petition to the appellate court second department ny state supreme court pursuant to article 78...

Upload: mircea-veleanu

Post on 12-Apr-2018

230 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

  • 7/21/2019 Petition to the Appellate Court Second Department NY State Supreme Court pursuant to Article 78 (Cplr 7801-7806)

    1/23

    Supreme Court of the State of New YorkAppellate Division : Second Judicial Department____________________________________In the Matter of Application of:Dr. Mircea Veleanu d/b/d Objets DArt Uniques

    Petitioner MEMORANDUMOF LAW

    Pursuant to CPLR Article 78For a judgment under Article 78 of the CPLR

    Against Index No. 2013/3947Hon. Thomas Dolan, AJSC, Hon. James Pagones

    AJSC, Hon. Peter M. Forman, AJSC, andHon. James Brands, JSC, in their official capacityof Justices of the Supreme Court of New YorkDutchess County, and, Andrew Cuomo, Attorney

    General of the State of New York, Nicholas G.Garin AKA Nick Garin, Assistant Attorney Generalof the State of New York, in their official capacity.

    Respondents__________________________________________MOTTO.Public integrity was my top priority as New York Attorney General and it is as governorThosewho hold public office must safeguard that trust and those that violate their oath must incurpunishment, It is a new day in Albany and the old day of doing business will not be tolerated.

    Excerpt from the speech at the inauguration of Andrew Cuomo as governor of New York State.1

    1. The above dictum was pronounced at the inauguration of Andrew Cuomo as a governor ofNew York State and as such as is a commendable example of what is required from a publicofficer, it needs to apply to everybody including the governor himself who is the role model forforesaid public officers, other ways represents a pure political and demagogical hypocrisy.

    2. The lawsuit that hereto is challenged pursuing the Article 78 of NY State CPLR 7801-7806 isthe proper place for such challenge, if the challenge is effectuated under fairness, equal human

    rights granted by United States Constitution and presided in legal proceeding by an impartial,unbiased and unprejudiced referee who grants hearings in which the parties have theopportunity to debate, dispute and controvert the allegations of the parties involved.

    3. In the former judicial proceedings, the undersigned did not have the opportunity to defend,argue and controvert the allegations of the powerful adversary party in a hearing.

    4. The false allegations were upheld by biased and prejudicial officers of law who disregardedthe evidence provided in the form of proof and either ruled that the contentions of the pro selitigant are without merit or completely ignored and/or not litigated at all on base of merit, thusprotecting the interest of the powerful litigant.

    5. No country is a democratic country when the civil rights of a person are totally repressed andthe trials are in form of kangaroo court which is conducted without the opportunity to defend,without hearings and in which a defendant is allowed only to accept guilt in form of unethicalbargaining plea, when defendant is innocent of all fraudulent charges against him.

    6. In the legal case that hereto is legally challenged by the undersigned, Attorney GeneralAndrew Cuomo (AG) and his counsel, Assistant Attorney General Nicholas G. Garin, AKA NickGarin (AAG), commenced a legal proceeding under GBL 349 and Executive Law 63.12, alleging

  • 7/21/2019 Petition to the Appellate Court Second Department NY State Supreme Court pursuant to Article 78 (Cplr 7801-7806)

    2/23

    that the respondent Dr. Mircea Veleanu violated the fore mentioned laws by selling in his hobbyminimal volume business, carved ornamental art Sino-Tibetan Buddhist rosaries that allegedlywere misrepresented as made of jadeite when improvident and wrongful used gemologicaltesting identified the presence of quartz in examination done by AGTA laboratory (went out ofbusiness in July 2009, a few weeks after performing the gemological testing), and gemologicaltesting done by GIA that identified quartzite, a rock that contains several minerals includingquartz and jadeite, and such rock identified as jadeite/quartzite. It is well known and world wideaccepted by jade merchants, that the identification of jadeite is done by mineralogical testing that

    includes examination under microscope, Mohs test that determines the hardness of the stoneand specific gravity. The gemological testing is exclusively reserved to jewelry grade jadeite ofminute quantity of a stone measured in carat (200 mg), and never done in the ornamental artcarvings that are large, measured in grams and obviously containing other minerals than jadeiteas are not pure single mineral. Without getting in a more detailed scientific explanation, thefinding of single mineral quartz, or poly mineral quartzite does not preclude the presence of

    jadeite that in pure form is a pyroxene with chemical composition of a silicate of sodium andaluminum.

    7. A single person from Winsted, Connecticut named Janet Spiridonakos, purchased from theundersigned over a period of about 2 years, 7 Sino-Tibetan jadeite rosaries mala in shape ofcarved human faces of Tibetan monks used for meditation in Buddhist prayers. She was ecstatic

    about the quality of carvings and purchased 2 mala at auctions were the undersigned was aconsignor, rather than a seller, and additional 5 mala directly from the Internet business of theundersigned. Ultimately, she purchased a pair of Chinese calligraphy brushes with jadeitehandles. Upon receipt of the brushes, wrongly she believed that were made of glass, rather than

    jadeite. She did not consult with anybody else and returned the brushes and was refunded in full.She was not sure about her belief and as a matter of fact, she implored the undersigned for re-purchase, that providently did not happen. According to her allegations, she submitted the 7rosaries mala for an examination with AGTA Lab through a jeweler friend or accomplice in fraudthat had his store in Great Barrington, Massachussetts. Rather than shipping the mala byregistered mail as is customary, she used the services of her jeweler friend as a courier. Theevidence shows that fraudulently, this person mislabeled the mala as head carved necklacesthat are jewelry type of merchandise, in order to qualify the mala for a gemological testing.Nevertheless, there was no such nomenclature in the description and title of the items when weresold to her. AGTA Lab identified the mala as Natural species quartz. This woman complainedwith NY State AG, Connecticut AG, Winsted police, Chamber of Commerce, etc., alleging thatshe was defrauded by the undersigned. Obviously, all the agencies she complained, realizedthat her complaint is frivolous and ignored her complaint, except AG Andrew Cuomo and hiscounsel AAG Nicholas G. Garin, AKA Nick Garin, who started a legal proceeding against theundersigned under GBL 349 and Executive Law 63.12. An examination of the identificationreports of AGTA revealed that 2 identification reports were tampered and forged as representingthe same mala.

    8. AAG Garin summoned the undersigned for a subpoena at the AG office in Poughkeepsie fora deposition under oath. At the deposition, the undersigned brought the attention of AAG that theevidence was forged and as such has no probative value. In addition, the undersignedmentioned that the complainant is a habitual returning of purchased items, and in the past shereturned and was refunded in 2 separate occasions. Thus, there was no reason that she wouldnot be refunded again i f requested. Fraudulently, she claimed that she was refused a refund bythe undersigned. In addition, she made another fraudulent allegation that one mala described asfei tsui jadeite, was imperial jade that is valued in hundreds of thousands dollars on weight incarats. However, fei tsui is actually the name attributed to ordinary jadeite and not to imperial

    jade. The undersigned was given the opportunity to contest AG allegations in defense to a Noticeof Proposed Action by AG within 5 days, that undersigned did and was certain that he was

    exculpated.9. On August 7, 2009, AAG Garin told the undersigned that he intends to appear in court within

    a few hours and request from a judge a Temporary Restraining Order to prevent the undersignedto sell jade. Upon appearance in the Court, AAG Garin handed to the undersigned a large stackof papers that it could not be read within a few minutes, even one page. Upon returning home, I

  • 7/21/2019 Petition to the Appellate Court Second Department NY State Supreme Court pursuant to Article 78 (Cplr 7801-7806)

    3/23

    realized that the papers actually represented a petition and an order to show cause, rather thanpapers related to the grant of TRO. On this appearance that was labeled by the Judge JamesBrands as a calendar call, I protested about the handing of the papers a few minutes before thecalendar call and did not have the opportunity to learn about charges. The appearance in courtrelated to TRO is not considered to be service upon respondent as is considered trickery used bypetitioner to illegally try to achieve personal jurisdiction upon the person of respondent.

    According to CPLR 320 C, a limited appearance in court not related to service of process is notconsidered service at all. Accordingly, the lack of personal service at the commencement of

    judicial action, precludes the court to obtain jurisdiction upon respondent and consequent lack ofsubject matter jurisdiction. Thus, all subsequent orders and judgments decreed in absence ofjurisdiction are null and invalid based on void judicial process.In People v Patterson, 39 NY2d, 288, 295 , 383 NYS 2d 573, 577 (1976), the court stated: Wherethe court has no jurisdiction, or where there was a fundamental non-waivable defect in the modeof procedure, an Appellate Court must reverse, even though the question was not formally raisedbelow. See also People v Ahmed, 66 NY 2d 307, 310, 496 NYS 2d 984, 985 (1985). In this legalcase, the undersigned requested the dismissal of petition based on CPLR 3211 (a) (8). SeeExhibit 1 consisting in excerpts from the following documents: pleadings of the respondent, Briefto the Appellate Court Second Division, motion to Appellate Court for reargument and permissionto appeal at the Court of Appeals, motion to Court of Appeals for permission to appeal and

    motion to SCDC pursuant to CPLR 5015 for annulment of orders and judgments decreed bySCDC. The documentation provided in Exhibit 1 demonstrates that the undersigned made allefforts to plead the righteousness of the judicial action and was prevented to obtain relief inclearly biased and prejudiced tribunals who refused to adjudicate respondents contentions onmerit. (4). Egregiously and prejudicially, all the applications for relief due to lack of jurisdictionwere disregarded in unconscionable abuse of discretion and arbitrary and capricious action, andnever were adjudicated on merit in all above mentioned tribunals. The Court of Appealsdetermined that that only the fair and full opportunity to litigate any issue satisfies the safeguardsthat all judgments be decided on merits and litigated for all issues involved in order that res

    judicata is precluded to be invoked. A valid final judgment on merits prevent re-litigation. TheCourt of Appeals ruled that issue preclusion in collateral estoppel cannot be invoked , if a forumin the second action afforded a party against whom preclusion is invoked, new proceduralopportunities. The issue of jurisdictional power of the court cannot be waived, until adjudicated infull with opportunities of the litigating parties to prove their position and substantiate withevidence of the proof of service in order to achieve the subject matter jurisdiction.

