At IAS Part of the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, held in and for the County of Nassau, located at 100 Supreme Court Drive, Mineola, New York, on the 4th day of August, 2011.
PRESENT:
HON. STEVEN M. JAEGER,
JUSTICE
x
ELLIOT ZARETSKY, et al,
Plaintiffs, Index No. 17869/08
ORDER TO
-against- SHOW CAUSE
AARON BERLIN AND FEIGE ZARETSKY,
Defendants.
x
UPON the reading and filing the annexed Affidavit of Defendant Aaron
Berlin,, dated and affirmed thereto on August , 2011, and the Affidavit of Feige
Zaretsky, dated and affirmed thereto on August , 2011, in support of; together with all the papers and exhibits annexed hereto; and
UPON all prior proceedings had and held herein;
LET, the Plaintiffs herein show cause before this Court on August ,
2011, at 9:30 A. M., or as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard, why this court should not: (a) issue an order staying the enforcement of all money judgments issued within this
action on December 1, 2009; and (b) issue a stay relating to all orders within this action relating to discovery and contempt thereof; and (c) issue a stay of all pending proceedings thereof brought by plaintiffs; and (d) issue an order recusing Judge Steven Jaeger from this case for all purposes, for the reasons that he is biased and prejudiced against the defendants, and has shown by his actions and through the egregious actions of Mr. Eric Milgrim, his law secretary and person acting as his extended arm in the courtroom, that he maintains an illegal relationship with plaintiffs counsel, Michael D. Solomon and Susan B. Rubin of the law firm of Solomon & Herrera, LLP, together with at least two other sitting judges in the Supreme Court of Nassau County, namely Thomas Feinman and Ute Wolf Lally, relating as to the outcome of the instant case and where as a result of said special relationship with the aforesaid, his ability to carry out his judicial responsibilities in this case with integrity, impartiality, and competence is impaired.
SUFFICIENT CAUSE THEREFORE APPEARING, it is
ORDERED that pending the hearing and determination of this motion, the enforcement of the money judgments dated December 1, 2009, procured in the instant action subsequent to an inquest held on May 7, 2009 are stayed; and
ORDERED that pending the hearing and determination of this motion, all orders within this action relating to discovery and contempt thereof are stayed; and
ORDERED that pending the hearing and determination of this motion, all previous pending motions brought by plaintiffs within this action are hereby stayed; and
LET service by confirmed overnight delivery service, or by confirmed facsimile transmission, of a true copy of this Order and the supporting papers upon which it is based, upon the office of Solomon & Herrera, PLLC, 2950 Hempstead Turnpike,
Levittown, New York, on or before August , 2011, be deemed good and
sufficient service.
ENTER,
J. S.C.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NASSAU
______________--_---------------- ~x
ELLIOT ZARETZKY, HAROLD ZARETZKY,
SHIRLEY ZARETZKY, and MAXI-AIDS INC. Index No. 17869-08
Plaintiffs, -against-
AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT
AARON BERLIN, FEIGE ZARETZKY, OF SHOW CAUSE
Defendants.
-- - x
Aaron Berlin, a defendant herein, being duly affirmed1 deposes and states under penalties of perjury as follows:
1. The instant show cause seeks a stay of certain legally invalid judgments and orders procured via fraud and judicial misconduct in the instant action; and the recusal cfJudge Steven Jaeger, the judge assigned to this action as of January 2011, based on prima facia evidence of judicial misconduct practiced in his courtroom relating to this action. This show cause does not stem from disgruntled litigants unhappy with the results of a trial or a motion decided by Judge Steven M. Jaeger, as it is noted here Judge Jaeger has not as yet issued any orders or judgments in the instant case. It shall be clearly demonstrated further hereinbelow, this show cause is based upon the egregious
For religious reasons I refrain from taking an oath.
misconduct on the part of Judge Jaeger's law secretary, Mr. Eric Milgrim, a person acting as the judge's extended arm, and who is acting in Judge Jaeger's name, and whose outrageous misconduct in his courtroom provides blatant evidence of an illegal relationship and participation in a colossal fraud scam in conjunction with plaintiffs counsel, Michael D. Solomon and Susan B. Rubin of the law firm of Solomon & Herrera, LLP, and with at least two other sitting judges in the Supreme Court of Nassau County, namely Thomas Feinman and Ute Wolf Lally, relating as to the outcome of the instant case and where as a result of said illegal relationship with the aforesaid, Judge Jaeger's ability to carry out his judicial responsibilities in this case with integrity, impartiality, and competence is entirely impaired.
