`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 105
`
`INDEX NO. 509504/2016
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/14/2016
`
`Case No: 509504/2016
`Hon. Sylvia G. Ash
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`AMENDED
`COMPLAINT
`
`SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
`COUNTY OF KINGS
`---------------------------------------------------------------x
`MORDECHAI ITZKOWITZ; REMMI, INC., individually
`and derivatively on behalf of REMMI SERVICES, LLC;
`YISROEL GRAFSTEIN; YCD, 1760, LLC; NATHAN
`UNGAR; BAMBA GAMBA, CORP.; MURRAY
`PUDERBEUTEL; POWDER BAG, LLC; ELI SEGEL;
`BALR ENTERPRISES, LLC; ALL BORO TRANSIT, LLC;
`ASHER FRIED; AFFW FLEET I, LLC; RSAAC FLEET,
`LLC; CHARLES KLEIN; CREASK FLEET, LLC; NLK
`FLEET, LLC; BSDGEE FLEET, LLC; GEEGEE FLEET,
`LLC; JEFFREY EDELMAN, individually and
`derivatively on behalf of RJ CAPITAL, LLC; MOSHE WEIL,
`individually and derivatively on behalf of TP GREEN,
`LLC; AMARPREET SINGH, individually and
`
`derivatively on behalf of SAHAILI PARTNERS, LLC;
`SHMUEL LAUFER individually and derivatively on
`behalf of SAM EXPRESS, LLC; MICHAEL GREENFIELD;
`PESSEL SHARON FELDHEIM, derivatively on behalf of
`PAN TRANSPORT, LLC; RIVKA HECHT, derivatively on
`behalf of RH GREEN, LLC; ISCHA HECHT a/k/a “YISHAI
`HECHT”, individually and derivatively on behalf of
`GREENISH, LLC; ISCHA HECHT, derivatively on behalf of
`DADS GREEN, LLC; ISCHA HECHT, derivatively on behalf
`of NP GREEN, LLC; CHAIM NEGER, individually
`and derivatively on behalf of GREEN MEDALLION ONE,
`LLC; GORN, LLC; MM MMGT, LLC; SN S&N, LLC;
`SS N&S, LLC; YM 1875, LLC; SC BSD, LLC; MKGT, LLC;
`17B, LLC; MUNIT, LLC; 50P, LLC; and 307P, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-against-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ALAN J. GINSBURG a/k/a “A.J.”; MEGA FUNDING, LLC;
`GREEN APPLE CABS, LLC a/k/a “GREEN APPLE CAB
`COMPANY”; GLS TRANS, INC.; YITZCHOK MATTIS
`SWERDLOFF a/k/a “MATT” a/k/a “RIVERDALE”; DALE
`& CRUE, LLC; RYDER PARTNERS, LLC; and JUDAH
`LANGER a/k/a “YEHUDA”,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`---------------------------------------------------------------x
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs Mordechai Itzkowitz; Remmi, Inc., individually and derivatively on behalf of
`
`Remmi Services, LLC; Yisroel Grafstein; YCD, 1760, LLC; Nathan Ungar; Bamba Gamba,
`
`Corp.; Murray Puderbeutel; Powder Bag, LLC; Eli Segel; BALR Enterprises, LLC; All Boro
`
`Transit, LLC; Asher Fried; AFFW Fleet I, LLC; RSAAC Fleet, LLC; Charles Klein; Creask
`
`Fleet, LLC; NLK Fleet, LLC; BSDGEE Fleet, LLC; GEEGEE Fleet, LLC; Jeffrey Edelman,
`
`individually and derivatively on behalf of RJ Capital, LLC; Moshe Weil, individually, and
`
`derivatively on behalf of TP Green, LLC; Amarpreet Singh, individually and derivatively on
`
`behalf of Sahaili, LLC; Shmuel Laufer, individually and derivatively on behalf of Sam Express,
`
`LLC; Michael Greenfield; Pessel Sharon Feldheim, derivatively on behalf of Pan Transport,
`
`LLC; Rivka Hecht, derivatively on behalf of RH Green, LLC; Ischa Hecht a/k/a “Yishai”,
`
`individually, and derivatively on behalf of Greenish, LLC; Ischa Hecht, derivatively on behalf of
`
`Dads Green, LLC; Ischa Hecht, derivatively on behalf of NP Green, LLC; Chaim Neger,
`
`individually and derivatively on behalf of Green Medallion One, LLC;1 by and through their
