Exhibit,Appendix: Veludi Capital Strategies v. Manuel Pereira

On December 20, 2019 a Exhibit,Appendix was filed involving a dispute between Veludi Capital Strategies, and Manuel Pereira, for Commercial - Contract in the District Court of Nassau County.

Preview
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 04/07/2022 12:20 PM INDEX NO. 617853/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 184 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/07/2022

EXHIBIT 10
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 03/09/2021
04/07/2022 04:25
12:20 PM INDEX NO. 617853/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 37
184 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/09/2021
04/07/2022

Defendant.
------------------------------------------------------------------------X
MANUEL PEREIRA,

Third-Party Plaintiff,

-against-

CHANDER K. GOEL and SUNIL KUMAR
PONNUMALA a/k/a SUNIL PONNUMALA KUMAR,

Third-Party Defendants.
------------------------------------------------------------------------X

TO THE ABOVE NAMED THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANTS:

YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED to answer the third-party Summons and the third-

party Complaint in this action, a copy of which is hereby served upon you, and to serve copies of

your Answer upon the undersigned attorneys for third-party plaintiff MANUEL PEREIRA, and

all other attorneys herein whose names and addresses are set forth below, within twenty (20) days

after service of this third-party Summons and third-party Complaint, exclusive of the day of service

(or within (30) days after the service is complete if this Summons is not personally delivered to

you within the State of New York), and in the case of your failure to appear or answer, judgment

will be taken against you by default for the relief demanded in the third-party Complaint.

Dated: Mineola, New York
March 9, 2021

1
4836-8730-9002, v. 2

1 of 32
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 03/09/2021
04/07/2022 04:25
12:20 PM INDEX NO. 617853/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 37
184 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/09/2021
04/07/2022

MELTZER, LIPPE, GOLDSTEIN &
BREITSTONE, LLP
Attorneys for Defendant/Third-Party
Plaintiff Manuel Pereira

By:______________________________
/s/Loretta Gastwirth, Esq.
Loretta Gastwirth, Esq.
Adam P. Wald, Esq.
190 Willis Avenue
Mineola, New York 11501
(516) 747-0300

TO: CARMEL, MILAZZO, AND FEIL, LLP
Attorneys for Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant Veludi Capital Strategies
3920 Veterans Memorial Highway, Suite 8
Bohemia, New York 11716
(212) 658-0458
Attn: Craig A. Riha, Esq.

CHANDER K. GOEL
Third-Party Defendant
14 Rose Lane
East Rockaway, New York 11518

SUNIL KUMAR PONNUMALA a/k/a SUNIL PONNUMALA KUMAR
Third-Party Defendant
501 West 110th Street, Apartment 2D
New York, New York 10025

2
4836-8730-9002, v. 2

2 of 32
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 03/09/2021
04/07/2022 04:25
12:20 PM INDEX NO. 617853/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 37
184 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/09/2021
04/07/2022

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NASSAU
------------------------------------------------------------------------X
VELUDI CAPITAL STRATEGIES, LLC,
Index No. 617853/2019
Plaintiff,
AFFIRMATIVE
-against- DEFENSES,
COUNTERCLAIMS &
MANUEL PEREIRA, THIRD PARTY
COMPLAINT
Defendant.
------------------------------------------------------------------------X
MANUEL PEREIRA,

Third-Party Plaintiff,

-against-

CHANDER K. GOEL and SUNIL KUMAR
PONNUMALA a/k/a SUNIL PONNUMALA KUMAR,

Third-Party Defendants.
------------------------------------------------------------------------X

Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff Manuel Pereira (“Mr. Pereira”), by and through his

attorneys, Meltzer, Lippe, Goldstein & Breitstone, LLP, as and for his Affirmative Defenses,

Counterclaims against Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant Veludi Capital Strategies, LLC

(“Veludi”) and Third-Party Complaint against Third-Party Defendants Chandler K. Goel (“Goel”)

and Sunil Kumar Ponnumala a/k/a Sunil Ponnumala Kumar (“Kumar”) states as follows:

PARTIES

1. Upon information and belief, Veludi is domestic limited liability company organized

and existing under the laws of the State of New York, with a primary place of business located at 180

Maiden Lane, New York, New York 110038 or 14 Rose Lane, East Rockaway, New York 11518 c/o

Chander Goel.

