AFFIRMATION IN SUPPORT OF
Motion for Summary Judgment

HOWARD SCHNEIDER
------------------

1. I am a member of HOWARD SCHNEIDER & ASSOCIATES, attorneys for plaintiff Congregation Bnei Moses Joseph Anshei Zawicost and Zosmer, Inc., and fully familiar with the facts and circumstances surrounding this action.
2. I make this affirmation in support of the motion for partial summary judgment seeking the ejectment of the defendants and all those who follow their lead from the premises known as 317 East 8th Street, New York, New York.
3. Plaintiff Congregation Bnei served and filed a complaint alleging inter alia that the defendants are occupying the premises illegally without any right or under any color of law. A copy if the complaint which is annexed as Exhibit A.
4. Defendant Feldman filed an answer which is annexed hereto as Exhibit B.
5. Plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment seeking the ejectment of the defendants and those who have accomplished them from the property known as 317 East 8th Street, New york, New York.
6. That motion was denied without prejudice to renew upon plaintiff's complying with the Court's direction. Plaintiff has now complied with those directives.
7. The facts surrounding this property can be summarized in the following few paragraphs.
8. In 1914 the Congregation's immediate predecessor Congregation Bnei Moses Joseph Anshei Sandemirsz and Zawichost. Inc., was formed as a membership type religious corporation.
9. In 1952 it merged with another Congregation and formed what is presently plaintiff and it purchased the building known as 318 East 8th Street in nEW yORK cITY.
10. The building was used as the synagogue for the Congregation from the date of its purchase until it became impossible to continue the services due to the rate of attrition in the neighborhood and the aging of the congregants. The Congregation was unable to attain the requisite quorum needed for those services.
11. The synagogue closed and the building remained vacant. Approximately two years ago, each of the remaining shareholders were asked to vote whether or not the building should e sold. Each member was mailed a proxy and was asked to respond as to whether they approved the sale of the property. Obviously, they would be called upon at a later date to approve the actual sale of the property once a firm contract had been received by the Congregation.
12. Before the Congregation could sell the property, defendant Feldman unilaterally and without authorization of the Congregation entered the premises and converted the property to his own use by changing the locks and preventing those associated with the Congregation from entering the premises.
13. Feldman made unauthorized repairs to the property and has adopted the property as his own.

Not his "own" but as a community-based Orthodox Shul. I stated in previous papers that Feldman is willing todonate his repairs and monies spent to a congregation who is Hewish and Orthodox. Plaintiffs have failed to recognize or respond to any of my papers even thoughy I am mentioned liberally in the suit. Although I am a pro se litigant, I do not believe we can proceed until they have responded to my papers.--Clayton Patterson

14. He has joined with defendants Patterson and Fried and has formed a new group of people to occupy the premises. Those people were never members of the plaintiff congregation.
15. As the annexed flyers and articles demonstrate, the people currently occupying the property have no nexus to the congregation. Those flyers are set forth in Exhibit C.

Of course there is not relationship to the previous congregation. They themselves have shosen to becomje none existent as that congregation.--Clayton Patterson

16. At first defendants themselves claimed no nexus to the Congregation and at the previous oral augment admitted that they made no claim of ownership rights to the property their latest attempt to create this facade of a nexus finds them not only taking the property themselves but adopting the name of the congregation and claims to be at least the spiritual heirs of the congregation. Nothing can be further from the truth.

Could you okease define "spiritual heirs" and explain your claim as an expert of truth in the spirit world?--Clayton Patteron

17. Annexed hereto are affidavits of certain members whose names were placed against their will and without their knowledge on an alleged Board of Trustees of the "8th Street Shul". The defendants unilaterally inserted such names that were previously associated with the plaintiff Congregation and surreptitiously and fraudulently added them to the list of Trustees to give the impression that this is a continuation of the prior congregation, which it is certainly not.
18. The greatest "chutzpah" regarding this litigation is the addition of Sidney Turkeltaub as a member of the "Board of Trustees". Mr. Turkeltaub has been the President of the plaintiff Congregation for the past forty (40) years and has been in the forefront of this litigation seeking the eviction of this group of interlopers.
19. Not  only did defendants unlawfully usurp these persons' names and reputations, they took moneys belonging to the corporation and converted it as their own.

This statement is untrue.--Clayton Patterson

20. The affidavit of Leo Goldblum demonstrates that he sent a check in the amount of Eighteen ($18.00) dollars ti the Congregation at its address at 318 East 8th Street. At the time that Mr. Goldblum received his bank statement and canceled check in the mail, he noticed that the endorsement had ben altered and the check had been deposited into another account controlled by Mr. Feldman. Certainly, Mr. Goldblum had no intention of giving a donation to Mr. Feldman and the action taken by Mr. Feldman is a clear breach of law.

The number 18, a Judaic symbol of life is used here in a negative direction, when the actual address of the Shul is 317 E 8th Street. Is this Kosher? I would like to know how the decision to use this particular direction arose. This statement is different than Mr. Goldblum's. See: AFFIRMATION Goldblum #5 and #9.--Clayton Patterson

21. All of these activities should lead the Court to the conclusion that defendants and those who follow them are illegally occupying the property belonging to the Congregation and that they are besmirching the name and reputation of the Congregation and its members by their illegal activities.
22. I also refer the Court to the previously filed Memorandum of Law which is being submitted herewith which clearly demonstrates that these individuals have no legal rights or standing to occupy the premises and that an Order of ejectment is the proper mechanism for the disposition of this situation.

WHEREFORE, your affiant respectfully requests that the Court grant this motion and allow the ejectment of the people unlawfully occupying the premises.

HOWARD SCHNEIDER 
Dated July 1, 1997
New York, New York