`
`undersigned counsel, Jacob Laufer P.C., Jacob Laufer, Esq., of counsel, hereby file this
`
`Amended Complaint against Defendants Alan J. Ginsburg a/k/a A.J. (“Ginsburg”), Mega
`
`Funding, LLC (“Mega Funding”), Dale & Crue, LLC (“Dale”), Green Apple Cabs, LLC a/k/a
`
`Green Apple Cab Company (“Green Apple”), GLS Trans, Inc. (“GLS Trans”), Yitzchok Mattis
`
`“Matt” Swerdloff (“Swerdloff”), Ryder Partners, LLC (“Ryder Partners”), and Judah Langer or
`
`Yehuda (“Langer”) and in support thereof, respectfully aver as follows:
`
`
`1 For convenience, Mordechai Itzkowitz, Jeffrey Edelman, Yisroel Grafstein, Michael Greenfield, Yishai Hecht,
`Nathan Ungar, Asher Fried, Charles Klein, Chaim Neger, Moshe Weil, Eli Segel, Murray Puderbeutel, Amarpreet
`Singh, and Shmuel Laufer are referred to as the “Individual Plaintiffs”; Pan Transport, LLC, Remmi Services, LLC,
`Greenish, LLC, Dads Green, LLC, NP Green, LLC, RH Green, LLC, Bamba Gamba, Corp., AFFW Fleet I, LLC,
`RSAAC Fleet, LLC, Creask Fleet, LLC, NLK Fleet, LLC, BSDGee, LLC, GeeGee Fleet, LLC, Green Medallion
`One, LLC, TP Green, LLC, YCD 1760, LLC, BALR Enterprises, LLC, RJ Capital, LLC, All Boro Transit, LLC,
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff Yisroel Grafstein (Grafstein”) is a resident of the State of New York, County of
`
`
`1.
`
`Kings.
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiff YCD 1760, LLC (“YCD 1760”) is a limited liability company duly organized
`
`and existing under the laws of the State of New York, with its principal place of business in New
`
`York.
`
`3.
`
`Plaintiff Jeffrey Edelman (“Edelman”) is a resident of the State of New York, County of
`
`Kings.
`
`4.
`
`Edelman is a majority in interest member of Plaintiff RJ Capital, LLC (“RJ Capital”), a
`
`limited liability company duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York,
`
`with its principal place of business in New York.
`
`5.
`
`Edelman brings this action individually and derivatively on behalf of RJ Capital. Demand
`
`has not been made of other members of RJ Capital because they are directly complicit in the
`
`allegations of wrongful conduct herein, and thus demand would be futile.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`Plaintiff Mordechai Itzkowitz (“Itzkowitz”) is a resident of Baltimore, Maryland.
`
`Plaintiff Remmi, Inc. is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the
`
`State of Maryland, with its principal place of business in Maryland.
`
`8.
`
`Plaintiff Remmi, Inc. is a majority in interest member of Plaintiff Remmi Services, LLC
`
`(“Remmi Services”), a limited liability company duly organized and existing under the laws of
`
`the State of New York, with its principal place of business in New York.
`
`9.
`
`Remmi, Inc. brings this action individually and derivatively on behalf of Remmi
`
`Services. Demand has not been made of other members of Remmi Services because they are
`
`
`Powder Bag, LLC, Sam Express, LLC, and Sahaili Partners, LLC are referred to as the “Company Plaintiffs.”
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`directly complicit in the allegations of wrongful conduct herein, and thus demand would be
`
`futile.
`
`10.
`
`Plaintiff Michael Greenfield is a resident of the State of New York, County of Rockland.
`
`11. Plaintiff Pessel Sharon Feldheim (“Feldheim”) is a resident of the State of New York,
`
`County of Rockland.
