Monday, 18th December 2017

   home     about     authors     news     sitemap     privacy     contact us

add to favorites
make home page


Introductory Remarks
Legal Documents
Letters
Most Recent Material
News Releases
Published Articles
Synopsis

Our Newsletter



Subscribe
Unsubscribe
  Voting Poll

Can the judicial system be successfully overhauled?
no
yes


  Handy Tip


The next Information Age
Phones, computers, radio, television and the
Internet -- and their benefits -- are converging into
a new technology accessible anytime, anywhere.

 

  Contact Info


Lawyer Fraud
140-06 Rockaway Blvd.
 Belle Harbor, NY. 11694

 Phone: 718-318-1000
 Email:
weinfirm@ix.netcom.com

 


 


Affidavit and Supporting Documentation 7/27/01
Viewed: 0 time(s)
[ Not Rated Yet ]


  
Footnotes

1 The first, in the case of MLE Realty Associates v. Handler, (S.D.N.Y. Case No.

0668/93) is for $492,370.05 and was docketed in New York County on November 6,

1991and in the United States District Court on November 17, 1993. The second, in the

case of Weinstock v. Handler, (Supreme Court, New York County, Index No.

600744/95) is for $1,082,395.46 and was docketed May 11, 1999. It arises from an

agreement going back to February, 1984. Both judgments bear interest at the legal rate

of 9% per year.

2 Ironically, in the matter in which I took as a fee 20% of the shares in a

corporation I then (as now) believed to be wholly owned by Jack Walker, Emmerich

Handler claimed (and was awarded) ownership adverse to Jack Walker under

circumstances in which, if his claims were valid, Handler was Walker's attorney

while he did business with him, while he borrowed money from him to do that

business, and while he presented claims adverse to Walker's interest in that very

business-all in contravention of the disciplinary rules! Further, Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen

& Hamilton partner George Weisz represented Emmerich Handler in the litigation

against me and was his partner in several real estate ventures.`

3 The evidence consisted of my former wife's testimony that she had complete

disclosure respecting my finances, that she "fought" me (and was not in fact yielding

and acquiescent nor was her capacity in any way diminished), and that she had in no

way been coerced into signing our separation agreement but did so voluntarily as a

"symbol of love".

4 Please see Exhibit "G", para. 62, setting forth testimony given October 14, 1999

in the case of MLE Realty Associates v. Handler, (S.D.N.Y. Case No. 0668/93 ).

5 Please see Exhibit "G", para 52, setting forth testimony given October 18, 1999

in the case of MLE Realty Associates v. Handler, (S.D.N.Y. Case No. 0668/93). Of

course, it is a matter of record that it was in fact adjudicated that the contract was

breached by the purchaser before the shares of the corporation were transferred to

me, and that that judgment remained in effect until reversed by the Appellate Division

in 1986, long after the shares passed to me. I received a contractual right at a time

when a court of competent jurisdiction had declared it worthless.

6 In settlement of my slander/malicious prosecution claims against him for suing

me in Nassau County alleging fraud and forgery by me. He subsequently testified that

the claims were fabricated at the request of Emmerich Handler, for Handler's own

purposes, using Handler's attorney.

7 I am asking Judge Douglass to find that I actually did acquire, in two separate

transactions, stock of 4200 Avenue K Realty Corp. His prior decision awards that

stock to Emmerich Handler. Preservation of that finding is part of the motive

underlying Handler's pursuit of these disciplinary proceedings.

8 A true copy of the Petition is attached hereto as Exhibit "H".

9 Within days of the Grievance Committee's call to me to schedule a hearing

respecting the Handler/Walker complaints filed in August/September, 1997, nearly a

year earlier.

10 I believe that Mr. Gentile represented Emmerich Handler in Handler's pursuit

by civil action and Grievance Committee complaint of attorneys for plaintiff Simke,

who had obtained a judgment awarding punitive damages against Handler for fraud.

11 Mr. Handler testified that his attorneys Kramer, Levin sent similar materials to

the U.S. Attorney's office.

12 The information which follows derives from a review by my office of the

Annual Reports on Lawyer Discipline in New York State for the years 1994 through

1999 published by the Committee on Professional Discipline of the New York State

Bar Association, and of reported decisions. That review did not pursue every matter

where the Committee notes did not specify the facts of the charges, e.g., where they

indicate reciprocal discipline, where they indicate resignation of attorney under

investigation, where they indicate substantial admissions under oath of professional

misconduct or uncontested evidence of professional misconduct, or where they

indicate willful failure to cooperate with Committee's investigation. The limited

review conducted respecting these categories gives the impression that a complete

review would not alter the substance of the findings set out here.

