FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/23/ :02 PM INDEX NO /2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 67 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/23/2018

Transcription

1 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS -"" â â â X BORIS KOTLYARSKY, Plaintiff, Index no /17 -against- Assigned to Hon. Wayne P. Saitta BELLA ABRAZI, MARK ABRAZI, FANIA ABRAZI, RICHARD ABRAZI, BELRICH LLC, ENIGMA MAMAGEMENT CORP., and ENIGMA DIAGNOSTIC CORP., Defendants x DEFENDANTS' MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARYTUDGMENT The Law Office of Roman Popik, P.C. Attorneys for Defendants 17 State Street, Suite 700 New York, New York (646) of 13

2 TABLEOFCONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES...ii PRELIMINARY STATEMENT...1 PROCEDURAL DEFECTS BACKGROUND FACTS PLAINTIFF'S LACK OF CREDIBILITY LEGAL ARGUMENTS I. MOTION IS DEFECTIVE AS PLAINTIFF FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF CPLR 2214(a) and 3212(b) II. STANDARD FOR MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT HAS NOT BEEN MET BY PLAINTIFF AS GLARING TRIABLE ISSUES OF FACT EXIST IN RESPECT TO CONVEYANCE OF TITLE TO DEFENDANT ABRAZI'S HOUSE III. PLAINTIFF FAILED TO PROVE ACTUAL FRAUD...6 IV. THE EXISTENCE OF ACTUAL INTENT IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHICH CANNOT BE RESOLVED ON A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT...7 V. THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN RESPECT TO THE CLAIM FOR CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD MUST BE DENIED AS THE JUDGMENT-DEBTOR DID NOT BECOME INSOLVENT AS THE RESULT OF THE CONVEYANCE...8 VL DEFENDANTS RAISED TRIABLE ISSUES OF FACT IN REGARD TO ALLEGED "BADGES OF FRAUD" FRAUD" CONCLUSION of 13

3 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Alfano v. First Nat. Bank of Highland, 111 A.D.2d 960 (3d Dept. Page 1985) Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp.,., 68 N.Y.2d 320 (1986)...4 Brody v. Pecoraro, 250 N.Y. 56 (1928)...6 Capital One Bank (USA) v. Koralik, 51 Misc. 3d 74 (1st Dept. 2016)...3 Cooper v. Maurer, 37 N.Y.S.2d 992 (Sup. Ct. 1942)...6 Dorival v. DePass, 74 A.D.3d 729, 729 (2d Dept. 2010) Dykeman v. Heht, 52 A.D.3d 767 (2d Dept. 2008) Fairlane Fin. Corp. v. Longspaugh, 144 A.D.3d 858 (2d Dept. 2016) Farmers Prod. Credit Ass'n of Middletown v. Taub, 121 A.D.2d 681 (2d Dept. 1986)...7 Furlong v. Storch, 132 A.D.2d 866 (3d Dept. 1987)...7 Golden v. Pavlov-Shapiro, 28 N.Y.3d 913 (2017)...6 JMD Holding Corp..v. v. Cong.. Fin. Corp.,.,4N.Y.3d (2005) Joslin v. Lopez,, 309 A.D.2d 837 (2d Dept. 2003)...8 Lowendahl v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 272 N.Y. 360 (1936)...6 Marine Midland Bank v. Murkoff, 120 A.D.2d 122 (2d Dept. 1986)...6, 7 Matter of LiMandri, 171 A.D.2d 747 (2d Dept. 1991)...3 Murin v. Estate of Schwalen, 31 A.D.3d 1031 (3d Dept. 2006)...8 Phillips v. Joseph Kantor 6 Co., 31 N.Y.2d 307 (1972)...7 Rudnitsky v. Robbins, 191 A.D.2d 488 (2d Dept. 1993) Wall St. Assocs. v. Brodsky, 257 A.D.2d 526 (1st Dept. 1999)...9 Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557 (1980) Statutes and Treaties CPLR 2214(a) (2014)...1,3. CPLR 3212(b) (2015)...1, 1, 3, 4 Debtor and Creditor Law , 8 Debtor and Creditor Law , 7 24 NY Jur, Fraudulent Conveyances, 12, at of 13

4 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT The Plaintiff's motion for partial judgment is a hodgepodge of confusing conclusory statements made Plaintiff's attorney and unabated misrepresentations of law and fact. As it will be demonstrated below, the glaring triable issues of fact make this application incurably defective. Furthermore, the doctrine of Statute of Limitations and a failure to state a cause of action, which are the focus of Defendants' pending cross-motion to dismiss the complaint, bar Plaintiff's claims. PROCEDURAL DEFECTS Plaintiff's motion is defective under CPLR 2214(a) since the Notice of Motion does not state the grounds for relief. Moreover, the moving papers are entirely devoid of substantive references to the New York Debtor and Creditor Law as the basis for relief, thus, making Defendants guess and impeding their ability to oppose the motion purportedly rooted in a fraudulent conveyance claim. Similarly, Plaintiff's motion is fatally deficient under CPLR 3212(b) as it does not contain affidavit of a person having knowledge of the facts. Instead, Plaintiff offered Memorandum of Law, which is fraught with attorney's own interpretation of the facts. BACKGROUND FACTS This matter arises out of the case entitled Mark Abrazi and G.T. Cruises Ltd., v. Boris Kotlyarsky, index no /99, Supreme Court of the State of New York, Kings Action" Action"). County (" ("Prior In the Prior Action, defendant Kotlyarsky ("Kotlyarsky" or "Plaintiff" "Plaintiff") succeeded on two counterclaims against Mark Abrazi ("Abrazi"). (" The judgement on the first counterclaim ("Judgment 1") for $90, was entered on December 4, Exhibit "A". The judgment on the second for counterclaim $ was entered on January 20, Exhibit "B". Defendants Bella Abrazi, Fania Abrazi, Richard Abrazi, Belrich LLC, Enigma "Enigma" Management Corp., and Enigma Diagnostic Corp., (collectively "Enigma"), were not parties in the Prior Action. Defendants Bella Abrazi ("Bella") (" Richard" and Richard Abrazi ("Richard") are children of Abrazi and his wife, Fania Abrazi ("Fania"), also known as Fania Abramovich of 13

5 Bella and Richard own and operate financially successful Enigma Management Corp., (" Enigma" ("Enigma"), a medical testing laboratory, while their parents are retired. On or about December 27, 2002, Abrazi and Fania transferred the title to the property at (" " 1957 East 21st Street, Brooklyn, New York ("") to Belrich LLC ("Belrich"), a New York limited liability comp owned Bella and Richard. Exhibit "C". Abrazi's explanation as to the reasons and timing of the transfer of title to the to his children's comp is set forth in the accomping affidavit. Exhibit "D". Subsequently, on or about June 2, 2003, Belrich sold the to Ariel Soudry for $1,130, Exhibit "E". During the hearing in the Prior Action before the Hon. Lawrence Knipel on December 14, 2007, John Kosches, Esq., a real estate Exhibit "F", pp attorney for Belrich, confirmed the details of the sale. After payment of Abrazi's mortgages and expenses, Belrich netted approximately $400,000. Bella previously testified that she and Richard split net proceeds of the sale. Exhibit "G", pp. 54, lines 20-24; pp The Complaint alleged claims arising out of the above referenced conveyance of the to Belrich, which were entitled as follows: i) the first cause of action for "Declaration of Defendants' Constructive Title vested in Mark Abrazi and Faina Abrazi Based on All Fraudulent Transfer with Intent to Defraud"; ii) the second cause of action for "Declaration of A Constructive Trust in Favor of Judgment Creditor, Boris Kotlyarsky, Of The Said Assets Vested in Mark Abrazi and Faina Abrazi"; iii) the third cause of action for "A Deficiency Money Judgment". Exhibit "H", , , The issue was joined Defendants filing Answer and later, Amended Answer. Exhibit //Ill PLAINTIFF'S LACK OF CREDIBILITY In October 2016, Kotlyarsky pled guilty in the U.S. District Court, Sothern District of New York to extortion conspiracy and extortion in connection to a scheme to extract payment from a person who believed that he was the subject of a murder-for-hire plot. Kotlyarsky is presently incarcerated. In 2001, Kotlyarsky pled guilty in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York to money laundering charges in connection with insurance fraud and was sentenced to eighteen (18) -2-5 of 13

