NYCHA SANCTIONABLE MOTION: RESPONSE OPPOSITION MOTION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------------------------------------X MIRIAM SNYDER AND/ON BEHALF OF HER ELDERLY MOTHER MAZARINE LEVY SNYDER, PLAINTIFFS, CASE NO. CASE NO. 14-CV-02090 PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION MEMORANDUM TO THE DEFENDANTS UNSWORN AND NO PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE DECLARATION AND MOTION TO DISMISS -VISSAC PERRY, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS GENERAL MANAGER IN THE NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY, JOHN RHEA INDIVIDUALLY AND AS COMMISSIONER IN THE NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY AND THE NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY DEFENDANTS, ------------------------------------------------------------------X PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION AND MEMORANDUM TO THE DEFENDANTS UNSWORN AND NO PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE DECLARATION AND MOTION TO DISMISS The Plaintiffs, Elder and Senior Mazarine Levy Snyder and Miriam Snyder ask the court to deny Defendant's motion to dismiss and state as follows: I. 1.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Plaintiffs, Miriam Snyder and Mazarine Levy Snyder filed this complaint against the above noted NYCHA Defendants, for abuse of the elderly, induced traumatization’s, actual and statutory damages for the NYCHA defendants repetitious and wilful violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) 15 U.S.C. § 1692, Violations of Title VIII of The Civil Rights Act of 1968, as amended by the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601 – 3619, [42 U.S.C. 3613] Enforcement by Private Persons, 24 CFR 100.400 - Prohibited Interference, Coercion or Intimidation, violations of the 1st, 4th,, 5th, 9th and 14th Constitutional 1

Amendments, Deprivation of Constitutional Rights and Privileges, 42 U. S. C. § 1983, Conspiracy to Depriving Persons of Equal Protection of the Laws, 42 U. S. C. § 1985, Violation of First Amendment Speech Rights Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1988, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Invasion of Privacy, willful, malicious, retaliatory, discriminatory, abusive and outrageous actions against Plaintiffs, as well as for violations of the New York General Business Laws section §349, et seq.

2. Additionally, Plaintiffs filed this law suit for Defendants violations of the Deceptive Practices Act, Defamation of Character, Invasion of privacy, breach of contract, and for violations of the telephone Consumer Protection Act, TCPA 47 U.S.C. § 227(B)(3); 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(A)(2).

3. All of the above noted laws prohibit Defendants from engaging in abusive, deceptive, and unfair business practices, particularly as it relates to impermissible search and seizures, denied due process rights, denied a right to be heard, elder abuseunwarranted and malicious induced trauma, aggravated harassment, discriminatory treatment and practices, alleged default debt collection and invasions of privacy and defamation.

4. Elena Madalina Andrei filed a defective Declaration in Support of NYCHA’s Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiffs Verified Complaint on June 27, 2014. Plaintiffs seek to have the attorney acting as witness unsworn declaration and all of her unauthenticated exhibits stricken from the record. Please see the attached two motions to Strike Elena Andrei’s Declaration and Exhibits.

2

5. Ms. Andrei Declaration is erroneous, is objected to and Plaintiffs move to dismiss all of her concoctions, including her improper and defective Declaration and her unauthenticated and deceitful computer print outs, attached to her Declaration as Exhibits.

6. The Defendants Declaration, exhibits and memorandum are each defective respectively because they are each in violation of 22 NYCRR § 130 -1.1-a which requires that an attorney or party certifies that, to the best of that person's knowledge, information and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances, (1) the presentation of the paper or the contentions therein are not frivolous as defined in subsection 1301.1(c)." 22 NYCRR § 130 -1.1(c) defines conduct as frivolous if: (1) it is completely without merit in law and cannot be supported by a reasonable argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law; (2) it is undertaken primarily to delay or prolong the resolution of the litigation, or to harass or maliciously injure another; or (3) it asserts material factual statements that are false."

7. Plaintiffs object in particular to the NYCHA Defendants alleged attorney’s unsworn and uncertified declaration In Support of Defendants Motion to Dismiss. This defective declaration which was used to introduce false instruments is objected to because it obstructs Verification requirements and inflicts fraud. The defective unsworn attorney’s declaration obstructs all confirmation of correctness, truth or authenticity, by affidavit, oath, or deposition. Affidavit of truth of matter state and object of verification is to assure good faith in averments or statements of party.

3

8. The NYCHA Defendants Motion and claims are completely without merit as exemplified in their no real party of interest, deliberate certification, affirmation and personal knowledge defects. The Defendants cannot show prima-facie evidence to bring or enforce their Motion nor have the Defendants offered any personal knowledge affidavits, affirmation or declaration to substantiate their concoctions.

9. The Defendants defective papers, declaration and exhibits constitute serious misrepresentation and construed fraud upon the court.

10. These attorney acts are criminal, calculated and violate Judiciary Law § 487. These deceptive attorney acts establish intent to deceive. Each of the NYCHA Defendants attorneys, Andrei and Kelly D MacNeal are acting as witness and attorney in this matter. Each of the NYCHA attorneys are testifying to concoctions in which they have no personal knowledge. They are each lacking first-hand knowledge and persons lacking first-hand knowledge about a matter cannot testify about the matter.

11. Furthermore Andrei and MacNeal, the NYCHA Defendants attorneys each are persons refusing to promise by oath or affirmation to tell the truth and as such are excluded from testifying. Nothing they have written or submitted meets the basic guidelines for motion practice, much more admissible evidence.

12. Lawyers representing parties in a lawsuit such as this cannot testify. “Lawyer testimony” is a common breach of the lawyer’s professional responsibility and code of ethics and as such Plaintiffs object to Andrei and MacNeal attorney and witness testimony, unauthenticated exhibits and refusal to certify their papers.

4

13. Both lawyers, mainly Andrei, with her lack of competency testimony, should be disqualified as counsel for the NYCHA Defendants and reported to the Bar. A lawyer cannot serve as both counsel and witness in the same case. This is clearly against the rules. This Plaintiff adamantly objects to such.

14. Although state law controls Andrei’s hearsay testimony, even in federal courts, her hearsay unsworn declaration violates the Federal Rules of Evidence which govern hearsay problems in Federal Court even when state law supplies the rule of decision.

Fed.R.Evid. 101 and 1101; Courtland v. Walston & Co., Inc. 340 F.Supp. 1076, 1087 (S.D.N.Y.1972) (Brieant, J.).

15. One of the main issues of material fact involves clear Constitutional matters, operating under the obligations of the New York State Constitution, from which the obligation originates, the obligation identified under Article I, § 12, being that “…Security against unreasonable searches, seizures and interceptions., No warrant shall be issued except upon probable cause, supported by affidavit, particularly describing the place or places to be searched, the person or persons, thing or things to be seized, the communication to be intercepted, and the nature of evidence to be obtained. This right shall be construed in conformity with the 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution, as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court. Articles or information obtained in violation of this right shall not be admissible in evidence if such articles or information would be inadmissible under decisions of the United States Supreme Court construing the 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution.”

5

16.

The United Statute Supreme Court has ruled on the same in Groh v. Ramirez, 540 U.S. 551 (2004), that holds “Every warrant must meet the requirements of the warrant clause and be based upon probable cause, supported by oath and affirmation.”

17.

Ms. Andrei has failed to produce any valid evidence, not even a warrant to justify her non personal knowledge concoction such as her paragraph 37 newly created spokesman ship for FDNY smoke alarm lie and active insect repellant spray cans, both lies are objected to because they are lies and because there is no mention of and no proof of any warrant to enter this elders home. The criminal search, seizure and overall busting down of elder Plaintiff Snyder’s door was a malicious act of elder abuse and induced traumatization.

18. Another indisputable material issue of fact which requires public transparency and answers is why did NYCHA not call Elder Snyder-Levy’s emergency phone number before busting down her door?

19. Another indisputable material issue, is the alleged default rent arrears non validation.

20. These indisputable issues of material facts require a jury’s review and public policy protections so no other elder is abused and traumatized like this and thereafter NYCHA Defendants law department lack of personal knowledge lies are used to subterfuge the Defendants abuse.

21. Attorney Andrei’s defective and lacking personal knowledge unsworn declaration and exhibits fail on every single obligation identified herein. Furthermore, it is black letter law in this state that an original writing is required in order to prove the contents of the writing, to wit: Federal Rules of Evidence › ARTICLE X. CONTENTS OF WRITINGS,

6

RECORDINGS, AND PHOTOGRAPHS › Rule 1002. Requirement of the Original RULE 1002. REQUIREMENT OF THE ORIGINAL An original writing, recording, or photograph is required in order to prove its content unless these rules or a federal statute provides otherwise.

22. Plaintiffs re-invoke the FDCPA with respect to:  Deceptive Forms by Creditor § 1692 j Forms designed, compiled and/or furnished to create false belief.

Plaintiff objects to the use of Defendants untimely, newly created, scheme to defraud collusion based non-verified declaration and the defective forms as exhibits.  Harassment or Abuse: § 1692 d Any conduct the natural consequence of which is to harass, oppress, or abuse any person. The NYCHA’s Defendants willful and untimely purpose of creating false statements with no nexus to this case is for the purpose of harassment. Defendant’s motive or purpose for not validating the alleged default debt, Defendants phone calls to the Plaintiffs after being notified to not call was for no other reason but to harass the Plaintiffs. Defendants harassment, oppression, elder abuse and malice is epitomized in the NYCHA Defendants door bust down, induced flood and warrantless search and seizure of Elder Snyder-Levy’s apartment. The NYCHA Defendants targeting and exploitation of senior citizens and low income people for purposes of legal abuse, such as attorneys acting as witness and lawyer, is a bonafide and indisputable needing regulation form of oppression and harassment.

23. In summary, the NYCHA Defendants filed a fraud based defective Motion to Dismiss in this case on June 27, 2014 pursuant to legal abuse strategies and Rule 12(b)(6) and 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

1. Attached to the NYCHA defendants Motion were copies of un-authenticated documents that are considered to be from out-of-court witnesses.

2. The defendants failed to authenticate the attachments and the allegations in the Motion by an authorized representative.