2. A copy of the legally void money judgment issued in this action is
annexed hereto as Exhibit A.
3. I am the father of my co-defendant, Feige Zaretsky ("Feige"), a
woman born totally deaf from birth, and learning disabled. The instant action,
began as a well planned fraud scam dressed as a libel suit. It was commenced
in September 2008 by Elliot Zaretsky, Feige's ex-father-in-law, and Harold
Zaretsky, her ex-husband, Shirley Zaretsky, Feiges' ex-mother-in-law, and
Maxi-Aids, Inc. a multi-million dollar corporation to which Feige has a claim of
ownership, and currently under the alleged control of the Zaretsky plaintiffs,
collectively referred to herein as "plaintiffs", in the hope and with the objective
to use the instant libel suit, in the manner described hereinbelow, as a means to
wash out and neutralize certain maintenance judgments in the amount of
-2-
$10,000.00 per month awarded to Feige in her divorce with Plaintiff Harold Zaretsky, as well as her share of equitable distribution in the marital residence.
4. In furtherance of the aforesaid, plaintiffs devised a scheme by
which to cause defendants to default in the libel suit as well, so as to assure their
proccurring hefty money judgments against the Feige and undersigned. Plaintiffs'
fraud scam is described further hereinbelow.
5. The instant action on its' face seeks alleged damages for allegedly
sent emails containing a purported libelous document during early September
2008 to Plaintiff Maxi-Aids, Inc., the current corporate headquarters of Plaintiffs
Elliot Zaretsky and Harold Zaretsky ("Harold"), and where subsequently several
employees at Maxi-Aids, Inc. purportedly found the said emails.
6. This action was originally assigned to Judge Thomas Feinman.
Subsequently, on August 9, 2009, after the defendants herein moved by show
cause seeking vacatur of one of his prior orders, Judge Feinman on his own
motion "mysteriously" issued an order by which he recused himself from the
case, absent stating his reason within the order. The case was then reassigned to
Judge Edward McCarty III until his moving to the Nassau County Surrogate's
Court on January 2,2011. The case was then further transferred to this Court
(Steven Jaeger, J.) where it remains until this day.
7. On May 25, 2011, while sitting in the courtroom of Judge Jaeger waiting for the calendar call, I overheard Michael D. Solomon, plaintiffs' counsel, blabbering loudly as to the reason behind Judge Feinman's fear of the
-3-
defendant's show cause and reason for his recusal. That matter revealed by Michael Solomon is currently the subject of a complaint relating to judicial fraud and corruption filed against Judge Thomas Feinman with the Commission of Judicial Conduct, and directly relates to the instant show cause as described further hereinbelow.
8. Unknowingly, defendants appeared in the action pro se while
having fraudulently been made to believe that they were being represented by a
licensed attorney named David Wacholder ("Wacholder"). Subsequently, it
was realized, and thereafter proven, that Wacholder was a charlatan working for,
and conspiring together with, Plaintiff Elliot Zaretsky and his co-plaintiffs,
against the defendants.
9. Actually, Wacholder's lawyer charade began some time prior to
the instant libel suit when he was "legally representing" Feige in her divorce
related litigation and charging her hefty legal fees.
10. In conspiracy with Plaintiffs, Wacholder wrote the alleged libelous
emails and thereafter during September 2008 purportedly published same using
his personal email account from my office computer without my knowledge.
11. David Wacholder, as defendants' purported lawyer, and in
conspiracy with Plaintiff Elliot Zaretsky, prepared rambling, incoherent and
indiscernible papers on behalf of defendants in this case with the intent of
setting the stage for a subsequent motion by plaintiffs for summary judgment.
-4-
12. In furtherance of their fraud scheme, Plaintiff Elliot Zaretsky, in
concert with his co-plaintiffs, employed Wacholder, to procure defendants' default
on the motion brought against them for summary judgment.
13. Thereafter, on January 9, 2009, Judge Thomas Feinman issued an
order granting summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs, against defendants, and
within his order he directed that the matter be sent to an inquest following
plaintiffs' counsel's filing of a note of issue, and additionally directed therein
plaintiffs' counsel as follows:
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, attorney for movant shall serve a copy of this order, with notice of entry, on the defendants by regular and certified mail. (The bold emphasis is included in the order.)
