SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELATE DIVISION: SECOND JUDUCIAL DEPARTMENT

In the Matter of Michael Krichevsky, L&T Index No: 078015/18

Petitioner,
Appellate Division Docket
-against- No
NOTICE OF APPEAL BY
.1 udge Zhuo Wang ARTICLE 78 VERIFIED
Robert Rosenblatt, Esq. from BALSAMO & ROSENBLATT PETITION UNDER
Serenay Taysin, Esq. from BALSAMO & ROSENBLATT DURESS
Arkady L. Bukh and his Bukh Law Firm, P.C.,
Igor B. Litvak and his The Litvak Law Firm
Vano 1 Haroutunian, Esq.and Ballon Stoll Bader & Nadler, PC
Unknown clerks of housing court
Natalia Kardyukova
Respondents.

COUNSELORS:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE,that upon the annexed Petition of Michael Krichevsky, sui

juris, dated the 12th day of February, 2019, and upon all the pleadings and proceedings

heretofore had herein, the undersigned will move this Court at a term thereof to be held at 45

Monroe Place, Brooklyn, New York, 11201, on the day and time to be scheduled by the court:

For an order and ajudgment pursuant to C.P.L.R. Article 78 for reliefs requested as

follows:

1 That the body or officer proceeded, is proceeding, or is about to proceed without or in

excess ofjurisdiction (prohibition).

2)Annulling the deteiTnination of Judge Zhuo Wang of the Kings County Housing Court;

on the ground that the body or officer failed to perform a duty enjoined upon it by law

(mandamus to compel)to determine jurisdiction, and declaring this determination to be without

jurisdiction, arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion due to bribery. Obstruction of Justice,

fraud upon the court by officers of the court and cover up of corruption.
 3)That a determination was made in violation of lawful procedure, was effected by an

ori or in law. contrary to established law and procedure, or was arbitrary and capricious or an

abuse of discretion, including an abuse of discretion as to the measure or mode of penalty

(mandamus to review).

4) Whether determination made as a result of a hearing held, and at which evidence was

taken, pursuant to direction by law is, on the entire record, supported by substantial evidence.

5) Declaratory relief pursuant to C.P.L.R. § 3001 that decision and order is void due to

unclean hands; are coram nonjudice, and therefore

6) And for such other and further relief as to this Court may seem just and proper

including referral to District Attorney for prosecution of Svenson's perjury, harassment, false

arrest and imprisonment.

TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that in case you failed to appear, the judgment by default

will be taken against you for the relief demanded.

Dated: Brooklyn, New York

February 12, 2019

ncnael Krichevsky, sui juris

4221 Atlantic Ave
Brooklyn, New York 11224
(718)687-2300
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELATE DIVISION: SECOND JUDUCIAL DEPARTMENT

In the Matter of Michael Krichevsky, INDEX No. F-28901 -

Petitioner, 08/13F

-against- Appellate Division Docket

No 2015-01323
Judge Zhuo Wang
Robert Rosenblatt, Esq. from BALSAMO & ROSENBLATT APPEAL BY ARTICLE
Serenay Taysin, Esq. from BALSAMO & ROSENBLATT 78 VERIFIED PETITION
Arkady L. Bukh and his Bukh Law Firm, P.C.. UNDER DURESS
Igor B. Litvak and his The Litvak Law Firm
Vano I Haroutunian, Esq.and Ballon Stoll Bader & Nadler, PC
Unknown clerks of housing court
Natalia Kardyukova
Respondents.

Michael Krichevsky, sui juris, self-governed alive man under protest and duress, and

acting under doctrine of necessity for self-defense says:

1. I am a live, physically disabled man, the Petitioner in the Appeal by Article 78 petition.

2. I make this petition under duress due to personal threats by member(s)of the BAR and no

presumption exists that I voluntarily submitted and consented to corporate jurisdiction of THE

SATE OF NEW YORK - corporation, which employs and supervises all members ofthe BAR.

3. Some facts in this petition stated upon information and belief derived from conversations

with Respondent, Natalia Kardyukova, and documents maintained in my file.

4. Other facts stated in this petition are within my first-hand knowledge, and if called on as

a witness, I could competently testify as follows below.

INTRODUCTION

5. Underlying action is eviction matter and if it would appear to be bazaar, it is because in

fact it is. However, under scrutiny it is not only bazaar, but also criminal and corrupt in nature. It
started with a simple eviction case and quickly accelerated into personal threats by opposing

attorney, extortion, conspiracy and obstruction of Justice by all involved respondents. As such,

this matter cannot be directly appealed by me saying,"the court erred" in issuing its orders

because the judge Zhuo Wang is not the court and he did not err in this proceeding. In fact, he

did exactly what he intended to do because after I notified him of his errors, he refused to correct

them thereby creating an inference of knowledge and intent of wrongdoing. His decision and

order is deliberately false and misleading. Below, I will demonstrate the court that the facts that

he listed in this decision are false and contrary to the evidence.

6. Above stated acts prompted me to seek disqualification of the attorneys involved and

recusal ofthejudge Zhuo Wang. In my recusal affidavit, 1 accused Judge Zhuo Wang of bribery

and conspiracy with attorneys involved to delay the outcome of this litigation. Judge Zhuo Wang

denied me a remedy(money for fair use and occupancy during litigation) and refused to issue

findings offact and conclusions of law, which I could use in my direct appeal.

7. This Petition is my attempt to notify the judges of the Second Department, which

supposedly supervise attorneys and removes them from the office for misconduct and moral

turpitude. In fact, I am reporting Treason to the judge(s) of this court, as well as violations of

Code of Judicial Conduct and New York Rules of Professional Conduct to New York Tribunal

per Rule 8.3 - Reporting Professional Misconduct.

"When an honest man, honestly mistaken, comes face-to-face with undeniable and
irrefutable truth, he is faced with one of two choices, he must either cease been
mistaking or cease being honest." Amicus Solo

8. What happened to me in housing court is systemic public corruption. The following

events have happened to others before in Brooklyn Supreme Court. Form Wikipedia:

Gerald Garson
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Gerald Phillip "Gerry" Garson(bom August 3, 1932)is a former New York Supreme Court
Justice who heard matrimonial divorce and child custody cases in Brooklyn.[5] He was
con\ icted in 2007 of accepting bribes to manipulate the outcomes of divorce
proceedings.[l][6][7] Garson was imprisoned from June 2007 until December 2009.[8] In the
bribery scheme, a "fixer" told people divorcing in Brooklyn that for a price he could steer their
case to a sympathetic judge.[9] After the fixer received a payment, he would refer the person to a
lawyer contact of his, who had given Garson drinks, meals, cigars, and cash—accepting (and
receiving) preferential treatment in retum.[9][10] The fixer and the lawyer would then bribe
court employees to override the court's computer system, which was programmed to ensure that
cases were assigned to judges randomly. Instead, they would have the case assigned to
Garson.[9][11] Garson, in turn, would then privately coach the lawyer. He would tell him
questions the lawyer should ask of witnesses in the case before Garson, and arguments that the
lawyer should make to Garson in court.[12][13] Garson would then rule in favor of the
lawyer.[12][13] Garson was indicted in 2003, on the basis of video surveillance of his judicial
chambers, and recordings made on a body wire worn by his "favored" lawyer. At his four week
trial in 2007, he was acquitted on four counts, but found guilty on one count of accepting bribes,
and on two lesser charges of receiving rewards for official misconduct.[6] He was sentenced in
June 2007 to three to ten years in prison. In December 2009, after 30 months in prison, he was
released for good behavior at the age of 77.[14]
The New York Times,commenting on Garson's conviction, observed: "It was news that
confirmed every sneaking suspicion, every paranoid fantasy of anyone who had ever felt
wronged in a divorce court."[15]

9. In addition to the scheme described above, the scheme that Respondents operated under

and against me described in detail in the book "The Importance of Being Honest" by Law

Professor Steven Lubet (available at AMAZON).In Chapter 31 on page 174 Professor relates,

"In California, Judge Gregory Caskey was publicly admonished for sending the following e-mail

to an attorney:

"1 am considering summarily rejecting [opposing counsel's] requests. Do you want me to let

[opposing counsel] have a hearing on this, or do we cut [opposing counsel] off summarily and

run the risk [of] the [Court of Appeals] reversing? ... I say screw [the other party] and let's cut

[opposing counsel] off without hearing. O.K.? By the way. this message will self-destruct in five

seconds."

The recipient of Caskey's message replied as follows:

"Your Honor, I don't feel comfortable responding ex-parte [sic] on how you should rule on a
pending case."

By return e-mail the judge sent a one-word response, stating,'chicken'."

JURISDICTION AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW ON JURISDICTION

10. I timely filed this Appeal per CPLR §5701 by Article 78 Petition in this court and filed

RADI.

11. This appeal is the direct attack on void orders.

12. It is void due to the bribery and case fixing by Judge Zhuo Wang and attorneys involved,

which is the only logical reason for such miscarriage ofjustice.

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

made by attorney Rosenblatt.

14. I contend that no jurisdiction existed, exists over me without due process, my voluntary

waiver or consent to participate in housing court's unlawful, compelled kangaroo court

scheduled trial, which I never made.

15. Judge Zhuo Wang's cover up of corruption is in conflict with federal and state

constitutional laws, which explained by this eloquent ruling from United States v. Stewart, 234 F.

Supp. 94(D.D.C. 1964):

"The officer may be sued only if he acts in excess of his statutory authority or in
violation of the Constitution for then he ceases to represent the Government."

Respondents- State actors had/have no subject matter and personal jurisdiction in my

case due to felonies and intentional torts planed and committed by them against me under
color of law and color of office

16. Felonies and intentional torts by state court actors are acts in excess oftheir statutory

authority and in violation of the Constitution.

17. This court has inherent jurisdiction over respondents in the interest of Justice to do Right

and to stop their harassment, felonies and damage to me.

18. This court has inherentjurisdiction over respondents as a body admitting attorneys to

practice law in Second Department and as body policing attorney's misconduct that they

committed against me. As such, this court should revoke all respondents' licenses and

admissions to practice law in this state - or this court is failing to protect the public and joins

wrongdoers itself.

19. My legal research points to this court's Fiduciary Duties to provide remedy to the injured,

and by doing so, ability to convert any pleadings into any other form of pleading sua sponte in

the Interest ofJustice and under doctrine that substance trumps the form, see Haines v.Kerner,

404 U.S. 519( 1972 ), a judge should look to the substance not the form for Pro Se pleadings.

Pro Se litigant should be allowed to present evidence to support his claims.

20. As taxpayer, I have a clear contractual and legal rights for protection by the state from

intentional torts and felonies committed by its agents. As such, state breached contractual and

fiduciary's duty to protect me from felonies of its agents.

Rebuttal of false presumptions of court's regular due process, presumed correctness of the
denials,judgments or orders with implied ^^hearing held, evidence taken" with implied
'^findings offact and conclusions of law"- all in violation of all five subsections of CPLR
7803

21. Respondents overtly and in concert harassed me and denied me remedy.

22. There are no findings of fact and conclusions of law, which is/are not intentionally false,

misleading or absurd on the record ofthis case.

23. There is/are no findings of fact and conclusions of law, I could have taken on appeal and

in good faith and with straight face say,"the court erred ..." as I know it would be a perjury on

my part and I would be waiving liability of respondents.

 Bribery and fraud upon the court by ofHcers of the court entirely divests housing court of
jurisdiction

24. This court has inherentjurisdiction and duty to police lower court's misconduct and

felonies of Respondents and over the claims brought pursuant to C.P.L.R. Article 78 and,

specifically, exclusive jurisdiction per C.P.L.R. Article 7804(g)- Where the substantial evidence

issue specified.

25. This appeal and petition is timely filed in this court following C.P.L.R. §506(b)(1) that

states:

"a proceeding against a justice of the Supreme Court or a Judge of a county court...
shall be commenced in the appellate division ofthe judicial department where the
action, in the course of which the matter sought to be enforced or restrained originated,
is triable, unless the term of the appellate division in the department is not in session..."
[emphasis mine]

26. Alternatively arguing, even if, which is not admitted and stated only for the sake of

argument, I would have filed the instant petition in the Supreme Court - it would have to be

transferred back to Appellate Division per C.P.L.R. Article 7804(g):"Hearing and

determination; transfer to appellate division. Where the substantial evidence issue specified."

C.P.L.R. Article 7804(g) states in pertinent part:

"When the proceeding comes before it [appellate division], whether by appeal or

transfer, the appellate division shall dispose all of the issues in the proceedings, or, if
the papers are insufficient, it may remit the proceeding."[emphasis mine]

27. In my particular case, this petition came to Appellate Division by appeal, which

evidenced by my RADI form accepted by this court. If 1 would have filed this petition in

Supreme Court, it would have to be transferred to Appellate Division due to the fact that 1

specify 'substantial evidence issue' in this petition's notice ^ 4.

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

§3001.1 ask this court declare right or wrong and do the right thing, thereby becoming
solution to the problem in this appeal.

29. I ask this court declare that orders of housing court are coram nonjudice ab initio.

VENUE

30. This proceeding brought in the judiciary department where respondents' principal offices

are located and wrongdoings done.

PARTIES

J1. I, Michael Krichevsky (Krichevsky)- self-governed law-abiding man, landlord.

j)2. Judge Zhuo Wang is judge in part J, room 502 of Kings County Housing Court who

conspired with others to obstruct justice, refused and failed tM>o times to perform a duty enjoined
upon him by law and issued fraudulent, void order (attached to RADI)to cover up his corruption
and corruption of his peers.

33. Robert Rosenblatt, Esq. and Serenay Taysin, Esq. are employees of BALSAMO &

ROSENBLATT.

34. Arkady L. Bukh and his Bukh Law Firm, P.C., allegedly are lead attorneys for

Respondent. Upon information and belief derived from my conversations with Respondent,

Natalia Kardyukova, Bukh Law Firm, P.C. assisted her in marriage - immigration fraud in order

to obtain United States residency.

35. Igor B. Litvak and The Litvak Law Firm, allegedly is of counsel to Bukh Law Firm, P.C.

36. Vano 1 Haroutunian, Esq.and Ballon Stoll Bader & Nadler, PC,allegedly is of counsel to

Bukh Law Firm, P.C.

37. Unknown clerks of housing court are employees who refused to accept supplemental

pleading and amended pleading for filing in court from Petitioner.

38. Clerk of housing court and/or unknown clerks are clerks of Kings County Housing Court.
39. Natalia Kardyukova is other person whose action may be affected by a proceeding under

this article, CPLR 7802. She is allegedly tenant in underlying proceeding. She brought here as

co-conspirator in the underlying action.

40. Upon information and belief derived from my conversations with her, she is involved in

marriage - immigration fraud as Russian citizen in order to obtain United States residency

through Bukh Law Firm, P.C.

AFFIDAVIT OF PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND MATERIAL FACTS WITH

COMBINED MEMORANDUM OF LAW

41. This affidavit, if unrebutted point for point by each respondent will stand as judgment

and admission of material facts. "Assertions by affidavit... sufficient to make the prima facie

case" United States v. Kis,658 F. 2d 526(1981).

42. This litigation started after Respondent failed to reply to my April 25, 2018 letter written

to her in Russian because she is Russian citizen and does not speak English.

43. I incorporate by reference herein my affidavit in support of my cross-motion to

"RECUSE,DISQUALIFY AND FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN LIEU OF COMPLAINT

PURSUANT TO CPLR 3213"attached to this petition as Exhibit A. In this affidavit, I give

detailed procedural history of underlying litigation leading to this Article 78 appeal due to the

following DECISION AND ORDER,Exhibit B.

44. Therefore, I invite this court to read about underlying procedural history in this affidavit

and its exhibits, which are a part of this petition, to avoid repetition. This affidavit is also an

evidence of unrebutted by respondents material facts in underlying litigation.

Question raised per §7803 whether the body or officer failed to perform a duty enjoined
upon it by law

45. In appealed by me DECISION AND ORDER,Exhibit B,Judge Zhuo Wang deliberately

10
failed his duty to accurately create findings offact and conclusions of law. He deliberately failed

to mention in procedural history material facts that I served the Respondent's attorneys in

underlying litigation with Supplemental Petition and with Amended Petition per CPLR §3014

and CPLR §3025(a), which clerks ofthe court refused to file and sent me to Judge Zhuo Wang to

complain about their refusal to file to him.

