Preview
FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 04/25/2024 04:08 PM INDEX NO. 035608/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 80 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/25/2024
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF ROCKLAND
------------------------------------------------------------------------x
LAVERN McKENZIE, KAREN OCHIENG,
SASHA VILLALONA, VALRIE BROUGHTON,
LORY JEROME, SHAYNA McKENZIE, BYA BAH,
CINDY ROBINSON, YVETTE DUNCAN, and
SHERNA STEWART,
Plaintiff, Index No.035608/2023
-against- Notice of Appeal
KIM CHAMPION, STANLEY LORMESTIL,
DEBORAH FRANCIS, ZAKIYYAH SALEEM,
RACHEL BELIZAIRE, MARCIA TAYLOR,
KAREFUL AND KAREFREE TRAINING SCHOOL IN
NEW YORK CITY INC.,
Defendants.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------x
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that Co-Defendants Kim Champion, Rachel Belizaire, Kareful
And Karefree Training School In New York City Inc. hereby appeal from that part of the Decision
& Order of the Hon. Keith J. Cornell, A.J.S.C., dated April 4, 2024 and entered in The Office of
the Clerk of the within Court on April 4, 2024 which denied the said Co-Defendants’ motion to
dismiss the Plaintiffs’ First, Second, and Fourth Causes of Action. A copy of which is attached
hereto at EXHIBIT A.
Dated: New York, New York
April 25, 2024
____________________________
Peter Sverd, Esq.
The Law Offices of Peter Sverd, PLLC
225 Broadway, Ste 613
New York, NY 10007
Tel.: (646) 751-8743
psverd@sverdlawfirm.com
To: All parties via NYSCEF
1 of 14
FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 04/25/2024 04:08 PM INDEX NO. 035608/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 80 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/25/2024
EXHIBIT A
2 of 14
FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 04/25/2024
04/04/2024 04:08
03:19 PM INDEX NO. 035608/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 80
72 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/25/2024
04/04/2024
T]]E STATE OF NEW YORK
STJPREME COURT OF
COUNTY OF ROCKLAND
x
LAVERNE McKENZIE, KAREN OCHIENG,
SASHA VILLALONA, VALRIE BROUGHTON,
LORY JEROME, SHAYNA McKENZIE, BYA BAH, DECISION & ORDER
CINDY ROBINSON, YVETTE DUNCAN and Index # 035608/2023
SHERNAT STEWART, Mot. Seq. No. 1
Plaintiffs,
-against-
KIM CHAMPION, STANLEY LORMESTIL,
DEBORAH FRANCIS, ZAKIYYAH SALEEM,
RACHEL BELIZAIRE, MARCIA TAYLOR and
KAREFUL AND KAREFREE TRAINING SCHOOL
IN NEW YORK CITY, INC..
Defendants.
---------------------------x
KEITH J. CORNELL, A.J.S.C.
Before the Court is a pre-answer motion filed by Defendants, Kim Champion, Rachel
Belizaire and Karefree Training School in New York City, to dismiss the complaint pursuant to
CPLR $$3211(aX1) and (7) and granting such other and further reliefas the Court deems proper.
The Court considered the following papers electronically filed on NYSCEF in making its
decision:
Motion Sequence 1: NYSCEF Doqs. 8-42
Notice of Motion, Supporting Affidavit with Exhibits A-J; Affirmation with Exhibit A
Memorandum of Law in Support;
Memorandum of Law in Opposition, Affidavits in Opposition, Exhibits 1-10;
Memorandum ofLaw in Further Support.
Plaintiffs bring this action asserting that defendants devised a scheme to run a fraudulent
nursing school located in Brooklyn, New York. Defendants represented that upon completion of
the program plaintifls would receive a degree in nursing and be eligible to take the nursing boards
to become a registered nurse. The complaint asserts four causes ol action (indicated as Count I,
1,
31 of
of 14
7
FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 04/25/2024
04/04/2024 04:08
03:19 PM INDEX NO. 035608/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 80
72 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/25/2024
04/04/2024
Count II, Count III and Count IV in the complaint) sounding in fraud, aiding and abetting fraud,
Violations of RICO, 18 USC 1962 and unjust enrichment.
Defendants argue that the causes of action are barred by documentary evidence, namely
the Review Course Student Enrollment Agreement signed by each plaintiff'. Specifically, the
language on the second page states:
**ltis further understood and agreed upon that said participation in Kareful
and Karefree Training School, Inc. is not to be construed as an admission to a
nursing program and/or nursing school. Kareful and Karefree Training School Inc,
DOES NOT operate a credit bearing institution as authorized by Title VIII in New
York State.
Plaintiffs argue that the enrollment forms do not utterly refute the plaintiffs' claims as they
do not directly contradict the representations made to the plaintiffs. Further, plaintilfs argue the
forms are ambiguous and unintelligible. Such documentary evidence is insufficient to conclusively
establish a defense as a matter of [aw.
Argument
"On a pre-answer motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 321l, the pleading is to be afforded
a liberal construction and the plaintiffs allegations are accepted as true and accorded the benefit
olevery possible favorable inference" (Barker v. Amorini, l2l A.D.3d 823,824 [2d Dept 2014]
[intemal quotation marks and citation omitted]). However, on a motion to dismiss pursuant to
CPLR 321l(a)(7), "bare legal conclusions are not presumed to be true" (Khan v. MMCA Lease.
Ltd.,l00 A.D.3d 833, 833 [2d Dept 2012); see Goel v. Ramachandran,l l 1 A.D.3d 783,791-792
[2d Dept 2013]). Moreover, where evidentiary material is submitted and considered on a motion
to dismiss a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), and the motion is not converted into one for
summary judgment, the question becomes whether the plaintiff has a cause of action, not whether
the plaintiff has stated one and, unless it has been shown that a material fact as claimed bv the
2
42 of
of 14
7
FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 04/25/2024
04/04/2024 04:08
03:19 PM INDEX NO. 035608/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 80
72 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/25/2024
04/04/2024
plaintilf to be one is not a fact at all and unless it can be said that no significant dispute exists
regarding it, dismissal should not eventuate (see Cuggenheimer v. Ginzburg,43 N.Y.2d268,274-
27 5 |977); Fishberger v. Voss, 57 A.D.3d 627 ,628 [2d Dept 2008]). To prevail on a motion to
dismiss a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(l), the documentary evidence which forms the
basis of the delense must be such that it resolves all factual issues as a matter ol law, and
conclusively disposes of the plaintiffs claim (see Goshen v. Mutual Life lns. Co. o/N. X,98 N.Y.2d
314.326 12002); Parekh v. Cain, 96 A.D.3d 812, 815, 948 N.Y.S.2d 72 [2dDept2012]).
