FAMILY COURT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK

COUNTY OF KINGS
_____________________________________________________
INDEX NO.
ELENA SVENSON, F-28901-08/10B
Petitioner,

-against- VERIFIED ANSWER

JURY TRIAL
MICHAEL KRICHEVSKY, DEMANDED
Respondent.
_____________________________________________________

COUNSELORS:

The respondent MICHAEL KRICHEVSKY, Pro Se, as and for his Verified Answer to

the Petition to Hold Respondent in Contempt of Court for not paying money he does not have,

thereby not complying with court’s order, respectfully alleges:

1. Denies allegations contained in paragraph numbered 2 and 5 of the Petition.

2. Lacks information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or

falsity of the allegations contained in paragraph numbered 6, 7, 8 of the Petition.

3. Admits each allegation contained in paragraph numbered 1, 3, and 4, of the

Petition.

AS AND FOR A FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE – FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF

ACTION UPON WHICH RELIEVE CAN BE SOUGHT (Out of fraud no action
arises.)
4. The Petition in its entirety fails to particularly state wrongdoing by respondent

that caused petitioner to complain. Petitioner and her lawyer, Yonatan Levoritz

(“Levoritz”), are well aware that this court order obtained by perjury and fraud upon the

court, and therefore void.

5. Petitioner and her lawyer are well aware that respondent filed petition for

modification of child support order because actions of petitioner and her lawyer caused

respondent to lose his job.

6. During the course of this case, Levoritz and petitioner committed witness and

evidence tampering by, among other actions, telling the key witness, Larissa Gabber, not

to appear at hearing on January 6, 2010 and by Levoritz testifying during said hearing

that Larissa Gabber was not personally served and was unavailable at that time. Prior to

her service with subpoena, Respondent personally spoke with her on the phone and knew

she was in New York. Their crime resulted in erroneous and unjust order damaging

respondent.
7. During the course of this case, Levoritz and petitioner committed evidence

spoliation through theft and withholding of respondent’s personal records and computer

storage media.
8. During the course of this case Levoritz was in contempt of court by disobeying

court’s order not to serve subpoenas on third parties, refusing to depose respondent, and

refusing to produce petitioner for court ordered deposition.

9. During the course of this case lawyer Levoritz knowingly and intentionally on

several occasions misquoted the court and respondent in order to confuse the court.
10. During the course of this case, Levoritz and petitioner filed fraudulent,

false and fictitious financial disclosure affidavits in Family Court clerk’s office under

penalty of perjury.
11. During the course of this case petitioner committed perjury and fraud

upon the court by falsely filing family offence petition under penalty of perjury

damaging respondent.
12. During the course of this case petitioner committed perjury by lying under

oath during hearing.

13. During the course of this case, Levoritz committed perjury by lying to the court

during hearing.
14. During the course of this case, Levoritz committed numerous professional

misconducts in violation of Rules of Professional Conduct damaging respondent.

 AS AND FOR A SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE – ASUMTION OF RISC (He

who suffers a damage by his own fault, has no right to

complain.)
15. That the damages alleged by the petitioner were sustained while Levoritz

and she were involved in harassment and slander activity of respondent’s employer,

which was entered into with full knowledge of the potential hazard thereof. That the

inherent risk incident to such activity, and that such risk and any damages flowing

therefrom were planned, desired, expected and assumed upon entering into and

continuing such activity.

16. Such activities started on October 27, 2008 when petitioner brought

parties’ son David at respondent’s work and together demanded that employer fired him.

AS AND FOR A THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE – LEGAL MALPRACTICE

(Mistakes, neglect, or misconducts are not to be regarded as

accidents.)
16 . That if the petitioner sustained any damages as alleged, such damages were

caused, in whole or part, by petitioner's lawyer professional negligence.

AS AND FOR A FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE - MALICIOUS PROSECUTION (If

one falsely accuses another of a crime, the punishment due to

that crime should be inflicted upon the perjured informer)
17 . Petitioner’s lawyer, Levoritz, acting in capacity of “contractual assassin”

slandered respondent on the record calling respondent “owner of the law firm, quasi

partner, and implied that he is tax evader”.

18 . Levoritz did not perform his due diligence as a lawyer by attempting to depose

respondent, his employer or any witness in order to get any knowledge to his allegations.

19 . Levoritz did not present any evidence to support his allegations.