6 months in federal penitentiary. During the investigation, FBI agents taped Kotlyarsky boasting to undercover agents "the possibility of bringing in hit men from Russia to kill enemies for 'between five thousand and ten thousand dollars' for each murder". Exhibit "J". LEGAL ARGUMENTS L MOTION IS DEFECTIVE AS PLAINTIFF FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF CPLR 2214(a) and 3212(b). Plaintiff's Notice of Motion seeks "an order granting partial judgment against Defendants and awarding judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants jointly and severally in the amount of $822,133.24, plus pre-judgment interest, plus attorney's fees". CPLR 2214(a) (2014) provides in pertinent part: Notice of motion. A notice of motion shall specify the time and place of the hearing on the motion, the supporting papers upon which the motion is based, the relief demanded and the grounds therefor. Here, the Notice of Motion has failed to state: (1) grounds for requested relief and (2) which Plaintiff's cause of action would be the focus of partial Defendants must guess as to the above-mentioned issues. Resultantly, judgment motion. Thus, Defendants' ability to prepare opposition has been impeded. In Matter of LiMandri, 171 A.D.2d 747 (2d Dept. 1991) the Second Department held that a movant's failure to state the ground for relief would be disregarded if the movant alleged grounds upon which the motion was based in supporting affirmation. This is not the case. Attorney's affirmation does not provide the ground for relief nor do moving papers mention the absence of triable issues of fact for the underlying partial judgment motion. In addition, CPLR3212(b) provides in pertinent part: A motion for judgment shall be supported affidavit, a copy of the pleadings and other available proof, such as depositions and written admissions. The affidavit shall be a person having knowledge of the facts; it shall recite all the material facts; and it shall show that there is no defense to the cause of action or that the cause of action or defense has no merit. (Emphasis supplied) of 13

7 In Capital One Bank (USA) v. Koralik, 51 Misc.3d 74 (1st Dept. 2016), the Appellate Division held that: Additionally, CPLR 3212(b) provides that judgment motions must be supported an affidavit of "a person having knowledge of the facts". A conclusory affidavit or an affidavit an individual without personal knowledge is insufficient to satisfy movant's prima facie burden. See fmd Holding Cor p. v. Congress Financial Corp., 4 N.Y.3d 373, 795 N.Y.S.2d 502, 828 N.E.2d 604 (2005). (Emphasis supplied). Here, the motion papers do not contain affidavits of one with the personal knowledge of the facts to support Plaintiff's version of the events in connection with the conveyance of the to Belrich and the subsequent sale, which are the gravamen of Plaintiff's application. Therefore, Plaintiff's failure to meet a material statutory requirement in respect to motion for judgment makes it fatally defective. II. STANDARD FOR MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT HAS NOT BEEN MET BY PLAINTIFF AS GLARING TRIABLE ISSUES OF FACT EXIST IN RESPECT TO CONVEYANCE OF TITLE TO DEFENDANT ABRAZI'S HOUSE. In Fairlane Financial Corp.,. v. Longspaugh, 144 A.D.3d 858 (2d Dept. 2016), the Second Department held that: A party seeking judgmenthas the burden of tendering evidentiary in a form admissible at trial to show the absence of material issues of fact proof entitling that party to judgment as a matter of law (see Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp.,.,68N,Y.2d N.Y.2d 320, 324, 508 N.Y.S.2d 923, 501 N.E.2d 572). Where the moving party establishes a prima facie entitlement to such relief, the burden then shifts to the opposing party to demonstrate evidentiary facts that genuine issues of fact exist to preclude judgment (see id. at 324, 508 N.Y.S.2d 923, 501 N.E.2d 572; Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, , 427 N.Y.S.2d 595, 404 N.E.2d 718). "[S]ince judgment is the procedural equivalent of a trial, it must be denied if doubt exists as to a triable issue or where a material issue of fact is arguable" " (see Dykeman v. Heht, 52 A.D.3d 767, 769, 861 N.Y.S.2d 732). 'Even remedy' " the color of a triable issue forecloses the (Dorival v. DePass, 74 A.D.3d 729, 730, 901 N.Y.S.2d 528, quoting Rudnitsky N.Y.S.2d 354). (Emphasis supplied). v. Robbins, 191 A.D.2d 488, 489, 594 Here, Bella's and Abrazi's testimonies provided in related cases contradict Plaintiff's Defendants' attorney's conclusory allegations regarding the, thus, creating triable issues of fact. Exhibits actions in respect to the conveyance of "D" and "F". Plaintiff alleged that Abrazi and his wife executed a deed in June 2003 to transfer the to Belrich (Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law, pp. 9) of 13

