..

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW

YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK

GENERAL ELECTRIC CAPITAL CORPORATION,

Index No.:
Date Filed:

0510070

Plaintiff designates
NEW YORK County as
the place of trial
Basis of venue:

Defendants' Place of

Plaintiff,

Business

- against -

FRYDMAN AND COMPANY, INC. A/K/A

FRYDMAN AND COMPANY,

SUMMONS

JAN 18 2005

Defendants.
TO THE ABOVE-NAMED DEFENDANT:
You are hereby summoned to answer the Verified Complaint in this action and to
serve a copy of your Answer on the Plaintiffs' Attorney, as listed below, within 20 days after
the service of this Summons, exclusive of the date of service (or within 30 days after the
service is complete if this Summons is not personally delivered to you within the State of
New York); and in case of your failure to appear or answer, judgment will be taken against
you by default for the relief demanded in the Complaint.
Dated: Astoria, New York
December 27, 2004

S & RINALDI, LLP

By:
Maximiliano Rinaldi
Attorneys for Plaintiff
General Electric Capital Corporation
30-97 Steinway Street, Suite 203
Astoria, New York 11103
(718) 777-8887
Defendant's Address:
Frydman and Company, Inc.
a/k/a Frydman and Company
111 Fulton Street, 4lh Floor
New York, NY 10038

Supreme Court Records Online Library page 1 of 8

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

COUNTY OF NEW YORK
GENERAL ELECTRIC CAPITAL CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,

Index No.:

O5 100709

VERIFIED COMPLAINT

- against

FRYDMAN AND COMPANY, INC. A/K/A

FRYDMAN AND COMPANY,

JAN 18.2005

Defendant.

GENERAL ELECTRIC CAPITAL CORPORATION ("GECC or Plaintiff '), by its attorneys

Nanis & Rinaldi, LLP., for its Complaint, upon knowledge with respect to itself and its own
acts, and upon information and belief as to all other matters, alleges as follows:

THE PARTIES
1.

At all times hereinafter mentioned, Plaintiff was, and still is, a corporation organized and
existing under the laws of the State of Delaware with a place of business located at 1010
Thomas Edison Boulevard, S.W. Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52404.

2.

At all times hereinafter mentioned, Defendant, Frydman and Company, Inc. a/k/a Frydman
and Company, (Frydman") was/is a domestic corporation with a place of business located in
New York County, New York .

3.

At all times hereinafter mentioned, Frydman was/is a foreign corporation duly authorized
to conduct and conducting business in the State of New York.

4.

At all times hereinafter mentioned, Frydman was/is a foreign corporation doing business
in the State of New York.
5.

At all times hereinafter mentioned, Frydman was/is a domestic partnership duly

existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York.

Supreme Court Records Online Library - page 2 of 8

6.

At all times hereinafter mentioned, Frydman was/is a foreign partnership duly authorized
to conduct and conducting business in the State of New York.

7.

At all times hereinafter mentioned, Frydman was/is a foreign partnership doing business in
the State of New York.

8.

At all times hereinafter mentioned, Frydman was/is a domestic sole proprietorship duly
existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York.

9.

At all times hereinafter mentioned, Frydman was/is a foreign sole proprietorship duly authorized
to conduct and conducting business in the State of New York.

10.

At al1 times hereinafter mentioned, Frydman was/is a foreign sole proprietorship doing
business in the State of New York.

11.

At all times hereinafter mentioned, Frydman was/is a domestic entity duly existing under and
by virtue of the laws of the State of New York.

12.

At all times hereinafter mentioned, Frydman was/is a foreign entity duly authorized to
conduct and conducting business in the State of New York.

13.

At all times hereinafter mentioned, Frydman was/is a foreign entity doing business in the
State of New York.

14.

At all times hereinafter mentioned, Frydman was/is a domestic limited liability company
existing in and by virtue of the State of New York.
15.

At all times hereinafter mentioned, Frydman was/is a foreign limited

liability

company authorized to and conducting business in the State of New York.

16.

At all times hereinafter mentioned, Frydman was/is a foreign limited liability company
doing business in the State of New York.
THE LEASES

17.

