Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 12


ELENA SVENSON, F-28901-08/10B
Respondent. Oral argument requested


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

sworn to the day of July, 2010, an upon all the pleadings and proceedings heretofore had

herein, the undersigned will move this Court at Part 27, thereof, to be held at the Courthouse

located at 330 Jay Street, Brooklyn, New York on the 13th day of July, 2010 at 11:00 a.m. in the

forenoon of that day or as soon thereafter as counsel can be heard:

For an order by the Court to Recuse himself and order new hearing, and for such other

and further relief as to this Court seems just and proper.

TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that, pursuant to Section 2214(b) of the Civil Practice Law

and Rules, all answering papers, if any, shall be served at least seven (7) days before the return
date of this motion.

Dated: Brooklyn, New York

July , 2010
Michael Krichevsky, Pro Se
4221 Atlantic Ave
Brooklyn, New York 11224
(718) 687-2300

Attorney for SVENSON
2306 Coney Island Ave, 2nd Fl
Brooklyn, NY 11223

ELENA SVENSON, File No: 142040

Docket No.:P-28901-08/10B

-against- AFFIDAVIT



) SS:

MICHAEL KRICHEVSKY, being duly sworn, deposes and says,

1. I am the Respondent in this action. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein. I

respectfully submit this affidavit in support of Notice of Motion to Recuse and Order new



2. On October 27, 2008 Petitioner quietly filed fraudulent Petition for Order of Protection

against Respondent forcing him out of his apartment on 4336 Manhattan Ave in Brooklyn,

New York which Petitioner abandoned in summer of 2008 and moved to her apartment at

2620 Ocean Pkwy, Apt 3K, Brooklyn, New York.

3. After Police came to arrest Respondent, but missed him Respondent fled this apartment as he

knew that he will be arrested if he stayed there.

4. Respondent appeared with his attorney in Kings County Family Court for a hearing on said


5. During said hearing it became obvious that her complaint is sham. Petitioner withdrew said

petition and it was dismissed.

6. Next, after refusing parties’ private DNA testing proposed by Respondent, Petitioner filed

motion to estop respondent from getting DNA test ordered by the court, and after about 6

month of motion practice withdrew her motion again and undergone said testing.

7. Next, Petitioner filed Objection to Temporary Order of Support and after getting

Respondent’s reply to said Objection withdrew it again.

8. Next, her attorney Yonatan Levoritz served harassing subpoenas and notices to produce

together with notices of depositions upon Sergey Drapkin, Concela Engineering, P.C., Leon

Mandel and Leon Construction. It was done in complete disobedience of Magistrate’s Fasone

order authorizing only subpoenas for Banks. Respondent had no choice, but to file motion to


9. In response to such abuse of process Respondent’s attorney in this Motion to Quash asked

the court to order Petitioner to pay all costs and attorney’s fee as sanctions against Petitioner

pursuant to NYCRR 130-1.1. That motion was stayed by Magistrate Fasone together with

whole due process and discovery.


10. Attorney licensed to practice law in the State of New York must be really bold and sure that

he and his client will not be held in Contempt of Court for above mentioned violation of

court order.

11. For all this frivolous motions designed to churn fees Mr. Levoritz asked the Court that

Respondent pays his bill.

12. Mr. Levoritz had to be sure that he will not be ordered to pay Respondent’s legal fees for

such malicious litigation and frivolous motion practice as per 28 USC, § 1927 of


13. This “boldness” lets Respondent believe that Mr. Levoritz knew the outcome even before the

decision was made by Magistrate Fasone - which is in favor of him and Petitioner.

14. Mr. Levoritz, turns out, was right as he was awarded attorneys fees – reward for

malicious prosecution and Fraud upon the Court.

15. Magistrate Fasone wrote in his Findings of Fact : ”Moreover, as the Court finds that

respondent-father’s entire behavior in this proceedings has been to delay and to evade any

final determination of his obligations on their merit, both as to paternity and as to child

support, the undersigned authorizes reimbursement of petitioner-mother’s counsel fees

incurred in the prosecution of this matter”.

16. Section 455(a) of 28 U.S.C. provides as follows: Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge

of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality

might reasonably be questioned (emphasis added).

17. The Supreme Court recently reaffirmed in Microsoft Corp. v. United States, 530 U. S.

1301, 1302 (2000) (REHNQUIST, C. J.) the standard for interpreting and applying this

section thus: As this Court has stated, what matters under §455(a) “is not the reality of bias or

prejudice but its appearance.” Liteky v. United States, 510 U. S. 540, 548 (1994). This

inquiry is an objective one, made from the perspective of a reasonable observer who is

informed of all the surrounding facts and circumstances. See ibid; In re Drexel Burnham

Lambert Inc., 861 F. 2d 1307, 1309 (CA2 1988).