8 This proffer has been adamantly denied Abrazi as fake and illogical, since the was already conveyed to Belrich in December Exhibit "D", $4-9. The entire motion for partial judgment hinges on Plaintiff's attorney's own interpretation of the events in connection with the conveyance of the in December 2002 Defendants' and imaginary actions in June 2003 (Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law, pp. 3-9). In fact, this motion is, to a large extent, about Plaintiff's attorney submitting his conspiracy theories about Abrazi's children's ascension in the business world and purchases of real estate starting six years after the Judgment 1 was entered against their father. Exhibit "D", For example, in absence of credible evidence, Plaintiff's attorney espoused his speculative views as follows: If Mark and Fania Abrazi merely had wanted to sell the 1957 to the nonrelated individual, they simply could have sold it directly to the non-related individual without first going through BelRich, LLC. And if they wanted their daughter or son to realize some money from the sale, they simply could have paid either a finder's fee or some sort, or have gifted some money to them. What is further unusual is that the property was transferred not just once, but twice, from Mark and Fania Abrazi to BelRich, LLC, on December 27, 2002 and June 2, The more plausible explanation of why Defendants transferred the 1957 through BelRich, LLC was to remove Mark Abrazi's name from the title as soon as possible, prior to the placement of judgment liens, for the sole purpose of defrauding Boris Kotlyarsky. Out" Adding to the mystery, there were several spots of "White and other document manipulation evident on the second deed transfers from Mark and Fania Abrazi to BelRich, LLC, on June 2, 2003, as well as questions as to the presence or not of the witness notary at the closing. While it is unclear what advantage was gained the machinations, one thing is clear that such machinations are not in the usual course of business. (Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law, pp. 18). Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law revealed that Plaintiff's attorney created his own parallel universe and wanted the Court to adopt his self-serving version of reality. Since Abrazi's statements from the December 14, 2007 Court hearing and Bella's deposition testimony both confirmed that the reasonable to conclude that Plaintiff himself was conveyed to Belrich in December 2002, it is "masterminded" a Photoshop operation to create a slew of June 2003 fake documents to depict Abrazi's actions in the most negative way of 13

9 Furthermore, Kotlyarsky's expert's admitted failure to determine Bella's true signature on an_y documents and complete inability to find out the authorship of signatures on the deed, dated June 2, 2003 and accomping documents, make the expert's report speculative and worthless. Similarly, the expert's admission that his findings were based "upon the machine copies or digital files" creates a reasonable doubt as to their evidentiary value, if. Exhibit "K", pp. 2. It is rather revealing that Plaintiff never mentioned the absence of issues of fact in his motion papers as the underlying premise for judgment motion. However, it is selfevident that triable issues of fact permeate this case in general and this motion in particular. As such, Plaintiff's approach to judgment must not be condoned. It is simply impermissible. III. PLAINTIFF FAILED TO PROVE ACTUAL FRAUD. In Marine Midland Bank v. Murkoff, 120 A.D.2d 122 (2d Dept. 1986), the Second Department held that: [B]urden of proof to establish actual fraud under Debtor and Creditor Law 276 is upon the creditor who seeks to have the conveyance set aside (Brody v. Pecoraro, 250 NY 56), and the standard for such proof is clear and convincing evidence (Lowendahl v. Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co., 247 App Div 144, affd, rearg denied; Cooper v. Maurer, 37 NYS2d 992; see also, 24 NY Jur, Fraudulent Conveyances, 12, at 407). Plaintiff's expert stated in his report that: "[t]he submission of the true signature of Bella Abramovich will be necessary to determine if she signed of the Q1 through Q6 items.", thus, admitting failure to achieve conclusive results. Exhibit "L", pp. 2. In Golden v. Pavlov-Shapiro, 138 A.D.3d 1406 (4th Dept. 2016), the Appellate Division held that: Where an expert's ultimate assertions are speculative or unsupported evidentiary foundation, his opinion should be given no probative force. Since Plaintiff's expert could not determine Bella's signature on documents, his opinion as to the authorship of documents is useless. Notwithstanding lack of evidence, Plaintiff's counsel unilaterally declared fraud on the part of Defendants making his own conclusion that "[t]herefore, one or both of the signatures were not written Bella Abrazi. The fact that she testified under oath that all the signatures were part" hers demonstrates scienter on her (Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law, pp. 16) of 13