On or about September 27, 200l, Frydman, as lessee, executed and delivered a

lease
2

Supreme Court Records Online Library - page 3 of 8

agreement to Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc. ,("Toshiba") as Lessor. ("Lease l ").
Lease 1 covers equipment listed in the Lease (the "Equipment''). (Account Schedule No.:
6982094- 001). GECC is the ultimate holder/assignee of Lease 1.
18.

Pursuant to the terms of Lease 1,Frydman leased the Equipment at a monthly rate of

$599.00 plus applicable taxes for a term of 63 months.

19.

On or about February 12, 2002, Frydman, as lessee, executed and delivered a lease
agreement to Toshiba, as Lessor. ("Lease 2''). Lease 2 covers equipment listed in the Lease
(the "Equipment''). (Account Schedule No.: 7100777-001 ). Lease 2 was modified on or about
February 22, 2002 to add Frydman's address. GECC is also the ultimate holder/assignee
of Lease 2.
20.

Pursuant to the terms of Lease 2, Frydman leased the Equipment at a monthly rate
of

$790.00 plus applicable taxes for a term of 60 months. Lease 1 and Lease 2 shall
hereafter be referred to as the "Leases".
21.

The Leases provide that Frydman will be liable for all legal fees and other costs and expenses
incurred in connection with, or arising or resulting from any event of default or the exercise of
GECC's remedy under the Lease.

22.

The Leases provide that upon any event of default, GECC may recover from Frydman as
liquidated damages for loss of bargain and not as a penalty the present value of (i) any and
all amounts which may be due and payable by Frydman to GECC under the Leases, plus; (ii)
all rent payments remaining through the end of the lease term, plus; (iii) the Purchase Option
amount, if stated, or if no fixed Purchase Option amount is given, GECC's reasonable
estimate of the fair market value of the Equipment as of the end of the lease term, all
discounted at the higher of 6% or the lowest rate allowed by law.

23.

The Leases provide that GECC may charge Frydman a late charge of equal to the higher of
10% of any late payment or $22.00, but no more than the highest legal rate.
3

Supreme Court Records Online Library - page 4 of 8

24.

The Leases provide that interest will accrue at the lower of 18 % per annum or the highest
legal rate from the date due until paid.

DEFENDANT'S

25.

DEFAULTS

Frydman defaulted on its obligations pursuant to the terms of the Leases by, inter alia,
failing to make payments commencing on June 24, 2004 through date pursuant to Lease l
and June 18, 2004 pursuant to Lease 2.

26.

The total amount due to GECC pursuant to the Leases is $51,233.16 ($21,787.69 pursuant to
Lease 1 and $29,445.47 pursuant to Lease 2) plus interest at the default rate, late charges,
attorneys' fees incurred and other collection expenses (the "Debt").
27.

GECC demanded payment of the Debt from Frydman.

28.

Frydman failed to satisfy the Debt despite demand.

29.

Under the Leases, Frydman has returned the Equipment to GECC.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST FRYDMAN

30.
31.

GECC repeats the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 29.

Frydman has failed to pay GECC the amounts owing pursuant to the Leases despite
demand.

32.

Pursuant to the Leases, Frydman made available to GECC the Equipment and GECC
repossessed the Equipment. Pursuant to the Leases, Frydman is obligated to pay to GECC
the deficiency balance.

33.

Accordingly, Frydman is liable to GECC for and GECC has been damaged in the amount of
$51,233.16 plus interest at the default rate, late charges, co11ection expenses, including
attorney's fees and costs, pursuant to the Lease less any amounts recovered by GECC in the
sale of
4

Supreme Court Records Online Library page 5 of 8

the Equipment.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST

34.
35.

FRYDMAN

GECC repeats the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 33.

Pursuant to the terms of the Leases, Frydman has agreed to pay all of GECC's expenses,
including attorneys' fees and costs, incurred in enforcing and protecting its rights under the
Lease.

36.

