FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/20/2014 INDEX NO /2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 16 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/20/2014

Transcription

1 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/20/2014 INDEX NO /2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 16 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/20/2014 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE NEW YORK: COUNTY OF NEW YORK X MARK TUNNE, Plaintiff, JURY DEMAND REQUESTED REPLY ANSWER TO DEFENDANTS GERALD P. HALPERN, ALAN ZEISS, ROD FELDMAN, & JOSHUA PRICE -against- Index No /2014 GERALD P. HALPERN, ESQ., - EXECUTOR FOR THE ESTATE OF FRED ZEISS; ALAN ZEISS- CO-EXECUTOR FOR THE ESTATE OF FRED ZEISS; JOSHUA CLINTON PRICE, ESQ. - OWNER OF THE PRICE LAW FIRM, LLC; ROD FELDMAN-OWNER AND PRESIDENT OF TRI STAR EQUITIES, INC.; NEW YORK CITY MARSHALL THOMAS J. BIA; MIKE SOLE AND CHRISTINE OWNERS OF TRIPLE A MOVING, INC. and their SUB CONTRACTOR(S) (d/b/a) VAN LINE TRUCKING including any JOHN DOE(S) AND JANE DOE(S) X I, Mark Tunne, who is the pro se Plaintiff in this action, comes before the court alleging the following claims and facts to be true and accurate to the best of my knowledge and understanding under the penalties of perjury pursuant to the Civil Practice Laws and Rules. A. ACCORDING TO HOUSING PRESERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT ( HPD ) AND THE NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION, NO PROBATE RECORDS EXISTS SHOWING DEFENDANTS HALPERN AND ZEISS HAVE NO LEGAL TIES TO THE SUBJECT APARTMENT BUILDING. 1. See Plaintiff s Exhibit A HPD and NYC Dept. of Taxation records. 2. See Defendant s Answer and Counter Claim - Fourth Affirmative Defense paragraphs Regardless of the new probate status of the Estate of Fred Zeiss, no records have been submitted to the court and Plaintiff by their counsel, Joshua Price, affirming the existence of any new probate status exempting them from this lawsuit.

2 4. Furthermore, even if this were allegedly true, Price does not deny he and his clients, Halpern and Zeiss were responsible for suing Plaintiff for chronic non-payment and nuisance in housing court. 4 Price only acknowledges nuisance. The chronic nonpayment issue will not be ignored. 5. Whereby, blame and culpability rests with Mr. Price and his clients (and Marshall Bia) regarding Plaintiff s displaced and/or stolen properties. 6. Opposing counsel does not deny the fact his clients Halpern and Zeiss are the two main parties responsible for the [alleged fraudulent] eviction. 7. See Defendant s Answer and Counter Claim - Fourth Affirmative Defense paragraph While Mr. Price argues it s improper to name him as a defendant due to this LLC status, all LLC s are limited liability corporations pursuant to the Uniform Commercial Code ( UCC ). Whereby, LLC s can be sued. All inquiries and requests made by Plaintiff concerning his missing properties from Marshall Bia s office and from Rod Feldman s office were directed to Mr. Price. 9. Plaintiff re-asserts he was directed by Feldman s office, and by Marshall Bia s office, to speak directly to Price s office regarding his missing properties. 10. Plaintiff re-asserts Mr. Price concealed his knowledge of Plaintiff s missing properties until January 10, Nearly one year to the date [01/16/13] Plaintiff vacated his apartment. See Plaintiff s Exhibit B. 11. Furthermore, the New York City Bar Association and Disciplinary Rules pursuant to the American Bar Association ( ABA ) rules of professional responsibility and conduct have strict mandates governing attorneys who are co-defendants representing themselves and their clients in the same action. Attorneys lawfully cannot represent themselves as defendant/witnesses and