    10. From common law of precedent similar cases, I present 2 judicial cases that are similar tothe present case.A. Tickle v Barton, 142 W. Va. 185, 95 se 2d 427 W, Va. (1956). Service of process

    accomplished by fraud is not valid as held by the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.Tickles lawyer lured Barton into West Virginia with the false pretense of a party in order to serveprocess upon Barton in a suit for personal injury. The court held that a person may not be

    induced by false representation to enter the jurisdiction of the court for the purpose of service ofpapers.B. Wyman v. Newhouse, 93 F2d 313 (2nd Cir. 1937). Wyman lured Newhouse to Florida in

    order to serve him with process for recovery of loaned money and seduction under the promise ofmarriage. The court held that a judgment against a party based on fraudulent service of processis invalid.

    11. In the evidence as irrefutable proof, AAG concedes that he did not serve the respondentwith the petition in the fashion prescribed by law. In his Alternative proposed Statement in lieu ofStenographic Transcripts submitted to the Appellate Court pursuing CPLR 5525 (d), AAG stated:Dr. Veleanu stated that the fax had failed to come through and his first notice of the contents ofthe States petition was a few minutes prior to the hearing when he was served with the order to

    show cause and petition. He objected to going (sic) forward since the documents were sovoluminous he had not had time to absorb them. I responded that the matter had been underinvestigation for months and that Dr. Veleanu knew essentially what the States case was aboutsince he had been deposed recently. See Exhibit 11, A29. AAG Garin knew or should haveknown that a prior deposition is not a proof of service. Petitioner AAG failed to present proof of a

  • 7/21/2019 Petition to the Appellate Court Second Department NY State Supreme Court pursuant to Article 78 (Cplr 7801-7806)

    4/23

    valid service of petition by any form as required by CPLR 306 (B), 308 (1) and 308 (2).Accordingly, in the absence of proper service of process, no personal jurisdiction was acquiredover the defendant and also no jurisdiction on subject matter. See Bennett v. Acosta 68 AD 3d910; Horseman Antiques, Inc. v. Huch, 50AD 3d 963. 964; Dominguez v. Sampson Mfg., Corp.207 AD 2d 375. It is well settled that the failure to serve process in a legal proceeding leaves thecourt without personal jurisdiction over respondent and lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Thus,all subsequent proceedings resulting in orders and judgments are thereby rendered null, invalidand void (McMullen v. Arnone, 79 AD 2d, 496, 499; see also, Khanai v. Sheldon, 55 AD 3d, 684.

    Notice received by means other than those authorized by statute cannot bring a respondentwithin the jurisdiction of the court. (Feinstein v. Bergner, 48 NY 2d , 234, 241).12. The law clearly shows that the burden of proof of proving jurisdiction is upon the party who

    asserts it, and that party must show by supporting evidence the essential requirement of thepersonal jurisdiction statute. See Saratoga Harness Racing Assn v. Moss, 26 AD, 486, 490(1966). Furthermore, the court will not find personal jurisdiction based on conclusory andunsubstantiated assertions (Brown v. Blum, 1999, WL 10429 o 04, 21 NY Supp) citing SpectraProducts , Inc. V. Indian River citrus Specialties, Inc., 144 AD 2d2d, 832 , 833 (1988); Lamarr v.Klein, 35 AD 2d , 248, 250(970). As relevant, CPLR 3211 (e)requires that the papers inopposition to a motion based on improper service, shall contain a copy of the proof of service inform of an affidavit, or a proof of a signed acknowledgement of receipt of the petition and order to

    show cause that was serviced properly according to CPLR 306 B. Petitioner (AG) could notprove any requirements of the burden of proof of service of process due to lack of service, or animproper service in accordance with CPLR 306 (b). As was proved in al l the motions to dismiss,pleadings, appeal to the Appellate Court and the Court of Appeals, the petitioner failed toproperly serve the respondent and delivery of the petition by trickery of claiming an appearancefor a TRO, rather than service of process, precludes the petitioner to claim effectuation of service.CPLR 320 C clearly defines in limited appearance that when the court s jurisdiction is notbased upon personal service on the defendant, an appearance is not equivalent to personalservice upon the defendant.

    13. AAG commenced this legal proceeding in bad faith for lack of standing, lack of a cause ofaction to justify the commencement and irrefutable proof of extrinsic fraud. The singlecomplainant had no standing to sue as was not aggrieved. Under conditions of sale, she wasentitled to lifetime warranty and refund. See Exhibit 3- Conditions of sale of the commercialcontract. Furthermore, the evidence provided by the undersigned in form of the undersignedsemail to the complainant, clearly shows that complainant received reassurance that she will berefunded and thus, contradicting petitioners fraudulent l ie that respondent refused to refund thecomplainant See Exhibit 4

    14. Further on, petitioner started this summary proceeding under GBL 349 and Executive Law63.12 in complete failure to prove a cause of action under GBL 349 of statutory fraud, that will beeligible for an entitlement of relief. The case does not satisfy by any reasonable and logical basisto support such summary judicial action and clearly represents an unconscionable abuse of

    prosecutorial discretion and irrational arbitrary and capricious judicial action. This legal caserepresents a commercial dispute between a criminal complainant named Janet Spiridonakosengaged in perjury, fraud by mislabeling forensic evidence, extortion, forgery by counterfeit ofdocument submitted to the court for charging the seller with alleged statutory fraud and inabsence of substantiation of her allegations by evidence in form of proof, and on the other side,the undersigned seller that acted conform with the conditions of sale of contract. The case doesnot meet the requirements of GBL 349: 1. It was not addressed to the consumers at large, ratherrepresented a private commercial dispute that had to be resolved according to the conditions ofthe commercial contract. 2. The dispute was particular and exclusively related to this case anddid not involve any other customer with similar complaints. 3. The case lacks materiality, ascomplainant collected only jewelry type of items, and the complainant was advised that the

    undersigned sells mainly art carvings that are not jewelry items per se and do not satisfy the strictrequirements of jewelry grade items. The evidence of prosecutor consisted, inter alia, in form ofseveral emails between the complainant and the undersigned as seller, saved over a period oftime of more than 2 years. The saving and collection of trivial emails concerning the sale of

    jadeite mala, by itself, represents a deliberate and premeditated intention to defraud the seller.

  • 7/21/2019 Petition to the Appellate Court Second Department NY State Supreme Court pursuant to Article 78 (Cplr 7801-7806)

    5/23

    Her emails show that she used the services of a friend jeweler with a store in Great Barrington,Masssacchussets, to improperly authenticate carved jadeite art carvings that are not prone to beexamined by gemological testing, as not being of jewelry grade jadeite and as such, containing avariation of different minerals and chemical elements that render the gemological testing not onlyto be inappropriate, but clearly fraudulent. While there is evidence of faking jewelry grade jadeitewith inexpensive non jewelry grade jadeite or simulants of jade, there is no probative evidencewhatsoever, in the commerce or legal suits, that a non jewelry grade jadeite carving had betested by gemological testing, as forego mentioned. Petitioner had the obligation to research if

    ever a legal case involving such absurd moronic and irrational allegations ever occurred, ofcourse, excluding the simulants of jadeite in expensive jewelry grade jewelry that is rathercommon. Nonetheless, the mala jadeite art carvings were not misrepresented as jewelry gradeimperial jade, as fraudulently the complainant alleged. Nonetheless, the mala sold tocomplainant was exquisite in carving of the stone that is extremely hard, and the quality of thestone was excellent by itself, lacking inclusions. She produced as burden of proof of allegedfraud, gemological testing by AGTA Lab that showed the presence of natural species quartz. Arepeat gemological testing by GIA Lab did not confirm the findings of AGTA Lab and identifiedmala as being species quartzite. While quartzite that is a poly mineral rock contains quartz (thatis a mono mineral), the GIA examination did not confirm AGTA Lab testing, as species quartz isnot the same as species quartzite. The research of mineralogical literature by the undersigned

    revealed that quartzite and jadeite are both poly mineral metamorphic rocks that contain, or maycontain quartz. It is scientifically defective and moronic to do gemological testing in a rock thatcontains several minerals. So, by absurd , if a low intellect customer, or intentionally done by aresearcher that would submit the poly mineral rock to the examination of the rock by gemologicalexamination, it may yield to different results depending on the examination of the rock in aspecific site, in comparison with examination of the same rock in a different site that could obtaindifferent results of the mineral firstly discovered. Exhibit 1 shows in a sagittal section of a jadeiterock, the close proximity of the mineral quartz to the core of jadeite and the likely possibil ity that ifthe gemological examination is done in close proximity, the results of the testing could yield todifferent results. As a matter of fact, such analysis was done in an experiment by the Friends ofJade, an association of jade collectors enthusiasts. This long scientific explanation is provideddue to the fact that both SCDC and the Appellate Court made legal decisions based on the faulty,moronic and scientifically low intellect determination that the identification of jadeite or nephriteart carvings of non jewelry grade stones has to be done by gemological examination andignoring scientifically correct averments of the undersigned that non jewelry grade jade artcarving has to be identified only by mineralogical testing (that was not done by AGTA or GIA lab).Such absurdity and moronic determination was decreed in a prestigious court of justice in NewYork State by decreeing a permanent injunction imposed on the undersigned that any sales of

