throbber
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 06/06/2016 05:51 PM
`FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 12/14/2016 05:04 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 88
`
`INDEX NO. 509504/2016
`INDEX NO. 509504/2016
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/06/2016
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/14/2016
`
`COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
`COUNTY OF KINGS
`---------------------------------------------------------------x
`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; SHMUEL
`LAUFER; PAN TRANSPORT, LLC; REMMI
`SERVICES, LLC; GREENISH, LLC; DADS GREEN,
`LLC; NP GREEN, LLC; RH GREEN, LLC;
`BAMBAH GAMBA CORP; AFFW FLEET I, LLC;
`RSAAC FLEET, LLC; CREASK FLEET, LLC; NLK
`FLEET, LLC; BSDGEE FLEET, LLC; GEEGEE
`FLEET, LLC; GREEN MEDALLION ONE, LLC;
`YCD, 1760, LLC; TP GREEN, LLC; GORN, LLC;
`MM MMGT, LLC; SN S&N, LLC; SS N&S, LLC; YM
`1875, LLC; SC BSD, LLC; BALR ENTERPRISES,
`LLC; MKGT, LLC; 17B, LLC; MUNIT, LLC; RJ
`CAPITAL, LLC; ALL BORO TRANSIT; POWDER
`BAG, LLC; SAM EXPRESS, LLC; 50P, LLC; 307P,
`LLC; SAHAILI PARTNERS, LLC,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`-against-
`
`Date Filed:
`Docket No.:
`
`SUMMONS
`
`Plaintiffs Demand a Trial By Jury
`
`Plaintiffs Designate Kings County
`ALAN J. GINSBURG “aka” A.J.; MEGA FUNDING,
`as the Venue of Trial Based upon
`LLC; GREEN APPLE CAB COMPANY “aka” GREEN;
`APPLE CABS, LLC; GLS TRANSIT, INC.; YITZCHOK Plaintiffs’ Residences in Kings
`MATTIS SWERDLOFF “aka” MATT “aka”
`County & CPLR §§ 301, 302(a)(2).
`RIVERDALE; DALE & CRUE, LLC; RYDER
`PARTNERS, LLC; and JUDAH LANGER,
`
`Defendants.
`---------------------------------------------------------------x
`To: Defendants Alan J. “A.J.” Ginsburg,
`Mega Funding, LLC,
`Dale & Crue, LLC,
`Green Apple Cab Company, a/k/a Green Apple Cabs, LLC,
`GLS Transit, Inc.,
`Yitzchok Mattis “Matt” Swerdloff a/k/a “Riverdale”,
`Ryder Partners, LLC, and
`Judah Langer:
`
`1 of 28
`
`

`

`YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED to answer the complaint in this action and to serve a
`copy of your answer, or if the complaint is not served with this summons, to serve a notice of
`appearance, on Plaintiffs’ Attorneys within twenty (20) days after the service of this summons,
`exclusive of the day of service (or within thirty (30) days after the service is complete if this
`summons is not personally delivered to you within the State of New York); and in case of your
`failure to appear or answer, judgment will be taken against you by default for the relief demanded
`herein.
`
`Dated: New York, New York
`June 6, 2016
`
`JACOB LAUFER P.C.
`
` /s/ Jacob Laufer
`Jacob Laufer, Esq.
`65 Broadway, 10th Floor
`New York, New York 10006
`(212) 422-8500
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`
`To:
`
`Clerk of the Court
`
`2
`
`2 of 28
`
`