A copy of the aforesaid order with the Clerk's entry stamp dated January 14, 2009 is annexed hereto under Exhibit "B". For clarification purposes the said order of January 9,2009 is sometimes referred to herein as the "underlying order".
14. Plaintiffs' counsel never served defendants with any notice of
entry. Likewise, the clerk's dockets show that between January 2009 and April
2011 there was no filing or proof of service of a notice of entry of the said order.
(There is no intent here to dispute that there were subsequent orders issued by
Judge Feinman in November of 2009 and in December 2009 that were thereafter
-5-
entered by the Nassau County Clerk in which notices of entry were indeed filed, such as on November 20,2009, and December 11,2009.)
15. On May 7, 2009, plaintiffs proceeded without notice to the
defendants to an inquest held by special referee Lawrence M. Schaffer. On
October 28, 2009 the referee issued a "Hear & Report" in which he assessed
plaintiffs were damaged in the amount of $1,290,000.00 as a result of the
purported libel. The very first time that defendants became aware that an
inquest had been scheduled for May 7,2009, and had in fact occurred, was in
November 2009 when Michael Solomon, plaintiffs' counsel, purporting to seek
confirmation of the findings of the inquest served defendants with a motion.
The plaintiffs' motion of November 2009 and plaintiffs' true objective in
bringing that motion is discussed more fully hereinbelow.
16. Two years later, on May 20, 2011 the defendants became cognizant
of Michael D. Solomon's failure to serve a notice of entry of the underlying
order upon defendants. Thereafter, on May 23, 2009, the defendants had
plaintiffs' counsel served with a copy of the order and proper Notice of Entry,
and immediately on the same day filed copies of same with an affidavit of
service with the clerk of the court. A copy of the Notice of Entry dated May
23, 2011, served by defendants' agent upon plaintiffs' counsel, of which a copy
of same was thereafter filed with the county clerk, is annexed hereto also under
Exhibit B.
17. To lend further emphasis to plaintiffs' failure, plaintiffs counsel,
Michael D. Solomon, in a certain Affirmation in Opposition that he executed on
-6-
June 7,2010 and submitted to Judge Thomas Feinman prior to his recusal, was there annexed as his exhibit "C" a lone and false "affidavit of service" referring to some alleged service of a purported notice of entry of the order of January 9, 2009 upon the defendants, but without attaching any actual notice of entry document. However, the said lone affidavit of service, was defective on its' face, as it reflects, contrary to the order, just one single mailing of certified mail for both defendants despite the fact that the defendants live apart in two separate counties.
18. Notwithstanding that his Affidavit was defective on its face, there
was no service of a notice of entry under any circumstances. Moreover, even
hypothetically if plaintiffs' counsel had served defendants with the document
purporting to be a notice of entry, if the document did not provide therein the
date of entry of the order then it's not a notice of entry.
PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL KNEW SINCE 2009 THAT HE WAS NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE
COURT'S DIRECTIVE, & THE ORIGIN OF THE AFORESAID DEFECTIVE AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
19. It will now be shown from the court's records that since 2009
plaintiffs' counsel, Michael D. Solomon, was fully aware that he had neglected
to comply with the court's directive by his not serving the defendants with a
copy of the order and notice of entry in any fashion, which certainly includes the
specific two methods of mailing directed by the court.
-7-
20. In a motion brought by plaintiffs on November 6, 2009 they
attached thereto as their "A" exhibit a copy of the underlying order having no
entry date stamped on its' face, together with a sloppily drafted paper with an
incorrect index number that purported to be a notice of entry but it too had no
date of entry, or which was at best a defective notice as it contained no valid
date of entry. Please see the annexed Exhibit "C". (It is precisely for this reason
that Michael Solomon in his June 7, 2010 Affirmation in Opposition only
attached a lone affidavit of service without any notice of entry.)