3. In fact,

7

a.) The defendants have no material fact witnesses in this case; b.) The NYCHA defendants and the defendants attorneys have attempted to present exhibits as evidence that are completely inadmissible according to the Rules of Evidence and Civil Procedure; c.) The defendants have failed to sustain the burden of even showing a prima facie case for Summary Judgment let alone a prima facie case that would even necessitate a response by Plaintiffs; d.) The defendants have failed to bear the burden of proof for the Summary Judgment nor satisfy all the elements as a matter of Law in this case; e.) The Defendants have yet to prove through credible admissible evidence that Plaintiff is even liable for the newly created amount stated in the Motion; f.) Summary Judgment would be improper in this case, when the credibility of an alleged material Witness is at issue, the NYCHA Defendants attorneys failed to meet the burden of proof, wherein there remain several issues of material fact.

4. The Defendants arguments within the Summary Judgment submitted by and through are inadmissible as evidence and cannot be considered in the Summary Judgment, they are not from a competent fact witness.

II. RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS 24. Defendant's motion to dismiss is a substantive and procedural nullity. Defendant's motion to dismiss is frivolous on its face. The defendants seek to dismiss this verified complaint based on bad faith and misrepresentations and for this reason cannot verify any of their documents. Specifically the NYCHA Defendants have based this dismissal requests off of defective, fraud based, unauthorized, unauthenticated and inadmissible documents. Please take notice of the NYCHA Defendants lack of any exhibit by anyone with firsthand knowledge.

8

25. NYCHA Defendants most striking defect of capacity is failure to have first-hand knowledge.

26. Attorney Andrei as a witness knows only what she’s learned from others, she cannot testify to the truth. Defect of capacity is inability to testify to facts of the witness’ own personal knowledge.

27. CPLR § 3212(b) requires that a motion for summary judgment be supported by an affidavit of a person with requisite knowledge of the facts, together with a copy of the pleadings and by other available proof (Spearmon v. Times Square Stores Corp., 96 A.D.2d 552, 553 [2d Dept 1981]) The movant must tender evidence, by proof in admissible form, to establish the cause of action “sufficiently to warrant the court as a matter of law in directing judgment” (see CPLR 3212[b]; Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562 [1980] ). “Failure to make such showing requires the denial of the motion, regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers.” (Winegrad v. New York Univ Med. Ctr., 64 N.Y.2d 851, 853 [1985]; Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320, 324 [1986] Vitiello v. Mayrich Constr. Corp., 255 A.D.2d 182, 184 [1st Dept 1998] ).

28. A conclusory affidavit, or an affidavit by a person who has no personal knowledge of the facts, cannot establish a prima facie case. (JMD Holding Corp. v. Cong. Fin. Corp., 4 NY3d 373, 385 [2005]; Castro v. N.Y. Univ., 5 AD3d 135, 136 [1st Dept 2004] ) A mere conclusory assertion of a fact, without any evidentiary basis, is insufficient. (Grullon v. City of New York, 297 A.D.2d 261, 263 [1st Dept 2002] ). When the affiant relies on documents, the documents relied upon must be annexed (Vermette v.Kenworth Truck Co., Div. of Paccar, Inc., 68 N.Y.2d 714, 717 [1986]; Afco Credit Corp. v. Mohr, 156 A.D.2d 287, 288 [1st Dept 1989] ), and the affiant must establish an adequate evidentiary basis for them. Mere

9

submission of documents without any identification or authentication is inadequate. (Higen Assocs. v.

Serge Elevator Co., 190 A.D.2d 712, 713 [2d Dept 1993] ).

29. When the movant seeks to have the Court consider a business record, the proponent must establish that it meets the evidentiary requirements for a business record, by, for example, having a corporate officer swear to the authenticity and genuineness of the document.

(CPLR 4518[a]; First Interstate Credit Alliance, Inc. v. Sokol, 179 A.D.2d 583, 584 [1st Dept 1992]; Bowers v. Merchants Mut. Ins. Co., 248 A.D.2d 1005, 1006 [4th Dept 1998]; A.B. Med. Servs., PLLC v. Travelers Prop. Cas. Corp., 5 Misc.3d 214 [Civ Ct, Kings County 2004] ).

30. With respect to Elena’s Andrei unsworn declaration as attorney and witness, the law states that an affirmation by counsel is of no probative value on a motion for summary judgment. (Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d at 562 [1980] ).

31. Even if the Court were to overlook the inaccuracy of Attorney Elena Andrei’s documents the Court could not rely on them. Since the documents are out-of-court statements offered for their truth, Attorney Andrei must establish that they fall within an exception to the hearsay rule in order for them to be admissible. (Nucci v. Proper, 95 N.Y.2d 597, 602 [2001] ). Presumably, Attorney Andrei is asking the Court to treat her documents as business records since she describes herself as being familiar with the NYCHA Defendants business records (CPLR 4518[a]; see Kraus Mgt., Inc. v. State Div. of Housing & Community Renewal, Office of Rent Admin., 137 A.D.2d 689, 691 [2d Dept 1988] ).

32. However, the documents attached were created not by any NYCHA Agents, but by attorney Andrei, who lacks competency of said mattes such as the nonexistent rent default, FDNY needed warrant, and other indisputable material issues of fact. In order to establish a business records foundation, the witness must be familiar with the entity's 10

record keeping practices (W. Valley Fire Dist. No. 1 v. Vill. of Springville, 294 A.D.2d 949, 950 [4th Dept. 2002] ). Attorney Andrei does not claim to be familiar with FDNY, NYCHA’s agents mind set, or any record keeping practices, but only with what plaintiff submitted. Attorney Andrei, as witness and attorney knows only what she’s learned from others, she cannot testify to the truth.

33.

The mere fact that Attorney Andrei misrepresented Plaintiff’s law suit and created NYCHA business records is an insufficient basis for her third party creations to be introduced into evidence. See United Bldg. Maint. Assocs. v.809 N.Y.S.2d 482, 2005 N.Y. Slip Op. 510 Fifth Ave. LLC, 18 AD3d 333, 334 [1st Dept 2005] ). Therefore, the Court cannot rely on the account statements which Attorney Andrei proffered to establish her nonexistent default.

34. Please note Plaintiffs object to the NYCHA Defendants documents, which include any signatures and invoke, the “best evidence rule” which requires production of the original document, to protect against perjury, fraud, inaccuracies, or mistakes in copying. Please see Schozer v. William Penn Life Ins. Co. of N.Y., 84 N.Y.2d 639, 643– 44, 620 N.Y.S.2d 797, 644 N.E.2d 1353 (1994); Matter of Saxton, 176 Misc.2d 724, 727, 673 N.Y.S.2d 625 (Surr.Ct.Broome Co.1998).

35. In this matter, Attorney and witness Andrei, had no knowledge that the contract in question actually was copied in the regular course of business. Nor did she have any knowledge of the reproduction process, to testify that it did “not permit additions, deletions, or changes,” or that “tampering or degradation of the reproduction” was prevented. C.P.L.R. § 4539(b). Without evidence of the accuracy of either the reproduction itself or the reproduction procedure, in addition to an explanation for the

11

absence of the original contract, the copy of the contract and her concocted default billing print outs are inadmissible, and the Defendants proof of a claim based on contract failed.

36. The NYCHA attorneys have not sustained their burden of proof on their motion to dismiss claims, thus Plaintiffs seek an Order in favor of the Plaintiffs and against the Defendants, with a dismissal of the NYYCHA defendants defective Motion and exhibits.

37. In summary, the NYCHA Defendants Motion to Dismiss must be denied because it is loaded with inadmissible documents, because attorney and witness, Andrei’s defective unsworn declaration was not based upon her personal knowledge as an alleged Declarant and or attorney. Her unsworn declaration included impermissible conclusions of law not supported by facts.

38. Furthermore, Pro Se litigants cannot be dismissed for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972). Although Defendants and the alleged attorney might presume to advise The United States Supreme Court, this Court has knowledge that Miriam Snyder’s procedural due process rights require opportunity to present evidence on her claims.

39. Plaintiffs object to the alleged attorney’s unsworn declaration and her attempt to introduce presumptions and exhibits not related to the case. Plaintiff objects to the use of all of the Defendants documents as they are not authentic, based on fraud and collusion and have nothing to do with this law suit.

40. The Plaintiffs Complaint is procedurally proper, placing substantive fact issues before this Court via un-rebutted affidavits.

41.

The Plaintiffs Complaint raises several key issues: denial of due process rights,

FDCPA violations, elder abuse, induced trauma, warrantless Defendant search and seizures, aggravated and phone harassment, age, color, race, and gender discriminatory practices, non-validated alleged arrears debt, continued collection activities without 12

validation, unwarranted invasion of privacy, and defamation.

42. The Defendants cannot show prima-facie evidence to bring their frivolous motion nor have the Defendants offered any proof of their claims. The defendants have no viable or lawful reason for dismissal.

43. Defendant’s failure to state a cause of action or claim upon which relief can be granted for dismissal is exemplified in the fact that there is no verification or other sufficient showing of standing for dismissal.

44. The NYCHA attorneys cannot demonstrate their status as the holder of any contract.

The NYCHA attorneys are clearly non-holders with possession of hearsay business records from non-related entities.

45. The NYCHA Defendants defective papers as epitomized in their motion to dismiss exhibits and their non-certified documents, constitute serious misrepresentation and construed fraud upon the court. Please take judicial notice of such and of Plaintiffs objections.

46. Furthermore, the NYCHA Defendants have established asserts of material factual statements that are false, as exemplified in the defendants defective declaration. For example, the alleged defendant’s falsified and unsworn declaration, is by a non-titled employee of the alleged attorney’s office and as such is not an affidavit made by the party as required under law.

47. The creation of a fraud based declaration with no relevancy or nexus to this case, coupled with the attorneys unsworn declaration, coupled with the attorneys nonexistent certification, coupled with the attorneys acting as witness and lawyers in this matter, at the same time, exemplify attorney acts that are criminal, calculated and violate Judiciary Law § 487. These deceptive attorney acts establish intent to deceive.

48. N.Y. Judiciary Law § 487 inter alia provide that an attorney is guilty of a misdemeanor and is liable for treble damages to the aggrieved party if the attorney:". . . is guilty of any deceit or collusion, or consents to any deceit or collusion, with the intent to deceive the court or any party." See McKinney's Judiciary Law § 487; see also Oakes v.

Muka, 56 A.D.3d 1057, 868 N.Y.S.2d 796 (3d Dept. 2008).

