`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