`
`12.
`
`Feldheim is a majority in interest member of Plaintiff Pan Transport, LLC (“Pan
`
`Transport”), a limited liability company duly organized and existing under the laws of the State
`
`of New York, with its principal place of business in New York.
`
`13.
`
`Feldheim brings this action individually and derivatively on behalf of Pan Transport.
`
`Demand has not been made of other members of Pan Transport because they are directly
`
`complicit in the allegations of wrongful conduct herein, and thus demand would be futile.
`
`14. Plaintiff Rivka Hecht (“R.Hecht”) is a resident of the State of New York, County of
`
`Rockland.
`
`15.
`
`R.Hecht is a majority in interest member of Plaintiff RH Green, LLC (“RH Green”), a
`
`limited liability company duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York,
`
`with its principal place of business in New York.
`
`16.
`
`R.Hecht brings this action derivatively on behalf of RH Green. Demand has not been
`
`made of other members of RH Green because they are directly complicit in the allegations of
`
`wrongful conduct herein, and thus demand would be futile.
`
`17.
`
`Plaintiff Ischa Hecht a/k/a “Yishai” (“Hecht”) is a resident of the State of New York,
`
`County of Rockland.
`
`18.
`
`Hecht is a majority in interest member of Plaintiff Greenish, LLC (“Greenish”), a limited
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`liability company duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York, with its
`
`principal place of business in New York.
`
`19.
`
`Hecht brings this action derivatively on behalf of Greenish. Demand has not been made
`
`of other members of Greenish because they are directly complicit in the allegations of wrongful
`
`conduct herein, and thus demand would be futile.
`
`20.
`
`Hecht is also a majority in interest member of Plaintiff Dads Green, LLC (“Dads
`
`Green”), a limited liability company duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of
`
`New York, with its principal place of business in New York.
`
`21.
`
`Hecht also brings this action derivatively on behalf of Dads Green. Demand has not been
`
`made of other members of Dads Green because they are directly complicit in the allegations of
`
`wrongful conduct herein, and thus demand would be futile.
`
`22.
`
`Hecht is also a majority in interest member of Plaintiff NP Green, LLC (“NP Green”), a
`
`limited liability company duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York,
`
`with its principal place of business in New York.
`
`23.
`
`Hecht brings this action derivatively on behalf of NP Green. Demand has not been made
`
`of other members of NP Green because they are directly complicit in the allegations of wrongful
`
`conduct herein, and thus demand would be futile.
`
`24.
`
`Plaintiff Nathan Ungar (“Ungar”) is a resident of the State of New York, County of
`
`Rockland.
`
`25.
`
`Plaintiff Bamba Gamba Corp. (“Bamba Gamba”) is a corporation duly organized and
`
`existing under the laws of the State of New York, with its principal place of business in New
`
`York.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`26. Plaintiff RSAAC Fleet, LLC (“RSAAC Fleet”) is a limited liability company duly
`
`organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York, with its principal place of
`
`business in New York.
`
`27.
`
`28.
`
`Plaintiff Asher Fried (“Fried”) is a resident of the State of New York, County of Kings.
`
`Plaintiff AFFW Fleet I, LLC (“AFFW Fleet”) is a limited liability company duly
`
`organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York, with its principal place of
`
`business in New York.
`
`29. Plaintiff Charles Klein (“Klein”) is a resident of the State of New York, County of Kings.
`
`30.
`
`Plaintiff NLK Fleet, LLC (“NLK Fleet”) is a limited liability company duly organized
`
`and existing under the laws of the State of New York, with its principal place of business in New
`
`York.
`
`31.
`
`Plaintiff Creask Fleet, LLC (“Creask”) is a limited liability company duly organized and
`
`existing under the laws of the State of New York, with its principal place of business in New
`
`York.
`
`32.
`
`Plaintiff BSDGee Fleet, LLC (“BSDGee”) is a limited liability company duly organized
`
`and existing under the laws of the State of New York, with its principal place of business in New
`
`York.
`
`33.