2. Upon information and belief, Goel is an individual with a residence located at 14 Rose

Lane, East Rockaway, New York 11518.

1
4831-0932-3722, v. 5

3 of 32
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 03/09/2021
04/07/2022 04:25
12:20 PM INDEX NO. 617853/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 37
184 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/09/2021
04/07/2022

3. Upon information and belief, Kumar is an individual with a residence located at 501

West 110th Street, Apartment 2D, New York, New York 10025.

4. Mr. Pereira is an individual, with a residence located in the State of New York, County

of Nassau.

FACTS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION

5. In or about October of 2016, Mr. Pereira was introduced to Goel and Kumar — both

of whom were, upon information and belief, employed as life insurance agents for Mass Mutual Life

Insurance Company (“Mass Mutual”) — through their mutual friend, Suresh (Chandler) Ramcharitar

(“Ramcharitar”).

Goel and Kumar Propose their Scheme

6. Thereafter, Goel and Kumar proposed that Mr. Pereira “monetize” a commercial

property that his family owned in Queens, New York (the “Queens Property”). Specifically, Goel

and Kumar proposed that Mr. Pereira utilize the Queens Property as collateral for a $1 million

financing arrangement (the “Premium Financing Loan”) that would allow him to purchase life

insurance policies with aggregate cash values of approximately $25 million. Goel and Kumar further

represented that they would (1) collateralize the Queens Property; (2) secure the Premium Financing

Loan on Mr. Pereira’s behalf; and (3) pay all amounts due and owing in connection with the life

insurance policies and Premium Financing Loan.

7. In making their proposal (Goel and Kumar’s “Scheme”), Goel and Kumar represented

that (1) said life insurance policies would provide substantial cash value, which Mr. Pereira would be

able to draw upon during the life thereof; and (2) life insurance policies of similar kind and character

often sold on the market, and could thereby provide additional earnings. Crucially, Goel and Kumar

represented that as they would be able to utilize the Queens Property as collateral for the Premium

Financing Loan, and that because the cash value of the policies would be available to Mr. Pereira

2
4831-0932-3722, v. 5

4 of 32
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 03/09/2021
04/07/2022 04:25
12:20 PM INDEX NO. 617853/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 37
184 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/09/2021
04/07/2022

during the life of the policies, the Queens Property would effectively generate substantial income (i.e.,

become “monetized”).

8. At the time that Goel and Kumar proposed their Scheme, Mr. Pereira had an existing

life insurance policy in place, Guardian Life Insurance Company of America Policy No. 6698007,

the total value of which was $2,500,000.00 million dollars (Mr. Pereira’s “Guardian Policy”). While

Goel and Kumar’s proposal required that Mr. Pereira surrender his Guardian Policy, Mr. Pereira was

hesitant to do so, as he knew he might not be able to replace it given his age, and as his wife and two

(2) children depended upon him for his income.

9. In order to induce his surrender of the Guardian Policy and participation in the

Scheme, Goel and Kumar provided a chart to Mr. Pereira indicating how a $25 million policy

could be obtained through premium financing and that the cash values of the policy, which Mr.

Pereira could access, would provide substantial returns. Unbeknownst to Mr. Pereira, Goel and

Kumar knew or should have known that such representations were false at the time they made

them, and importantly, unlawful.

The “Purchase” of the Mass Mutual Policies

10. In or about December of 2016, Goel and Kumar informed Mr. Pereira that

notwithstanding their representation that Mr. Pereira could collateralize the Queens Property in

connection with the Premium Financing Loan, they had not yet successfully so collateralized.

Nevertheless — in, upon information and belief, an attempt to meet certain sales quotas before the

end of the calendar year — Goel and Kumar convinced Mr. Pereira to temporarily put forth his

brokerage account (Mr. Pereira’s “Brokerage Account”) as collateral for the Premium Financing

Loan. Goel and Kumar assured Mr. Pereira that this was only temporary, and that they would cause

the Queens Property to replace his Brokerage Account as collateral for the Premium Financing Loan.

3
4831-0932-3722, v. 5

5 of 32
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 03/09/2021
04/07/2022 04:25
12:20 PM INDEX NO. 617853/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 37
184 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/09/2021
04/07/2022

11. Mr. Pereira was reticent to encumber his Brokerage Account, as he is the Chief

Executive Officer of a construction company, and he utilized his Brokerage Account as collateral for

the bid, payment, and performance bonds (collectively, “Construction Bonding”) necessary to secure

an award of the vast majority of construction contracts. Nevertheless, Mr. Pereira relied on Goel and

Kumar’s representations, understanding that even if his Brokerage Account was temporarily

encumbered, he would be able to utilize the cash values of the Mass Mutual Policies (as is further

defined herein), and as a result secure Construction Bonding in an amount greater than the amount he

was able to secure utilizing his Brokerage Account.

12. Induced by Goel and Kumar’s representations, Mr. Pereira did surrender the Guardian

Policy, and on or about December 6, 2016 and December 21, 2016, respectively, Goel and Kumar

secured (1) Policy No. 22393975, which had a death benefit of approximately $7,125,127.00 and an

annual premium of 272,393.61; and (2) Policy No. 22404822, which had a death benefit of

$16,647,245.00 and an annual premium of $1,000,000.00, on Mr. Pereira’s behalf (each a “Mass

Mutual Policy” and collectively, the “Mass Mutual Policies”). As of December of 2016 and/or shortly

thereafter, the premiums for the Mass Mutual Policies were both financed through the Premium

Financing Loan.

13. Upon information and belief, in exchange for Mr. Pereira’s “purchase” of the Mass

Mutual Policies, Goel and Kumar “earned” commissions of as much as fifty percent (50%) of the

first-year premium of each Mass Mutual Policy (i.e., in excess of $600,000.00).

14. Further, upon information and belief, Goel and Kumar caused Mr. Pereira to proceed

with the Scheme — which Mr. Pereira did not yet know, but would later come to learn, amounted to

“rebating” in violation of the Insurance Law of the State of New York — prior to their having

collateralized the Queens Property so as to meet certain sales benchmarks prior to the end of the fiscal

4
4831-0932-3722, v. 5

6 of 32
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 03/09/2021
04/07/2022 04:25
12:20 PM INDEX NO. 617853/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 37
184 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/09/2021
04/07/2022

year, thereby securing Mass Mutual’s purchase of Manhattan office space for plaintiff/counterclaim-

defendant Veludi.

15. Indeed, Veludi served as alter-ego for Goel and Kumar. Goel is now, and upon

information and belief was at all relevant times, Veludi’s Managing Partner. Kumar formerly served

as Veludi’s Executive Partner. (Exhibits “A”; “B”). In fact, not only did Veludi serve as an alter ego

for Goel and Kumar, Goel and Kumar utilized Veludi to perpetrate and obfuscate their scheme.

Goel and Kumar Utilize Veludi to Engage in Unlawful “Rebating”

16. On February 17, 2017, Kumar sent an email to Mr. Pereira in which Kumar further

sought to induce Mr. Pereira’s participation in the Scheme, and in doing so reaffirmed in writing

the representations that he and Goel had made to Mr. Pereira. In the email, Kumar wrote that he

and Goel would take care of “the interest payments for the first 3 years from out of our pocket;

from year 4-10 we will built the interest part from the premium financing so this way you don’t

have to layout from your pocket.” (Exhibit “C”).

17. Initially, Goel and Kumar — through their alter ego, Veludi — complied with their

representations, paying the amounts due and owing in connection with the Mass Mutual Policies

and Premium Financing Loan.

18. For example:

a. On August 15, 2017, “Veludi Capital” wired $102,851.62 into Mr. Pereira’s bank

account so as to satisfy a payment that was due on the Mass Mutual Policies.

Indeed, on that same day, Mass Mutual electronically withdrew that amount from

Mr. Pereira’s bank account. (Exhibit “D”).

b. On March 13, 2017, Kumar deposited $18,600.00 into Mr. Pereira’s bank account

with a notation of “Loan Interest,” which upon information and belief, referred to

the Premium Financing Loan. (Exhibit “E”).

5
4831-0932-3722, v. 5

7 of 32
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 03/09/2021
04/07/2022 04:25
12:20 PM INDEX NO. 617853/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 37
184 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/09/2021
04/07/2022

c. On June 25, 2018, Veludi gave Mr. Pereira a check drawn on its account in the

amount of $34,691.03 as payment toward Premium Financing Loan charges due

under Mass Mutual Policy No. 22393975, and on July 2, 2018, as per Goel’s

instructions, Mr. Pereira wrote a check payable to Wintrust Life in that same

amount, indicating said check to be in reference to that same policy — i.e., Mass

Mutual Policy No. 22393975. (Exhibit “F”).

