jersey.

16.

On information and belief, Interpleader Defendant Silvera Asset Group LLC is a

Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business at One Dag
Hammarskjold Plaza, 885 Second Avenue, 34th Floor, New York, NY 10017 and 40
Fulton Street, 6th Floor, New York, NY 10038. On information and belief, Interpleader
Defendant Silvera Asset Group LLC is a citizen of New Jersey.

17.

On information and belief, Interpleader Defendant Silvera Property Group is a business

entity (status of incorporation not yet determined) with its principal place of business at One
Dag Hammarskjold Plaza, 885 Second Avenue, 34th Floor, New York, NY 10017 and 40
Fulton Street, 6th Floor, New York, NY 10038. On information and belief,

Interpleader Defendant Silvera Property Group is a citizen

of New Jersey. On information

and

belief, Silvera Property Group is not incorporated in Virginia.

18.

On information and belief, Interpleader Defendant Surrey Bucharest LLC is a Delaware

limited liability company. Its principal place of business has not yet been determined. On
information and belief, lnterpleader Defendant Surrey Bucharest LLC is a citizen of New
York and New Jersey. On information and belief, the principal place of business of Surrey
Bucharest LLC is not in Virginia.

19.

On information and belief, lnterpleader Defendant Surrey Equities Acquisition is a

business entity (status of incorporation not yet determined). Its principal place of business
has not yet been determined. On information and belief, Interpleader Defendant Surrey
Equities Acquisition is a citizen of New York and New Jersey. On information and
belief, Surrey Equities Acquisition is not incorporated in Virginia nor is its principal place of
business in Virginia .

20.

On information and belief, Interpleader Defendant Surrey Fondren Investors LLC is a

Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business at 885 Second
Avenue, 34th Floor, New York, NY 10017 and 40 Fulton Street, 6th Floor, New York, NY
10038. On information and belief, Interpleader Defendant Surrey Fondren Investors LLC is
a citizen of New York and New Jersey.

21.

On information and belief, Interpleader Defendant Surrey Forrest Oaks LLC is a Delaware
limited liability company. Its principal place of business has not yet been determined. On
information and belief, Interpleader Defendant Surrey Forrest Oaks LLC is a

citizen of New York and New Jersey. On information and belief, the principal place of
business of Surrey Forrest Oaks LLC is not in Virginia.
22.

On information and belief, Interpleader Defendant Surrey Inverness LLC is a Delaware

limited liability company with its principal place of business at 40 Fulton Street, 4th Floor,
New York, NY 10038. On information and belief, Interpleader Defendant Surrey Inverness
LLC is a New Jersey citizen.

23.

On information and belief, Interpleader Defendant Surrey Inverness LLC Wells Fargo NA as
Trustee for Registered Holders of Chase Commercial MTG SEC Corp. is a business entity
(status of incorporation not yet determined). Its principal place of business has not yet been
determined. On information and belief, Interpleader Defendant Surrey Inverness LLC is a
citizen of New York and New Jersey. On information and belief, Surrey Inverness LLC is not
incorporated in Virginia nor is its principal place of business located there.

24.

On information and belief, Interpleader Defendant Surrey Medwick Acquisitions LLC is a

Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business at One Dag
Hammarskjold Plaza, 885 Second Avenue, 34th Floor, New York, NY 10017 and 40 Fulton
Street, 6th Floor, New York, NY 10038. On information and belief, lnterpleader Defendant
Surrey Medwick Acquisitions LLC is a citizen of New York and New Jersey.

25.

On information and belief, lnterpleader Defendant Surrey Property Management LLC is a

Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business at 40 Fulton Street,
4th Floor, New York, NY 10038. On information and belief, Interpleader Defendant Surrey
Property Management LLC is a citizen of New York and New Jersey.

26.

On information and belief, Interpleader Defendant Surrey Sawmill

Acquisition LLC is a business entity (status of incorporation not yet determined) with its
principal place of business at 40 Fulton Street, 4th Floor, New York, NY 10038. On
infonnation and belief, Interpleader Defendant Surrey Sawmill Acquisition LLC is a citizen
of New York
and New Jersey. On information and belief, Surrey Sawmill Acquisition is not incorporated
in Virginia.
27.