`

`COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
`COUNTY OF KINGS
`---------------------------------------------------------------x
`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; SHMUEL
`LAUFER; PAN TRANSPORT, LLC; REMMI
`SERVICES, LLC; GREENISH, LLC; DADS GREEN,
`LLC; NP GREEN, LLC; RH GREEN, LLC;
`BAMBAH GAMBA CORP; AFFW FLEET I, LLC;
`RSAAC FLEET, LLC; CREASK FLEET, LLC; NLK
`FLEET, LLC; BSDGEE FLEET, LLC; GEEGEE
`FLEET, LLC; GREEN MEDALLION ONE, LLC;
`YCD, 1760, LLC; TP GREEN, LLC; GORN, LLC;
`MM MMGT, LLC; SN S&N, LLC; SS N&S, LLC; YM
`1875, LLC; SC BSD, LLC; BALR ENTERPRISES,
`LLC; MKGT, LLC; 17B, LLC; MUNIT, LLC; RJ
`CAPITAL, LLC; ALL BORO TRANSIT; POWDER
`BAG, LLC; SAM EXPRESS, LLC; 50P, LLC; 307P,
`LLC; SAHAILI PARTNERS, LLC,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`-against-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Docket No.
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`ALAN J. GINSBURG “aka” A.J.; MEGA FUNDING,
`LLC; GREEN APPLE CAB COMPANY “aka” GREEN
`APPLE CABS, LLC; GLS TRANSIT, INC.;
`YITZCHOK MATTIS SWERDLOFF “aka” MATT
`“aka” RIVERDALE; DALE & CRUE, LLC;
`RYDER PARTNERS, LLC; and JUDAH LANGER,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`---------------------------------------------------------------x
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs, by and through their undersigned counsel, Jacob Laufer P.C., Jacob Laufer,
`
`Esq., of counsel, hereby file this Complaint against Defendants Alan J. “A.J.” Ginsburg
`
`(“Ginsburg”), Mega Funding, LLC (“Mega Funding”), Dale & Crue, LLC (“Dale”), Green
`
`1
`
`3 of 28
`
`

`

`Apple Cab Company, a/k/a Green Apple Cabs, LLC (“Green Apple”), GLS Transit, Inc.
`
`(“GLS”), Yitzchok Mattis “Matt” Swerdloff (“Riverdale”), Ryder Partners, LLC (“Ryder
`
`Partners”), and Judah Langer (“Langer”) and in support thereof, respectfully avers as follows:
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`Plaintiff Yisroel Grafstein is a resident of the State of New York, County of Kings.
`
`Plaintiff Jeffrey Edelman is a resident of the State of New York, County of Kings.
`
`Plaintiff Mordechai Itzkowitz is a resident of Baltimore, Maryland.
`
`Plaintiff Michael Greenfield is a resident of the State of New York, County of Rockland.
`
`Plaintiff Yishai Hecht is a resident of the State of New York, County of Rockland.
`
`Plaintiff Nathan Ungar is a resident of the State of New York, County of Rockland.
`
`Plaintiff Asher Fried is a resident of the State of New York, County of Kings.
`
`Plaintiff Charles Klein is a resident of the State of New York, County of Kings.
`
`Plaintiff Chaim Neger is a resident of Lakewood, New Jersey.
`
`10. Plaintiff Moshe Weil is a resident of the State of New York, County of Kings.
`
`11. Plaintiff Eli Segel is a resident of the State of New York, County of Kings.
`
`12. Plaintiff Murray Puderbeutel is a resident of the State of New York, County of Kings.
`
`13. Plaintiff Amarpreet Singh is a resident of the State of New York, County of Kings.
`
`14. Plaintiff Shmuel Laufer is a resident of the State of New York, County of Kings.
`
`15. Plaintiff Pan Transport, 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.
`
`16. Plaintiff Remmi Services, 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.
`
`17. Plaintiff Greenish, LLC is a limited liability company duly organized and existing under
`
`2
`
`4 of 28
`
`

`

`the laws of the State of New York, with its principal place of business in New York.
`
`18. Plaintiff Dads Green, 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.
`
`19. Plaintiff NP Green, 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.
`
`20. Plaintiff RH Green, 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.
`
`21. Plaintiff Bambah Gamba Corp. is a company duly organized and existing under the laws
`
`of the State of New York, with its principal place of business in New York.
`
`22. Plaintiff AFFW Fleet I, 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.
`
`23. Plaintiff RSAAC Fleet, 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.
`
`24. Plaintiff Creask Fleet, 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.
`
`25. Plaintiff NLK Fleet, 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.
`
`26. Plaintiff BSDGee Fleet, 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.
`
`27. Plaintiff GeeGee Fleet, 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.
`
`28. Plaintiff Green Medallion One, LLC is a limited liability company duly organized and
`
`3
`
`5 of 28
`
`

