IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT Eastern District of New York IN THE MATTER OF: Elena Svenson Debtor.

______________________________ Michael Krichevsky Plaintiff/Creditor, vs. Elena Svenson ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

CHAPTER 7 CASE NO. 1-12-43050-ess Adversary Proceeding No. COMPLAINT

Defendant/Debtor BOARD OF MANAGERS OF OCEANA CONDOMINIUM NO. TWO, INTERNAL ) REVENUE SERVICE, INC ) Defendants/Creditors, ) Victoria Edelstein, DDS; Boris Kotlyar, ) COOPER SQUARE REALTY, INC; Lana ) Kaplun personally, Farid Badalov personally) Boris Meydid personally, John Doe and Jane) Johns personally (fictitious names to be ) discovered) ) Defendants. ) )

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Plaintiff, Pro Se for his Complaint, respectfully alleges upon his firsthand knowledge, except where it stated upon information and belief, or where it stated that he verily believes it to be true: JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. The plaintiff, Michael Krichevsky, at all times herein mentioned was and still is a resident of the
County of Kings and the State of New York.

2. The defendant, Elena Svenson, at all times herein mentioned was and still is a resident of the County of
Kings and the State of New York.

3. All other defendants did and are doing business and committed herein torts against plaintiff and his
property in the County of Kings and the State of New York. 4. Venue lies in this District pursuant to Section 1391(b) of Title 28 of the United States Code.
Krichevsky vs. Svenson (Bankruptcy Court) Page 1 of 19

5. Jurisdiction is conferred on this Court pursuant to the provisions of Section 1334 of Title 28 of the United Stated Code in that this proceeding arises in and is related to the above-captioned Chapter 7 case under Title 11 and concerns property of the Debtor, validity of liens and certain debts in that case. 6. This Court has both personal and subject matter jurisdiction to hear this case pursuant to Section 1334 of Title 28 of the United States Code, Section 157(b)(2) of Title 28 of the United States Code, 7. This Court has jurisdiction to hear matters in violation of Constitution of The United States. 8. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction to hear all state law claims pursuant to Section 1367 of Title 28 of the United States Code. 9. This matter is primarily a core proceeding and therefore the Bankruptcy Court has jurisdiction to enter a final order FACTS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION 10. On or about August 2000, Michael Krichevsky and Elena Svenson entered into a written

contract with developer to buy a condominium unit, known as and located at 120 Oceans, Drive West, Apt. 5D, Brooklyn, NY 11235 as joint partners. The purchase price for the subject premises was $420,000.00. 11. The contract implied and parties had agreed orally to equally share all costs and expenses

associated with the purchase. 12. Michael Krichevsky solely and completely provided the down payment in the amount of

$42,000. 13. At that time, Elena Svenson owned a cooperative unit located at 2580 Ocean Parkway, Apt.

2M, Brooklyn, NY 11235. Elena Svenson represented that she was going to obtain a home equity line of credit (hereinafter "HELOC") against her cooperative unit in order to liquidate funds necessary for her to contribute her share of the purchase price of the subject condominium unit. 14. Upon information and belief, Elena Svenson's HELOC application was denied

right before closing and closing took place without her contributing any money at
Krichevsky vs. Svenson (Bankruptcy Court) Page 2 of 19

closing, which was delayed for that reason and took place on or about November 26, 2001 instead of September 26, 2001. 15. For the reason of delaying the closing, the seller charged buyers additional fees