Therefore, Frydman is liable to GECC for collection expenses, including its reasonable
attorney's fees and costs in an amount which cannot be determined now, but is estimated to
be not less than $6,000.00.
WHEREFORE, GECC demands judgment against the Defendant as follows:
(a)

(c)

on its first cause of action against Frydman, in the amount of

$51,233.16 plus outstanding interest at the default rate,
late charges and collection expenses, including attorney's
fees and costs, less any amounts recovered by GECC in
the sale of the Equipment.
(b)
on its second cause of action against Frydman for
collection expenses, including attorneys' fees and
costs;
such other and further relief as the Court deems appropriate.
Dated: Astoria, New York
December 27, 2004

Attorneys for Plaintiff

General Electric Capital
Corporation 30-97 Steinway
Street, Suite 203 Astoria, New
York 11103
(718) 777-8887
5

Supreme Court Records Online Library - page 6 of 8

l_Z/)7 /2004 14:211 FAI 718 777 84112

..

NANIS & RINALDI

'

GE EHAIL

Ill008

VERIFICATION
STATE OF IOWA )
) SS.:
COUNTY OF LINN )

DEBB WHITE. being duly sworn deposes and says:

I am a Litigation Specialist employed by General Electric Capital Corporation

("GECC), the Plaintiff' in the within action; I have read the annexed Verified
Complaint, know the contents thereof and the same are true to my knowledge, except
those matters therein which are stated to be alleged on information and belief, and as to
those matters I believe them. to be true. The basis for the allegations made upon
information and belief is my review of documents maintained by GECC in the
ordinary course of their business.

DEBB WHITE

Ii

Supreme Court Records Online Library

page 7 of 8

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

COUNTY OF NEW YORK

---------------------------------- X
GENERAL ELECTRIC CAPITAL CORPORATION,

Index No.:

Plaintiff,
- against FRYDMAN AND COMPANY, INC. A/KIA
FRYDMAN AND COMPANY,
Defendant.

---------------------- - ------------x

SUMMONS AND VERIFIBD COMPLAINT

NANIS & RINALDI, LLP

By: Maximiliano Rinaldi

Attorneys for Plaintiff
GENERAL ELECTRIC CAPITAL CORPORATION
30-97 Steinway Street, Suite 203
Astoria, New York 11103
(718) 777-8887

Supreme Court Records Online Library page 8 of 8

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK - NEW YORK COUNTY

PRESENT:

LESLIE S.LOWENSTEIN
SPECIAL REFEREE
.,,

PART

Li

82R

Index Number : 100709/2005

GENERAL ELECTRIC CAPITAL

INDEX NO.

vs

FRYDMAN AND COMPANY

MOTION DATE

Sequence Number :002

MOTION SEQ, NO.

HEAR AND REPORT

MOTION CAL. NO.

Imotion

to/for ------

PAPERS NUMBERED
Notice of Motion/ Order to Show Cause - Affidavits,

Exhibits ...

Answering Affidavits - Exhibits ----------Replylng Affidavits ---------------

Cross-Motion:

Yes

No

Upon the foregoing papers, It Is ordered that this

motion

SPECIAL
REFEREE

Dated:

AUG 8, 2008

Check one:

LESLIE S. LOWENSTEIN

[ ] FINAL DISPOSITION

Check if appropriate:

NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

[l DO NOT POST

REFERENCE

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORUPIREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW 'IORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
71 THOMAS STREET

-------------------- ---------------------------- -----------------x

General Electric Capital Corporation,
Plaintiff,

NEW YORK, NY 10013-3821

INDEX NO. 100709/05

-againstFryd man and Company, Inc.,

a/k/a Frydman and Company,

Defendant.

------------------------------ ------------------ ------------------- x

REFEREE'S REPORT &

RECOMMENDATIONS

TO THE SUPREME COURT NEW YORK COUNTY: A PART 17

APPEARANCES:

LESLIE S.LOWENSTEIN
SPECIAL REFEREE

For Plai ntiff:

Nanis & Rinaldi, LLP by,
Maximiliano Rinaldi,
Esq. 30-97 Steinway
Street Astoria, NY 11103
For Defendant:
Wrobel & Schatz LLP
by, Steven I. Fox, Esq.
l 040 Avenue of the
Americas New York, NY
10018

By decision and order of Justice Emily Jane Goodman dated January 13, 2006 and filed with the
Office of the Special Referee on January 20, 2006 the issue of calculating the sums due plaintiff from
defendant with respect to the first and second causes of action asserted in the plaintiffs complaint was;
referred to a Special Referee to hear and report with recommendations.