`
`Plaintiff GeeGee Fleet, LLC (“GeeGee”) is a limited liability company duly organized
`
`and existing under the laws of the State of New York, with its principal place of business in New
`
`York.
`
`34. Plaintiff Chaim Neger (“Neger”) is a resident of Lakewood, New Jersey.
`
`35.
`
`Neger is a majority in interest member of Plaintiff Green Medallion One, LLC (“Green
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Medallion”), a limited liability company duly organized and existing under the laws of the State
`
`of New York, with its principal place of business in New York.
`
`36.
`
`Neger brings this action individually as well as derivatively on behalf of Green
`
`Medallion. Demand has not been made of other members of Green Medallion because they are
`
`directly complicit in the allegations of wrongful conduct herein, and thus demand would be
`
`futile.
`
`37. Plaintiff Moshe Weil (“Weil”) is a resident of Lakewood, New Jersey.
`
`38. Weil is a majority in interest member of Plaintiff TP Green, LLC (“TP Green”), a limited
`
`liability company duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York, with its
`
`principal place of business in New York.
`
`39. Weil brings this action individually and derivatively on behalf of TP Green. Demand has
`
`not been made of other members of TP Green because they are directly complicit in the
`
`allegations of wrongful conduct herein, and thus demand would be futile.
`
`40.
`
`Plaintiff All Boro Transit, LLC (“All Boro Transit”) is a limited liability company duly
`
`organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York, with its principal place of
`
`business in New York.
`
`41. Plaintiff Eli Segel (“Segel”) is a resident of the State of New York, County of Kings.
`
`42.
`
`Plaintiff BALR Enterprises, LLC (“BALR Enterprises”) is a limited liability company
`
`duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York, with its principal place of
`
`business in New York.
`
`43.
`
`Plaintiff Murray Puderbeutel (“Puderbeutel”) is a resident of the State of New York,
`
`County of Kings.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`44.
`
`Plaintiff Powder Bag, LLC (“Powder Bag”) is a limited liability company duly organized
`
`and existing under the laws of the State of New York, with its principal place of business in New
`
`York.
`
`45. Plaintiff Amarpreet Singh (“Singh”) is a resident of the State of New York, County of
`
`Kings.
`
`46.
`
`Singh is a majority in interest member of Plaintiff Sahaili Partners, LLC (“Sahaili
`
`Partners”), a limited liability company duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of
`
`New York, with its principal place of business in New York.
`
`47.
`
`Singh brings this action individually and derivatively on behalf of Sahaili Partners.
`
`Demand has not been made of other members of Sahaili Partners because they are directly
`
`complicit in the allegations of wrongful conduct herein, and thus demand would be futile.
`
`48. Plaintiff Shmuel Laufer (“Laufer”) is a resident of the State of New York, County of
`
`Kings.
`
`49.
`
`Laufer is a majority in interest member of Plaintiff Sam Express, LLC (“Sam Express”),
`
`a limited liability company duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York,
`
`with its principal place of business in New York.
`
`50.
`
`Laufer brings this action individually and derivatively on behalf of Sam Express.
`
`Demand has not been made of other members of Sam Express because they are directly
`
`complicit in the allegations of wrongful conduct herein, and thus demand would be futile.
`
`51.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant Ginsburg is a resident of the State of New York,
`
`County of Rockland.
`
`52.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant Mega Funding, LLC is a limited liability
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`company duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York, with its principal
`
`place of business in New York.
`
`53.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant Green Apple Cabs, LLC, a/k/a Green Apple Cab
`
`Company, is a limited liability company duly organized and existing under the laws of the State
`
`of New York, with its principal place of business in New York.
`
`54. Upon information and belief, Defendant GLS Trans, Inc. is a corporation duly organized
`
`and existing under the laws of the State of New York, with its principal place of business in New
`
`York.
`
`55. Upon information and belief, Defendant Swerdloff is a resident of the State of New York.
`
`56. Upon information and belief, Defendant Dale & Crue, LLC is a limited liability company
`
`duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York, with its principal place of
`
`business in New York.
`
`57.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant Ryder Partners, LLC is a limited liability
`
`company duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York, with its principal
`
`place of business in New York.