13

49.

The NYCHA attorney Elena Andrei, license number is 4261996. Her un-sworn Declaration with no stipulation, her false instruments filed in the court, coupled with the robo-stamped documents, no seal, non-authenticated exhibits, and her acting as witness and lawyer, requires regulation and exemplifies fraud in and on the court.

Above all, because of such, the Defendants motion to dismiss must be denied under the statute of fraud and sanctionable conduct pursuant to Sanctions: Rule 56(g), presenting affidavits in bad faith or solely for the purpose of delay. Please see exhibits _______.

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

50. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,” in order to “give the defendant fair notice of what the … claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007), quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957). “[A] Complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need detailed factual allegations.” Id. At 555. “[W]e do not require heightened fact pleading of specifics, but only enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”

Id. At 570.

51. The complaint must only include “sufficient factual allegations to provide the grounds on which the claim rests”. Friends of Lake View School District v. Beebe, 578 F.3d 753, 762 (8th Cir. 2009). While “mere labels and conclusions” will not satisfy a plaintiff’s burden, there is no need for detailed factual allegation or specific facts that describe the evidence to be presented. Id. 22. A plaintiff satisfies his burden if they allege facts sufficient to allow a court to infer “more than the mere possibility of misconduct”.

Ashcroft v. Iqbql, 129 W.Ct. 1937, 1950 (2009).

52. Well-pleaded allegations of fact and every inference fairly deducible there from are accepted as true for purposes of a motion to dismiss. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 9394 (2007). “[A] well-pleaded complaint may proceed even if it strikes a savvy judge that actual proof of those facts is improbable, and “that recovery is very remote and

14

unlikely.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556.

IV. ARGUMENTS AND AUTHORITIES 53. “When considering Defendant’s motion, the court must construe the factual allegations in the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.” In re Stac Elecs. Sec. Litig., 89 F.3d 1399, 1403 (9th Sir. 1996): Jones v. General Elec. Co., 87 F.3d 209, 211 (7th Cir. 1996). “Only if no possible construction of the alleged facts will entitle plaintiff to relief should the court grant defendant’s motion.” Hishon v. King & Spaulding, 467 U.S. 69, 73, 104 S. Ct. 2229, 2232 (1984). If the factual allegations in plaintiff’s complaint support any legal theory that entitles plaintiff to some relief, the court should overrule defendant’s motion to dismiss.

54. The court must accept as true all well facts alleged in the complaint and construe all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See Hoffman-Pugh v.

Ramsey, 312 F. 3d 1222, 1225 (11th Cir. 2002). The court, however, need not accept the complaint’s legal conclusions as true, only its well-pled facts. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556, U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009).

55. The Defendants have criminally tried to include third party unauthenticated documents- and have employed unconscionable contracting in their Exhibits to attempt to justify their creations. Plaintiffs object to all of the Defendants exhibits, particularly the Defendants Exhibits C and D, pursuant to Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, p 1525: “Unconscionable bargain or contract. A contract, or a clause in a contract, that is so grossly unfair to one of the parties because of stronger bargaining powers of the other party, usually held to be void as against public policy. An unconscionable bargain or contract is one which no man in his senses, not under delusion, would make, on the one hand, and which no fair and honest man would accept on the other. Hume v.

U.S., 132 U.S. 406, 10 S. Ct. 134, 33 L. Ed. 393.” [emphasis added] From Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition.

15

56. The Defendants motion and exhibits should be denied and are objected to because they violate: 47 USC § 502 - Violation of Rules, Regulations, specifically, the defendants documents violate the NYS Certification laws cited in paragraph 6, above.

57. The Defendants motion and exhibits are objected to and must be denied because they invoke and exemplify: 

COMMON LAW FRAUD



15 U.S.C. S §1692d: HARASSMENT

58. The defective Declaration of its attorney, Elena Andrei, is of no probative value on a motion for summary judgment consistent with the ruling in Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d at 562 [1980]).

STANDARD OF REVIEW FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 59. Pursuant to Civ. R. 56(C); Summary judgment shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, written admissions, affidavits, transcripts of evidence, and written stipulations of fact, if any, timely filed in the action, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

60. No evidence or stipulation may be considered except as stated in this rule.

61. A summary judgment shall not be rendered unless it appears from the evidence or stipulation, and only from the evidence or stipulation, that reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion and that conclusion is adverse to the party against whom the motion for summary judgment is made, that party being entitled to have the evidence or stipulation construed most strongly in the party’s favor.

62. Pursuant to this Rule, the Defendant bears the burden of proof to show there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, the evidence advanced in the Summary Judgment may only consist of, the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, written admissions, affidavits, transcripts of evidence, and written stipulations of fact.

63. "[T]he moving party bears the initial responsibility of informing the trial court of the basis for the motion, and identifying those portions of the record which demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of fact on a material element of the nonmoving party's claim.

The `portions of the record' to which we refer are those evidentiary materials listed in Civ. R. 56(C), the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, written admissions, affidavits, transcripts of evidence, and written stipulations of fact, if any that have been filed in the case.

16

64. "(1) [N]o genuine issue as to any material fact remains to be litigated, (2) the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, and (3) it appears from the evidence that reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion, and viewing such evidence most strongly in favor of the nonmoving party, that conclusion is adverse to the party against whom the motion for summary judgment is made.

65. The Defendants have failed to provide the requisite evidence, required in the Rule, to grant an award of Summary Judgment, as a matter of Law. 66. Pursuant to the Rule there are seven forms of evidentiary material that may be used; pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, written admissions, affidavits, transcripts of evidence, and written stipulations of fact.

67. Plaintiff will examine each of the seven forms of evidentiary material allowed by rule, and, prove to this Court each of these are lacking in the defendants Summary Judgment.

68. The Court must disregard and the Defendant may not rely on any facts advanced in the Summary Judgment and on the record by opposing counsel whom is not a competent fact witness with personal knowledge, competent to testify to the matters at hand.

69. An attorney cannot testify or authenticate evidence for its client: An attorney’s affirmation or testimony generally cannot advance substantive proof. Moreover, counsel for defendants cannot testify or plea for its client nor can counsel authenticate any document in this case regarding any alleged tenant agreement, statements, etc., since counsel has no personal knowledge of any alleged transaction in this matter. See, e.g., Key Bank of Me. v. Lisi, 225 AD2d 669, 669 (2d Dept 1996) (“affirmation of . . . attorney who had no personal knowledge of the facts . . . did not constitute proof in admissible form and it [is] without evidentiary value”)).

70. It is well established that statements of counsel of alleged facts are not sufficient to establish facts or evidence in the case for its client. See Trinsey v. Pagliaro, 229 F. Supp.

647, 649 (D.C. Pa. 1964).

71. Statements of counsel in their briefs or argument while enlightening to the Court are not sufficient for purposes of granting a motion to dismiss or summary judgment.”

[Emphasis added]); see also, Loomis, In re, 587 N.W.2d 427, 438 (S.D., 1998) (“Attorneys cannot testify on behalf of their clients”); Estes v. Millea, 464 N.W.2d 616, 17

619 (S.D. 1990) (“[A]n attorney cannot testify on behalf of his client [citations omitted].

72. In this matter the NYCHA Attorney Andrei communication with the court was not in the form of an affidavit nor under oath. It was merely legal abuse third party writings of no value. This is clearly not evidence and, thus, Andrei’s statements stand as improper because the roles of attorney and witness are inconsistent, it is ethically inappropriate for an attorney to testify on behalf of the client and such conduct obstructs CPLR § 3212(b).

V. AFFIDAVITS 73. The defendants attorneys have attempted to introduce an unsworn declaration and various attachments to the Summary Judgment, the unsworn declaration purports to be from Elena Andrei, an attorney friend of the NYCHA attorney MacNeal, although enlightening, the statements and entire unsworn declaration are hearsay; 74. CPLR § 3212(b) requires that a motion for summary judgment be supported by an affidavit of a person with requisite knowledge. In summary, a witness may not testify to a matter unless evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter. Attorney Andrei, failed to attach any documentation in support of her unsworn declaration and in violation of Evid. R. 801 (C), Evid. R. 1002.

75. The attachments to the Summary Judgment also fail, they are not sworn or certified copies, and they are not identified in the unsworn Declaration of NYCHA’s purported authorized agent Elena Andrei. Also see the arguments in Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Exhibits.

76. TRANSCIPTS OF EVIDENCE AND WRITTEN STIPULATIONS OF FACT These two remaining items are moot or have already been addressed above.

77. PLAINTIFFS COUNTER AFFIDAVIT - If the Court does not agree with any or all of the Plaintiffs arguments and proof, Plaintiffs attached two additional Affidavits as Exhibit “___”, which, as the law supports, creates a genuine issue of material fact.

18

78. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is rife with untrue, incorrect, fraud based, false, conspired and erroneous third party no personal knowledge statements and allegations and comes up woefully short of any substantive or remotely plausible explanation in rebuttal to the issues raised in Plaintiff’s complaint.

79. Because Plaintiff’s factual allegations support a claim on which relief can be granted, the court must deny Defendant’s motion and retain the case on the Court’s docket.

80. Because the Defendants have not shown that Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted Plaintiff respectfully requests the Court to deny the Defendant’s Motion and allow Plaintiffs’ claim to move forward to trial on the merits, in the furtherance of equal protection under the law and to help stop elder abuse.

81. Determination by this Court that the defendants have entered nothing on record by testimony, affidavit, or deposition and that the rulings and determinations of The United States Supreme Court have precedent over Defendants opinions justly requires that defendant's motion to dismiss be denied as legally insufficient.

82. The Plaintiffs demands that as a matter of law that this court dismisses the Defendants scheme to defraud Motion and invokes Plaintiffs complaint. Furthermore, Plaintiffs fervently warn the Defendants of possible sanctions on the attorneys for using the court as a playground for scheme to defraud practices, pursuant to the NYCHA Defendants’ attorneys acting as witnesses and attorneys, attorney failure to sign and certify motion pleadings and other papers. These non-certifications coupled with the non-relevant, exploitive, and harassing motion, with no firsthand knowledge affidavits, certifies that the Defendants papers submitted are harassing, meritless and inflicted to undermine and obstruct FRCP 11 AND consumer protections embedded in FDCPA, TCPA and the NY

19

GBL laws cited in the Plaintiffs complaint.