The Advance & Guaranty

19. Despite Goel and Kumar’s having represented that they would substitute the Queens

Property for the Brokerage Account as collateral for the Premium Financing Loan, as of the spring of

2017, Goel and Kumar had failed to collateralize the Queens Property, leaving the Brokerage Account

to continue to stand as collateral for the Premium Financing Loan.

20. Further, Mr. Pereira discovered that he was unable to access the cash values of the

Mass Mutual Policies — which Goel and Kumar had expressly represented would not be the case in

order to induce Mr. Pereira’s surrender of the Guardian Policy and purchase of the Mass Mutual

Policies via the Premium Financing Loan.

21. Given the encumbrance of his Brokerage Account and his inability to access the cash

values of the Mass Mutual Policies, Mr. Pereira was unable to secure Construction Bonding —

causing substantial hardship to his business.

22. Thus, in or about April of 2017 — in an attempt to induce Mr. Pereira’s continued

participation in what unbeknownst to him was an illegal rebating scheme (see Insurance Law § 4224

specified in the relevant insurance contract and/or policy to a person in connection with the sale of

life insurance); see also Insurance Law § 109 (providing that rebating “shall . . . be a misdemeanor”)),

and to thereby preserve Goel and Kumar’s continued entitlement to, inter alia, certain commissions

6
4831-0932-3722, v. 5

8 of 32
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 03/09/2021
04/07/2022 04:25
12:20 PM INDEX NO. 617853/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 37
184 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/09/2021
04/07/2022

attendant to the Mass Mutual Policies — Goel and Kumar (1) advanced Mr. Pereira $700,000.00

against the eventual cash value of the Mass Mutual Policies, through Veludi, their alter-ego (the

“Advance”); and (2) expressly represented to Mr. Pereira that he would not have to personally repay

the Advance.

23. Upon information and belief, Goel and Kumar memorialized the Advance in an

alleged “promissory note” (the “Note”), which, despite its being so denominated, was intended to be

an entry in Veludi’s books — and was never intended to be enforced against Mr. Pereira personally.

Indeed: (1) Veludi never signed the Note (Mr. Pereira likewise does not recall executing said

Promissory Note, and upon information and belief, Mass Mutual terminated Kumar for forging

customer’s signatures); (2) Veludi failed to seek payment of the Note until Mr. Pereira revealed the

Scheme to Mass Mutual in 2019 — despite the Note’s purporting to be payable almost two (2) years

earlier in or about October of 2017; (3) as attested to by Ramcharitar, Goel and Kumar assured Mr.

Pereira that he would not have to repay the Note on numerous instances (NYSCEF Doc. No. 26 at ¶

7); and (4) as is further set out below, Goel and Kumar would later expressly agree in writing to forego

payment of the Note.

24. On or about December 21, 2017, as a result of Goel and Kumar’s failure to pay

amounts due and owing in connection with the Mass Mutual Policies and/or Premium Financing

Loan, Mass Mutual Policy No. 22404822 — which had been in the amount of nearly $17 million —

was surrendered for non-payment. The accrued available cash value and accrued loan balance for

said Policy was transferred to Mass Mutual Policy No. 22393975.

25. Upon Mr. Pereira’s having learned of Mutual Policy No. 22404822 being surrendered

for non-payment — and in light of his continued inability to either access (1) his Brokerage Account,

which continued to stand as collateral for the Premium Financing Loan; and/or (2) the cash values of

7
4831-0932-3722, v. 5

9 of 32
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 03/09/2021
04/07/2022 04:25
12:20 PM INDEX NO. 617853/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 37
184 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/09/2021
04/07/2022

the remaining Mass Mutual Policy — he expressed frustration and a desire to terminate his

involvement with Goel and Kumar.

26. Upon information and belief, Mr. Pereira’s termination of the Mass Mutual Policies

would result in (1) Goel and Kumar’s lack of entitlement to commissions; and (2) the surrender of the

remaining cash value of the Mass Mutual Policies — i.e., Goel and Kumar’s inability to recoup the

$700,000.00 they had advanced to Mr. Pereira.

