Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Kottaram v. Bank Leumi, USA

Supreme Court brief2005

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

041175 OCT 20 2004

NOOFFICE OF THE CLERK

IN THE

Supreme Court of the Gnited States

VILASINI NAIR KOTTARAM

Petitioner

BANK LEUMI, USA, et al

Respondents

On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari

To The US Appellate Court (Second Circuit)

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Vilasini Nair Kottaram

Pro Se

54-09 108" Street #1D

Corona, NY 11368

(718) 271-4122

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR

REVIEW

1. Violations of several sections of Public

Law 96-399, Title V and Title VI are alleged

in the Petition. The District Court and

Appellate Court do not say anything about

the violations in their Judgment/Decision;

even after submitting sufficient evidence to

prove it.

2. NOW THE QUESTION IS WHETHER

PUBLIC LAW 96-399, TITLE V AND TITLE

VI ARE VALID LAWS TO BE ENFORCED

BY THE COURTS ?

LIST OF PARTIES

All parties do not appear in the caption of

the case on the cover page. A list of all parties

to the proceeding in the court whose

judgment is the subject of this petition is as

follows:

1. Bank Leumi, U.S.A.; Joseph A.

Sciarillo, Robert M. Cassuto, Julie

Sheifetz, George R. Penny Benjamin

Frankestein.

All represented by Carol M. Goodman Esq.

c/o Herrick Feinstein, LLP, 2 Park Avenue,

New York, NY-10016. (212) 592-1400.

2. Maria Rodriguez and Robert G.

Fonti

Both represented by Callan, Koster Brad y

& Brennan, LLP, One Whitehall Street,. 10

Floor, New York, "NY-10004. (212) 248- 8800.

3. Ramesh C. Vig

Represented by Robert G. Androsiglio,

Esq. c/o Radna & Androsiglio, 67 Wall Street,

New York, NY 10005: (212) 742-0001.

RE a at tanta

—_— tee ede a en ee

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Questions Presented For Review............. (i)

BM. RABE OF PAPHOS .......00..cccceseceosccoce coccassceseces (ii)

3. Table of Contents ..0....0...cccccccceccceseeece. (iii)

EE ee EL OO ae 1

5. Statement of the Case oo.....eeececcccccsceeceees 1-6

6. Reasons for Granting the Petition.............. 7

TR OR eae R ae 8-59

ill

JURISDICTION

1. The Petitioner seeks a review of the

Federal Appellate Court’s (second circuit)

Decision entered on August 3, 2004. This

Appeal was first submitted on October 20,

2004 and was within the time limit. Because

of some technical errors, this Appeal is being

submitted, on the Third Time on the 18th day

of February two thousand and five, after

correction.

2. The Decision of the Appellate Court is

silent about the Main Contention of the

Petition, viz; the violation of several sections

of the Public Law 96-399 Title V and Title VI

by the defendants. (See Appendix A-1)

3. Because the Petitioner could not get a

copy of the Decision of the Appellate Court in

time, with date and seal, ie could not ask

for a re-hearing by a full bench. (See

Appendix A-2 and Appendix A-3).

4. The statutory provision believed to

confer on this Court, Jurisdiction to review

on a Writ of Certiorari, the Decision of the

Appellate Court (Second Circuit).

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

1. A Copy of the Decision of the Appellate

Court (Second Circuit); entered on August 3,

2004 is attached as Appendix A-l.

Appendix A-2 is the covering letter by which

the Petitioner received a Decision of the

Appellate Court on August 19, 2004 without

date and seal. (see Appendix A-3).

PRCA Red tia eat LM

2. Appendix B-1 is the copy of the

Memorandum and Order filed in the clerk’s

office on January 13, 2004.

Appendix B-2 is a copy of the District

Court’s Judgment, filed in the clerk’s office on

January 21, 2004 (erroneously stamped as

January 21, 2003).

Appendix B-3 is the copy of an

additional Memorandum and Appendix B-4

is an Amended Memorandum and Order.

3. Both the District Court and the

Appellate Court have IGNORED, the main

and important allegaticn of the Petition, that

the Defendants had violated Public Law PL

96-399, Title V and Title VI; thereby the

Petitioner has suffered mental, physical and

financial damages (See Appendix C).

4. Appendix C is a copy of the original

Petition. At Para 20, the violation of Public

Law 96-399, Title V, Section 505 (a) and 507

(d) is alleged. Para 39, 40 and 41 of the

Petition allege the formation of an illegal

Managing Board for Crown £Plaza

Condominium by the developer, viz; Bank

Leumi, U.S.A. on March 27, 1997 in a

Unit Owners’ meeting. That Managing Board

of 5 members consisted of 3 employees of -

Bank Leumi, U.S.A. and two planted FAKE

Unit-Owners. The - formation of the

Developer's Managing Board of March 27,

1997 was in violation of Public Law 96-399,

Title V Section 503 (5); and Public Law 96-

399, Title VI, Section 604 (4). This illegal

Managing Board has raised the already

HIGH common charges by 28.06% (see Para 2

of Appendix D)

5. Appendix D is a Copy of a signed

letter from the then Managing Agent and

Defendant, Mr. Robert Fonti of Crown Plaza

Condominium. The names of the 3 Bank

Leumi, U.S.A. employees can be seen at

Para 3 (a); 3 (c) and 3 (e) of the letter.

6. Appendix E is a copy of the front page

of a LIEN placed by the Managing Board on

apartment No. 4A of Defendant, Maria

Rodriguez, and a member of the 1997

Managing Board mentioned at Para 3 (b) of

Appendix D. She was a FAKE owner, who

never paid any common charges and she was

NOT a qualified person to become a member

of the ey Board, vide all Rules,

Regulations and Bylaws of the Condominium

Offering Plan, as well as Public Law 96-399,

Title V, Section 503 (5) and Public Law 96-

399, Title VI Section 604(4).

7. Appendix F is the copy of the front

page of a LIEN, placed by the Managing

oard on Apartment No. 3A of Ms. Tenean

Porter who was also a planted FAKE owner.

She was a nominated member of this

Managing Board made by the Developer on

March 27, 1997. Her name is shown in

Appendix D at Para 3 (d) and she was not a

qualified person to become a member of the

managing Board as per Bylaws of the

Offering Plan as well as Public Law 96-399

Title V, Section 503 (5) and Public Law 96-

399 Title VI, Section 604 (4).

8. All these factors were submitted in the

Appellate Court (2™ Circuit) in the form of an

Appellant's Brief and Appendix, on 5/3/2004.

As a proof of submission, a copy of page 7 of

the Public Docket of the Appellate Court (2™

Circuit) dated May 13, 2004, is attached as

Appendix G.

9. A Notice of Appeal was filed in time in

; the District Court, signed by the Plaintiff as

well as her husband., Mr. John Felix, who is

/ a 50% shareholder of the property involved

| (see Appendix H)

10. Para 22 and Para 44 of the

original Petition alleges that the Apartments

of Crown Plaza Condominium were

transferred in bulk, in different individuals’

names, and they were rented out for bigger

rofits, thereby reducing the comforts of the

laintiff in living peacefully in a

; Condominium Unit, as to that of a Public

) Housing Unit. One of them is Defendant, Mr.

| Ramesh Vig, who got 5 Apartments in his

name and all were rented out.(See

Appendix-J)

| 11. These actions were against the

Findings of the Law makers as enumerated

under the Legislative History of Public Law

| 96-399, Title V, Section 502 (a) (1) and (2).

Ample evidence were given, vide, the

Appellant's Brief and Appendix which

was submitted in the Appellate Court (24

Circuit) on 5/3/2004 (see Appendix-G).

12. The Judgment and Memorandum and

Order of the District Court given at

Appendix B-1 to B-4 is also silent about

these Public Law 96-399 violations of

different Sections by different Defendants on

different occasions.

13. Appendix I are copies of pages 1

and 2 of a Notice of Motion together with the

Motion submitted by the Plaintiff in the

District Court on May 12, 2003. It consisted

of 68 pages of text matter and 126 exhibits of

586 pages. That gave full details of all

violations with clear proofs including

violations of various Sections of Public Law

96-399 Title V and Title VI.

14. Appendix J are copies of the

front pages of five Sales Deeds and their

respective acknowledgements by the Notary

with a pre-date. This is enough proof to show

that almost all the Condominium units are

rented out by the Developer through their

agents with illegal and invalid Sales Deeds

as SHIELDS. ese actions are in violations

of Public Law 96-399, Title V, Section 502(a)

(1) & (2); Section 505(a) and Section 507(d).