20 . Levoritz published to the court and the record that respondent involved in

criminal activity “by bringing clients to the lawyer (his employer) for reward” in an
 attempt to bias the court against respondent.
21 . Levoritz, acting as unsworn witness, called respondent’s employer on the record

“front” for respondent’s illegal activities as if he knew it for a fact.

22 . Such allegations prejudiced and biased court against respondent, resulting in

erroneous and unfair order against respondent, making him unable to comply with it.
23 . In findings of fact, the court agreed with Levoritz that relationship between

respondent and his employer is illegal.

24 . That findings of fact put respondent’s employer at crossroad where maxim of law

“he who does not deny, admits” caused him to fire respondent to show that respondent is

not the owner of his firm.

AS AND FOR A FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE – ESTOPPEL (One cannot be

agent and patient, in the same matter.)

25 . Due to above mentioned allegations regarding respondent’s illegal activities,

whether it is true or not, petitioner must be estopped from accusing respondent that he

quit such activities, whether voluntarily or not, as he must, if they illegal..

26 . Petitioner must be estopped from demanding that respondent starts over doing

whatever petitioner‘s lawyer, on the record, accused respondent of doing in order to earn

150,000 a year. Such demand equals to petitioner is asking the court to order respondent

that he “goes back on the corner to sell drugs” in order to make $150.000 a year to

support her and parties’ child lifestyle, as they used to enjoy in 2005 when “respondent

used to sell drugs”.

27 . If the court finds respondent in contempt of its order and imputes him $150.000 a

year income because he has earnings capacity, it would equal to “the court sentencing

him in jail for rape because, as a man, he has capacity to rape”.

AS AND FOR A FIRST COUNTERCLAIM - CONTRIBUTION

28 . Respondent incorporates by reference all his prior allegations and deems that

they repeated here and in other counterclaims where appropriate.

29 . Respondent, as the natural guardian of his son David Svenson, declares that

Levoritz during his “zealous” representation of petitioner in this case and in the name of

the best interests of the child committed legal malpractice causing respondent to lose his

job.
30 . Petitioner should file a legal malpractice claim against Levoritz.

31 . Now that respondent is unable to fully comply with this order, Levoritz or his

malpractice insurance carrier must contribute to monthly child support obligation

Levoritz “won”, but made respondent unemployed.

32 . Petitioner must demand a refund for such representation as it “bared no fruit” and

did not benefit my son David, unless such representation was “just what the petitioner

ordered”.
33 . The sum of such contribution shall be determined at trial.

AS AND FOR A SECOND COUNTERCLAIM - PERJURY

34 . New York criminal statutes relating to false filings and perjury exist to protect

people and the judiciary from fraud.

35 . §210.05 states: A person is guilty of perjury in the third degree when he swears

falsely.

36 . §210.35 states: A person is guilty of making an apparently sworn false statement

in the second degree when (a) he subscribes a written instrument knowing that it contains

a statement which is in fact false and which he does not believe to be true, and (b) he

intends or believes that such instrument will be uttered or delivered with a jurat affixed

thereto, and (c) such instrument is uttered or delivered with a jurat affixed thereto.

33. §175.35 states: A person is guilty of offering a false instrument for filing in the

first degree when, knowing that a written instrument contains a false statement or false

information, and with intent to defraud, inter alia, public authority ..., he offers or presents it
to a public office, public servant with the knowledge or belief that it will be filed with,

registered or recorded in or otherwise become a part of the records of such public office,

public servant, public authority …

34.§175.30 States: A person is guilty of offering a false instrument for filing in the second

degree when, knowing that a written instrument contains a false statement or false

information, he offers or presents it to a public office or public servant with the

knowledge or belief that it will be filed with, registered or recorded in or otherwise

become a part of the records of such public office or public servant.

35. Petitioner’s family offence petition, financial disclosure affidavits and sworn

testimony during hearings are full of fraudulent statements and misleading information

which respondent intends to prove during jury trial.

AS AND FOR A THIRD COUNTERCLAIM - CONSPIRACY

36. The Child Support proceeding is a conspiracy between petitioner and Levoritz to

unlawfully extract money from respondent.

37. Respondent is informed and verily believes that Support Magistrate John Fasone

is biased against men, and against respondent particularly, based on Levoritz’ slander and

based on respondent’s national origin.