which were paid by Krichevsky at closing. 16. On or about November 26, 2001, Michael Krichevsky and Elena Svenson became the owners in fee of real property known as and located at 120 Oceana Drive West, Apt 5D, Brooklyn, NY by purchasing the property from Brighton Two LLC. 17. On or about November 26, 2001, Michael Krichevsky and Elena Svenson each executed a first mortgage on the subject property, in the amount of $378,000.00 held by JP Morgan Chase Bank. 18. Said premises were conveyed by deed dated November 26, 2001 and recorded on February 27, 2002, Reel 5494, Page 2289. 19. The funds used to purchase the property were solely and completely contributed by the plaintiff, Michael Krichevsky, which sums exceeded 55,000.00 including the down payment and closing costs. 20. Before closing Elena Svenson promised to sell her cooperative and contribute money later. 21. On or about October of 2002, the cooperative unit was sold for approximately $180,000. 22. However, Elena Svenson failed to contribute any funds toward the purchase of the condominium. 23. Michael Krichevsky owns in fee no less than an undivided one half interest in said premises. 24. Despite the parties' prior agreement to share costs and expenses, all monthly carrying expenses including mortgage payments, utility charges, taxes and maintenance fees were solely and completely contributed by plaintiff, Michael Krichevsky. 25. Said monthly carrying expenses were approximately $3,600.00. 26. In addition, on or about December 2001, the parties commenced major renovations in the subject condominium unit which included a rehabilitation of the bathroom, ceilings throughout, plumbing throughout, and tiling throughout. 27. All costs and expenses associated with the renovations, totaling over $75,000 were paid solely and completely by plaintiff Michael Krichevsky.
Krichevsky vs. Svenson (Bankruptcy Court) Page 3 of 19

28. On or about July 2005, Michael Krichevsky and Elena Svenson tried to refinance their mortgage in order to get a lower monthly payment. 29. Because Elena Svenson after graduation in 2003 did not find any job and did not pay her credit card bills on time, her FICA score was low. 30. That fact made plaintiffs score lower as well, which prevented him from refinancing. 31. As the partys relationship began to deteriorate and at the advice of mortgage broker, Elena Svenson entered into an agreement with plaintiff whereby she agreed to transfer her one-half interest in the subject property to Plaintiff in order for him to be the sole borrower and owner, which would qualify plaintiff for a higher FICA score. 32. Thereafter, on or about August 11, 2005, Michael Krichevsky and Elena Svenson refinanced their mortgage and entered into a loan consolidation, extension and modification agreement whereby Washington Mutual Bank, N.A. became the holder of a consolidated note in the amount of $565,000. 33. All monthly carrying expenses under the refinance agreement, including mortgage payments, utility charges, taxes and maintenance fees, were solely and completely contributed by plaintiff, Michael Krichevsky. 34. Said monthly carrying expenses were approximately $4,500,00. 35. Immediately after closing, closing agent told Krichevsky that transfer of Svensons share will cost plaintiff approximately $50,000.00. 36. Immediately after closing, plaintiff learned from Svenson of an approximately $100,000 federal tax lien on the property based on Elena Svenson's failure to pay her personal income taxes for the 2002 fiscal year. 37. Due to the 35 and 36 and at the advice of a certified public accountant, the transfer was held in abeyance pending a resolution of Elena Svenson's tax obligations in an effort to avoid an appearance of impropriety. 38. Svenson told plaintiff that there is some mistake with her 1099 form and she needs time to resolve it. 39. Plaintiff paid $1500 to the accountant hired by Svenson to settle this issue with IRS. 40. Upon information and belief, despite the passage of all these years, defendant Svenson never contacted
Krichevsky vs. Svenson (Bankruptcy Court) Page 4 of 19

the Internal Revenue Service. 41. On or about December 2005, both Krichevsky and Svenson moved out of the subject premises and entered into a one-year lease agreement with Victoria Edelstein at a monthly rent of $2,500. The lease contained an option to renew for an additional three years at 3% annual increases. 42. At the termination of Edelsteins one year term, Edelstein requested to remain as a month-to-month tenant while she explored options to purchase her own residence. 43. Plaintiff and Defendant Svenson agreed and put up this apartment for sale. During this period, Krichevsky showed the apartment to several potential purchasers. 44. 45. On or about June 2008, Edelstein informed plaintiff that she was denied a request for a mortgage. At that time, plaintiff had an interested purchaser for the subject premises, but Edelstein refused to allow