`
`58.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant Langer is a resident of the State of New York.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`59.
`
`The Court has jurisdiction over Defendants Ginsburg, Swerdloff, and Judah Langer under
`
`CPLR 301, as they are residents of the State of New York.
`
`60.
`
`The Court has jurisdiction over Defendants Green Apple, Ryder Partners, GLS, Dale, and
`
`Mega Funding: under CPLR 301, because: they are residents of the State of New York; under
`
`CPLR 302 with respect to the contracts at issue in this case; because these Defendants transacted
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`business within the State of New York; and under CPLR 302(a)(2), in that these Defendants
`
`committed tortious acts within the State, which are the subject of the causes of action in this
`
`lawsuit.
`
`61.
`
`Additionally, the parties have within the body of signed contracts relevant to this matter
`
`consented to the jurisdiction of the Courts of the State of New York.
`
`62.
`
`Venue is proper in this county, as multiple Plaintiffs, including Yisroel Grafstein, Jeffrey
`
`Edelman, Asher Fried (and others), are residents of the State of New York, Kings County.
`
`OVERVIEW
`
`63.
`
`The New York City Taxi & Limousine Commission (“TLC”) initiated the Boro Taxi
`
`program (also known as the Street Hail Livery program), which licensed green Boro Taxis to
`
`serve areas of New York not commonly served by yellow medallion cabs, and to generate
`
`business opportunities for small businesses.
`
`64.
`
`Ginsburg formulated a fraudulent scheme to defraud investors (the “Enterprise”), under
`
`the rubric of purchasing Boro Taxi permits (“Permits”). He began implementing the scheme in
`
`late 2013, and the Enterprise collapsed in approximately April 2016.
`
`65.
`
`Ginsburg and Swerdloff purchased the right to acquire Permits from initial Permit
`
`holders who had acquired their Permits from the TLC.
`
`66.
`
`Ginsburg and Swerdloff solicited investors, including the Plaintiffs herein, and persuaded
`
`them to purchase the Permits from Ginsburg.
`
`67.
`
`In order to persuade and induce the investors, including the Plaintiffs, to purchase the
`
`Permits from him at an exorbitant profit, Ginsburg, directly and/or through Swerdloff as his
`
`agent, represented to the potential investors, including the Plaintiffs:
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`68.
`
`The investor would be required to: (1) pay Ginsburg for the Permits, (2) finance the
`
`purchase or lease of new vehicles, (3) pay to have the vehicles made wheelchair-accessible, (4)
`
`pay for the transformation of the vehicles into (road-ready) green taxi cabs, and (5) pay an
`
`operating fee to Defendants for management of the vehicles and the Permits.
`
`69.
`
`Ginsburg, directly and/or through Swerdloff as his agent, further represented to the
`
`potential investors including the Plaintiffs that in consideration for their investment, each
`
`investor, including the Plaintiffs, would receive: (a) the transfer of Permit ownership from the
`
`original Permit-holder to the investor after one year, (b) rental fee income from the taxi cab more
`
`than sufficient to cover the operating expenses, (c) a $15,000 government grant (“Grant”) for
`
`making each taxi cab wheelchair-accessible, (d) a $10,000 tax credit (“Tax Credit”) for each new
`
`taxi cab that was made wheelchair accessible, and (e) management services, including but not
`
`limited to securing drivers for the cabs, vehicle parking/storage, ensuring the effective status of
`
`the Permits, securing and payment of proper registration and insurance, payment of any fines,
`
`collection of rental fees from drivers and mechanical maintenance of the vehicles.
`
`70.
`
`Each investor, including the Plaintiffs, purchased multiple Permits (generally
`
`approximately five Permits).
`
`71.
`
`Ginsburg and Langer created GLS Trans and Green Apple (collectively “the
`
`Management Companies”) to manage the vehicles, the drivers, and issues relating to the Permits.
`
`Langer was the managing member of the Management Companies and he handled their daily
`
`operations, but Ginsburg helped create the Management Companies, was actively involved in
`
`their activities and management, received an ongoing salary for his services to the Management
`
`Companies, and he ultimately fired Langer.
