CIVIL COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK : HOUSING PART
----------------------------------------------------------X
KENMORE ASSOCIATES, L.P. & : Index # 071507/2007 &
HOUSING & SERVICES INC. & : Index # 52851/2006
Norris McLaughlin & Marcus :
Petitioner, : AFFIDAVIT & CROSS-MOTION
v. : REPLY TO OPPOSITION
: PRE-ANSWER
, :
:
Respondent. :
---------------------------------------------------------X
(State of New York)
(County of New York)
SS: I,____________________, ( ), Respondent in this Action, being duly
sworn, hereby depose and state: The plea of RES JUDICATA is reiterated. The case,
index #071507/07, is an IDENTICAL CAUSE OF ACTION with IDENTICAL PARTIES to
index #52851/06 (exhibit A (att.)). In plaintiff's UNSIGNED and UNDATED (CPLR §2101
& §2106) affirmation?, without claimed (and without foundation) exhibit? attached,
petitioner claimed THE HONORABLE MARIA MILIN wished (by order?) to prospectively
dismiss case (#52851/06) after 90 days if without response by either party. This "order"
was NEVER SERVED ON THE PARTIES OR THE COURT and the CASE IS NOT
DISMISSED (i.e. current (see exhibit A)). Obviously, JUDGE MILIN, upon review of
relevant law, CPLR §3216, §3404, Uniform Rule 202.27 (22 NYCRR 202.27) and
NYCRR §208.14[c]), saw that sufficient time (one year) has not elapsed. Case
#52851/06 was never marked off calendar by agreement of both parties.
OMNIBUS MOTION TO DISMISS, in exhibit(1), shows MOTION ORDER by THE
HONORABLE JEAN T SCHNEIDER demanding reply, by petitioner, by August
21, 2006. Despite parties appearing before THE HONORABLE KEVIN C
MCCLANAHAN on 08/21/06 due to respondent's OPPOSITION TO CROSS-
MOTION return date, and petitioners acknowledgment, on the record, of
outstanding ORDER, petitioner has, like with stipulation, failed to comply. Due to
petitioners failure to REPLY to respondent's OPPOSITION TO CROSS-MOTION,
JUDGE SCHNEIDER and/or JUDGE MILIN felt justifiably unable to rule on
respondent's two outstanding OMNIBUS MOTION(s) TO DISMISS (included as
exhibits in OMTDWP) on the merits and are presumably still waiting.
Respondent requests (A) MOTION TO REARGUE/RENEW courts vacatur of
stipulation. Petitioner (RICO (USC Title 18 Part I Chapter 96 §1961-1968)) by
counsel/Consiglieri's ongoing predicate Felony Perjury, Obstruction of Justice
(see exhibits), Fraud etc. as well as breach of Stipulation constitute grounds for
disbarment and/or incarceration. Barring Consiglieri/"House Counsel" as well as
substantial Fines under 22 NYCRR §130-1 are demanded as relief.
(B) MOTION TO DISMISS for willful and purposeful violation of respondent's
CPLR §2214 Motion demand within instant OMNIBUS MOTION TO DISMISS
WITH PREJUDICE.
(1) Respondent lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief of
the truth of the allegation that individual who refers to himself as "Dean M.
Roberts" is an attorney at all but agrees he should be prosecuted under "penalties
of Perjury" etc.. Respondent agrees that RICO "law firm" (see exhibit) NM&M is a
party to RICO case and past and future counterclaims. "Paper" submitted by
Consiglieri/"House Counsel" does not constitute "Affirmation" under CPLR
§2106, §2101 or any other rule as it is unsigned and undated.
(2) This proceeding commenced in 2006 under index #52851 and is ACTIVE.
No "rent" has been paid to RICO or the People of the United States (the actual
owner (see Amended Answer)). Upon information and belief and documentary
evidence (att. exhibit B) RICO petitioner has received "section 8" payments for
relevant apartment over said period, constituting additional Fraud. Respondent will
request, during discovery, relevant vendor and voucher numbers for Comptroller's
investigation and thorough forensic accounting, paid by petitioner.
