SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

COUNTY OF KINGS
_____________________________________________________
INDEX NO. 500130/2015
BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS
SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO LASALLE BANK NA AS
TRUSTEE FOR WAMU MOGRTGAGE; PASS-THROUGH
CERTIFICATES SERIES 2005-AR15,
US BANK NA, SUCCESOR TRUSTEE TO BANK OF
AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS SUCCESSOR
BY MERGER TO LASALLE BANK NA AS TRUSTEE FOR
WAMU MOGRTGAGE; PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES
SERIES 2005-AR15 – Unidentified, alleged Trustee not present
in this action

Plaintiff,

-against-

Michael Krichevsky, et al,

Defendants.
_____________________________________________________

REPLY AFFIDAVIT AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION

FOR ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO CONDUCT THE FORECLOSURE SALE

STATE OF NEW YORK ss.:

COUNTY OF KINGS

I, Michael Krichevsky, being duly sworn to God, per CPLR 2309(b) affirm and hereby

truthfully testify as follows:

1. I am a disabled man, falsely accused defendant, owner of a condominium apartment at

120 Oceana Drive West, Unit 5D, in the Brighton Beach section of Brooklyn, New York

(“Oceana property”), which is the property alleged Plaintiff seeks to foreclose in this frivolous

action.

2. I have a God given rights to Liberty, Property and Pursuit of Happiness.

3. The averments in this affidavit based upon my firsthand knowledge, research, foreclosure
litigation from 2009, upon information, documentary evidence provided to me by this court and

others, and upon inferences and conclusions reached from obtained information and belief.

4. In fact, I am the only one amongst people involved in this action with first-hand

knowledge to lawfully sign non-hearsay, admissible affidavit without intention to mislead the

court or judge, harass opponent and without creating perjury and/or fraud on the court, and if

called as a witness, I could and would competently testify as follows below.

5. I make this affidavit in opposition to the motion for order extending time to conduct

foreclosure sale.

INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT AND REQUEST TO TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF

THE LAW

6. Because the alleged debt in this frivolous action does not exist as well as alleged Plaintiff

in real life and only exist on the papers in this court, this court does not have jurisdiction to order

the sale of Oceana property. As this court knows, jurisdiction can be challenged at any time,

even on appeal. My property not sold and I am in possession of it. Accordingly, even though

alleged plaintiff’s attorneys filed affirmations and affidavits of service of this motion and

committed fraud upon the court and I, it is not too late to impeach those affirmations, affidavits

and quash alleged service of the instant motion, summons and complaint, etc. This is exactly

what the gist of my reply opposition.

7. Alleged Plaintiff’s instant motion, as well as summons and complaint along with other

necessary papers, were neither served on Elena Svenson, nor on I – titled owners of the subject

property, which lack of service I will demonstrate below.

8. I do not waive the requirement of service of process by “appearing” with this reply, and

of course, I do not admit the service of process of summons and complaint, etc. and instant

motion by this opposition.

Therefore, I request that this Honorable Court takes Judicial Notice of Law per CPLR 4511of the

case law BANK OF AM. NAT'L TRUST & SAV. ASS'N v. Herrick, 233 AD 2d 351 - NY:

Appellate Div., 2nd Dept. that states in pertinent parts:

“…where there is a sworn denial of receipt of process, the affidavit of service is

rebutted, and the plaintiff must establish jurisdiction by a preponderance of the
evidence at a hearing.”
“A sworn denial of receipt of service containing "detailed and specific
contradiction of the allegations in the process server's affidavit" may defeat the
presumption of proper service”
“Moreover, even if the defendant eventually acquires actual notice and
knowledge of the lawsuit, actual notice alone will not sustain improper service,
nor subject that person to the Court's jurisdiction when there has not been
compliance with the proper conditions of service.”
“Because of this conflict in facts, the court found that "there exists a conflict with
respect to whether service was properly made, and that the appellants are,
therefore, entitled to a hearing on this issue” [emphasis mine]

Facts Admitted by alleged Plaintiff’s attorneys

9. Gina Votta presumably from The Margolin & Weinreb Law Group, LLP (“Margolin”),

alleged attorneys for alleged Plaintiff states in her affidavit of service that she mailed instant

motion to Elena Svenson and Michael Krichevsky at the last known address “120 Oceana Drive

West, Unit 5D,” Docket #89.

