FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/27/ :50 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 30 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/27/2018

Transcription

1 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS FIATO, INC., Index No.:518289/2016 Plaintiff, AFFIDAVIT ~against~ IN SUPPORT OF MOTION PR.EMIER AUTO CONSULTING, LLC., and FELIKS A ROZMAN, Defendants. State of New York ) County of Kings ) )ss: FELIKS ROZMAN, being duly sworn deposes and says: 1. I am a Defendant in the above-captioned action individually and am the Managing Member of PREMIER AUTO CONSULTING, LLC, (hereinafter "PREMIER" referred to as "PREMIER") a Defendant in the subject action. I make this affidavit in Support of the attached Motion to Vacate Default Judgment. 2. Initially, it is important that I make clear that neither PREMIER not I have been served with a Summons and Complaint in this action nor had I ever seen a Summons and Complaint related to this action until my attorney retrieved a copy from the Court and showed it to me approximately two (2) 1 of 7

2 weeks ago. 3. The first I learned that there was an inquest judgment against PREMIER and me was when I received a call from a monitoring agency in the first week of this month of February. 4. Moreover, prior to having been shown a copy of the Summons and Complaint by my lawyer, I had never heard of the Plaintiff FIATO, INC. and neither my company nor I had ever done business with any California company and certainly not FIATO, INC. 5. By way of relevant background, I am the sole member of PREMIER having formed the limited liability company in August, 2012 by a filing with the Secretary of State of the State of New York. See Exhibit "A" annexed hereto a print-out from the New York State Department of State. 6. I formed PREMIER so I could conduct business as a wholesale automotive dealer, i.e., a dealer of motor vehicles to other wholesalers and to retailers, but not directly to the public. See Exhibit "B" annexed hereto, the present Business Certificate for PREMIER, issued by the State of New York, Department of Motor Vehicles. 7. When PREMIER was initially formed in August, 2012, it took offices at 2377 East 18th Street, Brooklyn, New York for a few months. This is the address I had listed with the New York Secretary of State for service of 2 of 7

3 process. However, in the fall of 2012, the Department of Motor Vehicles, as part of PREMIER's wholesale application process, rejected the East 18th Street site for various reasons so PREMIER moved in the fall of 2012 to the 1993 Stillwell Avenue, Brooklyn, New York address it has occupied since, and which has been PREMIER's office registered with the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles. I had thought that once PREMIER's Stillwell Avenue address was registered with the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles and filed with the Department of Taxation and Finance that the addresses would be updated with all other New York State departments including the Secretary of State's office, PREMIER being my first limited liability company formation. 8. I labored under this misconception until the summer of 2017 when I realized that the Secretary of State was still using PREMIER's former East 18th Street address. When I found out I promptly filed a change of address for PREMIER with the Department of State so that all future process would be sent to the LLC care of your affiant at my present home address, to wit, 255 Mace Street, Staten Island, New York so that I would be absolutely certain to get any process served on PREMIER. See change of address filing receipt from New York State Department of State annexed hereto as Exhibit "C". 9. Unfortunately, when the Summons and Complaint in this action was served on PREMIER in October, 2016 through the Secretary of State, the 3 of 7

4 Summons and Complaint was apparently forwarded to the East 18th Street address in Brooklyn that PREMIER had vacated four (4) years before and well after the one-year mail forwarding at the United States Post Office had expired. See the affidavit of service filed by Plaintiff regarding PREMIER annexed hereto as Exhibit "D". Based on the foregoing, it is abundantly clear that the Summons and Complaint intended for PREMIER never reached PREMIER or me. 11. As for the Plaintiff's Affidavit of Service for the alleged service on me in October/November, 2016, see Exhibit "E" annexed hereto, the claimed service was supposedly effectuated on me at 17 Windmill Court, Staten Island. In fact I moved from that address with my wife and three (3) children in July, 2015 to my present address located at 255 Mace Street, Staten Island, New York. 12. It is no wonder that Exhibit "E" reveals a substituted services based on multiple efforts to serve since apparently no one was living at the Windmill Court address at the time of the attempted service. 13. Attached as clear evidence of my family's July 2015 move are copies of the respective deeds for our move from the Windmill Court address upon our sale thereof and our move to our 255 Mace Street home upon our purchase thereof. See Exhibit "F", the April 2015 deed for the sale of our Windmill Court property and Exhibit "G", the July, 2o15 deed for our purchase of 4 of 7

5 the Mace Street home. (The explanation for the difference in the April, 2015 sale and the July, 2015 purchase is that while we were waiting for construction on our Mace Street home to be completed, we stayed in the Windmill Court property until July, 2015 under a use and occupancy agreement with the new owner.) 14. It is noteworthy that Plaintiff's attempted service at my old Windmill Court address in October/November of 2016 took place over one (1) year after my family and I vacated that address, therefore was beyond the expiration of the one (1) year mail forwarding order filed with the United States Post Office. 15. It is respectfully submitted that based on the foregoing that neither of the intended copies of the Summons and Complaint ever reached my company or me. My attorneys have advised me that I need to establish an excusable default which I believe the foregoing does as well as a meritorious defense. 16. As for the meritorious defense, simply stated neither my company nor me ever conducted any business whatsoever with the Plaintiff. Before this month I never heard of the Plaintiff FIATO, INC. and certainly neither my company nor I ever received a bank wire or payment of $519,750.oo from Plaintiff as is alleged in their Complaint or any other amount from the Plaintiff for that matter. xy. A review of the documents that have been filed in this action reveals 5 of 7

6 nothing that connects this alleged transaction to my company or me - no invoices, no bills of lading, no shipping documents, no bank documents, no phone record, no motor vehicle titles - no documents whatsoever. There are only naked and wholly unsupported allegations from Plaintiff and Plaintiff's lawyer. 18. I am completely befuddled as to how the Plaintiff has identified my company and me as Defendants in this action. It is not even as though an employee of PREMIER could have defrauded Plaintiff since I am the only person ever employed by PREMIER. Moreover, my company does not now, nor has it ever, dealt in new motor vehicle transactions as alleged by Plaintiff. 19. It is apparent that someone is attempting to perpetrate a fraud upon this Honorable Court - either Plaintiff itself in bringing this action against completely innocent Defendants or, possibly, by unknown persons who fraudulently used my company's and my identity. In either case neither my company nor I have committed any civil offenses whatsoever, and we only ask this Honorable Court's indulgence in allowing us to defend ourselves and give us our day in Court where we are confident we will be vindicated. 20.The relief requested herein has not been sought previously. requested that the relief sought WHEREFORE, it is respectfully herein by 6 of 7

7 granted in all respects together with such other and further relief as this Honorable Court may deem just and proper. Feliks Rozman Sworn to before me this day of February, 2018 Notary Public 7 of 7