The parties to this proceeding appeared before the undersigned for hearing on June 29, 2006.
The parties were represented as denominated above throughout all proceedings. The hearing was
commenced and completed on June 29, 2006.
The complete transcription of the proceeding accompanies this report. The parties were afforded the

opportunity to subm it by August 4 .2006 post hearing matter in the form of a memorandum of law.
Post hearing mailer was timely received from both parties. The foregoing matter is likewise filed
together with this report as are: the documents (exhibits) that were admi tted into evidence at the
hearing held before the undersigned.
l take judicial notice (CPLR 440 1) of the file of the County Clerk whi ch contains papers relative to
this ac11on.
FACTS

The facts in the instant proceeding are as follows.

This is an action commenced in 2005 wherein the plaintiff seeks a recovery from defendant for sums due
and owing relative to two equipment leases entered into by the defendant with non party Toshiba America
Information Systems, Inc (hereinafter Toshiba). The defendant leased two photocopiers under separate leasing
agreements with Toshiba. Toshiba assigned the leasing agreements to the plaintiff herein. Defendant defaulted
upon the leasing agreements. Plaintiff thereafter commenced the instant action to effect collection of the sums
due and owing upon the leasing agreements.
The court as per its decision and order of January 13, 2006 granted summary judgment in favor of the
plaintiff upon the first two causes of action of its complaint. Plaintiffs first cause of action seeks a recovery
from the defendant for sums due under the two leasing agreements. Plaintiffs second cause of action seeks a
recovery of counsel fees and costs in the instant action.
The court as per iits decision and order of January 13, 2006 directed that the mailer of calculati ng

the plaintiff s recovery of i its damages and counsel fees be referred to a Special Referee to hear and
report with recommendations.

The matter was heard and is reported upon as indicated below.

HEARING
At the hearing the plaintiff called Ms. Barbara Bishop as a witness.
The witness offered initial testimony wherein she set forth that she is an account manager for
the plaintiff. Two leasing agreements were introduced into evidence. The witness described the two
leasing agreements at issue in this action. The witness testified that one of the leasing agreements
involved in this action relates to a Toshiba 5570 copier. The leasing agreement for this equipment
called for 63 monthly payments at a rate of $599 per month. The second leasing agreement related
to a Savin 413 copier. This leasing agreement called for 60 monthly payments at a rate of $790 per
month. The terms of the leasing agreements were described by the witness as being identical with
the exception of the length of the lease and the monthly payments.
ln addition to offering testimony as to the general terms of the leases the witness testified as
to the specific lease terms as same deal with defaults that may occur in these leases. The witness
then described various remedies that the plaintiff was entitled to effect with respect to the leasing
agreements including the entitlement by the plaintiff to repossess the leased equipment and effect
the sale thereof.
The witness then testified that the defendant had defaulted upon the leasing agreement relative
to the Toshiba 5570 copier on June 24, 2004 and t hat the defendant had defaulted upon the lease
relative to the Savin 413 copier on June 18, 2004.
Further testimony was adduced of the witness which set forth that the Toshiba 5570 copier
was recovered by the plaintiff from the defendant in September of 2004 . The witness testified
that with respect to this equipment under the terms of the leasing agreement there remained due
and owing under the terms of the leasing agreement the sum of $21,787.69. The witness then set
forth that the defendant was given a $200 credit for the sale of the copier which reduced the
defendant 's arrears to $21,587.69. Interest at the allowable contractual default rate of 18% for the
default period running from June 24,
3

