Preview
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/26/2018 12:12 PM INDEX NO. 612624/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 45 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/26/2018
EXHIBIT A
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/26/2018 12:12 PM INDEX NO. 612624/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. i FOLK
45 RECEIVED INDEXNYSCEF:
NO. 612624/2018
11/26/2018
FILED : SU: COUNTY CLERK 07/02/2018 06:12 PM
NYSCEF DOC. NI. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/02/2018
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Index No.:
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK Date Summons filed:
--------------------------------------------------------------------X
Plaintiff designates
HUGHETTE CLARKE,
SUFFOLK COUNTY
as the place of trial.
Plaintiff,
- against -
The basis of venue is:
Plaintiff's place of residence
LUIGICOSENTINO, VINCENT COSENTINO,
GEORGE COSENTINO, DANIEL VIRGILIO,
and GERARD SUMMONS
GLASS, ESQ.,
Defendants. Plaintiff resides at:
----------------------------------------------------------- X Suffolk County, NY
To the above-named Defendant(s):
YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED to answer the complaint in this action and to serve
a copy of your answer, or, if the complaint is not served with this summons, to serve a notice of
appearance on the Plaintiff's attorney(s) within twenty (20) days after the service of this summons,
exclusive of the day of service (or within thirty (30) days after the service is complete ifthis
summons is not personally delivered to you within the State of New York); and in case of your
failure to appear or answer, judgment will be taken against you by default for the relief demanded
in the complaint.
Dated: July 2, 2018
Miller Place, New York
Vess n Mitev, Esq.
, MITEV & ASSOCIATES, LLP
ttorneys for Plaintzf
122 North Country Road
Miller Place, New York 11764
T: (631) 473-1000
F: (631) 928-5385
vesselin@raymitevlaw.com
To: LUIGI COSENTINO
31 Mariners Circle
West Islip, New York 1 1795
VINCENT COSENTINO
41 Jefferson Blvd.
Port Jefferson Station, NY 11776
GEORGE COSENTINO
33 Pearsall Place
1 of 17
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/26/2018 12:12 PM INDEX NO. 612624/2018
NYSCEF
[FILED: DOC. NO.
SU11: 45OLK COUNTY CLERK O'7/02/2018 RECEIVED INDEX NO.
NYSCEF: 612624/2018
11/26/2018
06:12 PMI
NYSCEF DOC. NC 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/02/2018
Babylon, NY 11702
DANIEL VIRGILIO
703 Fresh Pond Ave. #171
Calverton, New York 11933
GERARD GLASS, ESQ.
72 East Main Street #3
West Babylon, NY 11704
2
2 of 17
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/26/2018 12:12 PM INDEX NO. 612624/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 45 RECEIVED INDEXNYSCEF:
NO. 612624/2018
11/26/2018
FILED : SUrFOLK COUNTY CLERK 07/02/2018 06: 12 PM)
NYSCEF DOC. N . 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/02/2018
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
___________ __________---
____-- __----.-----------------------X
HUGHETTE CLARKE,
Plaintiff(s),
VERIFIED COMPLAINT
-against-
Index No.
LUIGI COSENTINO, VINCENT COSENTINO,
GEORGE COSENTINO, DANIEL VIRGILIO,
and GERARD GLASS, ESQ.,
Defendant(s).
_______________------ __________ ______------------------------X
Plaintiff, HUGHETTE CLARKE, through her attorneys, Ray, Mitev & Associates, LLP,
hereby appears and complains as follows:
1. At all relevant times Plaintiff is over the age of 18 years.
2. At all relevant times Plaintiff lives in Suffolk County, NY.
3. Defendant Luigi COSENTINO is a natural person over the age of 18 years, living
in New York and/or in Suffolk County.
4. Defendant Vincent COSENTINO is a natural person over the age of 18 years, living
in New York and/or in Suffolk County.
5. Defendant George COSENTINO is a natural person over the age of 18 years, living
in New York and/or in Suffolk County.
6. Defendant Daniel VIRGILIO is a natural person over the age of 18 years, living in
New York and/or in Suffolk County.
7. Upon information and belief, Defendant Gerard GLASS, Esq., is an attorney, duly
admitted to practice in the State of New York.
8. At all relevant times Plaintiff was the girlfriend of Defendant Daniel VIRGILIO.
3 of 17
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/26/2018 12:12 PM INDEX NO. 612624/2018
NYSCEF INDEX NO. 612624/2018
[FILED DOC.: NO. 45
SUTFOLK COUNTY CLE RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/26/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/02/ 2018
9. Plaintiff and Defendant VIRGILIO were in a committed romantic relationship for
several years.
10. Upon information and belief, Defendant Daniel VIRGILIO owed monies to the
COSENTINO Defendants.
11. Def. VIRGILIO advised Plaintiff that he owed money to the COSENTINO
Defendants and that he was afraid they would hurt and/or harm him physically. The money claimed
loan"
to be owed, according to Def. VIRGILIO, was a result of certain "bridge financing that Defs.
COSENTINO(s) had provided, and were now calling due.
12. At no time did Plaintiff owe any money or anything whatsoever to any Defendant,
and there is no agreement to the contrary, either orally or in writing.
13. At all relevant times Plaintiff was the rightful owner of property located 1705
Nicole Drive, Port Jefferson, New York.
14. On or about June 2009, Defendants, and each of them, coerced, induced, threatened,
extorted, and otherwise perpetrated an elaborate real estate fraud, which included dispossessing
Plaintiff of her rightful ownership, in fee simple, of the 1705 Nicole Drive property.
15. Each of the Defendants entered into a purported agreement (Ex. 1 to the Verified
Complaint), which purported to be "between LUIGI COSENTINO, VINCENT COSENTINO and
VIRGILIO."
GEORGE COSENTINO...and DANIEL (id).
16. Plaintiff was not named as a party in this purported agreement.
17. Plaintiff is not related in any way to Defendant Daniel VIRGILIO, either by blood,
marriage, or consanguinity.
2
4 of 17
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/26/2018 12:12 PM INDEX NO. 612624/2018
NYSCEF INDEX NO. 612624/2018
FILED: DOC. NO.
SUE 45
f'OLK COUNTY CLERK 07/02/2018 06:12 PN|
RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/26/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NC 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/02/::018
18. According to this purported agreement, Defendant Luigi COSENTINO held a
"judgment" "$350,000.00"
against Defendant Daniel Virgilio, in the amount of which was
purportedly "reduced to the sum of $345,000.00, plus interest, costs and disbursements.
19. A search of the Suffolk County Clerk's Office website reveals no such judgment
docketed.
20. The purported agreement then provides that:
"2. In order to secure said judgment and in consideration of said judgment against
[DANIEL VIRGILIO], [DANIEL VIRGILIO] agrees to arrange for the
conveyance of one-half interest in the townhouse owned by DAN's sister,
HUGHETTE CLARKE, at 1705 Nicole Drive, Port Jefferson Station, New York,
to LOU COSENTINO "LOU".
3. Both parties agree to execute alldocuments to effectuate this transfer.
4. DAN shall make payments on the unpaid balance to COSENTINO, though
COSENTINO's attorney, GERARD J. GLASS, at 72 East Main Street, Suite 3,
Babylon, New York 11702 in the minimum amount of $500.00 per month.
5. Simultaneously with the transfer of said property, DAN and LOU shall execute
a Deed from LOU back to DAN's sister,HUGHETTE CLARKE, which shall be
held in escrow by GERARD J. GLASS.
6. Upon completion of the unpaid balance, LOU agrees that his attomey, GERARD
J. GLASS, shall release the Deed and other conveyance documents to DAN for him
to record LOU's one-half interest in the property back to his sister,HUGHETTE
CLARKE.
7. At the same time, after final payment (handwritten), COSENTINO shall execute
a satisfaction of judgment to DAN.
8. In the event of non-payment of any installment, COSENTINO may through
LOU, move as a tenant in common of the townhouse to compel the sale of said
premises with an equal distribution of the proceeds between COSENTINO and
HUGHETTE CLARKE to the extent of the outstanding balance owed to
COSENTINO...
3
5 of 17
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/26/2018 12:12 PM INDEX NO. 612624/2018
NYSCEF INDEX NO. 612624/2018
FILED DOC. : NO. 45
SUli:FOLK COUNTY CLERK RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/26/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NC 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: C7/02/L018
10th
9. The payments shall commence on the day of July 2009 and be due on the
10th full."
day of each month thereaf1ter until payment is made in (id).
21. Each of the Defendants signed this document, as well as Plaintiff, id.
22. There are purported acknowledgments for each of the parties, id.
23. On itsface, the document evinces a pure fraud: Defendant VIRGILIO purported to
pledge as collateral for an un-recorded purported judgment that he purportedly owed to Defendant
Luigi COSENTINO, an interest in a property that he had no right, title,interest or claim to, and
which was owed at the time solely by Plaintiff Hughette CLARKE.
24. The remainder of the terms of this purported agreement are also indicative of
outright fraud:
a. a $500/month payment plan of a purported (unrecorded) $345,000.00 judgment
would be paid off in the year 2,699, or 690 YEARS after the execution of this
document, thus ensuring that Plaintiff would never again be the rightful owner;
b. Hughette CLARKE is an African-American woman, while Defendant Daniel
VIRGILIO is a white, Italian-American man, and the two do not share a last name.
The purported relationship between the two as brother and sister would be
immediately suspicious to any person preparing such a document.
c. A simultaneous purported execution of a deed re-conveying ownership back to
Plaintiff, that was only to be released to Defendant Daniel VIRGILIO (par. 5 and 6
of the document), which is a commonly known method of perpetrating
deed/mortgage fraud.
25. Upon information and Defendant GLASS never prepared the purported re-
belief,
conveyance deed and ancillary documents and never held same in his escrow.
26. To date, Plaintiff has never seen, although duly demanded, said re-conveyance deed
and ancillary documents.
27. To date, Defendant GLASS has simply refused to provide said documents.
4
6 of 17
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/26/2018 12:12 PM INDEX NO. 612624/2018
NYSCEF SUI' INDEX NO. 612624/2018
FILED DOC. : NO. 45
!'OLK COUNTY CLERK 07/02/2018 06:12 PM1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/26/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/02/ ?018
28. Defendant GLASS, as an attorney, had a heightened fiduciary duty to ensure that
such a transaction could never be entered into, especially by an un-represented party, to wit:
Plaintiff.
29. Defendant GLASS, as an attorney, had a non-delegable ethical duty not to involve
himself in such a transaction wherein he was, upon information and belief, purporting to represent
"buyer"
both the and the "seller", but did not obtain any waivers of such conflict from Plaintiff or
explain to Plaintiff in writing that such a purported agreement was un-enforceable and outright
fraudulent, and to advise Plaintiff in writing that she should consult with a lawyer prior to signing
any document.
30. Defendant GLASS did not present Plaintiff with a retainer agreement.
3 l. Defendant GLASS did not present Plaintiff with a statement of client's rights and
responsibilities.
32. Upon information and belief, said failure to disclose was and is a clear violation of
the applicable rules of professional responsibility and the relevant case law.
33. Defendant VIRGILIO repeatedly represented to Plaintiff that she had nothing to
worry about, that thisagreement was in "paper only", and that none of the other Defendants would
actually seek to enforce it.
34. Defendant VIRGILIO also assured Plaintiff that this agreement did not mean that
Plaintiff could be forced out of her home, despite the clear language in the agreement that
purportedly gives Defendant Luigi COSENTINO to "move as a tenant in common of the
premises"
townhouse to compel the sale of said and to collect all the net proceeds from the sale
thereof.
5
7 of 17
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/26/2018 12:12 PM INDEX NO. 612624/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 45 RECEIVED INDEX NO.
NYSCEF: 612624 /2018
11/26/2018
{FILED : SUF fi'OLK COUNTY CLERK 07/02/2018 06:12
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/02/2018
35. Defendant VIRGILIO also assured Plaintiff that under this purported agreement,
Plaintiff would in fact retain ownership of the home, as the deed would never actually be recorded.
36. Defendant VIRGILIO represented to Plaintiff that each of the other Defendants
"paper-only"
were in agreement, in sum and substance, that this was a agreement; that the deed
would never be recorded; that Plaintiff could never be removed from her house; that the house
could never be sold without Plaintiff's consent, and that Plaintiff had nothing to worry about.
37. As a result of this purported agreement, Plaintiff CLARKE's whole interest in fee
simple in the property at 1705 Nicole Drive, Port Jefferson Station, NY 1 1776, was cut to a ½
"undivided"
interest, by a bargain and sale deed date July 1, 2009, with theother ½ interest being
given to Defendant Luigi COSENTINO, with said deed being recorded in the County Clerk's
office on Sept. 1, 2009. (Ex. 2 to the Verified Complaint).
38. The deed is separately and discretely fraudulent because it is purportedly
acknowledged the day pri.orto July 1,2009, or June 300', 2009; in other words the acknowledgment
comes before the date of the purported transfer, rendering the deed null and void, ab initio.
39. Plaintiff CLARKE realized that the aforesaid was a fraud perpetrated upon her on
or about November 2017, when she inquired as to whether the deed had indeed been recorded, and
after searching the County Clerk records, discovered that it had been in fact recorded, despite
Defendants'
assurances that itwould not be recorded.
40. Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff CLARKE wrote to COSENTINO to advise him that she
did not owe him or any other Defendants any money and that she realized that she had been
defrauded, and demanded relief.
6
8 of 17
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/26/2018 12:12 PM INDEX NO. 612624/2018
NYSCEF INDEX NO. 612624/3018
\FILED DOC.: NO.
SUlf 45
i'OLK COUNTY CLERK 07/02/2018 06:12 PM) RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/26/2018
NYSCEF DOC. N( 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/02/M018
41. Defendant Luigi COSENTINO wrote back to Plaintiff to advise her that she had
signed the purported agreement, that she was bound by it,and that he was the ½ owner of her
property, and sent Plaintiff a copy of the purported agreement but not the deed.
42. This discovery lead Plaintiff to consult with a lawyer regarding what had transpired,
and further to her realizing that she had been defrauded out of her property, for no consideration,
as well as had other misdeeds caused upon her.
AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION: FRAUD
43. At all relevant times, Defendants, and each of them, assured, promised and
otherwise induced Plaintiff CLARKE that this arrangement was perfectly legal andordinary, and
that she did not have to seek a lawyer to represent her in this transaction.
44. At all relevant times, Defendants, and each of them, assured, promised and
otherwise induced Plaintiff CLARKE that this purported agreement was enforceable as against
Plaintiff CLARKE, even though there was no consideration as between Plaintiff CLARKE and
any of the Defendants.
45. Each of the stated premises of the purported agreement is on its face a manifest
fraud, which is part and parcel of the agreement and permeates the document so as to evince an
overarching fraud in the entirety, and Plaintiff incorporates each of the aforesaid falsehoods as set
forth in the purported agreement, at Par. 17 herein as though fully set forth herein.
46. At all relevant times Defendants, and each of them, made the aforesaid
representations with scienter, while knowing they were false, and with the intention that Plaintiff
CLARKE would rely upon them to her detriment in order to actually turn over half of her property
to Defendant Luigi COSENTINO, without an ounce of consideration.
7
9 of 17
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/26/2018 12:12 PM INDEX NO. 612624/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 45 RECEIVED INDEX No.
NYSCEF: 612624/2018
11/26/2018
[FILED : SUP FOLK COUNTY CLERK 07/02/2018 06:12 P-H
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/02/ 2018
47. At all relevant times, Plaintiff CLARKE relied upon the aforesaid material
misrepresentations, in fact did sign over her property to Defendant(s) without any consideration
and has been damaged as a result thereof, with said damages continuing to accrue.
48. By dint of the foregoing, Plaintiff is entitled to damages in a sum to be determined
at but
trial, at least $350,000.00, with said damages continuing to accrue, treble (punitive) damages
as against each Defendant, along with the costs, fees, plus interest of prosecuting this action.
AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION: JUDGMENT SETTING ASIDE
AND DISCHARGING THE DEED TRANSFER
49. The aforesaid transfer by Plaintiff by the bargain and sale fraudulent deed was and
is unconscionable as it lacked any consideration, and was otherwise the product of undue
influence, duress, coercion and compulsion.
50. The aforesaid transfer was further unconscionable as no Defendant paid any
consideration to Plaintiff for signing over her ½ interest in the property, and was otherwise the
product of undue influence, duress, coercion and compulsion.
51. The aforesaid transfer was further unconscionable as only Defendants stood to gain
financially from the deal, if
i.e., the property is sold, itgave Defendants the purported right to force
the sale of the property and then collect all net proceeds, since the terms of the Defendant
VIRGILIO's repayment upon his supposed unsecured debt would take over 600 years to pay off,
per the terms of the supposed agreement, and was otherwise the product ofundue influence, duress,
coercion and compulsion.
52. The aforesaid transfer was otherwise wholly unreasonably unfavorable to Plaintiff,
and wholly favorable to Defendants, and each of them, and was otherwise the product of undue
influence, duress, coercion and compulsion.
8
30 of 17
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/26/2018 12:12 PM INDEX NO. 612624/2018
NYSCEF INDEX NO. 612624/2018
FILED DOC. : NO.
SU1
Preview
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/26/2018 12:12 PM INDEX NO. 612624/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 45 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/26/2018 EXHIBIT A FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/26/2018 12:12 PM INDEX NO. 612624/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. i FOLK 45 RECEIVED INDEXNYSCEF: NO. 612624/2018 11/26/2018 FILED : SU: COUNTY CLERK 07/02/2018 06:12 PM NYSCEF DOC. NI. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/02/2018 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Index No.: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK Date Summons filed: --------------------------------------------------------------------X Plaintiff designates HUGHETTE CLARKE, SUFFOLK COUNTY as the place of trial. Plaintiff, - against - The basis of venue is: Plaintiff's place of residence LUIGICOSENTINO, VINCENT COSENTINO, GEORGE COSENTINO, DANIEL VIRGILIO, and GERARD SUMMONS GLASS, ESQ., Defendants. Plaintiff resides at: ----------------------------------------------------------- X Suffolk County, NY To the above-named Defendant(s): YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED to answer the complaint in this action and to serve a copy of your answer, or, if the complaint is not served with this summons, to serve a notice of appearance on the Plaintiff's attorney(s) within twenty (20) days after the service of this summons, exclusive of the day of service (or within thirty (30) days after the service is complete ifthis summons is not personally delivered to you within the State of New York); and in case of your failure to appear or answer, judgment will be taken against you by default for the relief demanded in the complaint. Dated: July 2, 2018 Miller Place, New York Vess n Mitev, Esq. , MITEV & ASSOCIATES, LLP ttorneys for Plaintzf 122 North Country Road Miller Place, New York 11764 T: (631) 473-1000 F: (631) 928-5385 vesselin@raymitevlaw.com To: LUIGI COSENTINO 31 Mariners Circle West Islip, New York 1 1795 VINCENT COSENTINO 41 Jefferson Blvd. Port Jefferson Station, NY 11776 GEORGE COSENTINO 33 Pearsall Place 1 of 17 FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/26/2018 12:12 PM INDEX NO. 612624/2018 NYSCEF [FILED: DOC. NO. SU11: 45OLK COUNTY CLERK O'7/02/2018 RECEIVED INDEX NO. NYSCEF: 612624/2018 11/26/2018 06:12 PMI NYSCEF DOC. NC 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/02/2018 Babylon, NY 11702 DANIEL VIRGILIO 703 Fresh Pond Ave. #171 Calverton, New York 11933 GERARD GLASS, ESQ. 72 East Main Street #3 West Babylon, NY 11704 2 2 of 17 FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/26/2018 12:12 PM INDEX NO. 612624/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 45 RECEIVED INDEXNYSCEF: NO. 612624/2018 11/26/2018 FILED : SUrFOLK COUNTY CLERK 07/02/2018 06: 12 PM) NYSCEF DOC. N . 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/02/2018 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ___________ __________--- ____-- __----.-----------------------X HUGHETTE CLARKE, Plaintiff(s), VERIFIED COMPLAINT -against- Index No. LUIGI COSENTINO, VINCENT COSENTINO, GEORGE COSENTINO, DANIEL VIRGILIO, and GERARD GLASS, ESQ., Defendant(s). _______________------ __________ ______------------------------X Plaintiff, HUGHETTE CLARKE, through her attorneys, Ray, Mitev & Associates, LLP, hereby appears and complains as follows: 1. At all relevant times Plaintiff is over the age of 18 years. 2. At all relevant times Plaintiff lives in Suffolk County, NY. 3. Defendant Luigi COSENTINO is a natural person over the age of 18 years, living in New York and/or in Suffolk County. 4. Defendant Vincent COSENTINO is a natural person over the age of 18 years, living in New York and/or in Suffolk County. 5. Defendant George COSENTINO is a natural person over the age of 18 years, living in New York and/or in Suffolk County. 6. Defendant Daniel VIRGILIO is a natural person over the age of 18 years, living in New York and/or in Suffolk County. 7. Upon information and belief, Defendant Gerard GLASS, Esq., is an attorney, duly admitted to practice in the State of New York. 8. At all relevant times Plaintiff was the girlfriend of Defendant Daniel VIRGILIO. 3 of 17 FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/26/2018 12:12 PM INDEX NO. 612624/2018 NYSCEF INDEX NO. 612624/2018 [FILED DOC.: NO. 45 SUTFOLK COUNTY CLE RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/26/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/02/ 2018 9. Plaintiff and Defendant VIRGILIO were in a committed romantic relationship for several years. 10. Upon information and belief, Defendant Daniel VIRGILIO owed monies to the COSENTINO Defendants. 11. Def. VIRGILIO advised Plaintiff that he owed money to the COSENTINO Defendants and that he was afraid they would hurt and/or harm him physically. The money claimed loan" to be owed, according to Def. VIRGILIO, was a result of certain "bridge financing that Defs. COSENTINO(s) had provided, and were now calling due. 12. At no time did Plaintiff owe any money or anything whatsoever to any Defendant, and there is no agreement to the contrary, either orally or in writing. 13. At all relevant times Plaintiff was the rightful owner of property located 1705 Nicole Drive, Port Jefferson, New York. 14. On or about June 2009, Defendants, and each of them, coerced, induced, threatened, extorted, and otherwise perpetrated an elaborate real estate fraud, which included dispossessing Plaintiff of her rightful ownership, in fee simple, of the 1705 Nicole Drive property. 15. Each of the Defendants entered into a purported agreement (Ex. 1 to the Verified Complaint), which purported to be "between LUIGI COSENTINO, VINCENT COSENTINO and VIRGILIO." GEORGE COSENTINO...and DANIEL (id). 16. Plaintiff was not named as a party in this purported agreement. 17. Plaintiff is not related in any way to Defendant Daniel VIRGILIO, either by blood, marriage, or consanguinity. 2 4 of 17 FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/26/2018 12:12 PM INDEX NO. 612624/2018 NYSCEF INDEX NO. 612624/2018 FILED: DOC. NO. SUE 45 f'OLK COUNTY CLERK 07/02/2018 06:12 PN| RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/26/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NC 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/02/::018 18. According to this purported agreement, Defendant Luigi COSENTINO held a "judgment" "$350,000.00" against Defendant Daniel Virgilio, in the amount of which was purportedly "reduced to the sum of $345,000.00, plus interest, costs and disbursements. 19. A search of the Suffolk County Clerk's Office website reveals no such judgment docketed. 20. The purported agreement then provides that: "2. In order to secure said judgment and in consideration of said judgment against [DANIEL VIRGILIO], [DANIEL VIRGILIO] agrees to arrange for the conveyance of one-half interest in the townhouse owned by DAN's sister, HUGHETTE CLARKE, at 1705 Nicole Drive, Port Jefferson Station, New York, to LOU COSENTINO "LOU". 3. Both parties agree to execute alldocuments to effectuate this transfer. 4. DAN shall make payments on the unpaid balance to COSENTINO, though COSENTINO's attorney, GERARD J. GLASS, at 72 East Main Street, Suite 3, Babylon, New York 11702 in the minimum amount of $500.00 per month. 5. Simultaneously with the transfer of said property, DAN and LOU shall execute a Deed from LOU back to DAN's sister,HUGHETTE CLARKE, which shall be held in escrow by GERARD J. GLASS. 6. Upon completion of the unpaid balance, LOU agrees that his attomey, GERARD J. GLASS, shall release the Deed and other conveyance documents to DAN for him to record LOU's one-half interest in the property back to his sister,HUGHETTE CLARKE. 7. At the same time, after final payment (handwritten), COSENTINO shall execute a satisfaction of judgment to DAN. 8. In the event of non-payment of any installment, COSENTINO may through LOU, move as a tenant in common of the townhouse to compel the sale of said premises with an equal distribution of the proceeds between COSENTINO and HUGHETTE CLARKE to the extent of the outstanding balance owed to COSENTINO... 3 5 of 17 FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/26/2018 12:12 PM INDEX NO. 612624/2018 NYSCEF INDEX NO. 612624/2018 FILED DOC. : NO. 45 SUli:FOLK COUNTY CLERK RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/26/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NC 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: C7/02/L018 10th 9. The payments shall commence on the day of July 2009 and be due on the 10th full." day of each month thereaf1ter until payment is made in (id). 21. Each of the Defendants signed this document, as well as Plaintiff, id. 22. There are purported acknowledgments for each of the parties, id. 23. On itsface, the document evinces a pure fraud: Defendant VIRGILIO purported to pledge as collateral for an un-recorded purported judgment that he purportedly owed to Defendant Luigi COSENTINO, an interest in a property that he had no right, title,interest or claim to, and which was owed at the time solely by Plaintiff Hughette CLARKE. 24. The remainder of the terms of this purported agreement are also indicative of outright fraud: a. a $500/month payment plan of a purported (unrecorded) $345,000.00 judgment would be paid off in the year 2,699, or 690 YEARS after the execution of this document, thus ensuring that Plaintiff would never again be the rightful owner; b. Hughette CLARKE is an African-American woman, while Defendant Daniel VIRGILIO is a white, Italian-American man, and the two do not share a last name. The purported relationship between the two as brother and sister would be immediately suspicious to any person preparing such a document. c. A simultaneous purported execution of a deed re-conveying ownership back to Plaintiff, that was only to be released to Defendant Daniel VIRGILIO (par. 5 and 6 of the document), which is a commonly known method of perpetrating deed/mortgage fraud. 25. Upon information and Defendant GLASS never prepared the purported re- belief, conveyance deed and ancillary documents and never held same in his escrow. 26. To date, Plaintiff has never seen, although duly demanded, said re-conveyance deed and ancillary documents. 27. To date, Defendant GLASS has simply refused to provide said documents. 4 6 of 17 FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/26/2018 12:12 PM INDEX NO. 612624/2018 NYSCEF SUI' INDEX NO. 612624/2018 FILED DOC. : NO. 45 !'OLK COUNTY CLERK 07/02/2018 06:12 PM1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/26/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/02/ ?018 28. Defendant GLASS, as an attorney, had a heightened fiduciary duty to ensure that such a transaction could never be entered into, especially by an un-represented party, to wit: Plaintiff. 29. Defendant GLASS, as an attorney, had a non-delegable ethical duty not to involve himself in such a transaction wherein he was, upon information and belief, purporting to represent "buyer" both the and the "seller", but did not obtain any waivers of such conflict from Plaintiff or explain to Plaintiff in writing that such a purported agreement was un-enforceable and outright fraudulent, and to advise Plaintiff in writing that she should consult with a lawyer prior to signing any document. 30. Defendant GLASS did not present Plaintiff with a retainer agreement. 3 l. Defendant GLASS did not present Plaintiff with a statement of client's rights and responsibilities. 32. Upon information and belief, said failure to disclose was and is a clear violation of the applicable rules of professional responsibility and the relevant case law. 33. Defendant VIRGILIO repeatedly represented to Plaintiff that she had nothing to worry about, that thisagreement was in "paper only", and that none of the other Defendants would actually seek to enforce it. 34. Defendant VIRGILIO also assured Plaintiff that this agreement did not mean that Plaintiff could be forced out of her home, despite the clear language in the agreement that purportedly gives Defendant Luigi COSENTINO to "move as a tenant in common of the premises" townhouse to compel the sale of said and to collect all the net proceeds from the sale thereof. 5 7 of 17 FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/26/2018 12:12 PM INDEX NO. 612624/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 45 RECEIVED INDEX NO. NYSCEF: 612624 /2018 11/26/2018 {FILED : SUF fi'OLK COUNTY CLERK 07/02/2018 06:12 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/02/2018 35. Defendant VIRGILIO also assured Plaintiff that under this purported agreement, Plaintiff would in fact retain ownership of the home, as the deed would never actually be recorded. 36. Defendant VIRGILIO represented to Plaintiff that each of the other Defendants "paper-only" were in agreement, in sum and substance, that this was a agreement; that the deed would never be recorded; that Plaintiff could never be removed from her house; that the house could never be sold without Plaintiff's consent, and that Plaintiff had nothing to worry about. 37. As a result of this purported agreement, Plaintiff CLARKE's whole interest in fee simple in the property at 1705 Nicole Drive, Port Jefferson Station, NY 1 1776, was cut to a ½ "undivided" interest, by a bargain and sale deed date July 1, 2009, with theother ½ interest being given to Defendant Luigi COSENTINO, with said deed being recorded in the County Clerk's office on Sept. 1, 2009. (Ex. 2 to the Verified Complaint). 38. The deed is separately and discretely fraudulent because it is purportedly acknowledged the day pri.orto July 1,2009, or June 300', 2009; in other words the acknowledgment comes before the date of the purported transfer, rendering the deed null and void, ab initio. 39. Plaintiff CLARKE realized that the aforesaid was a fraud perpetrated upon her on or about November 2017, when she inquired as to whether the deed had indeed been recorded, and after searching the County Clerk records, discovered that it had been in fact recorded, despite Defendants' assurances that itwould not be recorded. 40. Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff CLARKE wrote to COSENTINO to advise him that she did not owe him or any other Defendants any money and that she realized that she had been defrauded, and demanded relief. 6 8 of 17 FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/26/2018 12:12 PM INDEX NO. 612624/2018 NYSCEF INDEX NO. 612624/3018 \FILED DOC.: NO. SUlf 45 i'OLK COUNTY CLERK 07/02/2018 06:12 PM) RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/26/2018 NYSCEF DOC. N( 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/02/M018 41. Defendant Luigi COSENTINO wrote back to Plaintiff to advise her that she had signed the purported agreement, that she was bound by it,and that he was the ½ owner of her property, and sent Plaintiff a copy of the purported agreement but not the deed. 42. This discovery lead Plaintiff to consult with a lawyer regarding what had transpired, and further to her realizing that she had been defrauded out of her property, for no consideration, as well as had other misdeeds caused upon her. AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION: FRAUD 43. At all relevant times, Defendants, and each of them, assured, promised and otherwise induced Plaintiff CLARKE that this arrangement was perfectly legal andordinary, and that she did not have to seek a lawyer to represent her in this transaction. 44. At all relevant times, Defendants, and each of them, assured, promised and otherwise induced Plaintiff CLARKE that this purported agreement was enforceable as against Plaintiff CLARKE, even though there was no consideration as between Plaintiff CLARKE and any of the Defendants. 45. Each of the stated premises of the purported agreement is on its face a manifest fraud, which is part and parcel of the agreement and permeates the document so as to evince an overarching fraud in the entirety, and Plaintiff incorporates each of the aforesaid falsehoods as set forth in the purported agreement, at Par. 17 herein as though fully set forth herein. 46. At all relevant times Defendants, and each of them, made the aforesaid representations with scienter, while knowing they were false, and with the intention that Plaintiff CLARKE would rely upon them to her detriment in order to actually turn over half of her property to Defendant Luigi COSENTINO, without an ounce of consideration. 7 9 of 17 FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/26/2018 12:12 PM INDEX NO. 612624/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 45 RECEIVED INDEX No. NYSCEF: 612624/2018 11/26/2018 [FILED : SUP FOLK COUNTY CLERK 07/02/2018 06:12 P-H NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/02/ 2018 47. At all relevant times, Plaintiff CLARKE relied upon the aforesaid material misrepresentations, in fact did sign over her property to Defendant(s) without any consideration and has been damaged as a result thereof, with said damages continuing to accrue. 48. By dint of the foregoing, Plaintiff is entitled to damages in a sum to be determined at but trial, at least $350,000.00, with said damages continuing to accrue, treble (punitive) damages as against each Defendant, along with the costs, fees, plus interest of prosecuting this action. AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION: JUDGMENT SETTING ASIDE AND DISCHARGING THE DEED TRANSFER 49. The aforesaid transfer by Plaintiff by the bargain and sale fraudulent deed was and is unconscionable as it lacked any consideration, and was otherwise the product of undue influence, duress, coercion and compulsion. 50. The aforesaid transfer was further unconscionable as no Defendant paid any consideration to Plaintiff for signing over her ½ interest in the property, and was otherwise the product of undue influence, duress, coercion and compulsion. 51. The aforesaid transfer was further unconscionable as only Defendants stood to gain financially from the deal, if i.e., the property is sold, itgave Defendants the purported right to force the sale of the property and then collect all net proceeds, since the terms of the Defendant VIRGILIO's repayment upon his supposed unsecured debt would take over 600 years to pay off, per the terms of the supposed agreement, and was otherwise the product ofundue influence, duress, coercion and compulsion. 52. The aforesaid transfer was otherwise wholly unreasonably unfavorable to Plaintiff, and wholly favorable to Defendants, and each of them, and was otherwise the product of undue influence, duress, coercion and compulsion. 8 30 of 17 FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/26/2018 12:12 PM INDEX NO. 612624/2018 NYSCEF INDEX NO. 612624/2018 FILED DOC. : NO. SU1![45 j'OLK COUNTY CLERK 07/02/2018 06:12 PM| RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/26/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NC 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/02/2018 53. The aforesaid transfer was otherwise wholly unreasonably unfavorable to Plaintiff, as itleft her with allof the debt (liability) on the property, and only half of the rights or interest in and to the property, but in reality none of the right to any of the net proceeds of the property in the event a Defendant forced a sale thereon, and wholly favorable to Defendants, and each of them, and was otherwise the product of undue influence, duress, coercion and compulsion. 54. The aforesaid transfer was otherwise wholly unreasonably unfavorable to Plaintiff, as she was in a demonstrably weaker position than her then-boyfriend, VIRGILIO, both physically, as a woman, and because VIRGILIO had previously, repeatedly coerced, cajoled, and unduly influenced her to pledge her home as collateral for VIRGILIO's debt. 55. By dint of the foregoing, Plaintiff was unconscionably deprived of the use and enjoyment of the property, damaged in a sum to be determined at trial,but at least in the amount of $350,000.00, with said damages continuing to accrue. 56. By dint of the foregoing, Plaintiff is entitled to damages in a sum to be determined i at trial,but at least $350,000.00, with said damages continuing to accrue, treble (punitive) damages as against each Defendant, along with the costs, fees, plus interest of prosecuting this action. 57. Plaintiff is further entitled to a judgment discharging and setting aside the deed transfer, as null and void, ab initio,and upon a judgment awarding same, a further directive to the County Clerk to strike said deed from itsrolls. 58. Plaintiff is further entitled to a judgment discharging, invalidating and setting aside the deed transfer, as voidable, and upon a judgment awarding same, a further directive to the County Clerk to strike said deed from itsrolls. AS AND FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION: SETTING ASIDE A FORGED DEED 59. The purported deed (Ex. 2), dated July 1, 2009 is a forgery. 9 11 of 17 FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/26/2018 12:12 PM INDEX NO. 612624/2018 NYSCEF INDEX NO. 612624/ 018 FILED DOC. : NO. SUE 45 POLK COUNTY CLERK 07/02/2018 06:12 PM) RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/26/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NC 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/02/ 018 60. The Plaintiff's purported signature upon said deed, is forged. 61. The aforesaid deed was never signed by Plaintiff, but, upon information and belief, one or more of the Defendants. 62. The purported signature of Plaintiff is missing her middle initial,which is "N"; the signature of Plaintiff is otherwise in a different form of handwriting/script than that of Plaintiff's normal handwriting/script. of" 63. The purported "in presence signature is dated July 1, 2009, while the purported acknowledgment is dated June 30, 2009, further evincing the deed an outright forgery. 64. A forged deed is null and void, ab initio and conveys no legal title. 65. By dint of the foregoing, Plaintiff is entitled to damages in a sum to be determined at trial,but at least$350,000.00, with said damages continuing to accrue, treble (punitive) damages as against each Defendant, along with the costs, fees, plus interest of prosecuting this action. 66. Plaintiff is further entitled to a judgment discharging and setting aside the deed transfer, as null and void, ab initio,and upon a judgment awarding same, a further directive to the County Clerk to strike said deed from itsrolls AS AND FOR A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION: RESCISSION OF THE PURPORTED AGREEMENT AS VOID AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY AND THE NEW Y ORK G.O.L. 67. If the aforesaid agreement is allowed to stand, it would be against the equitable principle that Defendants, and each of them, would be enriched, unjustly, at the expense of Plaintiff, and solely and proximately as a result of a collusive fraud perpetrated by the Defendants upon Plaintiff. 68. The agreement is additionally unenforceable as against public policy and as against the New York General Obligations Law, in that itpurportedly obligates Plaintiff to answer for the 10 12 of 17 FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/26/2018 12:12 PM INDEX NO. 612624/2018 NYSCEF INDEX No. 612624/ 018 FILED DOC. : NO. SUlf 45 i'OLK COUNTY CLERK 07/02/2010 06:12 PE RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/26/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/02/ 018 debt of another; obligates Plaintiff to transfer her property to a third person to whom Plaintiff owes nothing; conditions Plaintiff's ability to recover any net proceeds from the sale of her own home on Defendant VIRGILIO paid off his separate debt and makes a material term a re- having first; conveyance deed that was purportedly held by a lawyer for all the parties,GLASS. 69. The agreement is void ab initio as against public policy, and gives rise to no contractual obligations whatsoever. 70. Rescission of the purported agreement would substantially restore allthe parties to their positions they occupied prior to entering into the purported agreement. 71. By dint of the foregoing, Plaintiff is entitled to rescission and nullification of the aforesaid purported agreement, as void ab initio. 72. By dint of the foregoing, Plaintiff is entitled to damages in a sum to be determined at trial,but at least $350,000.00, with said damages continuing to accrue, treble (punitive) damages as against each Defendant, along with the costs, fees, plus interest of prosecuting this action. AS AND FOR A FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION: UNJUST ENRICHMENT 73.