potential purchasers access to view the apartment.. 46. 47. As such, Michael Krichevsky informed Edelstein that he would not renew her lease. Nonetheless, Edelstein refused to vacate. 48. Upon information and belief, between June of 2008 and November of 2009, there were at least three (3) potential purchasers interested in the subject premises, all of whom were denied access by Edelstein to view the apartment. 49. Upon information and belief, all three potential purchasers purchased different units in the same condominium complex. 50. On or about August 2008, Krichevsky and Svenson commenced a summary holdover proceeding against Edelstein in order to recover possession of the subject premises (Kings L&T Court Index 95633/08). 51. Parties intent was to sell the condominium unit upon recovery of possession. 52. During the pendency of the holdover proceeding, Edelstein alleged in open court that prior to holdover preceding started, she and Boris Kotlyar, as tenants, had entered into a one year lease agreement with Svenson, as landlord, commencing in October 2008 at a monthly rent of approximately $2,825.00 per
Krichevsky vs. Svenson (Bankruptcy Court) Page 5 of 19

month. 53. Due to the events in paragraph 52, Plaintiff started litigation in Kings County Supreme Court action bearing Index No 33343/2008 to protect plaintiffs interests and force the sale of said condominium to above mentioned buyer. 54. Said lease was fraudulently entered into without plaintiff's knowledge or consent. 55. Plaintiff in the possession of the evidence that said lease was backdated by Svenson, Edelstein and Kotlyar. 56. Upon information and belief, said lease was signed on November 7, 2008, and not on September 29, 2008 as the lease states. 57. This conduct is criminal, constitutes perjury and fraud upon the court because it was created, produced to plaintiff and entered into the court record by their attorney. 58. Accordingly, this lease is void, and plaintiff is asking this Hon. court to enter declaratory judgment that it is indeed void. 59. Svenson informed plaintiff and he verily believes that since August 2008 until November 2009, Svenson has collected and retained all rent monies received from Edelstin, which is approximately $35,000. 60. Plaintiff was informed by board of managers of condominium and he verily believes that Svenson never contributed any money towards maintenance fees of the condominium. 61. Upon information and belief Svenson never paid any tax from the above amount of money. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION AS AGAINST DEFENDANT SVENSON Breach of contract and oral agreement 62. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation in paragraphs above with the same force and effect as if fully set forth at length herein. 63. Svenson's failure to contribute to purchase of this property and pay any carrying costs and expenses associated with the subject condominium unit constitute a breach of the parties' contract and oral agreement to equally share all costs and expenses. 64. Moreover, Svenson's offer of a lease agreement to Edelstin during the pendency of a summary
Krichevsky vs. Svenson (Bankruptcy Court) Page 6 of 19

holdover proceeding commenced by both Krichevsky and Svenson constitutes an intentional breach of the parties' agreement to recover possession of the subject premises and sabotaged Plaintiffs ability to sell the unit. 65. Svenson's actions have substantially damaged plaintiff in an amount to be determined at trial, but no less than $600,000. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTIOIN AS AGAINST DEFENDANT SVENSON Unjust Enrichment 66. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each of the allegations contained in paragraphs above with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein. 67. Defendant Svenson has received the benefit of the payments made by Plaintiff to purchase subject premises and acquired half of the interest in it. 68. Svenson was contractually and equitably obligated to plaintiff, but had not paid her share to purchase said premises thought promised to do so. 69. Defendant Svenson has received the benefit of the payments made, and continued to be made by plaintiff to cover all costs and expenses associated with the subject condominium unit. 70. Svenson has not paid her share of the expenses, though demands have repeatedly been made. 71. In equity and in good conscience, Svenson should be ordered to pay her share of the carrying costs and expenses, and should be ordered to transfer all rent monies collected from the subject premises to plaintiff 72. Svenson has been unjustly enriched at the expense of plaintiff in an amount to be determined at trial, but no less than $600,000. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION AS AGAINST DEFENDANT SVENSON Waste 73. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each of the allegations contained in paragraphs above with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein. 74. Svenson has committed waste upon the subject premises, by, among other things, neglecting and failing to pay her personal income taxes for the 2002 fiscal year, thus causing a federal lien to be
Krichevsky vs. Svenson (Bankruptcy Court) Page 7 of 19

