smart business v. synergy law llc et al, 610073/2019, 2 (n ......synergy and maresca confessed...
Post on 11-Jul-2020
5 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NASSAU
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- -
x
SMART BUSINESS,
: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
VERIFIED COMPLAINT
Index No.
Plaintiff,
- against -
SYNERGY LAW LLC, SYNERGY
ATTORNEY SERVICES, LLC d/b/a
SYNERGY ATTORNEY SERVICES,
SYNERGY CONSULTING SERVICES, LLC
d/b/a SYNERGY CONSULTING SERVICES,
SINERGY SWEETS LLC d/b/a SINERGY
SWEETS, THEMIS LAW PLLC, DAVID D. MARESCA, and SAM BABBS III,
Defendants.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- -
x
Plaintiff Smart Business (“Smart Business” or “Petitioner”), by and through its attorneys,
Ershowsky P.C., as and for its Verified Complaint, alleges as follows:
1. This is an action to enforce a judgment, previously entered against Synergy Law
LLC, Synergy Attorney Services LLC, Synergy Consulting Services, LLC, and Sinergy Sweets
LLC (collectively, “Synergy”), and David Maresca (“Maresca”) in favor of Plaintiff Smart
Business, against Synergy’s successor, Themis Law PLLC (“Themis”) and Sam Babbs III
(“Babbs”), who is a co-manager with Maresca of Themis and co-conspirator with Maresca
(collectively, “Defendants”), and to recover damages from the Defendants.
2. Maresca and Synergy were in the business of providing services to individuals who
were in danger of losing their homes to foreclosure.
3. On or about April 9, 2019, Synergy entered into an Agreement for the Purchase and
Sale of Future Receivables with Smart Business under which Synergy agreed to sell $444,970 of
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 07/24/2019 07:42 PM INDEX NO. 610073/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/25/2019
1 of 17
their future receivables in exchange for an advance payment of $300,000 (the “MCA Agreement”).
Pursuant to the MCA Agreement, Synergy authorized Smart Business to debit from its Capital
One bank account each business day, by means of an online ACH debit, a fixed daily payment in
the amount of $4,299.00 with a reconciliation to take place at the end of each month at Synergy’s
request, whereby Smart Business would ensure that 12% of Synergy’s accounts-receivable for
each calendar month was debited, until the purchased amount of receivables was paid in full.
4. Maresca personally guaranteed Synergy’s performance under the MCA
Agreement.
5. Synergy and Maresca confessed judgment in favor of Smart Business in the amount
of $444,970.00 less payments made, plus interest thereon at 16% per annum from the date of
default and plus attorneys’ fees in the amount of 33% plus costs and disbursements.
6. On or about June 12, 2019, Synergy and Maresca breached the MCA Agreement.
Up to that point, Synergy had made payments of $186,750 under the MCA Agreement, leaving a
balance due in the amount of $258,220.
7. Accordingly, Smart Business converted the Affidavit of Confession of Judgment to
a Judgment, dated June 12, 2019 (the “Judgment”) in the amount of $258,220.00, plus attorneys’
fees in the amount of $85,212.60, together with costs and disbursements as taxed by the clerk in
the amount of $225.00 for a total sum of $343,657.60. The Judgment was entered by the Steuben
County Clerk on June 12, 2109 under index number E2019-0803CV.
8. After the Judgment was entered, Synergy and Maresca began negotiations with
Smart Business and convinced Smart Business to forbear on collection actions related to the
$343,657.60 Judgment. Specifically, on June 18, 2019, Smart Business entered into an agreement
with Synergy and Maresca, under which Smart Business agreed to forbear on collections efforts
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 07/24/2019 07:42 PM INDEX NO. 610073/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/25/2019
2 of 17
and accept payment of the Judgment amount, exclusive of poundage (the “Forbearance
Agreement”).
9. However, on July 16, 2019, Synergy and Maresca stopped remitting payment to
Smart Business, leaving a balance owed on the Judgment of $283,943.01.1
10. Unbeknownst to Smart Business, while Smart Business was forbearing on
collection of the Judgment, Synergy, Maresca, and Babbs caused the organization of Themis, a
professional limited liability company, under the laws of the District of Columbia on or about June
20, 2019, only two days after entering into the Forbearance Agreement.