83. The Court should not tolerate an utterly frivolous motion such as this by a party who does not wish to have its illegal activities exposed.

84. Plaintiffs respectfully requests that the Court take notice of the well-pleaded allegations of the pro se Plaintiffs complaint, which this Court must accept as true at this juncture of the proceedings, and which, in light of the Plaintiffs pro se status, the Court must hold to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by an attorney and construe liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520, 92 S.Ct. 594, 596, 30 L.Ed. 2d 652 (1972).

85. The Plaintiffs Verified Complaint and exhibits specify that the Defendants discriminated, harassed, abused, terrorized, and invaded on elder Snyder Levy’s right to privacy and right to live free from ongoing induced trauma, witchcraft type harassment, torture and abuse. The factual bases of the Plaintiffs allegations against the Defendants are crystal clear and the Plaintiffs Claims for Relief are even clearer, restated below and summarized.

86. Plaintiffs respectfully, restate and demand that the Defendants Fraud based improper Motion to Dismiss is denied and that Plaintiffs be awarded the restated and summarized CLAIMS FOR RELIEF: A. $250,000.00 Due to Plaintiff Elder Snyder-Levy for Defendants DENIED PROPER WARRANT, for the defendants lawless apartment entry, seizure and search 18 USC 3571; B. $250,000.00 Due to Elder Snyder-Levy for Defendants DENIED PROPER DEMANDED DISCLOSURES, INCLUDING VALIDATIONS OF ALLEGED DEFAULT DEBT 18 USC 3571; C. $250,000.00 Due to Plaintiff Levy Snyder for Conspiracy of Depriving Persons of Equal Protections of the Law, denied due process rights, Civil Rights Obstructions, Senior Citizen Abuse, Age and Public Housing Discrimination, and violations of provisions in the Constitution 18 USC 3571; 20

D. $6,000.00 due to Plaintiffs for compensation and damages for the induced flood water damages pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 52. Findings and Conclusions by the Court; E. $1,000.00 Due to Plaintiffs in damages for misrepresentation of the alleged debt which is a violation of the (Fair Debt Collection Practice Act § 807); F. $1,000.00 Due to Plaintiff Elder Levy-Snyder in Damages for Defendants failure to validate the alleged debt, yet continue to pursue collection activity pursuant to FDCPA Section 809 (b) and Statutory damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(2)(A); G. $1,500.00 Due to Plaintiff Levy Snyder in damages for the NYCHA defendants’ telephonic harassment, calling Plaintiff after being notified to keep all communications in writing and to not call Plaintiff which is a violation of the (Telephone Consumer Protection Act); H. $56,000.00 Due to Plaintiffs for Defendants HARASSMENT which is a violation of NY GBL 349 et seq, (Treble Damages) and the Fair Debt Collection Practice Act § 806; I. $10,000.00 Due to Plaintiff Elder Snyder-Levy for Defendants falsification of documents by NYCHA’s Defendants, is a violation of the 18 USC 1001; J. $90,000.00 Due to Plaintiffs pursuant to: N.Y. Judiciary Law § 487 inter alia provide that an attorney is guilty of a misdemeanor and is liable for treble damages to the aggrieved party if the attorney:". . . is guilty of any deceit or collusion, or consents to any deceit or collusion, with the intent to deceive the court or any party." See McKinney's Judiciary Law § 487; see also Oakes v. Muka, 56 A.D.3d 1057, 868 N.Y.S.2d 796 (3d Dept. 2008). Due to Plaintiffs for Attorneys and lawyers in this matter infesting deceit, misrepresentation, collusion, omission, malice and treble Damages, for harassment, infliction of emotional duress, and damages for the Defendants ongoing and continued refusal to certify and authenticate their FRIVILOUS AND NOT SUBSTANTIATED WITH ANY VALID EVIDENCE CLAMS in the instant action; K. $10,000 Due to Plaintiffs for Defendants Collusion between Agent and Third Parties collusion, deceit, misrepresentation, fraud 18 USC 1001; 21

L. $10,000 Due to Plaintiffs for Defendants Conspiracy against Rights of Plaintiffs under 18 USC 241; M. $10,000 Due to Plaintiffs for Defendants Falsification of Documents 18 USC 1001; N. $5,000 Due to Plaintiff Elder Snyder-Levy for Defendants Mail Threats 18 USC 876; O. $350.00 Due to Plaintiffs for the cost of postage mailing counter financial terrorism documents to the Defendants; pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 52.

Findings and Conclusions by the Court; P. $50,000.00 Due to Plaintiffs for Actual Damages: Indignation, Pain, Suffering, Embarrassment, Humiliation, etc‌ pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 52. Findings and Conclusions by the Court; 87. The attorneys have submitted a baseless summary judgment motion with no admissible evidence and as such are subject to Fed. R. Civ. P. II sanctions. See, e.g., Melrose v.

Shearson/Am. Express, 898 F.2d 1209 [7th Cir. 19901; see also pp. 76-77. N See Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of U.S., 466 U.S. 485, 512 (19841. See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e) advisory committee's notes (amended 1963). See, e.g., Isquith v. Middle S. Utils., 847 F.2d 186, 199 15th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 926 119881.

88. Please take judicial Note that subsection (g) authorizes the court to impose sanctions on a party presenting affidavits in bad faith or solely for the purpose of delay. Although Rule 56 was drafted over fifty years ago, it has not undergone substantial change. As the litigation landscape in which the rule functions changed significantly during this period, courts adapted the rule to changing conditions much as they would a common-law rule.

Some of its provisions have become virtually obsolete while others have taken on a new interpretive gloss. Revisions of the rule are currently under consideration; they would change the procedure somewhat but would not affect the substantive provisions.

22

VI. AWARDING COSTS IS APPROPIATE IN THIS CASE 89. Plaintiffs have expended considerable resources and time preparing and defending against this frivolous Motion, which on its face has no basis in fact and law. Both attorneys knew that their Motion to Dismiss lacked standing, merit, and competency, yet they still chose to file it with the Court. For these reasons it is appropriate to award costs to Plaintiffs in the amount of $1,000.00 for having to defend against this improperly filed Motion at the expense of and in the midst of NYCHA’s destabilization emergency move of Plaintiff and elder Levy Snyder. Please see Levy Snyder’s Affidavit describing the hell and torment NYCHA has inflicted on her with their lawless Motion and now the destabilized emergency move.

VII. CONCLUSION WHEREFORE, based on all of the foregoing, there was no merit, reason, and no defendant testimony or affidavit with this Defendant Motion, making this motion a waste of court and Plaintiff time. Plaintiffs move the Court to enter an Order to Strike Plaintiff’s Declaration, Exhibits and useless Memorandum and Dismiss the Defendants legal abuse Motion.

Plaintiffs seek an Order awarding costs to the Plaintiffs and for such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper. Thank you. _____________________________ Miriam Snyder, Pro Se Plaintiff 3230 Cruger Avenue 6B Bronx, New York 10467

Mazarine Levy Snyder, Plaintiff 2125 35th Avenue #5E Astoria, New York 11106 Fax: 866-244-9823 23

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------------------------------------X MIRIAM SNYDER AND/ON BEHALF OF HER ELDERLY MOTHER MAZARINE LEVY SNYDER, PLAINTIFFS, CASE NO. 14-CV-02090 MIRAM SNYDER’S AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF THE TWO ATTACHED PLAINTIFFS MOTIONS TO STRIKE AND IN SUPPORT OF THE PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO THE DEFENDANTS IMPROPER AND UNAUTHORIZED MOTION TO DISMISS THE VERIFIED COMPLAINT -VISSAC PERRY, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS GENERAL MANAGER IN THE NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY, JOHN RHEA INDIVIDUALLY AND AS COMMISSIONER IN THE NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY AND THE NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY DEFENDANTS, ------------------------------------------------------------------X Plaintiff Miriam Snyder being duly sworn deposes and says: 1. This Notarized affidavit is in support of the two attached Plaintiffs motions to strike and in support of the Plaintiffs opposition to the Defendants improper and unauthorized motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) and 8 (a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

2. I am one of the Plaintiffs and one of the real parties in interest in this action and I have personal knowledge regarding this law suit.

3. Plaintiff Miriam Snyder is an injured and interested party in this matter and has a private contract with Mazarine Levy Snyder, pursuant to The Contract Clause in the United States Constitution, Article I, section 10.

4. I submit this affidavit in support of the attached Plaintiffs two motions to strike the defendants improper Declaration and exhibits and the Plaintiffs Opposition and Memorandum.

5. I attest to the facts in the Plaintiffs Motion to Strike and Opposition. I further attest to the veracity in every statement and exhibit attached to the Motions and Opposition.

6. I attest to the fact that the attached two Motions to Strike and Memorandum in Opposition are true, accurate and correct.

24

7. I have no record, or competent evidence of any of the Defendants allegations in their Motion to Dismiss.

8. I am not in receipt of any document which verifies that the NYCHA attorneys have or have had any permission, consent, or permissible purpose to act as witnesses and in this matter. Attorney Andrei’s Declaration and exhibits are each based on hearsay and have no firsthand or personal knowledge. Such renders the attorneys motion improper, defective, and sanctionable.

9. I am not in receipt of a NYCHA joinder or novation contract and or agreement, particularly with respect to the NYCHA attorney claims.

10. The NYCHA attorney’s s have not proven with certified documentation (contract or written agreement) establishing any business relationship or permissible purpose for acting as witnesses.

11. I have no record, knowledge or belief that attorney Elena Andrei or MacNeal contract or “agreement”, exist between Mazarine Levy Snyder nor has there been any evidence of such presented to the Plaintiffs or the court.

12. The NYCHA attorneys cannot and have not proffered any evidence to support their claims for dismissal and have not presented any permissible reason for their sanctionable practices of acting as attorneys and witnesses, at the same time, in this matter.

13. There is no record establishing who or what live agent attorneys Andrei and Macneal are representing as the attorneys have presented hearsay concoctions to support their legal and elder abuse Motion to Dismiss.

14. The attorneys request for dismissal without a witness or live and breathing agent is fatally obstructive.

15. The NYCHA attorneys have failed to establish a permissible and an independent basis for seeking dismissal without a witness or defendant.