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`72.
`
`Ginsburg, Langer, and Swerdloff formed limited liability companies (the Company
`
`Plaintiffs) with the Individual Plaintiffs to own each set of Permits. The Individual Plaintiffs (or
`
`an entity they controlled) received a majority interest in the Company Plaintiffs, generally at
`
`least a 70% interest.
`
`73.
`
`Ginsburg, Swerdloff, and/or Langer solicited the Plaintiffs to sign contracts (a series of
`
`structurally similar “Operating Agreements”), in which Ginsburg (through Mega Funding) and
`
`Langer (through Ryder Partners or Green Apple) and/or Swerdloff (through Dale) received
`
`minority membership interests in each of the newly formed Company Plaintiffs.
`
`74. Many of the Operating Agreements specified that Langer or a company operated by him
`
`would act as the managing member of the Company Plaintiffs.
`
`75.
`
`Ginsburg secretly, and without disclosure to the Plaintiffs, derived additional income
`
`from third-party contracts, including without limitation, on the acquisition of vehicles, contracts
`
`of insurance, and contracts to outfit the Plaintiffs’ vehicles for wheelchair accessibility.
`
`76.
`
`Each Operating Agreement generated by Ginsburg, Swerdloff and Langer with the
`
`Plaintiffs recited that Ginsburg (or his wholly owned company, Mega Funding) was functioning
`
`merely as a broker. Even as the Operating Agreements stated that Ginsburg was merely a broker,
`
`they also specified that the broker “may sell” the Permits to the LLC.
`
`77.
`
`Ginsburg was also not licensed as a broker with the TLC and was not lawfully permitted
`
`to function as a broker of Permits.
`
`78.
`
`Ginsburg, Swerdloff, and Langer orally (and in emails) represented to the Individual
`
`Plaintiffs that Ginsburg and Langer would conduct the management functions of the business,
`
`including but not limited to managing the vehicles, including the management services set forth
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`above in paragraph 69(e).
`
`79.
`
`Ginsburg primarily benefited from the investors’ purchase from him of the Permits at an
`
`exorbitant (often as much as 500% or $10,000.00 per permit) profit to Ginsburg, and his
`
`undisclosed other benefits, including without limitation undisclosed profit from accessorizing the
`
`vehicles, and insurance commissions, and receiving a weekly salary as a manager of the business
`
`(earning approximately $100,000.00 per year), notwithstanding that Ginsburg falsely inserted in
`
`the Operating Agreements, contrary to his oral representations, that his sole function was as a
`
`broker of the Permits.
`
`80.
`
`Ginsburg and Swerdloff made misrepresentations of material facts to the Plaintiffs (and
`
`other investors), including but not limited to, falsely informing the Plaintiffs that they were
`
`entitled to own a Permit (even though without TLC licensure, neither the Individual Plaintiffs
`
`nor the Company Plaintiffs were entitled to own a permit), falsely informing Plaintiffs that the
`
`transfer of Permit ownership (which would occur in one year) would be automatic (rather than a
`
`process including documentation, appearances by initial Permit holders, and TLC approval),
`
`falsely selling Plaintiffs expired Permits, falsely informing Plaintiffs that they or their LLCs
`
`could own more than 5 Permits (although this was not permitted under TLC regulations), falsely
`
`informing Plaintiffs that there were sufficient numbers of drivers willing to pay at least $450 per
`
`vehicle per week to drive the taxi cabs (Swerdloff occasionally used higher sums including
`
`$600-900 per vehicle per week), falsely informing Plaintiffs that in their experience then-current
`
`vehicles were rented at the stated prices and earning a positive income flow, and falsely
`
`understating expenses (including not disclosing certain monthly expenses like the CMT rental
`
`fees).
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`81.
`
`In fact, these representations were false, and were then known by Ginsburg and
`
`Swerdloff to be false.
`
`82.