11. Upon information and belief, Maresca and Babbs caused Synergy to fraudulently
transfer its assets to Themis in order to frustrate Smart Business’s ability to enforce the Judgment
against Synergy and Maresca. Indeed, Maresca and Babbs have been funneling money through
Themis into Synergy’s accounts and using those funds to pay Synergy’s payroll and expenses and
divert funds to Maresca. All the while, Synergy’s revenues are directed to Themis to avoid
payment under the MCA Agreement, Judgment, and Forbearance Agreement and to hide those
assets from attachment under the Judgment.
12. Accordingly, as set forth below, the transfer of assets from Synergy to Themis must
be set aside and Themis and Babbs should be held liable for the Judgment as successors to and
alter ego of Synergy. In addition, Smart Business is entitled to damages for fraudulent inducement,
tortious interference with contract, breach of contract, and civil conspiracy.
PARTIES AND VENUE
13. Smart Business is in the merchant cash advance business and maintains a principal
place of business in Nassau County, New York.
1 This amount assumes recovery of $18,874.09 through a city marshal.
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 07/24/2019 07:42 PM INDEX NO. 610073/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/25/2019
3 of 17
14. Upon information and belief, Synergy Law LLC is a limited liability company
organized and existing under the laws of the District of Columbia with a principal place of business
at 8801 Sudley Road, Suite 4017, Manassas, Virginia 20110 or 1101 Connecticut Ave NW, Suite
450, Washington, D.C. 20036. On information and belief, Synergy Law LLC does business
nationwide, including in New York.
15. Upon information and belief, Synergy Attorney Services, LLC is a limited liability
company organized and existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia with a principal
place of business at 10562 Talisa Lane, Manassas, Virginia 20112. On information and belief,
Synergy Attorney Services, LLC does business nationwide, including in New York.
16. Upon information and belief, Synergy Consulting Services, LLC is a limited
liability company organized and existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia with a
principal place of business at 10562 Talisa Lane, Manassas, Virginia 20112.
17. Upon information and belief, Sinergy Sweets LLC is a limited liability company
organized and existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia with a principal place of
business at 10562 Talisa Lane, Manassas, Virginia 20112.
18. Upon information and belief, Themis is a professional limited liability company
organized and existing under the laws of the District of Columbia. Themis’s purported principal
place of business, according to public filings, 1701 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 200,
Washington, D.C. 20006. According to public filings, Maresca and Babbs are the organizers and
governors of Themis.
19. Upon information and belief, Defendant Maresca is an individual residing at 13159
Lakehill Drive, Nokesville, Virginia 20181.
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 07/24/2019 07:42 PM INDEX NO. 610073/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/25/2019
4 of 17
20. Upon information and belief, Defendant Babbs is an individual who is admitted as
an attorney in Florida and the District of Columbia. According to public filings, Babbs is the
executing officer of Themis.
21. This Court has jurisdiction over Synergy and Maresca because they consented to
jurisdiction pursuant to the MCA Agreement and attendant confession of judgment.
22. This Court has jurisdiction over Themis because as successor to Synergy, Themis
inherited Synergy’s jurisdictional status through its de facto merger with Synergy, its consolidation
with Synergy, and its status as a mere continuation of Synergy.
23. This Court has jurisdiction over Defendant Babbs because he has committed and
conspired to commit torts without the State that have caused, and he reasonably knew would cause,
damages within the State of New York.
24. Venue is proper pursuant to CPLR 503(a) because Smart Business maintains an
office in Nassau County.
FURTHER SUBSTANTIVE ALLEGATIONS
25. On or about April 9, 2019, Synergy entered into the MCA Agreement under which
Synergy agreed to sell $444,970 of their future receivables in exchange for an advance payment
of $300,000. Pursuant to the MCA Agreement, Synergy authorized Smart Business to debit from
its Capital One bank account each business day, by means of an online ACH debit, a fixed daily
payment in the amount of $4,299.00 with a reconciliation to take place at the end of each month
at Synergy’s request, whereby Smart Business would ensure that 12% of Synergy’s accounts-
receivable for each calendar month was debited, until the purchased amount of receivables was
paid in full.
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 07/24/2019 07:42 PM INDEX NO. 610073/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/25/2019
5 of 17
26. Maresca personally guaranteed Synergy’s performance under the MCA
Agreement.