The offering plan states that the units will be

sold to individuals for dwelling purposes only.

15. Because the District Court as

well as the Appellate Court is not

mentioning anything about these

violations of various Sections and Titles

of Public Law 96-399, it gives an

impression that Public Law 96-399, as a

whole, is INVALID AND NEGLIGIBLE.

Violations of Public Law 96-399 is NOT

an offense anymore. We pray that this

Honorable Supreme Court may issue a

clarification in this matter. This is very much

like a public issue affecting thousands of

people who could not get a dwelling place of

their OWN, because of wide scale corruptions

in the field of Housing.

16. When we gave ample evidence of

various violations of U.S. Codes and Public

Laws in the District Court as well as in the

Appellate Court, the Decision of the

Appellate Court was unfortunate. The last

sentence of the Decision of the Appellate

Court states that "this appeal is DISMISSED

because it lacks an arguable basis in law or

fact” (see 28 U.S.C. Section 1915 (e) (2) (B) (i),

i.e., frivolous or malicious). This statement

is nullifying the validity of Public Law 96-

399, Title V and Title VI as well as all

Bylaws laid down in the Offering Plan of the

Condominium. The Decision of the Appellate

Court (2™ Circuit) is not issued in conformity

with Civil Practice Law & Rules; Section

2219(b).

17. The_Decision of the Appellate Court is

NOT signed by the Clerk or Deputy Clerk;

but by the Operation Manager, which is

against Appellate Procedure Rule 36(a).

Procedure Rule 36(b) is violated, when the

Defense Lawyer received a copy of the

Decision without ANY DATE OR SEAL. (See

Appendix A-3) |

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION

1. If this| Honorable Court fails to

intervene and enforce Public “ri 96-399 in

its & entirety the Housing of this angen | asa

whole will be the Monopoly of a few and they

1. exploit the Public miserably.

The concept of Condominium itself is to

— the low- and middle income group of

people to settle their lives in affordable ving

spaces. But the mighty and clever people,

taking undue acvanes of some "loop-holes

in the Law, and using influences, are

acquiring - those 2 artnents and rentin

them to the eligible poor masses an

exploiting them. If the learned Courts a not

ane af el, the benefits onieree : the aby

pee e Law Makers will a belp, th

tne PEOPLE. Instead 0 a

canines can become a "death-trap" ee

the poor people, like Crown laza

Condominium.

3. Therefore, we respectfully submit to

this Honorable Supreme Court to set aside

the Appellate Court’s Decision and order an

impartial trial of this case by another District

Court; or declare that the Managing Board

constituted on March 27, 1997 with a clear

majority to the Developer was illegal and all

their decisions are null and void.

Respectfully Submitted

January, 2004 Kottaram Vilasini Nair

Plaintiff, Pro Se

54-09, 108 Street,#1D

Corona, NY 11368

(718) 271-4122

ee ee ee eee ae ee er

E.D.N.Y.

02-cv-5119

Johnson, J.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE

SECOND CIRCUIT

August 3, 2004 Decided

At a stated Term of the United States

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held

at the Thurgood Marshall United States

Courthouse at Foley Square, in the City of

New York, on the 3rd day of August two

thousand and four.

Present:

Hon. John M. Walker, Jr., (SEAL)

Chief Judge,

Hon. Barrington D. Parker, Jr.,

Circuit Judge,

Hon. Norman A. Mordue,

District. Judge.*

Vilasini Nair Kottaram. and John Felix,**

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

V 04-1192-cv

Bank Leumi, USA, et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

eo Vilasilini Nair Kottaram, pro se

and her husband, John Felix, move to ‘stopli

Defendant Ramesh C. Vig, from claiming

— fees from City Civil Court for this

federal case," and for a certificate of

appealability. Additionally, Felix moves for

an "emergency restoration order." Upon due

APPENDIX A-1

consideration, it is ORDERED that: (1) the

motion to "stop[] ... Vig, from claiming legal

fees" is DENIED pursuant to the Anti-

Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2284, see MLE

Realty Assocs. v. Handler, 192 F.3d 259, 261-

62 (2d Cir. 1999); (2) the motion for a

certificate of appealability is DENIED as

unnecessary; and (3) the motion for

an"emergency restoration order" is DENIED

because Felix is not a proper party to this

appeal. It is FURTHER ORDERED that this

appeal is DISMISSED because it lacks an

arguable basis in law or fact. See 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e)(2)(B)(i); Nietzke v. Williams, 490 U.S.

319, 327 (1989).

FOR THE COURT:

gga ag B. MacKechnie, Clerk

By Sd/-

(Lucille Carr) :

Operations Manager |

*The Honorable Norman A. Mordue, of the :

United States District Court for the Northern

District of New York, sitting by designation.

**Relix was never a party to Kottaram's district

court action. See E.D.N.Y. Dkt. Sheet. Kottaram filed ;

a motion to join Felix as a plaintiff, but the district

court denied this request. See Kottaram v. Bank

Leumi, No. 02-cv-5119, at 2 n. I (E.D.N.Y. May 18,

2004). While Felix's name was included on

Kottaram's notice of appeal, and his name appears

on this Court's official caption, he is not a proper

party to this appeal. See Martin-Trigona v. Shiff, 702

F.2d 380, 385 (2d Cir. 1983) (observing that, as a

general rule, "one who was not a party of record

before the trial court may not appeal that court's

judgment").

NADEL & ASSOCIATES,

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

3 East 54tb Street, 477 Bay Ridge Avenue

16tb Floor Brooklyn, New York 11220

New York, Telephone 718-921-9400

New York 10022 Facsimile 718-833-3341

Telephone 212-317-9500

Facsimile 212-317-9849

www.nadelassociates.coni

Mr. John Felix

Ms. Vilasilini Nair Kottaram.

54-09 108th Street, #1D

Corona, New York 11368

Re: Kottaram and Felix v. Bank Leumi,

USA, et al

Dear Mr. Felix and Ms. Kottaram:

Enclosed for your records is a copy of the

Decision and Order of the United States

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

dismissing your Appeal. If you have any

questions, please do not hesitate to contact

me.

August 17, 2004

Sincerely,

Sd/-

Michael J. Ciarlo

Attorney at Law

APPENDIX A-2

E.D.N.Y.

02-cv-5119

Johnson, J.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE

SECOND CIRCUIT

At a stated Term of the United States

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held

at the Thurgood Marshall United States

Courthouse at Foley Square, in the City of

New York, on the__ day of two

thousand and four,

Present:

Hon. John M. Walker, Jr.,

Chief Judge,

Hon. Barrington D. Parker, Jr.,

Circuit Judge,

Hon. Norman A. Mordue,

District Judge.*

Vilasini Nair Kottaram and John Felix,**

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

V 04-1192-cv

Bank Leumi, USA, et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appellant Vilasini Nair Kottaram, pro se,

and her husband, John Felix, move to "stopl]

Defendant Ramesh C. Vig, from claiming

legal fees from City Civil Court for this

federal case," and for a certificate of

APPENDIX A-3

appealability. Additionally, Felix moves for

an "emergency restoration order." Upon due

consideration, it is ORDERED that: (1) the

motion to "stop|] ... Vig, from claiming legal

fees" is DENIED pursuant to the Anti-

Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. a eee see MLE

gs Assocs. v. Handler, 192 F.3d 259, 261-

62 (2d Cir. 1999); ge motion for a

certificate of appealability is DENIED as

unnecessary; and (3) the motion_for_an

“emergency restoration order" is DENIED

because Felix is not a proper party to this

appeal. It is FURTHER ORDERED that this

appeal is DISMISSED because it lacks an

arguable basis in law or fact. See 28 U.S.C.

1915(e)(2)(B)G); Nietzke v. Williams, 490 U.S.

319, 327 (1989).

FOR THE COURT:

Roseann B. MacKechnie, Clerk

By Sd/-

(Cueille Carr)

Operations Manager

*The Honorable Norman A. Mordue, of the

United States District Court for the Northern

District of New York, sitting by designation.

**Felix was never a party to Kottaram's district

court action. See E.D.N.Y. Dkt. Sheet. Kottaram filed

a motion to join Felix as a plaintiff, but the district

court denied this request. See Kottaram v. Bank

Leumi, No. 02-cv-5119, at 2 n. I (E.D.N.Y. May 18,

2004). While Felix's name was included on

Kottaram's notice of appeal, and his name appears

on this Court's official caption, he is not a proper

party to this appeal. See Martin-Trigona v. Shiff, 702

F.2d 380, 385 (2d Cir. 1983) (observing that, as a

general rule, "one who was not a party of record

before the trial court may not appeal that court's

judgment").

FILED

IN CLERK’S OFFICE

U.S. DISTRICT COURT E.D.N.Y.

JAN 13,2004

P.M.

TIME AM.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

connasanttietinieinnn xX

VILASILINI NAIR KOTTARAM,

Plaintiff,

02 CV 5119 (SJ)

MEMORANDUM

AND ORDER

-against-

BANK LEUMIL, U.S.A.,

JOSEPH A. SCIARILLO,

ROBERT M. CASSUTO,

MS. JULIE SHEIFETZ,

GEORGE R. PENNY

BENJAMIN FRANKENSTEIN,

MARIA RODRIGUEZ,

ROBERT G. FONTI,

RAMESH C. VIG,

Defendants. x

APPEARANCES:

VILASILINI NAIR KOTTARAM

5409, 108 Street, Apt. #1 D,

Corona, NY 11368

Plaintiff, Pro Se

HERRICK, FEINSTEIN LLP

2 Park Avenue

New York, New York 10016

APPENDIX B-1

By: Carol M. Goodman

Attorneys for Defendants Bank Leumi USA,

Joseph A. Sciarillo, Robert M. Cassuto,

Julie Sheifeitz, and George R. Penny

JOHNSON, Senior District Judge:

Plaintiff Vilasilini Nair Kottaram sued the

Defendants alleging violation of the

Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt

Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. § 1961

et seq. (2000), and various state laws.

Currently before this Court is Defendants'

Bank Leumi USA ("Bank Leumi"), Joseph A.

Sciarillo, Robert M. Cassauto, Julie Sheifetz,

and George R. Penny (Collectively the

“defendents”) motion to dismiss Plaintiffs

complaint. After reviewing the briefs and

listening to oral arguments, Defendants’

motion to dismiss is GRANTED. The Court

= ne Plaintiff s subsequent motions for

relief.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

This action involves Plaintiffs purchase of

a condominium unit in the Crown Plaza

Condominium on May 31, 1995. Bank Leumi

was the holder of a loan and mostenge used

to construct the Crown Plaza Condominium

building. After the borrower, BF-Corona

Holdings Corp., defaulted on the loan, a

foreclosure action was brought and the

remaining unsold condominium units were

urchased by EOR-Fifty Five of New York,

ncorporated ("EOR").- EQOR_ sold _ the

remaining units and appointed members to

sit on the Board of Managers.

Plaintiff claims that she: was informed

anos purchasing her condominium unit that

all of the remaining units would be sold only

to individuals who wished to use them as

their primary residence. Plaintiff avers that

the units were not sold for residential

purposes and that the building is_ being

utilized as public housing. Plaintiff further

claims that substandard materials were used

to construct the condominiums as reflected b

the numerous problems in her unit. Plainti

also asserts that the deed to the Crown Plaza

Condominium building shows that the loan

was not used to pay for the proper

construction of the units. Plaintiff makes a

host of other allegations regarding Bank

Leumi's role in the construction of the

condominiums and the auctioning of the

foreclosed property.

On September 20, 2002, Plaintiff filed a

complaint ajleging that Defendants engaged

in wire and mail fraud in violation of the

RICO statute. Plaintiff also sought a

declaration that Defendants are liable for

excess common charges paid and that the

sale of the five units to co-defendant Ramesh

Vig is null and void. Plaintiff further alleged

that Defendants (1) caused discomfort

harassment, mental agony emotional

distress, and inconvenienced her: (2) used

substandard materials in the construction of

the condominium building; and (3) conduct

was oppressive, wanton malafide,

intentional, willful, and discriminatory.

Plaintiff also filed motion for sanctions

against Defendant Maria Rodriguez on the

grounds that she intentionally submitted a

wand

false affidavit in connection with the

underlying action. Plaintiff also filed a

motion for summary judgment against

Defendant Maria Rodriguez.

DISCUSSION

To allege a civil RICO claim, Plaintiff

must establish: (1) that a RICO enterprise

existed; (2) that the defendant committed

predicate acts falling within one or more of

the categories enumerated in the, RICO

statute; (3) that those predicate acts

constituted a pattern, of racketeering

activity; and (4) that there is a nexus

between the defendant, the pattern of

racketeering activity, and the enterprise. See

Crown Heights Jewish Community Council,

Inc. v. Fischer, 63 F. Supp. 2d 231, 237

(E.D.N.Y. 1999). Defendants contend that

the “allegations against [them] are untimely

unsubstantiated, completely unfounded, an

do not give rise to a cause of action of any

kind, let alone a RICO action.” (Defs’ Mem.

of Law in Support of Motion to Dismiss at 2.)

Defendants further contend that Plaintiffs

“claims are barred by the _ statue of

limitations in that they are based on

Plaintiffs purchase of her condominium unit

back in May 1995.” Id. The court agrees.

Plaintiff has not stated a viable RICO

claim because she failed to state the

existence of an enterprise and failed to plead

a pattern of Spr rer igs ape as required

by the RICO statute. ith respect to the

pattern of racketeering activity, Plaintiff

alleges that Defendants committed mail and

wire fraud when the owner misrepresented

that the units would be sold to individuals

exclusively for residential purposes. A

Plaintiff alleging mail and wire fraud must

show (1) the existence of a scheme to defraud

(2) defendant’s knowing or intentional

participation in the scheme and (3) the use of

interstate mails or wire communication in

furtherance of the scheme. See S.O.K.F.C.

Inc., v. Bell Atlantic Tricon Leasing Corp. 84

F.3d 629, 633 (2d. Cir. 1996). Plaintiff is also

required to plead the circumstances of fraud

with particularity and must show that she

reasonably _ relied upon the

misrepresentations by defendant to further

the scheme. Id. at 633-34. After extensively

scouring the complaint and supporting briefs,

the Court finds that Plaintiffs conclusory

allegations of mail and wire fraud do not

meet the RICO pleading requirements.

Furthermore, it is clear that Plaintiffs

claim falls outside of the four-year statute of

limitations need. Defendants persuasively

argue that Plaintiffs injury occurred when

she purchased the unit or in the alternative

when she moved into her unit. The record

reflects that Plaintiff purchased her

condominium on May 31, 1995 and moved

into it the last week of June 1995, which is

more than four years’ from _ the

ne, of this action on September

The court declines to exercise supplemental

jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state law . The

Court also denies Plaintiffs motion for sanctions

and motion for summary judgment.

Dated: January 12, 2004 Sd/-

Brooklyn, New York Senior USDJ

FILED

IN CLERK’S OFFICE

U.S. DISTRICT COURT E.D.N-Y.

JAN 21, 2003

P.M.

TIME A.M.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEWYORK

VILASINI NAIR KOTTARAM.

Plaintiff, JUDGMENT

02 CV 5119 (SJ)

-against-

BANK LEUMI, U.S.A.,

JOSEPH A. SCIARILLO,

ROBERT M. CASSUTO,

MS. JULIE SHEIFETZ.

GEORGE R. PENNY

BENJAMIN FRANKENSTEIN,

MARIA RODRIGUEZ,

ROBERT G. FONTI,

RAMESH C. VIG,

Defendants.

A Memorandum and Order of Honorable

Sterling Johnson Jr., United States District

Judge, having been filed on January 13,

2004, granting defendants’ motion to dismiss-

, ordering that the Court declines to exercise

supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's

state law claims; and denying plaintiffs

motion for sanctions and motion for summary

judgment, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED

APPENDIX B-2

that a take nothing of the defendants-,

that defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted;

that the Court declines to _ exercise

supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs state

law claims; and that plaintiffs motion for

— and for summary judgment are

enied.

Dated: Brooklyn, New York

January 14, 2004

Sd/-

ROBERT C. HEINEMANN

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

VILASINI NAIR KOTTARAM,

Plaintiff, 02 CV 5119 (SJ)

MEMORANDUM

AND ORDER

-against-

BANK LEUMI, U.S.A.,

JOSEPH A. SCIARILLO,

ROBERT M. CASSUTO,

MS. JULIE SHEIFETZ,

GEORGE R. PENNY

BENJAMIN FRANKENSTEIN,

MARIA RODRIGUEZ,

ROBERT G. FONTI,

RAMESH C. VIG

Defendants.

siiblahaaibialiesanndatiiaibcubtaialiiteietatiniwneaitite 4

APPEARANCES:

VILASINI NAIR KOTTARAM

5409, 108 Street, - Apt. #1 D,

Corona, NY 11368

Plaintiff, Pro Se

HERRICK, FEINSTEIN LLP

2 Park Avenue

New York, New York 10016

By: Carol M. Goodman

Attorneys for Defendants Bank Leumi USA,

Joseph A. Sciarillo, Robert M. Cassuto,

Julie Sheifeitz, and George R. Penny

APPENDIX B-3

RADNA & ANDROSIGLIO

67 Wall Street, 22"¢ Floor

New York, New York 10005

By: Robert Androsiglio

Attorney for Ramesh C. Vig

JOHNSON, Senior District Judge:

Plaintiff Vilasini Nair Kottaram sued the

Defendants alleging violation of the

Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt

Organizations Act ("RICO"), 18 U.S.C. § 1961

et seq. (2000), and various state laws. On

January 12, 2004, this Court granted

Defendants’ Bank Leumi USA ("Bank

Leumi"), Joseph A. Sciarillo, Robert M.

Cassauto, Julie Sheifetz, and George R.

Penny motion to _ dismiss Plaintiffs

complaint. On April 8, 2004, Defendant

Ramesh C. Vig requested that the Court

clarify its January 12, 2004 order because the

motion to dismiss that he filed was not

addressed. For the reasons stated in its

previous order, the Court also grants

Defendant Ramesh C. Vig’s motion to

dismiss’ |

Dated: April 29, 2004 Sd/-

Brooklyn, New York Senior USDJ

The Court also denies Plaintiffs motions to

declare herself an incompetent person and to join

John Felix, her husband, as a co-plaintiff.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

eine ein an,

VILASINI NAIR KOTT

Plaintiff, 02 CV 5119 (SJ)

AMENDED

MEMORANDUM

AND ORDER

-against-

BANK LEUMI, U.S.A.,

JOSEPH A. SCIARILLO,

ROBERT M. CASSUTO,

MS. JULIE SHEIFETZ,

GEORGE R. PENNY

BENJAMIN FRANKENSTEIN,

MARIA RODRIGUEZ,

ROBERT G. FONTI,

RAMESH C. VIG

Defendants. re

APPEARANCES:

VILASINI NAIR KOTTARAM

5409, 108 Street, - Apt. #1 D,

Corona, NY 11368

Plaintiff, Pro Se

HERRICK, FEINSTEIN LLP

2 Park Avenue

New York, New York 10016

By: Carol M. Goodman

Attorneys for Defendants Bank Leumi USA,

Joseph A. Sciarillo, Robert M. Cassuto,

Julie Sheifeitz, and George R. Penny

APPENDIX B-4

RADNA & ANDROSIGLIO

67 Wall Street, 22™ Floor _

New York, New York 10005

By: Robert Androsiglio _

Attorney for Ramesh C. Vig

JOHNSON, Senior District Judge:

Plaintiff Vilasini Nair Kottaram sued the

Defendants alleging violation of the

Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt

Organizations Act ("RICO"), 18 U.S.C. § 1961

et seq. (2000), and various state laws. On

January 12, 2004, this Court granted

Defendants' Bank Leumi USA ("Bank

Leumi", Joseph A. Sciarillo, Robert M.

Cassauto, Julie Sheifetz, and George R.

Penny motion to dismiss Plaintiff s

complaint. On April 8, 2004, Defendant

Ramesh C. Vig requested that the Court

clarify its January 12, 2004 order because the

motion to dismiss that he filed was not

addressed. For the reasons stated in its

revious order, the Court also grants

efendant Ramesh C. Vig's motion to

dismiss.’

Dated: May 5, 2004 Sd/-

Brooklyn, New York Senior USDJ

‘To the extent that it was not addressed in the

Court's order dated January 12, 2004, the Court also

dismisses Plaintiffs action against Defendants Maria

Rodriguez, Robert Fonti, and Benjamin

Frankenstein. The Court denies Plaintiff's motions to

declare herself an incompetent person and to join

John Felix, her husband, as a co-plaintiff.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

VILASINI NAIR KOTTARAM

Plaintiff,

Index No:

CV 02 5119

Date Purchased :

VERIFIED

COMPLAINT

JOHNSON, J.

AZRACK, J.

-against-

BANK LEUMI, U.S.A.

JOSEPH A. SCIARILLO,

ROBERT M. CASSUTO,

MS. JULIE SHEIFETZ,

GEORGE R. PENNY

BENJAMIN FRANKENSTEIN,

MARIA RODRIGUEZ,

ROBERT G. FONTI,

RAMESH C. VIG,

Defendants ”

Plaintiff, by her attorney, Satish.K.Bhatia,

Esq., complaining of the above named

defendants, respectfully alleges, upon

information and belief the following:

1. Plaintiff, VILASINI NAIR KOTTARAM

is a resident of the State of New York and is

residing at 54-09, 108th Street, Queens

County, Corona, NY-11368.

APPENDIX C

2. On information and belief defendant

Bank Leumi U S A is a Federally insured

Banking institution and has a principal place

of business at 579, 5th Avenue N.Y. 10170.

3. On information and belief defendant

Joseph A. Sciarillo, Chairman and Chief

Executive Officer of Bank Leumi U S A and is

currently residing at 18-05, Street 215, Apt

#3 D, Bayside New York 11360.

4. Qn information and belief the

defendant Robert M. Cassuto is one of the

principal officer of Bank Leumi U S A and is

residing at 112 -20, 72 Drive, Apt # A-22,

Forest Hills, N.Y.11375.

5. On information and _. belief the

defendant Ms. Julie Sheifetz is the Assistant

Vice President and one of the principal officer

of the defendant Bank Leumi U S A and is

currently residing at 139-09, 28 Road, Apt

3F, Flushing, N Y 11354.

6. On information and _ belief the

defendant George R. Penny was one of the

members of the Managing Board of Crown

Plaza Condominium nominated by the

managing agent in the year 1997 and is also

an employee of the defendant Bank Leumi U

S A. The said defendant is currently residing

at 331 Lexington Ave, Apt 7W, N.Y. 10016.

7. On information and _. belief the

defendant Benjamin Frankenstein was the

alleged sponsor of Crown Plaza

Condominium and is currently residing at 64-

oe Street, Apt #6, Rego Park, N Y

8. On information and belief defendant

Ms. Maria Rodriguez is the owner of Unit 4A

of Crown Plaza Condominium and was

nominated as Vice President of the Managing

Board for the initial period of one year in

1997 and thereafter was nominated as

President for four continuous years till March

2002. Existing rules forbids any unit owner

to be member of managing board for more

than three years. On information and belief

she is. virtually taking care of the

Condominium since March 1997.

9. On information and belief the

defendant Maria Rodriguez has never paid

any common charges since inception.

10. On information and belief Robert G.

Fonti, was appointed as managing agent in

the year 1993 for a period of three years,

subsequently in the year 1994 Mr. Fonti was

reappointed as Managing Agent with the

provisions of automatic renewal for indefinite

period. The said defendant is currently

residing at 15 Horizon Drive, Huntington,

NY 11743.

11. On information and belief the

defendant Ramesh C. Vig is the paper owner

of five units in the Condominium Building,

an employee of the defendant Bank Leumi U

S A and is currently residing at 27 Brighton

Road, North, North Hills, Manhasset, N.Y.

11030.

12. This court has original jurisdiction

over this action due to violation of Public Law

96-399 Title V, and violation of RICO is

involved. Venue is proper pursuant to

1391(a).

13. On or about March 14, 1995 a

purchase agreement was executed between

the plaintiff through a Real Estate agent and

the defendant Benjamin Frankenstein. At the

time of signing of the purchase agreement

the defendant Benjamin Frankenstein

introduced himself as the owner of the Crown

Plaza Condominium.

14. At the request of the defendant

Frankenstein, the plaintiff delivered a check

in the amount of $2500.00 in favor of Mrs.

Gloria A. Cirino Esq., to be kept in escrow.

Defendant Frankenstein rovided the

offering plans with two ceneulonuane. As per

Offering Plan the defendant Benjamin

Frankenstein assured that units will be sold

only to those individuals who will use the

units for their primary residence. The

offering plan further revealed that good

materials will be used in the construction of

the Condominium Unit.

15. Based on the assurances-and promises

and representations as made in the offering

plan, on or about the 31“ day of May 1995,

the plaintiff purchased unit 1 D in the Crown

Plaza Condominium building located in the

county of Queens, City and State of New

York. Though the face value of the said unit

was $125,000.00, the plaintiff actually paid

approximately $158,000.00 that included the

point in the interest rate, title insurance,

security, air conditioning units, bathroom

fixing, etc. The plaintiff moved into the

apartment in the last week of June 1995.