Respondent's attorneys conspired with Judge Zhuo Wang and clerks of court who leaked
information to attorneys that Supplemental Petition and Amended Petition would not be
filed for the record, which permitted them to commit attorney' misconduct by refusal to
answer them.

46. Judge Zhuo Wang deliberately failed in his duty to mention that as a result of clerks of

court refusal to file my pleadings, the Respondent's attorneys refused to answer my

Supplemental Petition and Amended Petition in order to create controversy, absurdity and delay

the outcome of litigation.

47. All attorneys involved, knew or should have known that the Respondent is judgment

proof.

48. Accordingly, even when I prevail in this long and vexatious litigation, I will not be able

to collect the judgment from Respondent.

49. Judge Zhuo Wang failed in his duty to supervise due process and failed in his duty to

reprimand attorneys for such misconduct.

50. Judge Zhuo Wang failed in his duty to report attorney's misconduct to appropriate

authorities.

51. These actions and failures to act are an evidence of denial of due process and one of the

reasons for my cross-motion.

11
 The gist of above said cross-motion is the threat made to me by attorney Rosenblatt and
subsequent unlawful acts confirming and evidencing that his threat is real

52. In said affidavit in support of cross-motion, I wrote starting from ^ 20:

"For the Record Attorney Rosenblatt Called me and Threatened me

20. On Tuesday, August 28. 2018, at 11:53 AM from phone # 718-399-3025
Rosenblatt called me and told me that he represents Respondent. He offered me
"settlement."
21. The term of settlement was that the Respondent would live for 3 more months
free and then move out.
22. Then he told me that if 1 would not accept this offer, he would drag this matter
through this court for 7 months.
23. Rosenblatt also told me that if 1 would start talking about attorney ethics, he
would hang up the phone and "hit me with hurricane" so that 1 would not even
know what hit me,
24.1 have no idea whether he implied some sort ofjudicial corruption against me
or whether he threatened my life with physical harm.
25. For the record, 1 have no intent to commit suicide and if 1 die under suspicious
circumstances, Rosenblatt and others involved would be the ones to blame."

53. 1 also verbally notified judge of said threat by Rosenblatt and told him that Rosenblatt in

the past, while representing me, was engaged in practice of delaying the outcome of litigation,

which is why 1 fired him.

54. Judge asked me to submit some proof that attorney Rosenblatt represented me in the past

in the eviction oftenant of subject premises in the underlying litigation and that 1 fired him.

55. Exhibit H of said cross-motion contains my averments shown below:

"2. On or about August 18,2008,1 hired Robert Rosenblatt, Esq.(Rosenblatt) and

he started conducting holdover proceeding in this court against, at that time, my
month-to-month tenant Edelstein from this apartment. Attached, as Exhibit A is
documentary evidence.
3. Simultaneously, Rosenblatt started action in Kings County Supreme Court
against inter alia, Edelstein for damages. Attached, as Exhibit B is documentary
evidence.
4. 1 paid Rosenblatt $3600 retainer toward these goals.
5. From October 3, 2008, the date of the holdover petition, until March 6,2009
Rosenblatt colluded with adverse attorneys and all filed several stipulations to
adjourn hearings based on parties' mutual agreements.
6. At that time, 1 was not aware that Rosenblatt or his other subordinate attorney
signed several stipulations of adjournment on my behalf without my knowledge

12
 and consent, falsely telling me that the other side is playing delay game. When I
learned about such fraud by Rosenblatt and adverse attorneys, on March 4, 2009,1
fired Rosenblatt for essentially nothing on my case while I was incurring financial
losses every month. These losses continue to present-day. Attached as Exhibit C
documentary evidence of firing Rosenblatt.
7. 1 appeared pro se in both actions and finally evicted Edelstein in November of
2009.
8. However, by that time this apartment entered foreclosure due Rosenblatt's
delays and due to some corrupt members of the Board of Managers(Board)of
this condominium who prevented me from renting out this apartment after
eviction of Edelstein."

Rebuttal of Presumption of Correctness of Order

56. Judge Zhuo Wang mischaracterized my cross-motion as motion in order to blame me for

failure to reply to Respondent's motion in underlying litigation, papers numbered 1 and 2 of his

decision and order.

57. The fact is that my Supplemental Petition and Amended Petition both timely pre-dated

respondent's motion to dismiss.

58. As such, respondent's motion to dismiss became moot and I had no duty to reply to it.

59. I notified Judge Zhuo Wang that motion to dismiss became moot.

60. Yet, Judge Zhuo Wang misleads the court stating that 1 failed to oppose it.

61. In fact, my cross-motion in itself is in opposition to motion to dismiss and in opposition

to corruption, extortion and misconduct by all involved.

62. In fact, in my cross-motion I took apart almost every paragraph in Respondent's motion

to dismiss and showed the court that it is fraudulent,frivolous and misleading.

63. I invite this Honorable Court to compare relief requested in my cross-motion (a) with

deliberately misleading relief stated in decision and order (b):

(a)"For an order with the relief requested in this Omnibus Motion as follows:
1. Recusal of Judge;
2. Disqualification of all attorneys involved;
3. Entering defaultjudgment against respondent.

13
 4. Pursuant to Section 3213 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules, directing entry of
judgment in favor of petitioner and against(a)NATALIA KARDYUKOVA in
the amount of$28,000 with interest thereon,(b)issuing warrant for removal of
respondent, for an award of petitioner's reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses
actually incurred in the enforcement hereof, along with the costs and
disbursements of this action,(c) and for such other and further relief as to this
Court may seem just and proper, upon the grounds that this is an action based
upon contract for the payment of rent which is now due and payable, to which
respondent have no defense and to which there are no material issues of fact
requiring a plenary trial.

(h)"In this licensee-holdover proceeding. Petitioner moves separately for the

following relief:(1)recusal;(2)disqualification of Respondent's counsel;(3)
striking the answer and granting judgment in favor of Petitioner.

64. Needless to say, that Judge Zhuo Wang deliberately failed to address in his decision and

order my ^ 4, which is "Judgment On the Pleading" Pursuant to Section 3213 of the Civil

Practice Law and Rules.

65. In addition. Judge Zhuo Wang deliberately misquoted my averments about attorney

Rosenblatt. Judge wrote,"Specifically, Petitioner asserts that Robert Rosenblatt, a partner at

Balsamo and Rosenblatt, represented him approximately 10 years ago on an unrelated matter."

66. 1 have never made such a statement or any other statement to the effect that Rosenblatt

represented me in "unrelated matter."

67. In fact. I averred that Rosenblatt represented me "in a related matter" involving subject

premises and eviction proceedings in Kings County housing court.

68. Judge Zhuo Wang made another false and misleading the court's statement:

"Secondly, Petitioner argues that this Court must recuse itself because of
disparate treatment allegedly toward him and counsel because:(1)this Court
swore Petitioner in at court appearances but did not require Respondent's counsel
to do the same;(2)it submitted Respondent's motion without written opposition
despite Petitioner's admitted failure to submit opposition papers on two occasions;
(3)denied Petitioner's application for use & occupancy under RPAPL 745 at
Respondent's first appearance; and (3)asked questions of Petitioner in regards to
his oral application to amend his petition, which purportedly revealed that "judge
and attorneys were incompetent and needed me to school them on CPLR"(Pet.

14
 Affidavit at 2)."

69. In truth. I accused Judge Zhuo Wang of receiving bribe(s) from opposing counsel(s) in

order to prolong the outcome of litigation.

70. In truth, I moved the court to order the Respondent to pay "use & occupancy under

RPAPL 745" into the court on the third adjournment scheduled for October 26, 2018. In that

application, 1 informed Judge Zhuo Wang that from April 2018 until September 2018

Respondent refused to pay rent and refused to move out per her attorney's advice.

71. Judge Zhuo Wang failed to address, per my request, a reason in his order denying the

relief to pay "use & occupancy under RPAPL 745"

72. Judge Zhuo Wang failed to address my accusation that he violated Judiciary Law §14 -

direct conflict of interest due to bribes from opposing counsel.

73. Judge Zhuo Wang failed to address the fact that all attorneys, except Vano 1 Haroutunian,

self recused themselves from litigation and failed to reply and deny in writing my accusations of

the bribery and corruption in order to prolong the outcome of litigation.

Substantial issue specified: Relief Pursuant to Section 3213 of the Civil Practice Law and
Rules is the most important relief on the merits of the case, which Judge Zhuo Wang
deliberately failed to address

74. In his decision and order. Judge Zhuo Wang failed to address the fact that the Respondent

admitted to relusal to pay rent and admitted to refusal to move out without stating any reason

(defense)for such conduct, which admissions would entitle me to summary judgment or partial

summary judgment without a trial.

75. No matter how hard Judge Zhuo Wang tried to change facts in his decision and order, it is

void per legal maxim "Things invalid from the beginning cannot be made valid by subsequent

act." Trayner, Max.482. Maxims of Law, Black's Law Dictionary 9th Edition, page 1862

15
76. In Truax v. Corrigan, 257 US 312(1921), the court held,"the due process clause requires

thai every man shall have the protection of his day in court and the benefit of the general law, a

law which hears before it condemns, which proceeds not arbitrary or capriciously but upon

inquiry and rendersjudgment only after trial so that every citizen shall hold his life, liberty,

property and immunities under the protection of the general rules which govern society.

Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516,535. It. of course, tends to secure equality of law in the

sense that it makes a required minimum of protection for every one's right of life, liberty and

property, which the Congress or the legislature may not withhold. Our whole system of law is

predicated on the general, fundamental principle of equality of application ofthe law."All men

are equal before the law,""This is a government of laws and not of men,""No man is above the

law," are all maxims showing the spirit in which legislatures, executives and courts are expected

to make,execute and apply laws.

CONCLUSION

77. 1 could go on and on, but the picture is clear - all respondents violated my due process in

order to delay the outcome of litigation and to make a profit by all involved deliberately

damaging me.

WHEREFORE,1 move this court to review this Appeal by Petition on the merits in its entirety,

and for such other and further relief as to this Court seems just and proper.

STATE OF NEW YORK)

)ss.: VERIFICATION
COUNTY OF KINGS )

Michael Krichevsky, being duly sworn to God, deposes and says:

1 am the Falsely Accused Claimant in the within action.
1 have written the foregoing and know the contents thereof and the same is true to the
best of my knowledge, except as to those matters herein stated to be alleged upon infonuation

16
CIVIL COURT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF KINGS

INDEX NO.078015/18
Michael Krichevsky,
Petitioner,

-against-

Natalia Kardyukova,
Respondents.
"JOHN DOE" and "JANE DOE",
Respondent(s)-Undertenant(s).
Names of undertenants are unknown to
petitioner, and are fictitious
appellations intended to describe those
persons in possession ofthe premises.

NOTICE OF CROSS-MOTION TO RECUSE,DISQUALIFY AND FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT IN LIEU OF COMPLAINT

COUNSELORS:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE,that upon the annexed affidavit of Michael Krichevsky, sui

juris, sworn to the 15 day of November 2018 and upon all the pleadings and proceedings

heretofore had herein,the undersigned will move this Court at a Special Term,Part J,thereof, to be

held at the Courthouse located at 141 Livingston Street, Brooklyn, New York on the 16th day of

November,2018 at 9:30 a.m. in the forenoon of that day or as soon thereafter as counsel can be

heard:

For an order with the relief requested in this Omnibus Motion as follows:

1. Recusal of Judge;

2. Disqualification of all attorneys involved;

3. Entering default judgment against respondent.

4. Pursuant to Section 3213 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules, directing entry of

judgment in favor of petitioner and against(a)NATALIA KARDYUKOVA in the amount of

$28,000 with interest thereon,(b)issuing warrant for removal of respondent, for an award of

petitioner's reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses actually incurred in the enforcement hereof.
along with the costs and disbursements ofthis action,(c)and for such other and further relief as to

this Court may seem just and proper, upon the grounds that this is an action based upon contract for

the payment of rent which is now due and payable, to which respondent have no defense and to

which there are no material issues offact requiring a plenary trial.

TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that in accordance with Section 3213 ofthe Civil Practice

Law and Rules, all answering papers shall be served on the undersigned in such manner that the

papers are received at least five (5)days prior to the return date of this motion.

Dated: Brooklyn, New York

November 15, 2018

Under duress, all rights reserved, Michael Krichevsky, sui juris

4221 Atlantic Ave
Brooklyn, NY 11224
718-687-2300
CIVIL COURT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF KINGS

INDEX NO.078015/18
Michael Krichevsky,
Petitioner,

-against-

Natalia Kardyukova,
Respondents.
"JOHN DOE" and "JANE DOE",
Respondent(s)-Undertenant(s).
Names of undertenants are unknown to
petitioner, and are fictitious
appellations intended to describe those
persons in possession of the premises.

AFFIDAVIT OF EXTREME PREJUDICE AND COMBINED MEMORANDUM

OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO RECUSE,DISQUALIFYAND FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN LIEU OF COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO CPLR
3213.

STATE OF NEW YORK) ss.:

COUNTY OF KINGS )

Michael Krichevsky, Sui Juris being duly sworn, deposes and says:

1. I am a man,the petitioner in the within action.

2. The facts stated in this affidavit are within my first-hand knowledge, and if called on as a
witness, I could competently testify as follows below.

3. I make this affidavit based upon information and belief, my personal knowledge ofthe
subject transaction(s) and a review ofthe documents relating thereto, and I am fully familiar with
the CPLR set forth below.

4. I make this affidavit in support of my omnibus motion for recusal ofJudge Zhuo Wang and
disqualification of attorneys Arkady L. Bukh and his Bukh Law Firm, P.C., Serenay Taysin from
BALSAMO & ROSENBLATT and Igor B. Litvak and his The Litvak Law Firm (jointly
attorneys).

5. I make this affidavit in suppon ofthis motion for summary judgment(a)against

 NATALIA KARDYUKOVA in the sum of $28,000,(b)awarding petitioner his reasonable

attorneys' fees, together with his costs and disbursements herein.

Statement of Issues Involved

"It is provided also, that if any sergeant, pleader, or other, do any manner of deceit or
collusion in the king's court, or consent unto it, in deceit of the court, or to beguile the
court, or the party, and thereof be attainted, he shall be imprisoned for a year and a day,and
from thenceforth shall not be heard to plead in that court for any man; and if he be no
pleader, he shall be imprisoned in like manner by the space ofa year and a Day at least; and
ifthe trespass require greater punishment,it shall be at the king's pleasure." — Chapter 29,
First Statute of Westminster(1275)

Definition ofterm deceit 1 use here:

deceit: 1. The action or practice of deceiving; concealment of the truth in order to mislead;
deception, fraud, cheating, false dealing. — The Oxford English Dictionary (2d ed.)

6. Attorneys have always been held in common law civilly liable for engaging in conduct
violative oftheir fiduciary duties to court as institution, public and clients, despite the existence of

professional rules under which the attorneys could also have been disciplined. To prevent attorney
from continuous breach offiduciary duties and/or engaging in unethical conduct, injunctive relief

will lie where there is no adequate remedy at law.

7. In October 2018, Donald J. Trump tweeted,"This is a very important time in our country.

Due Process, Fairness and Common Sense are now on trial!"

8. ABA President, Judy Perry Martinez, admits to problems in her article "How lawyers and

judges can help rebuild public trust and confidence in our justice system." In this article, among

other careful, polite and diplomatic boiler plate allegations she also says,"JUDGES AND

LAWYERS: WE MUST EACH REMEMBER,IT IS THE PEOPLE'S COURT." With this

statement in my mind,1 proceed.

9. Besides the obvious default by respondent,this motion raises several issues. First, whether

Robert Rosenblatt and Serenay Taysin from BALSAMO & ROSENBLATT were/are lawfully in

this court due to violation ofNew York Rules of Professional Conduct(NYRPC),and if in

violation,should this court allow him/her to file answer and argue their motion to dismiss? Second,
whether Arkady L. Bukh (Bukn), as lead counsel, with other attorneys involved lawfully represent

respondent when all attorneys know that attorney Bukh in Russian couches respondent to lie

and/or mislead the court. Third, whether or not in this adversary system of law all attorneys

including Judge Zhuo Wang conspired with each other to extort money from me,obstruct justice

and deny me remedy. If that is the case, would an independent, honest and ethical attorneys act

differently and advice respondent to move out, save money and reputation without litigation since

she has no defense to eviction and non-payment.