placed on the property, and, by neglecting and failing to collect market rent for the subject premises. 75. Svenson has committed waste upon the subject premises by neglecting and failing to contact IRS and her accountant to work out payment plan after Plaintiff hired an accountant for Defendant. 76. Svenson's actions have caused plaintiff damages in an amount to be determined at trial, but no less than $150,000. 77. Defendant's actions were willful, wanton and negligent, and as such, plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages in the sum of $750,000. AS AND FOR A FOUTH CAUSE OF ACTION AS AGAINST DEFENDANT SVENSON Conversion 78. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each of the allegations contained in paragraphs above with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein. 79. Svenson, without authority, has refused to provide plaintiff with his share of profits derived from the rental of the subject premises. 80. As such, Svenson has excluded plaintiff and has wrongfully converted plaintiffs property to her own. 81. By reason of the foregoing, plaintiff has sustained money damages in the sum to be determined at trial, but no less than $25,000. 82. Defendant's actions were willful, wanton and malicious, and as such, plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages in the sum of $50,000. 83. WHEREFORE, the plaintiff demands judgment awarding damages in the amount of $75,000. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION AS AGAINST DEFENDANTS SVENSON, EDELSTEIN AND KOTLYAR Tortuous Interference with Prospective Economic Relationships 84. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each of the allegations contained in paragraphs above with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein. 85. Defendants have intentionally and knowingly interfered with Plaintiff's prospective economic relations by: a) refusing to provide access to potential purchasers to the apartment, and b) by entering
Krichevsky vs. Svenson (Bankruptcy Court) Page 8 of 19

into a lease agreement without Plaintiffs knowledge and consent during the pendency of a holdover proceeding to recover possession of the premises. 86. Defendants were aware of Plaintiff's intent to sell the subject premises. 87. Defendants have intentionally and knowingly interfered with Plaintiff's contractual obligations and ability to pay expenses associated with subject premises by a) conspiring not to pay plaintiff rent; b) fraud upon the court by filing into court record backdated lease; c) disobeying the Judges Bunyan order to turn $8000.00 of rent to Plaintiff. 88. As a direct or proximate result of the forgoing: a) Plaintiff defaulted on his mortgage obligations and all of his properties are in foreclosure; b) Plaintiffs credit rating has been destroyed; c) Plaintiffs existing credit lines were cut off and new credit was denied. 89. Plaintiff has been damaged and the Defendants are jointly and severally liable for all applicable damages under the law, including punitive and treble damages. 90. WHEREFORE, the plaintiff demands judgment awarding punitive damages to be determined at trial. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION AS AGAINST DEFENDANTS SVENSON, EDELSTEIN AND KOTLYAR fraudulent conveyance 91. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each of the allegations contained in paragraphs above with the same force and effect as if fully set forth at length herein. 92. Since Svenson never paid her share for purchase of said property, as well as any expenses, she was indebted to plaintiff as to creditor. 93. 94. The rent money that she received was even less than plaintiff had to pay as total monthly expenses. The alleged lease agreement entered into between Defendant Svenson and Defendants Edelstin and Kotlyar, during the pendency of a summary proceeding, without the knowledge or consent of the Plaintiff constitutes a fraudulent conveyance. 95. As such, the lease agreement should be deemed null and void.
Page 9 of 19

Krichevsky vs. Svenson (Bankruptcy Court)

96.

Plaintiff has been damaged and the Defendants are jointly and severally liable for all applicable damages under the law, including punitive damages.

97.

Plaintiff should be entitled to a judgment for damages in an amount to be determined at trial, but no less than $500,000.

98.

In addition, Defendants' actions were willful, wanton and malicious, and as such, plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages in the sum of $250,000.

99.