`

`existing under the laws of the State of New York, with its principal place of business in New
`
`York.
`
`29. Plaintiff TP Green, LLC is a limited company duly organized and existing under the laws
`
`of the State of New York, with its principal place of business in New York.
`
`30. Plaintiff 50P, 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.
`
`31. Plaintiff, 307P 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.
`
`32. Plaintiff YCD 1760, 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.
`
`33. Plaintiff Gorn, 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.
`
`34. Plaintiff MM MMGT, 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.
`
`35. Plaintiff SN S&N, 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.
`
`36. Plaintiff SS N&S, 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.
`
`37. Plaintiff YM 1875, 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.
`
`38. Plaintiff SC BSD, 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.
`
`4
`
`6 of 28
`
`

`

`39. Plaintiff All Boro Transit is a company duly organized and existing under the laws of the
`
`State of New York, with its principal place of business in New York.
`
`40. Plaintiff BALR Enterprises is a 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 MKGT, 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.
`
`42. Plaintiff 17B, 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.
`
`43. Plaintiff Munit, 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.
`
`44. Plaintiff RJ Capital, 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.
`
`45. Plaintiff Powder Bag, 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.
`
`46. Plaintiff Sam Express, 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.
`
`47.
`
`Plaintiff Sahaili 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.
`
`48.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant Ginsburg is a resident of the State of New York,
`
`County of Rockland.
`
`49.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant Mega Funding is a limited liability company
`
`duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York, with its principal place of
`
`5
`
`7 of 28
`
`

`

`business in New York.
`
`50.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant Green Apple 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.
`
`51. Upon information and belief, Defendant GLS is a company duly organized and existing
`
`under the laws of the State of New York, with its principal place of business in New York.
`
`52. Upon information and belief, Defendant Riverdale is a resident of the State of New York
`
`and his relevant conduct principally occurred in New York.
`
`53. Upon information and belief, Defendant Dale 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 Ryder Partners 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.
`
`55.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant Judah Langer is a resident of the State of New
`
`York and his relevant conduct principally occurred in New York.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`56.
`
`The Court has jurisdiction over Defendants Ginsburg, Riverdale, and Judah Langer under
`
`CPLR 301, as they are residents of the State of New York.
`
`57.
`
`The Court has jurisdiction over Defendants Green Apple, Ryder Partners, GLS, Dale, and
`
`Mega Funding under CPLR 301, in that they are residents of the State of New York and under
`
`CPLR 302 with respect to the contracts at issue in this case, and these Defendants transacted
`
`6
`
`8 of 28
`
`

`

`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 this lawsuit.
`
`58.
`
`Additionally, the parties have within the body of signed contracts relevant to this matter
`
`issued consent to the jurisdiction of the Courts of the State of New York.
`
`59.
`
`Venue is proper in this county, as multiple Plaintiffs are residents of the State of New
`
`York, Kings County.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`60.
`
`The New York City Taxi & Limousine Commission’s Boro Taxi program (also known as
`
`the Street Hail Livery program) 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.
`
`61.
`
`Defendants A.J. Ginsburg and Judah Langer formulated a fraudulent scheme to defraud
`
`investors, under the rubric of investing in Boro Taxi permits.
`
`62.
`
`Ginsburg and Riverdale purchased the right to collect Boro Taxi permits from initial
`
`permit-holders with the intention of reselling the permits to investors.
`
`63. Ginsburg, and at times, Riverdale, solicited investors, including the Plaintiffs herein, and
`
`persuaded them to purchase from Ginsburg the Boro Taxi permits.
`
`64.
`
`In order to persuade the investors, including the Plaintiffs, to purchase the Boro Taxi
`
`permits from him at an exorbitant profit, Ginsburg, directly and or through Riverdale as his
`
`agent, represented to the potential investors including the Plaintiffs:
`
`65.
`
`The investor would be required to: (1) pay Ginsburg for the Boro Taxi permit, (2) finance
`
`7
`
`9 of 28
`
`