Factual and Procedural Background - Lack of Candor and Attorney Misconduct-

Statements of Counsel in brief or in argument are not facts before the court

10. Premises are not subject to rent regulation, respondent has no written lease, does not pay

$3500 monthly rent demanded on the court's record since April 2018 and continues to occupy the
premises without my permission and consent.
11. Because of above said, respondent has no lawful defense to eviction. Her attorney's

defense constitutes organized procedural quagmire, absurdity and contempt of court by all

involved, including supervising Court Clerk and Judge Zhuo Wang with the goal to delay
resolution of litigation and enrichment to themselves.

All attorneys involved violated RULE 3.1of NYRPC: Non-Meritorious Claims and
Contentions that says:
(a)A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue
therein, unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous.
(b) A lawyer's conduct is "frivolous" for purposes of this Rule if:
(2)the conduct has no reasonable purpose other than to delay or prolong the
resolution of litigation, in violation of Rule 3.2, or serves merely to harass or
maliciously injure another; or
(3)the lawyer knowingly asserts material factual statements that are false.

12. This litigation started after Respondent failed to reply to my April 25,2018 letter written to

her in Russian because she is Russian citizen and does not speak English, Exhibit A with proof of

mailing.
13. This letter written in Russian constitutes an equivalent of 30-day notice to quit in English.
14. In this letter, I essentially tell her to vacate my property within negotiable period preferable
to her by asking her how much time she needs to move out. I also give her instruction on how to

deal with management company and myself while moving out.

15. She failed to reply.

16. On July 10, 2018, about 75 days later, I sent her "10 Days Notice to Quit" in English,

Exhibit B with affidavit of service.

17. She failed to reply second time or to move out.

18. Upon the Respondent's failure to reply to 10 Days Notice to Quit and failure to move out, I

caused her to be served with petition per CPLR §402 for eviction, Exhibit C and this court

scheduled a hearing on August 17, 2018.

19. On August 17,2018,at about 10 AM a man, who refused to identify himselfto me and who

refused to give me his business card, called my name and told me that he would come back into

courtroom in 15 minutes. This man never showed up again and never replied to court clerk's phone
call. Clerk told me that apparently this man came and submitted to court a Notice of Appearance
by Russian speaking Arkady L. Bukh or his law firm on behalfofrespondent. At about 2PM clerk
adjourned the hearing to August 30,2018 without my consent. By operation of law, respondent
became in default by not appearing for an extension oftime to reply or produce an answer to my
petition, or a motion.

For the Record Attorney Rosenblatt Called me and Threatened me

20. On Tuesday, August 28. 2018, at 11;53 AM from phone # 718-399-3025 Rosenblatt called
me and told me that he represents Respondent. He offered me "settlement."

21. The term ofsettlement was that the Respondent would live for 3 more months free and then

move out.
22. Then he told me that ifI would not accept this offer, he would drag this matter through this
court for 7 months.

23. Rosenblatt also told me that ifI would start talking about attorney ethics, he would hang up
the phone and "hit me with hurricane" so that I would not even know what hit me.

24. I have no idea whether he implied some sort ofjudicial corruption against me or whether he

threatened my life with physical harm.

25. For the record, I have no intent to commit suicide and if I die under suspicious

circumstances, Rosenblatt and others involved would be the ones to blame.

Conspiracy to Obstruct Justice and delay or prolong the resolution of litigation, in violation
of Rules 3.1and 3.2 by all involved,interested and conflicted attorneys acting as "confidence
men"

26. On August 30,2018 hearing, Serenay Taysin (Taysin)showed up,told the court that she is

from BALSAMO & ROSENBLATT and requested adjournment with the goal offiling motion to

dismiss my petition because "I did not send Respondent 30 day notice to quit in English, therefore

Respondent needed more time to move out." Prior to this hearing, respondent had 120 days to find

another apartment and move out, but never contacted me and asked for more time. If this is not

absurd, frivolous logic and argument on attorneys' part, then absurdity does not exist. However,

she did not tell the court and to me that the real reason for motion to dismiss - delaying eviction

and being paid doing it. Accordingly, attorneys violated RULE 4.1 of NYRPC: Truthfulness In

Statements To Others.

27. Amazingly, Judge Zhuo Wang found this logic meritorious, granted the adjournment and

denied my oral motion to direct respondent to pay me rent or deposit money into court's escrow

account while the motion to dismiss was pending.

28. This decision was inconsistent with usual court's policy and/or practice described in pro se
housing court instructions in eviction cases:
 ^^Postponements and Rent Deposits. In court, you can ask to
postpone your case. But, if your case is not finished 30 days
after the first court date, or you ask to postpone the case
twice, the court can order you to deposit money in court or
make a rent payment to the landlord. If you don't do this,
the landlord may get a judgment against you without a trial.
If you fail to make future payments ordered by the court, your
case may go to trial right away. RPAPL Sec. 745."

29. This decision resulted in unfair financial reward to all involved and their deadbeat client in

violation ofNYRPC RULE 3.4: Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel.

30. As of today, case postponed 3 times for more than 3 month without any rent payments

since April 2018.

31. Judge Zhuo Wang failed to produce per my oral motion a written findings of fact and

conclusions of law, which I could appeal, as to why he denied my motion for rent deposit per

RPAPL Sec. 745 even though respondent lives free from April 2018 and does not plan to move

out.

32. Because Respondent hired her priory retained Russian speaking immigration attorney,

Arkady L. Bukh,to delay her eviction, it is obvious to me that she pays him to advise her from

April 2018 on how to manipulate housing court, what to say and do in order to live free instead of

to move out.

All attorneys involved violated Judiciary Law §487, which is misdemeanor

33. In the beginning of September 2018,1 received answer from BALSAMO &

ROSENBLATT,Exhibit D.

34. Among other respondent's false statements in this answer prepared by Rosenblatt, her

verification in this answer constitutes perjury because she does not read and speak English, and

therefore Rosenblatt could not notarize her verification without aiding and abetting her perjury.

35. On September 5,2018,in reaction to said answer, 1 immediately caused pursuant to CPLR

§3014 and CPLR §3025(a) service of my Supplemental Petition on BALSAMO &

ROSENBLATT,Exhibit E.
36. Pursuant to CPLR §3025(d), respondent's eontemplated and scheduled on October 25,

2018 motion to dismiss became moot because in my supplemental pleading I addressed per CPLR

§3014 alternatively or hypothetically respondent's averments in her answer that she was/is

month-to-month tenant.

37. BALSAMO & ROSENBLATT needed to produce an answer within 20 days, on which

task they defaulted and continue in default until present pretending to be incompetent attorneys.

38. On September 7, 2018,1 came at housing court to file my supplemental petition and

affidavit of service, Exhibit F.

39. Supervising Clerk of Housing Court refused to accept for filing my supplemental petition

and sent me to Judge Zhuo Wang to ask for order to show cause for leave to amend.

40. On that day, I told Judge Zhuo Wang that I have a right to supplement my pleading once

without leave of the court.

41. Judge Zhuo Wang acted as if he is incompetentjudge, blissfully ignorant of CPLR

§3025(a)supplementation of pleading and issued OSC to amend petition. Exhibit G.

42. I took his action as his deceit and an attempt to make me waive my right to supplement

petition without leave ofthe court. I had no confidence in Judge Zhuo Wang due to his prior denial

of my motion for rent and his failure to issue appealable Findings of Fact and Conclusions of law.

I thought that he would deny OSC in later litigation if I waive my right to supplement and proceed

with OSC.

43. Altematively, later on I gave him benefit of a doubt that he is deceitful and supposed that

he is arrogant and incompetentjudge. On that supposition, I created amended petition and caused

its service within 20 days ofreceipt ofthe answer from BALSAMO & ROSENBLATT per CPLR

§3014 and CPLR §3025(a). Exhibit H. I believed that this time there would be no doubt that I

have a right to amend my petition once without leave of court rather than supplement it.

Unfortunately, I was wrong. Clerk of Court again refused to file my amended petition and told me
to take it to Judge Zhuo Wang.

44. My amended petition accused Robert Rosenblatt in corruption and in violation of Rule 1.9

ofNYRPC.

45. On or about September 24, 2018,1 received motion to dismiss my original petition written

by Serenay Taysin, Exhibit I, instead of an answer to my supplemental pleading or an answer to

my amended pleading.

46. Said motion was signed by her as"Of Counsel to Bukh Law Firm, PC." However, in her
Rule 130 Certification she unwittingly stated that she is attorney working for BALSAMO &

ROSENBLATT who are attomeys for respondent. Mailing address on envelop from which motion
was mailed was 200-4 SCHERMERHORN STREET,BRROKLYN NY 11201. This is address of

BALSAMO & ROSENBLATT. Significance of this will be discussed further below.

47. This motion contained frivolous statements of counsel.

48. In Trinsey v. Pagliaro, D.C.Pa. 1964,229 F.Supp. 647,649 the court eloquently stated,
"Statements ofcounsel in their briefs or argument while enlightening to the Court are not sufficient

for purposes of granting a motion..."

Definition of perjury by officer of the court is deliberately making at least two inconsistent
statements in court

49. On the day of hearing of October 25,2018, a new player appeared, Igor B. Litvak, Esq.

(Litvak). He gave me his business card with Martin Luther King Jr. quotation "Injustice Anywhere

is a Threat to Justice Everywhere." Otherwise, this business card would not identify him as an

employee of Bukh Law Firm, PC. Then he told me that he is of counsel to Bukh Law Firm, PC.

50. He asked me,"What are we going to do with your default on motion to dismiss."

51. 1 replied that there is no default because BALSAMO & ROSENBLATT were served with

my amended petition, which made motion to dismiss moot.

52. Then Litvak told me that he has no knowledge of my amended petition. That"no
knowledge of my amended petition" would be inconsistent with his other statements below.

53. In reply, I gave him a courtesy copy of my amended petition and asked him if after reading
it he would be able to proceed today. He replied positively.

54. In about an hour my case was called at the office ofthe court attorney. Litvak immediately

proceeded to talk about my default on motion to dismiss, obviously testing my knowledge of

CPLR and attorney's legalese to see if he can pull on me some fast one.

55. I repeated that there is no default since amended petition was served and motion was moot.

56. In reply, Litvak told court attorney that "I just served him today" in court with amended

petition, which was obviously not true. Thus, he made more inconsistent statements.

57. I objected again and told court attorney that what Litvak has in his hand is the courtesy

copy for him.

58. When we both came before Judge Zhuo Wang,I told him about conflict of interest and

threat that Rosenblatt made me and that all attorneys involved must be disqualified for conflict of

interest.

59. All of a sudden, Litvak showed full knowledge of my amended petition prior to hearing

date by explaining Judge Zhuo Wang situation and telling him why Litvak is here today.
60. Litvak admitted to the judge that he showed up because BALSAMO & ROSENBLATT

recused themselves due to conflict of interest. Obviously, Litvak's appearance was planned by

somebody before the hearing date.

61. This admission was inconsistent with his prior statements to court attomey and to me that

Litvak "had no idea that BALSAMO & ROSENBLATT were served with my amended petition."

62. Litvak's deliberately false and misleading the court and I statements about my default on

motion to dismiss and about his blissful ignorance of my amended petition constitutes perjury in

court.

63. In addition, Litvak failed to tell the judge that Taysin is full time employee of BALSAMO
& ROSENBLATT and is not ofcounsel to Bukh Law Firm,PC,which is why she too did not show

up, but deceitfully signed motion as "of counsel" to hide employment of BALSAMO &

ROSENBLATT.

64. Because Taysin is employee of BALSAMO & ROSENBLATT,she was not authorized as

conflicted attorney of the firm to file motion to dismiss by operation of law per Rule 1.9 of

NYRPC, which is another reason why I was not in default for not rebutting this motion.

Judge Zhuo Wang committed judicial misconduct per New York Rules of Judicial Conduct
and violated Judiciary Law §14- direct conflict of interest.

65. Judge Zhuo Wang violated ABA and NYSBA Code of Judicial Conduct:

CANON 1 [§100.1]: A JUDGE SHALL UPHOLD THE INTEGRITYAND INDEPENDENCE

OF THE JUDICIARY.
An independent and honorable judiciary is indispensable to justice in our society. A
judge should participate in establishing, maintaining and enforcing high standards
of conduct, and shall personally observe those standards so that the integrity and
independence ofthe judiciary will be preserved. The provisions ofthis Part 100 are
to be construed and applied to further that objective.
CANON 2[§100.2]: A JUDGE SHALL AVOID IMPROPRIETY AND THE
APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY IN ALL OF THE JUDGE'S ACTIVITIES.
A judge shall respect and comply with the law and shall act at all times in a manner
that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality ofthe judiciary. A
judge shall not lend the prestige ofjudicial office to advance the private interests of
the judge or others; nor shall a judge convey or permit others to convey the
impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge
CANON 3 [§100.3]: A JUDGE SHALL PERFORM THE DUTIES OF JUDICIAL
OFFICE IMPARTIALLY AND DILIGENTLY.
Judicial duties in general.
The judicial duties of a judge take precedence over all the judge's other activities.
The judge's judicial duties include all the duties of the judge's office prescribed by
law. In the performance ofthese duties, the following standards apply.
(B)(1) A judge shall be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence in
it.
(3) A judge shall be patient, dignified and courteous to litigants,jurors, witnesses,
lawyers and others with whom the judge deals in an official capacity, and shall
require similar conduct oflawyers and ofstaff, court officials and others subject to
the judge's direction and control.
(4) A judge shall perform judicial duties without bias or prejudice against or in

10
 favor of any person. A judge in the performance ofjudicial duties shall not, by
words or conduct, manifest bias or prejudice, including but not limited to bias or
prejudice based upon age, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, religion,
national origin, disability, marital status or socioeconomic status, and shall require
staff, court officials and others subject to the judge's direction and control to refrain
from such words or conduct.
(5) A judge shall require lawyers in proceedings before the judge to refrain from
manifesting, by words or conduct, bias or prejudice based upon age, race, creed,
color, sex, sexual orientation, religion, national origin, disability, marital status or
socioeconomic status, against parties, witnesses, counsel or others.
(6)A judge shall accord to every person who has a legal interest in a proceeding, or
that person's lawyer, the right to be heard according to law. A judge shall not
initiate, permit, or consider ex parte communications, or consider other
communications made to the judge outside the presence of the parties or their
lawyers concerning a pending or impending proceeding, except:
(7) A judge shall dispose of all judicial matters promptly, efficiently and fairly.
(D)Disciplinary responsibilities.
(2) A judge who receives information indicating a substantial likelihood that a
lawyer has committed a substantial violation of the Code of Professional
Responsibility shall take appropriate action.
(3) Acts of a judge in the discharge of disciplinary responsibilities are part of a
judge's judicial duties.
(E)Disqualification.
A judge shall disqualify himself or herselfin a proceeding in which the judge's
impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances
where:
(i) the judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party or
(ii) the judge has personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the
proceeding;

66. Judge Zhuo Wang showed his intent to delay the resolution oflitigation and overt collusion
with all attomeys involved. Below is culmination offraud upon the court by officers of the court.
67. When I started complaining to him that court's clerks refused to file my amended petition
and handed him printouts of applicable sections of CPLR together with my amended petition.
Exhibit J, so that he can follow along my argument, he refused to take them and follow along.
68. Instead, Judge Zhuo Wang essentially told me to write memorandum oflaw to persuade
him to look at my CPLR exhibits he refused to take from me to follow along in the first instance.
69. Judge Zhuo Wang shamelessly admitted that he is incompetent. Essentially, he asked me to

11
school him that I have a right to amend my petition once without leave of the court.

70. He also told me to file motion to compel attorneys involved to accept my amended petition,

which resulted in third adjournment, more delay and more harm to me.

CONCLUSION

71. However, now I do not believe that Judge Zhuo Wang is so incompetent that he would

admit to me his incompetence. I believe that Judge Zhuo Wang played me together with other

attorneys involved to delay the resolution of litigation - exactly with what Rosenblatt threatened

me over the phone- dragging this case for seven month. Judge Zhuo Wang made adjournments,

which allowed attorneys to collect more fees from respondent for prolong delays in litigation to get

more kick backs from them. Other than that, I see no reason for judge acting incompetently.

72. I reasonably believes that fair due process by Judge Zhuo Wang is impossible.

73. Fraud upon the Court makes void orders and judgments of that court. The U.S. Supreme
Court has consistently held that a void order is void at all times, does not have to be reversed or
vacated by a judge,cannot be made valid by any judge. The order is void ab initio see Vallely v.
Northern Fire & Marine Ins. Co.,254 U.S. 348,41 S.Ct. 116(1920). Particularly when "a judge

himself is a party to the fraud," Cone v. Harris(Okl. 1924),230 P. 721, 723. Windsor v. McVeigh
(1876),93 US 276,23 Led 914. 918.