After the purchase of the unit the plaintiff

discovered that she did not get what she

thought she had been bargaining for in

purchasing the Condominium Unit.

16. The action of the defendant and their

representatives induced the plaintiff to

believe that specific plan existed to sell the

unit only to those individual who will keep

the units as their own residence and the

plaintiff would enjoy all the comfort, peace of

mind and sense of ownership as she would be

living in her own private home. In fact the

fraudulent conduct of the defendants has

converted the Condominium building into a

fish market. Had she known the

representation being false she would not

have purchased the Condominium Units.

17. On information and belief Crown Plaza

Condominium was in fact developed by the

defendant Bank Leumi USA and not

Benjamin Frankenstein, who claimed himself

as the president of B F- Corona Holding

Corporation.

18. On information and belief the

defendant Benjamin was a dummy developer

and using the name of the BF- Corona

Holding Corporation fraudulently to deceive

the public.

19. On information and belief B F- Corona

Holding Corporation was never incorporated

in the State of New York. The defendant

Bank Leumi U S A through its dummy

developer defendant Benjamin has all along

been transacting business in the name of B

F- Corona Holding Corporation and has

represented that B F Corona Holding

Corporation is duly incorporated in the State

of New York.

20. On information and belief the

defendants violated the provision of Public

Law 96-399 Title V, Section 505 (a), Section

507 (d) by declaring the fictitious name of the

corporation by giving fraudulent information

with ulterior motive.

21. At the time of Purchase agreement the

defendants Bank Leumi U S A, the developer

in fact and defendant Benjamin

Frankenstein, the dummy sponsor, in his

offering plan, declared that he will not sell

any apartment in Crown Plaza Condominium

other than for the purpose of purchasers

principal residence and that the ownership of

Condominium Unit would be similar to the

ownership of a private home in all respect.

Defendant Benjamin specifically promised

that every purchaser will enjoy the comfort

and convenience as he owns and resides in

his own private house.

22. The defendant Bank Leumi U S A in

violation of the provisions of the offering plan

sold the Units in bulk to several individuals

who were not using the apartment for their

principal place of residence.

23. On information and belief the

defendant Bank Leumi USA _ used

substandard materials in the construction as

the kitchen fittings started falling down;

external part of electrical outlets were

coming off the wall; the bathroom furnishings

were broken apart; drainage clogs were

frequent; etc immediately after occupation.

Due to substandard materials the roof,

plumbing, heating etc are repaired every

year. The amount spent on repairs was

included in the common charges.

24. On information and belief the

defendants have misappropriated a

substantial amount of money taken as a loan

of $ 2.7 million for construction of the

building and they have spent a very less

amount on the actual construction of the

Condominium building and in fact they have

misappropriated the amount and

substandard materials were used in the

construction.

25. Mr. Benjamin, the alleged sponsor of

the Crown’ Plaza Condominium, has

repeatedly and very frequently changed his

statements regarding the loans. For example

initially it was shown that it was interest free

loan without any condition. Subsequently, in

amended offering plan, it was shown as a

mortgage loan, and again in a different and

contradictory version, it was shown that they

have a lien on all the 29 units of the

Condominium.

26. On information and belief that

defendants in conniving and conspiracy with

each other deceived the general public and

the plaintiff by forging documents making

fictitious corporation, starting construction

even without owning the land.

27. On information and belief the

construction of the condominium commenced

in the year 1989. The construction was done

at very slow speed and defendant Benjamin

did not use the material as laid on in the

offering plan.

28. Though the construction commenced in

the year 1989, the defendant Benjamin or the

B F - Corona Holding Corporation were not

owner of the land on which the construction

started as the land was purchased on or

about January 6, 1992.

29. On information and belief the

defendant Bank Leumi Trust Company gave

a loan of $2,730,000.00 (Two Million and

Seven Hundred Thirty "housand dollars)

without any collateral security and without

any written agreement.

30. In the Offering Plan it was mentioned

that the said loan was allegedly extended to

April 23, 1993. Offering Plan and the

amendments were totally silent about the

date and the person to whom the loan was

allegedly given. At the time of extension of

loans the defendant Bank Leumi U S A

waived all the arrears of interest on two

occasions.

31. The defendants Bank Leumi U S A,

through defendant Benjamin Frankenstein,

falsely declared that B F - Corona Holding

Corporation was incorporated on Sept 19,

1990, in which defendant Benjamin

31]

Frankenstein and his son were the principal

officers. In fact B F Corona Holdin

Corporation was a fictitious corporation an

defendant Benjamin Frankenstein was a

Commission Agent of Bank Leumi U S A. The

defendants also declared that the corporation

can be dissolved even before completion of

the project.

32. Though the defendant Frankenstein

was expecting to complete the condominium

by the end of 1991, the plan was declared

effective on Feb 5, 1993. The defendant

Benjamin listed unit numbers I B, 2 D, 3 A, 3

B, 3 D,4A,4C,4D,5A,5D,6E, to meet

the minimum percentage needed under the

offering plan to declare the offering plan

effective. He alleged that the purchase

agreements in respect of above units were

executed during the period from June 1992 to

Sept 1992. In fact the defendant filed the

perjured affidavit in First Amendment dated

Feb 5, 1993. It was alleged in the affidavit

that one Mrs. Maria Rodriguez, got her

purchase agreement on June 3, 1992 and one

Mr. Raymond Alston got his purchase

agreement on August 13, 1992. e other

false owners showed in the perjured affidavit

were Mrs. Tenean Porter who allegedly

purchased the apartment number 3 A on Jan

10, 1995 and Judith A Brodkin who allegedly

purchased the apartment number I B on Feb

14, 1994. |

33. Though the Condominium was to be

completed by the end of Dec 1991 and several

purchase agreements were executed in the

year 1992, the actual sale started in the year

1994. The defendant Benjamin Frankenstein

intentionally and with malafide motive

delayed the — of the construction

until 1994.

34. The plaintiff was discriminated on the

ground of her race as the management is not

suing or taking any legal steps against other

unit owners who are not paying the common

charges. On the contrary the other unit

owners were nominated on the managing

board to take decisions on all the important

matters.

35. On information and belief, on or

about Dee 20, 1996, Bank Leumi U S A.

foreclosed 21 units out of 29 units of the

Crown Plaza Condominium.

36. On information and belief on or about

Nov 27, 1996 even prior to foreclosure of the

property, EOR FIFTY FIVE, a subsidiary of

Bank Leumi, owned by the defendant Mr.

Sciarillo, purchased 21 units from Bank

Leumi U S A. In the amendment of the

Offering Plan EOR FIFTY FIVE claimed that

they acquired the title of 21 Units of the

Condominium. In fact Mr. Sciarillo formed

several corporations to confuse and deceive

the public and secure federal loans with low

interest rate and thereby make illegal profits.

37. The defendant Bank Leumi U S A and

the dummy developer Benjamin

Frankenstein made false-'representation to

the various authorities to get tax exemptions

and other concessions for a period of 25 years

after certification that they proposed to build

the Condominium building on a vacant and

undeveloped piece of land.

38. In fact, Bank Leumi U S A was the

real developer from the very beginning and

their sole intention was to lease the units and

get higher profits by renting and not by

selling it. In order to achieve their illegal and

unlawful objectives they sold some of the unit

to their own employees and some units to

fictitious people.

39. The developer or even the sponsorer

has no statutory or contractual authority to

nominate their own employees to the

managing board as it has been done in this

- case. The Condominium is to be managed by

an association exclusively by the unit owners

and all the decisions are to be taken by the

Condominium Association of which only unit

owners are the members. In this case the

defendants nominated three of _ their

employees to a Managing board on or about

March 27, 1997 with the help of Robert Fonti,

the Managing Agent, and one unit owner of

apartment 4A. This illegal Board raised

28.06% of the existing common charges. The

raise is therefore void ab- initio. Due to

exorbitant rate in the common charges, the

person(s) with low income were unable to

purchase units in the Condominium. The

increase of the common charges was done

intentionally, willfully and in bad faith.

40. The nomination of three -bank

employees and one unit owner and one

dummy owner as members was in violation of

the following rules and regulations of the

offering plan: Paragraph 1&2 page iii, para 3

page I, last para page 55, para 1, 2, 3 of page

56, page 157, Article I, definition one; page

159, Article III section 2; page 160 Section 4,

Page 162 Article IV section 1, page 164

Article IV Section 4. Additionally, by

nominating three bank employees and two

Unit owners also violated Federal law i.e.

Public Law 96-399 dated Oct 8, 1990 Section

604(4).