10 This is a preposterous misrepresentation of fact. While Bella testified at her deposition as to the execution of different documents, she never admitted that the Belrich on June 2, Exhibit "G", pp. 44, line was transferred to Moreover, she questioned that date being correct one for the transfer of the title to the from her parents to Belrich. Exhibit "G", pp. 42, line At the same time, Bella had confirmed the correctness of the December 27, 2002, deed. Exhibit "G", pp. 25, line It is a matter of record that Abrazi categorically denied being involved in manner with the June 2, 2003 fake deed ten (10) years ago, as such action would be redundant since the was transferred to Belrich six (6) months earlier. Exhibit "F", pp Plaintiff failed to point out clear and convincing evidence of actual fraud committed Defendants, which would require the showing of affirmative actions taken Faina, Bella, Richard and Enigma. There is nothing, except Plaintiff's attorney's speculations. Based on the foregoing, it is self-evident that Plaintiff did not demonstrate actual fraud committed Defendants. IV. THE EXISTENCE OF ACTUAL INTENT IS A QUESTION OF FACT, WHICH CANNOT BE RESOLVED ON A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. In Furlong v. Storch, 132 A.D.2d 866, (3d Dept. 1987), the Third Department held that: As always, a motion for judgment is a drastic remedy which should be granted only when there is no doubt as to the absence of a triable issue of fact (Phillips v. Kantor & Co., 31 N.Y.2d 307, 311, 338 N.Y.S.2d 882, 291 N.E.2d 129; Alfano v. First Natl. Bank of Highland, 111 A.D.2d 960, 962, 490 N.Y.S.2d 56). Here, plaintiff has set forth causes of action alleging both constructive and actual fraud pursuant to Debtor and Creditor Law 273, 273-a and 276. Dealing first with the claim of actual fraud, Debtor and Creditor Law 276 requires plaintiff to demonstrate that, in transferring the property in question to Findlan, Storch actually intended to hinder, delay or defraud plaintiff (see Marine Midland Bank v. Murkoff, 120 A.D.2d 122, 508 N.Y.S.2d 17, appeal dismissed 69 N.Y.2d 875, 507 N.E.2d 322). The existence of actual intent is ordinarily a question of fact which cannot be resolved on a motion for judgment (Farmers Prod. Credit Assn. of Middletown v. Taub, 121 A.D.2d 681, 682, 504 N.Y.S.2d 448). (Emphasis supplied). Plaintiff's refusal to acknowledge the legitimacy of conveyance of real property from both parents to their children before judgment was entered does not make it illegal or improper of 13