74. A Judge who stands in the way ofjustice and the law is acting outside of all judicial
authority, lacks jurisdiction and thereby waives his rights to immunity from civil liability. The
14th Amendment guarantees the fundamental rights ofPeople to Due Process and such rights
require strict scrutiny of the Court.

Wherefore, in light of the fact that Judge Zhuo Wang and all attorneys involved did not perform
their duty as mandated by the Constitution and the Law,I respectfully move the Court to
Disqualify/Recuse all involved from this action.

12
EXHIBIT A
 Michael Krichevsky
4221 Atlantic Ave
Brooklyn, NY 11224

April 25,2018 by regular mail

Natalia Kardyukova
120 Oceana Drive West, Apt 5D
Brooklyn, New York 11235

Dear Natalia:

S ^■^Q.ey:>yi,^ —
0£j2&CiJl^ -
/.Ct.t.£^^ay^c,e.^ ' ' ■^^-L(2-T<^^<-^-c.€^
^ /Cc3t-e^<i;(2L. 7" A(5z^-^ tye-z^C„Z^
f<fOi) ^ yyt-CjCe,,^ —
\u4.tJUyQ, . ^
Tyy^.^ ^ Z-7t^ cfi^X^ ^.6-S-
 Qcc„^i^

/V<s>^t^csc,^r<i<t^7~<^ ^C3e.-€^y^
'^zz, /<r<i>7^<>-d^s-d, ^czj2jcr> y-^ .

A£.C zie,SI^ S

£>7-S-e'^a- e/toc.zSl^ ^ <c:><:/^

 UNfTEDSJATES 111 ^
o
Oi
]POSaLSBMCE»
termaimg
S ? ss
S? Jm- JS ~
ThdlomimwD# MCMstte fira tfterraterui rnfi<

"1221 ATLANTIC AVE o>®-2'-g<

3 (D <

3ROOKLYH.HY 11224

^aJdOL^/Xo- tfi>.rdKjUkOi/a.
f)0 OUjL».a. nr.-iiy
S
A/y //? ?s.

PS Form 3817,Aprs 2007 PSN 7530-02-000-S06S

CONEY ISLAND
2727 MERMAID AVE
BROOKLYN
NY
^ 11224-9997
^^">3^8080313
04/25/2018 ^00)275-8777 4:35 PM
Product Sale Final
Description Qty price
PurpTe~KiirtT i $0750~
(Unit Price:$0.50) ^
CTOM - 1. $1 40
Individual - -X '
Domestic v

Total $1790 ~
-.-Vr - $2:oo~'
Change v^v' ($o.iO)
All sales final on stamps and postage
Refunds for guaranteed services onlv
"Thank you tor your busings —
HELP US SERVE YOU BETTER
TELL US ABOUT YOUR RECEN^
POSTAL EXPERIENCE
Go to;
https;//postal expai;^
840-5110-0073-00^j8e(322-
or scan^is\code with
your/iobile device:

lai
0
EXHIBIT B
 10 DAY NOTICE TO QUIT

Re: Residential premises

described as follows: All rooms, 120
Oceana Dr. West, Apt. 5D,Brooklyn, NY
11235.

TO:

Natalia Kardyukova, Licensee

120 Oceana Dr. West, Apt.5D
Brooklyn, NY 11235

You are hereby notified that as the owner of the premises, 1 terminate your license of all rooms,
120 Oceana Dr. West, Apt. 5D,Brooklyn. NY 11235. Unless you leave the premises by July 20,
2018,1 will start a licensee holdover case to evict you and will ask the court for the value of your
use and occupancy ofthe premises.

You entered into occupancy ofthe premises as the licensee ofthe former licensee Anna Kot, who
have since left the premises.
You have failed to reply to my letter dated April 25,2018. As such, you overstayed your
welcome. In addition, you have become a nuisance and liability, and therefore, are no longer
welcome or privileged to possession of premises. You have continuously occupied the premises
using it as a place ofresidence, rooming house and warehouse of antics without my consent.
Anna Kot's license ended on or about May 21,2013 and she left the premises.

Dated: July 10,2018

Michael Kiichevsky, Owner
4221 Atlantic Ave
Brooklyn, NY 11224
 CIVIL COURT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK
COUNTYOF BONGS Index No.L & T
Michael BCrichevsky
Petitioner/Owner AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
NOTICE TO QtaT
- against- PERSONAL DELIVERY

Natalia Kardyukova Petitioner/Owner's Address

120 Oceana Dr. West,Apt.5D 4221 Atlantic Ave
Brooklyn,NY 11235 Brooklyn,NY 11224
" ^ Respondent/Licensee

State ofNew York, County ofBCings ss:

Nelli Frid, being duly sworn,deposes and says:

I am 18 years or older, not a party to this proceeding and reside at Brooklyn,New Yofk.
At 9:11 PM,on July 10,2018 at 120 Oceana Dr. West, Apt 5D,Brooklyn,NY 11235,in the
Cpunty of Kings,City ofNew York,I served the attached NOTICE TO QUIT in this matter on
Natalia Kardyukova by delivering the NOTICE TO QUIT in person.

Descriirtion ofIndividual Served:

Sex: F • Color ofSkin:"White Color ofHair: Grey
Approximate Age:67-70 Approximate Weight: 2001b Approximate Height: 57"
Other Identifying Features:

I am not a licensed process server and have not served more than five(5)papers this year.

/73 Signature ofDeponent

Sworn to before me this 3 day of August,2018.

Notary Public
r/s/f
ALEKSANDR RUBIN
Notaty Public State ofNew Yoric
N0.OIRU6IOKOO
Qu^tfted In Kings County
Conuttlsslon BxftiresAiufil 1^20
EXHIBIT C
CIVIL COURT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK 07S015
COUNTY OF KINGS InoaxNo. L&T
Michael Krichevsky
Petitioner/Owner NOTICE OF PETITION LICENSEE
HOLDOVER
- against-

Natalia Kardvukova Petitioner/Owner's Address:

120 Oceana Dr. West. Apt. 5D 4221 Atlantic Ave.
Brooklyn. NY 11235 Brooklyn, NY 11224
Respondent/Licensee 7(^S ^ 'X ZOO
To the respondent Natalia Kardyukova above named and described, in
possession of the premises hereinafter described or claiming possession thereof:
120 Oceana Dr. West, Apt. 5D, Brooklyn, NY 11235, all common areas.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that a hearing at which you must appear will be held at
the Civil Court of the City of New York, Part ^ . Room SoQ to be held at 141
Livingston Street, Brooklyn, NY 11201 County of Kings on A(JQ jQjfl a*
^'3^ <^^m based on the attached Petition of Michael Krichevsky which prays
for a final judgment of eviction awarding ffiichael Krichevsky
*1
the possession of the
premises designated and described as follows: All rooms. Apartment 5D, 120 Oceana
Dr. West, Kings County, City of New York and granting Michael Krichevsky such other
and further relief as is demanded in the Petition which you must answer.

TAKE NOTICE also that demand is made in the Petition for judgment against
you, the Respondent for the fair value of use and occupancy of the premises; interest
from April 25, 2018 until such time as the premises are vacated.

TAKE NOTICE that your answer may set forth any defense or counterclaim you
may have against the Petitioner.

TAKE NOTICE also that if you shall fail at such time to interpose and establish
any defense that you may have to the allegations of the Petition, you may be precluded
from asserting such defense or the claim on which it is based in any other proceeding
or action.

TAKE NOTICE that your failure to appear and answer may result in final
judgment by default for the Petitioner in the amount demanded in the Petition.

TAKE NOTICE that under section 745 of the Real Property Actions and
Proceedings Law, you may be required by the Court to make a deposit of use and
occupancy, or a payment of use and occupancy to the petitioner, upon your second
request for an adjournment or if the proceeding is not settled or a final determination
has not been made by the Court within 30 days of the first court appearance. Failure to
comply with an initial deposit or payment order may result in the entry of a final
judgment against you without a trial. Failure to make subsequent required deposits or
payments may result in an immediate trial on the issues raised in your answer.

Dated;
County of Kings, New York
CHIEF CLERK
AUG 0 7 2018

CLERK OF
OF THE CITY O

Michael Krichevsky, Petitioner, pro se

4221 Atlantic Ave.
Brooklyn, NY 11224
(718)687-2300
CIVIL COURT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF KINGS Index No. L&T
Michael Krichevsky
Petitioner/Owner PETITION
LICENSEE HOLDOVER
— against —

Natalia Kardyukova Petitioner/Owner's Address:

120 Oceana Dr. West, Apt. 5D 4221 Atlantic Ave.
Brooklyn. NY 11235 Brooklyn , NY 11224
Respondent/Licensee
THE PETITION OF Michael Krichevsky shows that:

1. I am the Petitioner and owner of the premises.

2. Respondent Natalia Kardyukova entered into occupancy of the premises as the

licensee of my former licensee Anna Kot, who has since vacated the premises.
Respondent is no longer entitled to possession but has continuously occupied the
premises using it as a place of residence without my consent.

3. Anna Kot's license ended on or about May 21, 2013 and Anna Kot vacated the
premises.

4. The premises is described as follows:

All rooms. 120 Oceana Dr. West, Apt. 5D
Brooklyn, NY 11235
which is located in jurisdiction of this Court, County of Kings.

5. A notice to Quit in Russian was sent on April 25, 2018 and 10 day Notice to Quit in
English was served requiring Respondent to quit the premises by July 20, 2018.
Respondent ignored both notices and continues in possession of the premises
without my permission although the time to leave the premises has expired.

6. The Notices to Quit with proof of seryice are attached and made a part of this
Petition.

7. The premises is not subject to rent regulation because it is a luxury condominium

unit with rent market value of approximately $3500.00.

Made using the Civil Court of the City of New York's FREE DIY Forms program
 I request final judgment: awardir g me possession of the premises; issuance of a
warrant to remove respondent from possession; judgment for fair value of use and
occupancy with interest from April 25. 2018 ($10,500.00) and costs and disbursements.

Dated: August 2, 2018

Michael Ktichevsky

VERIFICATION

STATE OF NEW YORK. COUNTY OF KINGS ss: The petitioner, being duly sworn
states: That deponent has read the petition, and the contents of the petition are true to
deponent's own knowledge except as to those matters which are alleged on information
and belief, and as to them deponent believes them to be true.

I
Michael Isrichevsky

Sworn to before me on 2 /'^

ariebolshem
notary publicstateOT new YORK
Rc^ualloa

Made using the Civil Court of the City of New York's FREE DIY Forms program
EXHIBIT D
 yi3c n o

CIVIL COURT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK

COUNTY OF KINGS
X
MICHAEL KRICHEVSKY
Petitioners, Index No 78015/18

-against-

NATALIA KARDYUKOVA,
VERIFIED
ANSWER
Respondents.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that the undersigned has been retained as

attorney for the respondent NATALIA KARDYUKOVA and demands that you serve all
papers in this proceeding upon the undersigned at the address stated below.

PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE,that respondent hereby interposes the

following answer to the petition herein.

1. Lack ofpersonaljurisdiction because the notice to quit,the petition and

the notice of petition were not properly served upon the respondent
and/or proof of service thereof is insufficient to sustain personal
jurisdiction over the Respondent. Upon information and belief, the
process server Nelli Frid serves more than 5 times per year and thus
needsto be licensed as a matter oflaw. The respondent did not receive
a copy of the petition and notice by regular mail as required. The
process server did not serve the pleadings as required. The petition
and notice of petition received by the respondent did not contain an
affidavit ofservice ofthe termination notice as required. Respondent
demands a traverse hearing.
2. Lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

3. General Denial.
 AS AND FOR A FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE:

12. The respondent received a copy of the notice of petition ONLY and
did not receive a copy ofthe petition in Holdover.

13. The petition must be dismissed.

WHEREFORE,respondent respectfully requestsjudgment;

a) Dismissing the petition.

b) together with the costs and disbursements ofthis proceeding and

granting such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper.

Dated; Brooklyn, New York

August 28,2018

Yours,etc.

ROBERT ROSENBLATT,ESQ.
OF COUNSEL
BUKH LAW FIRM,PC
ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT
14 WALL STREET
NY,NY,10005
(212)729-1632
 CIVIL COURT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF KINGS

MICHAEL KRICHEVSKY
Petitioners, Index No 78015/18

-against-

NATALIA KARDYUKOVA

ANSWER

Respondents.
-X

ANSWER

ROBERT ROSENBLATT,ESQ.,OF COUNSEL

BUKH LAWFIRM,PC
ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT
14 WALL STREET
NY,NY,10005
(212)729-1632

To:

Signature(Rule 130-1.1-a)

Robert Rosenbla
Attorney(s)for Respondent

Please take Notice

( )NOTICE OF ENTRY
that the within is a (certified) true copy of a
duly entered in the office of the clerk ofthe within named court on 20
( )NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT
that an order
of which the within is a true copy will be presented for settlement to the
Hon.
of the within named court at
on 20 at m.

Dated: Brooklyn, New York

To:
EXHIBIT E
CIVIL COURT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF KINGS Index No. L&T: 078015
MICHAEL KRICHEVSKY
Petitioner/Landlord,
-against-
NOTICE OF SUPLEMENTAL
NATALIA KARDYUKOVA
PETITION
Respondent(s)/Tenant(s)
NONPAYMENT
All rooms, Apt. 5D, 120 OCEANA
DR. WEST Daaoooa

Brooklyn, New York 11235 „

' Petitioners Address:
- and - 4221 Atlantic Ave

JOHN DOE AND JANE DOE Brooklyn, NY 11224

Respondent(s)/Undertenant(s)

Your landlord is suing you for nonpayment of rent.

1. Your landlord has started an eviction nonpayment case against you for rent the
landlord claims you owe. The landlord's reasons are given in the attached Petition.

2. Your landlord is asking this Court for:

• a money judgment for $14,000, plus interest from May 1 st, 2018, and
• permission to evict you from your home if you do not pay the money judgment.

3. You have a right to a trial. But first you must Answer the Petition by going to the
landlord-tenant Clerk's Office at: 141 Livingston Street, Brooklyn, NY 11201. You
must do this within 5 days after the date these papers were given to you or a person
who lives or works in your home, or were posted at your home at:
Address or description of the premises
All rooms. Apt. 50, 120 OCEANA DR. WEST. Kings. New York

Warning! If you don't Answer the Petition within 5 days, a judgment may be entered
against you. If that happens, the landlord will have the right to evict you.

Your Answer should say the legal reasons that you don't owe all or part of the rent.
The legal reasons are called defenses. You can also say any claims you have
against the landlord. You will have to prove your defenses and claims in court. To
Answer the Petition you must either.
« Go to the landlord-tenant Clerk's Office and tell the Clerk your Answer, or
• Give the landlord-tenant Clerk your Answer in writing (Form No. Civ-LT-91a).
Information to help you Answer the Petition is attached (Form No. Civ-LT-92).
Important! If you don't tell the Clerk about a defense in your Answer you might not
be able to talk about it later in this case or any other case.
5. When you Answer the Petition, you will get a date to come back to Court 3 to 8 days
later.

6. If your name is not on this Notice but you live in the home listed above, you have a
right to come to Court and Answer the Petition.

7. Available Resources;
® Language Help: If you don't speak English well you have a right to a free court
interpreter. Tell the Court Clerk you need an interpreter, or call 646 386-5670.
To read a translation of this Notice in another language visit:
http://nvcourts.qov/housinqnvc. For information on evictions:
646 386-5750: Informations concernant les expulsions •(4
• MHct)opMai4Mn o BbiceneHnw • Juh
^ ^ • Enfomasyon Konsenan Degepisman • Informacion sobre
desalojos
® ADA Help: If you need special accommodations to use the court because of a
disability, tell a Court Clerk or ADA contact person listed at:
http://www.nvcourts.qov/COURTS/nvc/housinq/services.shtml#ada or call 646
386-5300 or 711 (TTY).
• Financial Help: If you owe the rent and don't have the money, contact HRA's
Infoline at 718 557-1399 for more information about getting help to pay the rent.
o Legal Help: The court does not give you a lawyer. If you do not have money to
hire a lawyer, contact the Legal Aid Society 212 577-3300 or Legal Services 212
431-7200 or visit LawHelpNY at http://www.lawhelpnv.orq. If you have money to
hire a lawyer, you can contact the New York City Bar Legal Referral Service at
212 626-7373.
o Help at the Courthouse: There is a Help Center in the courthouse where you
can speak to a Court Attorney or a Volunteer Lawyer.
• Online Help: Visit the Housing Court's website at:
http://www.nvcourts.qov/nvchousinq (also available in Spanish and Chinese)or
visit LawHelpNY atwww.lawhelpny.org.