38. Respondent is informed and verily believes that in this case he is “labeled as

moneyed party” by the court and Levoritz knew and was confident that his legal fees will be

awarded against respondent no matter what.

39. Respondent believes in his logic, and facts confirm that, Levoritz and petitioner

having this knowledge fed the fraud and perjury into this case.
 40. Respondent believes, that Levoritz knew and was confident that the court would

look the other way when it comes to his and petitioner’s witness and evidence tampering,

fraud and perjury as court is eager to “nail” respondent (see paragraph 37).

41. Respondent is confident that petitioner did not really pay Levoritz as much as

$300 per hour in cash to conduct frivolous motion practice and to serve pointless bank

subpoenas without Levoritz’ assurance that respondent will pay her for been harassed

and churning of legal fees.

42. Petitioner and Levoritz knew where respondent kept money as she stole all his

personal records (going back to 2003), including latest bank and credit cards statements,

and there was no point to serve subpoenas on every bank in New York.

WHEREFORE, Respondent prays that he will be judged by the Jury and Court the way

respondent would be judged by the Lord, and respectfully moves this court to grant the

following reliefs: a) judgment dismissing the petition with prejudice, b) declaratory

judgment that this child support order is null and void due to perjury and fraud upon the

court, c) court’s referral to appropriate authorities for sanctions of petitioner’s and Levoritz’

criminal conducts, d) granting respondent's other counterclaims, e) granting respondent the

costs and disbursements of this action and other actions in connection with petitioner’s child

support petition; and for such other and further relief as Interest of Justice and to this

Court may seem just and proper.

Dated: Brooklyn, New York

September 21, 2010
______________________________
Michael Krichevsky, Pro Se
4221 Atlantic Ave
Brooklyn, NY 11224
FAMILY COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF KINGS
_____________________________________________________
DOCKET NO.
ELENA SVENSON, F-28901-08/10B
Petitioner,

-against- INDIVIDUAL
VERIFICATION
MICHAEL KRICHEVSKY,
Respondent.
_____________________________________________________

STATE OF NEW YORK)

) ss.:
COUNTY OF KINGS )

MICHAEL KRICHEVSKY, being duly sworn under penalty of perjury deposes and says:

I have prepared the foregoing Verified Answer and know the contents thereof and the same is true to the
best of my knowledge, except as to those matters herein stated to be alleged upon information and belief and
that as to those matters, I believe them to be true.

Dated: Brooklyn, New York

September 21, 2010

x_____________________________
MICHAEL KRICHEVSKY, Pro Se
FAMILY COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF KINGS
_____________________________________________________ INDEX NO.
F-28901-08/10B
ELENA SVENSON,
Petitioner,
AFFIDAVIT OF
-against- PERSONAL SERVICE

MICHAEL KRICHEVSKY,
Respondent.
_____________________________________________________
STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF KINGS
Semyon Furmanov, being duly sworn, says:
1. I am not a party to the action; I reside in Brooklyn, and I am over 18 years of age.

2. On the 23 day of September, 2010, at 5:05 pm, I personally served the within Verified Answer and
Interrogatories by delivering true copies thereof and handing them to Victor Katkalov, known to me
to be employee of petitioner’s lawyer at the address set forth below: LAW OFFICE OF YONATAN
LEVORITZ, PC, 2306 Coney Island Ave, 2nd Fl., Brooklyn, New York 11223

3. The person so served is described as follows:

Sex: M
Height: 5”9
Weight: 180lb
Age: 40
Skin color: white
Hair color: bold
Eye color:
4. I am not a licensed process server and have served fewer than five processes this year.

__________________________

SEMYON FURMANOV

Sworn to before me this

14 thy day of October, 2010

________________________

NOTARY PABLIC

2
FAMILY COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF KINGS
DOCKET No. F-28901-08

-----------------------------------------------------------------

ELENA SVENSON,
Petitioner,

-against-

MICHAEL KRICHEVSKY,
Respondent,

-----------------------------------------------------------------

___________________________________________________

RESPONDENT’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES

___________________________________________________

The documents herein are hereby certified pursuant to 25 NYCRR 130-1.1-A

By: ________________________________

AGNOWLEGMENT OF IN-HAND SERVICE:

In-Hand Service of the within document is hereby acknowledged on this _____ day of ____________ 2010, at
_________ am/pm