2004 through June 30, 2006 resulted in additional arrears of $7,836.33. The witness concluded
that the total arrears due and owing by the defendant to the plaintiff under the agreement relative
to the Toshiba 5570 copier through June 30, 2006 was $29, 424.02.
The witness continued her testimony with respect to the Savin 413 copier setting forth that as
the resul t of the defendant's default under the leasing agreement relative to this equipment
arrears totaling in the sum of $29,445.47 had accrued. The defendant was given a credit of $800
for the sale of the equipment which reduced the defendant's arrears to $28,645.47. Interest for the
period of the default ranging from June 18, 2004 through June 30, 2006 at the allowable
contractual default rate of 18% resulted in additional arrears of $t 0,484.24 . The witness
concluded that the total arrears due and owing by the defendant to the plaintiff through June 30,
2006 under the agreement relative to the Savin 413 copier was $39,129.71.
The sum and substance of the testimony of this witness was that the total arrears due and
owing by the defendant to the plaintiff under the terms of the two equipment leases relative to the
above described photocopying machines through June 30, 2006 was $68,553.73.
Thereafter the witness was cross examined by the defendant.
Testimony was adduced from the witness setting forth that the low resale price for the
leased equipment at issue in this action was routine and primarily due to rapidly changing
technology which makes a photocopier obsolete over a short period of time.
In the context of the cross examination, counsel for the defendant applied for the production
of certain documentary matter and to adjourn the instant reference. The applications were denied
upon the record.
A brief redirect examination took place following the completion of cross examination wherein
the witness set forth that under the terms of the leasing agreements the plaintiff was under no
obligation to
4

sell the subject equipment and that same was discretionary .

Upon completion of the redirect examination the testimony of the witness was concluded.
Thereafter Maximiliano Rinaldi, Esq was called as a witness for the plaintiff.
The witness offered narrative direct testimony with respect to the second cause of action for
the recovery of counsel fees and costs upon which the court had granted the plaintiff summary
judgment.
The witness set forth the nature of his fee arrangement with the plaintiff which included a flat
rate of $2,500 relative to collection efforts which become contested. The wit ness testified that
once a trial commences the plaintiff agreed to pay his firm an hourly rate. The witness stated that
he has been paid
$2,500 by the plaintiff to date.
The witness further stated that he was seeking an additional recovery of counsel fees for 6.5
hours at the rate of S162 per hour for additional services which had not yet been billed to the
plaintiff.
The defendant set forth upon the record that the sum sought for recovery as and for counsel
fees and costs in this matter was not an unreasonable sum and waived cross examination 1
Upon completion of the testimony of this witness the instant proceeding was concluded.
FINDINGS OF FACT/CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

The undersigned having considered the proof, testimony and evidence adduced at the hearing
as well as the post hearing submissions of the parties herewith makes the following findings
based upon the principles of law set forth below.
With respect to the plaintiff s first cause of action the undersigned has reviewed the proof,
testimony and evidence adduced i n the context of the testimony offered by plaintiffs witness
Ms. Barbara Bishop. I find the testimony of this witness to be credible and same was furthermore
based upon credible evidence admitted at the hearing. The witness appropriately attested to the
damages incurred by the

plaintiff under the terms of the two equipment leasing agreements at issue and set forth the
defendant's liability there under. ln sum the witness sufficiently established the accuracy of the
plaintiffs contentions and computations with respect to defendant's defaults under the two
equipment leasing agreements which arc the subject of this action and the undersigned's
reference.
As such I find that there is due and owing by the defendant to the plaintiff with respect to the
equipment leasing agreement relative to the Toshiba 5570 photocopier the sum of $29,424.02. I
further find that with respect to the equipment leasing agreement relative to the Savin 413
photocopier there is due and owing the sum of $39,129.7 1. The sum total due and owing by the
defendant to the plaintiff under the terms of the two equipment leasing agreements through June

30, 2006 is $68,553.73

With respect to the recovery of attorneys fees and costs as sought by the plaintiff in its second
cause of action, the undersigned has considered the circumstances of this matter to detem1inc the
extent of the recovery of counsel fees and costs by plaintiff.
With regard to the recovery of sums relative to the legal services provided on behalf of the
plaintiff, it has been held as a matter of law that an award of counsel fees must be supported by
proof of billings and services rendered, [Cwiklinski v Cwiklinski, 115 AD2d 951 (4th Dept. l
985)]. TI1e courts have set forth the guidelines for determining appropriate counsel fees.
In determining the propriety and reasonableness of an attorney's claim for services, the court should
consider the time spent and the difficulties involved in the matter for which the services were rendered,
the nature of the services, the amount involved, the professional standing of the counsel, and the results
obtained, [Matter of Karp, 145 AD2d 20R ( I '1 Dept. 1989)].
ln the matter at hand l find upon consideration of the testimony, proof, evidence and the
memoranda submitted herewith that defendant has set forth on the record that to the extent that
plaintiff might be entitled to the recovery of a counsel fee, defendant had no objection to
plaintiffs recovery of a