WHEREFORE, the plaintiff demands judgment awarding damages to be determined at trial. SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION AS AGAINST DEFENDAT SVENSON Accounting

100.

Plaintiff repeats and realleges each of the allegations contained in paragraphs above with the same force and effect as if fully set forth at length herein.

101.

From November 2001 until December 2005, the parties had agreed to pay the joint obligations for the subject premises including but not limited to: down payment, mortgage, utilities, maintenance, improvements, repairs and other expenses. Upon information and belief, defendant has failed to pay any noteworthy portion of these expenses. It is unknown what amounts, if any, have been contributed by defendant.

102.

In addition, defendant has rented the premises without any notice to plaintiff and has not accounted for the rents she has presumably received.

103. 104. 105.

Plaintiff lacks sufficient knowledge of the exact amount of rents and profits due and owing to him. Plaintiff lacks an adequate remedy at law, as such, an accounting is required, WHEREFORE, the plaintiff demands order directing defendant Svenson or defendant Edelstein to produce all books and records. EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION AS AGAINST DEFENDANT SVENSON Partition

106.

Plaintiff repeats and realleges each of the allegations contained in paragraphs above with the same force and effect as if fully set forth at length herein.

Krichevsky vs. Svenson (Bankruptcy Court)

Page 10 of 19

107.

By the Defendant Svensons breach of the contract, waste and intentional pushing this property into foreclosure, she is waving her right to this property and abandoned it.

108. 109.

She has no stake in it and use it to harm the plaintiff. Plaintiff no longer able and desires to hold and use the premises in common with defendant Svenson and is entitled to an order partitioning the premises.

110.

At this point in time the sale of the subject condominium unit is impossible due to loss of equity in it and it is "under water."

111.Actions of defendant Svenson brought about the following negativities that affect the price and ability to sell the unit which: a) slander of title; b) numerous liens; c) clouded title; d) difficulty for prospective buyers to obtain a mortgage; e) board of managers initiated foreclosure of the unit. 112.Because defendant Svenson is literally acting as a "monkey on the back" of plaintiff, he is unable to save this property from the future imminent foreclosure by the banks or HOA. 113.Defendant's actions have made partition appropriate and necessary. 114. No settlement between the parties has ever been reached and the property remains titled in the names of the plaintiff and defendant. 115. WHEREFORE, the plaintiff demands declaratory judgment awarding the plaintiff all interests in the subject property. AS AND FOR A NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION AS AGAINST DEFENDANT SVENSON Fraud 116. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each of the allegations contained in paragraphs above with the same force and effect as if fully set forth at length herein. 117. 118. 119. Plaintiff and Svenson met in 1992. Svenson told plaintiff that she is unmarried and looking to start a family. In 1992 during Plaintiffs first meeting with Defendant, she committed actual fraud by fraudulently concealing her marital status and telling the Plaintiff and his friends that she is unmarried while
Krichevsky vs. Svenson (Bankruptcy Court) Page 11 of 19

been married to Mr. Sam Svenson. 120. 121. 122. 123. Svenson told plaintiff that she is studying in medical school to become a psychologist. Plaintiff trusted Svenson and entered into relationship with her. In 1994 the parties child, David, was born. As a result of this breach of trust, Plaintiff was induced into relationship with Defendant supporting her for more than 15 years. 124. 125. In 2000 Svenson told plaintiff that she will graduate in 2001. Based on above statement on or about August 2000 Defendant induced Plaintiff into joint purchase of subject premises by intentionally misrepresenting to Plaintiff that in 2001 she would graduate from her medical school, will become a doctor and will contribute to expenses associated with purchase of subject premises, as well as to future expenses. 126. Defendant induced Plaintiff into joint purchase of subject premises by intentionally withholding the fact that from 1998 till 2001 she did not attend her school at all. 127. Defendant Svenson instead of contributing money to plaintiff, fraudulently concealed embezzlement, conversion or fraudulent transfer of at least $100,000 from joint account to her personal accounts, exhibit A. 128. She wrote several checks to her family members in Germany without plaintiffs knowledge and consent. 129. After the sale of cooperative apartment she told plaintiff that she deposited the check into joint account, but she never did this. 130. In 1994 Defendant feloniously breached Plaintiffs trust and used Plaintiff to commit marriage/immigration fraud by inducing Plaintiff Michael Krichevsky to name his new born son David Svenson instead of David Krichevsky. 131. Upon information and belief, defendant Svenson fraudulently concealed the truth about her marriage with Sam Svenson in order to submit false paperwork to Immigration Authorities for US Citizenship and Naturalization as if David Svenson, Elena Svenson and Sam Svenson are real
Krichevsky vs. Svenson (Bankruptcy Court) Page 12 of 19

family, exhibit B. 132. 133. 134. As such her Citizenship is VOID. Plaintiff believed defendant Svenson and relied on her misrepresentations to his detriment. Her misrepresentations, fraudulent concealment of truth and deceit continued from 1992 until 2008 and plaintiff invokes doctrines of continuous violation and equitable tolling. 135. In New York statute of limitation for fraud is six years and this claim is timely, because her last fraudulent act against plaintiff was committed in 2010 when she fraudulently concealed from the plaintiff and the Family Court during Contempt proceeding against plaintiff that she started working as home attendant while claiming that her income is zero. 136. On or about July 2008 plaintiff discovered that defendant Svenson has stolen a few hundred dollars from his pants. 137. Before going to bed he counted cash, and when he woke up he counted again, and some cash was missing. 138. 139. 140. Plaintiff believes now that defendant Svenson regularly "emptied his pants". As a result of the forgoing, Plaintiff demands his money back. He has been damaged and the Defendant is liable for all applicable damages under the law in the amount to be determined at trial AS AND FOR A TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT SVENSON Constructive Trust 141. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each of the allegations contained in paragraphs above with the same force and effect as if fully set forth at length herein. 142. The law of equity requires that a constrictive trust be created on behalf of Plaintiff in order to prevent unjust enrichment by Defendant Svenson. 143. 144. Plaintiff and Defendant had a confidential relationship and owed each other fiduciary duty. Defendant was unjustly enriched when Plaintiff transferred to the Defendant half of the subject premises without Defendant investing any money.
Krichevsky vs. Svenson (Bankruptcy Court) Page 13 of 19

145.

Defendant was unjustly enriched when she transferred to him her personal accounts at least $100,000 from the joint account with plaintiff.

146. 147.

Defendant promised to pay her share to acquire subject premises, but failed to do so. As a result of the forgoing, Plaintiff has been damaged and the Defendant is liable for all applicable damages under the law in the amount to be determined at trial

148.

WHEREFORE, the plaintiff demands judgment awarding damages as follows:

AS AND FOR ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION AS AGAINST DEFENDANT SVENSON Promissory Estoppel 149. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each of the allegations contained in paragraphs above with the same force and effect as if fully set forth at length herein. 150. The Defendant should be held liable under doctrine of Promissory Estoppel as she on or about August 2000 made a clear and definite promise to contribute to down payment of subject premises at the time of closing, which was scheduled to be a one year later. 151. Plaintiff reasonably relied on defendants promise to his detriment and was injured by having to pay virtually all expenses when Defendant did not keep her promise. 152. As a result of the forgoing, Plaintiff has been damaged and the Defendant is liable for all applicable damages under the law in the amount to be determined at trial. 153. WHEREFORE, the plaintiff demands judgment awarding damages as follows: AS AND FOR TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION AS AGAINST DEFENDANTS SVENSON, EDELSTEIN AND KOTLYAR Fraud/Fraud upon the court 154. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each of the allegations contained in paragraphs above with the same force and effect as if fully set forth at length herein. 155. Defendants committed Fraud upon the Court by conspiring to hire one attorney who aided and abetted fraud by simultaneously representing them in three deferent actions against Plaintiff even thought there was conflict of interest between them.
Krichevsky vs. Svenson (Bankruptcy Court) Page 14 of 19

156. 157.