On information and belief, Interpleader Defendant Surrey Sawmill

Partners LLC is a business entity (status of incorporation not yet determined) with its
principal place of business at 40 Fulton Street, 4th Floor, New York, NY l 0038. On
information and belief, Interpleader Defendant Surrey Sawmill Partners LLC is a citizen
of New York and New

Jersey. On information and belief, Surrey Sawmill Partners LLC is not incorporad in
Virginia.
28.
On information and belief, Interpleader Defendant SWTey Sawmill
Management Corp. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 885
Second
Avenue, New York, NY 10017 and 40 Fulton Street, 6th Floor, New York, NY 10038. On
information and belief, lnterpleader Defendant Surrey Sawmill Management Corp. is a
citizen of New York and New Jersey.
29.

On information and belief, Interpleader Defendant Tivoli Partners LLC is a New York and
Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business at 885 Second
Avenue, New York, NY 10017 and 40 Fulton Street, 6th Floor, New York, NY 10038. On
information and belief, Interpleader Defendant Tivoli Partners LLC is a citizen of New
York and New Jersey.

30.

Basset LLC, Commerce Center Acquisition LLC, Commerce Center Manager LLC, Jacob
Frydman, Edward Silvera and Eve Silvera, Jafco Holdings LLC, Leon Edward Silvera by
Edward Silvera Custodian, Sawmill Investors LLC, Sawmill Management Corp., Silvera
Asset Group LLC, Silvera Property Group, Surrey Bucharest LLC, Surrey Equities
Acquisition, Surrey Equities LLC, Surrey Fondren Investors LLC, Surrey Forrest Oaks
LLC, Surrey Inverness LLC, Surrey Inverness LLC Wells Fargo NA as Trustee for
Registered Holders of Chase Commercial MTG SEC Corp., Surrey Medwick Acquisitions
LLC, Surrey Property Management LLC, Surrey Sawmill Acquisition LLC, Surrey Sawmill
Partners LLC,
Surrey Sawmill Management Corp.; and Tivoli Partners LLC are hereinafter collectively referred to
as the ''Interpleader Defendants".
Jurisdiction and Venu

31.

This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
1332 because (i) complete diversity of citizenship exists between the parties; and (ii) the
amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00 exclusive of interest and costs.

32.

Venue in this District is proper under 28 U.S.C. 1391 because Defendants are subject to
personal jurisdiction in this District, events at issue occurred in this venue. Thus venue is
not inconvenient for the parties.

33.

This Court has original jurisdiction over the cause of action for Interpleader against
Defendants and Interpleader Defendants, because (i) Capital One has in its possession money
in the amoW1t of $500.00 or more, and (ii) there are two or more adverse claimants of
diverse citizenship who are claiming or may claim to be entitled to such money, and

(iii) Capital One shall, pursuant to Order of this court, deposited such money into the registry of
the court, there to abide the judgment of this Court.

10

Count l
(Breach of Contract Under the 2010 Surrey Note, 2010 Letter Agreement, and Surrey
Guarantees Against Defendants)
A
34.

The Surrey Note

On or about October 3, 2006 , pursuant to a letter agreement dated September 21, 2006 (the
"2006 Letter Agreement"), by and between North Fork and Surrey, North Fork agreed to make
available to Surrey a line of credit (the "Line of Credit") up the aggregate amount of
$500,000.00. In connection with the 2006 Letter Agreement, on or about October 3, 2006,
Surrey executed and delivered to North Fork a Promissory Note, dated September 21, 2006
(the "2006 Surrey Note") in the principal amount of $500,000.00 with interest at a floating rate
equal to North Fork's prime rate plus 1.0%, whereby Surrey promised
to pay, upon the maturity date of September 21, 2007, the aggregate amount of all advances
together with accrued interest thereon which had not been previous] y repaid. A copy of the 2006
Letter Agreement and the 2006 Surrey Note are attached hereto as Exhibits 2 and 3 respectively.

35.

The 2006 Letter Agreement and 2006 Surrey Note were replaced, superseded and modified
from time to time, including but not limited to letter agreements dated September 24, 2007,
December 26, 2007, and February 3, 2009 and promissory notes dated January 1, 2008 and
January 1, 2009. A copy of the September 24, 2007, December 26, 2007,
and February 3, 2009 letter agreements and promissory notes dated January 1, 2008 and January
1, 2009 are attached hereto as Exhibits 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 respectively.

36.

On January 1, 2010, defendant Surrey executed a letter agreement dated December 28, 2009 (the
"2010 Letter Agreement") and a Promissory Note in the principal amount of $600,000.00 (the
"2010 Surrey Note") in favor of Plaintiff Bank. A copy of the 2010 Surrey Note and the 2010
Letter Agreement are attached hereto as Exhibits 9 and 10

11

respectively. By their terms, the 2010 Surrey Note and the 2010 Letter Agreement replace and
supersede all previous promissory notes and letter agreements.