27. As such, in an attempt to prevent Mr. Pereira’s termination of the Mass Mutual

Policies, on or about April 12, 2018, Goel, Kumar, and their associate, Robert Dunbar (“Dunbar”)

executed a “Promissory Note & Guarenty [sic]” in Mr. Pereira’s favor (the “Guaranty”). Through

the Guaranty, Goel, Kumar and Dunbar (1) admitted the representations that Goel and Kumar had

made to induce Mr. Pereira’s participation in the Scheme; and (2) promised to make payment of all

premium, interest, and loan repayment amounts due in connection with the Mass Mutual Policies

and/or Premium Financing Loan:

IN CONSIDERATION OF MR. PEREIRA BEING SOLICITED
TO ENTER INTO A ‘PREMIUM FINANCING TRANSACTION’
REQUIRING THE INVESTMENT ON BEHALF OF MR.
PEREIRA OF ONE MILLION dollars ($1,000,000.00) plus other
valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is
hereby acknowledged, MR. GOEL, MR. KUMAR AND MR.
DUNBAR personally guarantees the prompt, full and complete
performance of any and all present and future duties, obligations and
indebtedness (the “Debt”) due to the contract held under policies no.
22528804/22393975[.]

...

[Goel, Kumar and Dunbar] will promptly pay the full amount of
interest of the Debt as and when the same will, in any manner, be or
become due[.]
...

MR. CHANDER K. GOEL, MR. SUNIL KUMAR AND MR.
ROBERT DUNBAR HAVE AGREED TO PAY THE INTEREST
FOR THE SIXTY MONTH PERIOD ON THE TWO (2) WHOLE
INSURANCE POLICIES LISTED ABOVE AND IS EFFECTIVE
8
4831-0932-3722, v. 5

10 of 32
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 03/09/2021
04/07/2022 04:25
12:20 PM INDEX NO. 617853/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 37
184 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/09/2021
04/07/2022

AS OF 2016 TO POLICIES MATHURITY [SIC] 2021 AND
HAVE ALSO COMMITTED TO THE TERMS AS STATED IN
ADDENDUM “A” (ATTACHED).

(Exhibit “G” at 1-3; see also id. at Addendum “A”) (setting forth the amount of the increasing death

benefit and the amount of the “CV” [i.e., cash value], beginning at $218,808 in year 1 and rising to

over $2.5 million in a five (5) year period).

28. Goel and Kumar’s failure to satisfy all obligations in connection with the Mass Mutual

Policies and the Premium Financing Loan would therefore result in their surrender of any and all

entitlement to recoup the monies provided for in the Note and Advance, as said monies would

disappear with the lapse of the Mass Mutual Policies.

29. Crucially, the Guaranty further provides that the Note was never intended to be

enforced against Mr. Pereira, who would only be required to repay the Note in the event that he

learned of and exposed the Scheme:

If MR. PEREIRA violates and proceeds to go to compliance of MR.
GOEL, MR. KUMAR AND MR. DUNBAR then this agreement
will become null and void at that time. At that time, we will then
proceed in recouping the funds of the promissory note that was
arranged through a third party which was signed by MR. PEREIRA
on June 1, 2017 in the amount of $700,000 plus any interest and
expenses that may be incurred.

(Id. at 3). That is to say, not only did the Guaranty clearly provide that both it and the Note were a

part of the broader Scheme, but further, that Mr. Pereira — an individual who is neither an attorney

nor an insurance broker — would only be required to repay the Note in the event that he (1) learns

that the Scheme amounted to unlawful rebating; and (2) advises Mass Mutual of same. While Goel,

Kumar, and Dunbar executed the Guaranty, Mr. Pereira does not remember executing it, and indeed

does not possess a copy bearing his signature.

The Scheme Unravels; Mr. Pereira “Goes to Compliance”

9
4831-0932-3722, v. 5

11 of 32
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 03/09/2021
04/07/2022 04:25
12:20 PM INDEX NO. 617853/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 37
184 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/09/2021
04/07/2022

30. Mr. Pereira — whose Brokerage Account continued to stand as collateral for the

Premium Financing Loan, and who, upon attempting to access the funds therein, was informed that

he was unable to do so — thereafter continued to attempt to draw from the cash values of the Mass

Mutual Policies, and was informed on each occasion that he could not and should contact Goel and

Kumar.