Reply Affidavit and Arguments in Support

10. I incorporate by reference herein my statements from my affidavit in support of my cross-

motion to set aside void foreclosure judgment and order due to fraud upon the court, Exhibit A,

which explain that my last known address since 2010 is 4221 Atlantic Avenue, Brooklyn, New

York.

1. This case must be Dismissed per CPLR §3211 (a): (2), (5), (7), (8), (10); §5015(a): (2),

(3), (4).

11. Affidavit of service of instant motion is false in regards to Unit owners’ last known
address "120 Oceana Drive West, Unit 5D."

12. In 2017, Margolin law firm in presence of a witness, Nelli Frid, learned from me directly

by visiting the law firm that my last known address was 4221 Atlantic Avenue, Brooklyn, New

York.

13. According to my other affidavit. Exhibit A,1 deny paragraphs 1 -3 of attorney Sandy J.

Stolars affirmation in support of instant motion as frivolous, false and misleading the court.

14. As to paragraph 9 of the affirmation, it is misleading this court. The said order of

dismissal is currently under appeal, and therefore Federal Court retains jurisdiction over this

property.

CONCLUSION

15. For this court to consider instant motion, it must have in rem and in personam

jurisdiction, which are lacking in this matter due to fraud upon the court, including fraud by

officers of this court. Now,attorney Sandy J. Stolar has a duty as attorney to investigate my

statements and the case. She has to verify the documents, the "facts and circumstances" she has

in her file, which admittedly by her in paragraph 2 of her instant affirmation she used in this

motion.

WHEREFORE, 1 respectfully move this Honorable Court to take Judicial Notice of my exhibit A

and law; vacate and set aside the void judgment and order of sale of Judge Dear; quash the

service of process of this motion, uphold the law; and for such other and further relief as to this

Court and interest of Justice seem just and equitable.

Michael Krichevsky, Sui Juris

4221 Atlantic Ave
Brooklyn, NY 11224
718-687-2300
Sworn to before me this
 CH J^y
2nd day of December,

NOTARY PUBLIC

ALICE ASHER
NOTARY PUBLIC, Stale of New York
No. 01AS6062200
Qualified In Kings Counly
Commission Expires 07/30/2025
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF KINGS

BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS INDEX NO.500130/2015

SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO LASALLE BANK NA AS
TRUSTEE FOR WAMU MOGRTGAGE;PASS-THROUGH AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
CERTIFICATES SERIES 2005-ARI5,
US BANK NA,SUCCESOR TRUSTEE TO BANK OF
AMERICA,NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS SUCCESSOR
BY MERGER TO LASALLE BANK NA AS TRUSTEE FOR
WAMU MOGRTGAGE;PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES
SERIES 2005-AR15- Unidentified, alleged Trustee not present
in this action

Plaintiff,

-against-

MICHAEL KRICHEVSKY,et al.

Defendant.

STATE OF NEW YORK SS:

COUNTY OF KINGS

I. Nelli Frid, being duly sworn, say:

I am not a party to the action; I reside at Brooklyn, New York and I am over 18 years of
age. On December 2. 2022,1 served the within Reply Affidavit, by depositing true copies
thereof, enclosed in a post-paid wrapper, in an official depository under the exclusive care and
custody of the United States Postal Service within New York State, addressed to the following at
the last known address set forth below:

The Margolin & Weinreb Law Group, LLP.

165 Eileen Way, Suite 101
Syosset, NY 11791
516-921-3838

Nell F

Sworn to before me
on December 2, 2022

NOTARY PUBLIC

ALICE ASHER
notary public, stale ol New York
No. 01AS6062200 ;
Qualified in Kings County
Commission Expires 07/30/2025
EXHIBIT A
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF KINGS
_____________________________________________________
INDEX NO. 500130/2015
BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS
SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO LASALLE BANK NA AS
TRUSTEE FOR WAMU MOGRTGAGE; PASS-THROUGH
CERTIFICATES SERIES 2005-AR15,
US BANK NA, SUCCESOR TRUSTEE TO BANK OF
AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS SUCCESSOR
BY MERGER TO LASALLE BANK NA AS TRUSTEE FOR
WAMU MOGRTGAGE; PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES
SERIES 2005-AR15 – Unidentified, alleged Trustee not present
in this action

Plaintiff,

-against-

MICHAEL KRICHEVSKY, et al,

Defendant.
_____________________________________________________

NOTICE OF CROSS-MOTION TO SET ASIDE VOID JUDGMENT, ORDER OF FORECLOSURE

SALE DUE TO FRAUD UPON THE COURT, SET TRAVERSE HEARING, COMPEL DISCLOSURE
AND TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that upon the annexed Affidavit and Memorandum of Law sworn to the 11th day of

November, 2022 and upon all the pleadings and proceedings heretofore had herein with and without my presence,

I, Michael Krichevsky, sui juris, will cross-move, Under Duress, before this Court at an IAS Part 1, room 756, at

the Courthouse located at 360 Adams Street, Brooklyn, New York on the 5th day of December, 2022 at 9:30 a.m.

in the forenoon of that day or as soon thereafter as counsel can be heard for an order granting the relief requested

in this Omnibus Cross-Motion as follows:

1. On the day of the hearing of this motion, provide a court reporter.

2. Take Judicial Notice of Law per CPLR 4511; as a first step, set in-court identification testimony of

Plaintiff, and order alleged plaintiff’s attorney, The Margolin & Weinreb Law Group, LLP. to show authority per

New York State Agency laws to represent alleged Plaintiff by disclosing identity of the parties to retainer per

CPLR §322 (a), §3013, §3015(a) and (b), and/or order continuance to conduct disclosure.

3. Set up Traverse Hearing by Jury.

4. Order The Margolin & Weinreb Law Group, LLP. to rebut my supporting affidavit point for point with

documentary evidence in their possession per CPLR 2214(c) as I expect that they would refuse to provide it.

5. Thereafter, per CPLR 2214(c)papers to be produced on notice and per CPLR 2218 trial of issue raised on

motion compel The Margolin & Weinreb Law Group, LLP. to produce the jury proof of Plaintiffs standing and

identity; direct attorney allegedly representing coiporation or trust in court to appear with corporate charter and/or

other forming documents to rule out champerty, verify Plaintiffs status, name, address and requirement to post a

non-resident bond.

6. Dismiss the action per CPLR §321 1 (a): (2),(5),(7),(8),(10); §5015(a): (2),(3),(4).

7. In addition, for such other and further relief as to this Court may seem Just and Equitable, including the

costs of the cross-motion.

8. Alternatively, dismiss the action under doctrine of unclean hands.

This action is not on the trial calendar.

Dated: Brooklyn, New York

November 1 1, 2022

Michael Kiichevsky, Sui Juris

4221 Atlantic Ave
Brooklyn, New York 11224
(718)687-2300

The Margolin & Weinreb Law Group, LLP.

165 Eileen Way,Suite 101
Syosset, NY 11791
516-921-3838
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF KINGS
_____________________________________________________
INDEX NO. 500130/2015
BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS
SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO LASALLE BANK NA AS
TRUSTEE FOR WAMU MOGRTGAGE; PASS-THROUGH
CERTIFICATES SERIES 2005-AR15,
US BANK NA, SUCCESOR TRUSTEE TO BANK OF
AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS SUCCESSOR
BY MERGER TO LASALLE BANK NA AS TRUSTEE FOR
WAMU MOGRTGAGE; PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES
SERIES 2005-AR15 – Unidentified, alleged Trustee not present
in this action

Plaintiff,

-against-

MICHAEL KRICHEVSKY, et al,

Defendant.
_____________________________________________________

AFFIDAVIT AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF CROSS-MOTION TO SET ASIDE

VOID JUDGMENT, ORDER OF FORECLOSURE SALE DUE TO FRAUD UPON THE COURT, SET
TRAVERSE HEARING, COMPEL DISCLOSURE AND TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE

STATE OF NEW YORK ss.:

COUNTY OF KINGS

I, Michael Krichevsky, being duly sworn to God, per CPLR 2309(b) affirm and hereby truthfully testify as

follows:

1. I am a disabled man, falsely accused defendant, owner of a condominium apartment at 120 Oceana Drive

West, Unit 5D, in the Brighton Beach section of Brooklyn, New York (“Oceana property”), which is the property

alleged Plaintiff seeks to foreclose in this action.

2. I have a God given rights to Liberty, Property and Pursuit of Happiness.

3. The averments in this affidavit based upon my firsthand knowledge, research, foreclosure litigation from

2009, upon information, documentary evidence provided to me by this court and others, and upon inferences and

conclusions reached from obtained information and belief.

4. In fact, I am the only one amongst people involved in this action with first-hand knowledge to lawfully

sign non-hearsay, admissible affidavit without intention to mislead the court or judge, harass opponent and
without creating perjury and/or fraud on the court, and if called as a witness, I could and would competently

testify as follows below.

5. I make this affidavit in support of the CROSS-MOTION TO SET ASIDE VOID JUDGMENT, ORDER

OF FORECLOSURE SALE DUE TO FRAUD UPON THE COURT, SET TRAVERSE HEARING, COMPEL

DISCLOSURE AND TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE

INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT AND REQUEST TO TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE

2. John Waihee, Governor of Hawaii (1986-1994) speaking of foreclosure crisis in America stated, "Our

courts should not be collection agencies for crooks." This motion is not an appeal of the State Court judgment on

the merits, even though I have meritorious defenses, counter-claims and third party claims in Kings County Court,

which court denied me my due process and prevented from asserting these claims. The gist of this motion is

whether in state foreclosure proceedings banks, attorneys and servicers are above the law when they claim that

people defaulted on the loan contract, and therefore these entities can commit crimes or intentional torts in court

in order to enforce alleged creditor rights to foreclose upon homeowners accused in default. If that is the case,

then public does not need judges, attorneys and courts. Then, servicers should start hiring marshals or some thugs

and start throwing people out of their homes. I contend that this should not be the case and courts should not allow

them to cut corners of due process by filing perjurious affidavits of service with false and perjurious attorney

affirmations in order to quickly obtain default judgments, save on litigation expenses by committing robbery and

getting houses for free. I contend that the penalty for such practice and pattern of racketeering activity, among

other remedies for victims, is declaratory judgment making results of State action void per unclean hands

equitable doctrine. Then, the remedy for the creditor would be malpractice action against servicer, foreclosure

attorney or firm and process server.

3. Current motion aroused under fraud, perjury, violation of federal and state laws by Rosicki & Rosicki

(“Rosicki”) attorneys, The Margolin & Weinreb Law Group, LLP (“Margolin”) attorneys, hired by them process

servers and Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. (“SPS”) to name a few known when they started two foreclosures

against me in Kings County Supreme Court. Some started violation of these laws in 2009 and repeated with others
the same illegal and unlawful acts in 2015, which are continuing, thereby establishing continuing practice and

pattern of racketeering activity thereby equitably tolling any statute of limitation per to continuing violation

doctrine.

4. Whenever I use the phrase “upon information and belief” below without specificity, it should be presumed

that such information and belief derived from class action litigation in Second Circuit’s case Sykes v. Mel Harris

and Associates, LLC, 757 F. Supp. 2d 413 after I compared averments in this case with firsthand knowledge of

facts in my two foreclosure cases.

5. Additionally, my information and belief comes from United States complaint charging Rosicki attorneys

with violation of False Claims Act, Exhibit 1 (partial copy of United States complaint), and from settlement in

favor of United States, Exhibit 2. I give credit and thank United States Attorney Mr. Berman and FHFA-OIG for

their efforts in pursuit of the justice, law and order in their case on behalf of the public, while making this

information publicly available for people to individually use in their cases. The Office’s Civil Frauds Unit was

handling this federal case. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Cristy Irvin Phillips, Andrew E. Krause, and Lauren A.

Lively were in charge of the case.

6. The facts from these exhibits are material and relevant to this motion because I am a victim and casualty

of, among other perpetrators, Rosicki and Rosicki, their Affiliates due to their illegal foreclosure practice and

pattern of racketeering activity described by United States (Exhibit 1) and in Sykes, which caused and continue to

cause me injury in fact.

Since all people who were not properly served with process had their Traverse hearings ordered by the
court, I am too entitled to my own Traverse Hearing

7. In addition, I discovered that on March 16, 2016, the New York City Department of Consumer Affairs

(“DCA”) refused to renew the license of alleged Plaintiff’s process server Kenneth Wonica based on his “failure

to maintain standards of integrity, honesty and fair dealing required of licensees.” Attached to this Affidavit, as
Exhibit 3, is a true and accurate copy (redacted) of NYC Department of Consumer Affairs’ license denial letter to

Mr. Wonica.1

8. This DCA letter states in pertinent part:

You were previously found guilty of violating 6 RCNY § 2-236(c)(2) in the Decision and Order
issued on June 3,2014.

9. The letter also sates:

“Improper Services/False Affidavits of Service

1. HSBC Bank USA v, N.Y. Builders Supply Corp.. Arthur Gold and Bernard Gold
You swore falsely in an affidavit of service that was filed in New York County Supreme Court in
the matter of HSBC Bank USA v. N, Y. Builders Supply Corp., Arthur Gold and Bernard Gold
(Index No. 652570/12)… You also swore falsely in your affidavit of service that you “knew
the person served to be the person described as said person therein” and you “asked person
spoken to whether [he] was presently in military service of the United States Government or
of the State of New York and was informed [he] was not.” In fact, Arthur Gold died on June
23, 2012, two months prior to the date you swore in your affidavit that you personally served
him with papers, and that you asked him whether he was presently in military service.
Furthermore, you swore falsely in an affidavit of service that was filed in New York County
Supreme Court in HSBC Bank that you served defendant Bernard Gold with a summons and
complaint on August 8,2012 at 2:42 p.m. by delivering the papers to “Hank Doe” co-tenant, last
name refused… In fact, you did not deliver papers to anyone…No one was present at that
address on August 8,2012.” [emphasis mine]

10. The letter goes on and on with factual charges of false affidavits of service in numerous foreclosure cases,

which paint a clear picture of “pattern and practice” of perjury and fraud upon the court found during those

Traverse hearings.

11. I am relying on these publicly disclosed documents, Sykes v. Mel Harris and DCA letter (Exhibit 3)

mentioned.

Therefore, I move this Honorable Court to take Judicial Notice of these exhibits and contents
thereof.

Relevant Background

12. Elena Svenson and I purchased the property at 120 Oceana Drive West (not “120W Oceana Drive West”)

as stated in the complaint and the affidavits of service) in November of 2001.

13. In 2005, apartment was rented to tenants and since that time, none of us returned to live there.

1
Also available on the DCA website at:
http://www1.nyc.gov/assets/dca/downloads/pdf/businesses/DenialLetter-Kenneth-Wonica.pdf
14. In 2009, alleged Plaintiff Bank of America, NA filed against me complaint under index number
22088/2009 (“2009 Foreclosure”).

15. Rosicki’s process server did not personally serve me with summons and complaint.
16. When I finally learned of this action, I replied by Motion to Dismiss, inter alia, for lack of service and
action was abandoned due to Federal and State law enforcement investigations of illegal foreclosures by major
banks. See Exhibit 4 (4/4/2012 consent judgment-settlement with Plaintiff, Bank of America).
17. By order dated January 14, 2014, the Honorable Lawrence Knipel dismissed the 2009 Foreclosure case for
Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute.

18. Indeed, why would Rosicki abandon the case if “they were right and I was wrong?”

Brief Procedural History of this Action

19. Plaintiff commenced this residential mortgage foreclosure action on January 6, 2015 by filing the
summons and complaint. Docket #1.
20. According to Rosicki’s (see again Exhibits 1, 2 and 3) employee from its wholly owned Enterprise
Process Service, Inc. affidavit of service, on January 17, 2015 at 4:55 pm, process server Kenneth Wonica
(“Wonica”) delivered the summons and complaint to a person of suitable age and discretion named “Dmitry”

(“last name refused”), a white male, brown hair, age 40-55, height 5”10” and weight 220 pounds at “120W

Oceana Drive West, Unit 5D, Brooklyn, NY 11235, Docket #21, 22, 24, 25.”
21. Wonica allegedly “served” Elena Svenson, Michael Krichevsky, Elena Doe “last name refused”, Ivan Doe
“last name refused, and Dmitry Doe “last name refused.”

22. Dmitry did not live in my apartment as of January 17, 2015. In fact, this name does not appear in any
database connected to my apartment.
23. However, since about 2013, Ms. Natalia Karduokova lived there, which is evidenced by her sworn
affidavit filed in Housing Court case under Index # 78015/18, Exhibit A. In this affidavit, sworn in 2018, she is

respondent and states in paragraph 4 that “Respondent was given exclusive occupancy rights to the subject
premises…” I did not deny that statement. The term “Exclusive” means that she was there living alone – not as

Svenson’s or Krichevsky’s co-tenant, or even Dmitry’s co-tenant.

24. In paragraph 5 she states that she lived in my apartment for 5 years and I did not deny this fact. No
individual mentioned in this case besides her.
25. As of January 17, 2015, Ms. Karduokova was not staying in my apartment because she was traveling
overseas for about six month.
26. During Ms. Karduokova’s absence in January of 2015 and alleged service, the pipes in my apartment froze
and later burst, causing water to leak into other parts of the building because she left the balcony door open in
summer. This fact evidenced by independent, disinterested individuals who were not even aware of this action.
See Exhibit B, which speaks for itself.
27. Accordingly, Wonica did not “serve” Karduokova – the real individual residing in Oceana, and the alleged

Plaintiff did not even name her in its summons and complaint.
28. Since 2010, I have continuously resided at 4221 Atlantic Avenue, Brooklyn, New York 11224

(“Atlantic”). Attached as Exhibits C and C1, are true and correct copies of my driver licenses issued on 18th of

December, 2009 with expiration on 12-21-17 and on 03/07/2018 with expiration on 12/21/2025 respectively
showing my Atlantic address.
29. Attached as Exhibit D is a copy of refund check sent to me in 2010 from the state addressed to 4221
Atlantic Ave., Brooklyn, New York – Atlantic address.
30. Attached as Exhibit E, is a true and correct copy of the check sent me by “Independent Foreclosure
Review” from 2013 settlement by “Feds” with Chase, former “servicer” who illegally started 2009 foreclosure.

This exhibit demonstrates that even in 2013 my address was Atlantic. In Fact, this check and mail dated February,
16, 2015 – dated about a month later than the alleged Wonica’s “service.” That 2/16/15 mail I did receive at
Atlantic address.
31. Accordingly, in January of 2015 when alleged Plaintiff commenced this action and allegedly caused
service of process, my actual place of residence still was 4221 Atlantic Avenue, Brooklyn, New York 11224.
32. I did not receive the copy of the summons and complaint purportedly delivered to my Oceana
condominium from “Dmitry,” nor do I know anybody by this name who ever entered my apartment. I did not

receive a copy of the summons and complaint purportedly mailed to me in my Oceana apartment by Wonica.
33. Wonica did not “serve” Elena Svenson at her address at 2620 Ocean Pkwy, Apt 3K, Brooklyn, NY 11235,

which is evidenced by her bankruptcy petition filed in 2012, Exhibit G. Upon information and belief she resides
there from at least 2010 until present.
34. Apparently, Wonica did not repent after DCA prior charges. According to my evidence attached to this
motion, in my case Wonica “did not deliver papers to anyone...No one was present at that address on the day of
alleged service of process.” His boilerplate statements such as “co-tenant,” “last name refused” and “Doe” are

replete in his affidavits in my case and, because used, create presumption that he did not deliver any documents in
my case – similarly with other, prior cases charged him by DCA.
35. This denial of process server license destroys credibility of his affidavits of service, supports my current
motion and my entitlement for Traverse Hearing. See BANK OF AM. NAT'L TRUST & SAV. ASS'N v. Herrick,
233 AD 2d 351 - NY: Appellate Div., 2nd Dept. that states in pertinent parts:

“…where there is a sworn denial of receipt of process, the affidavit of service is rebutted, and the
plaintiff must establish jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence at a hearing.”
“A sworn denial of receipt of service containing "detailed and specific contradiction of the
allegations in the process server's affidavit" may defeat the presumption of proper service
“Moreover, even if the defendant eventually acquires actual notice and knowledge of the
lawsuit, actual notice alone will not sustain improper service, nor subject that person to the
Court's jurisdiction when there has not been compliance with the proper conditions of service.”
“Because of this conflict in facts, the court found that "there exists a conflict with respect to
whether service was properly made, and that the appellants are, therefore, entitled to a hearing on
this issue” [emphasis mine]

Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc deliberately directed Rosicki to serve me at the wrong address to obtain
default judgment

36. Plaintiff’s alleged servicer, Select Portfolio Servicing (“SPS”), has always sent me correspondence at the

Atlantic since in or about early 2014, which I rejected from the start. See a sample as Exhibit F.
37. Accordingly, alleged Plaintiff had actual notice that I resided at the Atlantic when it commenced this
action in January of 2015.
40. Since the alleged Plaintiff deliberately failed to serve Svenson, real Oceana occupant Karduokova and me
at our real addresses on numerous occasions, these failures are “pattern and practice” of deceit to defraud the court

and us by fraudulent service of process called ‘sewer service.’ The goal of this deceit is to obtain default

judgment from the court.

41. "To hit a nail on the head," in the spring of 2015 I sent certified latter of Federal TILA rescission at alleged
plaintiff’s Manhattan headquarters. Plaintiff did not challenge my rescission within 20 days in court and by

operation of law cannot claim any interest in subject property by this action due to res judicata and/or collateral
estoppels.

CONCLUSION
42. As this court knows, jurisdiction can be challenged at any time, even on appeal. Accordingly, even though
plaintiffs attorney filed affidavits of service and committed fraud upon the court and I, it is not too late to

impeach those affidavits and quash alleged service. Because 2009 action terminated in my favor, alleged Plaintiff

and Rosicki already committed tort of malicious prosecution and now, if not remedied, will harm me even more.

WHEREFORE,I respectfully move this Honorable Court to take Judicial Notice of my exhibits and law4 vacate

the void judgment and order ofsale of Judge Dear; quash service of process and set the Traverse hearing; provide

me Due Process to enable me to defend my property from this fraudulent and frivolous action; and for such other

and further relief as to this Court and interest of Justice seem just and equitable.

Michael Krichevsky, Sui

4221 Atlantic Ave
Brooklyn, NY 11224
718-687-2300
Sworn to before me this
11th day of November,2022,

)TARY PUBLIC

GALINA TESLBR
Notary Public. State of New York
NO.01TE6093000
Certified In Kings County y
Commission Expires, May 27,20£^—^
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF KINGS
_____________________________________________________
BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS INDEX NO. 500130/2015
SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO LASALLE BANK NA AS
TRUSTEE FOR WAMU MOGRTGAGE; PASS-THROUGH AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
CERTIFICATES SERIES 2005-AR15,
US BANK NA, SUCCESOR TRUSTEE TO BANK OF
AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS SUCCESSOR
BY MERGER TO LASALLE BANK NA AS TRUSTEE FOR
WAMU MOGRTGAGE; PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES
SERIES 2005-AR15 – Unidentified, alleged Trustee not present
in this action

Plaintiff,

-against-

MICHAEL KRICHEVSKY, et al,

Defendant.
_____________________________________________________

STATE OF NEW YORK SS:

COUNTY OF KINGS

I, Nelli Frid, being duly sworn, say:

I am not a party to the action; I reside at Brooklyn, New York and I am over 18 years of
age. On December 2, 2022, I served the within Reply Affidavit, by depositing true copies
thereof, enclosed in a post-paid wrapper, in an official depository under the exclusive care and
custody of the United States Postal Service within New York State, addressed to the following at
the last known address set forth below:

The Margolin & Weinreb Law Group, LLP.

165 Eileen Way, Suite 101
Syosset, NY 11791
516-921-3838
______________________________
Nelli Frid

Sworn to before me
on December 2, 2022

_______________________
NOTARY PUBLIC