    jade items has to be supported by a gemological identification report. The stupidity and absurdityof such decree makes the NY State Supreme Court (SCDC) to appear in front of the whole worldas ignorant, lacking the rational and intellect for a such prestigious

    tribunal unless the arbitrary and capricious is or was its MO. The question that remains to beresolved by Article 78 proceeding is if that such requirement is due to ignorance and lack ofintellectual capacity of the officers of the court of the Supreme Court of NY, or represents arbitraryand capricious judicial action that defies the rational of a reasonable fact finder, and representsan unconscionable abuse of discretion by the fore mentioned officers of the court and an arbitraryand capricious judicial act lacking the logic and rational. The undersigned contacted 3prestigious gemological laboratories in New York City inquiring if they perform such gemologicaltesting in non jewelry grade art carvings of jade. Not only that the answer was negative, but I wastold that the maximum size of the stone to be examined should not be more than 40 carats ( about4 grams). Further on, I was told that if an examination would be done in a bigger stone, theresults could be inaccurate, as being proven in this case. AG lacked the due diligence prior

    commencement of the legal action, to investigate if the allegations of the single complainant aresupported by any plausible and intell igent basis. Furthermore, AG was authorized by judgeThomas Dolan to contact all the former customers that purchased jade from the undersigned andurged to request refunds alleging that the undersigned committed fraud by selling quartz or glassinstead of jade. The malicious and libelous attacks in media by the AG and the contact to all the

  • 7/21/2019 Petition to the Appellate Court Second Department NY State Supreme Court pursuant to Article 78 (Cplr 7801-7806)

    6/23

    customers by the prosecutor did not yield to any claim of misrepresentation by any formercustomer. It proves that the jade collectors are not stupid and know how to identify jade.Nevertheless, in a perfidious, malicious and fraudulent misrepresentation and example ofextrinsic fraud committed by AG, petitioner promised to all persons involved in jade purchasesfrom the undersigned (that did not allege misrepresentation), a gratifying illegal interest of 9 %,retroactive, years back to the date of purchase of jade, waiving the auction companyscommission of 27.5 % , Paypal fee of 3 % and shipping fee). As all the customers who requestedrefunds purchased the art jade carvings at auction, the refund of the auction house commission

    assessed to the undersigned (I was a consignor, rather than the seller), and other refunds, almostdoubled their investments. However, their action was illegal in the fact that they breached thecontract of sale that provide lifetime warranty with refunds in accordance to the conditions of saleof the contract. The illegal punitive action against the respondent Veleanu, represents an abuseof process and malicious prosecution by AG. AG solicited, provided, supported and aided theillegal act of breach of contract by the complainant (2 of the jade items purchased were atauctions where the undersigned was the consignor, rather than the seller).

    15. The sole complainant committed criminal acts aided, encouraged and supported by theprosecutor. 1. The complainant committed perjury by making contradictory statements in heraffidavit in regard to the cost of gemological testing done by AGTA. The statement in the affidavitcontradicted a previous statement she made in an email. See Exhibit 6.

    2. Subsequently, her legal deposition became invalid due to her impeachment as a witnessaccording to CPLR 4514. See Exhibit 17.3. The complainant forged the evidence by mislabeling of the 7 jadeite mala as head carvednecklaces in order that she could submit the mala as jewelry items, as such, misrepresenting the7 jadeite mala as jewelry items, rather than ornamental jade mala as labeled and sold to her bythe undersigned. 4. In a criminal act, the complainant forged by counterfeit, an invoice provided toher by her partner in fraud, a jeweler friend with store in Massachussetts. The graphologicalexamination reveals that complainant Spiridonakos wrote the invoice herself. The handwriting ofthe invoice is identical to handwriting of Spiridonakos adjacent to the invoice and other legaldocuments exhibiting her handwriting. See Exhibit 18.5. Complainant conspired with AAG Garin to charge the undersigned with false allegations. Insupport of this contention, I submit as evidence in form of proof, complainants affidavit thatirrefutably proves that AAG Garin wrote complainants affidavit, or edited the evidence to appearmore plausible. The affidavit contains intimate details of the legal process as Exhibit numbers in

    AAGs Petition, content of the fore mentioned Exhibits that would be impossible to complainantnamed Janet Spiridonakos to know, in absence of the conspiracy with the prosecutor to chargethe undersigned with concocted false charges.Spiridonakos affidavit was not written by her as a witness of facts she knew from personalexperience, rather was imposed illegally and fraudulently by Attorney General that Spiridonakoswrote like she was the prosecutor of the legal process. Federal law Title 18, Sec. 19 makes acrime to conspire to injure or oppress any citizen in the face of exercise of any right or privilege

    secured to him by Constitution. AAG Garin contemplated an ulterior malicious motive in using thelegal legitimate process of an affidavit. He committed a willful act in the use of process not properwith regular conduct of proceedings. See Brown v. Kennard 94 Cal App 4th 40, 44 (2001). (T)heessence of the tort of abuse of process lies in the misuse of the power of the court; it is an actdone in the name of the court and under its authority for the purpose of perpetrating an injustice.See Meadows v Bakersfield Sav. & Loan Assn, 250 Cal App 2d 749, 753 (1967); Spellen vSpellen 49 Cal 2d 210, 232-33 (1957). The court stated: The improper (use) takes the form ofcoercion to obtain a collateral advantage not properly involved with the proceeding itself, such asthe surrender of property, or the payment of money, by the use of process as a threat or a club, aform of extortion, and it is what is done in the course of the negotiation, rather than the issuanceof any formal of the process, itself which constitutes the tort.

    16. Prosecutor AAG Garin committed illegal and criminal acts in achieving the relieves grantedby the court in lack of any cause of action to substantiate the grant of such relieves. 1. AAG Garinwillingly commenced a legal action when knowingly he was aware that he had no standing toinitiate a legal action when the clear evidence showed that the single complainant was notaggrieved in any way by the undersigned. She was entitled to lifetime warranty that provided

  • 7/21/2019 Petition to the Appellate Court Second Department NY State Supreme Court pursuant to Article 78 (Cplr 7801-7806)

    7/23

    refund based on the conditions of sale of the contract. See Exhibit 3.2. Fraudulently, she breached the commercial contract in order to defraud and extort therespondent by conspiring with AAG Garin to receive il legal award of punitive retroactive interestof 9 % years back to the date of purchase of jade items. As such she fraudulently and criminallyenriched on total amount of her investment in purchasing jade items from the undersigned.

    17. The conspiracy of AAG with complainant Spiridonakos to defraud and extort theundersigned represents an unconscionable abuse of discretion, extrinsic fraud and fraud uponcourt. The illegal retroactive interest of 9 % was also promised by AAG to 3 customers who did

    not claim misrepresentation of the seller, but breached the commercial contract in order toachieve il legal enrichment of their investment by defrauding the respondent. The punitiveretroactive interest of 9 % was illegal as GBL 349 does not provide punitive fines. Such actrepresents extrinsic fraud, fraud upon court and unconscionable abuse of discretion.

    18. AAG Garin did not provide with any evidence for the entitlement to GBL 349 and as such afailure to state a cause of action and unconscionable abuse of discretion. 5. In his petition, AAGGarin submitted false and deceiving allegations that Veleanu refused to take any malas (sic)back and refund to this consumer the thousands of dollars she paid him. Such abhorrent lieswere submitted under penalty of perjury and represent the criminal act of perjury, unconscionableabuse of discretion and capricious and arbitrary statements made without rational. Thesubstantial evidence clearly shows that the complainant and the prosecutor acted in unison to

    defraud and extort the respondent. 6. Willingly and knowingly, AAG Garin uttered to the courtdocumentary evidence he knew was false and fraudulent. 20. AAG uttered to the court criminallyforged and mislabeled evidence as prima facie of alleged fraud with full knowledge of the falsityof the evidence he presented to the court. Using fake court documents constitutes a violation offederal statute Title 18 Sec 371. The penalty for using fake court documents is up to 5 yearsimprisonment. Title 18, Sec 514 of federal law provides that it is a crime to use a fraudulentdocument. Federal law Title 18 Chapter 25 Sec 514 counterfeiting and forgery, provides:whoever with the intent to defraud: 1. Draws, prints, processes, publishes, or otherwise makes,or attempts or causes the same, within the US; 2. Passes within the US, or (3) utilizes interstateor foreign commerceany false or fictitious instrument, document, or other item appearing,representing, purporting or contriving through a scheme or artifice shall be guil ty of class Bfelony. New York State similarly, under Penal Law 175.10 Falsifying business records in the firstdegree specifies: A person is guilty of falsifying business records when he commits the crime offalsifying business records in the second degree, and when by intend to defraud. AAG Garincommitted perjury by stating in his Alternative Statement in lieu of Stenographic transcriptspursuant to CPLR 5525 (d), that he was not aware that gemological identification reports wereforged and the evidence was fraudulently mislabeled by complainant Spiridonakos untilrespondent answered to Petition in his pleadings and later, on the motion to reargument andrenew. This statement of AAG Garin is a blatant lie as the evidence showed that respondentbrought to the attention of AAG Garin that AGTA gemological reports were forged andmislabeled, firstly in respondents pre-trial response to the Notice of Proposed Action pursuant to

    Article 22, weeks prior trial. The findings of forgery and mislabel were brought again in thedefense by the undersigned at the calendar call of judge Brands. It appears from this irrefutableevidence that AAG Garin preferred to commit the criminal act of perjury, rather than acknowledgethat he commenced a legal action against the undersigned in absence of a reasonable cause ofaction. 7. AG is liable under the laws of the State of New York of committing the crime ofsubornation of perjury. Will ingly, AG submitted Spiridonakos affidavit with full knowledge of thefalsity of affidavits declarations, and deliberately, he helped to fabricate and preserve them. As

    AGs legal action was intended to deceive the court, it clearly represents extrinsic fraud, FraudUpon the Court and unconscionable abuse of discretion.