18. Respondent, Mr. Krichevsky, reasonably believes that Support Magistrate John Fasone is

biased and prejudiced against him.

19. Petitioner’s Financial Disclosure Affidavit is the only evidence that was produced by her

attorney. This affidavit was mathematically erroneous and Respondent’s attorney pointed out

this fact to Magistrate Fasone during hearing. Her debit and credit could not be reconciled,

yet Magistrate Fasone managed to believe that her “testimony is credible” which is what he

wrote in his Findings of Fact: “As does the Court with respect to her other testimony

regarding her present financial circumstances – i.e. that she presently resides in her parent’s

apartment rent-free and receives cash support from her sister in Germany”. This statement

constitutes Fraud upon The Court with assistance of The Court itself as record shows that she

owns this apartment and Respondent indicated during cross-examination that her sister is on

public assistance in Germany. That is why Respondent’s attorney wanted her address in

Germany so he could send her interrogatories to impeach Petitioner. That is why Magistrate

Fasone prevented my attorney from getting this information.

20. A judge is not a court; he is under law an officer of the court, and he must not engage in

any action to deceive the court. Trans Aero Inc. v. LaFuerga Area Boliviana, 24 F.3d 457 (2nd

Cir. 1994; Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10 Cir. 1985) (fraud upon the

court exists “where judge has not performed his judicial duties”).

21. Mr. Levoritz was not concern with potential malpractice claim against him if after coaching

Petitioner how to perpetrate Fraud upon The Court he loses this case.

22. During this hearing Mr. Levoritz committed Fraud upon The Court himself by continuously

falsifying facts, acting as expert witness and ejecting himself into testimony breaking “the

unsworn witness rule”.

23. All his lies found their way into Findings of Fact over my attorney’s objections.

24. Such behavior of Mr. Levoritz would be equivalent of reasonable person coming to casino to

play poker knowing in advance “which card he would get from the dealer” so he can play

without fear of loosing.

25. Magistrate Fasone acted as an advocate for the Petitioner. This sham hearing lasted about six

month. During this time Magistrate Fasone continuously protected Petitioner by obstructing

discovery, preventing my attorney Daniel Singer from effective cross-examination of

Petitioner by constant interruptions and inappropriate judgmental comments about my

attorney’s professionalism.

26. Magistrate Fasone denied Respondent’s right to call Petitioner’s sister, Larissa Gaber, as

witness after she was served with witness subpoena in Brooklyn, New York.

27. Magistrate Fasone knew that Petitioner will not survive her deposition by Respondent’s

attorney and that is the reason he stayed discovery before hearing over objection of

Respondent’s attorney.

28. Magistrate Fasone broke NYSBA Code of Judicial Conduct:


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 of the
judiciary will be preserved. The provisions of this Part 100 are to be construed and applied to
further that objective.

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 of the judiciary. A judge shall not
lend the prestige of judicial 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
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 of these duties, the following standards apply.
(B)(l) 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 of lawyers and of staff, court officials and others subject to the judge's direction and
(4) A judge shall perform judicial duties without bias or prejudice against or in favor of any
person. A judge in the performance of judicial 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 herself in 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;

29. Magistrate Fasone showed his bias and prejudice when he commented on the record that

Respondent as paralegal earns more than he does.

30. Magistrate Fasone said nothing when Petitioner’s lawyer Mr. Levoritz made

discriminatory statement while defaming Respondent and his employer on the record stating

on Page 70 line 2-7 of October 8, 2009 hearing: “Your Honor, unfortunately, in certain

communities it does happen where non-lawyers actually own law firms, and it’s a lawyer

that’s used as a front”.

31. Magistrate Fasone broke Evidence Law by letting Mr. Levoritz admit into evidence stolen

by Petitioner Respondent’s records. To add more insult to the injury those records were never


32. However, stolen and destroyed by Petitioner, and later reproduced by Respondent’s employer

2006 W-2 form that showed $46,000 per year was not admitted into evidence due to double

standards of Evidence Law employed by Magistrate Fasone.

33. Petitioner told the court that she is not going to work in order to support parties’ 15 year

old teenager child. So, to encourage Petitioner’s lifestyle Magistrate Fasone rewarded her

with “maintenance” by increasing Respondent’s child support obligation from temporary

$627 per month to $2045 without any new evidence that Respondent is actually capable to

provide such money.