27. Synergy and Maresca confessed judgment in favor of Smart Business in the amount
of $444,970.00 less payments made, plus interest thereon at 16% per annum from the date of
default and plus attorneys’ fees in the amount of 33% plus costs and disbursements.
28. On or about June 12, 2019, Synergy and Maresca breached the MCA Agreement.
Up to that point, Synergy had made payments of $186,750 under the MCA Agreement, leaving a
balance due in the amount of $258,220.
29. Accordingly, Smart Business converted the Affidavit of Confession of Judgment to
a Judgment, dated June 12, 2019 in the amount of $258,220.00, plus attorneys’ fees in the amount
of $85,212.60, together with costs and disbursements as taxed by the clerk in the amount of
$225.00 for a total sum of $343,657.60. The Judgment was entered by the Steuben County Clerk
on June 12, 2109 under index number E2019-0803CV.
30. After the Judgment was entered, Synergy and Maresca began negotiations with
Smart Business and convinced Smart Business to forbear on collection actions related to the
$343,657.60 Judgment. Specifically, on June 18, 2019, Smart Business entered into the
Forbearance Agreement with Synergy and Maresca, under which Smart Business agreed to forbear
on collections efforts and accept payment of the Judgment amount, exclusive of poundage. In
exchange for forbearance, Synergy and Maresca represented that they would remit payment to
Smart Business as follows:
a. Initial release of $20,000 from funds held at Capital One.
b. Daily debit of $2,149.50 from June 19, 2019 through July 3, 2019.
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 07/24/2019 07:42 PM INDEX NO. 610073/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/25/2019
6 of 17
c. Daily debit of $4,299 from July 4, 2019 until the balance of the Judgment was paid
in full.
31. Pursuant to the Forbearance Agreement, if Synergy and Maresca defaulted on the
payments, Smart Business could continue enforcing its rights under the MCA Agreement, bring
any claims against Synergy and Maresca, and demand the full outstanding balance less payments.
32. In the Forbearance Agreement, in order to induce Smart Business to enter into the
Forbearance Agreement, Synergy “represent[ed] and warrant[ed] to [Smart Business] that . . . it
has accurately and truthfully disclosed all pertinent information related to this Agreement.
[Synergy] understands that [Smart Business] is relying on [Synergy]’s representations, and it is a
material reason for [Smart Business] entering into this Agreement.”
33. However, on July 16, 2019, Synergy and Maresca stopped remitting payment to
Smart Business, leaving a balance owed on the Judgment of $283,943.01.2
34. Unbeknownst to Smart Business, while Smart Business was forbearing on
collection of the Judgment, Synergy, Maresca, and Babbs caused the organization of Themis on
or about June 20, 2019, only two days after entering into the Forbearance Agreement.
35. Upon information and belief, Maresca and Babbs caused Synergy to fraudulently
transfer its assets to Themis in order to frustrate Smart Business’s ability to enforce the Judgment
against Synergy and Maresca.
36. As of the date of this filing, Synergy’s website content has been removed.
37. Indeed, Themis is continuing the same business as Synergy in the very same form.
Themis is merely an entity to provide a front to conduct Synergy’s business. Synergy’s employees
and other expenses are currently being paid through money that is transferred from Themis to
2 This amount assumes recovery of $18,874.09 from a city marshal.
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 07/24/2019 07:42 PM INDEX NO. 610073/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/25/2019
7 of 17
Synergy Law LLC’s client trust account, which is then transferred to Synergy Law LLC’s
operating accounts. That is, Synergy’s revenue is paid to the front company – Themis – which then
transfers piecemeal amounts to Synergy Law’s attorney trust account. Then the funds are
transferred to Synergy Law’s operating accounts, from which expenses are paid and otherwise
dispersed to Maresca, which keeps Synergy Law’s operating account balances minimal and thus
protected from attachment under the Judgment.
38. For example, for the two weeks beginning July 5, 2019, all 13 credits, and all of the
total funds, deposited into Synergy Law’s client trust account came from Themis, and these funds
were then quickly transferred to one of Synergy Law’s operating accounts (with the exception of
one deposit that was withdrawn by Maresca):
• $7,160.05 deposited on July 5, 2019 by Themis and then transferred to operating
account on July 8, 2019.
