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

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386007_0545%3A1

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Petition for Writ of Certiorari
- **Published:** January 1, 2005
- **Citation:** 544 U.S. 1060

## Text

041175 OCT 20 2004

NOOFFICE OF THE CLERK

IN THE
Supreme Court of the Gnited States

VILASINI NAIR KOTTARAM

Petitioner

V.
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.

il

RE a at tanta

ne
—_— 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).

I

aa

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

2

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).

3

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

4

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

Se

5

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
8

3
t

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
10

3
:
a

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
1]

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").

12

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

13

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.

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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
18

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

19

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

4
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
20

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.

21

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
22

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.

23

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

x
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
24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

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

29

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

30

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

32

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

aa

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

34

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

35

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

36

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.

37

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.

38

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.

39

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

40

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

4]

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
42

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

43

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
4A

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

45

5/3/04

5/3/04
5/3/04
5/3/04

5/6/04

5/12/04
5/12/04

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

46

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
47

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
48

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

49

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
50

REEL
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. 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)

51

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

52

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)

53

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.

54

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)

55

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

56

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)

57

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.

58

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 ;
Ss
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

59

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386007_0545%3A1. Public record. Not legal advice.