3 represent their clients in the same action at the same time. Plaintiff respectfully requests this court to review and determine whether Mr. Price and his entire law firm may have to recues himself (themselves) as the attorney(s) for defendants Halpern, Zeiss, and Feldman. 12. Second, Mr. Price denies he communicated with Plaintiff on May 12, 2013 Mother s Day when he had his office telephone number transfer over to his private cell phone or blackberry. Plaintiff can affirm during discovery his letter notification to Mr. Price regarding his telephone communication(s) with him regarding this allegation. Price never disputed Plaintiff s letter communication dated May 17, Mr. Price denies the allegations contained in paragraph 25 in Plaintiff s complaint. 14. Plaintiff s first Eviction notice dated January 5, 2013 (approx) is currently filed in a private, semi-unobtainable storage unit. Plaintiff will produce this document during discovery. 15. Plaintiff s second Eviction notice dated April 26, 2013 is currently filed in a private, semi-unobtainable storage unit. Plaintiff will produce this document during discovery. 16. See Plaintiff s certified, registered receipt letter dated May 17, 2013 sent by Plaintiff to Mr. Price is currently filed in a private, semi-unobtainable storage unit. Plaintiff will produce this document during discovery. 17. Plaintiff reserves his rights to demand copies of the two Warrants from Mr. Price (attorney/defendant) and Marshall Bia during discovery. 18. Regardless of Price s denied communication with Plaintiff on 5/12/13, Plaintiff s communication by certified, registered, receipt mail dated 5/17/13 will validate notice served to defendants Halpern, Zeiss, and Feldman. Plaintiff was deeply concerned about gaining access to his properties before the statutory expiration date.

4 19. See Plaintiff s Exhibit B Price s letter correspondences dated January 14, Price fails to admit or volunteer information he communicated with Plaintiff on January 14, 2014 regarding his missing properties after Plaintiff made repeated demands to his office asking where his properties had been stored. 21. Despite this material fact, Price s communication with Plaintiff nearly one year to the date Plaintiff vacated the apartment is by this point moot. 22. Since defendant s Mike Sole and Christine who allegedly own AAA Moving Inc., a/k/a Triple A Moving Inc., have not submitted an Answer; nor have their alleged sub contractors, Van Line Trucking, Inc., the remaining defendants who have submitted an answer now bear the sole responsibility of Plaintiff s missing and/or stolen properties. B. JOSHUA PRICE FALSIFIES HIS COMMUNICATION WITH PLAINTIFF ON JANUARY 18, Plaintiff has been a resident of the subject apartment building since October 1, Plaintiff vehemently asserts he has never, and would never, abandon his properties. 25. Opposing counsel can assert Plaintiff has fought a long battle to retain his rights to the subject apartment since he filed the first of three, holdover petitions commencing on June 16, Plaintiff re-asserts he did communicate with Joshua Price on 01/18/13 by telephone informing him he had 1) vacated the apartment on 01/16/13 at 8:00 a.m.; 2) Plaintiff offered to give the landlord back his key to the building s front door; 3) Plaintiff was informed by Mr. Price he could continue using his mailbox until further notice. 4) Plaintiff was again informed the warrant of eviction was being executed. Mr. Price made no verbal statements the warrant was going to be canceled until further notice.

5 27. Plaintiff alleges this most disturbing fact, Mr. Price also informed Plaintiff he would be arrested if he [re] enters the building beyond the first floor entrance where the mailboxes are located. Plaintiff was informed he could not go to his apartment located on the 5 th floor. If he did, plaintiff would be arrested and criminally prosecuted for trespassing. Due to fear, Plaintiff complied with Mr. Price s orders. 28. This is the reason Plaintiff never went to the 5 th floor. He believed his apartment was going to be, or had been pad locked by Marshall Bia in January Whereby, Mr. Price, along with Marshall Bia s silence or concealment separated Plaintiff from his Properties forever. 30. On 01/16/14, Plaintiff was living in Department of Homeless Services ( DHS ) in connection with Veterans Affairs ( VA ) sponsored housing. 31. Plaintiff asserts the city s and VA s time and money was severely wasted due to the evil Fraud by concealment of defendants Price and Bia in which blame and liability also fall to Halpern, Zeiss, and Feldman. 32. Plaintiff strongly predicts Mr. Price will attempt through his fake theatrical attorney performance claiming ignorance or a brief lapse in memory regarding the first warrant of eviction. Despite Mr. Price s alleged failed memory, or alleged intermittent recollections, (which are predicted to surface) the fact is the first warrant was terminated and rescinded either by Mr. Price or Mr. Feldman, or by Mr. Halpern, or Mr. Zeiss, or by some unknown third party. 33. Again, no one informed Plaintiff, or the clerks of the ATSD of the canceled warrant. 34. As counselor for the defendants in January 2013, Mr. Price was actively communicating with ATSD appeals clerk, Dave Ryan, who was the sole clerk assigned to the appeal.