Postponements and Rent Deposits. In court, you can ask to postpone your case. But,
if your case is not finished 30 days after the first court date, or you ask to postpone the
case twice, the court can order you to deposit money in court or make a rent payment to
the landlord. If you don't do this, the landlord may get a judgment against you without a
trial. If you fail to make future payments ordered by the court, your case may go to trial
right away. RPAPL Sec. 745.
After Judgment. If the court orders a judgment against you after a trial, the court may
give you up to 5 days to pay the judgment and not be evicted. Once the warrant of
eviction is issued, the landlord can still evict you even if you pay the rent. After the
warrant is issued, you will get a Notice of Eviction from a Marshal giving you at least 72
hours to move. If you don't move you will be evicted. RPAPL Sec. 749(2).

City of New York, County of Kings

Dated rSeptember 5, 2018
Clerk ®f theXivil Court of the City of New York:

Michael Krichevsky
Petitioner
4221 Atlantic Ave
Brooklyn, NY, 11224
(718)687-2300

Balsamo & Rosenblatt

Attorneys for Respondent
200 Schermerhorn Street
Brooklyn, NY 11201
CIVIL COURT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF KINGS Index No. L&T: 078015
MICHAEL KRICHEVSKY
Petitioner/Landlord,
- against-
NATALIA KARDYUKOVA SUPLEMENTAL PETITION
Respondent(s)n"enant(s) NONPAYMENT
All rooms, Apt. 5D, 120 OCEANA
DR. WEST aooaooo
Brooklyn, New York 11235 Petitioner's Address:
4221 Atlantic Ave
-and-
Brooklyn, NY 11224
JOHN DOE AND JANE DOE
Respondent(s)/Undertenant(s)

THE PETITION OF MICHAEL KRICHEVSKY shows that:

1. Petitioner MICHAEL KRICHEVSKY is the owner/landlord of the premises.

2. Respondent is a month-to-month tenant according to her Second Affirmative Defense in
her Verified Answer, attached herein as Exhibit A.
3. In the beginning of April 2018, 1 offered her to enter into a 1-year lease with $3500
monthly payment.
4. A few days later, she declined my offer and made counter-offer of $1800 per month
saying that if I don't agree she would move out because there are plenty apartments for this rent
in the area.

5. I considered that offer ridiculous and declined it in writing because I realized that
something is wrong in her mind. Attached as Exhibit B, is my letter to her in Russian since she
is Russian citizen who does not speak English. Additionally, I attached to Exhibit B translation of
this letter in English.
6. According to doctrine of Estoppels By Action, Respondent changed her mind and
accepted my open offer of lease with $3500 payment per month by failing to move out as
promised or threatened. However, she has not made any payment. As such, her behavior is
unreasonable and looks like she became a deadbeat squatter.
7. Because Respondent wrongfully claims that she is not Licensee, but rather month-to-
month tenant, she complaints that my 10-days notice to vacate premises did not give her
enough time to move out. She hired Russian-speaking attorney Arkady Bukh and Law Firm
Balsamo & Rosenblatt to litigate this issue.

Made using the Civil Court of the City of New York's

FREE DIY Forms program.
8. Upon information and belief, From April 2018 until August 17, 2018, the time of first
hearing of original petition, Respondent had almost three month to move out if she wanted to
move out.

9. From April 2018 until the hearing of August 17, 2018, Respondent did not contact me
with extension of time to move out, or with any issue she claimed in her Verified Answer.
10. Her Attorney. Arkady Bukh, never contacted me to discuss this situation, although she
said that he would.

11. In the morning of August 17, 2018 first hearing, without Answer, her attorney, Arkady
Bukh, entered into court a Notice of Appearance by another attorney who refused to give me his
business card or his name saying that he will come back in few minutes. I waited in the
courtroom until 1 PM and this attorney did not show up. The hearing was adjourned until August
30, 2018.
12. On August 30, without Answer, appeared attorney Serenay Taysin from Balsamo &
Rosenblatt firm. She, asked for second adjournment to file Motion to dismiss and objected to my
request that respondent makes rent deposit to court per RPAPL Sec. 745.
13. Based on the foregoing, it is my belief that Respondent hired these attorneys to delay
her eviction for as long as they will be able so she would live in the apartment rent-free.
14. In order to avoid unnecessary delay and litigation expenses, and to make her attorney's
meritless arguments moot, I am filing this SUPLEMENTAL PETITION below as an alternative
pleading under duress.
15. Respondent/tenant(s) NATALIA KARDYUKOVA is/are the tenant(s) of the premises
and entered into possession by oral rental agreement made on or about April 1, 2018, between
Respondent/tenant(s) and myself, in which respondent(s) promised to pay $ 3,500 rent each
month payable on the 1st day of the month.
Respondent/undertenant(s) JOHN DOE and JANE DOE is/are the possible undertenant(s) of
Respondent/tenant(s) NATALIA KARDYUKOVA.
16. The premises is described as follows: All rooms. Apt. 5D, 120 OCEANA DR. WEST,
Brooklyn, New York 11235, which is located in jurisdiction of this Court, County of Kings.
17. Under the agreement the following rent was due to landlord from Respondent/tenant(s):
$ 3500 - May 2018
$ 3500 - June 2018

$3500-July 2018
$ 3500 - August 2018
18. Respondent/tenant(s) has not paid, and the total rent owed is $ 14,000.

Made using the Civil Court of the City of New York's

FREE DIY Forms program.
19. The rent was orally demanded from the Respondent/tenants.
20. Respondent/tenant(s) continue in possession of the premises without petitioner's
permission after failing to pay the rent.
21. The premises is not rent regulated because it is luxury multi building condominium
complex.
22. The premises is a multiple dwelling and pursuant to the Administrative Article 41 there is
a currently effective registration statement on file with the Office of Code Enforcement in which I
have designated the managing agent named below, a natural person over 21 years of age, to
be in control of and responsible for the maintenance and operation of the building.
Multiple Dwelling Registration Number: 377881
Registered Managing Agent: Matina Monioudis
Address: 40 Oceana Dr. West, Brooklyn, New York, 11235.

Petitioner requests final judgment awarding possession of the premises to the

petitioner/landlord, issuance of a warrant to remove respondent(s)from possession,judgment
for rent in arrears against respondent Tenant(s)for $ 14,000, and costs and disbursements.

Dated: September 5, 2018

Michael Krichevsky

VERIFICATION

STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF KINGS ss: The petitioner, being duly sworn states: That
deponent has read the petition, and the contents of the petition are true to deponent's own
knowledge except as to those matters which are alleged on information and belief, and as to
them deponent believes them to be true.

AJi
Michael Krichevsky

Sworn to before me on September 5, 2018

Notary Public

Made using the Civil Court of the City of New York's

FREE DIY Forms program.
EXHIBIT F
CIVIL COURT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OFKINGS Index No. L&T 078015

MICHAEL KRICHEVSKY

Petitioner-Landlord AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE

- against- NOTICE OF SUPLEMENTAL

NATALIA KARDYUKOVA PETITION AND PETITION

Respondent(s)-Tenant(s) (Personal Delivery)

and

JOHN DOE AND JANE DOE

Respondent(s)-Undertenant(s)

State of New York, County of Kings ss:

Oksana Ostrovskaya, being duly sworn, deposes and says:
Name of Server

I am 18 years of age or older and not a party to this action.

At I0'5i t^M/ PM, on September 5, 2018 at 200 Schermerhorn Street, Brooklyn, NY 11201
Time Date Address

in the County of Kings, City of New York, I served the attached NOTICE OF SUPLEMENTAL PETITION AND
PETITION in this matter on Natalia Kardyukova by personally delivering the said NOTICE OF PETITION AND
PETITION to said respondent's Attorney's office in person.

Description of Individual Served:

Sex: F Color of Skin: OiPh Color of Hair:
Approximate Age: ^ Approximaje Weight: It)0 Approximate Height:
Other Identifying Features:

am not a paid licensed process server and have not served more than five (5)

Signatuiybf Deponent

SwgcD to before me^is dav of 20

GLADYS NG
Notary Public - State of New York
NO.01NG6270017
Qualified in Kings County
My Commission Expires Get 9, 2020
EXHIBIT G
Civil Court the City of New York
County of King| llllli
Housing Part Index #: LT-078015-18/KI
Seq #: 1
^ # Resp OSC Applications:0
Order to Show Cause to Amend Petition and/or Notice of Petition
(
Michael Krichevsky Property Address:
Petitioner(s) 120 Oceana Dr West
-against- Apt. 5D
Natalia Kardyukova ipldyn. NY 11235
Jndent(s)

upon the anft^e^affidavit of Michael Krichevsky (Petr), sworn to on September 7,2018

Let the Rs»^ondent(s)or His/Her/Their Attomey(s)Show Cause at a Motion Term of the:
' Civil Court of the City of New York
Housing Part: Part J
Room:502
Located at: 141 Livingston Street, Brooklyn, NY 11201

' V
or as soon th^eafter as counsel may be heard, why an Order should not be made
amending th^^p^tion and/or notice of petition, restoring the case to the calendar for a date certain and/or granting such other and
further relief as

Until the entry of a Court Order, all proceedings by Respondent(s), his/her/their Attorney, and any City Marshal are STAYED.
Service ofa copy of this OMgrj^Show Cause and Annexed Affidavit upon the opposing Party's Attomey (or if he/she has none,on the
party) shall be
Attorney (or Marshal
(J^ge to Initial) (Judge to Initial)
vBy Personal Service "In Hand Delivery" By Perso Hand Delivery"
__:rDy Certified Mail, R.R.R. ^By Certified 1, R.R.R.
_By 1st Cla« Mail, wil certificate of Mailing at Post Office
On or before ,shall be deemed good and suraient. Papers may be served by Respondent in person,
c ith the clerk in the Part indicated above^^ the return date of the Order to Show Cause.

Attorney(or Party); Marshal:

Natalia Kardyukova
120 Oceana Dr West
Apt. 5D
Brooklyn, NY 11235

Zhuo^^^/Housing^urt Judge
Denied:
Generated: September 7,2018

5" I?

■
EXHIBIT H
CIVIL COURT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF KINGS Index No. L&T:078015
MICHAEL KRICHEVSKY
Petitioner/Landlord,
- against -
NATALIA KARDYUKOVA AMENDED PETITION
Respondent(s)Licensee/Tenant(s) LICENSEE/TENANT
All rooms. Apt. 5D, 120OCEANA
DR. WEST ODOOOOD
Brooklyn, New York 11235 Petitioner's Address:
4221 Atlantic Ave
-and -
Brooklyn, NY 11224
JOHN DOE AND JANE DOE
Respondent(s)/Undertenant(s)

THE AMENDED PETITION of Michael Krichevsky per Rule 3025(a) of CPLR shows that:

1. Petitioner Michael Krichevsky is the owner/landlord ofthe premises.

BREIF RELEVANT HISTORY OF CONTROVERCY

2. On or about August 18, 2008,1 hired Robert Rosenblatt, Esq.(Rosenblatt) and he started
conducting holdover proceeding in this court against, at that time, my month-to-month tenant
Edelstein from this apartment. Attached, as Exhibit A is documentary evidence.
3. Simultaneously, Rosenblatt started action in Kings County Supreme Court against inter
alia, Edelstein for damages. Attached, as Exhibit B is documentary evidence.
4. I paid Rosenblatt $3600 retainer toward these goals.
5. From October 3, 2008, the date ofthe holdover petition, until March 6, 2009 Rosenblatt
colluded with adverse attorneys and all filed several stipulations to adjourn hearings based on
parties' mutual agreements.

6. At that time, I was not aware that Rosenblatt or his other subordinate attorney signed
several stipulations ofadjournment on my behalf without my knowledge and consent, falsely
telling me that the other side is playing delay game. When I learned about such fraud by
Rosenblatt and adverse attorneys, on March 4, 2009,1 fired Rosenblatt for essentially doing

Made using the Civil Court of the City of New York's

FREE DIY Forms program.
nothing on my case while I was incurring financial losses every month. These losses continue to
present-day. Attached as Exhibit C documentary evidence offiring Rosenblatt.
7. 1 appeared pro se in both actions and finally evicted Edelstein in November of2009.

8. However, by that time this apartment entered foreclosure due Rosenblatt's delays and due
to some corrupt members ofthe Board of Managers(Board)ofthis condominium who prevented
me from renting out this apartment after eviction of Edelstein.

9. To protect my apartment from an adverse possession by the Board or the bank as

abandoned by me property, I called 911 and when police arrived, I let Respondent's son, Denis
Kardyukov, and his girlfriend, Anna Kot, to live in the apartment as licensees while I was
litigating with the Board. Exhibit D briefly gives an idea ofthe issues that I had with the Board.

10. Because of Sandy disaster in 2012, which flooded whole building and for other reasons,
they both left USA and went to Russia.

11. Respondent NATALIA KARDYUKOVA replaced them in 2013 and is licensee ofthe
premises

12. Litigation with the Board continues until present, which brings us to current controversy.

Law Firm Balsamo & Rosenblatt and Attorney Rosenblatt violate conflict of interest Rule
1.9 of New York Rules of Professional Conduct by advising Respondent against
Krichevsky's interest in the same action

13. Rosenblatt claims that Respondent is a month-to-month tenant since 2013 or 2014

according to Respondent's Second Affirmative Defense in her Verified Answer.

14. Accordingly, Rosenblatt entered appearance and represents Respondent against me, his
former client.

Michael Krichevsky has per Rule 3014 of CPLR alternative and/or additional claims for
Respondent's negligence causing damages and unjust enrichment

Made using the Civil Court of the City of New York's

FREE DIY Fomns program.
15. In such setting, I presume that Rosenblatt also advised Respondent that she would be

responsible for the damages she caused to my apartment and two other apartments below mine

by the water flood that she negligently caused in winter of2016.

16. At that time, she left balcony door open and went to Russia for several months.

17. Because ofthat, the prolong low temperature entered apartment, froze water pipes and

caused them to crack in several places, which in turn started flooding in my apartment and in two

others below.

18. Condominium Management Company's emergency crew worked for several days to

contain water and change plumbing, while respondent was in Russia. Now,this company has a

claim against me for about $15,000.

19. Upon information and belief, Allstate Insurance Company claims additionally the sum of
damages of approximately $30,000 against me.

20. I did not cross-claim or sue respondent to indemnify me for said damages because at that

time my understanding was that she was licensee.

21. Accordingly, by claiming that respondent was the tenant, she just agreed to be sued for at

least $45,000 for breach ofcontract or negligence in addition to unjust enrichment non-payment
claim.

22. In such setting, this court loses limited jurisdiction of this matter and the action should be

transferred into Supreme Court or even Federal Court since she is Russian citizen.

Natalia Kardyukova hired two Law Firms to aid and abet her in fraud upon the court and
extortion from Michael Krichevsky
23. Due to ongoing litigation with the Board, in the beginning of April 2018,1 told
Respondent,"enough is enough" with license and offered her to enter into a 1-year lease with
$3500 monthly payment.

24. This apartment is a two bedroom duplex with approximately 1500 sf.

Made using the Civil Court of the City of New York's

FREE DIY Forms program.
25. I told Respondent that I would take this lease to the Court for a temporary injunction
order against the Board since they continued to harass both of us.
26. Respondent replied that she needs to consult her attorney.

27. A few days later, respondent declined my offer and made counter-offer of$1800 per
month saying that if I do not agree she would move out because there are similar apartments for
$1800 rent in the area.

Respondent's claim of tenancy is meritless pretext for frivolous litigation, delay and refusal
to pay rent or to move out, unjustified and constitutes unjust enrichment
28. , 1 considered that counter offer as unreasonable, made in bad faith and declined it in

writing because I realized that something was wrong on her mind. Attached as Exhibit E,is my
letter to her in Russian since she is Russian citizen who does not speak English and knows

nothing about law. Additionally, attached to Exhibit E translation ofthis letter in English.
29. Respondent failed to reply to this letter.