`

`the purchase of a new vehicle, (3) pay Defendants to make the vehicle wheelchair-accessible, (4)
`
`pay Defendants for the transformation of the vehicle into a (road-ready) green taxi cab, and (5)
`
`pay an operating fee to Defendants’ management company.
`
`66.
`
`In exchange, each investor, including the Plaintiffs, would receive: (a) a $15,000
`
`government rebate for making the cab wheelchair-accessible, (b) a $10,000 tax credit for
`
`purchasing a new vehicle that is wheelchair accessible, (c) arrange the transfer of permit
`
`ownership from the original permit-holder to the investor after one year, (d) a weekly rental fee
`
`for the cab, and (e) management services, including but not limited to the furnishing of drivers
`
`for the cabs, vehicle parking/storage, securing and payment of proper registration and insurance,
`
`payment of any fines, collection of rental fees from drivers and mechanical maintenance of the
`
`cabs.
`
`67.
`
`68.
`
`Each investor, including the Plaintiffs, generally purchased approximately five vehicles.
`
`Ginsburg through Langer, managed the daily operations of the cab companies. Ginsburg
`
`was a partner in the management company, had an active role, and received an ongoing salary as
`
`manager of the business.
`
`69.
`
`Ginsburg, Langer, and Riverdale formed new corporate entities to own each investor’s
`
`permits Boro Taxi permits. The individual investors generally received approximately 70% of
`
`the corporate entity.
`
`70.
`
`Ginsburg, Riverdale, and Langer solicited the Plaintiffs to sign contracts, in which
`
`Ginsburg (through Mega Funding) and Ginsburg and Langer (through Ryder Partners, Green
`
`Apple, or GLS) would receive the remainder of the ownership interest in the Plaintiffs’ newly
`
`formed entities and also act as the managing member of the newly formed entity.
`
`8
`
`10 of 28
`
`

`

`71.
`
`Ginsburg secretly, and without disclosure to the Plaintiffs, derived additional income
`
`from third-party contracts, including without limitation contracts of insurance and contracts to
`
`outfit the Plaintiffs’ vehicles for wheelchair accessibility.
`
`72. While each contract generated by Ginsburg, Riverdale, and Langer with the Plaintiffs
`
`specified that Ginsburg was functioning merely as a broker, in fact Ginsburg simultaneously
`
`represented that Ginsburg and Langer would arrange the management functions of the business,
`
`including but not limited to managing the vehicles from start to finish, including the purchase of
`
`the permit, purchase of the vehicle, converting the vehicle to wheelchair accessible, and
`
`converting the vehicle into a road-ready green taxi cab; organization of drivers for the cabs,
`
`vehicle parking/storage, securing and payment of proper registration and insurance, payment of
`
`any fines, collection of rental fees from drivers and mechanical maintenance of the cabs.
`
`73. Ginsburg received his benefit from the investors’ purchase from him of the Boro Taxi
`
`permits at an exorbitant (500%) profit to Ginsburg, and his undisclosed other benefits (including
`
`without limitation profit from accessorizing the cabs, and insurance commissions), and receiving
`
`a weekly salary as a manager of the business. In April 2016, Ginsburg dismissed Langer from his
`
`role in management of the business.
`
`74.
`
`Ginsburg and Riverdale misrepresented to the investors, including the Plaintiffs, the
`
`higher projected income, lower than actual expenses, and the accessibility of drivers. Ginsburg
`
`falsely represented that he had access to a sufficient number of competent drivers to collect
`
`$450-600 per vehicle per week in rental payments.
`
`75. In fact, these representations were false, and known to be false by Ginsburg and
`
`Riverdale. Many or most of the cabs were never converted into green taxi cabs, remained
`
`9
`
`11 of 28
`
`

`

`unused, either entirely or for long periods of time, because Ginsburg and Langer were using the
`
`money received from new investors to pay previous investors or for their own benefit. Further,
`
`none of the vehicles that were rented matched the projected weekly income, as many received
`
`approximately $400 per week or less, which failed to cover monthly expenses.
`
`76.
`
`Even after the projections were proven inaccurate, Ginsburg and Riverdale as his agent
`
`continued to represent the inaccurate projections to fraudulently lull the Plaintiffs and lure new
`
`investors in the style of a Ponzi scheme. In order to continue the Ponzi scheme, they used new
`
`investors’ money to pay off the prior investors’ expenses.
`
`77.
`
`Then, the fraud continued with Ginsburg, Langer, GLS, and Green Apple’s gross
`
`mismanagement, which was schematically underfunded.
`
`78.
`
`Ginsburg and Langer failed to hire an appropriate number of employees to ensure their
`
`obligations were satisfied including monitoring the drivers, attending to and maintaining the
`
`cabs, sending investors regular management reports and P&L statements, and responding to
`
`accumulating violations and judgment notices.
`
`79.
`
`Ginsburg and Langer also repeatedly misrepresented to the Plaintiffs the existence of
`
`drivers or whether operation on the vehicle was suspended for unpaid tickets.
`
`80. When confronted, Ginsburg and Langer deflected blame onto each other. Ultimately,
`
`Ginsburg, the manager of the business fired Langer for alleged incompetence in April 2016.
`
`81. Ginsburg and Langer commingled hundreds of thousands of dollars of rental income of
`
`different investors (ultimately failing to pay any rental income for the months of January through
`
`March of 2016), misappropriated hundreds of thousands of dollars in tax money owed to
`
`investors that is now owed to the Taxi and Limousine Commission (“TLC”), misappropriated
`
`10
`
`12 of 28
`
`

`

`over a million dollars given by investors 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 investors in order to lull them into believing that their investments were
`
`performing properly.
`
`82.
`
`Thus, while many investors were not paid (or underpaid) for weekly rental income, some
`
`investors, that were friendly with the Defendants, were paid irrespective of whether their
`
`vehicles were rented to active drivers.
`
`83. Meanwhile, the vehicles were diminishing in value and amassing fines, fees, and other
`
`costs and personal liability under the names and ownership of the investors.
`
`84.
`
`Even the automobile insurance policies for vehicles lapsed, leaving the investors,
`
`including the Plaintiffs, unknowingly at risk to various dangerous levels of liability.
`
`85.
`
`Despite Ginsburg’s and Langer’s repeated representations to the contrary, many investors
`
`failed to receive the $15,000.00 rebates, even though, for some, Ginsberg and Langer received
`
`the $15,000.00 rebates referable to their permits.
`
`86. Chrysler offered an additional $1,000.00 rebate per vehicle converted to wheelchair
`
`accessibility, but for vehicles purchased from FR Conversions, an entity in which Ginsburg had a
`
`financial interest (and which Ginsburg recommended), the rebate was given directly to FR
`
`Conversions. Many investors, including Plaintiffs, were not informed by Ginsburg of the
`
`existence of this rebate, to allow Ginsburg to further profit from the scheme.
`
`87.
`
`Despite Ginsburg and Langer’s repeated representations to the contrary, many investors
`
`failed to receive the $10,000 tax credits.
`
`88.
`
`Despite Ginsburg, Riverdale, and Langer’s repeated representations to the contrary, many
`
`11
`
`13 of 28
`
`

`

`investors failed to receive transfer of the Boro Taxi permit from the original permit-holder
`
`(which Ginsburg repeatedly stated would be an automatic transfer that he would facilitate and
`
`insure).
`
`89.
`
`The Plaintiffs suffered and continue to suffer significant financial damages from the
`
`defendants’ scheme.
`
`90.
`
`91.
`
`Ginsburg and Langer wrongfully profited from their scheme.
`
`In sum, Ginsburg, Riverdale, and Langer intentionally misrepresented material facts to
`
`the investors, including the Plaintiffs, about their potential investment and misrepresented
`
`material facts to continue the operation, as they collected salaries, took a series of undisclosed
`
`fees (including kickbacks from third party contracts), bleeding these Plaintiffs and their
`
`corporations, misappropriating funds, as they slowly abandoned managing the decaying
`
`neglected enterprise.
`
`FACTS
`
`92.
`
`The following Plaintiff companies were purchasers of permits in these transactions: Pan
`
`Transport, LLC, Remmi Services, LLC, Greenish, LLC, Dads Green, LLC, NP Green, LLC, RH
`
`Green, LLC, Bambah Gamba Corp., AFFW Fleet I, LLC, RSAAC Fleet, LLC, Creask Fleet,
`
`LLC, NLK Fleet, LLC, BSDGee Fleet, LLC, Geegee Fleet, LLC, Green Medallion One, LLC,
`
`YCD 1760, LLC, TP Green, LLC, 50P, LLC, 307P, LLC, Gorn, LLC, MM MMGT, LLC, SN
`
`S&N, LLC, SS N&S, LLC, YM 1875, LLC, SC BSD, LLC, All Boro Transit, BALR
`
`Enterprises, LLC, MKGT, LLC, 17B, LLC, Munit, LLC, RJ Capital, LLC, Powder Bag, LLC,
`
`Sam Express, LLC, and Sahaili Partners, LLC.
`
`93.
`
`The following Plaintiff individuals were principal investors and represent principal
`
`12
`
`14 of 28
`
`

