Handler, Walker and Kaminetzer Yeshiva of Jerusalem v. Israel Weinstock
164. Emmerich Handler and Jack Walker can also give evidence corroborating my
testimony respecting the following episode. It underlies the allegations of coercion made
165. In September, 1986 after the favorable Appellate Division decision in the
specific performance action, after I was diagnosed with "terminal" cancer, and once
again represented by attorneys provided and paid for by Emmerich Handler, Jack Walker
was again recruited by Emmerich Handler to join him in commencing a second fabricated
action. This was the case of Jack Walker, Emmerich Handler and the Kaminetze Yeshiva
of Jerusalem v. Israel Weinstock, Supreme Court, Kings County Index No. 27600/86.
166. Ultimately tried before Justice Lewis Douglass, the action (hereinafter
"Handler, Walker and Kaminetzer Yeshiva of Jerusalem v. Weinstock") sought to set
aside Jack Walker's assignment to me of Walker's rights in 4200 Avenue K on the basis
of fraud, duress, coercion and lack of consideration. It also sought an order "requiring
Weinstock to disgorge all fees paid to him or his nominee, including the 20% interest (in
4200 Avenue K)...".
167. Jack Walker did not then seek, and has not sought to date, to vacate the
stipulation of discontinuance of the Ocean Avenue, Nassau County action or any other of
the several aspects of the settlement he reached with me.
168. He has since admitted in testimony given at trial that the central allegations
contained in his verified complaint in the Handler, Walker and Kaminetzer Yeshiva of
Jerusalem v. Weinstock action, that he was allegedly "threatened", "coerced" or "subject
to duress" in making the subject assignment, were false when made!19 He testified that
his own lawyer had told him to make these false allegations!20
169. Indeed, Justice Ira Gammerman, before whom Jack Walker testified in the case
of Weinstock v. Handler et al., in Supreme Court, New York County, Index No. 11188-88
accepted Walker's position that there had been no threat or coercion. 21
170. Jack Walker has conceded that the Handler, Walker and Kaminetzer Yeshiva of
Jerusalem v. Weinstock lawsuit, like the Ocean Avenue, Nassau County action, was
instituted at the instance and expense of Emmerich Handler, and that contrary to the
allegations of the verified complaint he was not "coerced" by me and no "duress" was
"practiced on him". He has testified that there was no overreaching, and has conceded
that he understood the nature of the assignment and "voluntarily" gave it22. He has
testified that he owned one hundred per cent of 4200 Avenue K before he assigned it to
171. Representation of all Plaintiffs by attorney Edward Rubin on the appeal of
Justice Douglass' decision in the Handler, Walker and Kaminetzer Yeshiva of Jerusalem
v. Weinstock action, despite a clear conflict of interest between plaintiffs Handler and
Walker, each of whom accused the other of criminal activity, has since corroborated Jack
Walker's testimony of collusion.
172. Prior to trial in the case of Emmerich Handler, Jack Walker and the Kaminetzer
Yeshiva of Jerusalem v. Israel Weinstock (Kings County, Index No. 27600/86) attorney
Jacques Catafago, Esq. appeared to represent plaintiff Jack Walker.
173. The case had been assigned to Justice Richard Huttner.
174. Prior to trial of the case Jack Walker gave trial testimony in a separate case,
Israel Weinstock and JB Trading International. Inc. v. Emmerich Handler et al (Supreme
Court, New York County, Index No. 11188-88), in which he admitted that there had been
no coercion, duress, fraud, threat or overreaching involved in his settlement with me on
February 15, 1985. (A transcript of that testimony is attached hereto at Exhibit "J", pp.
16-19, 46-47, 52-53, 60-61, 276-277, 782).
175. Walker testified that Emmerich Handler and his attorneys had directed him to
make these allegations, after my success on appeal in the 4200 Avenue K action granting
specific performance of the contract of sale respecting the 4200/4211 Avenue K
properties and that he had to do as Handler directed, otherwise Handler would embarrass
him in the community (Exhibit "J" pp. 46-53, 61, 298)23
176. I therefore filed a Motion for Summary Judgment in the Kings County case of
Emmerich Handler, Jack Walker and the Kaminetzer Yeshiva of Jerusalem v. Israel
177. While Emmerich Handler (and his nominee Kaminetzer Yeshiva of Jerusalem)
were named plaintiffs the complaint alleged that Jack Walker's transfers to me of his
shares in 4200 Avenue K. Realty Corp. should be set aside due to fraud, duress and
coercion practiced by me upon Jack Walker.
178. Walker's confession under oath that no such thing had occurred, that the
complaint was another of Emmerich Handler's fabrications (like the Ocean Avenue
complaint), should have resulted in dismissal of the lawsuit.
179. In hindsight, Judge Huttner's inexcusable failure to dismiss the lawsuit was quite
predictable. (Judge Huttner had earlier shown an interest in the matter well beyond that
proper under the circumstances)24.