30. Respondent has not made any payment since our negotiations in April 2018.

31. According to doctrine "substance trumps the form," this letter in Russian served the

purpose of 30-day notice to quit in English because the purpose of such notice is to advise a
person of the law, rights and responsibilities without spending money on attorney, which my

letter did and gave even bigger advice.

32. In that letter, 1 wrote in Russian,"Please let me know when you would like to move out,"

thereby giving her a choice to select time or to object generally.

33. All Respondent had to do is reply and ask, for example, 1 need 30 days period to move

out.

34. In case respondent claims tenancy, this letter still gave her 30-day notice that her alleged
tenancy was terminated as of April 2018 since I did not accept her counter offer and told her to

move out.

35. Respondent failed to reply and/or object to this letter as I asked.

Made using the Civil Court of the City of New York's

FREE DIY Forms program.
36. Instead, she hired a Russian-speaking attorney to "additionally advise" her about her
rights and responsibilities under New York law and what status to claim in this controversy -
either alleged month-to-month tenant or licensee.

37. As such, 1 inferred that she waived her 30-day Notice in English as useless formality and
that she has adequate knowledge oflaw from her attorneys by the time I filed this petition.
38. 1 presume that her attorney over-delivered and she received more than adequate
information under which claimed status to move out, how and why she has to move out, as
opposed to what otherwise she would receive if I would send her statutory English version of 30-
day notice to quit or 10-day notice to quit for that matter.
39. In any case. Respondent would still have gone to Russian speaking attorney with any
English version ofthe notice.

40. Upon information and belief. Respondent had attorney, Arkady Bukh, years before April
2018, who in good faith should have contacted me with the issue ofadequate notice and time to
quit, but never did.

41. 1 sent Respondent 10-day notice to quit in English as formality in order to satisfy the
requirements ofclerks of court to accept my petition in August of2018, which was filed over
120 days from the date of my letter in Russian. 1 knew that if I submit my Russian notice, court
clerks would be confused.

42. In any case, respondent's behavior is intentionally unreasonable, in bad faith and looks
like she decided to become a deadbeat squatter with attorney's assistance.
43. From April 2018 until August 17, 2018, the time offirst hearing oforiginal petition.
Respondent, upon advice from her attorney, had almost three month to move out if she needed
time to move out.

44. Additionally, from April 2018 until present, respondent had ample time to consult her
attorneys about law and inevitability of her delayed eviction, incurred attorney's expenses and
debt.

Made using the Civil Court of the City of New York's

FREE DIY Forms program.
Respondent hired attorneys to couch her and assist in delaying eviction and to live free
45. From April 2018 until the hearing of August 17, 2018, neither Respondent nor her
attorney contacted me with extension oftime to move out, or with any issue she claimed in her
Verified Answer.

46. As such, I presume that she did not need any time and was not going to move out.
47. In the morning of August 17, 2018, first hearing, without Answer her attorney, Arkady
Bukh, entered into this court a Notice of Appearance by another male attorney who refused to

give me his business card or his name saying that he is busy and will come back in few minutes.
48. I waited in the courtroom from 9:30 AM until 1 PM and this attorney did not show up.

The hearing was adjourned until August 30, 2018.

For the Record Attorney Rosenblatt Called me and Threatened me

49. On Tuesday, August 28, 2018, at 11:53 AM from phone # 718-399-3025 Rosenblatt

called me and offered me settlement.

50. The term of settlement was that the Respondent would live for 3 more months in the

apartment free and then leave.

51. Then he told me that if I would not accept this offer, he would drag this matter through

this court for 7 months.

52. Rosenblatt told me that if I would start talking about attorney ethics, he would hang up
the phone and "hit me with hurricane" so that I would not even know what hit me.

53. 1 have no idea whether he implied some sort ofjudicial corruption against me or whether
he threatened my life with physical harm.

54. On August 30, without Answer, attorney Serenay Taysin from Balsamo & Rosenblatt law

firm appeared.

55. She, asked for second adjournment to file Motion to dismiss and objected to my request
that respondent makes reasonable rent deposit to court per RPAPL Sec. 745.

Made using the Civil Court of the City of New York's

FREE DIY Forms program.
56. Based on the foregoing respondent's refusal to deposit rent in court, I infer that
Respondent hired these attorneys to aid and abet her in delaying her eviction for as long as they
will be able to manipulate this court so she would live in the apartment rent-free until final
eviction and then go back to Russia leaving me damaged.
57. Additionally, I infer that Respondent hired Russian-speaking attorney Arkady Bukh and
Law Firm Balsamo & Rosenblatt to aid and abet her in misleading the court, because judge in
turn permitted her non-payment per RPAPL Sec. 745 over my objection and allowed delay in
eviction by frivolous litigation against me -just as Rosenblatt threatened me.
58. Further and alternatively, I infer that Rosenblatt is personally interested in frivolous
litigation as means to increase his attorney fees and does not care that he is harassing me and
causing damage to me.

59. Alternatively, Respondent/tenant(s) NATALIA KARDYTJKOVA is/are the tenant(s) of

the premises and entered into possession by oral rental agreement made on or about April 1,
2018, between Respondent/tenant(s) and myself, in which respondent(s) promised to pay $ 3,500
rent each month payable on the 1st day of the month. Respondent/undertenant(s) JOHN DOE
and JANE DOE is/are the possible undertenant(s) of Respondent/tenant(s) NATALIA
KARDYUKOVA

60. Alternatively, according to doctrine ofEstoppels By Action, after receiving advice from
her attorney, Arkady Bukh, Respondent decided to deceive me by implying and making it look
like she changed her mind and accepted my open offer of lease with $3500 payment per month
by failing to move out, when in fact she only wanted to stay free.
61. I reasonably relied on such implication and did not start eviction in May to my own
detriment.

62. The premises is described as follows: All rooms. Apt. 5D, 120 OCEANA DR. WEST,
Brooklyn, New York 11235, which is located in jurisdiction ofthis Court, County ofKings.
63. Under the agreement the following rent was due to landlord from Respondent/tenant(s):
$3500 -May 2018

Made using the Civil Court of the City of New York's

FREE DIY Forms program.
$3500-June 2018

$3500-July 2018

$ 3500 - August 2018

$ 3500 - September 2018

$ 3500 - October 2018

64. Respondent/licensee/tenant(s) has not paid, and the total rent owed would be $ 21,000.
65. The rent was orally and/or in writing demanded from the Respondent/ licensee/tenant(s).
66. Respondent/licensee/tenant(s) continue in possession ofthe premises without petitioner's
permission after failing to pay the rent and refusal to deposit rent in court.
67. The premises is not rent regulated because it is luxury multi building condominium
complex.

68. The premises is a multiple dwelling and pursuant to the Administrative Article 41 there is
a currently effective registration statement on file with the Office of Code Enforcement in which

I have designated the managing agent named below, a natural person over 21 years ofage, to be
in control of and responsible for the maintenance and operation ofthe building.
Multiple Dwelling Registration Number: 377881

Registered Managing Agent: Matina Monioudis

Address: 40 Oceana Dr. West, Brooklyn, New York, 11235.

Petitioner requests final judgment awarding possession of the premises to the

petitioner/landlord, issuance of a warrant to remove respondent(s)from possession,judgment for
rent in arrears against respondent Licensee/Tenant(s)for $ 21, 000, and costs and disbursements.
Dated: September 20, 2018

Michael Krichevsky

Made using the Civil Court of the City of New York's

FREE DIY Forms program.
VERIFICAI'ION

STATE 01'' NEW YORK,COUNTY OF KINGS ss: The petitioner, being duly sworn states:
That deponent has read the petition, and the contents of the petition are true to deponent's own
knowledge except as to those matters which are alleged on information and belief, and as to them
deponent believes them to be true.

Michael Krichevsky

Sworn to before me on September 20,2018

ARtE BOLSHbiv.
Notary Public Stato of New York
No. 01B06102789
Qualified in Kings County ^
Commission Expires Dec. 8,

Made using the Civil Coun of the City of New York's FREE DIV Forms program
EXHIBIT A
 0 307-jam} ItinuiBtqii •>> 290O or a[ufflfi8rs|ccei$!or. tnc.. NYC 1O0I3
rcnou) iir tnaacy iiufliMauhmMttiKA-UXn
«n«aiH«via<ni«i4fknri4hCtei>) vyvvw.blumbdrg.eom

md i)kkS
■.Augua.t..l4,...2008
Re: Premises: 120 Oceaaa Drivo West, Apt, 5D, Brooklyn,N.Y, 11214
All reams 5th Beer side, A pi. No. 5])
120 Oceana Drive West, Apt. 5D, Brooklyn, ».Y., 11214
ised for □ Business (§ DwelUng purposes.
TO

Tenant and, Undertenani^

Victoria,M ...."Joto Doe" &
120 Qceana Drive Vest 120 Oceana. Drive Weet

L. J
First of Teaant and/or Undtrttnant being fieatieta aad aaknaaa
to peftoonsTi penon latanded biinfi /« possrjulea el-jtho premiars kr/eih
describtd
or assigns, and every person in possession of tJje. premises.

you are hereby nou'ded'tbat zhe LaadJord elects to temunare your tenancy of the above described premises
aotv held by you under moathJy hiring, Unless you remove from the said prenu'ses on September 30, 2008
, cAe day on vrhieh yotir term expires, the Landlord will eommeaoe summary proceedings oncfer the
Szaxute to remove you from said premises for the holding over after the ejrp/ratt'on of your term and will de
mand the value of your use and occupancy of the premises daring such holding over
No reason is necessary ox required by latr. The premises are

a Condominluni, The tenant does not have a lease.

Dated: August 18, 2008

BALSAMO, BOSEKBIATT & SBIVERS. ?.C.
80 LIVIBCSTON STBZBI ' ..^.Ziundlotd
BROOKLYN, N? 11201 Kichaei Krichevsl^ & Elena Svenaon, Landlocds
7X8-858-7399 By; Micl^el Krichevsky, Co-O»ner
ATTOBNEY NOR PETIIZOSER ..vlgest

.JJLddreas
 CIVIL COURT OF THK CITY OF NEW YORK ' File#- 0033000
COUNTY OP KINGS : HOUSING P.'.RT ' n-ieif. 0033000
A

• L&T Index
MICHAEL KRICHEVSKY & ELEWA SVEWSON Petitioner

Against
NOTICE OP PETITION
HOLDOVER

VICTORIA EDELSTlN Respondent

Occupants
120 OCEANA DRIVE WEST Apt: 50
BROOKLYN NY 11235-
'John Doe" & "Jane Doe" Kecpondent/Undcrtenanc
— X

To the respondents) above named and described, in possession of the

premises hereinafter described or claiming possession thereof:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that a hearing at which you must appear will be
Civil Court of the City of Nev; York, County of KINGS at
1 Livingston Street Brooklyn, N.Y. 11201 part G County of KINGS
State of Mev/ York, on 0ctober33l, 2008 at 0'clock in
the forenoon of that day, on the annexed petition of
MICHAEL KRICHEVSKY & ELENA SVENSON

verified October 3, 2008 which prays for a final judgment of

eviction, awarding to the Petitioner the possession of premises
described as follows: ALL ROOMS Apt: SD in the premises known as and
located at 120 OCEANA DRIVE WEST , BROOKLYN NY County of KINGS in the
City of New York, as demanded in the petition, which you must ansv;er.
TA^ NOTICE also that demand is made in the petition herein for
Anfnor?
August 1, 2008 asyo"
andfor
forthe
rentsumupofuo$7965.00 with2008
October 31, interest fromthe
and for
fair value of use and occupancy of the premises during the period o*^

TAKE NOTICE that your answer may set forth and defense or
counterclaim you may have against the petitioner.
answer may be made at the time of hearing
ov Notice of Petition is served upon you on
DAYQ before
THREE DAYS W It' eventtoyou
the petition is noticed must answer
be heard, eitheratorallv
least
before the Clerk of the Court at his office or in writing Srservina
by''fi^'na®th2^ori°"
oy fil-ng the original ofundersigned attorney
such v;ritnen answerfor
v/iththeproof
petitioner, and
of service
Clerk at least THREE DAYS before the
time the petition is .noticed to be hea>-d- in adriih-r.r.
must appear before the court at tJ- and
forth for the hearing. hereinabove set
06/13/2009 03:50 7184499766 16

377881 peracion o£ the dwelling. Multiple Dewlllnq #:

Agent: PARIK BADAWW 40 OCEflMA DRIVE WEST BHOOKLYN, N.Y. 11225
WHEREFORE Petitioner requests a final
for ^RRession of tho premises tu peclcio^"?flnH?^"2*^ i^espotdent(a)
the issuance of a warrant to remove resDond®nh?a? ? ^ directing
the premises together
-..w t^a.vuuatefci togecner with
with costs
cost*? and
a«#4 — possession of
—.w... ^^/oaessxon or
pioueedlng,
p:.oueedlng, es_3ell jSdgS^nt fl? rfnt
as Sell as judgS^nt
against respondent(s) and.Sse and SclupLl^ t^te^set"®® °'=upancy
DATED: 10/01/n« PETITIOWER: MICHAEL KRICHEVSKY & ELENA 5VENS0M
wa.wvwsv* oc BJJIUMA >V£NS

affirms .inder
petitioner,
concents thic%chat'the'san^
thereof; tos !2ad are Su«"?attorneys
P®titioiifor
and Che
knows except
the
as to matters stated to be on information
tatters he believes tlieiii to be true Th** nw ^ * Z ^ as * o those
"«"ers not stated upon hil taowWge are®s?^fLn5=''^^^®^^®'
provided by the petitioner, its a^If= fL/ and/or records
in the file in the attorneys office This ccncained
pursuant to the provisions of rpap^iJi" verification is made
DATED: 10/03/08
Robert SEKBtATT, ESQ.
BAtSAMO ftO.^tteiatA'n*. ix»
P.C. ATtOWffiY Pe» i»BI2Tr0W5R
AK6rney8 e<kr eh6 Pceiclencr
»0 uviiwaTON sTREifr areoklVn. w ujox
(7)8) OSA.7380
Fllo ff t 0033000 • Form Of iM7Aa7d
EXHIBIT B
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF BONGS

MICHAEL KRICHEVSKY, Index No.:

Plaintiff, Date Filed:

SUMMONS
-against-

ELENA SVENSON, VICTORIA

BDELSTIN, BORIS KOTLYAR, PLAINTDFF DESIGNATES
Defendants. KINGS COUNTY AS THE
PLACE OF TRIAL.

BASIS OF VENUE:
Premises: 120 Oceana Drive West, Apt 5D LOCATION OF
Brooklyn, NY 11235 PROPERTY
—^PLAINTIFF'S RESIDENCE:
2502 86th Street
BROOKLYN, NY 11214
To the above named Defendants:

YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED to answer the complaint in this action ami to serve a
copy of your answer, or,ifthe complaint is not served with this summons,to serve a notice of
appearance, on the PlaintifPs attorneys within 20 days after service ofthis summons,exclusive
oftiie day ofservice(or within 30 days after the service is complete iftills summons is not
personally delivered to you within the State ofNew York);and in case'of your failure to qipear
or answer,judgment will be taken against you by de&ult for the reliefdemanded in the
complaint.
Dated: December // ,2008

lalsamo & Rosenblatt LLP

Attorneysfor Plaint^
80 Livingston Street
Brooklyn,NY 11201
(718)858-7399
(718)855-4173(fex)

By: Robert Ros^blatt,Esq.

EXHIBIT C
06/13/2609 03:58 7184499766 PAGE 05
S

smsm COURT OFTHECnV OF NEW YORK

cOUNrnroFmras^
ygffHASSL'jCnCfXEVS^,
'Plaintiff,
Index No. 33343/08
I:
ogninst'
DISCHARGE OF ATTORNggS

ELENA ^VCNSON,
YICTOWABDELSTEIN,
RORTRKOTiyAR,
Defendant
X

if
THE PARTIES STIPULATE AND CONSENT AS FOLLOWS;
1. Midiad Kxichevslg^ herein dischaiigesthelawfinnafBalsamofeRose^iblatt,LLP
as his attorneys at his reauest.
2« Michael Knchevslcy hereby appears prose.

Dated: Brooklyn, N.Y.