37.

Under the terms and conditions of the 2010 Surrey Note and 2010 Letter Agreement, defendant
Surrey borrowed money and received other financial accommodations from plaintiff Bank, and
Surrey promised to pay the principal amount plus interest thereon from the date thereof as
provided therein.

38.

Pursuant to the paragraph "Rate and Payment" of the 2010 Surrey Note, interest was payable
monthly on the terms therein beginning on February l, 2010 and on the first day of the month
thereafter until January l, 2011, when all unpaid principal and interest was due

in full.
39.

Pursuant the paragraph entitled "Default" of the 2010 Surrey Note, upon

an event of default, as prescribed in the 2010 Surrey Note (the "2010 Surrey Note Events of
Default"), the Bank may declare the entire unpaid balance due and payable. Exhibit 9 at 2.
40.

Among the other 2010 Surrey Note Events of Default, the Bank may declare the entire unpaid
balance due and payable upon the happening of the (i) failure to pay any amount required by
the 2010 Surrey Note when due, or any other obligation owed to the Bank by Surrey or any
guarantor, or failure to have sufficient funds in its account for loan payments to be debited on
the due date ("Surrey Payment Default'') or (ii) the occurrence of a default under the 2010
Letter Agreement, any Guaranty, or any other document or instrument given to the Bank in
connection with the loan evidenced by the 2010 Surrey Note. Exhibit 9 at 2.

12

41.
Pursuant to the paragraph "Default Interest Rate" of the 2010 Surrey
Note, on and after an occurrence of any event of default and until the entire principal sum of
the 201O

Surrey Note has been fully paid, the unpaid principal shall bear interest at a rate equal to
24% percent per centum until the entire principal amount has been paid in full, both before
and after the entry of any judgment. Exhibit 9 at 2.
42.

Pursuant to the paragraph ..Late Charges" of the 20 l O Surrey Note, Surrey will pay a
charge of 4% of the amount which cannot be debited from its account due to insufficient
balance on the debit date. Exhibit 9 at 2.

43.

In order to induce plaintiff Bank from time to time, in its discretion, to extend or continue
credit or other financial accommodations to Surry, defendant Frydman executed and delivered
to the Bank that certain Guaranty of All Liability dated January 1, 20 1O ("Frydman 2010
Surrey Guaranty"), defendant Leon Silvera executed and delivered to the Bank that certain
Guaranty of All Liability dated January 1, 2010 ("Leon Silvera 2010 Surrey Guaranty"), and
defendant Edward Silvera executed and delivered to the Bank that certain Guaranty of All
Liability dated January 1,2010 ("Edward Silvera 2010 Surrey Guaranty") (collectively, the
"Surrey Guarantors"), each of which unconditionally guaranteed to plaintiff Bank the
payment of obligations of Surrey to plaintiff Bank, of whatever nature, whether then existing
or thereafter incurred, including without limitation, the obligations of Surrey under the 2010
Surrey Note and 2010 Letter Agreement (collectively, the "Surrey Guaranties"). A copy of
the Frydman 2010 Surrey Guaranty is attached hereto as Exhibit 11. A copy of the Leon
Silvera 2010 Surrey Guaranty is attached hereto as Exhibit 12. A copy of the Edward Silvera
2010 Surrey Guaranty is attached hereto as Exhibit 13,

13

44.

On January l, 2011, the 2010 Surrey Note matured. Since that time, the 2010 Surrey Note
has remained unpaid.

45.

As of January l, 2011, Surrey has defaulted and remains in default of the obligation to pay
to Capital One on all amounts under the 2010 Surrey Note and 2010 Letter Agreement,
including but not limited to, all interest and associated commissions, fees, expenses, and
costs. By letter dated January 14, 2011, plaintiff Bank made a demand for payment on
Surrey and the Surrey Guarantors for the amounts owing and due under the 2010 Surrey Note
and the 2010 Letter Agreement (the "2010 Surrey Note Demand Letter"). Pursuant to the 2010
Surrey Note Demand Letter, plaintiff Bank declared the entire unpaid balance of principal and
interest, and all other amounts payable under the 2010 Surrey Note and 2010 Letter
Agreement, immediately due and payable. A copy of the 2010 Surrey Note Demand Letter is
attached hereto as Exhibit 14.
B.

46.

Breach of the 2010 Surrey Note and Related Guaranties

To date, neither Surrey nor the Surrey Guarantors have paid the outstanding
principal balance of the 2010 Surrey Note and 2010 Letter Agreement.

47.