11 Moreover, none of the Plaintiff's exhibits demonstrates evidence of Defendants' actual fraud. The deed, dated December 2002 reflecting the conveyance to Belrich is not sufficient to support the claim of actual intent to defraud. There is no "smoking gun". It must be noted that all Defendants, except Abrazi, were not parties to the Prior Action and were not judgment-debtors in respect to Judgment 1 and 2, respectively. They had no privity to Plaintiff and no liability in respect to judgments entered in the Prior Action. As such, the Court must deny Plaintiff's motion for partial judgment based upon alleged fraudulent conveyance. V. THE MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED UPON ALLEGED FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCE MUST BE DENIED, AS THE JUDGMENT DEBTOR DID NOT BECOME INSOLVENT AS THE RESULT OF THE CONVEYANCE. In Murin v. Estate of Schwalen, 31 A.D.3d 1031 (3d Dept. 2006), the Appellate Division held that: Debtor and Creditor Law 273 provides that "[e]very conveyance made and every obligation incurred a person who is or will be there rendered insolvent is fraudulent as to creditors without regard to his actual intent if the conveyance is consideration." consideration," made or the obligation is incurred without fair Accordingly, "both insolvency and lack of fair consideration are prerequisites to a finding of constructive fraud under [the statute and the burden of proving these elements conveyance" is upon the party challenging the (Joslin v. Lopez, 309 A.D.2d 837, 838, 765 N.Y.S.2d 895 [2003]). (Emphasis supplied). Here, Plaintiff failed to meet the requirement of showing the insolvency as the direct result of alleged conveyance since Abrazi filed the bankruptcy petition eight was conveyed. (Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law, pp ). (8) years after the Meanwhile, Abrazi has stated that after the conveyance of the in 2002, he and his wife continued to own a valuable New York City taxi medallion and a condominium apartment with the total worth exceeding the amounts of Judgment 1, which was entered in 2003 and Judgement 2, which was entered in 2004, respectively. Exhibit "D", 6. As such, since the fraudulent conveyance fails. insolvency element of the claim is missing, the cause of action for of 13

12 VI. PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE "BADGES OF FRAUD". In Wall St. Assocs. v. Brodsky, 257 A.D.2d 526 (1st Dept. 1999), the First Department held that: Factors that are considered "badges of fraud" for purposes of claim for actual fraud under fraudulent conveyance provisions of Debtor and Creditor Law are: (1) a close relationship between parties to alleged fraudulent transaction; (2) questionable transfer not in the usual course of business; (3) inadequacy consideration; (4) transferor's knowledge of creditor's claim and the inability pay it; and (5) retention of control of property transferor after conveyance. of a to While Plaintiff is allowed to rely on so-called "badges of fraud" to support his claim, he still must demonstrate their existence. Resultantly, if these criteria are not proven, such as insolvency and retention of control over the, the "badges of fraud" crumble. It is disingenuous on the part of Plaintiff's attorney to argue that a gift of real estate from the parents to children is an unusual and uncommon occurrence. In fact, it is a one of the most typical American traditions. Abrazi's Affidavit states in sufficient detail the circumstances of conveyance of the. Exhibit "D", Also, since Plaintiff failed to present clear and convincing evidence that Abrazi became insolvent after the was conveyed to Belrich and could not pay the Judgments, this element already is non-existent. Furthermore, Abrazi's landlord's testimony in December 2007 clearly stated that Abrazi and his wife moved out from the and rented another house in June Exhibit "F", pp In respect to the purported knowledge of the Plaintiff's claim, the December 2002 conveyance was made almost one (1) year prior to either, Judgement 1 or Judgment, 2 being entered. At the time of the conveyance, the Court's interim decisions on the counterclaims were still in the litigation phase with a strong possibility of reversal on appeal or, remand for another trial on a motion to vacate. The Plaintiff's insinuations defy common sense as he failed to demonstrate what advantage, if, would have been gained Abrazi executing the June 2003 deed since the identical deed was already "logic" leaves no space for executed rational him and his wife six (6) months prior. The Plaintiff's explanation. Plaintiff's desperate attempt to connect Bella's and Richard's recent professional success and purchases of real estate to the conveyance of the fifteen (15) years ago is baseless of 13

13 The attached Bella's tax returns demonstrate her significant earnings as a co-owner of one of the leading medical testing facilities, which conduct business throughout the country. Exhibit "M". owners' Plaintiff provided no evidence that, Enigma's and its financial success in period of time, has been related to the conveyance of the to Belrich. This entire lawsuit falls into the pattern of behavior of a pathological liar who has too much free time on his hands while sitting in federal jail. This conduct must not be encouraged and as such, the motion must be denied. CONCLUSION Therefore, for all the reasons stated above, it is respectfully requested the Court deny Plaintiff's motion for partial judgment. Dated: New York, New York January 23, 2018 The Law Office of Roman Popik, P.C. Attorneys for Defendants Roman Popik, Esq of 13