13 One such sanction was ultimately reduced.

14 Indeed, as Handler well knew, I had, with Walker's permission, signed his

name to the contract of sale from him to the ultimate purchasers, the Nussbaums. This

came about because Walker, unbeknownst to me, had signed a deed to the property

when he sold it to Handler and his law partners, but the deed had not been recorded

because the partnership didn't want to pay a transfer tax. It was contemplated that a

buyer for the property would soon be found, as indeed occurred in early 1984. I sent a

letter to Walker asking him to sign it as confirmation of authority for me to sign a

contract of sale. He never did sign, but authorized me over the phone to sign his name-

which I did. While Walker subsequently stated that he had never received the letter,

he in fact produced the original document. Indeed, Walker knew the buyers, and

congratulated them on their purchase at a fortuitous meeting at Miami airport several

weeks after I signed the contract and some six months before he was asked to

fabricate the basis of the lawsuit. He testified to this at a deposition.

15 Jack Walker's complaint to the Grievance Committee underlying this Petition

states that I signed his name without permission to a contract of sale.

16 In this case, Walker asserted his shareholder interest in 4200 Ave. K Realty

Corp. The Appellate Division determined that 4200 Ave. K Realty Corp. was entitled

to specific performance of the contract for sale. It was a condition of that transaction

that Walker must be a shareholder/principal of the corporation.

17 Judge Douglass' Order dated March 13, 1997 stated at page 6 that " This was

much like a contingent fee. If he won, he would be the 20% owner of a building worth

over $4,000,000.00 with a cash flow of $260,000.00 a year. If he lost, he had

nothing".

18 My letter of December 20, 1984 to 4200 Ave. K Realty Corp. respecting the

terms of my engagement specifically stated that it did not contemplate appeals after

trial, respecting which other arrangements would have to be made.

19 Excerpts of his testimony in the case of Weinstock v. Handler et al , Supreme

Court, New York County Index No. 11188-88 are attached hereto at Exhibit "J". See

pp. 16-19, 46-47, 52-53, 60-61, 276-77, 782).

20 Exhibit J, at pp. 48-50, 61.

21 Exhibit "J", at p. 1070

22 Exhibit "J", pp. 16, 46-47.

23 Just as Emmerich Handler's attorney Robert Gutman, Esq. had commenced the

Nassau County action falsely accusing me of forgery because Emmerich Handler

"asked me to do it". (Exhibit "J", pp. 63-68, 187).

24 That episode is described at Exhibit "K", attached hereto. It is interesting to

note that more than five per cent of the contributions to Judge Huttner's election as a

judge of the Kings County Supreme Court were made by Handler-affiliated

individuals or entities.

25 Attached as Exhibit "M" please find a detailed analysis of Judge Douglass'

decision.

26 This was of course her choice, as she knew that I lacked liquidity.

27 While Esther's attorneys had previously used just this "symbol of love"

imagery in another case, Dr. Levy suffered from Alzheimer's disease and could

remember little of his "treatment" of Esther.

28 By letter of June 16, 1995 I informed the Grievance Committee of the serious

fabrications and subornation of perjury engaged in by Esther's attorneys. To my

knowledge no disciplinary action has been taken in the matter.

29 The Appellate Division Order of September 9, 1998 awarded $3000.00 costs

on appeal to plaintiff, while Justice Golar's decision of March 26, 1997 awarded

$2400.00 costs to plaintiff respecting defense of the CPLR 5015 motion..

(Weinstock v. Weinstock 252 A.D.2d 873,198 Slip Op. 8492, 678 N.Y.S. 2d 349).

30 Those documents, which support my testimony given August 4, 1998 are

attached hereto and marked "Enclosures With Letter of Israel Weinstock, Esq., August

7, 1998". My cover letter dated August 7, 1998 is attached hereto as Exhibit "L".


Article Pages:   Prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9  


Support Material


There is no support material available for this article.

Related Articles There are no related articles available for this article.

Related Links

There are no related links for this article.






All content © 2017 Israel Weinstock, Lawyer Fraud. Site Powered By New Vision.