Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old May 4th 08, 02:21 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,194
Default Citibank Cheats Grandmaster Benko out of $70,000



Sam Sloan wrote:
SURROGATES COURT: STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
__________________________________________x

In the Matter of the Estate of

Ruth V. Cardoso,

Deceased
FILE
NO. 2546/2002

NOTICE
OF MOTION

__________________________________________x

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that upon the annexed affidavit of Paul C. Benko
and upon all of the papers and proceedings had herein the undersigned
will move this court on the 20th day of May 2008 for an order granting
a rehearing of the decision of the Honorable Kristin Booth Glen of
this court dated March 17, 2008 which granted summary judgment in
favor of Citibank.

PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that Petitioner demands service of a copy
of all opposition papers to this motion at least five days before the
return date of this motion.

Yours, etc.




_________________________
Paul C. Benko
April 30, 2008
To:

Barry R. Glickman
Zeichner, Ellman & Kraus LLP
575 Lexington Avenue
New York NY 10022

John Reddy
The Law Firm of Bekerman & Reddy
85 Worth Street
New York NY 10013



SURROGATES COURT: STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
__________________________________________x

In the Matter of the Estate of

Ruth V. Cardoso,

Deceased
FILE
NO. 2546/2002

MOTION
FOR REHEARING
__________________________________________x


The undersigned petitioner Paul C. Benko hereby moves for a rehearing
of the the decision of the Honorable Kristin Booth Glen dated March
17, 2008 on the grounds that the decision by Surrogate Glen made
numerous findings of fact, all of which are in dispute. The decision
of Surrogate Glen granted summary judgment to Citibank. A motion for
summary judgment can only be granted if there are no triable issues of
fact. In this case, there are many triable issues of fact. This
decision cannot be allowed to stand because Citibank never even
presented evidence to support their claims and these are triable
issues of fact.

1. The decision of this court is clearly erroneous because it makes no
mention of the fact that a hearing was had in this case in December
2003 after the publication of four weeks of legal notices in the New
York Law Journal. The purpose of those legal notices was to extinguish
all claims by anybody else. If Citibank wanted to object, that was the
time to do it. Instead, Citibank did not appear. Citibank remained
silent on this entire matter until 2006 when petitioner filed the
motion for summary judgment.

2. The decision of Surrogate Glen repeatedly refers to a "Brazil
Will". However, no such will has ever been produced in this court, not
even a photocopy thereof. All that has been produced is a letter from
somebody in Brazil stating that there was such a will. The letter is
not written in English. It is written in Portuguese. No certified
translation has been provided to this court. No document signed by the
deceased, Ruth V. Cardoso, has been produced. A letter in the file
states that Ruth Cardoso was seriously ill, in bed, and on the brink
of death. Thus, we cannot even examine a photocopy of the supposed
will to see if it resembles the signature of Ruth V. Cardoso.
Petitioner is in receipt of a letter from one Wolfgang Roddewig, who
is the Honorary Consul of Germany to Salvador Brazil, who stated that
he intended to donate any money left by the decedent to the poor
people living in the slums of Salvador Brazil. This letter was filed
by the petitioner with this Surrogate's Court back in 2003 when it was
received. This letter makes it evident that Wolfgang Roddewig was not
named as a beneficiary of the supposed Brazil Will.

3. It is obvious what really happened: Under the Rules of the
Surrogate's Court of New York County (it is not clear if this is
followed in other counties as well) if a person dies leaving a will
but has no living relatives down to first cousins, then the petitioner
must search for any possible relatives and must demonstrate to the
Probate Department that all possible efforts were made to find
relatives. Petitioner must file an affidavit and other evidence
concerning the efforts that were made to find these relatives.

4. Based upon this rule, Petitioner was instructed by Tim
Amerist,Clerk of Probate Department of this Surrogate's Court, that he
must contact the cemetery where the deceased was buried and find out
who buried her and if that person knew of any relatives of the
deceased.

5. The Deceased, Ruth V. Cardoso, was buried in the German Cemetery in
Salvador Brazil next to her mother, who had died there a few years
earlier. This was because her mother was a German National.
Petitioner, following the instructions of the Probate Department of
this Honorable Court, accordingly contacted the German Cemetery and
learned that the cemetery is under the control of Wolfgang Roddewig,
because he is the Honorary Consul of Germany to Salvador Brazil.
Petitioner contacted Sr. Roddewig and asked if he knew of any
relatives of Ruth V. Cardoso, because this information was needed to
probate her estate. Sr. Roddewig replied that she had left no
relatives nor any money in Brazil.

6. We now know what happened next. Upon learning through this inquiry
that Ruth V. Cardoso had left some money in Citibank New York, he then
ran down to the local Succession's and Orphan's Court in Salvador
Brazil and got himself appointed as the executor of her estate. He
then contacted the local branches of Citibank which has two offices in
Salvador Brazil and demanded that the money be paid to him.

7. We know that this is what happened because, as the court notes,
Wolfgang Roddewig says that he was appointed in March 2003. Ruth V.
Cardoso died on February 11, 2000. Thus, Sr. Roddewig waited more than
three years after Ruth Cardoso had died before approaching the court
in Brazil. In short, this was an obvious scam.

8. It was in March 2003 that pursuant to instructions given by the
Probate Department of this court under the supervision of Mr. Tim
Amerist of this court, Petitioner was told to contact the Consular
Officer of Brazil to find out any possible relatives of the deceased.
Petitioner wishes to emphasize that the clerks in the Probate
Department specifically directed Petitioner to contact the Brazilian
Embassy or the Brazilian Office in the United Nations to see if they
knew of any relatives of Ruth Cardoso. In short, the Probate
Department sent Petitioner on what would have been a wild goose chase
except that as a result Petitioner contacted Wolfgang Roddewig who was
the Honorary Consul of Brazil. Upon realizing the purpose of my
contacting him, Sr. Roddewig realized that there was money to be had
by claiming the money for himself. Petitioner has filed all of the
pertinent documents with this court and it plainly obvious that it was
pursuant to the directives of the Probate Department of this Court
that I was required to notify Sr. Roddewig and he then started efforts
to grab the money for his own benefit.

9. In August, 2004, after I discovered what had happened, I was able
to track down the person at Citibank who actually paid the money to
Sr. Roddewig. This person is a Portuguese speaking staff member at the
111 Wall Street office of Citibank. She told me that she had decided
to treat this as a foreign or overseas account especially in view of
the fact that the account had lain dormant for four years. She said
that it had taken Citibank a long time to pay the money to Sr.
Roddewig because Citibank kept asking him for a copy of his passport
or other documentation to prove his identity and it had taken him a
long time to comply and then only after several letters had been
exchanged. The Citibank official told me that she had had no idea that
there was a case pending in the New York Surrogate's Court all this
time regarding these same funds. In short, she admitted that the money
had been paid to Sr. Roddewig simply because they had failed to notice
the legal notice published in the New York Law Journal.

10. Meanwhile, Petitioner was going through the lengthy and burdensome
proceedings required by the rules of the New York Surrogates Court to
�prove� the will. This involved bringing in all the witnesses to the
signing of the will to testify before Mr. John Reddy, Counsel for the
Public Administrator. Petitioner also published four required notices
in the New York Law Journal in October and November 2003 (at a cost of
$2700) and then a hearing was held in New York Surrogate's Court in
December 2003 in which the Public Administrator requested the
opportunity to take depositions of the witnesses. Unfortunately, it
took Mr. Reddy seven months to get around to taking the depositions
and writing his report.

11. All this time that Petitioner was going though these proceedings
in New York, Wolfgang Roddewig down in Brazil was writing letters to
Citibank demanding that the money be paid to him. He did not have to
produce a will, much less prove it, and indeed until this date no will
has been produced. We only know what the will is said to contain. It
is said that under the supposed will Ruth V. Cardoso gave certain
articles of furniture and jewelry plus her apartment to various
friends and neighbors in Salvador Brazil. No money was given under
this supposed will and no mention of Wolfgang Roddewig was made in
this supposed will.

12. It is apparent that when the required notices were published in
the New York Law Journal in October and November 2003, Citibank simply
overlooked and missed those notices. Citibank still had the money as
late as May 2004. They had not yet given it to Wolfgang Roddewig.
Petitioner knows this because he regularly visited the office of the
Citibank Account Executive who was handling the Ruth Cardoso Account,
who was Eric Mark of the 120 Broadway Branch. Incidentally, Mr. Mark
still works at that branch and still sits at the same desk. Each time
petitioner visited Mr. Mark to inform him of the latest developments
in the case, Mr. Mark assured him that the money would not be moved
out of the Ruth Cardoso account without an order of the New York
Surrogates Court.

13. Thus, Petitioner was shocked when he finally obtained the required
court order in July 2004 and provided it to Mr. Mark and Mr. Mark
discovered that only a few weeks earlier the money had been moved out
of the Ruth V. Cardoso account without notice to Mr. Mark.

14. What happened is an obvious failure in the internal security
system of Citibank. Citibank has offices all over the world and
thousands of employees. It has become clear that the employees often
do not talk to each other. Eric Mark probably only talks to his own
supervisor. The people working in the Citibank Offices in Salvador
Brazil probably only talk to their supervisors. I have learned that it
was because Ruth Cardoso used a Brazil address even though she lived
six months of every year in New Jersey that the Foreign Department of
Citibank took over the Ruth Cardoso account without informing the
account executive, who was Eric Mark.

15. In other words CITIBANK MADE A MISTAKE.

16. Now, rather than admit that is was due to a bank error or a
failure of the internal security systems of Citibank that this all
happened, they come to this court claiming that they did the right
thing. However, they have produced no evidence in support of their
claims. They have not even submitted documents from the Succession's
and Orphans Court of Brazil. We are told just to trust them that there
is such a court, that it has jurisdiction, that there is another will
and so on. The only presentation made by Citibank was verbal at the
oral argument that took place before this court in May 2006. During
that oral argument, the representative of Citibank made statements
which I know to be untrue. Also, note that Citibank has been silent on
the subjects of how much money they paid, when they paid it and to
whom. I have learned from other outside sources that they paid the
money to Wolfgang Roddewig in May or June 2004. Citibank has been
completely stonewalling on this subject.

17. If the present decision is allowed to stand, all of the time
honored procedures followed by the New York Surrogates Court will have
to be changed. This means that someone can come in years later and
claim that there was a will in some other country previously unknown
and everything will have to be undone. This is the reason that notices
were required to be published in the New York Law Journal, so as to
stop the shenanigan performed by Wolfgang Roddewig. The decision of
this court makes no mention of the fact that notices were published in
the New York Law Journal and that Citibank did not respond to those
notices. Once they failed to appear, that should have extinguished
their claims. Instead, Citibank filed nothing and provided no
information until May 2006 when petitioner submitted his motion for
summary judgment.

WHEREFORE, for all of the reasons set forth above, this petition for a
rehearing should be granted and the order f this court dated March 17,
2008 should be set aside and reversed.



_________________________
Paul C. Benko

April 30, 2008


VERIFICATION

I, the undersigned, the petitioner named in the foregoing petition,
being duly sworn, says:

I have read the foregoing petition subscribed by me and know the
contents thereof and the same is true of my own knowledge, except as
to those matters herein stated to be alleged upon information and
belief and as to those matters I believe it to be true.



_________________________
Signature of
Petitioner

On the 30th Day of April, 2008 before me personally came Paul C. Benko
to me known to be the person described herein and who executed the
foregoing instrument. Such person duly swore to such instrument before
me and duly acknowledged that he executed the same.


_____________________________
NOTARY PUBLIC




Copy to:

Barry R. Glickman
Zeichner, Ellman & Kraus LLP
575 Lexington Avenue
New York NY 10022

John Reddy
The Law Firm of Bekerman & Reddy
85 Worth Street
New York NY 10013



A lot of this reads like Sam Sloan helped write it. (Similar turns of
phrase, similar rambling irrelevancies.) If so, someone really ought
to explain to Benko why this is a bad idea. Simply put, if you lie
down with dogs, you're going to end up with fleas. I don't know if
Benko has a case, but what he needs is a lawyer, not a litigious crank.
  #2   Report Post  
Old May 4th 08, 02:58 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 9,302
Default Citibank Cheats Grandmaster Benko out of $70,000


A lot of this reads like Sam Sloan helped write it. (Similar turns of
phrase, similar rambling irrelevancies.) If so, someone really ought
to explain to Benko why this is a bad idea. Simply put, if you lie
down with dogs, you're going to end up with fleas. I don't know if
Benko has a case, but what he needs is a lawyer, not a litigious crank.



What I want to know is, who is "Paul C. Benko"?


-- help bot
  #3   Report Post  
Old May 4th 08, 03:40 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,194
Default Citibank Cheats Grandmaster Benko out of $70,000



help bot wrote:
A lot of this reads like Sam Sloan helped write it. (Similar turns of
phrase, similar rambling irrelevancies.) If so, someone really ought
to explain to Benko why this is a bad idea. Simply put, if you lie
down with dogs, you're going to end up with fleas. I don't know if
Benko has a case, but what he needs is a lawyer, not a litigious crank.



What I want to know is, who is "Paul C. Benko"?


-- help bot



It's a more realistic transliteration of his Hungarian name than
"Pal." Perhaps he spells it that way on official documents. A pretty
trivial point.
  #4   Report Post  
Old May 4th 08, 03:16 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,224
Default Citibank Cheats Grandmaster Benko out of $70,000

wrote:

Sam Sloan wrote:
SURROGATES COURT: STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
__________________________________________x

In the Matter of the Estate of

Ruth V. Cardoso,

Deceased
FILE
NO. 2546/2002

NOTICE
OF MOTION

__________________________________________x

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that upon the annexed affidavit of Paul C. Benko
and upon all of the papers and proceedings had herein the undersigned
will move this court on the 20th day of May 2008 for an order granting
a rehearing of the decision of the Honorable Kristin Booth Glen of
this court dated March 17, 2008 which granted summary judgment in
favor of Citibank.

PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that Petitioner demands service of a copy
of all opposition papers to this motion at least five days before the
return date of this motion.

Yours, etc.




_________________________
Paul C. Benko
April 30, 2008
To:

Barry R. Glickman
Zeichner, Ellman & Kraus LLP
575 Lexington Avenue
New York NY 10022

John Reddy
The Law Firm of Bekerman & Reddy
85 Worth Street
New York NY 10013



SURROGATES COURT: STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
__________________________________________x

In the Matter of the Estate of

Ruth V. Cardoso,

Deceased
FILE
NO. 2546/2002

MOTION
FOR REHEARING
__________________________________________x


The undersigned petitioner Paul C. Benko hereby moves for a rehearing
of the the decision of the Honorable Kristin Booth Glen dated March
17, 2008 on the grounds that the decision by Surrogate Glen made
numerous findings of fact, all of which are in dispute. The decision
of Surrogate Glen granted summary judgment to Citibank. A motion for
summary judgment can only be granted if there are no triable issues of
fact. In this case, there are many triable issues of fact. This
decision cannot be allowed to stand because Citibank never even
presented evidence to support their claims and these are triable
issues of fact.

1. The decision of this court is clearly erroneous because it makes no
mention of the fact that a hearing was had in this case in December
2003 after the publication of four weeks of legal notices in the New
York Law Journal. The purpose of those legal notices was to extinguish
all claims by anybody else. If Citibank wanted to object, that was the
time to do it. Instead, Citibank did not appear. Citibank remained
silent on this entire matter until 2006 when petitioner filed the
motion for summary judgment.

2. The decision of Surrogate Glen repeatedly refers to a "Brazil
Will". However, no such will has ever been produced in this court, not
even a photocopy thereof. All that has been produced is a letter from
somebody in Brazil stating that there was such a will. The letter is
not written in English. It is written in Portuguese. No certified
translation has been provided to this court. No document signed by the
deceased, Ruth V. Cardoso, has been produced. A letter in the file
states that Ruth Cardoso was seriously ill, in bed, and on the brink
of death. Thus, we cannot even examine a photocopy of the supposed
will to see if it resembles the signature of Ruth V. Cardoso.
Petitioner is in receipt of a letter from one Wolfgang Roddewig, who
is the Honorary Consul of Germany to Salvador Brazil, who stated that
he intended to donate any money left by the decedent to the poor
people living in the slums of Salvador Brazil. This letter was filed
by the petitioner with this Surrogate's Court back in 2003 when it was
received. This letter makes it evident that Wolfgang Roddewig was not
named as a beneficiary of the supposed Brazil Will.

3. It is obvious what really happened: Under the Rules of the
Surrogate's Court of New York County (it is not clear if this is
followed in other counties as well) if a person dies leaving a will
but has no living relatives down to first cousins, then the petitioner
must search for any possible relatives and must demonstrate to the
Probate Department that all possible efforts were made to find
relatives. Petitioner must file an affidavit and other evidence
concerning the efforts that were made to find these relatives.

4. Based upon this rule, Petitioner was instructed by Tim
Amerist,Clerk of Probate Department of this Surrogate's Court, that he
must contact the cemetery where the deceased was buried and find out
who buried her and if that person knew of any relatives of the
deceased.

5. The Deceased, Ruth V. Cardoso, was buried in the German Cemetery in
Salvador Brazil next to her mother, who had died there a few years
earlier. This was because her mother was a German National.
Petitioner, following the instructions of the Probate Department of
this Honorable Court, accordingly contacted the German Cemetery and
learned that the cemetery is under the control of Wolfgang Roddewig,
because he is the Honorary Consul of Germany to Salvador Brazil.
Petitioner contacted Sr. Roddewig and asked if he knew of any
relatives of Ruth V. Cardoso, because this information was needed to
probate her estate. Sr. Roddewig replied that she had left no
relatives nor any money in Brazil.

6. We now know what happened next. Upon learning through this inquiry
that Ruth V. Cardoso had left some money in Citibank New York, he then
ran down to the local Succession's and Orphan's Court in Salvador
Brazil and got himself appointed as the executor of her estate. He
then contacted the local branches of Citibank which has two offices in
Salvador Brazil and demanded that the money be paid to him.

7. We know that this is what happened because, as the court notes,
Wolfgang Roddewig says that he was appointed in March 2003. Ruth V.
Cardoso died on February 11, 2000. Thus, Sr. Roddewig waited more than
three years after Ruth Cardoso had died before approaching the court
in Brazil. In short, this was an obvious scam.

8. It was in March 2003 that pursuant to instructions given by the
Probate Department of this court under the supervision of Mr. Tim
Amerist of this court, Petitioner was told to contact the Consular
Officer of Brazil to find out any possible relatives of the deceased.
Petitioner wishes to emphasize that the clerks in the Probate
Department specifically directed Petitioner to contact the Brazilian
Embassy or the Brazilian Office in the United Nations to see if they
knew of any relatives of Ruth Cardoso. In short, the Probate
Department sent Petitioner on what would have been a wild goose chase
except that as a result Petitioner contacted Wolfgang Roddewig who was
the Honorary Consul of Brazil. Upon realizing the purpose of my
contacting him, Sr. Roddewig realized that there was money to be had
by claiming the money for himself. Petitioner has filed all of the
pertinent documents with this court and it plainly obvious that it was
pursuant to the directives of the Probate Department of this Court
that I was required to notify Sr. Roddewig and he then started efforts
to grab the money for his own benefit.

9. In August, 2004, after I discovered what had happened, I was able
to track down the person at Citibank who actually paid the money to
Sr. Roddewig. This person is a Portuguese speaking staff member at the
111 Wall Street office of Citibank. She told me that she had decided
to treat this as a foreign or overseas account especially in view of
the fact that the account had lain dormant for four years. She said
that it had taken Citibank a long time to pay the money to Sr.
Roddewig because Citibank kept asking him for a copy of his passport
or other documentation to prove his identity and it had taken him a
long time to comply and then only after several letters had been
exchanged. The Citibank official told me that she had had no idea that
there was a case pending in the New York Surrogate's Court all this
time regarding these same funds. In short, she admitted that the money
had been paid to Sr. Roddewig simply because they had failed to notice
the legal notice published in the New York Law Journal.

10. Meanwhile, Petitioner was going through the lengthy and burdensome
proceedings required by the rules of the New York Surrogates Court to
�prove� the will. This involved bringing in all the witnesses to the
signing of the will to testify before Mr. John Reddy, Counsel for the
Public Administrator. Petitioner also published four required notices
in the New York Law Journal in October and November 2003 (at a cost of
$2700) and then a hearing was held in New York Surrogate's Court in
December 2003 in which the Public Administrator requested the
opportunity to take depositions of the witnesses. Unfortunately, it
took Mr. Reddy seven months to get around to taking the depositions
and writing his report.

11. All this time that Petitioner was going though these proceedings
in New York, Wolfgang Roddewig down in Brazil was writing letters to
Citibank demanding that the money be paid to him. He did not have to
produce a will, much less prove it, and indeed until this date no will
has been produced. We only know what the will is said to contain. It
is said that under the supposed will Ruth V. Cardoso gave certain
articles of furniture and jewelry plus her apartment to various
friends and neighbors in Salvador Brazil. No money was given under
this supposed will and no mention of Wolfgang Roddewig was made in
this supposed will.

12. It is apparent that when the required notices were published in
the New York Law Journal in October and November 2003, Citibank simply
overlooked and missed those notices. Citibank still had the money as
late as May 2004. They had not yet given it to Wolfgang Roddewig.
Petitioner knows this because he regularly visited the office of the
Citibank Account Executive who was handling the Ruth Cardoso Account,
who was Eric Mark of the 120 Broadway Branch. Incidentally, Mr. Mark
still works at that branch and still sits at the same desk. Each time
petitioner visited Mr. Mark to inform him of the latest developments
in the case, Mr. Mark assured him that the money would not be moved
out of the Ruth Cardoso account without an order of the New York
Surrogates Court.

13. Thus, Petitioner was shocked when he finally obtained the required
court order in July 2004 and provided it to Mr. Mark and Mr. Mark
discovered that only a few weeks earlier the money had been moved out
of the Ruth V. Cardoso account without notice to Mr. Mark.

14. What happened is an obvious failure in the internal security
system of Citibank. Citibank has offices all over the world and
thousands of employees. It has become clear that the employees often
do not talk to each other. Eric Mark probably only talks to his own
supervisor. The people working in the Citibank Offices in Salvador
Brazil probably only talk to their supervisors. I have learned that it
was because Ruth Cardoso used a Brazil address even though she lived
six months of every year in New Jersey that the Foreign Department of
Citibank took over the Ruth Cardoso account without informing the
account executive, who was Eric Mark.

15. In other words CITIBANK MADE A MISTAKE.

16. Now, rather than admit that is was due to a bank error or a
failure of the internal security systems of Citibank that this all
happened, they come to this court claiming that they did the right
thing. However, they have produced no evidence in support of their
claims. They have not even submitted documents from the Succession's
and Orphans Court of Brazil. We are told just to trust them that there
is such a court, that it has jurisdiction, that there is another will
and so on. The only presentation made by Citibank was verbal at the
oral argument that took place before this court in May 2006. During
that oral argument, the representative of Citibank made statements
which I know to be untrue. Also, note that Citibank has been silent on
the subjects of how much money they paid, when they paid it and to
whom. I have learned from other outside sources that they paid the
money to Wolfgang Roddewig in May or June 2004. Citibank has been
completely stonewalling on this subject.

17. If the present decision is allowed to stand, all of the time
honored procedures followed by the New York Surrogates Court will have
to be changed. This means that someone can come in years later and
claim that there was a will in some other country previously unknown
and everything will have to be undone. This is the reason that notices
were required to be published in the New York Law Journal, so as to
stop the shenanigan performed by Wolfgang Roddewig. The decision of
this court makes no mention of the fact that notices were published in
the New York Law Journal and that Citibank did not respond to those
notices. Once they failed to appear, that should have extinguished
their claims. Instead, Citibank filed nothing and provided no
information until May 2006 when petitioner submitted his motion for
summary judgment.

WHEREFORE, for all of the reasons set forth above, this petition for a
rehearing should be granted and the order f this court dated March 17,
2008 should be set aside and reversed.



_________________________
Paul C. Benko

April 30, 2008


VERIFICATION

I, the undersigned, the petitioner named in the foregoing petition,
being duly sworn, says:

I have read the foregoing petition subscribed by me and know the
contents thereof and the same is true of my own knowledge, except as
to those matters herein stated to be alleged upon information and
belief and as to those matters I believe it to be true.



_________________________
Signature of
Petitioner

On the 30th Day of April, 2008 before me personally came Paul C. Benko
to me known to be the person described herein and who executed the
foregoing instrument. Such person duly swore to such instrument before
me and duly acknowledged that he executed the same.


_____________________________
NOTARY PUBLIC




Copy to:

Barry R. Glickman
Zeichner, Ellman & Kraus LLP
575 Lexington Avenue
New York NY 10022

John Reddy
The Law Firm of Bekerman & Reddy
85 Worth Street
New York NY 10013



A lot of this reads like Sam Sloan helped write it. (Similar turns of
phrase, similar rambling irrelevancies.) If so, someone really ought
to explain to Benko why this is a bad idea. Simply put, if you lie
down with dogs, you're going to end up with fleas. I don't know if
Benko has a case, but what he needs is a lawyer, not a litigious crank.


Glenn is going to deny the motion anyway. This is really setting the
stage for an appeal.

I appeared before Glenn when she was sitting as a Supreme Court Justice
in Part V (matrimonial). [Her ex-husband taught NY CPLR at NY Law School
for years] IMO, she was one of the worst judges in NYS. She was
eventually transferred out of Part V. A blessing given the havoc she
spread there. How she ever got herself elected Surrogate is a mystery.
Her decision here is typical of the way her reasoning works, which is to
say it doesn't. I expect she will be reversed on appeal.
Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Citibank Cheats Grandmaster Benko out of $70,000 [email protected] rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 3 April 18th 08 11:08 PM
Citibank Cheats Grandmaster Benko out of $70,000 [email protected] rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 3 April 18th 08 11:08 PM
Citibank Cheats Grandmaster Benko out of $70,000 samsloan rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 0 April 18th 08 04:21 AM
Citibank Cheats Grandmaster Benko out of $70,000 samsloan rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 0 April 18th 08 04:21 AM
Citibank Cheats Grandmaster Benko out of $70,000 help bot rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 0 March 22nd 08 07:08 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:09 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 ChessBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Chess"

 

Copyright © 2017