6 35. During discovery, Plaintiff will need to issue a subpoena to the chief clerk of the Appellate Term Second Department, Mr. Paul Kinney, for an affirmation record regarding the two, OSC applications filed by Plaintiff who unsuccessfully sought a Stay of the Warrant of Eviction. 36. Mr. Kinney will also be to affirm or deny whether Mr. Price and/or Marshall Bia s office communicated with the clerks office on or after January 16, 2013 informing them the first warrant of eviction had been terminated and by whom. 37. ATSD clerk, Dave Ryan directly communicated with Mr. Price regarding all phases of the appeal and the first scheduled warrant prior to 01/16/ Plaintiff can attest to Mr. Ryan s integrity. If the cancellation of the first warrant had been made known to him, Mr. Ryan would have 1) documented the cancellation in the court s computer database as required by judicial policy and law; 2) Mr. Ryan would have contacted Plaintiff by telephone and letter informing him he could retain use and occupancy of the subject apartment until further notice. 39. Any attempts by Mr. Price to feign ignorance (once his memory is restored) is no excuse and no defense. 40. The fact is defendants Price, Bia, Halpern, Zeiss, and Feldman said nothing to the ATSD nor to Plaintiff directly regarding the first canceled warrant. 41. Whereby, each defendant cited in paragraph 40 contributed to the separation of Plaintiff and his properties forever. C. PLAINTIFF S CLAIMS ARE NOT BARRED BY COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL OR RES JUDICATA 42. Plaintiff s claims have not been litigated in Supreme or Civil Court.

7 43. Mr. Price has failed to prove or demonstrate his allegations in his first affirmative defense. D. PLAINTIFF S SEVERED HOUSING COURT COUNTER CLAIM WAS RESTORED. OPPOSING COUNSEL AND HIS CLIENTS ARE NOW FACING A NEW LAWSUIT FOR ILLEGAL EVICTION AND OTHER TORTS. 44. See nycourts.gov or webcivil supreme index no / Plaintiff s severed counter claim was restored back to the calendar on November 3, 2011 on a reconstruction order issued by the panel of the ATSD pursuant to CPLR 5704(b). 46. Any allegations made by opposing counsel that Plaintiff s claims have been litigated and decided are in reference to the housing court decision/order issued by Judge Brenda S. Spears on October 6, As of this current date, Plaintiff s survivable counter claims will address issues involving the pre-eviction events in the new lawsuit. No judge has been assigned. 48. As for the post events surrounding Plaintiff s lost and or stolen properties, these events have not been litigated and decided by the court. E. PLAINTIFF S CLAIMS ARE NOT TIME BARRED BY THE STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS 49. Due to the long, tortuous appeal which lasted from 10/26/09 to the final denied motion to reargue entered by the panel of the Appellate Division Second Department ( ADSD ), no new lawsuit could commence until the ADSD released the case on December 31, 2013 as known to Joshua Price. See nycourts.gov appellate division second department index no. 1960/2013.

8 F. PLAINTIFF IS NOT INDEBTED TO THE DEFENDANTS FOR THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS 50. Mr. Price fails to mention to the court he has never served Plaintiff a legal fees bill. 51. Mr. Price fails to mention to the court he has never filed a motion or OSC application in housing court seeking legal fees. 52. Due to the new lawsuit Sup. Ct. index no /2014 housing court may not have jurisdiction over attorney fees due to the fact the new lawsuit charges perjury, fraud, harassment, several torts, constitutional and civil rights violations against Mr. Price, his clients, and seven witnesses who offered perjures testimonies during the holdover trial. Plaintiff s counter claim challenges the veracity of opposing counsel s whole testimonial record. These claims were not litigated during the holdover trial. 53. Plaintiff re-alleges in prior contentious confrontations with opposing counsel, Mr. Price has informed Plaintiff, and continues to use, the threat of suing Plaintiff for legal fees in the event Plaintiff pursues further action against him and his clients. sought. 54. Mr. Price has made it clear to Plaintiff, if he leaves his clients alone, no legal fees will be 55. Regardless, Mr. Price has had plenty of time since October 2009 to pursue legal fees. Whereby, any judgment awarded to Plaintiff should not be offset by any [alleged] future judgments his client may win for attorney fees. G. PLAINTIFF HAS NOT SUED THE INCORRECT PARTIES TO THIS LAWSUIT 56. Opposing counsel does not deny he and his clients, Halpern and Zeiss, were the two parties responsible for Plaintiff s eviction. 57. LLC S can be sued because they have limited liability.