• $700, $200, $3,910, and $7,472.50 deposited on July 9, July 9, July 10, and July 11,
2019, respectively, by Themis and then the total of $12,282.50 transferred to an
operating account on July 11, 2019.
• $5,576.31 deposited by Themis on July 12, 2019 and then withdrawn by Maresca
on the same day.
• $11,168.50, $25,554.12, $5,107.50, $2,485, and $12,235.10 deposited on July 15,
July 16, July 16, July 16, and July 17, respectively, by Themis and then the total of
$56,550.22 transferred to an operating account on July 17, 2019.
• $6,926 deposited by Themis on July 18, 2019 and then transferred to an operating
account on July 19, 2019.
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 07/24/2019 07:42 PM INDEX NO. 610073/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/25/2019
8 of 17
• $10,315.21 deposited by Themis on July 19, 2019 and then transferred to an
operating account on the same day.
39. After the funds were transferred to one of Synergy Law’s operating accounts (-
2768), Defendants quickly disperse the funds to protect from attachment and levy under the
Judgment:
Date of Transfer Amount ($) To/From Balance ($)
July 8, 2019 7,160.05 From IOLA 7,165.05
July 9, 2019 -7,165.05 To Acct -0777 0
July 11, 2019 12,282.50 From IOLA 12,282.50
July 11, 2019 -7,282.50 To Acct -0777 5,000
July 12, 2019 5,576.31 From Maresca 10,576.31
July 12, 2019 -10,576.31 To Acct -0777 0
40. Then, on July 17, 2019, after $56,550.22 was transferred to Synergy Law’s
operating account (-2768) from its client trust account (which originally came from Themis),
$46,156.22 was used to pay Synergy Law’s payroll expenses.
41. After $10,5761.31 were transferred from the account ending -2768 to the account
ending -0777, Synergy paid $42,063.94 in wages and transferred $5,075.26 to Maresca.
42. Themis must be acknowledged as the successor in interest to Synergy and held
accountable under the MCA Agreement, the Judgment, and the Forbearance Agreement. Further,
as a result of the Defendants’ actions, Smart Business has been damaged.
AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
43. Smart Business repeats and realleges each of the allegations above as if fully set
forth herein.
44. Smart Business is a creditor of Synergy and Maresca.
45. Maresca and Babbs transferred the assets of Synergy to Themis for the purpose of
defrauding Smart Business. Indeed, Themis is funding Synergy
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 07/24/2019 07:42 PM INDEX NO. 610073/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/25/2019
9 of 17
46. Upon information and belief, Themis did not provide fair consideration to Synergy
for its assets.
47. By causing Synergy to transfer its assets to Themis and allow Themis to generate
revenue otherwise due to Synergy, Maresca and Babbs rendered Synergy insolvent and unable to
satisfy the Judgment.
48. By transferring Synergy’s assets to Themis, Maresca and Babbs acted with actual
intent to hinder, delay, or defraud Smart Business.
49. Based on the foregoing, pursuant to CPLR 5225 and Article 10 of the Debtor and
Creditor Law, Smart Business is entitled to an order and judgment setting aside the conveyance of
Synergy’s assets to Themis to the extent necessary to satisfy the Judgment, plus its reasonable
attorneys’ fees pursuant to Article 10 of the Debtor and Creditor Law.
AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
50. Smart Business repeats and realleges each of the allegations above as if fully set
forth herein.
51. Themis may be held liable as a successor to Synergy because Themis absorbed
Synergy in a de facto merger and Themis is a mere continuation of Synergy.
52. Indeed, Themis is funding Synergy’s payroll and other expenses.
53. Further, Maresca has an actual or constructive ownership interest in Themis, and is
listed as an organizer and governor of Themis.
54. Themis was formed only two days after the signing of the Forbearance Agreement,
a week after the entry of the Judgment.
55. Themis’s business constitutes a change in form, but not in substance, from the
business of Synergy.
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 07/24/2019 07:42 PM INDEX NO. 610073/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/25/2019
10 of 17
56. Pursuant to CPLR 5225 and Article 10 of the Debtor and Creditor Law, Smart
Business is entitled to an order and judgment directing Themis to satisfy the Judgment, and if the
amount to be so paid is insufficient to satisfy the Judgment, to deliver any other personal property,
or so much of it as is of sufficient value to satisfy the Judgment, to a designated sheriff.
AS AND FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
57. Smart Business repeats and realleges each of the allegations above as if fully set
forth herein.
58. Synergy and Maresca fraudulently induced Smart Business to enter into the
Forbearance Agreement.
59. In the Forbearance Agreement, in order to induce Smart Business to enter into the
Forbearance Agreement, Synergy “represent[ed] and warrant[ed] to [Smart Business] that . . . it
has accurately and truthfully disclosed all pertinent information related to this Agreement.
[Synergy] understands that [Smart Business] is relying on [Synergy]’s representations, and it is a
material reason for [Smart Business] entering into this Agreement.”
60. Synergy and Maresca had not, however, disclosed that they planned to organize
Themis, to transfer assets to Themis, and otherwise to evade payments owed under the Judgment.
61. Smart Business reasonably relied on the representations made by Synergy and
Maresca when entering into the Forbearance Agreement.
62. Smart Business was harmed by Synergy and Maresca’s fraudulent conduct by
forbearing on attaching available assets and otherwise forbearing on exercising its legal rights.
AS AND FOR A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
63. Smart Business repeats and realleges each of the allegations above as if fully set
forth herein.
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 07/24/2019 07:42 PM INDEX NO. 610073/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/25/2019
11 of 17
64. Themis and Babbs tortuously interfered with Smart Business’s contractual
relationship with Synergy and Maresca.
65. Synergy and Maresca entered into the MCA Agreement and Forbearance
Agreement with Smart Business. The MCA Agreement and the Forbearance Agreement are valid
and enforceable contracts.
66. Themis and Babbs were aware that Synergy and Maresca were bound by these
agreements. Indeed, Maresca himself is an organizer and governor of Themis, and therefore his
knowledge is imputed to Themis. Babbs participated in the organization of Themis, is listed as an
executing officer of Themis (whereas Maresca is not) and has allowed the transfers of money from
Themis to Synergy, which has then been used to pay for Synergy’s expenses and to distribute to
Maresca.
67. Themis and Babbs intentionally procured the breach of Synergy and Maresca’s
duties. Babbs cooperated with the organization of Themis, which was effectuated specifically to
circumvent the obligations owed by Synergy and Maresca to Smart Business under the MCA
Agreement and the Forbearance Agreement.
68. Smart Business has been damaged by the tortious interference in an amount at least
equal to the shortfall on satisfaction of the Judgment.
AS AND FOR A FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
69. Smart Business repeats and realleges each of the allegations above as if fully set
forth herein.
70. Synergy and Maresca entered into the MCA Agreement and Forbearance
Agreement with Smart Business. The MCA Agreement and the Forbearance Agreement are valid
and enforceable contracts.
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 07/24/2019 07:42 PM INDEX NO. 610073/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/25/2019
12 of 17
71. The MCA Agreement and the Forbearance Agreement are governed by New York
law.
72. Synergy and Maresca willfully breached each of the contracts with Smart Business.
73. Smart Business performed all of its duties under the MCA Agreement by providing
the funding provided for therein.
74. Smart Business performed all of its duties under the Forbearance Agreement by
forbearing on any collection efforts under the Judgment for as long as Synergy and Maresca
complied with their obligations under the Forbearance Agreement.
75. As a result of Synergy and Maresca’s breaches of the MCA Agreement and the
Forbearance Agreement, Smart Business has been damaged.
76. Smart Business is entitled to all attorneys’ fees incurred as a result of Synergy and
Maresca’s breaches.
77. In addition, Synergy and Maresca have breached the implied covenant of good faith
and fair dealing that is implied under all contracts, including the Forbearance Agreement. Indeed,
within two days of entering into the Forbearance Agreement, Maresca effectuated the organization
of Themis and directed revenues that rightfully belong to Synergy to Themis in order to avoid
Synergy’s obligations under the Forbearance Agreement.
78. Smart Business has been damaged by the breaches of contract and breach of the
implied covenant of good faith in an amount at least equal to the shortfall on satisfaction of the
Judgment.
AS AND FOR A SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
79. Smart Business repeats and realleges each of the allegations above as if fully set
forth herein.
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 07/24/2019 07:42 PM INDEX NO. 610073/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/25/2019
13 of 17
80. Smart Business has been damaged by the civil conspiracy conducted by Maresca
and Babbs. Maresca and Babbs conspired to organize Themis for the purpose of interfering with
the contracts between Maresca and Synergy and Smart Business and to effectuate the fraudulent
inducement of Smart Business.
81. The timing of Themis’s organization implies the connection between Themis and
the tortious conduct alleged herein.
82. Smart Business has been damaged by the civil conspiracy in an amount at least
equal to the shortfall on satisfaction of the Judgment.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Smart Business respectfully requests that this Court enter
judgment in its favor as follows: (1) entering a judgment against Defendant Themis in an amount
of at least $283,943.01, plus interest; (2) pursuant to CPLR 5225 and Article 10 of the Debtor and
Creditor Law, setting aside the conveyance of Synergy’s assets to Themis to the extent necessary
to satisfy the Judgment, plus interest; (3) pursuant to CPLR 5225 and Article 10 of the Debtor and
Creditor Law, directing Themis to satisfy the Judgment, plus interest, and if the amount to be so
paid is insufficient to satisfy the Judgment, plus interest, to deliver any other personal property, or
so much of it as is of sufficient value to satisfy the Judgment, plus interest, to a designated sheriff;
(4) awarding damages to Smart Business for fraudulent inducement, tortious interference with
contractual relations, breach of contract, and civil conspiracy in an amount of at least $283,943.01;
(5) awarding Smart Business its reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, disbursements, and expenses;
and (6) awarding Smart Business such other and further relief as the Court shall deem just and
equitable.
Dated: July 24, 2019 Ershowsky P.C.
New York, New York
By: ________________________
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 07/24/2019 07:42 PM INDEX NO. 610073/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/25/2019
14 of 17
Michael B. Ershowsky, Esq
483R Central Avenue
Cedarhurst, New York 11516
(347) 346-0207
mbe@ershlaw.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff Smart Business
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 07/24/2019 07:42 PM INDEX NO. 610073/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/25/2019
15 of 17
VERIFICATION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA ): ss:
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
Gabriel Askarinam being duly sworn, deposes and says:
Deponet is a m-..mse of Smart Business. I have read the artnered Verified Complaint
and the cõütests thereof and I know the same to be true, of my own knowledge, except as to
matters therein stated on information and belief and, as to the latter, I believe them to be true.
This verification is made by the deponent because the Plaintiff is a business organization
authorized to do business in New York.
Gabriel Askarinam
Sworn to before me this
21th day of July, 2019
Notary Public
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 07/24/2019 07:42 PM INDEX NO. 610073/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/25/2019
16 of 17
CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMEiNT CIVIL CODE § 1189
A notary iniblic or other officer cci..i |st:r.g this certificate verifies only the identity of the!ndMdua!whosigned thedocumentto which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfü|riess, accuracy, or validity of that document.
State of California
County of L.o5 A µ3c/cs
On ) rW 9019 beforeme, Rea r, ntz .DdÈe Here Insert Name and Title of the Officer
personally appeared 9 4Name(s) of Signer(s)
who proved to me on the basis of sat!sfedory evidence to be the perscñ(s) whose name(s) Is/are subscribedto the within instrument and âckmaniedged to me that he/shê/they executed the same in his/her/theirauthorized capacity(les), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entityupon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
. .
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the
laws of the State of California that the foregoing. paragraph is true and correct.
LosAngelesCountyC°"""
2,²','2 WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature ..>
Place Notary Seal and/or Stamp Above Signa u of Èotary Public
OPTIONAL
Completing this information can deter alteration of the document orfraudulent.reattachment of this form to an unintended d ment.
Description of Attached Docu ent
Title or Type of Document: ÛDocument Date: Th GM ,401 9 Number of Pages:
Signer(s) Other Than Nam d Above O
Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer(s)Signer's Name: S1gner's Name:O Corporate Officer - Title(s): O Corporate Officer - Title(s)·
O Partner - O Limited O General O Partner - O Limited O GeneralO Individual O Attorney in Fact O Individual O Attorney In Fact
O Trustee O Guardian of Conservator O Trustee O Guardian of Conscrvator
O Other: O OtherSigner is Representing: Signer is Representing:
©2017 National Notary Association .
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 07/24/2019 07:42 PM INDEX NO. 610073/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/25/2019
17 of 17
top related