"A motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the
action is baned by documentary evidence may be granted only where the documentary evidence
utterly refutes the plaintiffs factual allegations, thereby conclusively establishing a defense as a
matter of law" ( Mawere v. Landau,l30 A.D.3d 986, 987 l2dDept2015l [intemal quotation marks
omittedl; see Goshen v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. of N.Y.,98 N.Y.2d 314,326 [2002]). If the evidence
submitted in support of the motion is not "documentary," the motion must be denied (CPLR
321l[a][]; see Prott v. Lewin & Baglio, LLP, 150 A.D.3d 908 [2d Dept 20,l7]). To constitute
documentary evidence, the evidence must be "unambiguous, authentic, and undeniable" (Granada
Condominium lll Assn. v. Palomino, TS A.D.3d 996,997 [2d Dept 2010]), such asjudicial records
and documents reflecting out-of-court transactions such as mortgages, deeds, contracts, and any
other papers, the contents of which are essentially undeniable (see Prott v. Ley,in & Baglio, LL,
supra).
Here. while the authenticity of the enrollment forms is not disputed by plaintiffs, the
documentary evidence lails to utterly refute the plaintiff's t'actual atlegations, thereby failing to
conclusively establish a defense as a matter of law. The enrollment lorm is ambiguous as it
references information discussed during orientation without any specificity, especially given
that
3
53 of
of 14
7
FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 04/25/2024
04/04/2024 04:08
03:19 PM INDEX NO. 035608/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 80
72 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/25/2024
04/04/2024
it is alleged that the fraudulent representations were made during orientation. It also relers to
Education Law and Commissioners' Regulations without citing any specific statutes, codes, or
regulations. Further, the enrollment form is contradictory in that the first thing it asks the applicant
is to selecl a course ofeither LPN (Licensed Practical Nurse) or RN (Registered Nurse) and again
on the second page right before the language which seeks to disclaim that the program is a nursing
program. Such disclaimer is the first sentence of a paragraph marked as a footnote and in different
font than the rest ofthe iorm that makes it appear inconsequential - the font is smaller and not in
bold. It is also written in lowercase while the rest ofthe paragraph is written in all caps. Finally, it
does not directly contradict the alleged representations made to the plaintiffs, i.e. that Karelree is
not affiliated with Kaiser University in Florida, that plaintiffs will not obtain a degree in nursing
or that plaintiffs will not be eligible to take the nursing examinations. The documentary evidence
relied upon by the defendants does not resolve all factual issues as a matter ol law as to the first,
second and lourth causes of action (Count I, Count II and Count IV) (see Fontanelta v Doe,73
AD3d 78 [2d Dept 2010]).
Plaintiffs third cause of action (Count III) alleges that the defendants, as individuals and
entities, constitute an enterprise organized with a common scheme for the fraudulent purpose to
defraud them through a continuous pattern olracketeering activities, and to thereby obtain money
by fraud. Plaintiffs assert that the delendants perpetrated this common plan and scheme by running
a fraudulent nursing school and charging tuition for a fraudulent degree. Plaintiffs allege that they
relied on the misleading information provided by defendants and the classes they attended to pay
the tuition.
Dismissal of the RICO cause of action pursuant to cpLR 3211(a)(7) is warranted only
where the facts alleged, even if accepted as true, fail to establish that the plaintiff has a cause ol
4
64 of
of 14
7
FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 04/25/2024
04/04/2024 04:08
03:19 PM INDEX NO. 035608/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 80
72 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/25/2024
04/04/2024
action (see Noble v. Graham, S A.D.3d 641,642 [2004]). However, since "[t]he mere assertion of
a RICO claim ... has an almost inevitable stigmatizing effect on those named as def'endants ...
courts should strive to flush out frivolous RICO allegations at an early stage of the litigation"
(Figueroa Ruiz v. Alegria,896 F.2d 645, 650 [1st Cir1990]; see also Peralta v. Figueroa, 17
Misc.3d 1128[A],2007 N.Y. Slip Op 52184[U], [Sup Ct, Kings County 2007]). In Count III oithe
complaint, plaintiffs do not plead separately its alleged violations of 18 USC $$ 1962(b) and (c)
but combines these alleged violations in this single cause ofaction.
In order for plaintiff to sufficiently show that the RICO defendants violated l8 USC Q
1962(b), it must plead that plaintiffs' injury proximately resulted from the RICO defendants'
"acquisition or maintenance of an interest in or control of an enterprise" (Medgar Evers Houses
Tenants Assn. v. Medgar Evers Houses Associales, L.P.,25 F Supp 2d 116, 124 [ED N.Y.1998],
alfd201 F.3d430 l2dCir1999l,certdenied529 U.S. I130[2000]).Under18USC$ 1962(b),in
contrast to l8 USC $ 1962(c), "[t]he enterprise' refened to ... is ... something acquired through the
use of illegal activities or by money obtained from illegal activities" (Nalional Organization for
W'omen, Inc. v. Scheidler,510 U.S. 249,259 [994]). Thus, the "enterprise" in l8 USC $ 1962(b)
is not the racketeering enterprise, but contemplates investment in some other legitimate business,
and "[t]he acquisition or maintenance injury must be separate and apart from the injury suffered
as a result of the predicate acts of racketeering" (Greenstone/Fontana Corp. v. Feldstein,20
Misc.3d 11 l8 [A], 2008 N.Y. Slip Op 51387[U], [Sup Ct, Nassau County 2008], mod on rearg on
other grounds 2008 N.Y. slip op 33396[u] [sup ct Nassau county 2008), quoting Tuscano v.
Tuscano,403 F Supp 2d 214,228 [ED N.Y.2005]). Since there is no independent enterprise alleged
to have been invested in or acquired by the RICO defendants, and, thus, no .,acquisition injury,'
5
75 of
of 14
7
FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 04/25/2024
04/04/2024 04:08
03:19 PM INDEX NO. 035608/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 80
72 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/25/2024
04/04/2024
has been alleged by plaintiffs, plaintiffs have also failed to state a cause ofaction under 18 U.S.C.
$ 1962(b). Consequently, this claim must be dismissed (see CPLR 3211 [a][7]).