34. In total, Magistrate Fasone ordered Respondent to pay Petitioner attorney fees (reward for

fraud upon the court and malicious prosecution), $31,599 in arrears (reward for fraud upon

the court with assistance of the court officer John Fasone himself), and to pay about $700 per

month for health insurance (reward to Petitioner for been in contempt of Support Magistrate

Jennifer Castaldi order that Petitioner enroll parties child into Child Health Plus health plan).

35. The court forgot to subtract $627 per month from arrears that Respondent was paying from

August of 2009.

36. In total, the court has ordered the Respondent to pay to the Petitioner and her attorney the

sum of about $52,000 plus about $2700 monthly. During the trial no evidence was presented

by either the Respondent nor the Petitioner that the Respondent had that kind of money. In

fact the records showed that the Respondent had $1700 in his checking account.

37. In it's order the Court makes no findings that the Respondent lied to the court about his cash

assets or any statement as to how the Court determined that the Respondent had much more

cash than either party alleged. If the Court is to let stand its Order then justice demands that

the Court state how it came to the conclusion that the Respondent is able to comply with the

Order of the Court.

38. The Respondent has made attempt to give the Court the opportunity to either fix it’s error of

ordering the Respondent to do the impossible or to at least explain it’s reasoning in his

Objection to Final order of Support sent to Judge Paula Hepner. She has refused to do so.

39. With a lack of evidence from either side indicating that the Respondent has this money, the

Court is duty bound to make a finding as to how it concluded that the Respondent has the

ability to pay this sum of money. If the Court refuses to make this finding then it can only be

concluded by reasonable observer that it is the intention of the Court to deliberately drive the

Respondent into financial ruin and bankruptcy, which is what happening right now with

Respondent, and exactly what Petitioner promised Respondent to do.

40. At this point, Your Honor, it has clearly been pointed out to the Court in a manner that any

reasonable observer can understand, that it's Decision is Impossible. That the Court has made

obvious errors that is apparent to any reasonable observer. These obvious errors were brought

to the attention of the Court and were deliberately ignored. In fact, if this errors is not

corrected ASAP, Respondent will conclude that Magistrate Fasone is trying to deceive the

Court and Respondent by stating in his Findings of Fact: “The factors used in calculating the

basic payment for Adjusted Gross Income over $130,000 is/are: The financial resources of

the custodial and non-custodial parent..”. As per record Respondent had $1700 in cash and

non-custodial parent income of $52,000 per year as per Respondent’s 2009 W-2 form, and it

is unclear where this $130,000 number comes from if Petitioners’ income is ZIRO.

Magistrate Fasone continues: “The non-custodial parties’ pro rata share of basic child support

obligation is neither unjust nor inappropriate”.

41. In April 22, 2010 Respondent filed Petition to Modify his child support due to the fact

that he lost his job. The hearing was adjourned by Magistrate Fasone from May 18 to August

6 over Respondent’s Objection. Petitioner’s reason for such a long adjournment period was

the argument that her attorney Mr. Levoritz has “celebrity status and is already booked for

the summer”. In reality this is just another dirty lawyer’s trick to deny Respondent due

process and to “milk more money” from Respondent’s unemployment benefits.

42. However, he was immediately available after Respondent filed Petition for Custody and

appeared on June 14, 2010, June 18, 2010, June 30, 2010, and now is scheduled to appear on

July 28, 2010 in Part 52 of Family Court. More over, on June 30, 2010 he served Respondent

with Summons for Violation of Court Order. Yes, no brainer, Respondent violated the very

same order that is impossible to comply with. Respondent understands that Petitioner is

framing Respondent to be incarcerated

43. The appearance is scheduled for July 13. This date is not incidental. Respondent believes

and statistics proves that he will not get a fair hearing by Support Magistrate Fasone.

44. “Fraud upon the Court” makes void the 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, can not be made valid by any judge. The order is void ab

initio. 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.

45. A Judge who stands in the way of justice 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 of People to Due Process and such

rights require strict scrutiny of the Court. The Respondent therefore puts the Court on notice

that the Respondent intends to defend his rights and to hold the Court liable for acts the Court

takes against the Respondent that are done in the absence of judicial authority and


46. Respondent also puts the court on notice that if the court refuses to recuse himself

Respondent will have no choice but to file complaint with New York State Commission on

Judicial Conduct and publish whole case on the World Wide Web.

Wherefore, in light of the fact that Magistrate Fasone did not perform his duty as mandated by

the Constitution and the Law Respondent respectfully moves the Court to Recuse himself and

order a new trial.



Sworn to before me this

___ day of July, 2010