||Affirmation in Opposition
||History of the 8th Street Shul, the dereliction of the Plaintiffs,
Clayton Patterson's role in the case, along with those of Ralph Feldman
and Rabbi Yitzhak Fried.
||Answer to Plaintiff's
Affirmation in Opposition
|Building must belong to the City because of outstanding back taxes,
and recommends it be sold to Graffitti Baptist Church with stipulation
that it remain an active Orthodox Synagogue of the same branch asa originally
founded with the functions and activities it had revived to continue. Price
should be $50,000, the same as what GBC paid for the 7th Street Shul building.
Contains an enumeration of activities, both religious and community, both
Jewish and non-denominational. Connection between the Grand Street gang
plaintiffs suing to shut the synagogue and sell it into real estate and
the gentrification of the neighborhood.
with added foot-
Clayton Patterson providing Answer
|Notice of Motion
||Announces the case of the Plaintiffs, suing the Defendants who repaired
the building at their own exoense, and restored the Shul to an active synagogue
for 1) $1,000,000 in "damages", 2) demanding the shutting down of the 8th
Street Shul as a functioning synagogue, and 3) pushing for its sale into
secular real estate.
official President of
||Claims that the synagogue had to be closed as congregation dwindled
from the 1950s and unable to form the quorum of 10 males needed for Orthodox
services. Denies the revival of the Synagogue and dismisses its activities.
Asserts that repairs to building are in fact damages. Dishonestly claims
that the repair work was never authorized. Pushes claim to ownership titles
as justification to sell the building and order that its repair be halted,
and that it cease to be a religious-oriented building. Dubiously claims
to have contacted all members of the original congregatiuon and receiveed
unanimous approval for the sale. Charges that opening a ank account to
finance repair and function of Shul amount to "forgery". Tacitly admits
that Plaintiffs' dereliction had rendered the building "abgandoned".
with added foot-
|Seeks to justify selling the synagogue by tracing history of property
title to the formation of a membership organization in 1912 and a religious
corporation in 1914, modified by a merger in 1952. Attacks defendants for
repairing the building, restoring it as a synagogue also functioning as
a community organization. and seeking to prevent its sale into real estate,
and demands Defendants' ejectment, so that sale into real estate can go
total repair of
at own expense.
|Denial of False Allegations contained in complaint and subsequent documents
||Details how he mailed a check to the 8th Street Shul, supposedly intending
to make a legitimate donation of $18, but in reality in order to establish
that the new Congregation had set up a bank account to repair and operate
the Shul, which the defunct Plaintiff's ex-Congregation refuses to do.
With this contrived "evidence", Plaintiffs try to smear Defeendants with
||Son of Abraham Fogel, 30-year Vice President of defunct Plaintiff's
Congregaton, who had visited the reborn 8th Street Shul and was positive
and excited about the revival he saw. Asher, the son, implies that this
wasa due to "diminished mental capacity" since father's stroke. Asserts
that no one but Sidney Turkeltaub, President of the defunct Plaintiffs'
congregation can speak for the congregation.
Father of Asher
and had a
stand in the way
of his son cashing
||Renouncing his earlier support for the revival of the 8th Street Shul.
Now considers it an attempt to steal the building. Says he was "appalled
at what I saw," gbut does not say exactly what it was that he saw and found
appalling. He now claims to be upset for his name being included on the
letterhead of the revived 8th Street Shul.
to sell Shul.
||Complains that Ralph Feldman allegedly changed locks and that he, Owens,
was not allowed to enter building, but was able to do so after getting
Police escort, when in fact the building was open to all and everyone.
||Claims that Ralph Feldman is just trying to make the building his own.
Claims that Mr. Leo Goldblum, above, would never have had the intention
to donate monies to ber apprpriated by the new congregants, which seems
to imply absurdly that Goldblum was not familiar with the debate when he
mailed the check.