Preview
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 03/25/2024 01:27 PM INDEX NO. 706362/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 8 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/25/2024
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF QUEENS
------------------------------------------------------------------------ x
64-16 REGO PARK LLC,
Index No:
Plaintiff,
-against- AFFIRMATION OF
MATTHEW C. SCHWARTZ
YA YING JIANG and SHI KE HUANG,
Defendants.
------------------------------------------------------------------------ x
MATTHEW C. SCHWARTZ, an attorney duly admitted to practice law before the
Courts of the State of New York, hereby affirms the following under the penalty of perjury:
1. I am an attorney with the law firm of Peraino Malinowski LLP, attorneys for
Plaintiff 64-16 Rego Park LLC (“Plaintiff”). I am fully familiar with the facts and circumstances
of the within action by virtue of the file maintained by this office and this firm’s participation in
this action.
2. I submit this affirmation in support of Plaintiff’s Order to Show Cause pursuant to
RPAPL Article 15 and the general equitable powers of this Court seeking:
(a) a judicial declaration that Plaintiff’s property on Plaintiff’s property known as
64-14/16 Wetherole Street, Rego Park, New York (Block: 3096, Lot: 79) (the
“Property”) was wrongfully encumbered and slandered by fraudulent declarations;
(b) a judicial order directing that the fraudulent declarations be expunged and
cancelled of record;
(c) all other appropriate relief to eliminate the cloud on title to the Property effected
by Defendants’ unlawful acts;
(d) compensatory and punitive damages for Defendants’ wrongful actions; and
(e) Granting Defendant such other and further relief as the Court deems just and
proper.
{Client/086264/2/02055298.DOCX;3 }
1 of 7
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 03/25/2024 01:27 PM INDEX NO. 706362/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 8 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/25/2024
3. This lawsuit is brought against Defendants Ya Ying Jiang (“Jiang”) and Shi Ke
Huang (“Huang”) (collectively, “Defendants”) based upon their theft and fraudulent conduct in
unlawfully recording false declarations on Plaintiff’s Property.
4. Simultaneous with this instant application, Plaintiff has commenced the instant
action by summons and complaint seeking to address Defendant’s fraudulent conduct in
unlawfully recording false declarations against the Property. A copy of the Summons and
Complaint is annexed hereto as Exhibit A.
5. By deed dated September 4, 2019, Plaintiff acquired the Property from Leila
Lujaina Associates, and Plaintiff has owned the Property continuously since that date. A copy of
the Deed for the Property is annexed hereto as Exhibit B.
6. In or about October 2020, Jiang, with the assistance and cooperation of others,
including Huang, embarked on a plan and scheme to wrongfully encumber the Property without
any authorization to do so.
7. In or about March 2022 Huang, with the assistance and cooperation of others,
including Jiang, embarked on a plan and scheme to wrongfully encumber the Property without any
authorization to do so.
8. Defendants’ scheme entailed the making and recording of forged “Declarations”
that purported to make Defendants “Owners” of the Property.
9. Plaintiff had no knowledge of the scheme which was discovered only recently.
10. Defendants’ scheme was done without the knowledge, authorization or permission
of Plaintiff.
11. According to the records of the New York City Department of Finance, Office of
the City Register (the “City Register”), the “Declarations” were recorded in Queens County on or
{Client/086264/2/02055298.DOCX;3 } 2
2 of 7
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 03/25/2024 01:27 PM INDEX NO. 706362/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 8 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/25/2024
about November 6, 2020 under CRFN number 2020000311076 (the “Jiang Forged Declaration”)
and on or about May 2, 2022 under CRFN number 2022000179835 (the “Huang Forged
Declaration”) (collectively the “Fraudulent Declarations”). A copy of the Jiang Forged
Declaration is annexed hereto as Exhibit C. A copy of the Huang Forged Declaration is annexed
hereto as Exhibit D.
12. Plaintiff had no prior knowledge of the Fraudulent Declarations.
13. Plaintiff did not execute, nor did any of its members execute, the Fraudulent
Declarations.
14. As of the commencement of this action, Plaintiff and/or its designees, have been
insole and exclusive possession of the Property. No other person or entity except Plaintiff and/or
its designees have ever been in possession of the Property since Plaintiff purchased the Property
on September 4, 2019.
15. The Fraudulent Declarations appear regular on its face, but, in fact, are fraudulent,
void and of no effect, and constitute a cloud on Plaintiff’s title to the Property to such an extent
that Plaintiff is unable to sell or otherwise dispose of the Property until the Fraudulent Declarations
are cancelled and set aside by the Court.
16. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants’ fraudulent acts, there is a cloud on
Plaintiff’s title to the Property and Plaintiff is hindered in its ability to sell, refinance, or otherwise
benefit from its rights of ownership to the Property.
ARGUMENT
17. Under New York law, in an action to quiet title pursuant to RPAPL Article 15, the
movant must establish, prima facie, that it holds title, or that the nonmovant's title claim is without
merit. White Sands Motel Holding Corp. v Trustees of Freeholders and Commonalty of Town of
{Client/086264/2/02055298.DOCX;3 } 3
3 of 7
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 03/25/2024 01:27 PM INDEX NO. 706362/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 8 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/25/2024
E. Hampton, 142 AD3d 1073 [2d Dept 2016]; Nurse v Rios, 160 AD3d 888 [2d Dept 2018](citing
RPAPL §1515, RPAPL §1501(1) (quiet title cause of action must allege, inter alia, the existence
of a removable cloud on the property, such as in a deed or other instrument, that is actually invalid
or inoperative).
18. The accompanying Zhu Affidavit (and accompanying Exhibits “B” and “C,”
annexed thereto), and the Complaint, establish that by deed dated September 4, 2019, Plaintiff
acquired title in fee simple to the Property. The deed granting title to Plaintiff was duly recorded
in the NYC Department of Finance, Office of the City Register of the County of Queens on October
21, 2019, under CRFN 2019000341773. See Exhibit B.
19. Subsequently, Jiang recorded a Declaration of Restriction for the Property in the
Office of the City Register of the City of New York on November 6, 2020, under CRFN
2020000311076. It appears from the public records that Jiang claims an estate or interest in the
Property that is adverse to that of Plaintiff based on the Jiang Forged Declaration discovered during
the title search. See Exhibit C.
20. The Jiang Forged Declaration is a fraudulent document, and any claims which Shi
may assert regarding the Declaration of Restriction are invalid, void, and of no force and effect.
21. Additionally, Huang recorded a Declaration of Restriction for the Property in the
Office of the City Register of the City of New York on May 2, 2022, under CRFN 2020000218035.
It appears from the public records that Huang claims an estate or interest in the Property that is
adverse to that of Plaintiff based on the Huang Forged Declaration discovered during the title
search. See Exhibit D.
22. The Huang Forged Declaration is a fraudulent document, and any claims which Shi
may assert regarding the Declaration of Restriction are invalid, void, and of no force and effect.
{Client/086264/2/02055298.DOCX;3 } 4
4 of 7
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 03/25/2024 01:27 PM INDEX NO. 706362/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 8 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/25/2024
23. Accordingly, pursuant to RPAPL §1501(1), any alleged estate or interest in the
Property that is adverse to that of Plaintiff stemming from the Fraudulent Declarations should be
found invalid or void and discharged.
24. Under New York law, the elements of slander of title are (1) a communication
falsely casting doubt on the validity of complainant's title, (2) reasonably calculated to cause harm,
and (3) resulting in special damages. Carnival Co. v Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., 23 AD2d 75
[1st Dept 1965]. “There is no doubt that the act of wrongfully filing of record an unfounded claim
to the property of another is actionable as slander of title . . . The wrongful filing for record of a
document which casts a cloud upon another's title to or interest in realty is clearly such an act of
publication as to give rise to an action for slander of title, if provable damages result.” 39 Coll.
Point Corp. v Transpac Capital Corp., 27 AD3d 454 [2d Dept 2006] (internal quotations and
citations omitted).
25. The accompanying Zhu Affidavit (and accompanying Exhibits “C” and “D,”
annexed thereto), and the Complaint, establish that Defendants are falsely casting doubt on the
validity of Plaintiff’s title and on Plaintiff’s right to alienate the Property by recording the
Fraudulent Declarations. Further, Defendants’ actions are causing harm to Plaintiff.
26. Specifically, the recording of the Fraudulent Declarations are preventing the sale,
refinance and/or transfer of the subject Property. Significantly, there is no basis for Defendants to
prohibit such activities relating the Property when Plaintiff owns the Property in fee simple and
never provided authority to Defendants in any manner whatsoever to restrain the transfer of the
Property.
27. Additionally, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer pecuniary loss. As such,
Plaintiff is entitled to damages against Plaintiff in an amount to be proven at an inquest.
{Client/086264/2/02055298.DOCX;3 } 5
5 of 7
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 03/25/2024 01:27 PM INDEX NO. 706362/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 8 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/25/2024
Accordingly, Plaintiffs have submitted proof of facts establishing the viability of their cause of
action for slander of title.
28. No prior requests for the relief requested herein as to the Fraudulent Declarations
have been made.
Dated: New York, New York PERAINO MALINOWSKI LLP
March 25, 2024 Attorneys for Plaintiff
By: /s/ Matthew C. Schwartz
Matthew C. Schwartz, Esq.
Simon I. Malinowski, Esq
152 Madison Avenue, 16th Floor
New York, New York 10016
(646) 360-3137
{Client/086264/2/02055298.DOCX;3 } 6
6 of 7
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 03/25/2024 01:27 PM INDEX NO. 706362/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 8 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/25/2024
CERTIFICATE OF LENGTH OF PAPERS COMPLIANCE
The foregoing Affirmation in Support of Plaintiff’s Order to Show Cause complies with Rule
202.8-b of the Uniform Rules for the Supreme Court and County Court because it contains 1394
words, excluding parts otherwise exempted.
/s/ Matthew C. Schwartz
Matthew C. Schwartz, Esq.
{Client/086264/2/02055298.DOCX;3 } 7
7 of 7
Preview
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 03/25/2024 01:27 PM INDEX NO. 706362/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 8 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/25/2024 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF QUEENS ------------------------------------------------------------------------ x 64-16 REGO PARK LLC, Index No: Plaintiff, -against- AFFIRMATION OF MATTHEW C. SCHWARTZ YA YING JIANG and SHI KE HUANG, Defendants. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ x MATTHEW C. SCHWARTZ, an attorney duly admitted to practice law before the Courts of the State of New York, hereby affirms the following under the penalty of perjury: 1. I am an attorney with the law firm of Peraino Malinowski LLP, attorneys for Plaintiff 64-16 Rego Park LLC (“Plaintiff”). I am fully familiar with the facts and circumstances of the within action by virtue of the file maintained by this office and this firm’s participation in this action. 2. I submit this affirmation in support of Plaintiff’s Order to Show Cause pursuant to RPAPL Article 15 and the general equitable powers of this Court seeking: (a) a judicial declaration that Plaintiff’s property on Plaintiff’s property known as 64-14/16 Wetherole Street, Rego Park, New York (Block: 3096, Lot: 79) (the “Property”) was wrongfully encumbered and slandered by fraudulent declarations; (b) a judicial order directing that the fraudulent declarations be expunged and cancelled of record; (c) all other appropriate relief to eliminate the cloud on title to the Property effected by Defendants’ unlawful acts; (d) compensatory and punitive damages for Defendants’ wrongful actions; and (e) Granting Defendant such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. {Client/086264/2/02055298.DOCX;3 } 1 of 7 FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 03/25/2024 01:27 PM INDEX NO. 706362/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 8 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/25/2024 3. This lawsuit is brought against Defendants Ya Ying Jiang (“Jiang”) and Shi Ke Huang (“Huang”) (collectively, “Defendants”) based upon their theft and fraudulent conduct in unlawfully recording false declarations on Plaintiff’s Property. 4. Simultaneous with this instant application, Plaintiff has commenced the instant action by summons and complaint seeking to address Defendant’s fraudulent conduct in unlawfully recording false declarations against the Property. A copy of the Summons and Complaint is annexed hereto as Exhibit A. 5. By deed dated September 4, 2019, Plaintiff acquired the Property from Leila Lujaina Associates, and Plaintiff has owned the Property continuously since that date. A copy of the Deed for the Property is annexed hereto as Exhibit B. 6. In or about October 2020, Jiang, with the assistance and cooperation of others, including Huang, embarked on a plan and scheme to wrongfully encumber the Property without any authorization to do so. 7. In or about March 2022 Huang, with the assistance and cooperation of others, including Jiang, embarked on a plan and scheme to wrongfully encumber the Property without any authorization to do so. 8. Defendants’ scheme entailed the making and recording of forged “Declarations” that purported to make Defendants “Owners” of the Property. 9. Plaintiff had no knowledge of the scheme which was discovered only recently. 10. Defendants’ scheme was done without the knowledge, authorization or permission of Plaintiff. 11. According to the records of the New York City Department of Finance, Office of the City Register (the “City Register”), the “Declarations” were recorded in Queens County on or {Client/086264/2/02055298.DOCX;3 } 2 2 of 7 FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 03/25/2024 01:27 PM INDEX NO. 706362/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 8 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/25/2024 about November 6, 2020 under CRFN number 2020000311076 (the “Jiang Forged Declaration”) and on or about May 2, 2022 under CRFN number 2022000179835 (the “Huang Forged Declaration”) (collectively the “Fraudulent Declarations”). A copy of the Jiang Forged Declaration is annexed hereto as Exhibit C. A copy of the Huang Forged Declaration is annexed hereto as Exhibit D. 12. Plaintiff had no prior knowledge of the Fraudulent Declarations. 13. Plaintiff did not execute, nor did any of its members execute, the Fraudulent Declarations. 14. As of the commencement of this action, Plaintiff and/or its designees, have been insole and exclusive possession of the Property. No other person or entity except Plaintiff and/or its designees have ever been in possession of the Property since Plaintiff purchased the Property on September 4, 2019. 15. The Fraudulent Declarations appear regular on its face, but, in fact, are fraudulent, void and of no effect, and constitute a cloud on Plaintiff’s title to the Property to such an extent that Plaintiff is unable to sell or otherwise dispose of the Property until the Fraudulent Declarations are cancelled and set aside by the Court. 16. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants’ fraudulent acts, there is a cloud on Plaintiff’s title to the Property and Plaintiff is hindered in its ability to sell, refinance, or otherwise benefit from its rights of ownership to the Property. ARGUMENT 17. Under New York law, in an action to quiet title pursuant to RPAPL Article 15, the movant must establish, prima facie, that it holds title, or that the nonmovant's title claim is without merit. White Sands Motel Holding Corp. v Trustees of Freeholders and Commonalty of Town of {Client/086264/2/02055298.DOCX;3 } 3 3 of 7 FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 03/25/2024 01:27 PM INDEX NO. 706362/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 8 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/25/2024 E. Hampton, 142 AD3d 1073 [2d Dept 2016]; Nurse v Rios, 160 AD3d 888 [2d Dept 2018](citing RPAPL §1515, RPAPL §1501(1) (quiet title cause of action must allege, inter alia, the existence of a removable cloud on the property, such as in a deed or other instrument, that is actually invalid or inoperative). 18. The accompanying Zhu Affidavit (and accompanying Exhibits “B” and “C,” annexed thereto), and the Complaint, establish that by deed dated September 4, 2019, Plaintiff acquired title in fee simple to the Property. The deed granting title to Plaintiff was duly recorded in the NYC Department of Finance, Office of the City Register of the County of Queens on October 21, 2019, under CRFN 2019000341773. See Exhibit B. 19. Subsequently, Jiang recorded a Declaration of Restriction for the Property in the Office of the City Register of the City of New York on November 6, 2020, under CRFN 2020000311076. It appears from the public records that Jiang claims an estate or interest in the Property that is adverse to that of Plaintiff based on the Jiang Forged Declaration discovered during the title search. See Exhibit C. 20. The Jiang Forged Declaration is a fraudulent document, and any claims which Shi may assert regarding the Declaration of Restriction are invalid, void, and of no force and effect. 21. Additionally, Huang recorded a Declaration of Restriction for the Property in the Office of the City Register of the City of New York on May 2, 2022, under CRFN 2020000218035. It appears from the public records that Huang claims an estate or interest in the Property that is adverse to that of Plaintiff based on the Huang Forged Declaration discovered during the title search. See Exhibit D. 22. The Huang Forged Declaration is a fraudulent document, and any claims which Shi may assert regarding the Declaration of Restriction are invalid, void, and of no force and effect. {Client/086264/2/02055298.DOCX;3 } 4 4 of 7 FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 03/25/2024 01:27 PM INDEX NO. 706362/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 8 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/25/2024 23. Accordingly, pursuant to RPAPL §1501(1), any alleged estate or interest in the Property that is adverse to that of Plaintiff stemming from the Fraudulent Declarations should be found invalid or void and discharged. 24. Under New York law, the elements of slander of title are (1) a communication falsely casting doubt on the validity of complainant's title, (2) reasonably calculated to cause harm, and (3) resulting in special damages. Carnival Co. v Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., 23 AD2d 75 [1st Dept 1965]. “There is no doubt that the act of wrongfully filing of record an unfounded claim to the property of another is actionable as slander of title . . . The wrongful filing for record of a document which casts a cloud upon another's title to or interest in realty is clearly such an act of publication as to give rise to an action for slander of title, if provable damages result.” 39 Coll. Point Corp. v Transpac Capital Corp., 27 AD3d 454 [2d Dept 2006] (internal quotations and citations omitted). 25. The accompanying Zhu Affidavit (and accompanying Exhibits “C” and “D,” annexed thereto), and the Complaint, establish that Defendants are falsely casting doubt on the validity of Plaintiff’s title and on Plaintiff’s right to alienate the Property by recording the Fraudulent Declarations. Further, Defendants’ actions are causing harm to Plaintiff. 26. Specifically, the recording of the Fraudulent Declarations are preventing the sale, refinance and/or transfer of the subject Property. Significantly, there is no basis for Defendants to prohibit such activities relating the Property when Plaintiff owns the Property in fee simple and never provided authority to Defendants in any manner whatsoever to restrain the transfer of the Property. 27. Additionally, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer pecuniary loss. As such, Plaintiff is entitled to damages against Plaintiff in an amount to be proven at an inquest. {Client/086264/2/02055298.DOCX;3 } 5 5 of 7 FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 03/25/2024 01:27 PM INDEX NO. 706362/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 8 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/25/2024 Accordingly, Plaintiffs have submitted proof of facts establishing the viability of their cause of action for slander of title. 28. No prior requests for the relief requested herein as to the Fraudulent Declarations have been made. Dated: New York, New York PERAINO MALINOWSKI LLP March 25, 2024 Attorneys for Plaintiff By: /s/ Matthew C. Schwartz Matthew C. Schwartz, Esq. Simon I. Malinowski, Esq 152 Madison Avenue, 16th Floor New York, New York 10016 (646) 360-3137 {Client/086264/2/02055298.DOCX;3 } 6 6 of 7 FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 03/25/2024 01:27 PM INDEX NO. 706362/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 8 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/25/2024 CERTIFICATE OF LENGTH OF PAPERS COMPLIANCE The foregoing Affirmation in Support of Plaintiff’s Order to Show Cause complies with Rule 202.8-b of the Uniform Rules for the Supreme Court and County Court because it contains 1394 words, excluding parts otherwise exempted. /s/ Matthew C. Schwartz Matthew C. Schwartz, Esq. {Client/086264/2/02055298.DOCX;3 } 7 7 of 7