Surrey and the Surrey Guarantors have breached the 2010 Surrey Note, 2010 Letter
Agreement, and the Surrey Guaranties, for those reasons stated above, including but not
limited to the failure to comply with the obligations under the 2010 Surrey Note to pay
Capital One the full amount of the unpaid principal, interest and late fees in the amount of
$637,982.95 together with interest and all associated commissions, fees, expenses, and
costs, which became due and payable on demand from Capital One. A schedule showing
the

14

'

calculation of the amounts of principal, interest and late charges due as of March 14, 2011
under
the 2010 Surrey Note is attached hereto as Exhibit 15.
48.

Surrey and the Surrey Guarantors' breach of contract have resulted in damages to Capital
One in an amount to be determined at trial, which is far in excess of the jurisdictional
amount of this Court.

49.

Pursuant to the paragraph "Attorneys Fees" of the 2010 Surrey Note, and the paragraph
"Miscellaneous "of the Surrey Guaranties, Surrey and the Surrey Guarantors agreed to pay
the Bank's attorneys fees in the event that the Bank retains counsel with respect to
enforcements of 2010 Surrey Note or any other document or instrument given to the Bank,
including but not limited to the Surrey Guaranties.

50.

Capital One has incurred and continues to incur costs and expenses, including fees and
disbursements of in-house and outside counsel, in regard to enforcing the obligations
under the Agreement.
Count 2
(Estoppel Against Defendants)

51.

Capital One repeats and realleges each and every allegation as set forth

aboveIn entering into the transactions at issue, Capital One relied directly upon the express
representations of Defendants with regard to the above noted notes, letter agreements, and
guaranty agreements, including but not limited to the 2010 Surrey Note, 2010

15

Surrey Letter Agreement, Surrey Guaranties, the Restated Elite Agreement, the Elite

Guaranty
and related documents (the "Agreements").
52.

Defendants entered into the Agreements with full knowledge of Capital. One's reliance upon
their representations therein and, indeed, made such representations to induce Capital One to
rely thereon.

53.

Capital One has been injured as a direct and proximate result of Defendants' failure to
honor the express representations in the Agreements.

54.

Based upon the foregoing, Defendants are now estopped from disputing the representations
and promises in the Agreements.

Count 3
(Uniust Enrichment and Quantum Meruit Against Defendants)

55.

Capital One repeats and realleges each and every allegation as set forth

above.

56.

As a result of Defendants' conduct as set forth above, the Defendants have been unjustly
enriched.

57.

Capital One is entitled to recovery under the doctrines of quasi-contract, quantwn meruit and
unjust enrichment.

Count 4
(Veil Piercing Against Defendants and Interpleader

58.

Capital One repeats and realleges each and every allegation as set forth above. For purposes
of this count, Defendants and Interpleader Defendants are referred to collectively as
"Defendants".

59.

Capital One should recover for these debts from the Defendants, because these entities and
individuals do not maintain the proper corporate form. To permit them to simultaneously avoid
liability through misuse of the corporate form while not observing their
obligations would be inequitable, and would work a significant and unfair hardship on Capital
One, while amounting to a windfal1 for these Defendants. Indeed, unless Capital One is paid
directly by the Defendants, they will enjoy the benefits of the corporate form as a shield for

liability without accepting their responsibility to maintain that form.

60.

Upon information and belief, the Defendants have not observed the formalities and
responsibilities that are part and parcel of their corporate existence, i.e., issuance of stock,
election of directors, keeping of corporate records and the like. For example, records at
Secretary of State do not correspond to the information provided to Capital One. In some
instances, records at the Secretary of State indicate that some Defendants are no longer in good
standing.

61.

Upon information and belief, the Defendants are closely-related limited liability corporations
organized under the laws of that States of New York and Delaware. Defendant Surrey

'

Equities LLC admits that it was "formed in 2004 by Edward Silvera, Leon Silvera and Jacob
Frydman" and that it "is a real estate investment and management firm."
http://www.surreyequities.com/aboutUs.php. Upon information and belief, the Defendants are in
the same business as Surrey Equities LLC, that is "real estate investment and management."

17

Moreover, upon information and belief, the other entities also were formed by the two
Silveras and Frydman, or entities controlled by them.

62.

Upon information and belief, some or all of the Defendants are inadequately capitalized. See
counts infra. Breach of and default on these obligations establishes that these entities are
inadequately capitalized.

63.

Upon information and belief, funds are put in and taken out of the Defendants for personal
rather than corporate purposes. For example, Defendant Leon Silvera
has transferred money from business accounts to his personal banking account at Bank of
America.

64.