21. Also attached under the plaintiffs' said exhibit A was an affidavit of
service of the defective paper, which on its face was likewise defective as it did
not reflect duplicated service upon defendants by certified and regular mail as
directed in the order. See annexed Exhibit C. (It was a copy of this very same
purported affidavit of service that is seen later annexed by Michael Solomon to
his June 7, 2010 Affirmation in Opposition. Apparently, in June 2010 he was
confident that the affidavit alone would not pose a threat of exposure of his fatal
error particularly when not placed along side the underlying order or the
defective notice of entry.) Additionally, attached under the said exhibit A was
plaintiffs' legal back -as explained next. (See annexed Exhibit C.)
22. The stenographer's minutes taken at the purported inquest shows
Referee Lawrence Schaffer at the opening of the inquest, requesting from
Michael Solomon to see his proof of service of the notice of entry upon
defendants. Negligently the referee relied on Michael Solomon's bad judgment
and never examined the instrument to see that it was multi-defective. (See the
annexed Exhibit D.)
-8-
23. (To set here the record straight, contrary to Michael Solomon's
feeble argument inserted in his reply papers dated June 1, 201 lands submitted
to this court of Judge Steven Jaeger, the referee does not stand on sacred ground
and was never given plenary powers permitting him to solemnize blank sheets of
paper with the effect of turning it retroactively into a notice of entry that was
effectively served on the defendants. Interestingly, in his two subsequent sets of
opposition papers that he filed at the Appellate Division, Michael Solomon
would not dare to try making such a ridiculously absurd claim.)
24. The plaintiffs' aforesaid motion of November 6, 2009 was
returnable on November 30, 2009. On or about November 19, 2009, Michael
Solomon was made aware by Judge Feinman that he irrevocably blundered on
the notice of entry. Immediately on November 19, 2009, Michael Solomon
unilaterally withdrew his motion and had his of counsel, Susan Rubin, write a
letter addressed to Judge Feinman that they found the motion to be unnecessary.
25. Michael Solomon, at the time that he initially brought the aforesaid
motion was fully aware that his motion was not necessary. On the day he
brought his motion, an order from Judge Feinman confirming the special
referee's report had already been signed and had already been entered. If
Michael Solomon was indeed concerned that his motion was frivolous, he would
not have brought it in the first place. If he was legitimately concerned that the
-9-
court had already ruled on the relief he was requesting, then he should have
ry
moved immediately to withdraw his motion and not wait for 13 days to pass.
26. Michael Solomon was contacted by Judge Feinman's chambers on
or about November 19, 2009, just after Michael Solomon's fatal error was
discovered and was told to immediately withdraw the motion, and not to ever
again annex a copy of that defective notice of entry.
27. For the record: It's reasonable that Judge Feinman would have
reviewed and noticed plaintiffs' flawed exhibit A so much in advance of the
return date of the motion, as the return date was Monday, November 30, 2009,
the first day back after the long Thanksgiving weekend.
28. Accordingly, Judge Feinman was fully aware at that time that his
prior order dated November 2, 2009 that granted a money judgment in the
amount of $1,290,000.00 against the defendants was a nullity because the
inquest held on May 7, 2009 had been illegally conducted by plaintiffs' counsel
without proper notice to defendants, and that plaintiffs were not legally entitled
to even a penny in judgments.
2 Clearly, the objective of plaintiffs motion in November 2009 was not the motion per se, as the relief demanded had already been granted, but was to create a retroactive appearance that plaintiffs had never sought to obscure the inquest from defendants, and permit plaintiffs' counsel to subsequently claim falsely, if need arise, that defendants were on notice of the inquest even prior to the issuance of the money judgments and yet did not seek to contest. The plaintiffs' timing of bringing the motion was perfect and was a guaranteed Win as they knew that the court had already two days prior already granted the relief requested by having confirmed the findings of the special referee.
-10-
29. Moreover, Judge Feinman while knowing that plaintiffs' counsel
had failed to serve a copy of the underlying order together with a notice of entry
upon the defendants, and while fully aware that plaintiffs were not entitled to
any money judgments, issued an order dated April 2, 2010 for contempt against
the defendants for purportedly not complying with a notice of deposition sent by
plaintiffs' counsel. A copy of that order is annexed hereto under Exhibit A.
30. Accordingly, since 2009 plaintiffs' counsel was fully aware that
defendants had been denied their day in court, by having been denied notice of
the inquest scheduled for May 7, 2009.