16. In plain English, the NYCHA attorneys have failed to produce any authenticated first hand witness or defendant or evidence that is a permissible purpose for attempting to dismiss Plaintiffs Verified Complaint and therefore have no right of dismissal.

17. The NYCHA attorneys unsworn Declaration and uncertified pleadings, exhibits, and memorandum are devoid of foundation and relevant facts and are objected to.

25

18. I invoke the attached two Motions to Strike attorney Andrei’s unsworn and noncertified Declaration, Exhibits and her attorney friend Macneals warrantless Memorandum.

19. I am in receipt of the Attorneys uncertified documents in support of a defective Motion to Dismiss for their unknown NYCHA Defendants as the attorney Kelly MacNeal states in his Memorandum that Issac Perry and John Rhea have not been served and I object to the entertaining of this fraud.

20. I invoke the attached Motion for the Authority the Court Used to Not Effect Service on Issac Perry and John Rhea, NYCHA defendants.

21. I object to the authenticity and validity of each and every attorney document and exhibits attached to their lawless and no Defendant or witness improper motion.

22. In particular I object to the unsworn and noncertified Declaration of Elena Andrei and her no witness statement exhibits. I object to the validity of the non-certified Memorandum of Kelly D. MacNeal.

23. I attest under penalty of perjury that the NYCHA attorneys have no business relations with any of the Plaintiffs and in fact are the conspirators behind the elder abuse, induced trauma, harassment, and other diabolical techniques inflicted on the Plaintiffs. I respectfully ask the court, on behalf of the elderly and disabled to stop this bonafide legal abuse of the population NYCHA is funded to protect.

24. Please take judicial Note that subsection (g) authorizes the court to impose sanctions on Defendants for presenting affidavits in bad faith or solely for the purpose of delay. The defendants Motion to Dismiss is in bad faith and bogus as it is improper, lacking competency. The unsworn Declaration was not based upon declarants Personal Knowledge. Please see exhibit 1. As a threshold matter, the admissibility of an affidavit rests upon the affiant having personal knowledge as to the matters stated therein.

25. There are several issues of attorney acting as witness and credibility issues, the court may conclude on the basis of such that there are indisputable genuine issues of material fact.

26. The NYCHA attorney motion lack of merit is apparent on its face. The cost of contesting such a motion can be avoided if judges first subject all motions to summary review to determine whether they sufficiently meet the facial test to call for a response. Without devoting much time, the experienced judge can quickly form an impression whether the motion should be denied as clearly without merit or deferred as premature (when, for example, critical discovery is incomplete). Please see the attached Federal Judicial Center Summary Judgment Analysis subsections attached as exhibits 2-3.

26

27. The Declarant Andrei, lawlessly acting as witness and attorney, failed to authenticate the exhibits and the allegations in the Declaration is by an unauthorized representative.

28. The Declarant Elena Madalina Andrei does not have firsthand knowledge of the facts stated in her declaration in support of NYCHA’s Motion to Dismiss, and as such she is not competent in mind and body to testify, declare and affirm any facts stated in this matter as true, correct, and complete in all material fact. The attorneys have defrauded the entire process and are noticed of such.

29. Due to NYCHA’s attorneys June 27, 2014 late filing of an Answer, coupled with NYCHA’s emergency last minute move of elder and Plaintiff Mazarine Levy, the Plaintiffs response is late due to the NYCHA emergency move circumstances beyond our control. Plaintiff was moved to a new apartment by NYCHA due to their elevator construction program. Please see exhibit 5 illustrating Plaintiff communications with the NYCHA attorneys regarding the extension of time for the attorneys and the Plaintiffs.

30. NYCHA relocated and moved my mother Plaintiff Mazarine Levy Snyder July 17th 2014 it took everything out of us. Due to this emergency move, we were unable to submit our affidavits and opposition papers on July 21, 2014. We had thought we could do it all and we were wrong. Proof of the move is avail via a temporary lease, please advise if it is wanted.

31. To this end, the Plaintiffs opposition papers can be in the mail on or about Wednesday July 23, 2014. Extra days are needed because the NYCHA Move of Elder Snyder was time consuming, destabilizing and burdensome.

32. Please take Judicial Notice that as caregiver and legal guardian of Mazarine Levy Snyder, I, Miriam Snyder, am often caring for my mother at her location and I am not at the Bronx address much. Because of the NYCHA relocation program Plaintiff Elder Snyder has no mail box at her new address. This means that we do not have easy access to any of the mail boxes. She has no access to the mailbox at her new address because it is temporary and NYCHA has not relinquished a mail box key, despite our objection. As a professional courtesy, we respectfully request that the court and the defendants fax us a one page letter alerting us to any mail that is sent for the next 4 months as this is the time frame for the NYCHA’s elderly and disabled displacement program. The fax number is: 866-244-9823. Thank you.

33. I Miriam Snyder am the full time caregiver of Mazarine Levy Snyder and have my own place of residency noted below.

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------------------------------------X MIRIAM SNYDER AND OR ON BEHALF HER ELDERLY MOTHER MAZARINE LEVY SNYDER, PLAINTIFFS, CASE NO. CASE NO. 14-CV-02090 MAZARINE LEVY-SNYDER’S AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANTS UNSWORN DECLARATION AND EXHIBITS AND IN SUPPORT OF THE MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO THE DEFENDANTS UNSWORN MOTION TO DISMISS -V-

ISSAC PERRY, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS GENERAL MANAGER IN THE NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY, JOHN RHEA INDIVIDUALLY AND AS COMMISSIONER IN THE NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY AND THE NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY DEFENDANTS, ------------------------------------------------------------------X Plaintiff Mazarine Levy Snyder being duly sworn deposes and says: 1. This Notarized affidavit is in opposition to the Defendants improper and unauthorized motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) and 8 (a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

2. I am the tenant, elder, Plaintiff and one of the real parties in interest in this action and I have personal knowledge regarding this law suit regarding the elder abuse NYCHA has inflicted on me. This includes NYCHA agents busting down my apartment door with no emergency phone call, no written reason, no warrant, inducing an apartment flood immediately after a NYCHA maintenance tampered with my toilet, leaving me over 3 hours sitting on a bench under the disguise of no elevator emergency services, not paying me for the induced water damages while such NYCHA funding exists, plastering confusion powder around my home to try to drive me insane and or expire me, but God! 3. My daughter Miriam Snyder is an injured and interested party in this matter and has a private contract with Mazarine Levy Snyder, pursuant to The Contract Clause in the United States Constitution, Article I, section 10.

29

4. Pursuant to the above noted private contract and my God given rights, Miriam Snyder is my legal Guardian and the authorized agent to assist with this matter, and any and all housing matters, particularly if anything happens to me, as I feel my life is being threatened by the witchcraft type of abuse and torture I have endured by the NYCHA defendant’s law department programming. A forthcoming affidavit will further detail the abuse and torture inflicted on me directly to sabotage this law suit.

5. I further attest to the fact that should anything happen to me while living in the midst of NYCHA’s covert hostility, I hereby authorize my daughter Miriam Snyder to handle all business affairs, including if needed, succession rights and to do what is needed for my rights to be enforced.

6. I submit this affidavit in support of the attached Plaintiffs two motions to strike the defendants improper Declaration and exhibits and the Plaintiffs Opposition and Memorandum.

7. I attest to the facts in the Plaintiffs Motion to Strike and Opposition. I further attest to the veracity in every statement and exhibit attached to the Motions and Opposition.

8. I attest to the fact that the attached two Motions to Strike and Memorandum in Opposition are true, accurate and correct.

9. I have no record, or competent evidence of any of the Defendants allegations in their Motion to Dismiss.

10. I am not in receipt of any document which verifies that the NYCHA attorneys have or have had any permission, consent, or permissible purpose to act as witnesses and attorneys in this matter.

11. I am not in receipt of a NYCHA joinder or novation contract and or agreement, particularly with respect to the NYCHA attorney motion to dismiss claims.

12. The NYCHA attorney’s s have not proven with certified documentation (contract or written agreement) establishing any business relationship or permissible purpose for acting as witnesses.

13. I have no record, knowledge or belief that attorney Elena Andrei or MacNeal contract or “agreement”, exist between Mazarine Levy Snyder and or Miriam Snyder, nor has there been any evidence of such presented to the Plaintiffs or the court.

14. The NYCHA attorneys cannot and have not proffered any evidence to support their claims for dismissal and have not presented any permissible reason for their sanctionable practices of acting as attorneys and witnesses in this matter.

30

15. There is no record establishing who attorneys Andrei and Macneal are representing as the attorneys have presented hearsay concoctions to support their legal abuse Motion to Dismiss.

16. The attorneys request for dismissal without a witness is fatally obstructive.

17. The NYCHA attorneys have failed to establish a permissible and an independent basis for seeking dismissal without a witness or defendant.

18. In plain English, the NYCHA attorneys have failed to produce any authenticated first hand witness or defendant or evidence that is a permissible purpose for attempting to dismiss Plaintiffs Verified Complaint and therefore have no right of dismissal.

19. The NYCHA attorneys unsworn Declaration and uncertified pleadings, exhibits, and memorandum are devoid of foundation and relevant facts and are objected to.

20. I invoke the attached two Motions to Strike attorney Andrei’s unsworn and noncertified Declaration, Exhibits and her attorney friend Macneals warrantless Memorandum.

21. I am in receipt of the Attorneys uncertified documents in support of a defective Motion to Dismiss for their unknown NYCHA Defendants as the attorney Kelly MacNeal states in his Memorandum that Issac Perry and John Rhea have not been served and I object to the entertaining of this fraud.

22. I object to the authenticity and validity of each and every attorney documents and exhibits attached to their lawless and no Defendant or witness improper motion.

23. In particular I object to the unsworn and noncertified Declaration of Elena Andrei and her no witness statement exhibits. I object to the validity of the non-certified Memorandum of Kelly D. MacNeal.

24. I attest under penalty of perjury that the NYCHA attorneys have no business relations with any of the Plaintiffs and in fact are the conspirators behind the elder abuse, legal abuse, induced trauma, harassment, and other diabolical techniques inflicted on the Plaintiffs as summarized in the Verified Complaint and the Plaintiffs Affidavits.

25. Please take judicial Note that subsection (g) authorizes the court to impose sanctions on a Defendants for presenting affidavits in bad faith or solely for the purpose of delay. The defendants have submitted an improper and defective Motion as noted in the two motions and Plaintiffs Opposition Memorandum.

26. There are several issues of attorney acting as witness credibility, the court may conclude on the basis of such that there are indisputable genuine issues of material fact.

31

32

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------------------------------------X MIRIAM SNYDER AND/ON BEHALF OF HER ELDERLY MOTHER MAZARINE LEVY SNYDER, PLAINTIFFS, CASE NO. 14-CV-02090 CERTIFICATE OF MAILING -VISSAC PERRY, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS GENERAL MANAGER IN THE NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY, JOHN RHEA INDIVIDUALLY AND AS COMMISSIONER IN THE NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY AND THE NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY DEFENDANTS, ------------------------------------------------------------------X CERTIFICATE OF MAILING I, Miriam Snyder, certify that a true and exact copy of the foregoing: 1.

2.

3.

4.

Motion to Strike the Defendants Unauthorized Declaration Motion to Strike the Defendants Unauthorized Exhibits Memorandum in Opposition to the defendants Improper Motion to Dismiss Mazarine Levy Snyder’s Affidavit in Support of the Plaintiffs Two Motions to Strike and in Support of the Plaintiffs Memorandum in Opposition 5. Miriam Snyder’s Affidavit in Support of the Plaintiffs Two Motions to Strike and in Support of the Plaintiffs Memorandum in Opposition above documents and exhibits have been mailed to the NYCHA law Department on behalf of all of the NYCHA Defendants and to the court by ordinary first class mail postage prepaid this 24TH day of July 2014 at: ATTORNEYS ANDREI AND MACNEAL NYCHA LAW DEPT. 250 BROADWAY, 9 FLOOR NEW YORK, NEW YORK, 10007 PRO SE OFFICE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 225 CADMAN PLAZA EAST BROOKLYN, NY 11201 (718) 613-2665

Miriam Snyder, Pro Se Plaintiff 3230 Cruger Avenue 6B Bronx, New York 10467 Fax: 866-244-9823 33

34

Exhibit 1 N.Y. CPLR. LAW § 3212: NY Code - Section 3212: Motion for summary judgment Search N.Y. CVP. LAW § 3212 : NY Code - Section 3212: Motion for summary judgment  Search by Keyword or Citation Search

11 5451

(a) Time; kind of action. Any party may move for summary judgment in any action, after issue has been joined; provided however, that the court may set a date after which no such motion may be made, such date being no earlier than thirty days after the filing of the note of issue. If no such date is set by the court, such motion shall be made no later than one hundred twenty days after the filing of the note of issue, except with leave of court on good cause shown. (b) Supporting proof; grounds; relief to either party. A motion for summary judgment shall be supported by affidavit, by a copy of the pleadings and by other available proof, such as depositions and written admissions. The affidavit shall be by a person having knowledge of the facts; it shall recite all the material facts; and it shall show that there is no defense to the cause of action or that the cause of action or defense has no merit. The motion shall be granted if, upon all the papers and proof submitted, the cause of action or defense shall be established sufficiently to warrant the court as a matter of law in directing judgment in favor of any party. Except as provided in subdivision (c) of this rule the motion shall be denied if any party shall show facts sufficient to require a trial of any issue of fact. If it shall appear that any party other than the moving party is entitled to a summary judgment, the court may grant such judgment without the necessity of a crossmotion. (c) Immediate trial. If it appears that the only triable issues of fact arising on a motion for summary judgment relate to the amount or extent of damages, or if the motion is based on any of the grounds enumerated in subdivision (a) or (b) of rule 3211, the court may, when appropriate for the expeditious disposition of the controversy, order an immediate trial of such issues of fact raised by the motion, before a referee, before the court, or before the court and a jury, whichever may be proper. (e) Partial summary judgment; severance. In a matrimonial action summary judgment may not be granted in favor of the non-moving party. In any other action summary judgment may be granted as to one or more causes of action, or part thereof, in favor of any one or more parties, to the extent warranted, on such terms as may be just. The court may also direct: 1. that the cause of action as to which summary judgment is granted shall be severed from any remaining cause of action; or 2. that the entry of the summary judgment shall be held in abeyance pending the determination of any remaining cause of action. (f) Facts unavailable to opposing party. Should it appear from affidavits submitted in opposition to the motion that facts essential to justify opposition may exist but cannot then be stated, the court may deny the motion or may order a continuance to permit affidavits to be obtained or disclosure to be had and may make such other order as may be just. (g) Limitation of issues of fact for trial. If a motion for summary judgment is denied or is granted in part, the court, by examining the papers before it and, in the discretion of the court, by interrogating 35

counsel, shall, if practicable, ascertain what facts are not in dispute or are incontrovertible.

It shall thereupon make an order specifying such facts and they shall be deemed established for all purposes in the action. The court may make any order as may aid in the disposition of the action. (h) Standards for summary judgment in certain cases involving public petition and participation. A motion for summary judgment, in which the moving party has demonstrated that the action, claim, cross claim or counterclaim subject to the motion is an action involving public petition and participation, as defined in paragraph (a) of subdivision one of section seventy-six-a of the civil rights law, shall be granted unless the party responding to the motion demonstrates that the action, claim, cross claim or counterclaim has a substantial basis in fact and law or is supported by a substantial argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law. The court shall grant preference in the hearing of such motion. (i) Standards for summary judgment in certain cases involving licensed architects, engineers, land surveyors or landscape architects. A motion for summary judgment, in which the moving party has demonstrated that the action, claim, cross claim or counterclaim subject to the motion is an action in which a notice of claim must be served on a licensed architect, engineer, land surveyor or landscape architect pursuant to the provisions of subdivision one of section two hundred fourteen of this chapter, shall be granted unless the party responding to the motion demonstrates that a substantial basis in fact and in law exists to believe that the performance, conduct or omission complained of such licensed architect, engineer, land surveyor or landscape architect or such firm as set forth in the notice of claim was negligent and that such performance, conduct or omission was a proximate cause of personal injury, wrongful death or property damage complained of by the claimant or is supported by a substantial argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law. The court shall grant a preference in the hearing of such motion.

- See more at: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/nycode/CVP/32/3212#sthash.Sj9XUUfC.dpuf

36

EXHIBIT 2 The Analysis and Decision of Summary Judgment Motions A Monograph on Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Federal Judicial Center ~ http://www.fjc.gov/public/pdf.nsf/lookup/rule56.pdf/$file/rule56.pdf

The Burden on the Nonmoving Party General Requirements

Once the movant makes a properly supported motion, the burden shifts to the nonmovant to demonstrate the existence of a genuine dispute, Under Rule 56!e), "an adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of the adverse party's pleading, but the adverse party's response, by affidavits or as otherwise provided in this rule, must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial" (emphasis added),20S Nor is it sufficient for the nonmovant simply to attack the credibility of the movant's affiants without a supporting factual showing.206

THERE IS NO PROPERLY SUPPORTED MOTION. THE DEFENDANTS MOTION IS DEFECTIVE. THERE IS NO AFFIDAVIT MADE ON PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE

37

EXHIBIT 2A

The Burden on the Moving Party Rule 56 (a) and (b) establish that the party moving for summary judgment must come forward with an initial showing that it is entitled to judgment. When the moving party bears the burden of persuasion on the issue at trial, its showing must sustain that burden as well as demonstrate the absence of a genuine dispute.198 Thus, it must satisfy both the initial burden of production on the summary judgment motion-by showing that no genuine dispute exists as to any material fact-and the ultimate burden of persuasion on the claim-by showing that it would be entitled to a directed verdict at trial. 199 The showing may consist of pleadings filed

affidavits made on personal knowledge and setting forth facts admissible in evidence, although the facts need not be presented in by the opponent, depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions, and

admissible form.2oo The matter is less straightforward when the moving party does not bear the burden of proof at

it must offer affidavits or similar materials negating the other party's case. In Celotex, the Supreme trial. The traditional view was that

Court rejected this view. The Court held that the burden on a moving party that does not bear the burden of proof at trial "may be discharged by 'showing'-that is, pointing out to the district court-that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case.//201 As Justice White's concurring opinion points out, however, "It is not enough to move for summary judgment without supporting the motion in any way or with a conclusory assertion that the plaintiff has no evidence to prove his case. The showing required depends on the thrust of the motion. If the motion asserts that the opponent lacks proof to establish a requisite element of its case, as in Celotex, the movant must show the absence of facts, usually by producing relevant excerpts from the opponent's discovery responses,

supplemented

as needed by affidavits. If the motion purports to negate an essential element of the nonmovant's case, for example, to establish that no reasonable jury could return a

a more elaborate showing on affidavits may be necessary. verdict for the nonmovant,

38

EXHIBIT 3 THERE IS NO PROPERLY SUPPORTED MOTION. THE DEFENDANTS MOTION IS DEFECTIVE. THERE IS NO AFFIDAVIT MADE ON PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE

DECLARANT INCOMPETENCY TO TESTFY, NO PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE! If, on a motion under Rule 12(b)(6) or12(c), matters outside the pleadings are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion must be treated as one for summary judgment under Rule 56. All parties must be given a reasonable opportunity to present all the material that is pertinent to the motion.

39

EXHIBIT 4 NO CERTIFICATION ANYWHERE

40

41

EXHIBIT 5 NYCHA EXTENSION COMMUNICATIONS

3230 Cruger Avenue 6B

42

Bronx, NY 10467 Fax: 866-244-9823 2125 35th Avenue #5E Astoria, New York 11106 Fax: 866-244-9823 July 21, 2014 ELENA M. ANDREI New York City Housing Authority Law Department 250 Broadway, 9th Floor New York, New York 10007 Telephone: (212) 776-5153 Fax: (212) 776-5009 RE: NYCHA ELEVATOR RENOVATION PROGRAM AND THE TEMPORARY DISPLACEMENT OF THE ELDERLY AND DISABLED Dear Ms. Andrei: Due to the noted above circumstances beyond my control, as caregiver of my mother, I had to help my mother move to a new location because of the above noted NYCHA program.

NYCHA relocated and moved my mother this weekend and it took everything out of us. Due to this emergency move, we were unable to submit our affidavits and opposition papers today July 21, 2014. We had thought we could do it all and we were wrong.

To this end, the opposition papers can be in the mail by Wednesday July 23, 2014. The two days are needed because as you should know fighting corruption, crime and abuse is a full time job and we have not been blessed with a legal team yet.

Also, please note that since I am often caring for my mother I am not at the Bronx address much and because of the NYCHA relocation program my mother has no mail box at her new address.

This means that we do not have easy access to any of the mail boxes. She has no access to the mailbox at her new address because it is temporary.

As a professional courtesy, we respectfully request that you fax us a one page letter alerting us to any mail you may send us for the next 4 months as this is the time frame for the NYCHA elderly and disabled displacement program. The opposition papers will be in the mail July 23, 2014. Please fax me by the end of the day if there is a problem with this. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Miriam Snyder

Mazarine Levy-Snyder

43

44

45

46

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------------------------------------X MIRIAM SNYDER AND HER ELDERLY MOTHER MAZARINE LEVY SNYDER, PLAINTIFFS, CASE NO. CASE NO. 14-CV-02090 PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO STRIKE THE DEFENDANTS UNSWORN DECLARATION -V-

ISSAC PERRY, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS GENERAL MANAGER IN THE NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY, JOHN RHEA INDIVIDUALLY AND AS COMMISSIONER IN THE NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY AND THE NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY DEFENDANTS,

COMES NOW, Mazarine Levy Snyder and Miriam Snyder, (hereinafter Plaintiffs), pursuant to FRCP Rule 12(F), hereby moves the Court for an Order to Strike the unsworn declaration of Elena Madalina Andrei and in support thereof states as follows: FACTS, ARGUMENT AND LAW 1.

Plaintiffs, Mazarine Levy and Miriam Snyder, filed this complaint against the NYCHA Defendants, for actual and statutory damages for defendants repetitious and wilful violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) 15 U.S.C. § 1692, Violations of Title VIII of The Civil Rights Act of 1968, as amended by the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601 – 3619, [42 U.S.C. 3613] Enforcement by Private Persons, 24 CFR 100.400 - Prohibited Interference, Coercion or Intimidation, violations of the 1st, 4th,, 5th, 9th and 14th Constitutional Amendments, Deprivation of Constitutional Rights and Privileges, 42 U. S. C. § 1983, Conspiracy to Depriving Persons of Equal 47

Protection of the Laws, 42 U. S. C. § 1985, Violation of First Amendment Speech Rights Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1988, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Invasion of Privacy, willful, malicious, retaliatory, discriminatory, abusive and outrageous actions against Plaintiffs, as well as for violations of the New York General Business Laws section §349, et seq.

2. Additionally, Plaintiffs filed this law suit for Defendants violations of the Deceptive Practices Act, Defamation of Character, Invasion of privacy, breach of contract, and for violations of the telephone Consumer Protection Act, TCPA 47 U.S.C. § 227(B)(3); 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(A)(2).

3. All of the above noted laws prohibit Defendants from engaging in abusive, deceptive, and unfair business practices, particularly as it relates to impermissible search and seizures, denial of due process rights, aggravated harassment, discriminatory treatment, alleged default debt creation and collection and invasions of privacy and defamation.

4. Elena Madalina Andrei filed an erroneous Declaration in Support of NYCHA’s Motion to Dismiss the Complaint on June 27, 2014.

5. Ms. Andrei Declaration is erroneous, is objected to and Plaintiffs move to strike it because it is based on and contains nothing but unsubstantiated hearsay.

6. Ms. Andrei failed to allege any facts beyond those appearing in her packet called exhibits. Her pleadings fail to allege any real evidentiary facts or identify any witness or custodian of the instruments upon which her motion is supporting.

There is no verification and no affidavit as to any real facts.

48

7.

A careful review of her declaration shows that it consists merely of “words on paper” and consist of nothing more than additional NYCHA lawyer Glee Club wasted billable hours and costs by those representing the NYCHA Defendants.

There is no verification, no statements made under oath by real witnesses, no genuine documentary evidence and in fact, no evidence from the defendants appear in the evidence file.

8. Furthermore, her unsworn declaration is objected to because “[An attorney’s] unsworn statements do not establish facts in the absence of stipulation. Trial judges cannot rely upon these unsworn statements as the basis for making factual determinations; and this court cannot so consider them on review of the record.

If the advocate wishes to establish a fact, she must provide testimony through witnesses other than herself or a stipulation to which her opponent agrees.” Leon Shaffer Golnick Advertising, Inc. v. Cedar, 423 So.2d 1015 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982).

There is no such stipulation in this case, only “words on paper” or unsworn statements.

9. Attached to her Unsworn Declaration were copies of un-authenticated documents that are considered to be from out-of-court witnesses.

10. The Declarant failed to authenticate the exhibits and the allegations in the Declaration is by an unauthorized representative.

11. The Declarant Elena Madalina Andrei does not have firsthand knowledge of the facts stated in her declaration in support of NYCHA’s Motion to Dismiss, and as such she is not competent in mind and body to testify, declare and affirm any facts stated in this matter as true, correct, and complete in all material fact.

49

12. The Declarant provides no evidence of being an authorized agent of the Defendants.

13. The Declaration was purported to be signed by Elena Madalina Andrei. Her declaration is clearly objectionable and inadequate to establish whether Andrei, is, in fact, an authorized agent, you cannot be an agent merely for purposes of an unsworn Declaration.

14. Declarant Andrei’s no personal knowledge and unsworn declaration and her exhibits are objected to because her exhibits are unauthenticated and insufficient for summary judgment purposes because only competent witnesses and evidence may be considered in ruling on a motion for summary judgment.

15. Declarant Andrei’s no personal knowledge and unsworn declaration is objected to and should be stricken for the reasons stated above and because her declaration is not properly notarized. As stated in the definition of affidavits, the affiant must make an oath or affirmation as to the truth of the facts stated in the affidavit. If the oath is administered by a notary public, the notary's "jurat" or certificate of administration of the oath must be included in the affidavit in the correct form. If she did not want to swear, she could have used a notary's certificate of acknowledgment of execution (i.e., "the foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me") in lieu of an oath renders the Declaration legally insufficient.

16. In addition to Elena Andrei’s improper and nonexistent notarization, her declaration should be stricken because as the Declarant she lacks competency to testify to the matters stated in the Declaration. For example, in paragraph 26, she states that the tenant has not had a zero balance for her rent since February 2011,

50

yet she is not the rental agent or manager and has no knowledge or ledger to substantiate her phenomena.

17. The Declarant merely states her title first as an attorney with the law department of NYCHA and second as counsel to Kelly D. MacNeal, acting General Counsel of NYCHA. Based on the Declarant’s very own admissions, she could not and did not establish the factual basis for Declarant’s competence.

18. In addition to Elena Andrei’s improper and nonexistent notarization, declarant’s lack of competency, as Declarant, she also lacks personal knowledge. The statements in the Declaration are hearsay; Unsworn Declarant Andrei failed to attach any proper documentation or admissible evidence in support of her declaration and did so in opposition to the Federal Rules of Evidence Sections 801 and 902.

19. FRCP Rule 56 governs Summary Judgment. The rules say in pertinent part, (4) Affidavits or Declarations. An affidavit or declaration used to support or oppose a motion must be made on personal knowledge, set out facts that would be admissible in evidence, and show that the affiant or declarant is competent to testify on the matters stated.

20. Unsworn Declarant, Elena Andrei does not have and does not state she has any personal knowledge to the issues in this matter, because she does not, and therefore cannot set out any facts that would be admissible in evidence. Her Declaration clearly shows that she is not competent to testify to the matters stated in the declaration.

51

21. In addition, RULE 602. NEED FOR PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE

states, A

witness may not testify to a matter unless evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter.

22. Although, Andrei made false statements such as: a. “ A true copy of tenants rent ledger is attached as exhibit F.’, b. “The tenant has not had a zero balance for her rent since February 2011”, c. “ FDNY’S Emergency Access to the Tenants Apartment, Complaint Exhibit 36”, d. Andrei averred on August 8 2013 FDNY and the Ravenswood Houses superintendent accessed the apartment in response to 911 emergency calls by neighbors. e. “ No proof of the alleged damages was submitted” 23. Unsworn Declarant Andrei failed to attach any truth affidavit by any witness with firsthand knowledge. Andrei’s unsworn defective and deceptive declaration did not identify who she alleged was obligated to her claims in the unsworn declaration. For example see paragraph 26. This paragraph deliberately and deceitfully does not state who concocted the phenomena that Plaintiff’s rent had not been zero balance since February 2011. Paragraphs 34 and 37 are some of her many hearsay misrepresentations that specifically do not identify who was obligated to her claims in her unsworn declaration.

24. Andrei failed to attach any certified books, records or documents to her Declaration. She failed to produce a certified warrant for the unconstitutional seizure and search of elder Snyder’s rent paid for home. Andrei did submit a host of documents alleged to be exhibits but epitomize 18 U.S.C. §1030(a)(4):

52

Falsification of computer records. None of her documents are authenticated or certified. She failed to produce any evidence to her water and insect repellant emergency scam.

25. Affidavits or Declarations in support of summary judgment must be based on admissible evidence and Unsworn Declarant Andrei has none. By Andrei’s own admissions the Defendants books and records are managed by others whose duty is to keep the books accurately and completely. Thus, Andrei has only third party knowledge and may have reviewed the books and records which she states in her unsworn declaration. Some of the true custodians of these documents are the employees and agents the plaintiffs have sued whose duty it is to keep the books accurately and completely. In essence, Andrei averred to records, materials, and events which she did not submit nor could she testify to the authenticity of. See Andrei’s Declaration paragraphs 14-37.

26. Unsworn Declarant Andrei’s, failure to attach the books and records to her Declaration is a violation of the authentication rule promulgated in Federal Rules of Evidence 901(A), and 803 (6), which renders her incompetent to testify to the matters stated therein. Therefore, her declaration should be struck in whole.

27. Federal Rules of Evidence 901 states, in pertinent part, that “authentication or identification of evidence is required as a condition precedent to its admissibility.”

The failure to authenticate documents referred to in affidavits renders the affiant incompetent to testify as to the matters referred to in the affidavit. See Civ. R. 56(E), (which reads, in pertinent part, that “affidavits…shall show affirmatively

53

that the affiant is competent to testify to the matters stated therein”). Therefore, the Affidavit should be struck in whole.