Upon information and belief said attorney advised them to create the backdated lease. He employed prohibited by law and/or ethics litigation practices causing Plaintiff great financial damage and delayed resolution of the litigation for almost 4 years as of today.

158.

As a result of the forgoing Plaintiff has been damaged and the Defendants are jointly and severally liable for all applicable damages under the law, including punitive and treble damages.

159.

WHEREFORE, the plaintiff demands judgment awarding damages at trial.

AS AND FOR A FIRST CLAIM AGAINST BOARD OF MANAGERS OF OCEANA CONDOMINIUM NO. TWO (OCEANA); COOPER SQUARE REALTY, INC (COOPER), LANA KAPLUN, FARID BADALOV AND BORIS MEYDID AGENT BREACHING FIDUCIARY DUTY TO PRINCIPAL. 160. 161. 162. 163. . All allegations above are incorporated by this reference as if fully restated herein. That there was/is the principal-agent relationship between plaintiff and OCEANA and COOPER. That there was/is the agent-principal relationship between COOPER and KRICHEVSKY. That there is/are a written and implied contracts spelling out all the duties owed to

KRICHEVSKY, as principal. 164. That there was fiduciary relationship between KRICHEVSKY and KAPLUN together with

BADALOV and MEYDID. 165. That the only reason for the existence of these corporations is to benefit, serve and protect interests

and safety of the owners of condominium units. 166. 167. 168. That earnings of these entities derived from individual payments of unit owners. That the authority to act OCEANA and COOPER derive from the unit owners and their consent. That those duties were breached on or about October 2008 by failure and/or refusal to act when

KRICHEVSKY informed OCEANA and COOPER about controversy between KRICHEVSKY, SVENSON and EDELSTEIN. 169. That on or about October of 2008, EDELSTEIN entered in FRAUDULENT lease with SVENSON

without COOPER and KRICHEVSY knowledge and consent, and that SVENSON does not intend to
Krichevsky vs. Svenson (Bankruptcy Court) Page 15 of 19

pay the monthly common charges. 170. KRICHEVSKY specifically demanded that OCEANA starts legal action against SVENSON and

EDELSTEIN. 171. 172. KAPLUN promised KRICHEVSKY to take care of this. As a result of this breach of duty, KRICHEVSKY had to hire an attorney, pay him personally to

protect his interests and lose about $5000.00 in attorney fees. 173. Eviction of EDELSTEIN and KOTLYAR was delayed for almost a year resulting in lost

opportunities and damages. 174. That on or about June of 2009, KRICHEVSKY demanded that KAPLUN starts any action against

SVENSON and EDELSTEIN. 175. That on or about August 2009, KRICHEVSKY demanded second time that KAPLUN starts legal

action against SVENSON and EDELSTEIN. 176. That after OCEANA or COOPER in October-November of 2009 cancelled EDELSTEIN

membership and/or access to health club and gym, EDELSTEIN vacated KRICHEVSKY condo unit. 177. As result of fidiciaries failure and delay to act anyhow, EDELSTEIN was not evicted until about

October-November of 2009. 178. As result of the forgoing KRICHEVSKY did not collect any rent from his unit, which made him

unable to pay his mortgage as well. 179. As direct result of the foregoing KRICHEVSKY was damaged in the sum of about $35,000 for that

year. 180. As direct result of the forgoing KRICHEVSKY condo unit entered into foreclosure by mortgage

company. 181. On or about January 15, 2010 plaintiff brought in Cooper's office two checks in the amount of

$2900 each from new tenant, Vladimir. 182. 183. Badalov refused to consider application for tenancy before plaintiff pays the alleged debt. Plaintiff explained Badalov that after tenant is approved, plaintiff would be able to cash the checks
Page 16 of 19

