|CONGREGATION BNAI MOSES JOSEPH ZANICHOST and ZOSMER,
RALPH FELDMAN, ISAAC FRIED, and CLAYTON PATTERSON,
Index number 108322/1995
AFFIRMATION IN SUPPORT OF
for Summary Judgment
|Howard Schneider, an attorney duly admitted
to practice before the Courts of this State affirms under the penalty of
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
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.
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.
Defendant Feldman filed an answer which is annexed hereto
as Exhibit B.
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.
That motion was denied without prejudice to renew upon
plaintiff's complying with the Court's direction. Plaintiff has now complied
with those directives.
The facts surrounding this property can be summarized
in the following few paragraphs.
In 1914 the Congregation's immediate predecessor Congregation
Bnei Moses Joseph Anshei Sandemirsz and Zawichost. Inc., was formed as
a membership type religious corporation.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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
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
Could you okease define "spiritual heirs"
and explain your claim as an expert of truth in the spirit world?--Clayton
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.
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.
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
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
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
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.
Dated July 1, 1997
New York, New York