To establish a cause of action under I 8 USC $ 1962(c), "a plaintiff must show that [it] was
injured by defendants' (1) conduct (2) of an enterprise (3) through a pattem (4) of racketeering
activity" (Azrielli v. Cohen Lqw Oflices,2l F.3d 512, 520 [2d Cir 1994] [intemal quotation marks
and citation omittedl). Unlike the culpable activities described in sections 1962(a) and (b), under
subsection (c), there is no requirement that a defendant have infiltrated or acquired an otherwise
legitimate business independent of the RICO enterprise itself. However, the elements of the
offense must be sufficiently pleaded.
White plaintiffs plead that the defendants' enterprise is primarily engaged in rackeleering
activity and that the predicate acts are inherently unlawful since they involve mail and wire fraud,
the business ofthe alleged enterprise cannot be characterized as primarily or inherently unlawful.
The allegations do not support plaintiffs' contention that the business was to engage in mail fraud
or wire fiaud. Rather, plaintiffs' allegations show only that there were misrepresentations made
which plaintiffs relied upon to their detriment amounting to fraud but not rising to the level ofan
unlawful business. Nor does the alleged behavior itself demonstrate that defendants' otherwise
legitimate business regularly operates in such manner. "Mere common-law fraud does not
constitute racketeering activity for RICO purposes" (Cofacredit, 5.A., 187 F.3d at 242; see also 18
usc $ le6ltll ).
The Court has considered the remainder of the parties' arguments and deemed them to be
without merit.
Therefore, for the reasons stated above, it is hereby
6
86 of
of 14
7
FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 04/25/2024
04/04/2024 04:08
03:19 PM INDEX NO. 035608/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 80
72 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/25/2024
04/04/2024
ORDERED that the motion by defendants, Kim Champion, Belizaire Marcia and Karefree
1'raining School in New York City, to dismiss the complaint is DENIED except that it is
GRANTED as to plaintifft' third cause of action for violation ol 18 USC { 1962; and it is further
ORDERED that plaintiffs' third cause of action is dismissed; and it is further
ORDERED that plaintiflf-s shall have twenty days fiom the date herein to serve and file an
Amended Complaint correcting what appears to be an inadvertent error of deleting paragraphs
numbered 35-59. Service upon defendants, Kim Champion, Zakiyyah Saleem, Rachel Belizaire
and Kareful and Karefree Training School in New York City, shall be effectuated by uploading
the Amended Complaint into NYSCEF; and it is lurther
ORDERED that defendants serve and file their answer to plaintiffs' Amended Complaint
on or before May 22,2024.
This constitutes the decision and order of this Cou( on Motion 1.
Dated: New City. New York
Aptll Uf2O24
1
rne II, A.J.S.C.
TO: All parties via NYSCEF
7
97 of
of 14
7
FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 04/25/2024 04:08 PM INDEX NO. 035608/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 80 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/25/2024
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF ROCKLAND
------------------------------------------------------------------------x
LAVERN McKENZIE, KAREN OCHIENG,
SASHA VILLALONA, VALRIE BROUGHTON,
LORY JEROME, SHAYNA McKENZIE, BYA BAH,
CINDY ROBINSON, YVETTE DUNCAN, and
SHERNA STEWART,
Plaintiff, Index No.035608/2023
-against-
KIM CHAMPION, STANLEY LORMESTIL,
DEBORAH FRANCIS, ZAKIYYAH SALEEM,
RACHEL BELIZAIRE, MARCIA TAYLOR,
KAREFUL AND KAREFREE TRAINING SCHOOL IN
NEW YORK CITY INC.,
Defendants.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------x
NOTICE OF APPEAL
The Law Offices of Peter Sverd, PLLC
225 Broadway, Ste. 613
New York, New York 10007
(646) 751-8743
To: Service of a copy of the within
is hereby admitted.
Signature (Rule 130-1.1-a)
Dated:_______________ , ____
_____________________
Peter Sverd, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF PETER SVERD, PLLC
10 of 14
FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 04/25/2024 04:08 PM INDEX NO. 035608/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 80 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/25/2024
Supreme Court of the State of New York
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
Informational Statement (Pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1250.3 [a]) - Civil
Case Title: Set forth the title of the case as it appears on the summons, notice of petition or order to For Court of Original Instance
show cause by which the matter was or is to be commenced, or as amended.
LAVERN McKENZIE, KAREN OCHIENG, SASHA VILLALONA, VALRIE BROUGHTON,
LORY JEROME, SHAYNA McKENZIE, BYA BAH, CINDY ROBINSON, YVETTE
DUNCAN, and SHERNA STEWART
Date Notice of Appeal Filed
- against -
KIM CHAMPION, STANLEY LORMESTIL, DEBORAH FRANCIS, ZAKIYYAH SALEEM,
RACHEL BELIZAIRE, MARCIA TAYLOR, KAREFUL AND KAREFREE TRAINING SCHOOL For Appellate Division
IN NEW YORK CITY INC
Case Type Filing Type
☐ Civil Action ☐ CPLR article 78 Proceeding ☐ Appeal ☐ Transferred Proceeding
☐ CPLR article 75 Arbitration ☐ Special Proceeding Other ☐ Original Proceedings ☐ CPLR Article 78
Action Commenced under CPLR 214-g ☐ Habeas Corpus Proceeding ☐ CPLR Article 78 ☐ Executive Law § 298
☐ Eminent Domain ☐ CPLR 5704 Review
☐ Labor Law 220 or 220-b
☐ Public Officers Law § 36
☐ Real Property Tax Law § 1278
Nature of Suit: Check up to three of the following categories which best reflect the nature of the case.
☐ Administrative Review ☐ Business Relationships ☐ Commercial ☐ Contracts
☐ Declaratory Judgment ☐ Domestic Relations ☐ Election Law ☐ Estate Matters
☐ Family Court ☐ Mortgage Foreclosure ☐ Miscellaneous ☐ Prisoner Discipline & Parole
☐ Real Property ☐ Statutory ☐ Taxation ☐ Torts
(other than foreclosure)
Informational Statement - Civil
11 of 14
FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 04/25/2024 04:08 PM INDEX NO. 035608/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 80 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/25/2024
Appeal
Paper Appealed From (Check one only): If an appeal has been taken from more than one order or
judgment by the filing of this notice of appeal, please
indicate the below information for each such order or
judgment appealed from on a separate sheet of paper.