41. The compliance of the above mentioned

Federal Law was mandatory in nature and

the three bank employees and the Mr. Fonti,

the managing agent in connivance and

conspiracy with each other treated the

building as their own private property.

42. Without disclosing to the Unit

owners or the general public any amendment,

those individuals suddenly announced

amendment no. 5 of the offering plan. The

genuine unit owners were completely kept in

dark about the amendment no. 3 and

amendment no 4 of the offering plan.

43. Amendment no. 5 changed the basic

structure of the offering plan. In the original

initial offering plan it was declared that units

will be sold only to those individuals who will

keep the units as their principal place of

residence. In amendment no. 5, it was

declared that all remaining units will be

leased. After the receipt of the amendment no

5, the plaintiff through her attorney served a

legal notice to EOR FIFTY FIVE advising

them that amendment no. 5 was in violation

of law and if they leased the units they will

be responsible for damages. (Legal Notice Jan

19, 1999). The defendants through real estate

agent also published an article in daily news

and made false representation about the

quality/physical conditions of the units. A

security man was posted at the entrance of

the Condominium for the first time after the

Condominium Opened. (From Morning to

Evening). Colorful flyers were kept in front of

the main entrance describing the high rate of

common charges prominently printed in bold

letters. Each and every visitor who came to

look for the apartment with intention of

purchasing were given a copy of the flyer.

Majority of the people after seeing the high

rate of maintenance left without seeing the

apartment. Those who wanted to see the

apartment were threatened by the security

guard and turned away. The real purpose of

showing the high common charges in the

flyers and keeping a security guard was to

avoid the actual sale of the units and to get

an excuse to earn money by leasing the units

or by selling the units to their own person(s).

A UPS deliveryman came to the building to

deliver a parcel. The security man was not

allowing any person to visit the building.

44. Thereafter Bank Leumi sold five

apartments to the defendant named Ramesh

C. Vig who was managing the other

properties of Bank Leumi U S A; two

apartments were. sold to defendant

Mr. Emir-Lemo who was the superintendent;

one sold to his daughter and a third

apartment was sold to a third person all nine

apartment was rented out at a high rent.

45. There is no justification of raising

common charges due to a surplus of

$40,000.00. The Unit owners were not

allowed to inspect the book of accounts and to

take extract. Superficial expenses were

shown for example $6250.00 for a termite

inspection whereas normally a_ termite

inspection is done for $40.00.

46. Though on the papers they were

showing that the members of the board were

elected but no election ever took place. The

unit owners never receive any notification. In

fact, the members of the board were

rae by the defendant Bank Leumi

47. The defendants took many concessions

from the Government by filing perjured

affidavits. The defendants have falsely stated

in the affidavit that more than 51 % of the

units were sold and that the survey of the

land took place in March 27, 1989 and that

the construction started before January 1990

and that they will construct multiple

dwelling for residential purpose only and not

for commercial purpose.

48. When the Condominium was

purchased the plaintiff had the belief that

she was going to live in a Condominium and

now she feels like she is living in a Public

Housing Project.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

49. The plaintiff reiterates the averment

contained in paragraph 1 to 48 of the

Complaint.

00. The defendants are liable under RICO

as they misrepresented concerning scope and

development of the Condominium building

that were made to the plaintiff and other

prospect purchasers over a period of several

months.

D1. Defendants conducted the business

affairs of selling and _ indirectly leasing

through pattern of Mail and wire fraud in

that the defendant used telephone and mail

service to convey their misrepresentation

which resulted in fraudulent inducement of

selling the property and also to prevent

actual sale of the property.

02. The defendants have received the

‘Income derived from a pattern activity and

they used and invested the income in

enterprises engaged in affecting inter state

commerce. In fact each of the defendants

have derived the income directly or indirectly

from pattern of racketeering activities. And

such income was used or invested directly or

indirectly by the defendants in operation of

other projects, which were the enterprises

engaged in activities that affected inter state

commerce.

53. The plaintiff claims damages in the

sum of $ 500,000.00 due to violation of the

provision of RICO.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

54. The plaintiff reiterates the averments

contained in paragraph I to 48 of the

Complaint.

55. The raise in the common charges by

the defendant Bank Leumi U S A was in

violation of the Offering Plan and

Amendments and was also in violation of law.

The plaintiff claims a judgment for

declaration that 28 % raise in the common

charges made in the year 1997 was illegal

and for a refund of excess amount recovered

by the defendant Bank Leumi from the

plaintiff.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

56. The plaintiff reiterates the averments

contained in paragraph I to 48 of the

Complaint.

57. The Sale of the five units to defendant

Ramesh C. Vig was only on paper and in fact

defendant Bank Leumi was the real owner of

the five units. The plaintiff claims a

declarative judgment declaring the resale of

a we to defendant Ramesh C. Vig illegal

and void.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

58. The plaintiff reiterates the averments

contained in paragraph 1 to 48 of the

Complaint.

59. The conduct of the delinaiecin caused

discomfort, harassment, mental agony,

emotional distress, and inconvenience to the

plaintiff. The plaintiff claims a judgment in

the sum of $ 5 million as damages.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

60. The plaintiff reiterates the averment

contained in paragraph 1 to 48 of the

Complaint.

61. The plaintiff claims damages in the

sum of $100,000. 00 due to use of

substandard materials in the construction of

the building purchased by the plaintiff.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

62. The plaintiff reiterates the averment

contained in paragraph I to 48 of the

Complaint.

63. The conduct of the defendants was

oppressive, wanton, malafide, intentional and

willful and discriminatory. The plaintiff

claims a judgment for punitive damages to be

determined by this Court.

Wherefore the plaintiff requests the

judgment as claimed in First to Sixth cause

of action along with reasonable attorneys fees

and any other relief this court may deem fit

and proper.

Dated: September 12, 2002

New York, New York

Sd/-

SATISH K. BHATIA

Attorney for the plaintiffs,

1204 Broadway, Suite 307,

New York, NY 10001

Tel: - (212) 576-1092

VERIFICATION

I Vilasini Nair Kottaram do swear under

penalty of perjury that allegations contained

in the accompanying Complaint are true to

my knowledge except those stated to be true

on information and belief and as to those

allegations also I believe them to be true.

Sd/-

VILASINI NAIR KOTTARAM

Sworn Before me on this

12th day of September 2002

State of New York

County of New York

Sd/-

NOTARY PUBLIC

SEAL

Vincent James Management Company

a 32™7 Street, New York, New York

May 1, 1997

Unit Owners of

The Crown Plaza Condominium

54-09 108th Street

Corona, NY- 11368

RE: COMMON CHARGE INCREASE

Dear Unit Owners:

1. Each year, the Board of Managers

works closely with our office and the

building's accountant to formulate the budget

for the coming year. Fortunately, through

careful financial management, we have

succeeded in keeping the Condominium's

common charges at its same level for the past

three years.

2. Unfortunately, the Condominium

experienced difficulties this past year due to

the prior sponsor not paying their common

charges, which seealied in unpaid liabilities

being carried forward to the budget for the

coming year. The anticipated income from

the leasing of parking spaces has not

materialized and in addition, the building's

operating expenses overall have increased.

The combined effect of these factors required

the Condominium to impose a 28.06%

increase in common charges. This increase

was announced at the annual meeting of unit

APPENDIX D

owners held on March 27, 1997 and was

reflected in your April 1** common charge bill.

3 At the annual meeting of unit owners a

five member board was nominated and at the

Board of Managers meeting held on April 24,

1997 the five member board listed below was

elected to fill the respective positions:

a. President - Julie Sheifetz Bank Leumi

b. Vice President - Maria a +7 4A

c. Treasurer - Robert Cassutoc Bank Leumi

d. Secretary - Tenean Porter, Apt 3A

e. Assistant Secretary - George R. Penny,

Bank Leumi

4. At the last Board of Managers meeting

the board asked that we _ prepare an

inspection form for repairs and forward it to

the unit owners for completion (see form

enclosed). Please fill out this form and return

to our offices no later than May 8, 1997.

Keep a copy of the form for your files.

This will help us anticipate the needed

repairs, when your unit and the building is

inspected on Saturday, May 10, 1997,

between 10:00 asm and 12:30 pm.

Very truly yours,

Sd/

Robert G. Fonti

Vincent James Management

Telephone (212)532-4915,

Facsimile (212) 532-3182

REEL 4789 PG 1167

139 1BB

ADVANCE ABSTRACT CORP.

ORIGINAL

- NOTICE OF LIEN

Pursuant to Section 339-z of the Real

Property Law of the State of New York.

