FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/22/2014 INDEX NO /2013 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 48 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/22/2014

Transcription

1 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/22/2014 INDEX NO /2013 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 48 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/22/2014 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK ABRAM SABO, v. Plaintiff, ALBERTO CANDERO, HEATH CANDERO, MAXINE CANDERO, KING SPRING TAXI INC., H & M CAB CORP., BONEHEAD LLC, NIGHT OWL NYC LLC, HEATH MANAGEMENT CORP., GOLD TAXI BROKERS, INC, Index No /13 (Hon. Anil C. Singh, J.S.C.) VERIFIED AMENDED ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIM Defendants. Defendants Alberto Candero, Heath Candero, Maxine Candero, King Spring Taxi Inc., H & M Cab Corp., Bonehead LLC, Night Owl NYC LLC, Heath Management Corp., and Gold Taxi Brokers, Inc. (collectively, Defendants ), by their undersigned attorneys, answer the complaint of Plaintiff Abram Sabo as follows: 1. Admit the allegations of paragraph 1 of the complaint. 2. Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of paragraph 2 of the complaint. 3. Admit the allegations of paragraph 3 of the complaint. 4. Deny the allegations of paragraph 4 of the complaint. 5. Deny the allegations of paragraph 5 of the complaint. 6. Deny the allegations of paragraph 6 of the complaint. 7. Deny the allegations of paragraph 7 of the complaint. 8. Deny the allegations of paragraph 8 of the complaint. 9. Deny the allegations of paragraph 9 of the complaint. 10. Deny the allegations of paragraph 10 of the complaint.

2 11. In response to paragraph 11 of the complaint, Defendants repeat their responses to paragraphs 1 through Admit that Alberto Candero was the sole shareholder of defendant H & M Cab Corp., which owned and held title to New York City Taxi Medallion Nos. 7N77 and 7N78, and deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 12 of the complaint. 13. Deny the allegations of paragraph 13 of the complaint. 14. Deny the allegations of paragraph 14 of the complaint. 15. Deny the allegations of paragraph 15 of the complaint. 16. Deny the allegations of paragraph 16 of the complaint. 17. In response to paragraph 17 of the complaint, Defendants repeat their responses to paragraphs 1 through Admit that Alberto Candero was the sole shareholder of defendant King Spring Taxi Inc., which owned and held title to New York City Taxi Medallion Nos. 4J68 and 4J69, and deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 18 of the complaint 19. Deny the allegations of paragraph 19 of the complaint. 20. Deny the allegations of paragraph 20 of the complaint. 21. Deny the allegations of paragraph 21 of the complaint. 22. Deny the allegations of paragraph 22 of the complaint. 23. In response to paragraph 23 of the complaint, Defendants repeat their responses to paragraphs 1 through Deny the allegations of paragraph 24 of the complaint. 25. Deny the allegations of paragraph 25 of the complaint. 26. Deny the allegations of paragraph 26 of the complaint. 2

3 27. Deny the allegations of paragraph 27 of the complaint. 28. Deny the allegations of paragraph 28 of the complaint. 29. Deny the allegations of paragraph 29 of the complaint. AFFIRMATIVE AND OTHER DEFENSES Without assuming the burden of proof as to any matter for which Defendants would not otherwise bear the burden, Defendants hereby give notice that they intend to assert, inter alia, the following defenses: 1. The complaint fails to state a cause of action. 2. The complaint is barred, in whole or in part, by the statute of limitations. 3. The complaint is barred, in whole or in part, by Plaintiff s unclean hands. 4. The complaint is barred, in whole or in part, by Plaintiff s laches. 5. The complaint is barred, in whole or in part, by res judicata or collateral estoppel. 6. Plaintiff has failed to mitigate damages. 7. Plaintiff has not suffered any damages because the real property and medallions would not have been available to satisfy Plaintiff s judgment even if there had been no transfers. COUNTERCLAIM For their counterclaim against Plaintiff Abram Sabo, Defendants Heath Management Corp. and King Spring Taxi Inc. (together, Counterclaimants ) allege as follows: 1. Defendant-Counterclaimant Heath Management Corp. is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York. 3

4 2. Defendant-Counterclaimant King Spring Taxi Inc. is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York. 3. Plaintiff Abram Sabo is a natural person who, upon information and belief, resides in the County, City and State of New York. 4. On or about November 2, 2007, Plaintiff obtained a money judgment against Alberto Candero. 5. Upon information and belief, in or around August 2012, Plaintiff issued an execution to City Marshal Martin Beinstock ( Beinstock ). 6. Upon information and belief, by letter dated June 17, 2013, Plaintiff s attorney and agent, Michael Leopold, instructed Bienstock to levy and sell the assets of Counterclaimants including two New York City Taxi Medallions bearing the numbers 4J68 and 4J69 despite being fully aware that Counterclaimants are separate legal entities against which Plaintiff possessed no judgment. 7. In fact, in the June 17, 2013 letter, Plaintiff s attorney acknowledged that the medallions were owned by King Spring Taxi Inc., and not by Alberto Candero. Counsel also acknowledged that Heath Management Corp., the agent for the two medallions, was not even owned by Alberto Candero but rather by Heath Candero. 8. As a result of Plaintiff s wrongful levy, Counterclaimants were forced to commence a special proceeding to enjoin the levy and sale. The proceeding was commenced on July 1, 2013, in Supreme Court, New York County, Index Number /13, and assigned to the Honorable Shirley Werner Kornreich. The only parties to that proceeding were Counterclaimants and Plaintiff. 4

5 9. Plaintiff submitted papers in opposition to the petition, and in those papers, also improperly requested that the Court grant sweeping relief against a variety of non-parties to the proceeding, including restraining Alberto and Maxine Candero from transferring certain property, and compelling a different non-party to comply with a subpoena that Plaintiff had not yet even served. 10. By Decision and Order dated July 30, 2013, Justice Kornreich granted the petition and permanently enjoined the levy and sale. The Court also enjoined Plaintiff from attempting to execute on any other assets of Counterclaimants absent a court order. The relief improperly requested in Plaintiff s opposition papers was denied. In the Decision and Order, the Court chastised Plaintiff for disregarding proper procedure and violating Counterclaimants rights under the CPLR. 11. As a result of Plaintiff s wrongful conduct, Counterclaimants incurred damages, including the costs and attorneys fees incurred in prosecuting the special proceeding. Pursuant to CPLR 5232(a), Defendants are entitled to recover these losses from Plaintiff. WHEREFORE, Counterclaimants demand Judgment against Plaintiff for all damages they sustained by reason of Plaintiff s wrongful levy, including costs and attorneys fees, together with any other relief the Court deems proper. Dated: New York, New York May 22, 2014 KENT, BEATTY & GORDON, LLP /s/ Joshua B. Katz Jack A. Gordon Joshua B. Katz 425 Park Avenue, The Penthouse New York, NY (212)

6 -and- Robert Bondar, Esq. rd 26 Dooley Street, 3 Floor Brooklyn, NY (347) Attorneys for Defendants 6

7