Krichevsky vs. Svenson (Bankruptcy Court)

and pay for maintenance. 184. Upon information and belief they rejected this tendency in order to drive plaintiff's unit further into

the debt and foreclosure. 185. OCEANA instituted self-serving policy Incorporated into By-Laws, were they have a first right of

refusal to buy any condominium unit. 186. Accordingly, if plaintiff unit goes into foreclosure and sold at auction they will be the first to buy it

on the cheap to be able to resell for a profit. 187. This is the reason plaintiff believes OCEANA and COOPER conspired to drive plaintiff's unit into

foreclosure. 188. 189. This is the reason plaintiff believes Oceana created controversy and filed a lien on plaintiff's unit. OCEANA, in fact, filed foreclosure action against plaintiffs unit, but proceedings is stayed due to

the bankruptcy proceedings in this court. 190. Because they never notified plaintiff of their intention to file a lien, they violated New York State

Lien law and this lien is void. 191. As the direct result of OCEANA and COOPER refusal to approve KRICHEVSKY tenant, he was

unable to collect $2900.00 per month in rent up until today. 192. 193. 194. 195. That the above mentioned fiduciaries entered in activities against KRICHEVSKY interest. That these fiduciaries owed KRICHEVSKY the duty of loyalty. That their duties entered into conflict of personal interests and self-dealing. That after KRICHEVSKY explained them his situation and requested assistance, they became

beligerent and hostile. 196. After KRICHEVSKY told BADALOV that his extortion leaves KRICHEVSKY no choice, but to

sue him personally for damages, he laughed and told KRICHEVSKY to do what he has to do. 197. Upon information and belief BADALOV was removed from managing OCEANA by COOPER

due to complaints of other people as well. 198. Defendant Boris Meydid substituted Badalov and continued harassment of plaintiff by disabling
Page 17 of 19

Krichevsky vs. Svenson (Bankruptcy Court)

entrance keys numerous times within the past year. 199. When plaintiff would come to Cooper office to complain, Meydid would torturously tell plaintiff that some kind of computer virus attacked their computer disabling entrance keys. 200. These acts constitute nuisance and harassment. They designed to constructively evict plaintiff's guests. 201. WHEREFORE, the plaintiff demands judgment awarding damages and declaratory judgment that OCEANA lien is void. AS AND FOR FIRST CLAIM AGAINST IRS 202. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each of the allegations contained in paragraphs above with the same force and effect as if fully set forth at length herein. 203. Defendant IRS never served plaintiff with a notice of intention to file a lien against his property in violation of New York State Lien Law. 204. Defendant IRS violated US Constitution by not giving plaintiff Notice and an opportunity to be heard in violation of due process clause. 205. 206. 207. Accordingly, this court lacks jurisdiction to enforce their lien. They slandered the title of plaintiffs property and plaintiff is damaged. Plaintiff is lost as to why they did not file a lien against defendant Svenson's cooperative apartment at 2620 Ocean Parkway, Apt 3K in Brooklyn, New York. 208. 209. As such their lien is void. WHEREFORE, the plaintiff demands judgment awarding damages and declaratory judgment that IRS lien is void. Under penalty of perjury Dated: Brooklyn, New York July 31, 2012 _______________________________________________ MICHAEL KRICHEVSKY, Pro Se, All rights reserved

Krichevsky vs. Svenson (Bankruptcy Court)

Page 18 of 19

ELENA SVENSON 2620 Ocean Parkway, Apt 3K Brooklyn, NY 11235 COOPER SQUARE REALTY, INC 6 East 43rd Street New York, NY 10017 BOARD OF MANAGERS OCEANA CONDOMINIUM No. TWO, 40 Oceana Drive West Brooklyn, NY 11235 LANA KAPLUN 120 Oceana Drive West Apt 5F Brooklyn, NY 11235 FARID BADALOV C/O COOPER SQUARE REALTY, INC 6 East 43rd Street New York, NY 10017 BORIS MEYDID C/O COOPER SQUARE REALTY, INC 6 East 43rd Street New York, NY 10017

Krichevsky vs. Svenson (Bankruptcy Court)

Page 19 of 19