`

`investors in these transactions: Michael Greenfield, Mordy Itzkowitz, Yishai Hecht, Nathan
`
`Ungar, Asher Fried, Charles Klein, Chaim Neger, Yisroel Grafstein, Moshe Weil, Eli Segel,
`
`Jeffrey Edelman, Amarpreet Singh, Shmuel Laufer, and Murray Puderbeutel.
`
`94.
`
`Ginsburg, Langer, Riverdale, and others acting in concert with Ginsburg, falsely
`
`represented to the Plaintiffs that each vehicle would receive as much as $600 per week as rental
`
`income from drivers operating the vehicle, and as much as $900 per week as rental income into
`
`the second year.
`
`95.
`
`Ginsburg, Langer, and others acting in concert with Ginsburg, falsely represented these
`
`income claims to subsequent potential investors even after it became apparent they could not
`
`find drivers for nearly that price.
`
`96.
`
`Ginsburg, and others acting in concert with Ginsburg, falsely represented to Plaintiffs
`
`Michael Greenfield, Mordy Itzkowitz, and Eli Segel, among others, that he had access to drivers
`
`ready to pay the weekly rental rates.
`
`97.
`
`Ginsburg, and others acting in concert with Ginsburg, falsely represented to Plaintiffs
`
`Mordy Itzkowitz, Yishai Hecht, Moshe Weil, and Yisroel Grafstein, among others, that existing
`
`investors were earning positive cash flow.
`
`98.
`
`Ginsburg, and others acting in concert with Ginsburg, neglected to disclose to Plaintiff
`
`Yisroel Grafstein, among others, that the taxi permits were being purchased from the secondary
`
`market and being resold at an exorbitant price.
`
`99.
`
`Ginsburg failed to disclose to Plaintiffs Michael Greenfield, Mordy Itzkowitz, Yishai
`
`Hecht, Asher Fried, Charles Klein, Yisroel Grafstein, Moshe Weil, Eli Segel, and Jeffrey
`
`Edelman, among others, of his separate personal financial interests in the procurement of
`
`13
`
`15 of 28
`
`

`

`automobile insurance.
`
`100. Ginsburg failed to disclose to Plaintiffs Yishai Hecht, Nathan Ungar, Chaim Neger,
`
`Yisroel Grafstein, and Eli Segel, among others, his separate personal financial interests in FR
`
`Conversions, which gave him a financial benefit for every vehicle that was equipped for
`
`wheelchair-accessibility.
`
`101. Ginsburg represented to Plaintiffs Mordy Itzkowitz, Nathan Ungar, Charles Klein, Eli
`
`Segel, and Chaim Neger, among others, that despite his contractual designation as a broker,
`
`Ginsburg would be involved in management activities to assure that the management company
`
`ran smoothly and the investors earned their promised rewards.
`
`102. Ginsburg thereafter falsely denied any involvement in management activities and placed
`
`all of the responsibility upon Langer.
`
`103. Then, in late March 2016, despite claiming no responsibility for management of the
`
`enterprise, Ginsburg informed Plaintiff Michael Greenfield that Ginsburg fired Langer.
`
`104. Plaintiffs paid between $10,000.00 to $17,500.00 for each of their Boro Taxi permits. In
`
`one to two years since the purchases, none of them have received the permit.
`
`105. Plaintiffs Michael Greenfield, Mordy Itzkowitz, Asher Fried, Charles Klein, Chaim
`
`Neger, Moshe Weil, and Eli Segel, among other Plaintiffs paid their investment funds to Mega
`
`Funding, owned by Ginsburg. Other Plaintiffs paid Ginsburg, Green Apple, GLS, Riverdale,
`
`Dale, Ryder, or Langer.
`
`106. Ginsburg, Riverdale, and Langer represented to each Plaintiff that each Plaintiff would
`
`receive a weekly sum of money for vehicle rental income. Plaintiffs Mordy Itzkowitz, Yishai
`
`Hecht, Chaim Neger, Moshe Weil, Yisroel Grafstein did not receive periodic income.
`
`14
`
`16 of 28
`
`