counsel fee summing in the amount of a base fee of $2.500 plus an additional amount of 6.5
hours for legal services rendered at the rate of$162 per hour. The sum total due and owing as and
for counsel fees and costs is therefore determined by the undersigned to be $3,553.00.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The undersigned having computed above the sums due and owing under the first and second
causes of action in the plaintiff s complaint herewith make the following recommendations.
With respect to the plaintiffs first cause of action I recommend that upon the issuance of an
order of the court confirming this report, plaintiff should be granted a recovery in the sum of
$68,553.73 upon its first cause of action with additional interest to accrue thereon at the rate of
18% until either said sum is satisfied or until judgment is entered by the plaintiff.
With respect to the plaintiff s second cause of action the undersigned recommends that
upon confirmation of this report the court direct the defendant to pay the plaintiff counsel fees in
the sum of
$3,553.00 for all legal services rendered by plai ntiffs counsel on behalf of plaintiff.
I further recommend that defendant be directed by the court to satisfy the sums due and

owing upon the two equipment leases and for counsel fees within thirty days after service upon
the defendant of a copy of the court's order together with notice of entry.
Tn the event that the defendant fails to timely pay the sums due and owing upon the two

equipment leases and counsel fees as awarded herein, plaintiff should be permitted by the court
to enter a money judgment in its favor against the defendant for like sums together with costs,
interest and disbursements

Leslie S.
Lowenstein

all without further court order (CPLR 2222).

This constitutes the report and recommendations of the Special Referee .

Respectfully submitted,

AUG 82008
Dated:

- ---SPECIAL REFEREE,

,u,14 ; . ,, .......

SUPR

EME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY

PRESENT

EMILY JANE GOODMAN

PART 17

Index Number : 100709/2005

GENERAL ELECTRIC CAPITAL

INDEX NO.

vs

FRYDMAN AND COMPANY

MOTION DATE

Sequence Number : 003

CONFIRM/EJECT REFEREE REPORT

MOTION seq. NO.

The following papers. numbered 1 to

MOTION CAL. NO.

were read on this motion to/for-----PAPERS

NUMBERED

Notice of Motion/ Order to Show Cause - Affidavits - Exhibits ...

Answering Affidavits - Exhibits
Replying Affidavits -----

Cross-Motion:

-------

'- - -

Yes No

Upon the foregoing papers. It Is ordered that this motion to confirm Referees Report date 8/6/06 is resolved per so
ordered stipulation of settlement, dated 4/13/07 (copy attached)

Dated:

4/20/02

EMILY JANE GOODMAN.

Check one:

FINAL DISPOSITION

Check if appropriate:

DO NOT POST

NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

PAGE 02/04

WROBEL & 50-iATZ LLP

NANIS 6. RINALDI

SUPREME COURT OF 11IE STATE Of NBW

YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK

index No.: l00709/0S

GENERAL ELECTRIC CAPITAL CORPORATION.

Plaintiff',

SO ORDERED

STIPULATION

- against -

fl!00%

FRYDMAN AND COMPANY, INC. A/K/A

FRYDMAN AND COMPANY,

<

Defendant.
UPON reading and filing of the report of Special Referee Leslie S. Lowenstein, Esq
(the Referee),

dated August 8, 2006, un entered August 21 1 2006 1 the affirmation of Maximiliano

Rinaldi dated August 29, 2006, the notice of motion dated August 29, 2006, the
affirmation in opposition of. Steven I.Fox, dated September 1) ,2006, the reply affirmation of

Maximiliano Rinaldi, dated October 2, 2006, and all of the exhibits annexed thereto, and
upon the pleadings and proceedings had herein and the motion having been submitted on
October 5, 2006; Plaintiff's General Electric Capital Corporation's ("GECC" or "Plaintiff'')
Motion to Confirm the: Referees Report is resolved as follows:

1 . Plaintiffs motion is granted in its entirety and the Clerk of the Court is directed
to enter judgment against the Defendant Frydman and Company, Inc. a/kla Frydman and
Company ("Frydman or Defendant) in the amount of $68,553.73 plus interest at the default
rate of interest of 18% from July l , 2006 until the date judgment is entered, plus attorney's
fees in the amount of
$3,553.00 and costs to be determined by the Clerk of the Court upon review of the bill of
costs from Plaintiff (the "Judgment"). GECC may enter the Judgment in any County in the
State of New York. However, GECC and the Clerk of the Court are stayed from entering

Judgment contingent on

the

WROBEL & SCHATZ LLP

NANIS & RINALDI

PAGE

03/04

iOD3

Defendant's satisfactory compliance and completion of all of the following conditions:

Defendant shall pay to GBCC the amount $30,000.00 (the ''Settlement Amount") as follows:

I
LA

A.
Payment of $10,000.00 to be received GECC by on or before April 16, 2007;
B.
Payment of $I0,000.00 to be received GECC by on or before April 30,2007;
C. Payment of $10,000.00 to be received GECC by on or before May 25, 2007;
The payments made pursuant to this Stipulation shall be payable to General Electric Capital
Corporation a n d shall be delivered to GECC. 1010 Thomas Edison Blvd. S.W., Cedar Rapids,
52404, Attn.: Ms. Candace Boyer. PAYMENTS MUST BE RECEIVED BY GECC BY ON OR
BEFORE THE DUE DATES. TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE WITR RESPECT TO THE
PAYMENTS. If Defendant shall comply with all the terms of this Stipulation and make
all of the payments when due and the payments clear, GECC shall deliver to Defendants
counsel a stipulation of discontinuance and Defendant and Plaintiff shall be deemed to
have also executed and exchanged mutual limited releases, limited to the actions and
claims that were raised or could have been raised between the parties to this Stipulation
pertaining to the Leases as defined in the Complaint. Defendants counsel shall file the
discontinuance within five (5) business days and provide a copy of the filed discontinuance
to Plaintiffs counsel upon receipt of same.
2.

Defendant shall be in default pursuant to this Stipulation, or any agreement. document

or instrument entered into in connection herewith, for failure to make the above payments when
due and failure to cure upon five (5) business days written notice to Defendant's counsel via
facsimile at the facsimile number set forth below . Upon Defendant's default and its failure to
timely cure the default pursuant to the notice, the Settlement Amount shall be deemed vacated and
of no force; and effect and the Clerk of the Cout1 shall on enter the full

amount

of the

Judgment, on notice to Defendant's counsel. via facsimile no less than 24 hours prior to entry
of Judgment, less credit for
2

04/ 20/ 2007 11:47

817

212-42,1.-

WROBEL & 504ATZ

LLP
NANIS & Rif\Al.Dl

PAGE 04/04

any payments made on account of this Stipulation plu., the amount of legal fees incurred (not
to exceed $1,000.00) as a result of the enforcement of this Stipulation. An affidavit from

GECC and/or an affirmation of its counsel shall be sufficient to establish proof requited to
enter judgment, including proof of the remaining amount due, Defendant's default and failure
to timely cure the default. Upon presentment of the above, the Clerk shall enter the
Judgment forthwith.
J. This Stipulation may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be

deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same agreement. A

facsimile signature shall be deemed an original for the purposes of this Stipulation.
4. Counsel for the parties have actual authority to bind their clients with respect to
the terms of this Stipulation.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, counsel for the parties hereto have executed this Stipulation as

of the date and year set forth opposite their names.

Dated: Astoria, New York
April 13, 2007
NANJS & RINALDI, LLP
Attorneys for Plaintiff

By:

_,_

_,
_
Maximiliano Rinal
di, Esq.
30-97 Steinway Street, Suite 203
Astoria. New York 11103

(718) 777-8887
(718) 777-8452
(facsimile)

WROBEL & SCHATZ LLP

Attorneys fi
By:---7"-'--..,.q.--,,.c.+- "-""'---

Steven Fox,Esq.

1040 Avenue of the Americas,

11111 Fl.
New York, Now York 10018
(212) 421-8100
(212) 421-8170 (facsimile