Lienor : THE BOARD OF MANAGERS OF

THE CROWN PLAZA CONDOMINIUM

Owner of Property: MARIA RODRIGUEZ &

RAMON RODRIGUEZ

Property Address : 54 09 108" Street

Apartment #4-A

Corona, New York 11368

Block : 1955

Lot: 1015

RECORD AND RETURN TO:

BEAL & BEAL, ESQS.

Attorneys at Law

34 Birchwood Park Crescent

Jericho, New York 11753

(516) 938 — 0877

Our file No.: 801.1

APPENDIX E

REEL 4789 PG 1160

139 1BB

ADVANCE ABSTRACT CORP.

ORIGINAL

NOTICE OF LIEN

Pursuant to Section 339-z of the Real

Property Law of the State of New York.

Lienor : THE BOARD OF MANAGERS OF

THE CROWN PLAZA CONDOMINIUM

Owner of Property: TENEAN PORTER

Property Address: 54 09 108” Street

Apartment #3A

Corona, New York 11368

Block : 1955

Lot: 1010

RECORD AND RETURN TO:

BEAL & BEAL, ESQS.

Attorneys at Law

34 Birchwood Park Crescent

Jericho, New York 11753

(516) 938 — 0877

Our file No.: 801.2

APPENDIX F

5/3/04

5/6/04

5/12/04

5/13/04

INDIV

OPEN

Copy of Appellant Felix motion for

submitting brief and appendix 30

exhibits served upon opposing

counsel.

APPELLANT John Felix, _ brief

RECEIVED

APPELLANT John Felix, appendix

received.

Appellant John Felix motion for

erg brief and Appendix 30

Exhibits, filed with proof of service.

Appellant John Felix for Emergency

Restoration Order filed with proof of

service.

APPELLANT John Felix, brief and

appendix with proof of service filed.

Appellant John Felix motion to stop

defendants from claiming legal fees

filed with proof of service.

Order FILED GRANTING motion for

submitting Brief and A ne 30

exhibits by Appellant Je Felix,

endorsed on motion dated 5/12/2004.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT

the motion is GRANTED to this

extent- the brief and : i will

be filed. Endorsed by CJM.

Notice to counsel/ ot se regarding

court order dated 5/12/04.

Docket as of May 13, 2004 3:36 pm Page 7

APPENDIX G

FORM 1

NOTICE OF APPEAL

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Paras Docket No. 02-CV-5119 (SJ)

Notice is hereby given that Vilasini Nair

Kottaram, and Jo elix hereby appeals to

the United States Court of Appeals for the

Second Circuit from the decision taken by the

Honorable Judge Sterling Johnson Jr., US

District Judge and filed on January 13, 2004

granting Defendants Motion to Dismiss,

ordering that the Court declines to exercise

oe a. pee jurisdiction. over Plaintiffs

State Law claims, and denying Plaintiffs

Motion for Sanction, and otion For

Summary Judgment.

Filed in the Clerk's Office, US District

Court, Eastern District, NY. on, January 21,

2003 (We Prysume that 2003 is a mistake

and not a deliberate attempt to disqualify the

Plaintiff, because at the bottom of the Letter

oe tw is written early as January 14,

A Petition for a Writ of Mandamus vide

Docket No. 03-3126 is aineady pending in the

Ss Court (Second Circuit).

Vilasini Nair Kottaram

5409, 108 Street, Apt #1D

Corona, NY-11368, (718) 271 — 4122

Sd/-

John Felix

5409, 108 Street, Apt #1D

Corona, NY-11368, (718) 271 — 4122

Date: 13", February 2004

APPENDIX H

PAGE 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

VILASINI NAIR KOTTARAM,

Plaintiff,

Index No: CV 02-5119 SJ

Date Purchased: Sept 20, 2002

NOTICE OF A MOTION

FOR A SUMMARY

JUDGMENT. (TEXT 68

PAGES AND 126

EXHIBITS OF 586 PAGES).

SEAL

DATED

MAY 12, 2003

-against-

BANK LEUMI, U.S.A.

JOSEPH A. SCIARILLO

ROBERT M. CASSUTO

MS. JULIE SHEIFETZ

GEORGE R. PENNY -

BENJAMIN FRANKENSTEIN

MARIA RODRIGUEZ

ROBERT G. FONTI

RAMESH C. VIG

Defendants

eninrhiahcasiliecetineatiiiain atin titasilditeinabaaltbiiatninaiialdsuasasii X

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pon the

annexed Affidavit of Vilasini Nair Kottaram

sworn to on the 12th day of May 2003 and

upon the complaint herein, the Plaintiff will

move this Court of Honorable Judge Sterling

Johnson, Jr..,.......

APPENDIX I

oe eee eee

PAGE 2

Dated May — 12", 2003

Queens County, ae

Vilasini Nair Kottaram

Pro Se

5409, 108 Street, Apt. # 1 D

Corona, NY-11368

(718-271-4122)

Copies To:

CALLAN, KOSTER, BRADY & BRENNAN, LLP

Warren S. Koster, Esq..

Attorney for the Defendant

Maria Rodriguez

One Whitehall Street,

New York, New York - 10004

(212) 248-8800

RADNA & ANDROSIGLIO

Robert G. Androsiglio, Esq.

Attorney for Defendant

Ramesh Vig

67 Wall Street - 22nd Floor,

New York, New York - 10005

(212) 742-0001

HERRICK, FEINSTEIN LLP

Carol M. Goodman, Esq.

Attorney for Defendants

Bank Leumi USA

2 Park Avenue,

New York, New York - 10016

(212) 592-1400

REEL 5225PG2484

DEED No.1

This indenture, made the 6 day of April,

1999, between EOR Fifty-Five of New York,

Inc., a New York corporation with an office c/o

Bank Leumi USA, 562 Fifth Avenue, New

York, New York 10036 (hereinafter the

‘Grantor”), and Ramesh C. Vig, residing at 27

Brighton, Road North; Manhasset, Now York

(hereinafter the “Grantee”).

WITNESSETH

That the Grantor, in consideration of TEN

and 00/100 DOLLAR ($10.00) and other good

and valuable consideration paid by the Grantee,

the receipt and sufficiency of which Is hereby

acknowledged,. does hereby grant and release

unto the Grantee, the heirs or successors and

assigns of the Grantee, forever.

The condominium unit known as Unit 1A

(hereinafter called the “Unit”) in the

condominium known as The Crown Plaza

Condominium (hereinafter called the

condominium located in the County of Queens,

City and State of New York, more particularly

designated and described as Unit No. 1A In the

declaration establishing The Crown Plaza

Condominium (hereinafter called the

“Declaration”), made by the Grantor under the

Condominium Act of the State of New York

(Article 9-B of the Real Property Law of the

State of New York), which Declaration is dated

the 24 day of August, 1993 and recorded in

oO of the Register of the City of New

ork.

APPENDIX J

REEL

STATE OF NEW YORK

COUNTY OF NEW YORK )

On the 5" day of April 1999, before me

personally came Julie Sheifetz to me known

who being by me duly sworn, did depose and

say that she maintains an address at co Bank

Leumi Trust Company of New York, Inc., 562

Fifth Avenue, New York, New York 10036,

that she is the Assistant Vice President of

EOR Fifty-Five of

New York, Inc., the corporation described

in and which executed the above instrument,

and that she signed her name thereto by

authority of the board of directors of said

corporation. sas

Notary Public

(Seal)

STATE OF NEW YORK _)

)ss

COUNTY OF QUEENS )

On this 6" day of April 1999, before me

ersonally came Ramesh C. Vig, to me

own, who being by my duly sworn, did

depose and say that he resides at 27 Brighton

Road North, Manhasset, NY and

acknowledged that he signed and delivered

the foregoing instrument as his act and deed,

for the uses and purposes therein expressed.

Sd/-

Notary Public

(Seal)

REEL 5225PG2432

DEED No.2

This indenture, made the 6 day of

April, 1999, between EOR Fifty-Five of New

York, Inc., a New York corporation with an

office c/o Bank Leumi USA, 562 Fifth

Avenue, New York, New York 10036

(hereinafter the "Grantor”), and Ramesh C.

Vig, residing at 27 Brighton Road North;

Manhasset, Now York (hereinafter the

“Grantee”).

WITNESSETH

That the Grantor, in consideration of TEN

and 00/100 DOLLAR ($10.00) and other good

and valuable consideration paid by the

Grantee, the receipt and sufficiency of which

Is hereby acknowledged, does hereby grant

and release unto the Grantee, the heirs or

Successors and assigns of the Grantee,

forever.