    19. The solicitation, aiding and supporting violation and breach of the commercial contract byall former customers involved in this case was possible only through the egregious intervention

    by AAG Garin. Other than the criminal black mail and extortion by complainant, another formercustomer committed the crime of substitution of a precious jade carving (she returned it through

    AAG Garin intermediary) with a valueless contemporary fake made of a marble type of material.Both, the complainant and this mentioned person named Diana Norton, submitted affidavits inwhich stated false statements, thus committed the criminal act of perjury by swearing under oath

  • 7/21/2019 Petition to the Appellate Court Second Department NY State Supreme Court pursuant to Article 78 (Cplr 7801-7806)

    8/23

    of false statements with full knowledge of the falsity of the their falsity. These criminal acts weremade possible only through the intervention of AAG Garin who facilitated the commission of thecriminal acts. As the intention of AAG was to prosecute the undersigned for alleged wrongdoings,his legal acts were Fraud upon Court based on deceit used to keep the undersigned devoid ofexercising his right for a fair trial. AG initiated this frivolous and vexatious legal action in absenceof any reasonable cause of action, in the name of other individuals, but without theconsent of involved individuals in an action of special proceeding in a court before a judge.

    According to CPLR R70, the person who initiates a

    frivolous vexatious suit is guil ty of misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment. In this legal case,AG initiated the legal action in behalf of 3 customers that did not claim misrepresentation, ratherwere tricked by AG to request refunds with the incentive of benefit of retroactive interest of 9 %starting years back to the date of purchase. These 3 customers did not consent for suing in theirname as they did not have a legal standing to sue in the lack of aggrieving. Nevertheless, these 3customers breached the commercial contract of sale and are liable for the damage incurred byVeleanu subsequent to their action. The legal action commenced and continued with thecollateral intention to cause pecuniary harm, psychological trauma to Veleanu and representsabuse of process, malicious prosecution and Fraud Upon the Court by intentional use of deceitand more importantly, unconscionable abuse of discretion. .

    20. AG willingly and knowingly committed the criminal act of submitting to the court documents

    that concealed exculpatory evidence by interposing a photograph over a text that wasexculpatory to respondent Veleanu in 2 separate occasions. See Exhibit 19. This criminal actimplying forgery of a legal document was intended to be used for prosecution of an innocentindividual. Such misconduct of the prosecutor is defined in the Federal law Title 18, Chapter 73,Section 1513 (a) (3) as misleading conduct and is punishable with imprisonment and penaltiesunder Section 1512: whoever knowingly usesor engages in misleading conduct towardanother person with intent to: (B). ( alter, destroy, mutilate or conceal an object with intent toimpair the objects integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding. This AG illegalaction of concealment of exculpatory evidence clearly and concisely represents intrinsic andextrinsic fraud and Fraud Upon the Court.

    21. AG used his prosecutorial power to issue several subpoenas with collateral objective ofabuse of process in order to intimidate, harass and retaliate for the exercise of Veleanusconstitutional rights to defend himself. 3 of 4 subpoenas were not directed to serve the legitimateevidentiary role and as such impermissible under Rule 26 (b) (1) of FRCP which allowsubpoenas only to those matters that are relevant to the subject of action. As the subpoenasissued by AG were with the sole purpose to force Veleanu not to seek justice in the court, theseillegal subpoenas of the AG clearly represent Fraud Upon the Court and unconscionable abuseof discretion.22. AG released to media in 2 separate occasions false, inflammatory and misrepresenting,

    malicious, deceiving and libelous statements intended to harm Veleanu physically,psychologically and pecuniary. The statements

    were outrageous lies not substantiated by substantive evidence to base upon. The malicious anddeceiving statements had secondary collateral of abuse of process and malicious prosecutioninto hope that the fraudulent accusations by the highest rank law enforcement official wouldfrighten the former customers and recruit more people that would request refunds with theincentive of being awarded retroactive interest of 9 % back to the date of purchase. AG committedoutrageous libel by stating false and damaging statements that irreversibly damaged theimmaculate personal and professional reputation by using character assassination. See Exhibit8. As the malicious prosecution with release to media of false information was meant to preventVeleanu to pursue his legal defense in court, AG action is clearly a Fraud Upon the Court,unconscionable abuse of discretion and arbitrary and capricious action that defies the rationaleof any prosecutor .

    23. In a brazen and contempt of court action, AG violated the court imposed gag on mediaregarding information pertinent to TRO. The malicious action with secondary collateral of abuseof process had as purpose, the intention to prevent the defense of the undersigned in the courtand as such represents Fraud Upon the Court and unconscionable abuse of discretion. AGcommenced a legal action against respondent Veleanu based on GBL 349 and Executive Law

  • 7/21/2019 Petition to the Appellate Court Second Department NY State Supreme Court pursuant to Article 78 (Cplr 7801-7806)

    9/23

    63 (12) without a reasonable cause of action. GBL 349 implies that customers affected bymisrepresentation of deceit should show injury as a result of such misrepresentation or deceit.In the present legal case initiated as a result of a single complainant with doubtful moralcharacter, there was no injury in any form and as such there was no standing to sue in lack ofaggrievement. Even more, AG failed to state a cause of action upon which relief could begranted. This represents a clear Fraud Upon the Court, unconscionable abuse of discretion andabsurd and illogical arbitrary and capricious judicial action. .

    24. AG alleged and requested fines and court fees based on GBL 350 (d). Nevertheless, AG in

    his two causes of action did not allege any violations of GBL 350 that is based on fraudulent actsof advertising and did not state in his petition a cause of action under GBL 350. AGs request forrelief based on violations of GBL 350 failed to state a cause of action upon which a relief couldbe granted. Thus, AG prosecutorial actions were fraudulent and clearly represent Fraud Upon theCourt, unconscionable abuse of discretion and an arbitrary and capricious judicial act defying thelogic and rational of any reasonable factor and issue finder.

    25. AG solicited former customers to request refunds for the past 6 years prior legal action thatis beyond the statue of limitations. One person who requested a refund, purchased the jadecarving in February 2006 that is beyond the statute of limitations for statutory fraud that is 3 yearsonly. This represents obvious Fraud Upon the Court, abuse of discretion and an arbitrary andcapricious prosecutorial action defying the logic of any honest prosecutor. AG violated Penal

    Law 215-Article 215. Bribing a witness.A person is guilty of bribing a witness when he confers, or offers, or agrees to confer , any benefitupon a witness or a person about to be called as awitness in any action or proceeding upon an agreement or understanding that (a) the testimony ofsuch witness will thereby be influenced, or, (b) such witness will absent herself from, or otherwiseavoid or seek to avoid appearing to testify at such action or proceeding. Bribing a witness is aclass D felony.

    26. New York State Penal Law Sec. 100.05. Criminal solicitation of 4th degree. A person isguilty of solicitation in 4th degree when (1) with intent that another person engage in conductconstituting a felony, he solicits, requests, commands, importunes or otherwise attempts to causesuch other person to engage in such conduct.

    27. AG requested and obtained from the court punitive damages consistingin interest of 9 % starting from the date of the purchase. The punitive damage was requestedconsequently to the motion for reargument/renew ofVeleanu and represents Fraud Upon the Court as is not based, endorsed and legal by anystatute, law or rule. Of course, AG is not entitled to request punitive damages under GBL 349 orExecutive Law 63 (12). Such prosecutorial judicial action clearly represents unconscionableabuse of discretion and rational defying arbitrary and capricious action.FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

    Petitioner repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in the forego paragraphs 1 to 27 and asa result, the prosecutor/petitioner Attorney General and Assistant Attorney Generals judicialactions demonstrated in the paragraphs 1 to 27 of the present petition to represent repeated actsof unconscionable abuse of discretion and or, arbitrary and capricious judicial actions defyinglogic and rational and as such are absurd and violated the constitutional rights of the petitionerfor a just and fair adjudication of the allegations. In consideration of the violation of the prosecutorof Article 78, CPLR 7803(2): whether the body or officer(s) above listed, proceeded without andin excess of jurisdiction that was clearly demonstrated in the foregoing paragraph 1 to 29,petitioner, Dr. Mircea Veleanu seeks review of the respondent(s), Attorney General of State ofNew York, Andrew Cuomo and Assistant Attorney General, Nick Garins judicial actions. thatunequivocally demonstrate violation of CPLR 7803 (2).

    28. Judge James Brands properly recused from legal case invoking personal conflict of interestbased on prior involvement of his Chief Court Attorney as representing the adversary party in theundersigneds divorce proceedings. A. Judge Brands granted a TRO with full knowledge that theevidence submitted by the prosecutor was forged and mislabeled and had no probative value, atleast. B. Judge Brands signed an order to show cause that violated respondents constitutional

  • 7/21/2019 Petition to the Appellate Court Second Department NY State Supreme Court pursuant to Article 78 (Cplr 7801-7806)

    10/23

    rights of learning the substance of allegations prior onset of judicial proceeding and not beingallowed to have sufficient time to be informed about charges and prepare a defense. Thus, theundersigned was deprived of constitutional right of due process. The most egregious part wasthe failure of petitioner to perform the personal service upon respondent and consequently,failure of the court to achieve personal jurisdiction upon respondent and subsequent lack ofsubject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, the decree of TRO was illegal due to the fact that thecourt lacked the personal jurisdiction upon respondent and the TRO was invalid and null abinitio. While judge Brands properly recused, he failed to decree a nolle prosequi after his recusal

    in view of his conflict of interest consisting in the preparation of TRO papers and legalinvolvement of his Principal Court Attorney. Judge Brands granted a TRO with full knowledge ofthe forgery and mislabeling of burden of proof evidence on which basis he granted the relief ofTRO. As the fraudulent evidence lacked a probative value, or scientifically plausible basis, suchfaulty evidence would prevent any reasonable person acting in the capacity of the fact finder togrant such drastic relief. Judge Brands judicial action represents extrinsic fraud, fraud upon courtand unconscionable abuse of discretion.SECOND CAUSE OF ACTIONPetitioner repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in the forego paragraph 28 and as a

    result, judge James Brands judicial actions demonstrated in the paragraph 30 of the presentpetition that represent acts of unconscionable abuse of discretion and or, arbitrary and capricious

    judicial actions defying logic and rational and as such are absurd and violated the constitutionalrights of the petitioner for a just and fair adjudication of the allegations. In consideration of theviolation by the justice James Brands of Article 78, CPLR 7803(2): whether the body or officer(s)above listed, proceeded without and in excess of jurisdiction, and in consideration of violation of

    judge James Brands of Article 78 CPLR 7803 (3): whether a determination was made inviolation of lawful procedure, was affected by an error of law or an abuse of discretion, includingabuse of discretion as to the measure or mode of penalty or discipline imposed, petitioner, Dr.Mircea Veleanu seeks review of the judicial actions of respondent(s) Hon. James Brands, judgeof the Supreme Court Dutchess County that unequivocally demonstrate violation of CPLR 7803(2) and CPLR 7803 (3).29. Following the recusal of judge Brands, judge Thomas Dolan was assigned to this case and

    decreed an order and judgment with a permanent injunction preventing the undersigned to selljade without a gemological examination by a gemological lab. Such permanent injunction wasbased on irrational and logic defying that ornamental jade carvings ought to be examined bygemological testing prior placing them for sale. Accordingly, the decree of judge Dolanrepresents an unconscionable abuse of discretion and arbitrary and capricious exercise of

    judicial act missing the rational and sound mind.30. Judge Dolan willingly and knowingly, granted a summary judgment and a permanent

    injunction without instituting any hearing, or conference and without seeing the undersigned, in atypical kangaroo court that violated the constitutional rights of the undersigned. As such, judgeDolans order and judgment was ex parte, illegal and void ab initio, for lack of jurisdiction of thecourt and unconscionable abuse of discretion and irrational arbitrary and capricious judicialaction.

    31. Judge Thomas Dolan violated Veleanus due process constitutional rights by decreeing aDecision/Order/Judgment in which a permanent injunction was granted to AG, without anyhearings, conference calls or even calendar calls. Veleanu never saw judge Dolan and neverhad an opportunity to defend himself. Judge Dolan judgment is a typical ex parte judgmentgranted to one party in absence of representation of the opposite party. Such judgment is void abinitio and cannot be enforced. Any attempt

    to enforce it is considered to be trespassing and an act of treason. Judge Dolans act of grantinga permanent injunction is a violation of several CPLRs, is an illegal act and clear FRAUD UPONTHE COURT and unconscionable abuse of discretion.

    31. Judge Dolan decreed a judgment with granting of a permanent injunction based on forgedand mislabeled fraudulent evidence that he had full knowledge of and willingly disregarded it in

  • 7/21/2019 Petition to the Appellate Court Second Department NY State Supreme Court pursuant to Article 78 (Cplr 7801-7806)

    11/23

    flagrant FRAUD UPON THE COURT. Clearly, his judicial actions represent an unconscionableabuse of discretion and arbitrary and capricious judicial action defying the logic. Judge Dolanadvised Veleanu to retain legal representation with full knowledge that such legal representationwould not have any chance of succeeding despite the meritorious legal case. The advise had acollateral objective to injure Veleanu with tremendous legal expenses and as such, representsabuse of process by the judiciary. The attorney retained by Veleanu as an officer of the courtcould only negotiate terms that AG would impose with irreconcilable clauses repugnant to themoral and conscience of an innocent individual. Plea bargaining is unconscionable to an

    innocent individual and an ethical violation of a judge to impose and as such judge Dolansjudicial action represents extrinsic fraud and FRAUD UPON THE COURT as well asunconscionable abuse of discretion.

    32. In his pleadings, Veleanu contested the lack of service and subsequent failure of the courtto achieve personal jurisdiction upon Veleanu in his pleadings by raising an objection in thepoint of law and setting it forth in his pleadings pursuing CPLR 404 (a) and also in the submittalof motions for dismissal of the petition.

    33. In accordance with CPLR 320 (c) Veleanu objected to the personal jurisdiction as courtsjurisdiction was not based upon personal service of the defendant and an appearance was notequivalent to personal service upon the defendant. Judge Dolan judicial actions represent anunconscionable abuse of discretion.

    34. In an egregious, arbitrary and unconscionable abuse of discretion and il logical arbitrary andcapricious action, judge Dolan denied the defense of the pleadings and the motions to dismissthe petition on fraudulent ruling that the pleadings and the motions to dismiss were unsworn.However, the pleadings and the motions to dismiss of respondent Veleanu were in the form ofdeclaration under penalty of perjury instead of being notarized. The ruling was fraudulent due tothe fact that CPLR 105 (u) allows the declaration under penalty of perjury to be legally usedinstead of notarized oath in any judicial proceedings.The above stated judicial action of judge Dolan represents not only fraud upon the court, but anunconscionable abuse of discretion and clear an arbitrary and capricious legal action void of anylogic and rational. His legal determination was a miscarriage of justice.

    37. The judgment decreed by judge Dolan imposed a permanent injunction based on illegal,fraudulent and inadmissible evidence. The failure to achieve personal jurisdiction upon Veleanumakes the order of permanent injunction and judgment of judge Dolan void ab initio. JudgeDolans judicial action is clearly an unconscionable abuse of discretion.

    38. In addition, judge Dolans judgment is void ab initio as in his decree judge Dolan ruled thatAG has to show the existence of injury in order to allege relief under GBL 349. AG could notdemonstrate any injury and as such, AG was not entitled to any relief as he failed to state a causeof action. Judge Dolans judicial action demonstrates a clear act of arbitrary and capricious

    judicial action void of rational and logic and unconscionable abuse of discretion.39. Judge Dolan decreed an order and judgment with imposition of a permanent injunction in a

    kangaroo court not only that violated the due process and constitutional right of equal protection

    of Veleanu, but the special proceedings were identical to summary judgment that preclude theissuance of summary judgment due to the presence in this legal case of numerous issues ofmaterial fact. Judge Thomas Dolan committed fraud upon the court in an unconscionable abuseof discretion and irrational arbitrary and capricious action by decreeing a summary judgmentdespite that the presence of the numerous issues of material fact precluded the issue ofsummary judgment and the decree of a permanent injunction. Judge Dolan, violated CPLRR3212 regarding the petition of AG that specifies: The motion shall be granted if, upon all thepapers and proof submitted, the cause of action or defense, shall be established sufficiently towarrant the court as a matter of law in directing judgment in favor of any party. Except as providedin subdivision c of this rule the motion shall be denied if any party shall show facts sufficient torequire a trial of any issue of fact.

    40. The judgment decreed by judge Dolan was never entered and docketed and according to22 NYCRR 202.48 after 60 days became null and invalid. CPLR R2220 (a) specifies that (I)f aparty fails to file any papersrequired to be filed under this subdivision, the order may be vacated as irregular, with costs.

    Analyzing the script of CPLR R3212, it appears as objectively evident that the summary

  • 7/21/2019 Petition to the Appellate Court Second Department NY State Supreme Court pursuant to Article 78 (Cplr 7801-7806)

    12/23

    judgment against the undersignrd was granted on faulty, fraudulent judicial interpretation, orfailure to interpret, but reflects extreme bias against the respondent and obvious violation ofCPLR 3212. Wherefore, judge Thomas Dolan decreed a summary judgment decision in anirrational capricious, arbitrary action as well as unconscionable abuse of discretion, whennumerous issues of material fact were submitted by defendant in his responsive pleadings,issues that would make the summary judgment inappropriate and void. Their judicial action is notonly a clearly unconscionable, abuse of discretion and arbitrary and capricious, but also fraudupon court.

    41. SCDC violated CPLR 3216 that where a party unreasonably neglects to proceed generallyin an action or otherwise delays in the prosecution thereof against any party who may be liable toa separate judgment, or unreasonably fails to serve and file a note of issue, the court, on its owninitiative or upon motion, may dismiss the partys pleading on terms. Unless the order specifiesotherwise, the dismissal is not on merits.