`
`Ginsburg and Swerdloff offered to the Plaintiffs projections of income and expenses that
`
`they knew were contrived, and even after the projections were proven factually false by
`
`increased experience, Ginsburg and Swerdloff continued to represent the inaccurate projections
`
`to fraudulently lure new investors including the Plaintiffs. In the manner of a Ponzi scheme, the
`
`Defendants used new investors’ money to pay off portions of the prior investors’ expenses to lull
`
`the prior investors into a false sense of security.
`
`83.
`
`None of the Plaintiffs’ vehicles that were rented matched the projected weekly income.
`
`Even the very limited number of vehicles that were rented often earned $400 per week or less,
`
`which failed to cover monthly expenses.
`
`84.
`
`Langer and the Defendant Management Companies collected cash rental funds from the
`
`drivers, and did not account to the Plaintiffs for such receipts.
`
`85.
`
`The Individual Plaintiffs were never given access to the books and records of the
`
`Defendants’ and were never privy to the Management Companies’ bank statements, revenue, or
`
`expenses.
`
`86.
`
`Ginsburg and Langer schematically underfunded GLS Trans and Green Apple, and then
`
`made misrepresentations and presented false statements of account to the Plaintiffs to continue to
`
`lull them into a false sense of security.
`
`87.
`
`Ginsburg and Langer repeatedly misrepresented to the Plaintiffs the availability of
`
`drivers and the status of their vehicles, i.e., that they were operational, they were active, and that
`
`their Permits were in good standing with the TLC.
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`88.
`
`By lulling the Plaintiffs into a false sense of security, the Defendants were enabled to
`
`secure new purchasers of Permits, the primary income source of Ginsburg and the Enterprise.
`
`89.
`
`Ginsburg and Langer commingled hundreds of thousands of dollars of rental income of
`
`different Plaintiffs and other investors (ultimately failing to pay rental income for the months of
`
`January through March of 2016), misappropriated hundreds of thousands of dollars in tax money
`
`owed to some of the Plaintiffs and investors, misappropriated over a million dollars paid by
`
`Permit purchasers pursuant to invoices for vehicle conversions, insurance, TLC fees, and other
`
`expenses, and also provided false financial statements to some of the Plaintiffs and other Permit
`
`purchasers in order to lull them into a false sense of security.
`
`90. When confronted, Ginsburg and Langer deflected blame onto each other. Ultimately,
`
`Ginsburg fired Langer for alleged incompetence in late March 2016.
`
`91. While many Permit purchasers were not paid (or underpaid) for actual weekly rental
`
`income, others, who were either friendly with the Defendants or vehement in their protests, were
`
`partially paid irrespective of whether their vehicles were actually rented.
`
`92. Meanwhile, the Plaintiffs’ vehicles were diminishing in value and amassing fines, fees,
`
`and other costs and personal liability under the names and ownership of the investors.
`
`93.
`
`Further, Ginsburg, Langer, Green Apple, and GLS wrongfully, without consent,
`
`converted parts from Plaintiffs’ unused vehicles to replace non-functional or damaged parts of
`
`the active vehicles (often owned by other investors).
`
`94.
`
`Even the automobile liability insurance policies for vehicles lapsed, leaving the Plaintiffs
`
`unknowingly at risk to dangerous levels of liability.
`
`95.
`
`Despite Ginsburg and Langer’s repeated representations to the contrary, many Plaintiffs
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`failed to receive the $15,000.00 Grants, even though, for some, Ginsburg and Langer received
`
`and retained the $15,000.00 Grants referable to their Permits.
`
`96. Chrysler offered an additional $1,000.00 rebate (“Rebate”) per vehicle converted to
`
`wheelchair accessibility, but for vehicles outfitted by FR Conversions, an entity in which
`
`Ginsburg had a financial interest (and which Ginsburg recommended), the Rebate was frequently
`
`given directly to FR Conversions.
`
`97. Many investors, including Plaintiffs, were not informed by Ginsburg of the existence of
`
`this Rebate, to allow Ginsburg to further profit from the scheme.
`
`98.
`
`Despite Ginsburg’s and Langer’s repeated representations to the contrary, many investors
`
`failed to receive documentation from the Defendants to support their promised $10,000.00 Tax
`
`Credits.
`
`99.
`
`Despite Ginsburg, Swerdloff, and Langer’s repeated representations to the contrary,
`
`Permits were never legally transferred from the initial Permit holders to the Plaintiffs.
`
`100. The Plaintiffs suffered significant financial damages from the Defendants’ scheme.
`
`101. The Defendants wrongfully profited from the series of related intentional fraudulent
`
`misrepresentations involved in initiating and maintaining this Enterprise.
`
`102.
`
`In sum, Ginsburg, Swerdloff, and Langer (the “Individual Defendants”) individually and
`
`Mega Funding, Dale, Ryder Partners, GLS Trans, and Green Apple (the “Company Defendants”)
`
`comprised a group of individuals associated in fact that engaged in a pattern of racketeering (the
`
`“Enterprise”.)
`
`FACTS
`
`103. Ginsburg made fraudulent misrepresentations by several telephone and email
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`communications between New York and Maryland between approximately, June 16, 2014 and
`
`June 24, 2014 to induce Mordy Itzkowitz to purchase 5 Permits and contribute them to Remmi
`
`Services (including a series of June 23, 2014 inter-state emails from Ginsburg in New York to
`
`Itzkowitz in Maryland and a follow-up June 23, 2014 phone call from Itzkowitz in Maryland to
`
`Ginsburg in New York wherein Ginsburg made representations about the Permits as set forth
`
`herein to induce Itzkowitz to move forward with the transaction). The misrepresentations of
`
`material facts included Itzkowitz’s ability to own Permits (individuals not licensed with the TLC
`
`could not own Permits, individually or as majority member of an LLC), the ability and ease of
`
`transfer of the Permits (which Ginsburg said was automatic, but actually required additional
`
`appearances, involvement of the initial Permit holders, and TLC approval), existing positive
`
`income stream of current other similarly situated Permit purchasers (which Ginsburg knew to be
`
`false), availability of sufficient numbers of drivers to rent his vehicles at $550 per week to make
`
`weekly profit (which Ginsburg knew to be false), and that he would receive Tax Credits for the
`
`purchase of the Permit. Ginsburg also failed to disclose his financial interest in the insurance
`
`brokerage (Matrix) that would secure insurance for the vehicles.
`
`104. Langer made fraudulent misrepresentations by email from New York to Maryland in late
`
`March, 2016, to quell Itzkowitz’s concerns regarding the management of his vehicles. The
`
`misrepresentations included that Remmi Services’s Chrysler vehicle payments were current
`
`when Langer knew that the payments bounced, that he would receive Tax Credits for his Permits
`
`(when Langer knew that to be false), and that drivers were expected for his un-rented vehicles.
`
`105. Remmi Services (with Remmi, Inc. – owned and managed by Itzkowitz – listed as
`
`investor and majority member) was created to operate Itzkowitz’s Permits and vehicles to be
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`used as taxi cabs wherein he partnered with Ginsburg (who is listed as a broker although he is
`
`unlicensed to operate as a TLC broker) and Langer via Mega Funding and Ryder Partners
`
`(managing member), respectively.
`
`106. Swerdloff and Langer made fraudulent misrepresentations by several telephone and email
`
`communications between New York and New Jersey on or about March 19, 2015 and between
`
`approximately April 28, 2015 through May 4, 2015 to induce Moshe Weil to purchase 5 Permits
`
`and contribute them to TP Green and have them managed by Green Apple. The
`
`misrepresentations included Weil’s ability to own Permits (individuals not licensed with the TLC
`
`could not own Permits, individually or as majority member of an LLC), the ability and ease of
`
`transfer of the Permits (which they said was automatic, but actually required additional
`
`appearances, involvement of the initial Permit holders, and TLC approval), the existing positive
`
`income stream of current other similarly situated Permit purchasers (which they knew to be
`
`false), and the availability of sufficient numbers of drivers to rent his vehicles at over $450 per
`
`week to make weekly profit. Ginsburg also failed to disclose his financial interest in the
`
`insurance brokerage (Matrix) of the vehicle.
`
`107. Langer made fraudulent misrepresentations by emails from New York to New Jersey
`
`throughout the summer of 2015, t