Upon information and belief, there is significant overlap in ownership, officers, directors, and
personnel for Defendants LLCs. This overlap establishes that the entities are not independent of
one another.

65.

Upon information and belief, the Defendants use common office space, addresses, and telephone
numbers for their corporate entities. For example, Surrey Equities LLC lists their address on bank
records as: Surrey Equities, LLC, 885 Second Avenue - 34th Floor, 1 Dag Hammarskjold Plaza,
New York, NY 10017-2201. At the same time, Defendant Frydman gave this exact location as his
address as personal guarantor. When Frydman moved his offices to 40 Fulton Street Floor 6,
New York, NY 10038, the offices for Surrey Equities, LLC moved to the same office. The Fulton
Street office also seems to house Frydman's offices for Hudson
York Capital LLC, whose Managing Partner is Defendant Frydman. http://hudson-york.com/.
Hudson-York Capital is described as "a privately held real estate development and investment
finn that generates superior returns for its institutional and high net worth individual partners."

18

When corresponding on business for Surrey Equities, Defendant Frydman uses his personal
email address for Hudson York Capital, an apparently unrelated corporate entity. When
corresponding with Capital One concerning the accounts of the Defendant LLCs, Frydman
gave instructions to the bank about the corporate accounts using the email for [email protected] om.
This email address appears to be an address for another business of Defendant Frydman,
Hudson York Investors. Other business entities are co-located at 40 Fulton Street, including
Silvera Asset Group, which lists its contact information as [email protected],
presumably Joseph Frydman. Silvera Asset Group is described on the website of Defendant
Surrey Equities as "our sister company". http://www.surreyeq
uities.com/acguisitionCriteria.php.

These uses of

common business facilities establishes that the entities and individuals are not operating
independently of one another.
66.

Upon information and belief, the Defendants have comingled their funds. This establishes
that the entities are subject to common control over their finances, funds, and property.

67.

Upon information and belief, the Defendants exercise little, if any, independent business
discretion. This establishes that the entities are commonly controlled and do not exercise
independent business judgment.

68.

Upon information and belief, the related Defendants do not deal with one another at arm's
length.

69.

Upon information and belief, the Defendants are not treated as independent profit
centers. Upon information and belief, they do not regularly document

19

transfers of money between entities as "loans" nor do they charge interest on loans at an arm's
length rate for "loans"or transfers of money between entities.
70.

Upon information and belief, the Defendants do not document services rendered or
compensation therefor between the entities or the individuals.

71.

Upon information and belief, both the Defendants have paid or guaranteed debts of the other
corporations in the group.

72.

Upon information and belief, Individual Defendants Frydman and Silvera have purported to
issue to Capital One conflicting instructions about disbursement of funds from the corporate
accounts. Defendant Leon Silvera as an officer of certain Surrey entities instructed Capital One
that he had signing authority on behalf of the entities and drew checks on the accounts consistent
with that authority. And Defendant Frydman insisted that, notwithstanding Leon Silvera's status

as officer, checks should only be draw that included his signature or that of his agent. While
Capital One was entitled to rely on such instructions as they were issued, such conflicting
instructions by two individuals demonstrate that Frydman and Leon Silvera were acting in their
own personal interest, rather than in the interests of the entities that were named
on the accounts. Had Leon Silvera and Frydman been acting on behalf of the corporation, there
would have been no need for them to attempt to control the corporate funds through their
personal signing authority. The only inference to be drawn from these instructions is that Leon
Silvera and Frydman were attempting to personally exercise control over the corporate accounts.
This further demonstrates that Leon Silvera and Frydman were purporting to exercise dominion
and control over the corporate entities, the corporate accounts, the property of these entities, as
well as their finances, contracts, and funds.

20

73.

Upon information and belief, the Defendants use the property of the other as if it were its
own.

74.

In fact, the Defendants Surrey Equities, Surrey Property Management, and the Defendant Jacob
Frydman have made significant judicial admissions in a lawsuit they filed against Capital One in
the Supreme Court of New York, admissions with respect to these entities and individuals as alter
egos of one another. Surrey Equities, LLC and Surrey Property Management, LLC v Capital

One, NA, Index Number 3018482011, Amended Complaint

(''NYS Complaint").
75.

For example, fo paragraph 3 of their NYS Complaint, Defendants Surrey Equities, Surrey
Property Management, and Frydman admit that Defendants Surrey Equities and Surrey
Property Management are owned, like other LLC Defendants, by the Silvera Defendants
and by a corporate entity "controlled by" Defendant Frydman. NYS Complaint, Paragraph
3. These admissions establish both common ownership and control between these entities
and individuals.

76.

Further, in paragraph 4 of their NYS Complaint, Defendants Surrey Equities, Surrey

Property Management, and Frydman make a judicial admission that the Defendants Surrey
Equities and Surrey Property Management established checking and money market accounts
in the name of and for many of the other Interpleader Defendants with Capital One. NYS
Complaint, paragraph 4. These judicial admissions establish control over the finances,
contracts, property, and funds of these entities as well as the exercise of business
discretion by Defendants Surrey Equities and Surrey Property Management and Frydman.

21

Indeed, Defendant Frydman himself "controls" an owner of Surrey Equities and Surrey
Property Management, which established these accounts for the other entities.
77.

Further, in paragraph 5 of the NYS Complaint, Defendant Frydman asserts that no checks
could be drawn from the accounts of these entities without his signature or that of his agent.
NYS Complaint, paragraph 5. This judicial admission establishes his individual dominion and
control over the corporate entities, the corporate accounts, the property of these entities, as
well as their finances, contracts, and funds.

78.

Finally, in asserting that Capital One permitted checks to be drawn from the corporate
accounts without his signature, Defendant Frydman and Surrey Equities with Surrey Property
Management allege the checks were drawn from the corporate accounts in derogation of
Frydman's personal rights. NYS Complaint, paragraph 6. The NYS Complaint by

Surrey Equities, Surrey Property Management, and Frydman even alleges that Frydman
personally was damaged because checks were drawn from the corporate accounts without his
signature, rather than that the entities themselves were damaged. In seeking damages
personally for Frydman for checks drawn from corporate accounts, Defendant Surrey
Equities, Surrey Property Management, and Frydman made a judicial admission that Frydman
exercises dominion and control over these corporate entities, the corporate accounts, the
property of these entities, as well as their finances, contracts, and funds.
22.

Specifically, the NYS Complaint expressly alleges that:

The Surrey Plaintiffs' Checking Accounts

3.

Both plaintiff Surrey Equities, LLC and plaintiff Surrey

Property Management, LLC, at all times relevant hereto,
were

22

owned by Leon Silvera, Edward Silvera, and Tivoli Partners, LLC,

an entity controlled by Jacob Frydman and managed by Leon
Silvera, Edward Silvera, and Jacob Frydman.
4.

Beginning in 2004, the Surrey Plaintiffs established with Capital

One and/or its predecessor-in-interest, Northfork Bank, the
following checking and/or money market accounts:

Account Holder

Checking
Account Number

Surrey
Equities LLC
Surrey Equities
Acquisition
Surrey Property
Management, LLC
Surrey Fondren
Investors (IXIS Acc't)
Surrey Fondren

Investors (MMA)
Surrey Fondren
Investors, LLC
(Distribution Acc't)
Surrey Sawmill
Acquisition, LLC
Surrey Sawmill
Management Corp.
Surrey Sawmill
Partners, LLC
Sawmill
Investors, LLC
Surrey
Bucharest, LLC
l

i
I

Surrey Medwick
Acquisition,
LLC (MMA)
23

Money Market
Account Number

Surrey Medwick
Acquisition, LLC
(Clearing Acc't)

5.
According to the explicit terms of the relevant accoW1t
agreements, no checks could be drawn on the checking accounts
without the signatures of at least two signatories, one of whom was
required to be Jacob Frydman and/or his agent.
Capital One's Violation of the Account Agreements

6.

Notwithstanding the forgoing, and in derogation of Mr.

Frydman's rights, Capital One improperly cleared an amount to be
determined at trial, but believed to be in excess of approximately
$15 million, in checks drawn on the accounts of the Surrey
Plaintiffs in violation of and in breach of its agreement not to do
so."
NYS Complaint, paragraphs 3w6.
Count 5
(Interpleader Against Defendants and Interpleader Defendants)
80.

The Interpleader Defendants have a total of approximately 28 accounts (the "Accounts") with
Capital One.

81.

Interpleader Defendants claim that they are entitled to withdraw funds from the Accounts under
conflicting and irreconcilable instructions. Defendant Frydman alleges that funds in these
accounts were withdrawn improperly over the signature of the Silvera defendants.

82.

Capital One is unable to determine which, if any, of the Interpleader Defendants is entitled
to the remaining proceeds in the Accounts.

83.

The provisions of 28 U.S.C. 1335(a) authorize Capital One to interplead all claimants upon
the accounts and that Capital One is entitled to interplead all sums with the Court.

24

84.

Further, Capital One has no interest in and asserts no claim to the accounts, except as it is
entitled to its attorney's fees and costs for prosecuting this Interpleader action.
85.

Capital One is ready, willing and able to tender the proceeds of the

Accounts currently in its possession in the amount of approximately $556,274.12 to any

interpleading party or parties as the Court shall designate and to thereafter close the Accounts.
86.

Capital One has not brought this claim for Interpleader at the request of any or all of the
claimants; there is no fraud or collusion between Capital One and any or all of the claimants.
Capital One brings this Complaint of its own free will and to avoid being vexed and harassed
by conflicting and multiple claims.

87.

Until this Court rules on who is the proper party, or parties, to receive the payments, Capital
One C8IUlot safely determine the proper payee without risking exposure to multiple liability to
multiple parties.
88.

By this Complaint for Interpleader, Capital One requests that the Court

excuse Capital One from releasing funds to Defendants until the Complaint for Interpleader is
decided.
89.

Capital One cannot safely determine to which entity to make the payments

at issue and, as long as its payments are released, has no interest (except to recover its attorneys'
fees and costs of this action) as to which entity it pays. Capital One therefore respectfully
requests this Court determine to whom said payments should be made.
90.

Capital One has incurred attorney's fees and costs as a result of these proceedings to date in
the preparation and institution of these proceedings, and will incur additional costs and fees
hereafter. Such attorneys' fees and costs are and should be a legal

25

charge upon the payments at issue and same should be repaid to Capital One out of said
payments, or in the alternative, if not repaid out of the payments at issue, the attorneys' fees
and costs incurred by Capital One should be paid to Capital One by Defendants, jointly and
severally. The rights of Capital One to its fees should be paid over any competing claim,
should the amount be insufficient. Capital One also has incurred significant expenses and
losses investigating, responding to and paying claims against the accounts, and the
Defendants, and each of them, must reimburse Capital One and comply with all applicable
requirements of the Agreements and any agreements relating to the Accounts with respects to
those expenses and losses.
Count 6
(Declaratory Judgment Against Defendants and Interpleader Defendants)

above.

9l.

Capital One repeats and realleges each and every allegation as set forth

In light of the competing demands by the Parties, Capital One is unable to

ascertain the rightful owner of the $556,274.12 held on deposit in the Accounts with the
Bank. Exhibit _, Chart of Defendants' Deposit Accounts.
93.

Accordingly, a judicial determination is necessary and appropriate at this time under the
circumstances in order that the Parties may ascertain their respective rights, duties and
interests regarding $556,274.12 held on deposit in the Accounts with the Bank.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Capital One respectfully requests that this Court enter
judgment in its favor and against the Defendants as follows:

26

(a)

On the First Count, a judgment against Defendants in the amount to be determined at trial,
including all damages sustained, rights and remedies available as provided under the 2010
Surrey Note, 2010 Letter Agreement, Surrey Guaranties, and related documents, reasonable costs
and expenses incurred in this action, including counsel fees, and any
other expenses, and all interest on the damages sustained as a result of the breach, on all
commissions, costs, and expenses applicable under the 2010 Surrey Note, 2010 Letter
Agreement, Surrey Guaranties, and related documents and on all counsel fees incurred in
enforcing its rights as set forth therein;

(b)

On the Second Count, a judgment against Defendants in the amount to be determined at

trial, including all damages sustained, rights and remedies, reasonable costs and expenses
incurred in this action, including counsel fees, and any other expenses;

(c)

On the Third Count, a judgment against Defendants in the amount to be determined at trial,
including all damages sustained, rights and remedies, reasonable costs and expenses incurred in
this action, including counsel fees, and any other expenses;

(d)

On the Fourth Count, a judgment against Defendants and Interpleader Defendants in the amount
to be determined at trial, including all damages sustained, rights and remedies, reasonable costs
and expenses incurred in this action, including counsel fees, and any other expenses;

(e)On the Fifth Count, that the Court enter an order requiring Defendants to interplead in this
action and to litigate their respective rights herein to the
$556,274.12 that is now in possession of Capital One, less attorney's fees, costs and damages