31. Had defendants been properly served with notice of entry, and been advised of the scheduled inquest, defendants would have definitely appeared and entirely mitigated the plaintiffs' preposterous claims of money damages. For instance, most ridiculously, Plaintiff Shirley Zaretsky was awarded one hundred thousand dollars for purportedly losing a night sleep. Also, certain employees that work for Plaintiff Maxi-Aids testified that they received tens of calls from customers mentioning that they had seen the purported emails and were disturbed, yet no list of the names of those customers or company log reflecting such calls was ever provided to the referee. To make matters more curious, an accountant came and testified that Maxi-Aids had lost over two million dollars assumingly over the purported emails. Imagine so great the alleged loss of retail customers, yet so few complaining calls in proportion, if any at all. Had the defendants been given an opportunity to cross-examine the plaintiffs' witnesses the record would show each of the witnesses being proven a liar set up by Plaintiff Elliot Zaretsky, with possible exception to the accountant.
-11-
32. Moreover, Michael Solomon, by his determination not to rectify
the matter by refusing to move for a new inquest, clearly shows that he found it
preferable to deliberately deceive and mislead the defendants into believing that
plaintiffs had been in compliance with the court's directives, and that the
defendants had neglected to appear at the scheduled inquest. This can be seen
from the footnote below.3
33. To reiterate, Plaintiffs never served defendants with a legal notice of
entry. Their purported notice of entry failed to include the date of entry of the
3 Plaintiffs' counsel accomplished the scam as follows: With intent to deceive and defraud, Michael Solomon in his Affirmation in Opposition dated June 7, 2010, discussed above at If 19, carefully attached only the falsified affidavit of service without connecting any notice of entry, as he had none. His objective in that Affirmation in Opposition was to submit to Judge Feinman falsified proof of service of a notice of entry of the underlying order upon the defendants. Michael Solomon knew the inquest held on May 7, 2009 had no feet and that the money judgments derived from same were likewise void, but despite his possession of that knowledge it did not stop him from seeking to defraud the defendants of nearly 1.3 million dollars at the courthouse.
Additionally, in those very same papers in opposition, Michael Solomon makes a second reference specifically to having served a notice of entry of the underlying order on defendants, but is again very careful to avoid making a reference to any annexed copy because he knows he has none.
Moreover, in March 2011 in another perjurious affirmation in opposition signed and filed by Michael Solomon at the Appellate Division, Second Department, Michael Solomon sought to falsely claim that the defendants' time to file a notice of appeal had lapsed, but surely he could not without showing he served a notice of entry. Unlike the game playing he was permitted to practice before Judge Feinman, he knew at the Appellate Division he would be required to produce the full proof of service with a valid notice of entry to support his time expiration claim. Instead, Michael Solomon can be seen in his affirmation taking a 180 degree turn as he lies to the Appellate Court, and I now quote from his falsified Affirmation:
"CPLR 5701(c) permits a party to seek leave to appeal to the Appellate Division from an order that is not appealable as of right. Here, Defendants originally appealed the trial court order that granted plaintiffs' summary judgment based on defendants' default. This appeal was taken in a timely manner and was within the statutory thirty (30) day period from service of the order with notice of entry. However, as this court rightfully determined on May 7,2010, the appeal was dismissed "on grounds that no appeal lies from a judgment or an order entered upon the default of the appealing party."
-12-
order; the order attached to their notice also bears no stamp reflecting date of entry. The plaintiffs' purported Notice of Entry contains a material defect -no date of entry- and is therefore void on its face.
34. It goes without saying, Michael Solomon knew that without
bringing a motion by plaintiffs seeking a new inquest, his clients were stuck
with and committed to remain with his sloppy and fatally defective proofs of
service, together with a legally void inquest and fraudulently procured money
judgments.
35. "To be effective the 'Notice of Entry' must strictly comply with
CPLR 5513 and state exactly when and with whom the order or judgment was
entered, and if it describes the judgment or order, the description must be
accurate." Unique Marble & Granite Org. Corp. v. Hamil Straiten Props., LLC,
13 Misc. 3d 1239A, 831 N. Y.S.2d 357 (Queens County Sup. Ct. 2006) citing
Reynolds v. Dustman, 1 N. Y.3d 559, 772 N. Y.S.2d 247 (2003)(service of an
unstamped copy of the order, with a cover letter saying it had been filed with the
clerk, did not constitute proper notice of entry).
36. Regarding plaintiffs' failure to include the date of entry; although
modern litigation practice is often forgiving of minor mistakes, "strict practice
must be pursued to limit the time to appeal," and thus a notice of entry must be
accurate. Falker v. New York, W. S. & B. R. Co., 100 N. Y. 86, 2 N. E. 628
(1885). An incorrect date of entry is a material defect that renders a notice of
entry void. Nagin v. Long Island Savings Bank, 94 A. D.2d 710, 462 N. Y.S.2d 69
-13-
(2d Dept 1983); Ping Lum v. YWCA, 136 A. D.2d 972, 525 N. Y.S.2d 82 (4th Dept 1988).
37. Accordingly, Judge Thomas Feinman knew that the inquest held on
May 7, 2009 was entirely void, likewise the money judgments that flowed as a
result thereof was void, because:
a. The special referee Lawrence Schaffer, in the absence of service of
a valid notice of entry upon defendants, lacked jurisdiction over the
defendants, and conducted the inquest after failing in his fiduciary
responsibilities and as a judicial hearing officer to properly examine
the defective notice and the affidavit of service provided to him by
plaintiffs' counsel; and
b. as a result of plaintiffs' counsels' failure to provide service of the
order with notice of entry or adequate service as directed by the
court's order, the judgments were rendered in a manner inconsistent
with due process.
38. Judge Thomas Feinman was assured by Michael Solomon that the
pro se defendants would never in a million years discover the defective notice of
entry, for one defendant is deaf and learning disabled, and the other is an
ignorant Ukrainian immigrant that is fully controlled by the quack lawyer David
Wacholder.
39. A criminal investigation if opened in this matter will surely
determine what value Judge Feinman received or was promised for keeping the
matter hushed, and for his further cooperation with Michael Solomon's fraud
scam. Like disbarred lawyer Paul Siminovsky turning key witness against his
co-conspirator former Kings County Judge Gerald Garson, so too will the
-14-
scoundrels Michael Solomon and Susan B. Rubin be begging to sing like canaries against their co-conspirators in this matter.
40. During May 2010, in furtherance of their scheme to defraud
defendants, and as an alternative solution to hiding the defective notice of entry,
Michael Solomon opened another case under Index No. 8498-10 seeking an
order directing the Sheriff of Nassau County to sell the rights, title, and interests,
of Feige's home at 10 Chestnut Drive in Plainview, New York, and in response
to receiving or being promised certain favors of value Judge Feinman, on May
26, 2010 signed the order.
41. Firstly, such a motion was not necessary, for Michael Solomon on
December 1, 2009 had already filed a completed money judgment in the grand
sum of $1,290,000.00 with the office of the Nassau County Clerk, and could
have taken that judgment directly to the sheriff for execution.
42. Secondly, by just glancing over Judge Feinman's order, dated May
26, 2010, a copy which is annexed hereto as Exhibit "E", it clearly appears that
the order is an "orphan" with no mother or father, and no ancestry at all
connecting it to any particular money judgment. The order is carefully written
to make no reference to the underlying order. Accordingly, such an order
without any ancestry to a particular money judgment could permit the clients of
Michael Solomon to collect not once but twice on the same purported judgment.
43. Moreover, this auxiliary order of Judge Feinman, because it is
drafted as an "orphan" remains immune from attack against the underlying
-15-
order. For instance, when I succeed on a motion against the validity of the underlying money judgment, by showing for example that there was never service of a notice of entry of the underlying order, or that the inquest held thereof was not valid under law and had no right to proceed, the auxiliary second order will not appear affected, because it contains therein no described connection with the underlying order.
44. It was precisely such an order as the one described above that
Michael D. Solomon and Judge Thomas Feinman felt could provide the
appearance of complete severance between the illegality of the underlying
money judgment, and the order directing the Sheriff to sell Feige's home.
45. In different words, if plaintiffs were to proceed to sell Feige's home
via the sheriff, and should defendants seek to defend with legal counsel, the
entire case would be placed under scrutiny, and failure by plaintiffs to serve a
notice of entry of the underlying order was open for exposure. However, with
the creating of an auxiliary action in the form of an "orphan" as described
above, and seeking to sell the property via that auxiliary action, an opposition by
defendants would be limited to the court order disguised by Judge Feinman and
Michael Solomon as an "orphan". In their genius minds the creation of such an
order was the solution to covering up the problem.