`

`107. Ginsburg and Langer falsely represented to Plaintiffs Yishai Hecht, Moshe Weil, and
`
`Chaim Neger among other Plaintiffs that they would receive government rebates for attaching a
`
`permit to a wheelchair-accessible vehicle. They failed to receive such a rebate.
`
`108. Ginsburg and Langer falsely represented to Plaintiffs Mordy Itzkowitz, Yishai Hecht,
`
`Moshe Weil, and Chaim Neger, that they would receive tax credits for purchase of the green cab
`
`permits. They failed to receive such a credit.
`
`109. Many Plaintiffs received no income for many of the vehicles from any of the revenue
`
`streams represented by Ginsburg and Langer.
`
`110. None of the Plaintiffs received all of the types and amounts of revenue streams that were
`
`represented by Ginsburg and Langer.
`
`111. Defendant Langer falsely represented to Plaintiffs Nathan Ungar, Amarpreet Singh, and
`
`Moshe Weil among other Plaintiffs that their vehicles were rented, when they were not rented.
`
`112. Defendant Langer falsely represented to Plaintiffs Mordy Itzkowitz, Asher Fried, and
`
`Chaim Neger among other Plaintiffs that he procured insurance for their vehicles, when no
`
`insurance was in effect.
`
`113. Defendant Langer falsely represented to Plaintiffs Michael Greenfield, Yishai Hecht,
`
`Yisroel Grafstein, Eli Segel, Asher Fried, Charles Klein, and Mordy Itzkowitz that Green Apple
`
`and GLS was promptly tending to violations, tickets, and citations. Many such citations went
`
`untended for months (and many are currently unattended).
`
`114. Defendant Langer falsely represented to Plaintiffs Chaim Neger and Yishai Hecht among
`
`other Plaintiffs that their vehicles were transformed into green cabs, when they were not.
`
`115. Defendant Langer falsely represented to Plaintiff Mordy Itzkowitz and Yishai Hecht that
`
`15
`
`17 of 28
`
`

`

`he had made payments for his vehicles, when such payments had not been made. Langer even
`
`produced to a false (doctored) receipt regarding payments for his vehicle.
`
`116. The vehicles of Plaintiffs Mordy Itzkowitz, Asher Fried, Yishai Hecht, Charles Klein,
`
`Chaim Neger, Moshe Weil, Yisroel Grafstein, and Eli Segel were inactive.
`
`117. Each Plaintiff paid many tens of thousands of dollars to purchase the vehicle, thousands
`
`of dollars transforming the vehicles into a green cab, and thousands of dollars making the
`
`vehicles wheelchair-accessible. Yet, several Plaintiffs currently do not know where their vehicles
`
`are being stored or whether vital payments are being made (such as insurance) because of the
`
`misrepresentations, fraud, and mismanagement of Ginsburg, and Langer, GLS, and Green Apple.
`
`118. Plaintiffs have continuing obligations and/or out-of-pocket payments for the vehicles,
`
`many of which are languishing and declining in value.
`
`AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
`(Racketeering)
`
`119. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 118 above,
`
`inclusive, with the same force and effect as if set forth at length herein.
`
`120. Defendants A.J. Ginsburg, Mega Funding, LLC, Green Apple Cab Company, GLS
`
`Transit, Inc., Matt Swerdloff, Ryder Partners, LLC, and Judah Langer (the “Defendants”) were a
`
`group of individuals associated in fact (the “Enterprise”) engaged in and whose activities affect
`
`interstate commerce. The individual and corporate Defendants are employed by or associated
`
`with the Enterprise.
`
`121. The Defendants agreed to and did conduct and participate in the conduct of the
`
`Enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity and for the unlawful purpose of
`
`intentionally defrauding the Plaintiffs. Specifically: Defendants made fraudulent intentional
`
`16
`
`18 of 28
`
`

`

`misrepresentations of material facts directly to Plaintiffs that are set out at paragraphs 91 through
`
`118, inclusive, above, in order to induce the Plaintiffs to rely on such statements, which the
`
`Plaintiffs justifiably did rely upon.
`
`122. Pursuant to and in furtherance of their fraudulent scheme, Defendants committed
`
`multiple related acts of wire fraud, including but not limited to:
`
`a.
`
`On or about June 16, 2014, Plaintiff Mordy Itzkowitz (“Itzkowitz”) called from Maryland
`
`to Ginsburg in New York wherein Ginsburg lured Itzkowitz into his scheme.
`
`b.
`
`On or about June 24, 2014, Itzkowitz wired funds from Maryland to Mega Funding in
`
`New York.
`
`c.
`
`On or about March 15, 2016, Itzkowitz in Maryland called

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