27

incurred to bring this action, or be forever barred and enjoined from asserting any claims against
Capital One; that the Court, upon motion of the Capital One, authorize and direct Capital One to
pay to the Clerk of the Court, the aforesaid sum of approximately $556,274.12; that each of the
Defendants and Interpleader Defendants be restrained from instituting or further prosecuting any
proceeding or action against Plaintiff in any state court involving the $556,274.12 pursuant to 28
U.S.C. 1335(a); that this Court stay any other proceedings which have been filed against Capital
One and enjoin any further suits in these proceedings upon Capital One's interpleading with the
Court the sum of the Accounts; that the Court enter its judgment of declaratory relief regarding
the parties' respective rights, duties and obligations concerning the aforementioned $556,274. I
2; that attorney's fees should be paid first from the sums before any other competing claim; that
Plaintiff be awarded from the funds deposited with the Clerk of this Court its attorney's fees and
costs incurred in pursuing the interpleader remedy in an amount to be determined by the Court
pursuant to $556,274.12 and other applicable sections of the Agreements or the Account
Agreements; that Plaintiff be discharged from any and all liability as to each Defendant and
Interpleader Defendants with respect to the $556,274.12 or any costs, interest, or charges in
connection therewith; that this Court enter its order and judgment forever releasing and
discharging Capital One from all liability as to Defendants and Interpleader Defendants;

(f)

On the Sixth Count, for declaratory relief upon payment of the Account sums of each of the
subject Accounts into the registry of the Court, that Capital One be discharged from any further
liability under the Accounts and that the Accounts shall be closed.
(g)

The costs and disbursements as taxed by the Clerk of the Court;

and

28


(h)

Awarding Capital One such other and further relief as the

Court may deem just and proper under the circumstances.

Dated: New York, New

York
March 15, 2011

Car a R W orth (CW-5401)

Cynthia A. Curtin
PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY &
WALKER LLP
75 East 55th Street
New York, New York
Telephone: 212-318-6000
Facsimile: 212-319-4090
[email protected]
cynthiacurtin@paulhastings. com
AITORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF CAPITAL
ONE, N.A.

LEGAL_US_E # 92117642.10

29

Case 1:11-cvO 1798-DAB Document 29 Filed12/21/12 .Page 1 .

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OFNEW YORK

CAPITAL ONE, NATIONAL. ASSOCIATION,

Civil Action No.

l l-Civ-1798 (DAB}

Plaintiff,
- against SURREY EQUITIES} LLC; SENERGY USA LLCj JACOB
FRYDMAN; EDWARD SILVERA; and LEON SILVERA .

Defendants ftlld Interpleader

Defendants.

BASSET LLC; COMMER.CE CENTER ACQUISITION

UC; GOMMERCE CENTER MANAGER LLC: EDWARD

SILVERA AND EVE SlLVERA; JAFCO HOLDINGS

LLC; LEON EDWARO SILVHRA BY EDWARD
SILVERA CUSTODIAN; SAWMU L INVBSTORS LLC;
SAWMILL MANAOEMBNI' CORP.; Sll..VERA ASSm'
GROUP lLC; SILVERA PROPERTY GROUP; SURREY
BUCHARF.ST UC;SURREYBQUITlES ACQUISITION;
SURREY FONDREN INVESTORS I.LO, SURREY

Stipulation of Dismissal

FORREST OAKS LLC; SURREY INVERNESS LLC;

SURREY INVERNESS LLC WlliLS FARGO NA AS

TRUSTEE FOR REGISTERED HOLPERS 01'1 CHASE

COMMERCIAL MTG SEC CORP.;SURREY MEDWICK
ACQUISITIONS LLC; SURREY PROPERTY
MANAGEMENT LLC; SURREY SAWMJLL

ACQUISITTON LLC; $URREY SAWMILL PARTN.BR,S

LLC; SURREY SAWMILL MANAGEMENT CORP.; and
TIVOLI PARTNERS LLC.
In

CHAMBER ;F

DEBORA_ti A. BATTS
. U S D.J.

lea.dee Defendants.

STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff, Capital One, NafiOilll.l Asociation, and Dofendant-3 and Interpleader

Defendants hereby stipulate that this matter shall be dismissed with prejudice and without fees or

costs to any party.

Dated: New York, New York
Septcmbercl.L.2012

Case 1:11-cv-017S8-DAB Document.29

PA

By / .

1)-

75 East 55 Street

New York, NtJW York 10022

(212) 318-6000

AitonieYJ for Plaintiff

File.o.12/21/12

Page 2 of 2

-l:Jll J

WROBBL & SCHATZLLI'

B D

. ro

-5

l040 A-vewc of the Americas, 11'h Floor

New York. NY 10018

(212) 421-8100
Attorney$ for Defendants Ja.cob Fryrhnan and
Surroy Eq-ultle9. LLC and lriterpleader
Defe:nda1tt3 Jafco Bolding LLC, S-umty

Prope.rry Managemen,, UC,and Tivoli

Partners, LLC