The condominium unit known as Unit 5B

(hereinafter called the “Unit”) in the

condominium known as The Crown Plaza

Condominium (hereinafter called the

condominium located in the County of

Queens, City and State of New York, more

articularly designated and described as Unit

o. 5B In the declaration establishing The

Crown Plaza Condominium (hereinafter

called the “Declaration”), made by the

Grantor under the Condominium Act of the

State of New York (Article 9-B of the Real

Property Law of the State of New York),

which Declaration is dated the 24" day of

August, 1993 and recorded in the Office of

REEL 5225 PG2435

STATE OF NEW YORK _)

)ss

COUNTY OF NEW YORK )

On the 5" day of April 1999, before me

personally came Julie Sheifetz to me known

who being by me duly sworn, did depose and

say that she maintains an address at co Bank

Leumi Trust Company of New York, Inc., 562

Fifth Avenue, New York, New York 10036,

that she is the Assistant Vice President of

EOR Fifty-Five of

New York, Inc., the corporation described

in and which executed the above instrument,

and that she signed her name thereto by

authority of the board of directors of said

corporation. sa

Notary Public

(Seal)

STATE OF NEW YORK )

)ss

COUNTY OF QUEENS )

On this 6 day of April 1999, before me

—, came Ramesh C. Vig, to me

own, who being by my duly sworn, did

depose and say that he resides at 27 Brighton

Road North, Manhasset, NY and

acknowledged that he signed and delivered

the foregoing instrument as his act and deed,

for the uses and purposes therein expressed.

Sd/-

Notary Public

(Seal)

REEL 5226PG0001

DEED No. 3

This indenture, madé the 6% we of

April, 1999, between EOR Fifty-Five of New

York, Inc., a New York ae ae with an

office c/o Bank Leumi USA, 562 Fifth

Avenue, New York, New York 10036

(hereinafter the "Grantor”), and Ramesh C.

Vig, residing at 27 Brighton Road North;

Manhasset, Now York (hereinafter the

“Grantee”).

WITNESSETH

That the Grantor, in consideration of TEN

and 00/100 DOLLAR ($10.00) and other good

and valuable consideration paid by the.

Grantee, the receipt and sufficiency of which

Is hereby acknowledged, does hereb grant

and release unto the Grantee, the heirs or

successors and assigns of the Grantee,

forever.

The condominium unit known as Unit 5D

(hereinafter called the “Unit”) in the

condominium known as The Crown Plaza

Condominium — (hereinafter called the

condominium located in the County of

Queens, City and State of New York, more

particularly designated and described as Unit

0. 5D In the declaration, establishing The

Crown Plaza Condominium (hereinafter

called the “Declaration”), made by the

Grantor under the Condominium Act of the

State of New York (Article 9-B of the Real

ae Law of the State of New York)

which Declaration is dated the 24" day of

August, 1993 and recorded in the Office of

the Register of the City of New York.

REEL5226PG0005

STATE OF NEW YORK _ )

)ss

COUNTY OF NEW YORK )

On the 5 day of April 1999, before me

personally came Julie Sheifetz to me known

who being by me duly sworn, did depose and

say that she maintains an address at co Bank

Leumi Trust Company of New York, Inc., 562

Fifth Avenue, New York, New York 10036,

that she is the Assistant Vice President of

EOR Fifty-Five of

New York, Inc., the corporation described

in and which executed the above instrument,

and that she signed her name thereto by

authority of the board of directors of said

corporation. Sa/

a Public

(Seal)

STATE OF NEW YORK _)

)ss

COUNTY OF QUEENS )

On this 6" day of April 1999, before me

ersonally came Ramesh C. Vig, to me

own, who being by my duly sworn, did

depose and ay that he resides at 27 Brighton

Road North, Manhasset, NY and

acknowledged that he signed and delivered

the foregoing instrument as his act and deed,

for the uses and purposes therein expressed.

Sd/-

Notary Public

(Seal)

ome eA ER NA act

REEL5225PG2458

DEED No.4

This indenture, made the 6" day of

April, 1999, between EOR Fifty-Five of New

York, Inc., a New York corporation with an

office c/o Bank Leumi USA, 562 Fifth

Avenue, New York, New York 10036

(hereinafter the "Grantor”), and Ramesh C.

Vig, residing at 27 Brighton, Road North;

asset, Now York (hereinafter the

“Grantee”).

WITNESSETH

That the Grantor, in consideration of TEN

and 00/100 DOLLAR ($10.00) and other good

and valuable consideration paid by the

Grantee, the receipt and sufficiency of which

Is hereby acknowledged, does hereby grant

and release unto the Grantee, the heirs or

successors and assigns of the Grantee,

forever.

The condominium unit known as Unit 5E

(hereinafter called the “Unit”) in the

condominium known as The Crown Plaza

Condominium (hereinafter called the

condominium located in the County of

Queens, City and State of New York, more

articularly designated and described as Unit

o. 5E In the declaration establishing The

Crown Plaza Condominium (hereinafter

called the “Declaration”), made by the

Grantor under the Condominium Act of the

State of New York (Article 9-B of the Real

Property Law of the State of New York),

which Declaration is dated the 24" day of

August, 1993 and recorded in the Office o

REEL 5225 PG2462

STATE OF NEW YORK _ )

)ss

COUNTY OF NEW YORK )

On the 5" day of April 1999, before me

personally came Julie Sheifetz to me known

who being by me duly sworn, did depose and

say that she maintains an address at co Bank

Leumi Trust Company of New York, Inc., 562

Fifth Avenue, New York, New York 10036,

that she is the Assistant Vice President of

EOR Fifty-Five of

New York, Inc., the corporation described

in and which executed the above instrument,

and that she signed her name thereto by

authority of the board of directors of said

corporation. Say

ieee: Public

(Seal)

STATE OF NEW YORK _)

)ss

COUNTY OF QUEENS )

On this 6" day of April 1999, before me

—- came Ramesh C. Vig, to me

own, who being by my duly sworn, did

depose and say that he resides at 27 Brighton

Road North, Manhasset, NY and

acknowledged that he signed and delivered

the foregoing instrument as his act and deed,

for the uses and purposes therein expressed.

Not ea bhi

O uDpD1i1C

(Seal)

REEL 5886PG0140

NEW YORK FORM (WITH WARRANTIES)

Fannie Mae Loan # 1663344973

Revised 2/28/92

REO# P001972

DEED NO.5

THIS DEED made the 26 day of APRIL

2001, between FEDERAL NATIONAL

MORTAGE ASSOCIATION A/K/A FANNIE

MAE, a corporation organized under an Act

of Congress and existing pursuant to the

Federal National Mortgage Association

Charter Act, having its principal office in the

City of Washington, District of Columbia, and

an office for the conduct of business at 13455

Noel Road, Galleria Tower II, Suite 600,

Dallas, TX 75240-5003 (hereinafter called the

Grantor) and RAMESH C. VIG, 54-09 108"

STREET, UNIT 3A CORONA, NY

(hereinafter called the Grantee).

WITNESSETH, That the said Grantor for

and in consideration of the sum ONE

HUNDRED TWELVE THOUSAND FIVE

HUNDRED and 00/100 Dollars ($112,500.00)

and other valuable consideration, the receipt

whereof is hereby acknowledged, hereby

ants and conveys unto the said Grantee,

eirs and assigns:

The ees is commonly known as 54-09

108™ STREET UNIT 3A, CORONA, NY and

is more particularly described in Exhibit A

attached hereto and made a part hereof by

this reference.

REEL5886PG0141

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Grantor has

caused this Deed to be signed in its name and

on its behalf by its vice President, the day

and year first above written.

FEDERAL NATIONAL

MORTAGE ASSOCIATION

By Sd/-

Donna Ghassemi,

Vice President

ATTEST: Sd/-

Sheril Martin,

Assistant Secretary

STATE OF TEXAS ;

COUNTY OF DALLAS )

On the 23"” day of April 2001, before

me, the undersigned, personally appeared

Donna Ghassemi, personally known to me or

proved to me on the basis of satisfactory

evidence to be_ the oe ) whose

name(s) is _ subscribed the within

instrument and series to me ae =

he/she/they executed Ps =

is/her/their capacity(ies), that

phex/iner si we on the e "ete

The individual divid or on e person upon behalf

of which the in al acted, executed the

instrument and the such individual made

such appearance before the undersigned in

the City of Dallas, County of Dallas, State of

Texas. Say

(SEAL) N — Public

in and for Dallas County, Texas

SEAL

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.