    42. Apparently judge Dolan stepped down the bench for one reason or another and the orderand judgment of the judge became void by failure to enter and docket the judgment within 60days. Accordingly, AG defaulted by failure to prosecute the action within the time prescribed bylaw.43. SCDC violated again CPLR 3216 that where a party unreasonably neglects to proceed

    generally in an action or otherwise delays in the prosecution thereof against any party who may

    be liable to a separate judgment, or unreasonably fails to serve and file a note of issue, the court,on its own initiative or upon motion, may dismiss the partys pleading on terms. In an egregious

    judicial action, SCDC violated CPLR 205 AND CPLR 3404 by not VOIDING THE ORDER ANDJUDGMENT DECREED BY JUDGE DOLAN that failed to be entered and docketed in the clerkoffice of SCDC as default judgment due to abandonment in 2 separate occasions. CPLR 205 thatwas violated by SCDC prescribes that where a dismissal is one for neglect to prosecute theaction made pursuant to CPLR 3216, the judge shall set forth on the record the specific conductconstituting the neglect, which conduct shall demonstrate a general pattern of delay inproceeding with the litigation.This rule made evident the egregious and fraudulent conduct of AG indelaying (laches) of the legal proceedings with the obvious goal of increasing the amount ofillegal punitive fine with interest of 9 % for delays of more than 2 years of the judicialproceedings. AG judicial action clearly demonstrate an unconscionable abuse of discretion thatlegally would be punished by any non corrupt court by dismissal of action for failure of thepetitioner to prosecute in 2 separate occasion by engaging in laches. The delays to prosecutehad the purpose to increase the amount of punitive penalty of retroactive interest of 9 % in anirrefutable demonstration of abuse of process and malicious prosecution.

    44. CPLR 205 specifies that if an action timely commenced is terminated in any other mannerthan by a voluntary discontinuance, a failure to obtain personal jurisdiction over the defendant, adismissal of the complaint for neglect to prosecute the action, or a final judgment upon the merits,the plaintiff or the successor in legal action, may commence a new action upon the same

    transaction or occurrences within six months after the termination provided that service upondefendant is effected within such six months period.45. AG defaulted again by failing to prosecute and failing to start a new judicial proceeding

    within 6 months as made available to him according to CPLR 205.THIRD CAUSE OF ACTIONPetitioner repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in the paragraph 29 to paragraph 45 andas a result, judge Thomas Dolans judicial actions demonstrated in the fore mentionedparagraphs of this petition that represent repeated acts of unconscionable abuse of discretionand or, arbitrary and capricious judicial actions defying logic and rational and as such are

    absurd, that violated the constitutional rights of the petitioner for a just and fair adjudication of theallegations. In consideration of the violation of judge Thomas Dolan of Article 78, CPLR 7803 (2):whether the body or officer(s) above listed, proceeded without and in excess of jurisdiction, andin consideration of violation of judge Thomas Dolan of Article 78 CPLR 7803 (3): whether adetermination was made in violation of lawful procedure, was affected by an error of law or an

  • 7/21/2019 Petition to the Appellate Court Second Department NY State Supreme Court pursuant to Article 78 (Cplr 7801-7806)

    13/23

    abuse of discretion, including abuse of discretion as to the measure or mode of penalty ordiscipline imposed, petitioner, Dr. Mircea Veleanu seeks review of the

    judicial actions of respondent(s) Hon. Thomas Dolan, acting judge of the Supreme CourtDutchess County that unequivocally demonstrate violation of CPLR 7803 (2) and CPLR 7803(3).

    46. After judge Thomas Dolan retirement, the newly assigned judge, Hon. James Pagones,started a new judicial proceeding (de novo) AGAIN WITHOUT service of the new proceedingupon respondent Veleanu in clear violation of CPLR 403. Thus, the failure of the petitioner to

    serve the judicial process resulted in consequent failure to achieve personal jurisdiction uponrespondent Veleanu AND THIS REPRESENTS THE SECOND INSTANCE ANDOPPORTUNITY TO EXECUTE PERSONAL SERVICE UPON RESPONDENT..

    Accordingly, the judgment of judge Pagones is void ab initio for failure to achieve personaljurisdiction upon Veleanu.

    47. Judge Pagones acted in his judicial actions inconsistently and contradicting in cases wherehe was assigned to render judgment and inconsistent with a fair and uniform decision. A. Forexample, in Galasso v. Calder, 201 NY Slip Op. 50755 (U) (31 Misc. 3d 1220 A) decided on4/29/11 in SCDC, judge Pagones decreed a judgment pursuant to CPLR 3126 dismissing theplaintiffs complaint for failure to prosecute. This decision and judgment is in complete oppositionto the undersigneds legal case where judge Pagones failed to dismiss the case due to failure to

    prosecute and AG petitioners default by abandonment in 2 separate occasions. The dilatoryactions of AG resulted in failure to docket judge Dolan decision within 60 days, and thereafterdefaulted again by failure to act according to CPLR 205 and reinstitute the judicial action within 6months. The plaintiff in fore mentioned legal case moved for recusal of judge Forman that wasdenied by judge Pagones. While the legislation allows a county judge (as judge Forman), or asurrogate court judge (as judge Pagones) to act as acting judges of the Supreme Court, thelegislation specifically defines this function as temporary). As judge Pagones is acting since1999 as acting judge of SCDC, hardly could be arguable that the position is temporary andsubstituting the capacity of an elected Supreme Court Judge. B. In another legal case, VillageDr. Assoc. LLC v. Schiavo, 2013 NY Slip Op 50166 (U) decided on February 7, 2013, judgePagonesmade a decision and order similarly, in which judge Pagones ruled against the plaintiff whomoved for summary judgment against the defendant. The defendant opposed the summary

    judgment, but no opposition was submitted to plaintiffs application for an order pursuant to CPLR3126 and CPLR 3124. This order again is completely different than the order and judgment of

    judge Pagones against the undersigned. C. In another legal case, BAC Home Loan Servicing,LP v. Musa, 2012 NY Slip Op 51099 (U) decided on June 18, 2012 in SCDC, defendant was in ahome foreclosure in default. The plaintiff failed to take proceedings for the entry of judgmentwithin one year after the default. The court presided by judge Pagones sua sponte dismissed thecomplaint as abandoned pursuant to CPLR 3215 C. This case again demonstrates not only thefailure of judge Pagones to act fairly and consistently in his decisions, but also a proof of his bias

    and prejudice against the undersigned by decreeing a judgment against the undersigned incomplete reverse action to other legal cases decided by him. D. Most representative case ofjudge Pagones bias and prejudice against the undersigned is Dooley v. Woods, 2011 NY SLIPOp. 50408 (U) decided on March 22, 2011. Judge Pagones dismissed the plaintiffs action due tothe failure to serve the process by the Plaintiff. Judge Pagones stated in the decision: In thiscase, no summons and complaint, or summons with notice (CPLR 304), was served upon therespondent. Thus the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction in this case as the existence of anaction is an indispensable prerequisite to the granting of the requested relief. While judgePagones is correct in rendering this order, the fairness and ethical judicial acts of judge Pagonesmake his judicial actions to be inconsistent, unfair and prejudicial to one party. In the presentlegal case, judge Pagones made completely opposite judgment. While petitioner AG failed to

    serve the respondent, judge Pagones did not dismiss the legal case of the undersigned for AGfailure to serve the process and subsequent failure to achieve personal jurisdiction by the court.Rather in the most blatant bias and prejudice, judge Pagones did not dismiss the case where theundersigned was involved, despite that the cases are similar and according to the common lawrepresent a ground for failure to act in the same circumstances of law. E. Final case to

  • 7/21/2019 Petition to the Appellate Court Second Department NY State Supreme Court pursuant to Article 78 (Cplr 7801-7806)

    14/23

    demonstrate judge Pagones lack of impartiality and genuine bias and prejudice against theundersigned is the legal case US Bank Natl Assoc. v. Alessandra Padilla et al, defendants,2011 NY Slip Op 50535 (U) SCDC, decided on April 8, 2011. In this case resemblingparticularly the present legal case in regard to the assessment by the plaintiff of interest accruedon a loan occurred from the date of default and additional legal fees and expenses. JudgePagones acted in a completely opposite decision to the present case. He ordered that theinterest should be not more than the principal balance of the loan. and awarded the respondentthe exemplary damage in the exorbitant amount of $ 100,000. Judge Pagones stated that: The

    bank conduct was shockingly inequitable, unconscionable, vexatious and opprobrious. Onclaiming bad faith, the Court presided by judge Pagones, barred the Bank for collecting interestaccrued on the loan from the date of default, legal fees and other expenses. Amazingly, decisionof judge Pagones is exactly the opposite of the decision in which judge Pagones granted to AGretroactive interest of 9 % (that probably is several times higher than the interest the bankcharged the defendant). If judge Pagones would act uniformly and consistently in his judicialactions, the undersigned would be entitled to exemplary damages in the amount of $ 100,000,and forever barring the plaintiff to assess retroactive interest to the date of the occurrence. JudgePagones stated that the plaintiffs delays allowed racking up interest, fees and penalties toplaintiffs benefit and the respondents detriment. Nonetheless, laches and dilatory scheme of AGallowed the accumulation of large amount of due money that would make the restitution close to

    impossible. The judicial action in the above case, that is exactly the opposite of judge Pagonesjudicial action in the present legal case, is uncontrovertible proof of judge Pagones abhorrentbias and prejudice against the undersigned respondent in the action, or an action that serves

    judges political views that in any situation, is unethical, illegal and demands forever removal ofthe judge from the bench. Judge James Pagones acted in abuse of discretion that is shaking theconscience of any fact finder, and irrational arbitrary and capricious judicial action.

    48. The irrefutable evidence of lack of jurisdiction, based on failure to achieve personaljurisdiction upon the undersigned and subsequent failure of subject matter jurisdiction issufficient proof substantiating that judge James Pagones acted in complete lack of jurisdiction torender decision and decree order and judgment, and thus violated the laws and statutes of theState of New York.