46. Defendants, on August 3, 2010, while in complete ignorance of the
aforementioned defect and fraud scheme, brought an emergency show cause
pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(3), before Judge Feinman seeking vacatur, of his
-16-
underlying order based on blatant misrepresentations found in the underlying motion from which he granted the summary judgment.
47. One month later, on September 3, 2010, the defendants brought a
repeat of almost the same identical motion by order to show cause seeking
vacatur of the order dated May 26, 2010, which directed the sheriff of Nassau
County to sell Defendant Feige Zaretsky's home.
48. Judge Feinman, on August 3, 2010, was apparently in a panic upon
learning of defendants' emergency show cause seeking vacatur based on
misrepresentation. He spent that day ducking from the clerks that sought to
present him with the papers for signature. After hours went by with no Judge
Thomas Feinman in view, the papers were presented to Judge Stephen A.
Bucaria for signature, and made returnable for August 6, 2010 before Judge
Feinman. On August 5, Judge Feinman adjourned the return date of the
emergency show cause to August 10, 2010, stating that his law clerk is on
vacation and would not be returning until August 9. Upon the defendants
appearing in court on August 10, they were told that Judge Feinman recused
himself from the case the day prior, on August 9, 2010. A copy of Judge
Feinman's unexplained recusal order dated August 9, 2010 is annexed hereto as
Exhibit F.
49. Clearly, Judge Feinman realized that Michael Solomon's portrayal
and representation of the herein defendants was not quite as he had assured him.
Before making a move, Judge Feinman had to consult first with his law
secretary, the only other person in his chambers aware of his judicial
-17-
misconduct. The discussion involved concealing criminal judicial corruption and therefore couldn't be made over the phone. Their conversation therefore had to wait until his law secretary got back to the courthouse in person.
50. Instead of Judge Feinman cleaning up the dirty mess by granting
the show cause on the merits and putting his fraudulent conduct to sleep forever,
he found it more economically worth it to keep the fraud scam against the
defendants alive. After all, it doesn't require more than a wink of the eye to the
next judge and those gold double eagles or whatever was promised by Solomon
to Judge Feinman and his law secretary was going to keep coming their way.
51. Likewise, on September 3, 2010, when Judge Feinman was advised
that Defendant Feige Zaretsky had moved by show cause seeking vacatur of his
underlying order by means of the auxiliary action, he immediately recused
himself from that case on that very same day and in the very same way. (See a
copy of Judge Feinman's recusal order in the auxiliary action annexed hereto as
Exhibit G.)
52. As clearly demonstrated hereinabove, the two aforesaid actions,
namely the instant underlying action and the auxiliary action are both directly
hinged on the criminal fraud and judicial misconduct of Judge Thomas Feinman
and lawyer Michael D. Solomon and his associate Susan Rubin.
53. Additionally, there is every reason to presume that Judge Feinman
still remains criminally involved and on the take, evidenced by his having only
-18-
recused himself from the action, in place of granting vacatur and killing the fraud scam in its' tracks.
54. Moreover, Judge Feinman's continued involvement in the fraud
scam is further evidenced by the continued pattern of egregious corruption that
reaches beyond the pale practiced by each of the successor judges to the two
respective cases, namely Judge Steven M. Jaeger in the instant underlying case
and Judge Ute Wolff Lally in the auxiliary action, as described below.
THE OBJECTIVE AND GOAL OF THE FRAUD SCHEME
55. There are two primary objectives and goals to be accomplished in
the aforementioned fraud scheme; (a) neutralizing or canceling the monthly
maintenance awarded to Feige in her divorce with Harold Zaretsky, a plaintiff in
the instant underlying action and a co-defendant in the auxiliary action; and (b)
reversal of the ownership rights in the home at 10 Chestnut Drive in Plainview,
New York, awarded to Feige Zaretsky as equitable distribution in said divorce.
56. These two objectives were actually the original goals of the
plaintiffs and Michael Solomon when commencing the underlying action.
Assumingly in November 2009, and not earlier, Judge Feinman was
subsequently enticed by Michael Solomon into becoming a participant in the
fraud artifice.