☐ Amended Decree ☐ Determination ☐ Order ☐ Resettled Order
☐ Amended Judgement ☐ Finding ☐ Order & Judgment ☐ Ruling
☐ Amended Order ☐ Interlocutory Decree ☐ Partial Decree ☐ Other (specify):
☐ Decision ☐ Interlocutory Judgment ☐ Resettled Decree
☐ Decree ☐ Judgment ☐ Resettled Judgment
Court: Supreme Court County: Rockland
Dated: 04/04/2024 Entered: 04/04/2024
Judge (name in full):Keith J. Cornell Index No.:035608/2013
Stage: ☐ Interlocutory ☐ Final ☐ Post-Final Trial: ☐ Yes ☐ No If Yes: ☐ Jury ☐ Non-Jury
Prior Unperfected Appeal and Related Case Information
Are any appeals arising in the same action or proceeding currently pending in the court? ☐ Yes ☐ No
If Yes, please set forth the Appellate Division Case Number assigned to each such appeal.
Where appropriate, indicate whether there is any related action or proceeding now in any court of this or any other
jurisdiction, and if so, the status of the case:
Original Proceeding
Commenced by: ☐ Order to Show Cause ☐ Notice of Petition ☐ Writ of Habeas Corpus Date Filed:
Statute authorizing commencement of proceeding in the Appellate Division:
Proceeding Transferred Pursuant to CPLR 7804(g)
Court: Choose Court County: Choose County
Judge (name in full): Order of Transfer Date:
CPLR 5704 Review of Ex Parte Order:
Court: Choose Court County: Choose County
Judge (name in full): Dated:
Description of Appeal, Proceeding or Application and Statement of Issues
Description: If an appeal, briefly describe the paper appealed from. If the appeal is from an order, specify the relief
requested and whether the motion was granted or denied. If an original proceeding commenced in this court or transferred
pursuant to CPLR 7804(g), briefly describe the object of proceeding. If an application under CPLR 5704, briefly describe the
nature of the ex parte order to be reviewed.
decision and order denying co-defendants' pre-answer motion to dismiss fraud claim on documentary
evidence.
Informational Statement - Civil
12 of 14
FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 04/25/2024 04:08 PM INDEX NO. 035608/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 80 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/25/2024
Issues: Specify the issues proposed to be raised on the appeal, proceeding, or application for CPLR 5704 review, the grounds
for reversal, or modification to be advanced and the specific relief sought on appeal.
Whether the trial court erred when it held the express disclaimer and disclosure provision contained in
the contract signed by the plaintiffs with the co-defendants, did not utterly refute the plaintiffs common
law fraud claims. Upon review the order should be reversed and the fraud claims dismissed
Party Information
Instructions: Fill in the name of each party to the action or proceeding, one name per line. If this form is to be filed for an
appeal, indicate the status of the party in the court of original instance and his, her, or its status in this court, if any. If this
form is to be filed for a proceeding commenced in this court, fill in only the party’s name and his, her, or its status in this
court.
No. Party Name Original Status Appellate Division Status
1 LAVERN McKENZIE Plaintiff Respondent
2 KAREN OCHIENG Plaintiff Respondent
3 SASHA VILLALONA Plaintiff Respondent
4 VALRIE BROUGHTON Plaintiff Respondent
5 LORY JEROME Plaintiff Respondent
6 SHAYNA McKENZIE Plaintiff Respondent
7 BYA BAH Plaintiff Respondent
8 CINDY ROBINSON Plaintiff Respondent
9 YVETTE DUNCAN Plaintiff Respondent
10 SHERNA STEWART Plaintiff Respondent
11 KIM CHAMPION Defendant Appellant
12 STANLEY LORMESTIL Defendant None
13 DEBORAH FRANCIS Defendant None
14 ZAKIYYAH SALEEM Defendant None
15 RACHEL BELIZAIRE Defendant Appellant
16 MARCIA TAYLOR Defendant None
17 KAREFUL AND KAREFREE TRAINING SCHOOLIN NEW YORK CITY, INC.. Defendant Appellant
18
19
20
Informational Statement - Civil
13 of 14
FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 04/25/2024 04:08 PM INDEX NO. 035608/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 80 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/25/2024
Attorney Information
Instructions: Fill in the names of the attorneys or firms for the respective parties. If this form is to be filed with the
notice of petition or order to show cause by which a special proceeding is to be commenced in the Appellate Division,
only the name of the attorney for the petitioner need be provided. In the event that a litigant represents herself or
himself, the box marked “Pro Se” must be checked and the appropriate information for that litigant must be supplied
in the spaces provided.