Maidi4,2009

R^ERT RO^iE?BlATT,£SQ. MICHAEL iOUCHEVSKY

OUTGOING ATTORNEY
EXHIBIT D
CIVIL COURT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK:HOUSING PART
-X
BOARD OF MANAGERS OF OCEANA
CONDOMINIUM NO.TWO
40 Oceana Drive West Index No.: 105863/2010
Brooklyn,New York 11235

Petitioner-Landlord, AFFIDAVIT OF MICHAEL

KRICHEVSKY
-against-

DENISKARDYUKOV
Respondent-Occupant
ELENA SVENSON and
MICHAEL KRICHEVSKY,
Respondents-Unit Owners,
120 Oceana Drive West, Unit 5D
Brooklyn,New York 11235

Respondents-Tenants

STATE OF NEW YORK

)ss
COUNTY OF KINGS )

MICHAEL KRICHEVSKY,being duly sworn,deposes and says:

1. I am the respondent-unit owner in this action(''Respondent-Unit O^er

Krichevsky).I am fully familiar with the facts set forth herein. I respectfully submit this
affidavit in further support ofrespondent-occupant Denis Kardyukov's(Respondent-
Occupant**)Verified Answer seeking dismissal of petitioner Board of Managers of Oceana
Condominium No.2("Petitioner") as to him.

2. Contrary to the allegations ofPetitioner, Respondent-Occupant is not a

rental tenant in the unit having an address of120 Oceana Drive West Unit 5D,Brooklyn,
New York 11235(the"UnU")

3. Rather,Respondent-Occupant has been residing in the Unit **£ree ofcharge*

as my guest since in or about January 2010.

4. Respondent-Occupant has not executed any lease with me with respect to

the Unit nor has he otherwise entered in any other agreement, whether oral or written,
requiring him to pay rent or other financial consideration with reject to his occupancy of
the Unit

6. Respondent-Occupant has not paid any rent to me nor has he provided

with any other form offinancial consideration with respect to his occupancy ofthe Unit.
Moreover, no rent or other financial consideration is due to be paid with respect to his
occupancy ofthe Unit

7. Petitioner purports to have commenced this action against Respondent-

Occupant pursuant to Real Property Law 339-kk so as to obtain an order directing that his
'"rent payments** regarding the Unit be paid directly to Petitioner.

8. As no rent payments are due to be paid by Respondent-Occupant with

respect to the Unit,Petitioner has no basis for recovery from him.

9. There are no factual issues precluding the summary digmiggni of this

Petition as against Respondent-Occupant.

10. Petitioner has no cause ofaction against Respondent-Occupant

Respondent-Occupant is clearly not a proper party to this proceeding.
 11. This proceeding isjust one step out ofothers, designed by Petitioner and

its lawyers,to harass me and Respondent-Occupant in an attempt to vacate and take

possession of my property.

12. As a consequence thereof,the Petition must be dismissed in its entirety as

against Respondent-Ocoupant.

WHEREFORE,it is respectfully requested that this Court issue an order i)

dismissbg Petitioner's Petition as to Respondent-Occupant Denis Kardyukov in its

entirety; ii)awarding Respondent-Occupant Denis Kardyukov his costs incurred in

defending this action, including all disbursements,reasonable expenses,and reasonable

attomeys' fees; and iii) awarding Respondent-Occupant Denis Kardyukov such further

and diJfferent reliefas to Interest ofJustice and this Court deemsjust and proper.

MICHAEL KRICHEVSKY

Sworn to before me this Zl'^

Day ofFebruary 2011 Mikhail SHALMivp
notary PUBUC.state of New YoiK
No.01SH6229130
^ Qualified in Kings County
Commission Expires Oct.4,2014
.... Notqiy Public
ANNA KOTT

120 OCEANA DR WEST APT 5D

BROOKLYN,NY 11235

October 6,2010

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:

On or about the 10th day ofJanuaiy 2010,1 was vacating my apartment in Oceana
condominium complex in Brooklyn, New York and was going to move in another
apartment.

While movers were loading my furniture on their truck, my neighbor Mr. Krichevsky
offered me to move in his apartment. 1 told him that 1 have spent considerable amount
of money to find and secure the apartment I was moving in and I will lose it all if1
will not move in.

In response to me, Mr. Krichevsky offered me to live in his apartment rent-fiee for
one year and I agreed.

If you have any question concerning this letter,do not hesitate to write me.

Veiy Truly Yours,

Anna Kott
EXHIBIT E
 Michael fCrichevsky
4221 Atlantic Ave
Brooklyn, NY 11224

April 25,2018 by regular mail

Natalia Kardyukova
120 Oceana Drive West, Apt 5D
Brooklyn, New York 11235

Dear Natalia:

A'-e act.^

£oz^ ^ /O^C^'7~('y6or:^
^G.Kc>AL Ce~ _
Ut^7/'G:^o<^
^ 7" )J&c7F-6>

c*^u€y~<,y:,e^ ^

/^/^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ef 75*4 _ ^'7->'\ ^^ ^ -,ji. —-v-. ~r>^^ ^

<7* ^ 7^C7'^^ 'n C7 CytC,-^^

><ie —
 'Opc>Z^^-c^—

Scc.iP-<,

//c>'^t,£,^3ic,e^ci<z./ ck^
</
y^cz. JCOT-^^^^e-c^ ^^>Zj2XcC7^
/~c^ 7~j2-A2-<.-o7^_ --~ ^Oc,
^P-c:te.^ <X ^Oyy^/-o «
,yd.Cc^^xe^7-^

£>/-^-e'Tc^. Ae^ct.

yte^Ti^yS.. ^2 ^7<c> c5i£fc^

.yl^/Ac.AAe.A<.A^C^ /
^^«--<i<-2_—
/
77
c

CA-'ZA
Michael Kriciievsky
4221 Atlantic Ave
Brooklyn, NY 1 1224

April 25, 2018 by regular mail

Natalia Kardyukova
120 Oceana Drive West, Apt 50
Brooklyn, New York 11235

Dear Natalia:

I am writing you in regard to our recent conversation about rent. 1 think that you will be better off
moving in other apartments you found for $1800 per month. Only God knows when litigation
would end and administration would stop harassing both ofus. It could be month or even years. As
to me $1800 rend per month would not be acceptable in any case.

I would like to notify you that you might not just start moving out without notice to administration.
I, as an owner, have to post $1500 deposit as security in case you or your movers make any
damage. Then, administration will wrap elevator in protected covers for movers who I believe
must be insured. I know one Russian speaking insured and inexpensive mover. If you do not know
anyone, let me know and I will give you information.

Also, please, let me know about the date you would move out, but it cannot be too long because as
you know I am fighting in court. Try to move within two weeks. You do not have to translate your
written reply into English. I will take care of it myself. Also, let me now exact time of moving so
you would not have to wait for me get the keys back.

I wish you good luck!

Sincerely,

Michael Krichevsky
 CIVIL COURT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF KINGS

INDEX NO.078015/18
Michael Krichevsky,
Petitioner,
AFFIDAVIT OFMAIL
Vagainst- SERVICE

Natalia Kardyukova,
Respondents.
"JOm DOE" and "JANE.DOE",
Respondent(s)-Undertenant(s).
Names of undertenants are unknown to
petitioner, and are fictitious
appellations intended to describe those
persons in possession ofthe premises.

STATE OF NEW YORK

COUNTY.OF KINGS

Nelli Fri4 being duly sworn,says:

I am not a party to the action; I reside at Brooklyn, New York, and I am over 18 years of
age-.

On September 20,2018,1 served the within Amended Petition License^enant by

depositing a true copy thereof,enclosed in a post-paid wrapper,in an official depository under the
exclusive care arid custody ofthe United States Postal Service within New York State,:addressed
to the following at the last known address set forth below:

BALSAMO ^.ROSENBLATT
200 Schermerhom Street
Brooklyn, New York II201

Sworn to before me
on Oct^er4,2018

ARIEBOLSHEM
*NOT PUBLIC NOTARY PUBLICSTATEOFNEW YORK
RcgistisltoaNa 018061(0789
OllBliffwl fa finttwly
EXHIBIT I
CIVIL COURT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF KINGS : HOUSING PART J
•X
MICHAEL KRICHEVSKY Index #: 78015/18
Petitioner.

-against-
NOTICE OF MOTION
NATALIA KARDYUKOVA
Respondents

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that upon the annexed affirmation of Serenay Taysin, Esq.,
the affidavit of Natalia Kardyukova, and all the pleadings and proceedings heretofore had herein,
the undersigned will move this Court, at Housing Part J, Rm. 502 at the courthouse located at
141 Livingston Street, Brooklyn, NY, on the of 2018 at 9:30 a.m., or as
soon thereafter as counsel can be heard for an Order:

a) Pursuant to CPLR § 3211 dismissing the complaint against Respondents, on the

grounds that Petitioner established a month to month tenancy by accepting rent from
the Respondents, and as such, was required to serve a 30 day notice of termination in
order to terminate the tenancy; and
b) Pursuant to CPLR 3212(b) granting summary judgment in favor of the Respondents,
on the grounds that the actions of the landlord has created a landlord-tenant
relationship between Plaintiff and Respondent by landlord's acceptance of rent from
Respondent; and
c) Granting stich other and further relief as this Crnu't deems just and proper.

Dated: Brooklyn, NY
September 19, 2018

)erenay Taysin, Esq.

Of Counsel to Bukh Law Firm P.C.
Attorneysfor Respondents
14 Wall Street, New York, N.Y. 10005
(212)729-1632
CIVIL COURT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF KINGS: HOUSING PART G
X
MICHAEL KRICHEVSKY Index U: 71467/2016
Petitioner,

-against- AFFIRMATION IN
SUPPORT

NATALIA KARDYUKOVA
Respondents
X

Serenay laysin, an attorney duly admitted to practice law before the Courts of the State

of New York, hereby affirms under the penalties of perjury:

1. I am a member at Balsamo & Rosenblatt, PC, attorneys for Respondents Natalia

Kardyukova (hereinafter "Respondent"), and as such, am fully familiar with the facts and

circumstances as stated herein.

2. I make this affirmation in support of Respondent's instant motion to dismiss Petitioner's

complaint.

A. CASE HISTORY

3. Upon information and belief, on or about August 2, 2018, the Petitioner commenced this

instant holdover proceeding based upon temiination of Respondent's license as of July 20, 2018.

Petitioner allegedly served a Notice to Quit upon the Respondents. See Notice to Quit annexed

hereto as Exhibit A.

4. On or about August 2018, the Petitioner served a Notice of Petition and Petition upon the

Respondent, and the matter was scheduled to appear in Court on August 17, 2018. See Exhibit

B.

5. However, this instant proceeding must be dismissed on the following grounds: This

Court does not have personal jurisdiction over the Respondents due to improper service of the
Notice to Quit; Petitioner has accepted rental payments from the Respondent and as such, this

"license" is actually a month-to-month tenancy, with all rights and requirements of such tenancy.

6. Therefore, this tenancy cannot be terminated by a mere Notice to Quit, but requires a 30

day Notice of Termination.

7. As such, this proceeding must be dismissed as a matter of law

B. ARGUMENTS

8. Motions to Dismiss are allowed pursuant to CPLR § 3211(a), which states"A party may

move for judgment dismissing one or more causes of action asserted against him on the ground

that (2)the court has not jurisdiction of the subject matter of the cause of action or, ....(8) the

court has not jurisdiction of the person of the defendant...."

9. As explained below, sufficient evidence exists to dismiss this proceeding on each of these

grounds.

(1) The Petitioner has accented rent from the Respondent, creating a month-to-month
tenancy, and therefore this proceeding must be dismissed

10. RPAPL 713(7) provides, in part, that after the service of a 10-day notice to quit, a special

proceeding may be brought against a licensee when his/her license has expired or has

been revoked. While no explicit definition of "licensee" is provided in RPAPL 713 (7),

a licensee in a landlord/tenant context is generally defined as someone who is granted

permission, express or implied, by the owner to use and/or occupy the subject premises.

fMinors v. Tvler. Civ Ct, Bronx County 1987], quoting Rosensteil v. Rosensteil. 20 Ad2d

71, 76; [Lst Dept 1963].) Licenses are revocable and not assignable. {Id.)
 Frequently licensee holdover proceedings are brought against a family member

(erroneously or otherwise) to evict.

11. Synthesized down to its most basic common denominator, a "tenant at will" or a month-

to-month tenant recognizes a landlord-tenant relationship and the occupant is granted

exclusive possession of a designated space while a "licensee" acknowledges an absence

of a landlord-tenant relationship and the occupant receives only unexclusive "use or

occupancy" of a premises.(See American .Tewish Theatre v Roundabout Theatre Co.. 203

AD2d 155, 156 [1st Dept 1994], citing Feder v Calieuira. 8 NY2d 400, 404 [1960];^ee

also Reynolds v. Van Beuren. 155 NY 120 (1898)[dicta]; 49 NY Jur 2d, Easements §

216.)

12. In this proceeding, the payment of rent from the Respondents to the Petitioner upon

Respondents* occupying the subject premises creates a month to month tenancy

agreement, in which the Respondent was required to pay rent and otherwise perform all

of the acts of a tenant.

13. In this instant proceeding, the Petitioner required that the Respondents pay rent in the

amount of$ 1,800.00 per month to the Petitioner's landlord as the rent for this apartment,

along with a security deposit.

14. If the landlord's conduct in retaining and cashing the tenant's rental payments reasonably

induced the tenant to believe that its tenancy was being recognized, and if the tenant acts

or fails to act in reliance on that belief, then an estoppel has been created. (See Hamann v

Claxton. 110 NYS2d 138 [App Term. 1 st Dept]; Mobil Oil Corn, v Lione. 66 Misc 2d

599; Wagner Bldg. v United Cigar-Whelan Stores Corp.. 203 Misc 382.)

15. In addition, retention of a check, even if it is not cashed, can constitute acceptance and
 result in a waiver of the right to proceed. See Walker v. Robotskv. 275 App Div 112, 88

NYS2d 207(1949); Hamann v. Claxon. 110 NYS2d 138(App Term 1" dept, 1952

16. In the instant matter, Respondent was required to pay the monthly rent directly to the

Petitioner.

17. Based upon the foregoing. Petitioner cannot conceivable claim that the Respondent is a

mere licensee, and has waived his right to proceed with this instant proceeding. The

creation of rental terms and creation of a true tenancy by Petitioner to Respondent is a

fatal defect to this proceeding.

18. When commencing a summary eviction proceeding where a landlord-tenant relationship

exists between the parties, the landlord is required to serve a Notice of Termination on the

tenant.

19. To terminate a tenancy at a time other than at the end of a definite rental term, a landlord

must serve a termination notice. If the parties never enter into a lease and yet rent is paid

on a monthly basis, a month-to-month tenancy is created, and such a tenancy can only be

terminated by service of a Notice of termination. See Real Property Law 232-a, 232-b,

232-c, Jaroslaw v. LeHigh Vallev RR Co.. 23 NY2d 991,298 NYS2d 999(1969).

20. In a month-to-month tenancy in New York City with no lease. Real Property Law 232-a

requires a notice of termination to be served at lease 30 days before the expiration of the

term.

21. If the proper notice was not served, the petition should be dismissed. See Chinatown

Apartments. Inc. v. Chu Cho Lam. 51 NY2d 786, 788, 433 NYS2d 86(1980); Carriage

Court Inn Inc. v. Rains. 138 Misc2d 444, 524 NYS2d 647(Civ. CtNY Cty 1988).

22. The failure to serve the proper predicate notices prior to the commencement of a
 summary proceeding is a fatal defect which deprives the court ofjurisdiction over the

proceeding and must result in its dismissal. See Chinatown Apartments. Inc. v. Chu Cho

Lam. 51 NY2d 786, 788,433 NYS2d 86(1980); Carriage Court Inn Inc. v. Rains. 138

Misc2d 444,524 NYS2d 647(Civ. Ct NY Cty 1988).

23. As explained by the Court of Appeals in Chinatown Apartments: "Inasmuch as service of

a proper predicate notice of intention to terminate occupancy was a condition precedent

to the termination of a tenancy under the lease, the deficiency in the notice deprived

petitioner of a predicate for reclaiming possession ofthe premises. Accordingly, the

petition to dispossess was properly dismissed." 51 NY2d at 788,433 NYS2d at 88.

24. Summary eviction proceedings are special proceedings governed entirely by statute;

accordingly, there must be strict compliance with all statutory requirements in order to

give Courts jurisdiction. See Berkeley Associates Co. v. DiNolfi. 122 AD2d 703, 705;

505 NYS2d 630(T' Dept 1986); Goldman Bros, v. Forester. 62 Misc2d 812, 814-815,

309 NYS2d 694(Civ. Ct. NY Cty. 1970). In an eviction proceeding, the statute requires

that the petition "State the facts upon which the proceeding is based." RPAPL 741(4).

25. In a holdover proceeding, the Notice of Termination must also be scrutinized for

compliance with RPAPL 741(4). Caiado v. Bischoff. 140 Misc2d 1014(Yonkers City Ct.

1988). 26. The instant predicate notices are legally insufficient as there was never a

Notice of Termination sei*ved upon the Respondents.

26. Defects in a Notice of Termination cannot be cured by amendment. See Chinatown

Apartments. Inc. v. Chu Cho Lam.51 NY2d 786, 788, 433 NYS2d 86("1980V Carriage

Court Inn Inc. v. Rains. 138 Misc2d 444, 524 NYS2d 647(Civ. Ct NY Cty 1988).

27. As Petitioner failed to comply with any of the statutory predicate notice requirements, the
 Petition must be dismissed.

28. Summary judgment may be granted upon a prima facie showing of entitlement to

judgment as a matter of law, through admissible evidence sufficient to eliminate material

issues of fact.(CPLR 3212(b); Alvarez v Prospect Hosd.. 68 N.Y.2d 320, 324, 501

N.E.2d 572,508 N.Y.S.2d 923 [1986]; Winesrad v New York Univ. Med. Center. 64

N.Y.2d 851,853, 476N.E.2d 642,487 N.Y.S.2d 316 [1985]).

29. To defeat a party's motion for summary judgment, an opposing party must "rebut [the

party's] prima facie showing"(Bethlehem Steel Corp. v Solow. 51 N.Y.2d 870, 872, 414

N.E.2d 395,433 N.Y.S.2d 1015 [1980]), by producing "evidentiary proof in admissible

form sufficient to require a trial of material questions of fact."(GIF Mktg. v Colonial

Aluminum Sales. 66 N.Y.2d 965, 968,489 N.E.2d 755,498 N.Y.S.2d 786 [1985];

Zuckerman v Citv of New York. 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562,404 N.E.2d 718,427 N.Y.S.2d 595

[1980]). Conclusory allegations are insufficient to defeat the motion.(Zuckerman,49

N.Y.2d at 562).

30. As Petitioner has clearly created a true tenancy between the parties by their actions, this

matter must be dismissed as a matter of law.

•WHEREFORE, it is respectfully requested that Respondent be granted summary

judgment in this proceeding on the basis that the actions of the Petitioner created a true landlord-

tenant relationship between Petitioner and Respondent, that the instant proceeding be dismissed
as against Respondents, and for such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper

under the circumstances.

Dated: September 19,2018

Brooklyn, NY
^jZjuluoju^
Serenay Taysin, Esq.
of counsel
Bukh Law Firm, P.O.
Attorneysfor Respondent
14 Wall Street
New York, N.Y. 10005
(212)729-1632
CIVIL COURT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF KINGS : HOUSING PART G
X

MICHAEL KRICHEVSKY Index #: 78015/18

Petitioner,

-against- AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT

NATALIA KARDYUKOVA
Respondents
X

NATALIA KARDYUKOVA,being duly sworn, deposes and says:

1. I am the named Respondents in this proceeding, and as such, I am fully familiar with the facts and
circumstances as stated herein.

2. 1 submit this affidavit in support of Respondent's motion, which seeks dismissal of Petitioner's
instant proceeding. For the reasons stated in the Affirmation of my attorney, and as stated herein, my
motion should be granted in its entirety.

3. Petitioner alleges that Respondent is a mere licensee, and not an actual tenant. However, Petitioner
is mistaken.

4. Respondent was given exclusive occupancy rights to the subject premises pursuant to the terms of a
oral agreement with the Petitioner. The oral agreement was that T would be able to reside in the subject
premises on a monthly rental basis. I would pay the sum of $1,800.00 to the Petitioner. I also paid the
Petitioner a security deposit.

5. I have made rent payments for the subject premises for a period of five years which has been
accepted by the Petitioner's landlord.

6. I have been advised by my attorney that based upon the above; this proceeding cannot continue as

Respondent is not a mere licensee of the Petitioner; rather, Respondent is a tenant with all of the rights
of such a tenant, which includes service of a proper Notice of Termination prior to the commencement

of such a proceeding as this.

7. In addition, my attorneys have advised me that the Petitioner's creation of the rental terms for the

apartment, and my payments to the Petitioner's landlord in Petitioner's name acceptance of my rent

payments created a month-to-month tenancy between myself and the Petitioner.

8. I have been further advised by my attorneys that Petitioner cannot rely on the facts of the petition in

this case hereto as a basis for a new proceeding as the Petitioner improperly sough to terminate

Respondent's tenancy with a Notice to Quit as opposed to a Notice of Termination.

9. My attorneys have informed me that even though the Petitioner can conceivably recommence this
proceeding against me, he is effectively barred from doing so until properly terminating the tenancy, if
possible. As such, the matter should be dismissed

WHEREFORE,it is respectfully requested that the instant proceeding be dismissed in its entirety; that
Respondent be granted legal fees in the amount of $2,500.00; and for such other and further relief as
this Court deems just and proper under the circumstances.

Dated: September 19, 2018

Brooklyn, NY

Natalia K

Swooi to before me this

day of September 2011

/OF NEW YORK\

Nofary Public •NOTARY PUBLIC:
CIVIL COURT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF KINGS: HOUSING PART
X
MICHAEL KRICHEVSKY
Petitioner,

Index 78015/18

-against-

NATALIS KARDYUKOVA
Respondents,

X
NOTICE OF MOTION

BALSAMO & ROSENBLATT

ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENTS
200 SCHERMERHORN STREET
BROOKLYN,N.Y. 11201
(718)858-7399
(718)855-4173 fax

Certified Pursujant to Rule 130

r'
'
^fiREflAYTAYSIN,Esq.
EXHIBIT J
10/5/2018 Laws of New York

As of 10/04/2018 10:30AM,the Laws database is current through 2018 Chapters

Civil Practice Law and Rules

§ 402. Pleadings. There shall be a petition, which shall comply with

the requirements for a complaint in an action, and an answer where there
is an adverse party. There shall be a reply to a counterclaim
denominated as such and there may be a reply to new matter in the answer
in any case. The court may permit such other pleadings as are authorized
in an action upon such terms as it may specify. Where there is no
adverse party the petition shall state the result of any prior
application for similar relief and shall specify the new facts, if any,
that were not previously shown.

http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/lawssrch.cgi7NVLWO; 1/1
10/5/2018 Laws of New York

As of 10/04/2018 10:30AM,the Laws database is current through 2018 Chapters

1-321

Civil Practice Law and Rules

Rule 3014. Statements. Every pleading shall consist of plain and

concise statements in consecutively numbered paragraphs. Each paragraph
shall contain, as far as practicable, a single allegation. Reference to
and incorporation of allegations may subsequently be by number. Prior
statements in a pleading shall be deemed repeated or adopted
subsequently in the same pleading whenever express repetition or
adoption is unnecessary for a clear presentation of the subsequent
matters. Separate causes of action or defenses shall be separately
stated and numbered and may be stated regardless of consistency. Causes
of action or defenses may be stated alternatively or hypothetically. A
copy of any writing which is attached to a pleading is a part thereof
for all purposes.

http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/lawssrch.cgi?NVLWO: 1/^
10/5/2018 Laws of New York

As of 10/04/2018 10:30AM, the Laws database is current through 2018 Chapters

1-321

Civil Practice Law and Rules

Rule 3025. Amended and supplemental pleadings, (a) Amendments without

leave. A party may amend his pleading once without leave of court within
twenty days after its service, or at any time before the period for
responding to it expires, or within twenty days after service of a
pleading responding to it.
(b) Amendments and supplemental pleadings by leave. A party may amend
his or her pleading, or supplement it by setting forth additional or
subsequent transactions or occurrences, at any time by leave of court or
by stipulation of all parties. Leave shall be freely given upon such
terms as may be just including the granting of costs and continuances.
Any motion to amend or supplement pleadings shall be accompanied by the
proposed amended or supplemental pleading clearly showing the changes or
additions to be made to the pleading.
(c) Amendment to conform to the evidence. The court may permit
pleadings to be amended before or after judgment to conform them to the
evidence, upon such terms as may be just including the granting of costs
and continuances.
(d) Responses to amended or supplemental pleadings. Except where
otherwise prescribed by law or order of the court, there shall be an
answer or reply to an amended or supplemental pleading if an answer or
reply is required to the pleading being amended or supplemented. Service
of such an answer or reply shall be made within twenty days after
service of the amended or supplemental pleading to which it responds.

http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/lawssrch.cgi?NVLWO: 1/1
10/5/2018 Laws of New York

As of 10/04/2018 10:30AM,the Laws database is current through 2018 Chapters

Civil Practice Law and Rules

Rule 3023. Construction of verified pleading. The allegations or

denials in a verified pleading must, in form, be stated to be made by
the party pleading. Unless they are stated to be made upon the
information and belief of the party, they must be regarded for all
purposes, including a criminal prosecution, as having been made upon the
knowledge of the person verifying the pleading. An allegation that the
party has not sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief with
respect to a matter, must, for the same purposes, be regarded as an
allegation that the person verifying the pleading has not such knowledge
or information.

http;//public.leginfo.state.ny.us/lawssrch.cgi?NVLWO:
 CIVIL COURT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK
HOUSING PART, COUNTY OF KINGS

Michael Krlchevsky, L&T 78015/18-KI

Petitioner,
- against - DECISION & ORDER
Mot Seq: 2,4
Natalia Kardyukova,
Respondent(s).

ZHUO WANG,JHC

Recitation pursuant to CPLR § 2219(a) of the papers considered in the review of

these motions:

Papers Numbered

Respondent's Notice of Motion, Affirmation, Affidavit 1

Petitioner's Notice of Motion, Affidavit 2

In this licensee-holdover proceeding, Petitioner moves separately for the following

relief:(1) recusal;(2) disqualification of Respondent's counsel;(3) striking the answer and

granting judgment in favor of Petitioner. Respondent moves to dismiss the petition or,

alternatively, for summary Judgment. Both motions are consolidated in this decision &

order.

On her motion, Resjsondent asserts that the 10-day notice to quit served upon her
is defective because she is, in fact, a tenant who has paid Petitioner rent. Namely,

Respondent avers in an affidavit annexed to her motion that, "Respondent was given
 exclusive occupancy rights to the subject premises pursuant to the terms of a oral

agreement...I would pay the sum of $1800.00 to the Petitioner. I also paid the Petitioner

a security deposit."

Although the motion was submitted without written opposition, at oral argument

on December 20, 2018, Petitioner swore under oath that he had never received payment

for rent from her. Moreover, Petitioner essentially disputes the assertion in his moving

papers.

On his motion, Petitioner argues that Respondent's counsel, Bukh Law Firm,

should be disqualified because another law firm, Balsamo and Rosenblatt, who initially

appeared on the motion as Of Counsel to Bukh Law Firm, had a conflict of interest.

Specifically, Petitioner asserts that Robert Rosenblatt, a partner at Balsamo and

Rosenblatt, represented him approximately 10 years ago on an unrelated matter.

Although Bukh Law Firm notified the Court of the conflict and appeared through its own

associate for all subsequent appearances. Petitioner nevertheless asserts that "all

attorneys know that attorney Bukh in Russian couches respondent to lie and/or mislead

the court" and has further engaged in conduct to delay or prolong resolution of this

matter. Secondly, Petitioner argues that this Court must recuse itself because of disparate

treatment allegedly toward him and counsel because:(1) this Court swore Petitioner in at

court appearances but did not require Respondent's counsel to do the same; (2) it

submitted Respondent's motion without written opposition despite Petitioner's admitted

failure to submit opposition papers on two occasions;(3) denied Petitioner's application

for use & occupancy under RPAPL 745 at Respondent's first appearance; and (3) asked

questions of Petitioner in regards to his oral application to amend his petition, which

purportedly revealed that "judge and attorneys were incompetent and needed me to

school them on CPLR"(Pet. Affidavit at 2). Although Petitioner initially "gave [this Judge]

the benefit of the doubt that [he] is deceitful and supposed [rather] that he is arrogant

and incompetent judge" (Pet. Affidavit at 12), Petitioner has since concluded that this

Court was engaged in a conspiracy with Respondent's counsel to delay resolution of this

case. Lastly, Petitioner argues that issuance of a final judgment of possession, money

judgment, and a striking of the answer is warranted because Respondent has failed to

submit written opposition to his motion.

Petitioner's motion for recusal. disqualification of counsel, and a default judgment

At the outset, this Court must address the portion of Petitioner's motion seeking

recusal by this Court as aprioriXo determining the matters at bar. Other than the assertion

that this Court has personal bias or prejudice toward Petitioner {see 22 NYCRR

100.3[E][1][a][i]), Petitioner points to no other statutory ground for disqualification.

Absent a statutory basis for disqualification, the decision to recuse is "within the personal

conscience of the court" {see People v MacShane, 11 NY3d 841, 842 [2008]). Upon a
 review of the record herein, this Court finds no basis-statutory or otherwise -to warrant

recusal from this matter.

Next, this Court turns to the motion seeking disqualification of Respondent's

counsel. "While generally, a party seeking to disqualify an opponent's attorney must

prove:(1) the existence of a prior attorney-client relationship between the moving party

and opposing counsel, (2) that the matters involved in both representations are

substantially related, and (3) that the interests of the present client and former client are

materially adverse, no presumption of disqualification will arise if either the moving party

fails to make any showing of a risk that the attorney changing firms acquired any client

confidences in [his or her] prior employment or the nonmoving party disproves that the

attorney had any opportunity to acquire confidential information in the former

employment" {Sharifi-Nistanak v Coccia, 119 ADSd 765, 765-66 [2d Dept 2014]).

Here, Petitioner alleges only that a partner of Bukh's of-counsel, Robert Rosenblatt,

had once represented him. Although this point is undisputed, that representation

admittedly occurred approximately 10 years ago. Moreover, upon the discovery that Mr.

Rosenblatt once served as Petitioner's counsel, the Bukh law firm made all future

appearances on the instant motion to dismiss. In any event. Petitioner fails to allege that

the matters in which Rosenblatt represented him are substantially related to the litigation

at bar or that Rosenblatt learned of any confidences during his employment for Petitioner.
As such, that portion of Petitioner's motion seeking disqualification of Respondent's

counsel is denied.

Finally, the portion of Petitioner's motion seeking to grant him a final judgment on

default is denied because Respondent has simply never defaulted. Moreover, and given

the potential meritorious defense raised in her motion to dismiss. Petitioner fails to meet

his burden of establishing judgment as a matter of law in this licensee-holdover

proceeding. The Court has considered the remainder of the merits-based arguments

raised on Petitioner's motion, and finds them to be wholly without merit.

Respondent's motion to dismiss

"[I]n considering a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR R. 3211 (a)(7)[based on

failure to state a claim], the court should accept the facts as alleged in the [petition] as

true, accord the petitioner the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and

determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory {see

Tirpack v 125N. 10, LLC, 130 AD3d 917, 918[2d Dept 2015][internal quotations omitted]

citing Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 88 [1994]). "The test to be applied is whether the

[petition] gives sufficient notice of the transactions, occurrences, or series of transactions

or occurrences intended to be proved and whether the requisite elements of any cause

of action known to our law can be discerned from its averments"{see JP Morgan Chase v

JH. Eiec ofNew York, Inc., 69 AD3d 802, 803 [2d Dept 2010]).
 Here, it cannot be said that the petition fails to state a cause of action. Moreover,

although Respondent submitted evidentiary material by way of affidavit averring that she

is a month-to-month tenant who paid rent in the amount of $1800.00, Petitioner denied

under oath that any payments were ever made and disputes her assertion in his moving

papers. Indeed, despite her statement that "I have made rent payments for the subject

premises for a period of five years," she fails to annexes proof of any such payments in

support of her assertion. Finally, the adjudication of this matter is not ripe for summary

disposition since triable issues offact exist as to whether Respondent had a tenancy. Thus,

according Petitioner the benefit of every possible favorable inference, as this Court must.

Respondent has failed to establish that Petitioner fails to state or have a licensee-holdover

claim against her. Accordingly, it is

Ordered that Petitioner's motion is denied in its entirety; and it is further

Ordered that Respondent's motion is also denied in its entirety; and it is further

Ordered that the parties and attorneys are directed to appear for trial, to be sent

to Part X forthwith, on February 13, 2019 m Part J at 9:30 a.m.

Dated: January 23, 2019

ENTER:

rm.
Houslnp Coiirf
6'"