31. On or about December 6, 2018, Mr. Pereira received a letter from Barrington Bank &

Trust Company, N.A., a servicer of the Premium Financing Loan, informing him that, inter alia, there

were outstanding interest and premium payments due and owing in connection with Mass Mutual

Policy No. 22393975, and that said policy was in danger of cancellation. (Exhibit “H”). That is to

say, Goel and Kumar had failed to abide by the promises they had made in the Guaranty, resulting in

both (1) the potential loss of any value that might have come of the Mass Mutual Policies; and (2) the

potential foreclosure of Mr. Pereira’s Brokerage Account.

32. The continued encumbrance of Mr. Pereira’s Brokerage Account, his loss of the

Guardian Policy, and the potential loss of the Mass Mutual Policies was particularly troubling to Mr.

Pereira, as the value attendant thereto was the lifeline of his business. Mr. Pereira is the Chief

Executive Officer of a construction company that provides, inter alia, asphalt, concrete, demolition,

and excavation related work. Upon information and belief, the majority of Mr. Pereira’s business has

historically come in the form public improvement work. In order to secure the award of contracts for

said work, however, as is standard industry practice, Mr. Pereira is frequently required to secure

Construction Bonding. (See Performance bonds and payment bonds, 4E N.Y. PRAC., COM. LITIG. IN

NEW YORK STATE COURTS § 121:10 (4th ed.) (2019) (“Most public construction contracts and many

private construction contracts require the prime contractor to furnish a performance bond to the owner

and/or a payment bond for the benefit of subcontractors and others as a prerequisite for obtaining the

contract.”). Upon information and belief, with his Brokerage Account encumbered, and without the

10
4831-0932-3722, v. 5

12 of 32
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 03/09/2021
04/07/2022 04:25
12:20 PM INDEX NO. 617853/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 37
184 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/09/2021
04/07/2022

ability to collateralize the value of the Guardian and/or Mass Mutual Policies, Mr. Pereira was unable

to secure the requisite Construction Bonding to bid on and/or enter into one or more construction

contracts; the result of which was that Mr. Pereira’s business suffered a loss of work, and accordingly,

a loss of income.

33. In January of 2019, in response to Mr. Pereira’s expression of his concerns regarding

such potentialities, Goel advised Mr. Pereira to “go legal.” Mr. Pereira thereafter contacted Mass

Mutual regarding the Scheme, after which he learned (and Mass Mutual confirmed) that Goel and

Kumar’s conduct amounted to unlawful rebating in violation of the Insurance Law of the State of

New York.

34. In fact, in response to Mr. Pereira’s informing it of Goel and Kumar’s conduct, Mass

Mutual (1) entered into a confidential settlement with Mr. Pereira wherein, in exchange for Mr.

Pereira’s surrender of the Mass Mutual Policies, itagreed to, inter alia, satisfy his remaining

obligations in connection with the Premium Financing Loan (Exhibit “I”); and (2) terminated Goel

(upon information and belief, Kumar had already been terminated for forging a customer’s signature).

(See Exhibit “J” at 11) (indicating that Mass Mutual discharged Goel on October 11, 2019 “in

connection with inappropriate traditional insurance sales practices.”).

AS AND FOR A FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

35. Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment in Lieu of Complaint fails to state a claim

upon which relief can be awarded.

AS AND FOR A SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

36. To the extent that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment in Lieu of Complaint is

barred by the applicable statute of limitations, it must be dismissed.

11
4831-0932-3722, v. 5

13 of 32
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 03/09/2021
04/07/2022 04:25
12:20 PM INDEX NO. 617853/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 37
184 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/09/2021
04/07/2022

AS AND FOR A THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

37. If Plaintiff sustained damages in the manner alleged in the Motion for Summary

Judgment in Lieu of Complaint, such damages were attributable, in whole or in part, to the actions,

omissions, and/or culpable conduct of Plaintiff, and not the conduct of Mr. Pereira.

AS AND FOR A FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

38. The claims asserted in Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment in Lieu of Complaint

are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrines of waiver, estoppel, laches and/or accord and

satisfactio

Case Info

Judge

ROY S. MAHON Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

April 07, 2022

Case Filing Date

December 20, 2019

County

Parties

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.