Attorney/Firm Name: Michael H Joseph, Esq. Law Office of Michael H. Joseph
Address:203 East Post Road
City: White Plains State: NY Zip:10601 Telephone No: 914-574-8330
E-mail Address:michael@newyorktriallawyers.org
Attorney Type: ☐ Retained ☐ Assigned ☐ Government ☐ Pro Se ☐ Pro Hac Vice
Party or Parties Represented (set forth party number(s) from table above):1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10
Attorney/Firm Name: Peter Sverd, Esq., Law Offices of Peter Sverd PLLC
Address:225 Broadway, Ste 613
City: New York State: NY Zip:10007 Telephone No: 646-751-8743
E-mail Address: psverd@sverdlawfirm.com
Attorney Type: ☐ Retained ☐ Assigned ☐ Government ☐ Pro Se ☐ Pro Hac Vice
Party or Parties Represented (set forth party number(s) from table above):11, 15, 17
Attorney/Firm Name: Earl Antonio Wilson, Esq. THE WILSON LAW FIRM LLC
Address:255 Livingston Street Fourth Floor
City: Brooklyn State: NY Zip: 11217 Telephone No: 718-522-3249
E-mail Address:wilsonlaw65@gmail.com
Attorney Type: ☐ Retained ☐ Assigned ☐ Government ☐ Pro Se ☐ Pro Hac Vice
Party or Parties Represented (set forth party number(s) from table above):14
Attorney/Firm Name:
Address:
City: State: Zip: Telephone No:
E-mail Address:
Attorney Type: ☐ Retained ☐ Assigned ☐ Government ☐ Pro Se ☐ Pro Hac Vice
Party or Parties Represented (set forth party number(s) from table above):
Attorney/Firm Name:
Address:
City: State: Zip: Telephone No:
E-mail Address:
Attorney Type: ☐ Retained ☐ Assigned ☐ Government ☐ Pro Se ☐ Pro Hac Vice
Party or Parties Represented (set forth party number(s) from table above):
Attorney/Firm Name:
Address:
City: State: Zip: Telephone No:
E-mail Address:
Attorney Type: ☐ Retained ☐ Assigned ☐ Government ☐ Pro Se ☐ Pro Hac Vice
Party or Parties Represented (set forth party number(s) from table above):
Informational Statement - Civil
14 of 14
Preview
FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 04/25/2024 04:08 PM INDEX NO. 035608/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 80 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/25/2024 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF ROCKLAND ------------------------------------------------------------------------x LAVERN McKENZIE, KAREN OCHIENG, SASHA VILLALONA, VALRIE BROUGHTON, LORY JEROME, SHAYNA McKENZIE, BYA BAH, CINDY ROBINSON, YVETTE DUNCAN, and SHERNA STEWART, Plaintiff, Index No.035608/2023 -against- Notice of Appeal KIM CHAMPION, STANLEY LORMESTIL, DEBORAH FRANCIS, ZAKIYYAH SALEEM, RACHEL BELIZAIRE, MARCIA TAYLOR, KAREFUL AND KAREFREE TRAINING SCHOOL IN NEW YORK CITY INC., Defendants. -------------------------------------------------------------------------x PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that Co-Defendants Kim Champion, Rachel Belizaire, Kareful And Karefree Training School In New York City Inc. hereby appeal from that part of the Decision & Order of the Hon. Keith J. Cornell, A.J.S.C., dated April 4, 2024 and entered in The Office of the Clerk of the within Court on April 4, 2024 which denied the said Co-Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs’ First, Second, and Fourth Causes of Action. A copy of which is attached hereto at EXHIBIT A. Dated: New York, New York April 25, 2024 ____________________________ Peter Sverd, Esq. The Law Offices of Peter Sverd, PLLC 225 Broadway, Ste 613 New York, NY 10007 Tel.: (646) 751-8743 psverd@sverdlawfirm.com To: All parties via NYSCEF 1 of 14 FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 04/25/2024 04:08 PM INDEX NO. 035608/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 80 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/25/2024 EXHIBIT A 2 of 14 FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 04/25/2024 04/04/2024 04:08 03:19 PM INDEX NO. 035608/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 80 72 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/25/2024 04/04/2024 T]]E STATE OF NEW YORK STJPREME COURT OF COUNTY OF ROCKLAND x LAVERNE McKENZIE, KAREN OCHIENG, SASHA VILLALONA, VALRIE BROUGHTON, LORY JEROME, SHAYNA McKENZIE, BYA BAH, DECISION & ORDER CINDY ROBINSON, YVETTE DUNCAN and Index # 035608/2023 SHERNAT STEWART, Mot. Seq. No. 1 Plaintiffs, -against- KIM CHAMPION, STANLEY LORMESTIL, DEBORAH FRANCIS, ZAKIYYAH SALEEM, RACHEL BELIZAIRE, MARCIA TAYLOR and KAREFUL AND KAREFREE TRAINING SCHOOL IN NEW YORK CITY, INC.. Defendants. ---------------------------x KEITH J. CORNELL, A.J.S.C. Before the Court is a pre-answer motion filed by Defendants, Kim Champion, Rachel Belizaire and Karefree Training School in New York City, to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR $$3211(aX1) and (7) and granting such other and further reliefas the Court deems proper. The Court considered the following papers electronically filed on NYSCEF in making its decision: Motion Sequence 1: NYSCEF Doqs. 8-42 Notice of Motion, Supporting Affidavit with Exhibits A-J; Affirmation with Exhibit A Memorandum of Law in Support; Memorandum of Law in Opposition, Affidavits in Opposition, Exhibits 1-10; Memorandum ofLaw in Further Support. Plaintiffs bring this action asserting that defendants devised a scheme to run a fraudulent nursing school located in Brooklyn, New York. Defendants represented that upon completion of the program plaintifls would receive a degree in nursing and be eligible to take the nursing boards to become a registered nurse. The complaint asserts four causes ol action (indicated as Count I, 1, 31 of of 14 7 FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 04/25/2024 04/04/2024 04:08 03:19 PM INDEX NO. 035608/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 80 72 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/25/2024 04/04/2024 Count II, Count III and Count IV in the complaint) sounding in fraud, aiding and abetting fraud, Violations of RICO, 18 USC 1962 and unjust enrichment. Defendants argue that the causes of action are barred by documentary evidence, namely the Review Course Student Enrollment Agreement signed by each plaintiff'. Specifically, the language on the second page states: **ltis further understood and agreed upon that said participation in Kareful and Karefree Training School, Inc. is not to be construed as an admission to a nursing program and/or nursing school. Kareful and Karefree Training School Inc, DOES NOT operate a credit bearing institution as authorized by Title VIII in New York State. Plaintiffs argue that the enrollment forms do not utterly refute the plaintiffs' claims as they do not directly contradict the representations made to the plaintiffs. Further, plaintilfs argue the forms are ambiguous and unintelligible. Such documentary evidence is insufficient to conclusively establish a defense as a matter of [aw. Argument "On a pre-answer motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 321l, the pleading is to be afforded a liberal construction and the plaintiffs allegations are accepted as true and accorded the benefit olevery possible favorable inference" (Barker v. Amorini, l2l A.D.3d 823,824 [2d Dept 2014] [intemal quotation marks and citation omitted]). However, on a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 321l(a)(7), "bare legal conclusions are not presumed to be true" (Khan v. MMCA Lease. Ltd.,l00 A.D.3d 833, 833 [2d Dept 2012); see Goel v. Ramachandran,l l 1 A.D.3d 783,791-792 [2d Dept 2013]). Moreover, where evidentiary material is submitted and considered on a motion to dismiss a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), and the motion is not converted into one for summary judgment, the question becomes whether the plaintiff has a cause of action, not whether the plaintiff has stated one and, unless it has been shown that a material fact as claimed bv the 2 42 of of 14 7 FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 04/25/2024 04/04/2024 04:08 03:19 PM INDEX NO. 035608/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 80 72 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/25/2024 04/04/2024 plaintilf to be one is not a fact at all and unless it can be said that no significant dispute exists regarding it, dismissal should not eventuate (see Cuggenheimer v. Ginzburg,43 N.Y.2d268,274- 27 5 |977); Fishberger v. Voss, 57 A.D.3d 627 ,628 [2d Dept 2008]). To prevail on a motion to dismiss a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(l), the documentary evidence which forms the basis of the delense must be such that it resolves all factual issues as a matter ol law, and conclusively disposes of the plaintiffs claim (see Goshen v. Mutual Life lns. Co. o/N. X,98 N.Y.2d 314.326 12002); Parekh v. Cain, 96 A.D.3d 812, 815, 948 N.Y.S.2d 72 [2dDept2012]). "A motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the action is baned by documentary evidence may be granted only where the documentary evidence utterly refutes the plaintiffs factual allegations, thereby conclusively establishing a defense as a matter of law" ( Mawere v. Landau,l30 A.D.3d 986, 987 l2dDept2015l [intemal quotation marks omittedl; see Goshen v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. of N.Y.,98 N.Y.2d 314,326 [2002]). If the evidence submitted in support of the motion is not "documentary," the motion must be denied (CPLR 321l[a][]; see Prott v. Lewin & Baglio, LLP, 150 A.D.3d 908 [2d Dept 20,l7]). To constitute documentary evidence, the evidence must be "unambiguous, authentic, and undeniable" (Granada Condominium lll Assn. v. Palomino, TS A.D.3d 996,997 [2d Dept 2010]), such asjudicial records and documents reflecting out-of-court transactions such as mortgages, deeds, contracts, and any other papers, the contents of which are essentially undeniable (see Prott v. Ley,in & Baglio, LL, supra). Here. while the authenticity of the enrollment forms is not disputed by plaintiffs, the documentary evidence lails to utterly refute the plaintiff's t'actual atlegations, thereby failing to conclusively establish a defense as a matter of law. The enrollment lorm is ambiguous as it references information discussed during orientation without any specificity, especially given that 3 53 of of 14 7 FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 04/25/2024 04/04/2024 04:08 03:19 PM INDEX NO. 035608/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 80 72 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/25/2024 04/04/2024 it is alleged that the fraudulent representations were made during orientation. It also relers to Education Law and Commissioners' Regulations without citing any specific statutes, codes, or regulations. Further, the enrollment form is contradictory in that the first thing it asks the applicant is to selecl a course ofeither LPN (Licensed Practical Nurse) or RN (Registered Nurse) and again on the second page right before the language which seeks to disclaim that the program is a nursing program. Such disclaimer is the first sentence of a paragraph marked as a footnote and in different font than the rest ofthe iorm that makes it appear inconsequential - the font is smaller and not in bold. It is also written in lowercase while the rest ofthe paragraph is written in all caps. Finally, it does not directly contradict the alleged representations made to the plaintiffs, i.e. that Karelree is not affiliated with Kaiser University in Florida, that plaintiffs will not obtain a degree in nursing or that plaintiffs will not be eligible to take the nursing examinations. The documentary evidence relied upon by the defendants does not resolve all factual issues as a matter ol law as to the first, second and lourth causes of action (Count I, Count II and Count IV) (see Fontanelta v Doe,73 AD3d 78 [2d Dept 2010]). Plaintiffs third cause of action (Count III) alleges that the defendants, as individuals and entities, constitute an enterprise organized with a common scheme for the fraudulent purpose to defraud them through a continuous pattern olracketeering activities, and to thereby obtain money by fraud. Plaintiffs assert that the delendants perpetrated this common plan and scheme by running a fraudulent nursing school and charging tuition for a fraudulent degree. Plaintiffs allege that they relied on the misleading information provided by defendants and the classes they attended to pay the tuition. Dismissal of the RICO cause of action pursuant to cpLR 3211(a)(7) is warranted only where the facts alleged, even if accepted as true, fail to establish that the plaintiff has a cause ol 4 64 of of 14 7 FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 04/25/2024 04/04/2024 04:08 03:19 PM INDEX NO. 035608/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 80 72 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/25/2024 04/04/2024 action (see Noble v. Graham, S A.D.3d 641,642 [2004]). However, since "[t]he mere assertion of a RICO claim ... has an almost inevitable stigmatizing effect on those named as def'endants ... courts should strive to flush out frivolous RICO allegations at an early stage of the litigation" (Figueroa Ruiz v. Alegria,896 F.2d 645, 650 [1st Cir1990]; see also Peralta v. Figueroa, 17 Misc.3d 1128[A],2007 N.Y. Slip Op 52184[U], [Sup Ct, Kings County 2007]). In Count III oithe complaint, plaintiffs do not plead separately its alleged violations of 18 USC $$ 1962(b) and (c) but combines these alleged violations in this single cause ofaction. In order for plaintiff to sufficiently show that the RICO defendants violated l8 USC Q 1962(b), it must plead that plaintiffs' injury proximately resulted from the RICO defendants' "acquisition or maintenance of an interest in or control of an enterprise" (Medgar Evers Houses Tenants Assn. v. Medgar Evers Houses Associales, L.P.,25 F Supp 2d 116, 124 [ED N.Y.1998], alfd201 F.3d430 l2dCir1999l,certdenied529 U.S. I130[2000]).Under18USC$ 1962(b),in contrast to l8 USC $ 1962(c), "[t]he enterprise' refened to ... is ... something acquired through the use of illegal activities or by money obtained from illegal activities" (Nalional Organization for W'omen, Inc. v. Scheidler,510 U.S. 249,259 [994]). Thus, the "enterprise" in l8 USC $ 1962(b) is not the racketeering enterprise, but contemplates investment in some other legitimate business, and "[t]he acquisition or maintenance injury must be separate and apart from the injury suffered as a result of the predicate acts of racketeering" (Greenstone/Fontana Corp. v. Feldstein,20 Misc.3d 11 l8 [A], 2008 N.Y. Slip Op 51387[U], [Sup Ct, Nassau County 2008], mod on rearg on other grounds 2008 N.Y. slip op 33396[u] [sup ct Nassau county 2008), quoting Tuscano v. Tuscano,403 F Supp 2d 214,228 [ED N.Y.2005]). Since there is no independent enterprise alleged to have been invested in or acquired by the RICO defendants, and, thus, no .,acquisition injury,' 5 75 of of 14 7 FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 04/25/2024 04/04/2024 04:08 03:19 PM INDEX NO. 035608/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 80 72 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/25/2024 04/04/2024 has been alleged by plaintiffs, plaintiffs have also failed to state a cause ofaction under 18 U.S.C. $ 1962(b). Consequently, this claim must be dismissed (see CPLR 3211 [a][7]). To establish a cause of action under I 8 USC $ 1962(c), "a plaintiff must show that [it] was injured by defendants' (1) conduct (2) of an enterprise (3) through a pattem (4) of racketeering activity" (Azrielli v. Cohen Lqw Oflices,2l F.3d 512, 520 [2d Cir 1994] [intemal quotation marks and citation omittedl). Unlike the culpable activities described in sections 1962(a) and (b), under subsection (c), there is no requirement that a defendant have infiltrated or acquired an otherwise legitimate business independent of the RICO enterprise itself. However, the elements of the offense must be sufficiently pleaded. White plaintiffs plead that the defendants' enterprise is primarily engaged in rackeleering activity and that the predicate acts are inherently unlawful since they involve mail and wire fraud, the business ofthe alleged enterprise cannot be characterized as primarily or inherently unlawful. The allegations do not support plaintiffs' contention that the business was to engage in mail fraud or wire fiaud. Rather, plaintiffs' allegations show only that there were misrepresentations made which plaintiffs relied upon to their detriment amounting to fraud but not rising to the level ofan unlawful business. Nor does the alleged behavior itself demonstrate that defendants' otherwise legitimate business regularly operates in such manner. "Mere common-law fraud does not constitute racketeering activity for RICO purposes" (Cofacredit, 5.A., 187 F.3d at 242; see also 18 usc $ le6ltll ). The Court has considered the remainder of the parties' arguments and deemed them to be without merit. Therefore, for the reasons stated above, it is hereby 6 86 of of 14 7 FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 04/25/2024 04/04/2024 04:08 03:19 PM INDEX NO. 035608/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 80 72 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/25/2024 04/04/2024 ORDERED that the motion by defendants, Kim Champion, Belizaire Marcia and Karefree 1'raining School in New York City, to dismiss the complaint is DENIED except that it is GRANTED as to plaintifft' third cause of action for violation ol 18 USC { 1962; and it is further ORDERED that plaintiffs' third cause of action is dismissed; and it is further ORDERED that plaintiflf-s shall have twenty days fiom the date herein to serve and file an Amended Complaint correcting what appears to be an inadvertent error of deleting paragraphs numbered 35-59. Service upon defendants, Kim Champion, Zakiyyah Saleem, Rachel Belizaire and Kareful and Karefree Training School in New York City, shall be effectuated by uploading the Amended Complaint into NYSCEF; and it is lurther ORDERED that defendants serve and file their answer to plaintiffs' Amended Complaint on or before May 22,2024. This constitutes the decision and order of this Cou( on Motion 1. Dated: New City. New York Aptll Uf2O24 1 rne II, A.J.S.C. TO: All parties via NYSCEF 7 97 of of 14 7 FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 04/25/2024 04:08 PM INDEX NO. 035608/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 80 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/25/2024 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF ROCKLAND ------------------------------------------------------------------------x LAVERN McKENZIE, KAREN OCHIENG, SASHA VILLALONA, VALRIE BROUGHTON, LORY JEROME, SHAYNA McKENZIE, BYA BAH, CINDY ROBINSON, YVETTE DUNCAN, and SHERNA STEWART, Plaintiff, Index No.035608/2023 -against- KIM CHAMPION, STANLEY LORMESTIL, DEBORAH FRANCIS, ZAKIYYAH SALEEM, RACHEL BELIZAIRE, MARCIA TAYLOR, KAREFUL AND KAREFREE TRAINING SCHOOL IN NEW YORK CITY INC., Defendants. -------------------------------------------------------------------------x NOTICE OF APPEAL The Law Offices of Peter Sverd, PLLC 225 Broadway, Ste. 613 New York, New York 10007 (646) 751-8743 To: Service of a copy of the within is hereby admitted. Signature (Rule 130-1.1-a) Dated:_______________ , ____ _____________________ Peter Sverd, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF PETER SVERD, PLLC 10 of 14 FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 04/25/2024 04:08 PM INDEX NO. 035608/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 80 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/25/2024 Supreme Court of the State of New York Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department Informational Statement (Pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1250.3 [a]) - Civil Case Title: Set forth the title of the case as it appears on the summons, notice of petition or order to For Court of Original Instance show cause by which the matter was or is to be commenced, or as amended. LAVERN McKENZIE, KAREN OCHIENG, SASHA VILLALONA, VALRIE BROUGHTON, LORY JEROME, SHAYNA McKENZIE, BYA BAH, CINDY ROBINSON, YVETTE DUNCAN, and SHERNA STEWART Date Notice of Appeal Filed - against - KIM CHAMPION, STANLEY LORMESTIL, DEBORAH FRANCIS, ZAKIYYAH SALEEM, RACHEL BELIZAIRE, MARCIA TAYLOR, KAREFUL AND KAREFREE TRAINING SCHOOL For Appellate Division IN NEW YORK CITY INC Case Type Filing Type ☐ Civil Action ☐ CPLR article 78 Proceeding ☐ Appeal ☐ Transferred Proceeding ☐ CPLR article 75 Arbitration ☐ Special Proceeding Other ☐ Original Proceedings ☐ CPLR Article 78 Action Commenced under CPLR 214-g ☐ Habeas Corpus Proceeding ☐ CPLR Article 78 ☐ Executive Law § 298 ☐ Eminent Domain ☐ CPLR 5704 Review ☐ Labor Law 220 or 220-b ☐ Public Officers Law § 36 ☐ Real Property Tax Law § 1278 Nature of Suit: Check up to three of the following categories which best reflect the nature of the case. ☐ Administrative Review ☐ Business Relationships ☐ Commercial ☐ Contracts ☐ Declaratory Judgment ☐ Domestic Relations ☐ Election Law ☐ Estate Matters ☐ Family Court ☐ Mortgage Foreclosure ☐ Miscellaneous ☐ Prisoner Discipline & Parole ☐ Real Property ☐ Statutory ☐ Taxation ☐ Torts (other than foreclosure) Informational Statement - Civil 11 of 14 FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 04/25/2024 04:08 PM INDEX NO. 035608/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 80 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/25/2024 Appeal Paper Appealed From (Check one only): If an appeal has been taken from more than one order or judgment by the filing of this notice of appeal, please indicate the below information for each such order or judgment appealed from on a separate sheet of paper. ☐ Amended Decree ☐ Determination ☐ Order ☐ Resettled Order ☐ Amended Judgement ☐ Finding ☐ Order & Judgment ☐ Ruling ☐ Amended Order ☐ Interlocutory Decree ☐ Partial Decree ☐ Other (specify): ☐ Decision ☐ Interlocutory Judgment ☐ Resettled Decree ☐ Decree ☐ Judgment ☐ Resettled Judgment Court: Supreme Court County: Rockland Dated: 04/04/2024 Entered: 04/04/2024 Judge (name in full):Keith J. Cornell Index No.:035608/2013 Stage: ☐ Interlocutory ☐ Final ☐ Post-Final Trial: ☐ Yes ☐ No If Yes: ☐ Jury ☐ Non-Jury Prior Unperfected Appeal and Related Case Information Are any appeals arising in the same action or proceeding currently pending in the court? ☐ Yes ☐ No If Yes, please set forth the Appellate Division Case Number assigned to each such appeal. Where appropriate, indicate whether there is any related action or proceeding now in any court of this or any other jurisdiction, and if so, the status of the case: Original Proceeding Commenced by: ☐ Order to Show Cause ☐ Notice of Petition ☐ Writ of Habeas Corpus Date Filed: Statute authorizing commencement of proceeding in the Appellate Division: Proceeding Transferred Pursuant to CPLR 7804(g) Court: Choose Court County: Choose County Judge (name in full): Order of Transfer Date: CPLR 5704 Review of Ex Parte Order: Court: Choose Court County: Choose County Judge (name in full): Dated: Description of Appeal, Proceeding or Application and Statement of Issues Description: If an appeal, briefly describe the paper appealed from. If the appeal is from an order, specify the relief requested and whether the motion was granted or denied. If an original proceeding commenced in this court or transferred pursuant to CPLR 7804(g), briefly describe the object of proceeding. If an application under CPLR 5704, briefly describe the nature of the ex parte order to be reviewed. decision and order denying co-defendants' pre-answer motion to dismiss fraud claim on documentary evidence. Informational Statement - Civil 12 of 14 FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 04/25/2024 04:08 PM INDEX NO. 035608/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 80 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/25/2024 Issues: Specify the issues proposed to be raised on the appeal, proceeding, or application for CPLR 5704 review, the grounds for reversal, or modification to be advanced and the specific relief sought on appeal. Whether the trial court erred when it held the express disclaimer and disclosure provision contained in the contract signed by the plaintiffs with the co-defendants, did not utterly refute the plaintiffs common law fraud claims. Upon review the order should be reversed and the fraud claims dismissed Party Information Instructions: Fill in the name of each party to the action or proceeding, one name per line. If this form is to be filed for an appeal, indicate the status of the party in the court of original instance and his, her, or its status in this court, if any. If this form is to be filed for a proceeding commenced in this court, fill in only the party’s name and his, her, or its status in this court. No. Party Name Original Status Appellate Division Status 1 LAVERN McKENZIE Plaintiff Respondent 2 KAREN OCHIENG Plaintiff Respondent 3 SASHA VILLALONA Plaintiff Respondent 4 VALRIE BROUGHTON Plaintiff Respondent 5 LORY JEROME Plaintiff Respondent 6 SHAYNA McKENZIE Plaintiff Respondent 7 BYA BAH Plaintiff Respondent 8 CINDY ROBINSON Plaintiff Respondent 9 YVETTE DUNCAN Plaintiff Respondent 10 SHERNA STEWART Plaintiff Respondent 11 KIM CHAMPION Defendant Appellant 12 STANLEY LORMESTIL Defendant None 13 DEBORAH FRANCIS Defendant None 14 ZAKIYYAH SALEEM Defendant None 15 RACHEL BELIZAIRE Defendant Appellant 16 MARCIA TAYLOR Defendant None 17 KAREFUL AND KAREFREE TRAINING SCHOOLIN NEW YORK CITY, INC.. Defendant Appellant 18 19 20 Informational Statement - Civil 13 of 14 FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 04/25/2024 04:08 PM INDEX NO. 035608/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 80 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/25/2024 Attorney Information Instructions: Fill in the names of the attorneys or firms for the respective parties. If this form is to be filed with the notice of petition or order to show cause by which a special proceeding is to be commenced in the Appellate Division, only the name of the attorney for the petitioner need be provided. In the event that a litigant represents herself or himself, the box marked “Pro Se” must be checked and the appropriate information for that litigant must be supplied in the spaces provided. Attorney/Firm Name: Michael H Joseph, Esq. Law Office of Michael H. Joseph Address:203 East Post Road City: White Plains State: NY Zip:10601 Telephone No: 914-574-8330 E-mail Address:michael@newyorktriallawyers.org Attorney Type: ☐ Retained ☐ Assigned ☐ Government ☐ Pro Se ☐ Pro Hac Vice Party or Parties Represented (set forth party number(s) from table above):1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 Attorney/Firm Name: Peter Sverd, Esq., Law Offices of Peter Sverd PLLC Address:225 Broadway, Ste 613 City: New York State: NY Zip:10007 Telephone No: 646-751-8743 E-mail Address: psverd@sverdlawfirm.com Attorney Type: ☐ Retained ☐ Assigned ☐ Government ☐ Pro Se ☐ Pro Hac Vice Party or Parties Represented (set forth party number(s) from table above):11, 15, 17 Attorney/Firm Name: Earl Antonio Wilson, Esq. THE WILSON LAW FIRM LLC Address:255 Livingston Street Fourth Floor City: Brooklyn State: NY Zip: 11217 Telephone No: 718-522-3249 E-mail Address:wilsonlaw65@gmail.com Attorney Type: ☐ Retained ☐ Assigned ☐ Government ☐ Pro Se ☐ Pro Hac Vice Party or Parties Represented (set forth party number(s) from table above):14 Attorney/Firm Name: Address: City: State: Zip: Telephone No: E-mail Address: Attorney Type: ☐ Retained ☐ Assigned ☐ Government ☐ Pro Se ☐ Pro Hac Vice Party or Parties Represented (set forth party number(s) from table above): Attorney/Firm Name: Address: City: State: Zip: Telephone No: E-mail Address: Attorney Type: ☐ Retained ☐ Assigned ☐ Government ☐ Pro Se ☐ Pro Hac Vice Party or Parties Represented (set forth party number(s) from table above): Attorney/Firm Name: Address: City: State: Zip: Telephone No: E-mail Address: Attorney Type: ☐ Retained ☐ Assigned ☐ Government ☐ Pro Se ☐ Pro Hac Vice Party or Parties Represented (set forth party number(s) from table above): Informational Statement - Civil 14 of 14