    49. While the paragraph 48 is absolutely relevant that judge Pagones acted without jurisdictionto entitle the court with power to enforce any order and

    judgment, the petitioner brings another example of judicial action of judge Pagones in this casethat demonstrate unambiguously the irrational and logic defying. This consists in judicial act of

    judge Pagones of decreeing an order and judgment in which he denied the motion forreargument and renew by falsely decreeing that the motion for reargument was rather a motion torenew, and without denying the reargument portion of the motion. In an unconscionable abuse ofdiscretion and irrational arbitrary and capricious judicial action, judge Pagones ruled that thereargument was rather a renew in fraudulent disregard of the law in which CPLR 2221 defineswhat is a renew motion. Obviously, courts overlooked or misapprehended matters of law cannot

    be renew. The misinterpretation of law by judge Pagones is not an error, rather irrefutable proofof irrational arbitrary and capricious judicial action of judge Pagones.

    FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTIONPetitioner repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in the paragraph 46 to paragraph 49 andSUBSEQUENTLY, judge James Pagones judicial actions demonstrated in the paragraph 46 toparagraph 49 of this petition that represent repeated acts of unconscionable abuse of discretionand or, arbitrary and capricious judicial actions defying logic and rational and as such areabsurd, that violated the constitutional rights of the petitioner for a just and fair adjudication of theallegations. In consideration of the violation of judge James Pagones of Article 78, CPLR

    7803(2): whether the body or officer(s) above listed, proceeded without and in excess ofjurisdiction, and in consideration of violation of judge James Pagones of Article 78 CPLR 7803(3): whether a determination was made in violation of lawful procedure, was affected by an errorof law or an abuse of discretion, including abuse of discretion as to the measure or mode ofpenalty or discipline imposed, petitioner, Dr. Mircea Veleanu seeks review of the judicial actions

  • 7/21/2019 Petition to the Appellate Court Second Department NY State Supreme Court pursuant to Article 78 (Cplr 7801-7806)

    15/23

    of respondent(s) Hon. Thomas Dolan, acting judge of the Supreme Court that unequivocallydemonstrate violation of CPLR 7803 (2) and CPLR 7803 (3).51. The last judge involved in this legal case was judge Peter M. Forman that was apparentlyassigned to this case following the judgment decree of judge Pagones in November 2010. JudgePeter Forman persistently andconsistently, neglected to act upon motions brought to SCDC by respondent Veleanu, or deniedthe relief after the action on the motion became moot. ACCORDINGLY, judge Forman acted inbias and prejudice favoring the petitioner/respondent in any legal action he decided.

    52. The first judicial action by judge Forman in which he demonstrated prejudice and biastoward the undersigned, was his failure to act upon an Order to Show Cause submitted to SCDCon November 12, 2010, in which the undersigned requested leave as Stay of judgment pendingthe resolution of an appeal to Appellate Court Second Division. The undersigned was confidentthat the leave was granted in absence of a motion to oppose by AG. Petitioner was shocked tolearn that the relief was not applicable due to failure of judge Forman to sign it, at the time when

    AG proceeded to execute the petitioners property by the Sheriff in a public auction. JudgeForman failure to act upon a motion represents an undeniable proof of an unconscionable abuseof discretion.

    53. The undersigned submitted to the Supreme Court of New York Dutchess County (SCDC)an Order to Show Cause entered in the Clerk of Dutchess County Office on January 23, 2012

    with request for a leave to relief and enforce, the already granted by default Stay of Judgment bySCDC of November 12, 2010 in accordance with CPLR 5519. Judge Peter M. Forman failed tomake a decision regarding defendants motion to obtain relief and prevent the sale of propertyowned by Veleanu at a public auction by the Sheriff. As such, judge Forman violated CPLRR2219 by not making a determination within 20 days for this provisional remedy order. On April24, 2012 (that is more than 90 days since the submission of the application), judge Formanissued a decision and order that denied the discretionary relief requested by Veleanu pursuant toCPLR 5519 C as moot. Of course that an emergency relief requested in an Order to Show Causebecame moot after more than 3 months since the application was submitted. Judge Formanaction, or rather lack of action, represents unconscionable abuse of discretion and frivolous,arbitrary and capricious action and FRAUD UPON THE COURT. Accordingly, the judicial actionof judge Forman was perverse, biased, timely improper and irregular. In his Decision and Orderdated April 24, 2012, judge Forman made a false statement that defendant filed an application foran Order to Show Cause with the Appellate Court-Second Division on November 12, 2010. Theevidentiary proof however, shows that the application for relief in the Order to ShowCause of November 12, 2010 was actually filed, and deemed as entered by the SCDC while theunperfected appeal was pending before the Appellate Court and apparently the judge actingupon the motion was judge Peter Forman. See paragraph 52. As such, the application to theSCDC could not be denied by the Appellate Court and is clear misrepresentation and evidenceof FRAUD UPON THE COURT by judge Peter Forman, as well as unconscionable abuse ofdiscretion.

    54. One of the most egregious judicial act committed by judge Peter Forman was the refusal tosign an Order to Show Cause submitted by respondent Veleanu in August 2012, in whichVeleanu requested leave for a TRO to prevent distribution of the undertaking funds cashed by the

    AG, due to the fact that all customers who requested refunds, including the complainantSpiridonakos, are out-of-state residents and a premature distribution of the funds would makedifficult if not impossible to retrieve the proceeds in case of granted relief by the court. JudgeForman refused to sign the Order to Show Cause invoking his discretionary power. See Exhibit20.

    55. However, this application was addressed to the Administrative Judge of the Supreme Courtin which the undersigned pursuant to CPLR R5015 (a) (3), requested relief from judgments andorders based upon the ground of fraud, misrepresentation and other misconduct of the adverse

    party. Also, the applicant requested relief from judgment according to CPLR 5015 (a) (4) upon theground of lack of jurisdiction to render the judgments and orders and CPLR 5015 C that is theprerogative of the administrative judge of SCDC. The order to Show Cause and accompaniedpapers were clearly marked and addressed to the Administrative Judge. The line 3 of the Orderto Show cause: is probative: Let People of the State of NY/Petitioner SHOW CAUSE BEFORE

  • 7/21/2019 Petition to the Appellate Court Second Department NY State Supreme Court pursuant to Article 78 (Cplr 7801-7806)

    16/23

    THIS COURT before the administrative judge of the Supreme Court of the State of NY. Furtheron, the application shows below the signature place of the magistrate marked in majusculeletters: ADMINISTRATIVE JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT.Prior sending the application to the court, the respondent inquired with the chief clerk of the courtto whom to send the application and was told that the administrative justice is Hon. AlanSheinkman. The clerk of the court instructed to send the application to the attention of judgeForman that will forward the motion to the Administrative Judge. Judge Forman intercepted themotion addressed to the administrative judge and acted as he was the

    administrative judge despite that it was clear that the application was not to be decided by himand he was not assigned as the administrative judge of the Supreme Court and thus, he did nothave the authority to act as the administrative judge of SCDC.

    56. Judge Peter Forman repeatedly and consistently violated CPLR 2219(a) in a biased, pro-prosecutorial, unconscionable, arbitrary and frivolous abuse of discretion. While abuse ofdiscretion is a civil infraction that could lead to severe judicial penalties, the repeated acts ofdisregard to the professional responsibility as a judge in the Supreme Court of New York makesthe judge liable to criminal violation of law in New York State under Penal Law 195.New York State Penal Law 195.00 OFFICIAL MISCONDUCTPenal Law 195.00 specifies: A public servant is guilty of official misconduct when, with intent toobtain a benefit or deprive another person of a benefit: PL 195.2: He knowingly refrains from

    performing a duty which is imposed upon him by law or is clearly inherent in the nature of hisoffice.The TRO requested by the undersigned and presented in the attached affidavit to the applicationwas based on objective incontrovertible evidence beyond the reasonable doubt that criminal actsof theft of property, forgery, uttering, forgery by counterfeit , mislabeling, perjury were perpetratedupon the applicant and for the reason that all the persons involved in the criminal acts are notcitizens of New York State, the premature distribution of the undertaking would unjustly enrichcriminal persons and make the recovery of distributed funds difficult or impossible. CPLR 2214 cclearly specifies: Issues of fact. Providing that the elements required for the issuance of apreliminary inquiry are demonstrated in the plaintiffs papers, the presentation by the defendant ofevidence sufficient to raise an issue of facts as to any of such elements shall not in itself begrounds for denial of the motion. In such event, the court shall make a determination by hearingor otherwise whether each of the elements required for the issuance of a preliminary injunctionexists. Accordingly CPLR 6312 c allows the adversary party to present evidence necessary tocontrovert the movants averments. Judge Forman denied to grant a hearing as requested in theapplicants motion and his action is arbitrary and capricious logic defying act andunconscionable abuse of discretion.

    57. On August 21, 2012 at the time specified in the motion as 10 am, the undersignedappeared in the Court and upon the appearance, Mr. Michael G. Hayes, Principal Law Clerkadvised me that judge Forman declined to sign the application and a copy of an explanatoryletter that allegedly was mailed the precedent day was handed to the undersigned. I left the court

    one hour later at 11 am and the adversary party did not show up despite that was notified bycertified letter with return receipt. Also, Mr. Nick Garin did not submit any papers in opposition torefute the undersigneds averments. According to NY State Unified Court System and AppellateCourt Second Department Rule 8.2 : The signing of an order to show cause is discretionary, andif is not signed, the movant may proceed by notice of motion.Judge Formans biased actions represented an unconscionable abuse of discretion and amiscarriage of justice. First of all, he was ethically prevented to act in this legal document due tohis previous involvement in this legal case where he acted biased and partial against respondentVeleanu, thus he acted in conflict of interest when ethically and legally should recuse himselffrom this legal case. Fed. R. Civ. P 26 c(1) provides: Evidence is essential if the court is to fulfillits fact finding function. Judge Forman committed obstruction of justice by suppression and

    preventing evidence to be submitted and committed fraud upon the court. Judge Formancommitted extrinsic fraud defined as occurring when intentional deceit is employed to keepsomeone from exercising a right, such as a fair trial by misleading a party, or preventing a party toexercise his rights to defend in a trial. Judge Forman violated several Codes of Judicial Conductand NY State law. Judge Forman violated 22 NYCRR 100.3 (e) (1): A judge should disqualify

  • 7/21/2019 Petition to the Appellate Court Second Department NY State Supreme Court pursuant to Article 78 (Cplr 7801-7806)

    17/23

    himself in a proceeding in which the impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Judge Formanviolated 22 NYCRR 100.2: Substantial misconduct rose to such an egregious level that theconduct implicates the attorneys honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer when a judge isaccused of being biased and pro-prosecutorial. A judge must avoid impropriety and theappearance of impropriety in all judges activities.Judge Forman violated the Rules of Professional Conduct 1.7. Conflict of Interest. Judge Formanviolated Federal Law Sec 455:Recusal of judges.

    58. Finally, the undersigned requested relief from judgments and orders in accordance with

    CPLR 5015 c: An administrative judge upon a showing that judgments and orders were obtainedby fraud, misrepresentation, illegali ty, unconscionableness, lack of due service, violations of law,or other illegalities, or where such judgments were obtained in cases which the defendant wouldbe uniformly entitled to interpose a defense predicated upon but not limited to the foregoingdefense, may bring a proceeding torelieve the party of such position with objective proof of evidence rather than subjective inferencebased on poor understanding of scientific evidence, conjecture, conclusionary statements notbased on objective evidence, etc. The Unified Court System provides that the failure to appear incourt for the Order to Show Cause and failure to submit evidentiary response constitutes defaultand subsequently, the affiant is entitled to the relief requested in the application. The seconddefault of the petitioner occurred when he failed to prosecute within the time prescribed by the

    CPLR 3216 and CPLR 205 after the judgment of judge Thomas Dolan by failure to enter anddocket within 6 months and subsequently the judgment was considered abandoned.The remainder of the issues could not be evaluated and decided by judge Forman that wasalready proved to be a biased party in the prior judicial proceedings and played a significant partin the injustice perpetrated upon the undersigned in a kangaroo trial without service, withouthearings and denial of pleadings and motions to dismiss by invocation of unsworn declarations.Judge Forman conclusion that the application failed to demonstrate that a proper case exists isundeniable pro-prosecutorial in face of un-refutable issues of material fact presented in theaffidavit. This represented a major conflict of interest that prevented the adjudication in a fair andimpartial fashion. Judge Formans biased actions represent an unconscionable, capricious andarbitrary abuse of discretion and a miscarriage of justice. Further on, this represented a majorconflict of interest that prevented the adjudication in a fair and impartial fashion.Judge Peter Forman judicial action represented not only an egregious abuse of discretion, butalso a criminal violation of Penal Law 190.25.Penal Law 190.25. Criminal impersonation in the second degree.

    A person is guilty of impersonation in second degree when he : 3 (a) pretends to be a publicservant or falsely expresses by his words or actions that he is a public servant or is acting withapproval or authority of a public agency or department and (b) so acts with intent to induceanother to submit to such pretended official authority(o)r otherwise cause another to act inreliance upon the pretense. Criminal impersonation in the second degree is a class Amisdemeanor.

    Veleanu decided to re-submit the application directly to the SCDC judge Alan Sheinkman inWhite Plains, NY due to interference and acting upon by judge Forman. to 202.7(f) notice. On aletter dated October 5, 2012, JamesGarfein, counsel to administrative judge advised the respondent to submit the application to theSupreme Court of Dutchess County and instructed Mr.Michael Thompson, the Chief Clerk of SCDC to return the application to the undersigned.

    59. On October 24, 2012, petitioner submitted a motion with attached Memorandum of law inwhich it was requested a leave in accordance with CPLR 5015 (a) (4), CPLR 5015 (a) (3), andCPLR 5015 (a)(2) In consideration of former biased and prejudicial judicial action against theundersigned, the petition requested as a relief the voluntary recusal of judge Forman. In view that

    judge Forman was named in the motion as a defendant in the judicial action, the undersignedwas confident that another judge would be assigned in view that disqualification of a judge to actin a judicial proceeding is required due to conflict of interest. The application cited 2 cases ofdemonstrated abuse of discretion as has been shown in the present petition under paragraph 52and 53 reasons for requested recusal of judge Forman from further actions.

  • 7/21/2019 Petition to the Appellate Court Second Department NY State Supreme Court pursuant to Article 78 (Cplr 7801-7806)

    18/23

    60. In an irrefutable unconscionable abuse of discretion, judge Forman failed to make adecision upon the motion within 60 days, thus, violating again CPLR 2219 and 22 NYCRR 202.8(h). The obvious conflict of interest demonstrated in his previous biased and lack of impartiality,ethically, would prevent judge Forman to act upon the motion where his recusal was requestedas a relief. The Canon 3 B (5) provides: Judges shall perform judicial duties without bias orprejudice. When a judge demonstrate bias or prejudice, it is a violation of Canon 3 B (5). Judgesshould recuse themselves when they have a bias or prejudice. Recklessly, judge Formanignored the request for his recusal and did not provide any reason about his failure to resign or

    ask a fellow judge to replace him on the bench because of obvious conflict of interest. The failureto act upon a motion, is considered an unconscionable abuse of discretion.61. As the refusal to act upon a motion or a delay used as a dilatory technicality to make the

    motion moot is considered an unconscionable abuse of discretion, the judicial action, or ratherjudicial act of inaction of judge Forman, represents an unconscionable abuse of discretion.

    62. The unethical and illegal judicial actions of judge Forman does not represent only oneepisode of illegal and unethical action, rather a pattern ofrepeated acts of denials of motions submitted by the undersigned based on motions delayed by

    judge Forman until became moot, or failing to act upon a motion at all. These acts of illegal andunethical judicial actions of judge Forman unequivocally represent unconscionable abuse ofdiscretion. The averments of the respondent were not controverted by the AG in his Reply to the

    Motion and as such, the judge was obligated to grant the relief requested by the respondent inhis motion.

    63. On January 28, 2013, the undersigned submitted a motion with attached Memorandum ofLaw to the administrative judge in which the undersigned requested the following administrativeand ministerial determination orders: 1. A ministerial administrative order in regard to violation ofCPLR 2219(a) and 22 NYCRR 202.8 (h) by SCDC presided by judge Forman as failure todecree a decision and order upon a motion of relief from a void judgment submitted to the courton October 24, 2012 (representing more than 90 days). 2. Ministerial administrative order forviolation of Penal Law section 195.00 by judge Forman. 3. Ministerial administrative order forSCDC presided by judge Forman of the violation of several codes, regulations under 22 NYCRRin this legal action 4. Ministerial administrative measure regarding the violation of the courtpresided by judge Forman of Penal Law 175.00. 5, Ministerial administrative measure in regardto the court presided by judge Forman violation of the New York CVR Article 2 Civil Rights. Tillpresent time (more than 90 days), the undersigned did not receive a response to the motionaddressed to the administrative judge of SCDC.

    64. On January 29, 2013, judge Forman decreed an order in which he denied the motion forannulment of a void judgment pursuant to CPLR 5015 submitted by the undersigned on October24, 2012, as being moot. Judge Forman violated NY State Judicial Law 14: Disqualification of

    judges by reason of interest that prescribes: A judge shall not sit, as such in, or take any part inthe decision of an action, claim, matter, motion or proceeding to which HE IS A PARTY, or inwhich he has been attorney or counsel, or in which he is interested. Despite that judge Forman

    was prevented legally and ethically to act on a motion where he was named as defendant andwhere one of the requested relief was his voluntary recusal, judge Forman denied the motion byruling that it was moot. The decision and order of judge Forman represents a conscienceshaking abuse of discretion and an irrational and illogical arbitrary and capricious judicialact. See Pell, 34 NY2d 222; Matter of Kreisler v. NY City Transit Authority, 2 NY 3d 775 (2004);Matter of Pearl v. Bd. of Profl Med. Conduct, 295 AD 764 (3rd Dept , 99 NY 2d 501 (2002). Themotion for relief cannot be moot as the undersigned is proceeding in action against the illegaland unconscionable abuse of discretion and arbitrary and capricious judicial acts of judgeForman and has to exhaust all judicial and administrative procedures prior instituting Article 78proceeding. While administrative actions of the undersigned are futile, nevertheless, are requiredas a required exhaustion of all administrative actions.

    65. In sequence of the paragraph 64, the undersigned submitted on February 25, 2013, amotion addressed to the administrative judge in which it was requested ministerial administrativeleave of assignment of another judge in the legal case, pursuing 22 NYCRR 202.6-Judicialintervention, and in undeniable judicial actions of judge Forman showing bias and prejudiceagainst the undersigned. This motion was denied by the administrative judge of SCDC. As the

  • 7/21/2019 Petition to the Appellate Court Second Department NY State Supreme Court pursuant to Article 78 (Cplr 7801-7806)

    19/23

    administrative judge decisions and