57. As clearly shown hereinbelow, both Judge Steven Jaeger and Judge
Ute Wolff Lally too jumped upon the bandit wagon, both believing they could
-19-
use their judicial powers to accomplish those objectives and beat the defendants out of their rights. It matters not for the purpose of this show cause, who it was that directly enticed Judge Feinman's two judicial successors or what value they received, for the blatant misconduct that was seen subsequently transpiring during May and June 2011 in each of the two courtrooms in such a harmonious overlapping fashion is sufficient evidence of an open and ongoing illegal relationship between Judges Jaeger, Lally, and Feinman together with lawyer Michael Solomon and his associate Susan Rubin.
58. However, before I turn to the events of May 2011, reference is
made to the annexed Exhibit H, which is a copy of my complaint letter against
Judge Steven Jaeger, dated January 7, 2011, that I sent to Administrative Judge
Anthony Marano, of the Supreme Court of Nassau County. The said letter
complaint should be considered for all purposes an integral part of this Affidavit
in support of the instant show cause. Despite its serious allegations of bias and
partiality in the courtroom of Judge Jaeger, those allegations become
significantly dwarfed when placed along side the current allegations.
59. Notwithstanding the aforementioned, the said complaint letter of
January 7, 2011, lends great credence and support to the current allegations of
bias and partiality and judicial corruption described herein.
THE MAY 25, 2011 MOTIONS
60. May 25, 2011 was supposed to be the return date for five motions
before Judge Jaeger. One motion by defendants, brought by an order to show
-20-
cause in late December 2011 and still pending, seeks vacatur of the underlying order of Judge Feinman, dated January 9, 2009, supported on grounds of newly discovered evidence and fraud, pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(2)(3), namely a witness who had repeatedly overheard Plaintiff Elliot Zaretsky fraudulently planning together with another individual his own libel prior to commencing the instant lawsuit. The other four were comprised of motions brought by the plaintiffs.
61. Of the four motions brought by plaintiffs, all of which were
returnable for that day, three rightfully belonged to the underlying action and
were in fact scheduled to be heard before Judge Jaeger. However, the fourth
motion was a cheap shot ploy to be used against the herein defendants, and from
which my deaf daughter Feige would be fraudulently scammed in a manner that
would allow another judge of the same court, namely, Judge Ute Wolff Lally to
clandestinely usurp her rights title and interest to her home.
62. The fraud scam in which Judge Lally was a direct participant,
begins with Michael Solomon hesitant to bring a motion in the auxiliary action
before Judge Lally, in which the sheriff would be directed by her order to sell
Feige's home and where the order would also direct the sheriff that the
homestead exemption rate to be reimbursed to Feige from the proceeds of the
sale should be reduced from the $150,000.00 which is the current rate, to just
$50,000.00, which was the previous rate. Both, Michael Solomon and Judge
Lally knew that such an order would bring a windfall profit of $100,000.00, for
without such a court order -for instance if Michael Solomon were to employ the
services of the sheriff based solely on the current money judgment filed at the
-21-
county clerk- the homestead exemption would be the entire $150,000.00. Michael Solomon knew that if defendants will be apprised of a motion against them, they will defend vigorously and succeed, if not in the lower court, than for certain at the Appellate Division.
63. Michael D. Solomon, to fraudulently assure his obtaining a
default against the Defendant Feige Zaretsky, schemingly took the following
three steps: (a) He made a Notice of Motion with the wrong judge's name and
courtroom. Instead of Judge Lally, he inserted Judge Jaeger; and (b) he made
the subject motion returnable for May 25, 2011, at 9:30 A. M., knowing that on
that same day at 9:30 AM there were four different pending motions scheduled
to be heard before Judge Jaeger, in the instant underlying case; and (c) he made
sure the motion before Judge Lally was on submission of the papers only,
without any oral argument required or necessity to appear, thereby assuring an
easy kill without any delays and/or adjournments resulting from questions by the
court's clerk directed at him or anyone of his associates. A copy of the
deceptive Notice of Motion prepared by Michael Solomon is annexed hereto as
Exhibit I.
64. The fraud scheme concocted by Michael Solomon is very simple.
While defendants would be at the courtroom of Judge Jaeger occupied with
discussions there over the pending motions, Judge Lally would call the case in
her courtroom and find Feige in default. To avoid having the scheme look
conspicuous, Judge Lally would wait a few days and then write a Memorandum
Decision, of which a copy would not be sent to defendant Feige. Then while the
-22-
Read Next Complaint >>