(3) Petitioner (RICO) is apparently stipulating to "Section 8" Fraud (2921
Associates v. Willis, Title 24 CFR: Ch VII HUD Part 792) as it is not answered.
Admittedly RICO puts no value on Stipulations unless it is for dispossession of
Enemy (Chattel(Tenant (see Amended Answer))).
(4) Respondent claims the existence of a CURRENT "non-payment" (and RICO)
proceeding (index #52851/06).
(5) Respondent submitted attached (to OMTDWP) motions to HONORABLE
JEAN T SCHNEIDER (see OMTDWP exhibit A). Alleged proposed?
"decision" (not attached) was not served on parties or the court and is not in
effect. Case, index #52851, is not dismissed (see attached exhibit A) and
petitioner (RICO) need only Reply to Opposition a year late, or serve a Motion
to Renew or Motion for Accelerated Judgment, similar to the previous Fake
Motion for Accelerated Oral Argument served to respondent in previous
(dismissed) case between parties and stop continual Perjury and Obstruction
of Justice.
(6) "We did not discovery[sic] the decision" is apparently a stipulation to
respondent's discovery requests.
(7) Perjury and Obstruction of Justice and lack of Due Diligence (again
(ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct)).
(8) RICO Consiglieri apparently has not read and/or cannot readattached "fact"
though has not informed parties or court as to any reasonable accommodation
needs (dyslexia?). The Amended Answer and/or other attached and admitted
papers are the "fact" RPAPL §743 The answer may contain any legal or equitable defense, or counterclaim. The court may render affirmative judgment for the amount found due on the counterclaim.
(9) Jury fees have been paid into and accepted by court in instant (index
#52851/06) case. Respondent requests Jury Trial pursuant to CPLR §2218. Trial of issue raised on motion. The court may order that an issue of fact raised on a motion shall be separately tried by the court or a referee. If the issue is triable of right by jury, the court shall give the parties an opportunity to demand a jury trial of such issue. Failure to make such demand within the time limited by the court, or, if no such time is limited, before trial begins, shall be deemed a waiver of the right to trial by jury. An order under this rule shall specify the issue to be tried.
for all motions.
(10) This has been answered extensively in attached (to OMTDWP) AFFIDAVIT
IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONS pages 6-8. RICO "house counsel" has not supplied
(forged) papers RICO allegedly refers to (see CPLR §2221(c) "Only papers served in accordance with the provisions of this rule shall be read in support of, or in opposition to, the motion,").
(11) Respondent requests that all MOTIONS not answered by RICO petitioner
be deemed stipulated to. In consideration of prior RICO Frauds by petitioner's
Consiglieri (see attached); for 22 NYCRR §130-1 relief Respondent requests of
Court that $1,000,000 Fine/Damages be levied Jointly & Severely against Dean
Roberts/Mia Falls, Norris McLaughlin & Marcus and/or Kenmore Associates a.k.a
Housing & Services Inc. a.k.a. Kenmore Housing Corp. a.k.a. Kenmore Housing
Development Fund Corp. and/or any other related Shell Corporations/Money
Laundering Organizations (not John Z. Delorean Front).
(12) Respondent continues to deny proper personal (service RPAPL §735) or court
jurisdiction or petitioner RICO's standing (see all papers). Additionally Petition for
Possession of Real Property is defective (unsigned and undated (RPAPL §741)).
These issues are apparently stipulated to by RICO as they have again gone
unanswered.
WHEREFORE, respondent prays for the granting of an Order from the Court
dismissing petitioner's Petition in its entirety, and for all such and further relief that this
Court may deem just and appropriate.
______________________________
, Respondent Pro-Se
145 east 23rd street #4R
New York, NY10010
Sworn Before me on the
9th Day of August, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment