throbber
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 12/14/2016 05:40 PM
`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

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket