Preview
INDEX NO. 153040/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 34 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/28/2020
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
- - -- - -- - - -- - - - -- - -- - - -- - - -- - - -- - - -- - - - -x
TRIADOU SPV S.A.,
Index no. 153040/2020
Petitioner,
-against- : AMENDED VERIFIED
: PETITION
JOSEPH CHETRIT, MEYER CHETRIT, WEST 52 :
UNITS OWNER LLC, WEST 52 UNITS OWNER II :
LLC, WEST 52 UNITS OWNER III LLC, WEST 52 :
UNITS OWNER IV LLC, 135 WEST 52nd STREET :
OWNER LLC, and :
:
Respondents. :
:
--------------------------------------- x
Petitioner Triadou SPV S.A. ("Triadou") by and through itscounsel Kravit Smith LLP,
for its Amended Verified Petition (hereinafter, the "AVP") against Joseph Chetrit and Meyer
Chetrit (the "Chetrits"), West 52 Units Owner LLC, West 52 Units Owner II LLC, West 52
Units Owner III LLC, West 52 Units Owner IV LLC (the "New Corporate Respondents") and
135 West 52nd Street Owner LLC (together with the New Corporate Respondents, the
"Corporate Respondents"), respectfully alleges as follows:
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
1. Triadou is a judgment creditor in four prior related actions described herein.
Triadou brings this special proceeding pursuant to CPLR §§ 5225(b) and 5201(a) and N.Y.
Debtor & Creditor Law ("NY DCL") §§ 273, 276, 278(1)(b) and 276-a for an order and
judgment (a) declaring that the transfers of Flatotel Condominium Units 8A, 34A, 35A, 39A,
40A and PH1 (the "Conveyed Properties") from 135 West 52nd Street Owner LLC to the New
Corporate Respondents were fraudulent conveyances; (b) directing Respondent West 52 Units
Owner LLC to turn over to the court-appointed monitor, retired Justice Herman Cahn (the
1
1 of 23
INDEX NO. 153040/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 34 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/28/2020
"Monitor"), the proceeds from the sales of Flatotel Condominium Units PH1 and 39A sufficient
to the post-judgment interest in the amount of $3,927,016.15 (the "Post-
satisfy outstanding
attorneys'
Judgment Interest") plus Triadou's fees in this proceeding; (c) disregarding the
transfers of Flatotel Condominium Units 8A, 34A, 35A and 40A from 135 West 52nd Street
Owner LLC to the New Corporate Respondents and permitting Triadou to deliver an execution
to the sheriff and ordering the sheriff to sell Flatotel Condominium Units 8A, 34A, 35A and 40A
attorneys'
to the extent necessary to satisfy the Post-Judgment Interest plus Triadou's fees in this
proceeding; (d) awarding damages to Triadou as against all Respondents in the amount of the
attorneys'
Post-Judgment Interest jointly and severally; and (e) awarding Triadou its fees in this
proceeding against all Respondents jointly and severally.
2. The Chetrits are brothers and prominent real estate developers in New York City
and developed a luxury condominium known as the Flatotel Condominium located at 135 West
52nd Street, New York, New York. Triadou was an original investor in the Flatotel
Condominium but sold its interest to a company now fully owned and controlled by the Chetrits
for $28 million plus 12% of the profits from the final sales of the development with a minimum
payment of $4 million. Of that amount, Triadou was owed $21 million over four installment
payments, on which the Chetrits completely defaulted. As a result, Triadou was forced to
commence four actions (one for each installment) against companies owned and controlled by
the Chetrits - that is,CF 135 Flat LLC, CF 135 West Member LLC and The Chetrit Group,
LLC (the "Judgment-
Debtors")
- and obtained judgments totaling over $23 million, including
pre-judgment interest.
3. In connection with those four actions, the Court (Justice David B. Cohen)
appointed the Monitor to collect the judgments (which included pre-judgment interest) as well as
2
2 of 23
INDEX NO. 153040/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 34 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/28/2020
the Post-Judgment Interest. While the Judgment-Debtors paid approximately $23 million to the
Monitor the original amounts owed plus pre-judgment the Judgment-
representing interest,
Debtors refused to pay all of the accrued Post-Judgment Interest. Justice Cohen ruled that the
Judgment-Debtors owed the Post-Judgment Interest - approximately $4 million - and his
was affirmed the Appellate Division. The Court of Appeals denied the Judgment-
ruling by
Debtors'
motion for permission to appeal.
4. Within days of Justice Cohen's ruling that the Post-Judgment Interest was due,
the Chetrits pursued a bold judgment-proofing scheme to strip assets from the Judgment-Debtors
by transferring seven of the remaining unsold Flatotel Condominium units worth almost $48
million to Respondent West 52 Units Owner LLC, a newly-formed Delaware corporation
controlled by the Chetrits, for no consideration. Those condominium units and the proceeds
from their sales represented assets due to the Judgment-Debtors. The Chetrits have sold three of
those units to unrelated parties, but the remaining four units are owned by the New Corporate
Respondents. This action seeks a judgment ordering Respondents to turn over funds to the
Monitor sufficient to satisfy the Post-Judgment Interest and permitting Triadou to levy execution
upon the unsold condominium units.
PARTIES
5. Respondent Joseph Chetrit is an individual who, upon information and belief,
resides in New York County. He is the manager and a beneficial owner of the Judgment-Debtors
and the Vice-President of Respondent 135 West 52nd Street Owner LLC.
6. Respondent Meyer Chetrit is an individual who, upon information and belief,
resides in New York County and is Joseph Chetrit's brother. He is a manager, member and
beneficial owner of the Corporate Respondents.
3
3 of 23
INDEX NO. 153040/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 34 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/28/2020
7. Respondent West 52 Units Owner LLC is a limited liability corporation organized
and existing under the laws of Delaware. West 52 Units Owner LLC owns unit 8A in the
Flatotel Condominium.
8. Respondent West 52 Units Owner II LLC is a limited liability corporation
organized and existing under the laws of Delaware. West 52 Units Owner II LLC owns unit 34A
in the Flatotel Condominium.
9. Respondent West 52 Units Owner III LLC is a limited liability corporation
organized and existing under the laws of Delaware. West 52 Units Owner III LLC owns unit
35A in the Flatotel Condominium.
10. Respondent West 52 Units Owner IV LLC is a limited liability corporation
organized and existing under the laws of Delaware. West 52 Units Owner IV LLC owns unit
40A in the Flatotel Condominium.
11. Respondent 135 West 52nd Street Owner LLC is a limited liability corporation
organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York. 135 West 52nd Street Owner
LLC fraudulently transferred real estate assets worth approximately $50 million to Respondent
West 52 Units Owner LLC to hinder and delay Triadou's collection of judgments against the
Judgment-Debtors, the parent companies of 135 West 52nd Street Owner LLC.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
12. This Court has jurisdiction over the Respondents pursuant to CPLR §§ 301 and
302(a) because the Respondents transact business within the State of New York. Respondents
Joseph Chetrit and Meyer Chetrit reside and transact business (including the business described
in this Petition) in the State of New York. The corporate Respondents each transact business
and/or own real estate in the State of New York.
4
4 of 23
INDEX NO. 153040/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 34 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/28/2020
13. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to CPLR § 503(a) because Respondents
Joseph Chetrit and Meyer Chetrit reside in New York County and a substantial part of the events
giving rise to the claims asserted herein, including the transfers of real estate in which the
Respondents have an interest, occurred in New York County.
FACTS
14. CF 135 Flat LLC and Triadou are parties to an agreement dated August 4, 2014
whereby Triadou assigned its 50% interest in CF 135 West Member LLC, which LLC directly
and indirectly held a 75% ownership interest in the Flatotel Condominium. Triadou assigned its
Price"
interest to CF 135 Flat LLC (the "Assignment") in exchange for a "Purchase of
$28 million, which was comprised of various components, plus, after certain conditions were
met, twelve percent (12%) of the profit (the "Profit Participation"). CF 135 Flat LLC is the
indirect owner of the Flatotel Condominium that was in midst of being developed when the
Assignment was made. Pursuant to a related Guaranty agreement dated August 4, 2014, CF 135
Flat LLC and CF 135 West Member LLC, together with The Chetrit Group, LLC, agreed to
guarantee the obligations of CF 135 Flat LLC under the Assignment (the "Guaranty").
15. The ownership of the Flatotel Condominium prior to August 4, 2014 is
represented below:
5
5 of 23
INDEX NO. 153040/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 34 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/28/2020
CF 135 Flat LLC
Tnadon SPV SA.
(Chetrits)
o° à so*é
CF 135 emk
Chpper 135 West LLC
75*é 25°¿
135 West $2dStreet
Holder LLC
100°.
135 West 52dStreet Mezz
LLC
100°
135 West 2d Street
Owner LLC
100°4
Flatotel
Condominium
Clipper 135 West LLC's 25% interest in 135 West 52nd Street Holder LLC is owned a third-
by
party.
16. At the time Triadou invested in the Flatotel Cenac-E:= project, CF 135 Flat
LLC represented and warranted to Triadou, by Respondent Joseph Chetrit, its manager, that any
actions by 135 West 52nd Street Owner LLC would have to be approved by CF 135 Flat LLC.
See Exhibit A attached hereto.
17. As part of the consideration owed for the Assignment, CF 135 Flat LLC agreed to
pay to Triadou, and the Guarantors agreed to guarantee, four separate instalhnent payments of
$5,250,000 $21 on November 2014 and
r- through June
(tetaling million) beginning 2, --g 30,
2015 (the "Instalhnent Obligations"). CF 135 Flat LLC failed to of the Inst Umant
satisfy any
Obligations and defaulted four separate times under the Assig-ment The Guarantors c4-4¹==ly
failed to satisfy any Instahant Obligations upon CF 135 Flat LLC's default and were also in
6
6 of 23
INDEX NO. 153040/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 34 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/28/2020
default under the Guaranty. Each of the defaulted Installment Obligations carried 9% interest
from the date of default.
18. As a result, Triadou was forced to commence four actions in New York Supreme
Court against the Judgment-Debtors, bearing index numbers 653462/2014, 650239/2015,
154681/2015, and 156907/2015, to collect on the defaulted Installment Obligations. On April
15, 2015, the Supreme Court issued a judgment in the amount of $5,479,735.14 in the action
bearing index number 653462/2014, and a judgment in the amount of $5,502,991.51 on July 15,
2015 in the action bearing index number 650239/2015. Triadou had also filed motions for
summary judgment in lieu of the complaints in the actions bearing index numbers 154681/2015
and 156907/2015, which were not decided until February 2, 2017.
19. On July 7, 2015, the Judgment-Debtors moved by order to show cause for a stay
of the proceedings on the purported ground that they were at risk of potential double liability to
Triadou and non-party the City of Almaty, Kazakhstan ("Almaty"), which had asserted that
Triadou's interest in the Flatotel Condominium was purchased with funds illegally obtained from
Almaty and that Almaty was the equitable owner of Triadou's interest in the Flatotel
Condominium. Based on the purportedly competing claims between Triadou and Almaty, the
Judgment-Debtors commenced an interpleader action on July 7, 2015 in the Supreme Court,
naming Triadou and Almaty as defendants.
Judgment-Debtors'
20. On July 9, 2015, Almaty filed a notice of removal of the
interpleader action to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
The removed interpleader action is entitled CF 135 Flat LLC, CF 135 West Member LLC, and
The Chetrit Group LLC v. Triadou SPV S.A. and City of Almaty, a foreign city, 15-cv-5345
(AJN) (hereafter, the "Federal Action").
7
7 of 23
INDEX NO. 153040/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 34 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/28/2020
21. On July 13, 2015, the Supreme Court issued an order temporarily staying
Judgment-Debtors'
enforcement proceedings pending the Supreme Court's disposition of the
order to show cause. On February 2, 2016, the Supreme Court issued a decision and order
determining, inter alia, that "a possibility of inconsistent judgments exists . .. [since] the court in
Almaty,"
the interpleader action may determine that [the $21 million] should be paid to and
Judgment-Debtors'
granting the motion for a stay of proceedings on the condition that the
Judgment-Debtors deposit the sum of $21 million with the Court within 20 days of service of the
order with notice of entry. Consistent with their pattern of disrespect for the Supreme Court's
orders, the Judgment-Debtors sought from the Federal Court in the Federal Action a stay of the
proceedings in the Supreme Court, and specifically the Supreme Court's February 2, 2016 order.
That stay motion was summarily denied by the Federal Court (Nathan, J.)on February 22, 2016.
22. On February 16, 2016, Triadou served the Judgment-Debtors with a copy of the
Supreme Court's February 2, 2016 Order with notice of entry. On March 8, 2016, the Supreme
Court issued an order extending the deposit deadline by 48 hours to March 10, 2016. The
Supreme Court held as follows:
Upon the foregoing papers, itis ordered that the Court declines to sign the Order
to Show Cause as the movant has failed to present to the Court sufficient proof of
irreparable injury and that itwould likely be successful on the merits. Movant has
not provided sufficient proof that the alleged deal would fallthrough, that itlacks
the funds to pay the amount ordered by Judge Mills or that equities favor movant.
In this matter (and related matters) Judge Mills stayed allproceedings for the
movant to deposit the $21 million into Court. The Order was based upon
representations of movant that itwould do so. Now, without any sufficient
evidence to the contrary and despite admitting that itowes the money, but just not
sure who to pay, movant seeks to extend the time for such payment despite its
own earlier representations to the contrary. Without further explanation and
[illegible] itseeks to backtrack on itsearlier representations, the Court declines to
sign the OSC with restraints at this time. [Illegible].
23. Undeterred, the Judgment-Debtors moved again by order to show cause on
March 10, 2016, requesting another 60 days to deposit the $21 million they admitted was due
8
8 of 23
INDEX NO. 153040/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 34 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/28/2020
and owing to Triadou. In support of their application, the Judgment-Debtors submitted an
affidavit by Joseph Chetrit sworn to on March 10, 2016 (attached hereto as Exhibit B) in which
he stated that the Judgment-Debtors could not make the required payment into Court because
sales at the Flatotel Condominium had "failed to generate enough funds to cover the required
deposit."
Specifically, he stated that while sales had generated close to $180 million, those funds
were not available to the Judgment-Debtors because the Deutsche Bank construction loan had
not been paid off. Id. ¶¶ 5, 6. He then stated that within 60 days, the construction loan would be
paid off and, after a reserve of $17 million for additional expenses, over $18 million in profit
would be generated, of which almost $14 million would be available to the Judgment-Debtors
"[a]s [CF 135 West Member LLC] holds a 75% interest in the Flatotel, 75% of that income will
Defendants."
be accessible to Id. ¶¶ 7-9.
24. Moreover, Joseph Chetrit swore that there "are twenty-two unsold condominium
$148,732,000.00,"
units at the Flatotel worth a total of and itwas likely that some of those units
would also be sold by May 10, 2016, and the Judgment-Debtors would have the $21 million
owed; otherwise, he would purchase units sufficient to cover any shortfall. Id. ¶¶ 10, 11.
Finally, he swore that "Plaintiff will suffer littleprejudice if this motion [for a 60-day extension]
is granted. At worse, Plaintiff will have to wait a few more weeks for the deposit to be made.
Even without a deposit being made, Plaintiff's judgments are fully secured by [CF 135 Flat
Flatotel."
LLC's] interest in the Id. ¶ 17 (emphasis added).
25. Significantly, Joseph Chetrit's May 10, 2016 affidavit established the following
facts: (a) after the construction loan was repaid and additional expected expenses paid, the
Judgment-Debtors would be entitled to a profit of approximately $14 million by May 10, 2016;
(b) there were additional unsold units worth $148,720,000, 75% of which ($111,549,000) would
9
9 of 23
INDEX NO. 153040/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 34 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/28/2020
become available to the Judgment-Debtors in the future; and (c) Mr. Chetrit assured the Court
Judgment-Debtors'
that the obligations to Triadou were secured by the expected flow of profits
to the Judgment-Debtors from future sales of Flatotel Condominium units. As set forth in more
detail below, the future flow of profits to the Judgment-Debtors stopped and units were stripped
out by the Judgment-Debtors to avoid paying the full amounts of the Judgments to the Monitor
and to avoid paying Triadou the Profit Participation.
Judgment-Debtors'
26. The Supreme Court rejected the application for a 60-day stay
on enforcement and issued the following order dated March 16, 2016, which was entered on
March 22, 2016:
Judgment-Debtors'
Upon the foregoing papers, itis ordered that [the motion to
stay proceedings] is denied for the reasons stated upon the record. There is no
good cause basis to extend the time to post the $21 million [illegible] which
Justice Mills ordered paid into court in consideration for obtaining the stay of
entry and enforcement of judgments in this matter. All stays are vacated. This
decision closes all motions extending the deadline including 156907/2015,
154681/2015 or 650239/2015.
27. On March 18, 2016, Judge Alison Nathan in the Federal Action dismissed the
Judgment-Debtors'
interpleader claim entirely, holding that the Judgment-Debtors were not
subject to potential double liability to both Triadou and Almaty/BTA because the $21 million
claimed by Triadou is not the same claim Almaty/BTA has to an interest in the Flatotel
Condominium project: "Triadou seeks from [the Judgment-Debtors] the $21 million purchase
price of its assignment, while Almaty could only seek to set aside the assignment and recover its
interest in the real estate holding company. Because [the Judgment-Debtors] here do not face
case."
multiple claims to the same fund, interpleader is not appropriate in this CF 135 Flat LLC
v. Triadou SPV S.A., 2016 WL 1109092 at *5 (S.D.N.Y. March 18, 2016). Judge Nathan's
Judgment-Debtors'
decision confirmed that the interpleader complaint was nothing more than a
misguided stall tactic.
10
10 of 23
INDEX NO. 153040/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 34 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/28/2020
28. On April 8, 2016, Triadou filed with the Supreme Court an application by order to
show cause for a receiver over the Judgment-Debtors, the indirect owners of 135 West 52nd
Street Owner LLC (the fee owner) and their interest in the Flatotel Condominium. On May 4,
2016, the parties appeared on that application and, with the Supreme Court's substantial
assistance, agreed to the entry of an order (the "Monitorship Order") appointing retired Supreme
Court Justice Herman Cahn (the "Monitor"). The Monitorship Order is attached hereto as
Exhibit C. The Monitorship Order expressly directs the Monitor to collect not only the judgment
amounts, but also accrued post-judgment interest. Specifically, the Monitorship Order directs
the Monitor to collect all amounts due the Judgment-Debtors from the Flatotel Condominium
project "in the aggregate amounts of $10.5 million together with pre- and post-judgment interest,
and any judgments hereafter entered in index number 154681/2015 and 156907/2015. For the
avoidance of doubt, to the extent that the amounts in the Monitor's account at WHAFH equals or
exceeds the amounts of the outstanding judgments in favor of Triadou, together with all accrued
pre- made."
and post-judgment interest, other lawful distributions may be
29. On June 24, 2016, the court in the Federal Action issued an order denying Almaty
and BTA's application for an order Triadou's collection efforts against the Judgment-
enjoining
Debtors, but granted an attachment against all funds transferred by the Judgment-Debtors to an
account maintained by the Monitor (the "Monitorship Account").
30. By decisions and orders dated December 20, 2016 (but not entered until January
12, 2017), the Supreme Court granted summary judgment to Triadou in the third and fourth
actions, Index nos. 154681/2015 and 156907/2015, and judgments were entered on February 2,
2017 in the amounts of $6,121,962.33 and $6,005,455.48, respectively. The Judgment-Debtors
11
11 of 23
INDEX NO. 153040/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 34 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/28/2020
filed notices to appeal the Court's decisions on February 14, 2017, but the appeals were never
perfected.
31. The Judgment-Debtors eventually paid approximately $23 million, which monies
are being held by the Monitor in the Monitorship Account, but refused to pay the full amount of
the accrued Post-Judgment Interest.
32. Triadou moved the Supreme Court on October 25, 2017 for an order declaring
that Post-Judgment Interest continued to accrue and the Monitor to collect such Post-
directing
Judgment Interest. By Decision and Order dated March 28, 2018 and filed on March 30, 2018,
the Supreme Court (David B. Cohen, J.S.C.) ruled that the Judgment-Debtors "have not
disclaimed their interest in the funds held by the monitor and that [the Judgment-Debtors] still
exercise some dominion over the funds.... At any time, [the Judgment-Debtors] may submit to
this Court, the Monitor of [sic] plaintiff a written document stating that they have disclaimed any
interest in the funds and at that time interest will accruing. Until such [the Judgment-
stop time,
funds."
Debtors] retain an interest in the The Judgment-Debtors eventually disclaimed their
interest letter dated 2018. At that owed $3,927,016.15 in additional Post-
by May 18, point, they
Judgment Interest. The Judgment-Debtors appealed from the Supreme Court's decision, but the
Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's order that the additional Post-Judgment
Interest was due. Triadou SPV S.A. v. CF 135 Flat LLC, 175 A.D.3d 1133 (1st Dep't 2019).
The Court of Appeals also denied leave to appeal. Triadou SPV S.A. v. CF 135 Flat LLC, 34
N.Y.3d 1151 (2020).
33. Following the Supreme Court's March 28, 2018 decision that the Chetrit
Judgment-Debtors owed close to $4 million in additional Post-Judgment Interest, the Monitor
ordered the Judgment-Debtors to produce all documents concerning, among many other things,
12
12 of 23
INDEX NO. 153040/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 34 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/28/2020
the proceeds from sales of the Flatotel Condominium units, together with the bank account
statements, tax returns and all other financial records for the Judgment-Debtors, as well as for
135 West 52nd Street Owner the fee owner of the Flatotel Condominium. The Judgment-
LLC,
Debtors steadfastly refused to provide the required disclosure, and Triadou applied for and
obtained an order from the Court entered on December 12, 2019 that "Defendants shall, within
ten (10) days of entry of this Order on NYSCEF, (i)fully comply with the Monitor's Directive
dated March 14, 2019 to produce documents; (ii) provide an affidavit to the Monitor at the time
Defendants'
of production confirming compliance with the Monitor's Directive dated March 14,
2019; and (iii)comply with any further directives of the Monitor, or be subject to sanctions as
CPLR."
permitted under the law and the (A copy of the Court's December 12, 2019 order is
attached as Exhibit that order and the risk of the Judgment-
D.) Notwithstanding sanctions,
Debtors have refused to disclose any financial information concerning the Judgment-Debtors and
have refused to provide an affidavit of compliance. The reason is now clear: The Judgment-
Debtors never transferred the profits of the sale of units at the Flatotel Condominium to the
Judgment-Debtors'
Judgment-Debtors, notwithstanding the entitlement to those profits and
Judgment-Debtors'
despite the repeated assurances to the Court that the obligations of the
Judgment-Debtors to Triadou were fully secured by those anticipated profits.
34. As set forth above, Joseph Chetrit swore in an affidavit on March 10, 2016 that he
estimated that profits from the Flatotel Condominium sales would be approximately $18 million
by May 10, 2016 from sales in contract and another $148 million worth of unsold units, from
which Judgment-Debtor CF 135 West Member LLC could have satisfied its obligations to
Triadou. The Judgment-Debtors did transfer $23 million to the Monitor and transferred two
Flatotel Condominium units worth $13.165 million to Almaty/BTA to settle claims with
13
13 of 23
INDEX NO. 153040/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 34 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/28/2020
Almaty/BTA, but that left over $88 million in revenue or assets that should have been available
to satisfy the $4 million in Post-Judgment Interest and the Profit Participation owed by the
Judgment-Debtors. It isnow apparent that those funds and assets have been siphoned off from
Judgment-Debtors'
the subsidiaries in the blatant judgment-proofing scheme described below.
35. As stated, the Supreme Court ruled on March 28, 2018 that the Judgment-Debtors
owed the additional Post-Judgment Interest which totaled almost $4 million. Fourteen days later,
on April 11, 2018, the Chetrits formed Respondent West 52 Units Owner LLC in Delaware. A
copy of the Delaware corporation record for West 52 Units Owner LLC is attached hereto as
Exhibit E. Five days later, the Judgment-Debtors, through their counsel Sukenik, Segal & Graff,
P.C. (also their litigation counsel), transferred nine of ten remaining unsold Flatotel
Condominium units to two newly-formed entities: Six units, 8A, 8C, 34A, 35A, 39A, 40A and
PH1, were transferred to the newly-formed West 52 Units Owner LLC controlled by the Chetrits,
and three units were transferred to an entity formed by the 25% owner of the Flatotel project,
Bistricer.1
David Flatotel Condominium Offering Plan Amendment No. 17 dated October 23,
2018 is attached hereto as Exhibit F and discloses the transfers of ten unsold units. The deed for
six units transferred to West 52 Units Owner LLC is attached hereto as Exhibit G. The deed for
the final unit, Unit 8C, reflecting a transfer from 135 West 52nd Street Owner LLC to the "Board
Condo"
of Managers of 135 West 52nd Street is attached hereto as Exhibit H.
36. The Real Property Transfer Report for the April 16, 2018 transfer (Petition, Ex.
G) indicates that the full transfer price for the six units was $12.25 million. On May 30, 2018,
1 Although Chetrits'
Mr. Bistricerwas undoub
Preview
INDEX NO. 153040/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 34 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/28/2020 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK - - -- - -- - - -- - - - -- - -- - - -- - - -- - - -- - - -- - - - -x TRIADOU SPV S.A., Index no. 153040/2020 Petitioner, -against- : AMENDED VERIFIED : PETITION JOSEPH CHETRIT, MEYER CHETRIT, WEST 52 : UNITS OWNER LLC, WEST 52 UNITS OWNER II : LLC, WEST 52 UNITS OWNER III LLC, WEST 52 : UNITS OWNER IV LLC, 135 WEST 52nd STREET : OWNER LLC, and : : Respondents. : : --------------------------------------- x Petitioner Triadou SPV S.A. ("Triadou") by and through itscounsel Kravit Smith LLP, for its Amended Verified Petition (hereinafter, the "AVP") against Joseph Chetrit and Meyer Chetrit (the "Chetrits"), West 52 Units Owner LLC, West 52 Units Owner II LLC, West 52 Units Owner III LLC, West 52 Units Owner IV LLC (the "New Corporate Respondents") and 135 West 52nd Street Owner LLC (together with the New Corporate Respondents, the "Corporate Respondents"), respectfully alleges as follows: PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1. Triadou is a judgment creditor in four prior related actions described herein. Triadou brings this special proceeding pursuant to CPLR §§ 5225(b) and 5201(a) and N.Y. Debtor & Creditor Law ("NY DCL") §§ 273, 276, 278(1)(b) and 276-a for an order and judgment (a) declaring that the transfers of Flatotel Condominium Units 8A, 34A, 35A, 39A, 40A and PH1 (the "Conveyed Properties") from 135 West 52nd Street Owner LLC to the New Corporate Respondents were fraudulent conveyances; (b) directing Respondent West 52 Units Owner LLC to turn over to the court-appointed monitor, retired Justice Herman Cahn (the 1 1 of 23 INDEX NO. 153040/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 34 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/28/2020 "Monitor"), the proceeds from the sales of Flatotel Condominium Units PH1 and 39A sufficient to the post-judgment interest in the amount of $3,927,016.15 (the "Post- satisfy outstanding attorneys' Judgment Interest") plus Triadou's fees in this proceeding; (c) disregarding the transfers of Flatotel Condominium Units 8A, 34A, 35A and 40A from 135 West 52nd Street Owner LLC to the New Corporate Respondents and permitting Triadou to deliver an execution to the sheriff and ordering the sheriff to sell Flatotel Condominium Units 8A, 34A, 35A and 40A attorneys' to the extent necessary to satisfy the Post-Judgment Interest plus Triadou's fees in this proceeding; (d) awarding damages to Triadou as against all Respondents in the amount of the attorneys' Post-Judgment Interest jointly and severally; and (e) awarding Triadou its fees in this proceeding against all Respondents jointly and severally. 2. The Chetrits are brothers and prominent real estate developers in New York City and developed a luxury condominium known as the Flatotel Condominium located at 135 West 52nd Street, New York, New York. Triadou was an original investor in the Flatotel Condominium but sold its interest to a company now fully owned and controlled by the Chetrits for $28 million plus 12% of the profits from the final sales of the development with a minimum payment of $4 million. Of that amount, Triadou was owed $21 million over four installment payments, on which the Chetrits completely defaulted. As a result, Triadou was forced to commence four actions (one for each installment) against companies owned and controlled by the Chetrits - that is,CF 135 Flat LLC, CF 135 West Member LLC and The Chetrit Group, LLC (the "Judgment- Debtors") - and obtained judgments totaling over $23 million, including pre-judgment interest. 3. In connection with those four actions, the Court (Justice David B. Cohen) appointed the Monitor to collect the judgments (which included pre-judgment interest) as well as 2 2 of 23 INDEX NO. 153040/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 34 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/28/2020 the Post-Judgment Interest. While the Judgment-Debtors paid approximately $23 million to the Monitor the original amounts owed plus pre-judgment the Judgment- representing interest, Debtors refused to pay all of the accrued Post-Judgment Interest. Justice Cohen ruled that the Judgment-Debtors owed the Post-Judgment Interest - approximately $4 million - and his was affirmed the Appellate Division. The Court of Appeals denied the Judgment- ruling by Debtors' motion for permission to appeal. 4. Within days of Justice Cohen's ruling that the Post-Judgment Interest was due, the Chetrits pursued a bold judgment-proofing scheme to strip assets from the Judgment-Debtors by transferring seven of the remaining unsold Flatotel Condominium units worth almost $48 million to Respondent West 52 Units Owner LLC, a newly-formed Delaware corporation controlled by the Chetrits, for no consideration. Those condominium units and the proceeds from their sales represented assets due to the Judgment-Debtors. The Chetrits have sold three of those units to unrelated parties, but the remaining four units are owned by the New Corporate Respondents. This action seeks a judgment ordering Respondents to turn over funds to the Monitor sufficient to satisfy the Post-Judgment Interest and permitting Triadou to levy execution upon the unsold condominium units. PARTIES 5. Respondent Joseph Chetrit is an individual who, upon information and belief, resides in New York County. He is the manager and a beneficial owner of the Judgment-Debtors and the Vice-President of Respondent 135 West 52nd Street Owner LLC. 6. Respondent Meyer Chetrit is an individual who, upon information and belief, resides in New York County and is Joseph Chetrit's brother. He is a manager, member and beneficial owner of the Corporate Respondents. 3 3 of 23 INDEX NO. 153040/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 34 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/28/2020 7. Respondent West 52 Units Owner LLC is a limited liability corporation organized and existing under the laws of Delaware. West 52 Units Owner LLC owns unit 8A in the Flatotel Condominium. 8. Respondent West 52 Units Owner II LLC is a limited liability corporation organized and existing under the laws of Delaware. West 52 Units Owner II LLC owns unit 34A in the Flatotel Condominium. 9. Respondent West 52 Units Owner III LLC is a limited liability corporation organized and existing under the laws of Delaware. West 52 Units Owner III LLC owns unit 35A in the Flatotel Condominium. 10. Respondent West 52 Units Owner IV LLC is a limited liability corporation organized and existing under the laws of Delaware. West 52 Units Owner IV LLC owns unit 40A in the Flatotel Condominium. 11. Respondent 135 West 52nd Street Owner LLC is a limited liability corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York. 135 West 52nd Street Owner LLC fraudulently transferred real estate assets worth approximately $50 million to Respondent West 52 Units Owner LLC to hinder and delay Triadou's collection of judgments against the Judgment-Debtors, the parent companies of 135 West 52nd Street Owner LLC. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 12. This Court has jurisdiction over the Respondents pursuant to CPLR §§ 301 and 302(a) because the Respondents transact business within the State of New York. Respondents Joseph Chetrit and Meyer Chetrit reside and transact business (including the business described in this Petition) in the State of New York. The corporate Respondents each transact business and/or own real estate in the State of New York. 4 4 of 23 INDEX NO. 153040/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 34 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/28/2020 13. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to CPLR § 503(a) because Respondents Joseph Chetrit and Meyer Chetrit reside in New York County and a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims asserted herein, including the transfers of real estate in which the Respondents have an interest, occurred in New York County. FACTS 14. CF 135 Flat LLC and Triadou are parties to an agreement dated August 4, 2014 whereby Triadou assigned its 50% interest in CF 135 West Member LLC, which LLC directly and indirectly held a 75% ownership interest in the Flatotel Condominium. Triadou assigned its Price" interest to CF 135 Flat LLC (the "Assignment") in exchange for a "Purchase of $28 million, which was comprised of various components, plus, after certain conditions were met, twelve percent (12%) of the profit (the "Profit Participation"). CF 135 Flat LLC is the indirect owner of the Flatotel Condominium that was in midst of being developed when the Assignment was made. Pursuant to a related Guaranty agreement dated August 4, 2014, CF 135 Flat LLC and CF 135 West Member LLC, together with The Chetrit Group, LLC, agreed to guarantee the obligations of CF 135 Flat LLC under the Assignment (the "Guaranty"). 15. The ownership of the Flatotel Condominium prior to August 4, 2014 is represented below: 5 5 of 23 INDEX NO. 153040/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 34 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/28/2020 CF 135 Flat LLC Tnadon SPV SA. (Chetrits) o° à so*é CF 135 emk Chpper 135 West LLC 75*é 25°¿ 135 West $2dStreet Holder LLC 100°. 135 West 52dStreet Mezz LLC 100° 135 West 2d Street Owner LLC 100°4 Flatotel Condominium Clipper 135 West LLC's 25% interest in 135 West 52nd Street Holder LLC is owned a third- by party. 16. At the time Triadou invested in the Flatotel Cenac-E:= project, CF 135 Flat LLC represented and warranted to Triadou, by Respondent Joseph Chetrit, its manager, that any actions by 135 West 52nd Street Owner LLC would have to be approved by CF 135 Flat LLC. See Exhibit A attached hereto. 17. As part of the consideration owed for the Assignment, CF 135 Flat LLC agreed to pay to Triadou, and the Guarantors agreed to guarantee, four separate instalhnent payments of $5,250,000 $21 on November 2014 and r- through June (tetaling million) beginning 2, --g 30, 2015 (the "Instalhnent Obligations"). CF 135 Flat LLC failed to of the Inst Umant satisfy any Obligations and defaulted four separate times under the Assig-ment The Guarantors c4-4¹==ly failed to satisfy any Instahant Obligations upon CF 135 Flat LLC's default and were also in 6 6 of 23 INDEX NO. 153040/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 34 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/28/2020 default under the Guaranty. Each of the defaulted Installment Obligations carried 9% interest from the date of default. 18. As a result, Triadou was forced to commence four actions in New York Supreme Court against the Judgment-Debtors, bearing index numbers 653462/2014, 650239/2015, 154681/2015, and 156907/2015, to collect on the defaulted Installment Obligations. On April 15, 2015, the Supreme Court issued a judgment in the amount of $5,479,735.14 in the action bearing index number 653462/2014, and a judgment in the amount of $5,502,991.51 on July 15, 2015 in the action bearing index number 650239/2015. Triadou had also filed motions for summary judgment in lieu of the complaints in the actions bearing index numbers 154681/2015 and 156907/2015, which were not decided until February 2, 2017. 19. On July 7, 2015, the Judgment-Debtors moved by order to show cause for a stay of the proceedings on the purported ground that they were at risk of potential double liability to Triadou and non-party the City of Almaty, Kazakhstan ("Almaty"), which had asserted that Triadou's interest in the Flatotel Condominium was purchased with funds illegally obtained from Almaty and that Almaty was the equitable owner of Triadou's interest in the Flatotel Condominium. Based on the purportedly competing claims between Triadou and Almaty, the Judgment-Debtors commenced an interpleader action on July 7, 2015 in the Supreme Court, naming Triadou and Almaty as defendants. Judgment-Debtors' 20. On July 9, 2015, Almaty filed a notice of removal of the interpleader action to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The removed interpleader action is entitled CF 135 Flat LLC, CF 135 West Member LLC, and The Chetrit Group LLC v. Triadou SPV S.A. and City of Almaty, a foreign city, 15-cv-5345 (AJN) (hereafter, the "Federal Action"). 7 7 of 23 INDEX NO. 153040/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 34 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/28/2020 21. On July 13, 2015, the Supreme Court issued an order temporarily staying Judgment-Debtors' enforcement proceedings pending the Supreme Court's disposition of the order to show cause. On February 2, 2016, the Supreme Court issued a decision and order determining, inter alia, that "a possibility of inconsistent judgments exists . .. [since] the court in Almaty," the interpleader action may determine that [the $21 million] should be paid to and Judgment-Debtors' granting the motion for a stay of proceedings on the condition that the Judgment-Debtors deposit the sum of $21 million with the Court within 20 days of service of the order with notice of entry. Consistent with their pattern of disrespect for the Supreme Court's orders, the Judgment-Debtors sought from the Federal Court in the Federal Action a stay of the proceedings in the Supreme Court, and specifically the Supreme Court's February 2, 2016 order. That stay motion was summarily denied by the Federal Court (Nathan, J.)on February 22, 2016. 22. On February 16, 2016, Triadou served the Judgment-Debtors with a copy of the Supreme Court's February 2, 2016 Order with notice of entry. On March 8, 2016, the Supreme Court issued an order extending the deposit deadline by 48 hours to March 10, 2016. The Supreme Court held as follows: Upon the foregoing papers, itis ordered that the Court declines to sign the Order to Show Cause as the movant has failed to present to the Court sufficient proof of irreparable injury and that itwould likely be successful on the merits. Movant has not provided sufficient proof that the alleged deal would fallthrough, that itlacks the funds to pay the amount ordered by Judge Mills or that equities favor movant. In this matter (and related matters) Judge Mills stayed allproceedings for the movant to deposit the $21 million into Court. The Order was based upon representations of movant that itwould do so. Now, without any sufficient evidence to the contrary and despite admitting that itowes the money, but just not sure who to pay, movant seeks to extend the time for such payment despite its own earlier representations to the contrary. Without further explanation and [illegible] itseeks to backtrack on itsearlier representations, the Court declines to sign the OSC with restraints at this time. [Illegible]. 23. Undeterred, the Judgment-Debtors moved again by order to show cause on March 10, 2016, requesting another 60 days to deposit the $21 million they admitted was due 8 8 of 23 INDEX NO. 153040/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 34 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/28/2020 and owing to Triadou. In support of their application, the Judgment-Debtors submitted an affidavit by Joseph Chetrit sworn to on March 10, 2016 (attached hereto as Exhibit B) in which he stated that the Judgment-Debtors could not make the required payment into Court because sales at the Flatotel Condominium had "failed to generate enough funds to cover the required deposit." Specifically, he stated that while sales had generated close to $180 million, those funds were not available to the Judgment-Debtors because the Deutsche Bank construction loan had not been paid off. Id. ¶¶ 5, 6. He then stated that within 60 days, the construction loan would be paid off and, after a reserve of $17 million for additional expenses, over $18 million in profit would be generated, of which almost $14 million would be available to the Judgment-Debtors "[a]s [CF 135 West Member LLC] holds a 75% interest in the Flatotel, 75% of that income will Defendants." be accessible to Id. ¶¶ 7-9. 24. Moreover, Joseph Chetrit swore that there "are twenty-two unsold condominium $148,732,000.00," units at the Flatotel worth a total of and itwas likely that some of those units would also be sold by May 10, 2016, and the Judgment-Debtors would have the $21 million owed; otherwise, he would purchase units sufficient to cover any shortfall. Id. ¶¶ 10, 11. Finally, he swore that "Plaintiff will suffer littleprejudice if this motion [for a 60-day extension] is granted. At worse, Plaintiff will have to wait a few more weeks for the deposit to be made. Even without a deposit being made, Plaintiff's judgments are fully secured by [CF 135 Flat Flatotel." LLC's] interest in the Id. ¶ 17 (emphasis added). 25. Significantly, Joseph Chetrit's May 10, 2016 affidavit established the following facts: (a) after the construction loan was repaid and additional expected expenses paid, the Judgment-Debtors would be entitled to a profit of approximately $14 million by May 10, 2016; (b) there were additional unsold units worth $148,720,000, 75% of which ($111,549,000) would 9 9 of 23 INDEX NO. 153040/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 34 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/28/2020 become available to the Judgment-Debtors in the future; and (c) Mr. Chetrit assured the Court Judgment-Debtors' that the obligations to Triadou were secured by the expected flow of profits to the Judgment-Debtors from future sales of Flatotel Condominium units. As set forth in more detail below, the future flow of profits to the Judgment-Debtors stopped and units were stripped out by the Judgment-Debtors to avoid paying the full amounts of the Judgments to the Monitor and to avoid paying Triadou the Profit Participation. Judgment-Debtors' 26. The Supreme Court rejected the application for a 60-day stay on enforcement and issued the following order dated March 16, 2016, which was entered on March 22, 2016: Judgment-Debtors' Upon the foregoing papers, itis ordered that [the motion to stay proceedings] is denied for the reasons stated upon the record. There is no good cause basis to extend the time to post the $21 million [illegible] which Justice Mills ordered paid into court in consideration for obtaining the stay of entry and enforcement of judgments in this matter. All stays are vacated. This decision closes all motions extending the deadline including 156907/2015, 154681/2015 or 650239/2015. 27. On March 18, 2016, Judge Alison Nathan in the Federal Action dismissed the Judgment-Debtors' interpleader claim entirely, holding that the Judgment-Debtors were not subject to potential double liability to both Triadou and Almaty/BTA because the $21 million claimed by Triadou is not the same claim Almaty/BTA has to an interest in the Flatotel Condominium project: "Triadou seeks from [the Judgment-Debtors] the $21 million purchase price of its assignment, while Almaty could only seek to set aside the assignment and recover its interest in the real estate holding company. Because [the Judgment-Debtors] here do not face case." multiple claims to the same fund, interpleader is not appropriate in this CF 135 Flat LLC v. Triadou SPV S.A., 2016 WL 1109092 at *5 (S.D.N.Y. March 18, 2016). Judge Nathan's Judgment-Debtors' decision confirmed that the interpleader complaint was nothing more than a misguided stall tactic. 10 10 of 23 INDEX NO. 153040/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 34 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/28/2020 28. On April 8, 2016, Triadou filed with the Supreme Court an application by order to show cause for a receiver over the Judgment-Debtors, the indirect owners of 135 West 52nd Street Owner LLC (the fee owner) and their interest in the Flatotel Condominium. On May 4, 2016, the parties appeared on that application and, with the Supreme Court's substantial assistance, agreed to the entry of an order (the "Monitorship Order") appointing retired Supreme Court Justice Herman Cahn (the "Monitor"). The Monitorship Order is attached hereto as Exhibit C. The Monitorship Order expressly directs the Monitor to collect not only the judgment amounts, but also accrued post-judgment interest. Specifically, the Monitorship Order directs the Monitor to collect all amounts due the Judgment-Debtors from the Flatotel Condominium project "in the aggregate amounts of $10.5 million together with pre- and post-judgment interest, and any judgments hereafter entered in index number 154681/2015 and 156907/2015. For the avoidance of doubt, to the extent that the amounts in the Monitor's account at WHAFH equals or exceeds the amounts of the outstanding judgments in favor of Triadou, together with all accrued pre- made." and post-judgment interest, other lawful distributions may be 29. On June 24, 2016, the court in the Federal Action issued an order denying Almaty and BTA's application for an order Triadou's collection efforts against the Judgment- enjoining Debtors, but granted an attachment against all funds transferred by the Judgment-Debtors to an account maintained by the Monitor (the "Monitorship Account"). 30. By decisions and orders dated December 20, 2016 (but not entered until January 12, 2017), the Supreme Court granted summary judgment to Triadou in the third and fourth actions, Index nos. 154681/2015 and 156907/2015, and judgments were entered on February 2, 2017 in the amounts of $6,121,962.33 and $6,005,455.48, respectively. The Judgment-Debtors 11 11 of 23 INDEX NO. 153040/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 34 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/28/2020 filed notices to appeal the Court's decisions on February 14, 2017, but the appeals were never perfected. 31. The Judgment-Debtors eventually paid approximately $23 million, which monies are being held by the Monitor in the Monitorship Account, but refused to pay the full amount of the accrued Post-Judgment Interest. 32. Triadou moved the Supreme Court on October 25, 2017 for an order declaring that Post-Judgment Interest continued to accrue and the Monitor to collect such Post- directing Judgment Interest. By Decision and Order dated March 28, 2018 and filed on March 30, 2018, the Supreme Court (David B. Cohen, J.S.C.) ruled that the Judgment-Debtors "have not disclaimed their interest in the funds held by the monitor and that [the Judgment-Debtors] still exercise some dominion over the funds.... At any time, [the Judgment-Debtors] may submit to this Court, the Monitor of [sic] plaintiff a written document stating that they have disclaimed any interest in the funds and at that time interest will accruing. Until such [the Judgment- stop time, funds." Debtors] retain an interest in the The Judgment-Debtors eventually disclaimed their interest letter dated 2018. At that owed $3,927,016.15 in additional Post- by May 18, point, they Judgment Interest. The Judgment-Debtors appealed from the Supreme Court's decision, but the Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's order that the additional Post-Judgment Interest was due. Triadou SPV S.A. v. CF 135 Flat LLC, 175 A.D.3d 1133 (1st Dep't 2019). The Court of Appeals also denied leave to appeal. Triadou SPV S.A. v. CF 135 Flat LLC, 34 N.Y.3d 1151 (2020). 33. Following the Supreme Court's March 28, 2018 decision that the Chetrit Judgment-Debtors owed close to $4 million in additional Post-Judgment Interest, the Monitor ordered the Judgment-Debtors to produce all documents concerning, among many other things, 12 12 of 23 INDEX NO. 153040/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 34 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/28/2020 the proceeds from sales of the Flatotel Condominium units, together with the bank account statements, tax returns and all other financial records for the Judgment-Debtors, as well as for 135 West 52nd Street Owner the fee owner of the Flatotel Condominium. The Judgment- LLC, Debtors steadfastly refused to provide the required disclosure, and Triadou applied for and obtained an order from the Court entered on December 12, 2019 that "Defendants shall, within ten (10) days of entry of this Order on NYSCEF, (i)fully comply with the Monitor's Directive dated March 14, 2019 to produce documents; (ii) provide an affidavit to the Monitor at the time Defendants' of production confirming compliance with the Monitor's Directive dated March 14, 2019; and (iii)comply with any further directives of the Monitor, or be subject to sanctions as CPLR." permitted under the law and the (A copy of the Court's December 12, 2019 order is attached as Exhibit that order and the risk of the Judgment- D.) Notwithstanding sanctions, Debtors have refused to disclose any financial information concerning the Judgment-Debtors and have refused to provide an affidavit of compliance. The reason is now clear: The Judgment- Debtors never transferred the profits of the sale of units at the Flatotel Condominium to the Judgment-Debtors' Judgment-Debtors, notwithstanding the entitlement to those profits and Judgment-Debtors' despite the repeated assurances to the Court that the obligations of the Judgment-Debtors to Triadou were fully secured by those anticipated profits. 34. As set forth above, Joseph Chetrit swore in an affidavit on March 10, 2016 that he estimated that profits from the Flatotel Condominium sales would be approximately $18 million by May 10, 2016 from sales in contract and another $148 million worth of unsold units, from which Judgment-Debtor CF 135 West Member LLC could have satisfied its obligations to Triadou. The Judgment-Debtors did transfer $23 million to the Monitor and transferred two Flatotel Condominium units worth $13.165 million to Almaty/BTA to settle claims with 13 13 of 23 INDEX NO. 153040/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 34 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/28/2020 Almaty/BTA, but that left over $88 million in revenue or assets that should have been available to satisfy the $4 million in Post-Judgment Interest and the Profit Participation owed by the Judgment-Debtors. It isnow apparent that those funds and assets have been siphoned off from Judgment-Debtors' the subsidiaries in the blatant judgment-proofing scheme described below. 35. As stated, the Supreme Court ruled on March 28, 2018 that the Judgment-Debtors owed the additional Post-Judgment Interest which totaled almost $4 million. Fourteen days later, on April 11, 2018, the Chetrits formed Respondent West 52 Units Owner LLC in Delaware. A copy of the Delaware corporation record for West 52 Units Owner LLC is attached hereto as Exhibit E. Five days later, the Judgment-Debtors, through their counsel Sukenik, Segal & Graff, P.C. (also their litigation counsel), transferred nine of ten remaining unsold Flatotel Condominium units to two newly-formed entities: Six units, 8A, 8C, 34A, 35A, 39A, 40A and PH1, were transferred to the newly-formed West 52 Units Owner LLC controlled by the Chetrits, and three units were transferred to an entity formed by the 25% owner of the Flatotel project, Bistricer.1 David Flatotel Condominium Offering Plan Amendment No. 17 dated October 23, 2018 is attached hereto as Exhibit F and discloses the transfers of ten unsold units. The deed for six units transferred to West 52 Units Owner LLC is attached hereto as Exhibit G. The deed for the final unit, Unit 8C, reflecting a transfer from 135 West 52nd Street Owner LLC to the "Board Condo" of Managers of 135 West 52nd Street is attached hereto as Exhibit H. 36. The Real Property Transfer Report for the April 16, 2018 transfer (Petition, Ex. G) indicates that the full transfer price for the six units was $12.25 million. On May 30, 2018, 1 Although Chetrits' Mr. Bistricerwas undoub