9 58. Plaintiff argues and re-alleges Mr. Price played a major role in concealing from him the whereabouts of his properties in May 2013 when the statutory period for Plaintiff, (an ex-tenant) was only 30 days to reclaim his properties from the landlord s agent, AAA Moving Inc. or a/k/a Triple A Moving Inc. 59. Plaintiff re-alleges no due diligent efforts were made by Price, Bia, Feldman, Halpern, and Zeiss to inform Plaintiff where his properties were stored; and to help Plaintiff reunite with his properties before the expiration of the 30 day period Mr. Feldman agreed to pay AAA Moving Inc. or a/k/a Triple A Moving Inc. for storage fees. H. OPPOSING COUNSEL HAS NOT PRODUCED A RENT BILL PROVING PLAINTIFF OWES RENT 60. Plaintiff re-asserts he continued using his former mailbox to collect his mail from January 18, 2013 until May 13, Permission was granted by Joshua Price. 61. Plaintiff re-asserts he never received a rent bill until Saturday, April 27, On this particular day, Plaintiff also received his second warrant of eviction. 62. If Plaintiff owes any back rent, neither Joshua Price nor his clients Halpern, Zeiss and Feldman, (especially managing agent Rod Feldman) haven t been concerned to sue Plaintiff in housing court, or at the two appellate courts ATSD and ADSD to collect the back rent allegedly owed. 63. Again, Plaintiff moved out of the apartment on 01/16/13. The panel of the ATSD issued its negative decision/order against Plaintiff on 12/18/ Rod Feldman s employee, Roxanne Hirsh, informed plaintiff on or about 12/20/12 no future rent payments will be accepted from Plaintiff as per Joshua Price s orders due to the favorable decision won by the landlord on appeal by the ATSD.

10 65. Whereby, it is alleged Mr. Price has told an intentional major falsehood to the court to deceive the Trier of fact claiming Plaintiff owes back rent. 66. During discovery, Mr. Price and Mr. Feldman will need to produce the rent bill Plaintiff owes. I. DEFENDANTS HALPERN, ZEISS, FELDMAN, AND PRICE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR HIRING AN UNLICENSED STORAGE WAREHOUSE COMPANY TO WAREHOUSE PLAINTIFF S PROPERTIES 67. On Monday, June 9, 2014, Plaintiff was informed by the local Department of Consumer Affairs located at 42 Broadway, New York, NY 10006, the company hired-and/or used by defendant(s) Rod Feldman, Joshua Price, Gerald P. Halpern, and Alan Zeiss AAA Moving Inc., or a.k.a. Triple A Moving, [Movers] Inc., are not registered with the New York City (NYC) Department of Consumer Affairs as required by New York City Administrative Code Title 20: Consumer Affairs Chapter 2: Licenses Subchapter 28: Storage Warehouses. 68. NYC Administrative Code states: License required. No person shall operate a storage warehouse without a license. The annual fee for a license or a renewal shall be two hundred ninety-five dollars for the first warehouse and one hundred fifty dollars for each additional warehouse. The license shall be posted in a conspicuous place in the office of each warehouse. 69. Plaintiff is currently waiting for the Dept. of Consumer Affairs to complete is thorough investigation of AAA Moving Inc. a/k/a Triple A Moving Inc. in order to determine if they have 1) a business license to operate a storage warehouse unit; 2) if whether or not Consumer Affairs issued them a Registration Number; 3) and what other activities have they [allegedly] been engaging in if they are not registered in the City or State of New York to operate a warehouse or storage facility.

11 70. Plaintiff will produce the Consumer Affairs report hopefully very soon prior to, or during discovery. 71. Plaintiff argues if the allegations are true, each defendant, notably Halpern, Zeiss, especially Feldman, and Price each bear a liability to Plaintiff for negligence and other damages for doing business with a cheap Mom & Pop operator at the dismissive disregard for Plaintiff s properties in violation of the law.

12