180. Jack Walker's opposition to the motion was remarkable in several respects.
181. First, Jack Walker himself did not submit an affirmation at all. The opposition,
then, should have been struck because the opposition was not supported by evidence in
admissible form from a "person having knowledge of the facts" as required under CPLR §
3212 (b). Nor was any excuse offered as to why such evidence was not presented.
182. Secondly, the affirmation of Jacques Catafago, Esq., the only affirmation filed on
behalf of Jack Walker in opposition to my motion for summary judgment, was itself
183. Jacques Catafago obviously was not a "person having knowledge of the facts" of
184. In attempting to negate the significance of Jack Walker's testimony before Judge
Gammerman that there had been no threat, coercion, duress, fraud or overreaching,
Walker's attorney Jacques Catafago argued that the court couldn't tell whether his client
verified a false complaint or committed perjury at the trial-therefore there were triable
issues respecting material facts. These had to be tried! (Jacques Catafago affirmation
dated May 24, 1996, paras 32-33).
185. Following upon the logical flaw in this approach is the impediment in law, i.e.,
that a party cannot create a triable issue of material fact by testifying himself to two
contradictory facts. One version constitutes an admission against interest, and is thus
conclusive evidence of the fact. Jack Walker testified that there was no fraud, coercion,
threat, duress or overreaching-that the Complaint alleging this was fabricated. Judge
Huttner should thus have dismissed the contrived case.
186. That he did not evidences Emmerich Handler's influence in Kings County.
187. Further evidence of that influence lies in the fact that despite the testimony of
Walker's own attorney that Jack Walker lied under oath, Justice Lewis Douglass (to
whom Judge Huttner sent the case for trial) found no "inconsistencies so significant as to
suggest that Walker did not tell the truth in this proceeding".
188. Judge Douglass ultimately ignored a second telling Catafago statement,
backhanded as it was, that "Weinstock concedes that defendant Walker was the sole cash
investor in Realty Corp." (Catafago affirmation of May 24, 1996, paragraph 54).
189. At the trial of the Walker v. Weinstock action Handler's attorney Edward Rubin,
Esq. himself admitted his role in altering the existing facts, as follows;
"You see, Your Honor, I am a very simple guy, Your Honor. When I came into the
case I had to ask the question. Everybody seems to think Walker owns stock. Even my
side of the case seemed to think Walker owned stock as the pleading indicates. And the
question I asked to everybody, really, where did Walker get that? When did he acquire
the interest? How did he get it."
190. Judge Douglass, adopting Rubin's theme, held that Jack Walker never owned any
shares of 4200 Avenue K Realty Corp. In doing so, Judge Douglass ignored not only the
facts but further ignored Judge Gammerman's conclusion after trial that "At least you
(Weinstock) are in a better position to the extent that at least at the time Dr. Walker made
an assignment to you in February, at least he had some interest in Avenue K. Maybe 100
per cent. Maybe 40 per cent. But he had some interest" (Exhibit "J", p. 1070).
191. And in assailing the sufficiency of consideration in my settlement of claims
against Walker for defamation (arising from the sale of the Ocean Avenue property) in
exchange for 80% of the shares of 4200 Avenue K Realty, Judge Douglass ignored Judge
Gammerman's recognition of the sufficiency of that consideration (Exhibit "J", pp. 33-34,
192. Emmerich Handler's influence in Kings County has resulted in the prosecution of
these disciplinary proceedings against me.
193. Justice Lewis Douglass, upon being apprised of Jack Walker's admissions, did
not then put an end to this case, however, as was his duty, I believe. Justice Douglass
proceeded to ignore the admissions that the allegations of the Complaint were fabricated,
and let the case proceed to trial on contradictory allegations of ownership and unpleaded
assertions of unconscionability, upon which, as a secondary theory of recovery, he found
194. Justice Douglass granted judgment to plaintiff Emmerich Handler on a primary
theory of recovery in which he found for Plaintiff Handler to the exclusion of Plaintiff
195. I wish again to inform the Court here that this episode is presented in mitigation,
and not in an attempt to "relitigate" facts I am at present collaterally estopped from
196. Although professing not to try my statute-barred malicious defamation and
malicious prosecution case, Justice Douglass nevertheless held that Walker had a
"powerful defense" to my "nebulous" action (arising from Jack Walker's admittedly
malicious Nassau County action ), that I "sustained no measurable damages" and that the
assignment by Walker to me must be set aside due to "gross unfairness".
197. Justice Douglass professed not to "try" my case, but he decided it against me
anyway! The decision makes it patently clear that Jack Walker was simply a tool for
198. Although Justice Douglass rendered a decision in a case he acknowledged he
could not try but nevertheless decided, and in deciding it failed to allow me the jury to
which I was in any event entitled, the Appellate Division affirmed.
199. That affirmation, however, decided against me, stated that the assignments from
Walker through which I claimed ownership were rendered void as the products of
coercion and overreaching. The trial court, however had found in favor of plaintiff
Emmerich Handler, awarding him complete ownership of the shares of 4200 Avenue K!