28. Elena Andrei’s Declaration is legally insufficient whereas declarant has failed to set out a factual basis to support claims of personal knowledge of matter at issue in case and failed to make assertions based on personal knowledge.

29. Elena Andrei’s Declaration is based on ultimate facts that are legally insufficient.

For example, the Declarant’s statement at paragraph 2 states that: Attached to this Declaration are documents in Plaintiff’s possession or of which Plaintiffs’ had knowledge and relied on in bringing this suit. This is a statement of ultimate fact that provides no detail as to the Declarant’s required and needed personal knowledge. This Declarant statement epitomizes how the Declarant lacked knowledge of the alleged matter and resorted to Plaintiff’s complaint to hide behind her multiple legally insufficient statements.

30. Moreover, Elena Andrei’s Declaration amounts to nothing more than a statement

by Declarant that the allegations in the complaint are true similarly and as such the declaration is again insufficient.

31. Elena Andrei’s Declaration does not have a document supplying basis for knowledge and such must be attached and authenticated. When a document supplies the basis for an affiant's personal knowledge, the affiant must attach the document to the affidavit. Unsworn Declarant Elena Andrei alleges FDNY’s Emergency Seizure of the Plaintiff’s apartment, Declarant Andrei lacks possession of a copy of the required warrant. Declarant did not state so in her declaration and she did not describe the document, she did not state when and

54

where Declarant saw the FDNY seizure and under what circumstances, and she did not state who has possession of the required warrant, and what efforts have been made to obtain it or a copy of it.

32. Elena Andrei’s declaration must be stricken because it is not based on the Declarant’s personal knowledge. Her Declaration obstructs the personal knowledge requirement which is in place to prevent the trial court from relying on hearsay as the basis for its decision and to ensure there is an admissible evidentiary basis for the claim or Declarant’s position rather than mere belief or conjecture.

33. Elena Andrei’s declaration shows conclusively on its face that the Declarant could not possess personal knowledge of the matters stated therein likewise is legally deficient.

34. Andrei’s Declaration in Support of Summary judgment must be stricken as it is loaded with technical minefields and demonstrates procedural hurdles. Andrei’s Declaration is legally insufficient to support summary judgment as the Declarant is clearly incapable of having personal knowledge of facts at issue in case where her allegations as to the history, events, and the relevant business records could not have been made on the basis of personal knowledge.

35. In summary Andrei’s unsworn declaration in support of her friends’ summary judgment /motion to dismiss is not properly notarized, demonstrates lack of competency to testify, lacks personal knowledge, is not based on any admissible evidence, is

based on allegations of alleged ultimate facts, and has no

authenticated documents supplying basis for knowledge. For these reasons, the

55

56

57

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------------------------------------X MIRIAM SNYDER AND HER ELDERLY MOTHER MAZARINE LEVY SNYDER, CASE NO. CASE NO. 14-CV-02090 PLAINTIFFS, PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO STRIKE THE EXHIBITS ATTACHED TO ATTORNEY AND WITNESS ELENA MADALINA ANDREI’S DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF NYCHA’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO RULE 12(b)(6) and 8(a) -VISSAC PERRY, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS GENERAL MANAGER IN THE NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY, JOHN RHEA INDIVIDUALLY AND AS COMMISSIONER IN THE NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY AND THE NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY DEFENDANTS, _____________________________________________X COMES NOW, Mazarine Levy Snyder and Miriam Snyder, (hereinafter Plaintiffs), pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(F), Plaintiffs hereby move the Court to Strike all alleged rental records, alleged Application and all other attachments and exhibits referring to the same and any argument based on the attachments from Defendants Motion to Dismiss and Summary Judgment.

FACTS, ARGUMANT AND LAW 1. June 27, 2014 the record shows Attorney Andrei filed an unsworn defective and deceptive Declaration in Support of NYCHA’s Motion to Dismiss. Attorney Andrei’s Declaration is titled as deceitful and defective because Attorney Andrei’s Declaration does not have firsthand knowledge and her exhibits have no firsthand knowledge and 58

are not authenticated and have no seals, yet promote perjury, fraud, inaccuracies, mistakes, forgeries, deceit, misrepresentation and attorney representation of imaginary people such as NYCHA the corporation.

2. As a rule, attorneys representing their clients in court are not permitted to testify as to facts about which they have no personal, first-hand knowledge. Since attorney Andrei has done such repetitiously, Plaintiffs Move the court to put attorney Andrei under oath and to disqualify her as the lawyer and counsel for NYCHA. No one is competent to testify to facts about which he has no first-hand knowledge that includes lawyers.

3. Plaintiffs seek to strike all of Attorney Andrei’s exhibits because no attorney can testify in court without the physical human being he represents. Agents can not testify for principals. Plaintiffs’ objet to attorney Andrei disguising herself as witness and lawyer in the instant matter.

4. Plaintiffs challenge Attorney Andrei to prove she is the principal. Plaintiffs’ respectfully request for her Driver’s License, proving she is the “principal NYCHA, who she has testified on behalf of.

5. If Attorney Andrei cannot prove she is NYCHA, than Plaintiff’s demand her testimony and exhibits be removed from the record as “Hearsay” testimony. An imaginary person cannot testify, no agent can speak for such.

6. The people have rights, Corporations do not have rights. Among these “Rights” is the right to contract, the people have this right under 42 USC 1981. The people exercise this right by their signature and/or Social Security Number. Corporations cannot sign and therefore cannot enter into any contract, with any attorney. The

59

right to contract is reserved to the people. This is established by the age old principle of “Agency”. To establish an “Agency”, the “Principal” must ask the “Agent” to perform a task. The “Agent” must agree to perform the task. It is a time tested principle, of “American Jurisprudence” that the “Court” must not rely upon the “Agent” to prove “Agency”. The “Court” must follow the “Principal” to establish “Agency”. The law is simple no “Principal” no “Agency” to “Capacity to testify”. Summary Judgment Motion must be dismissed.

7. Plaintiffs object to the Defendants defective declaration, exhibits and Memorandum and seeks to have them stricken as the documents obstruct the principles of law discussed above, as well as barricade procedural due process while serving no other purpose but to delay, harass, oppress and extort.

8. The Defendants Defective Declaration, exhibits and Motion to Dismiss are not supported by substantial evidence and are not certified. Plaintiffs’ object to the Defendants non-certified documents.

9. The Defendant’s actions, as stated above, constitutes a violation of FDCPA §1692d since their natural consequences were calculated to harass, oppress and abuse the Plaintiffs without authority of law.

10. Under the circumstances presented in this matter, the Defendants did not and could not have properly certified their Motion to Dismiss in the instant action. 22 NYCRR § 130 -1.1-a requires that an attorney or party certifies that, to the best of that person's knowledge, information and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances, (1) the presentation of the paper or the contentions therein

60

are not frivolous as defined in subsection 130-1.1(c)." 22 NYCRR § 130 -1.1(c) defines conduct as frivolous if: (1) it is completely without merit in law and cannot be supported by a reasonable argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law; (2) it is undertaken primarily to delay or prolong the resolution of the litigation, or to harass or maliciously injure another; or (3) it asserts material factual statements that are false."

11. The NYCHA Attorneys cannot show any evidence to bring any Motion to Dismiss or Summary Judgment against the Plaintiffs as the Defendants offer no proof of real party, no NYCHA ownership, no NYCHA witnesses, or firsthand knowledge and because of this fraud and fictional administration, the attorneys have willingly refused to certify their motion to Dismiss.

12. The NYCHA Attorneys are deliberately using the judicial process to obstruct procedural rules, for harassment, oppression, extortion and deceit. The attorney’s Motion is not verified by Affidavit or Affirmation under Penalty of Perjury by and as such must be stricken from the court record as it is not admissible as evidence under the F.R.E. and New York Rules of Evidence and Uniform Rules § 202.12-a(f) due to the lack of any Fact Testimony under Oath. Again, the attorneys have refused to perform duties required by law.

13. The NYCHA attorney’s defective papers constitute serious misrepresentation and construed fraud upon the court. Please take judicial notice that there is no identification of the NYCHA Defendant the attorneys Andrei and Macneal are representing and Plaintiffs object to such.

61

14. The Defendants names are not set off or specified within the body of the Motion or in any other pleading nor is any description provided to explain the legal nature of the entity. Such deceit is objected to.

15. In addition to Attorney Elena Andrei and Kelly MacNeal’s non verified documents, Ms. Andrei has no capacity to testify or enter her unauthenticated exhibits, she has additionally represented herself as a corporate imaginary person. To say the least, Attorney Andrei and MacNeal’s defective and deceitful Declaration, exhibits and Memorandum invoke:

a.

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH NYS COURT VERIFICATION REQUIREMENTS,

b.

ATTORNEY ACTING AS WITNESS AND DEFENDANT,

c.

NO COURT VERTIFICATION ON NOTICE OF MOTION, DECLARATION OR EXHIBITS DEFENDANTS ANDREI’S DECLARATION, EXHIBITS AND KELLY D MAC NEAL, ACTING GENERAL COUNSEL MEMORANDUM OF LAWLESSNESS,

d.

DELIBERATELY DELAYED DUE PROCESS TO CONTINUE TO HARASS THE ELDERLY, ANDREI’S DECEPTIVE AND DEFECTIVE DECLARATION,

e.

NON COMPLIANCE WITH DUE PROCESS PROCEDURES,

f.

ANDREI’S DECLARATION EXEMPLIFIES FILING OF FRIVILOUS DECLARATIONS WITH NO REAL PARTY IN INTEREST,

g.

ANDREI’S DECLARATION AND EXHIBITS EPITOMIZE 47 USC § 502 - VIOLATION OF RULES, REGULATIONS, NO PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE ATTESTATIONS, PURE FRAUD AND HEARSAY

h.

ANDREI’S EXHIBITS INCLUDED MULTIFACETED 18 U.S.C. §1030(A)(4): FALSIFICATION OF COMPUTER RECORDS (EXHIBITS C-I)

i.

18 USC 514 “FICTITIOUS OBLIGATION” PROHIBITED –ANDREI’S EXHIBIT F.

j.

SANCTIONABLE BEHAVIORS, ANDREI’S NON CERTIFIED DECLARATION AND KELLY D MAC NEAL, ACTING GENERAL COUNSEL LAWLESS NON VERTIFIED MEMORANDUM AND MOTION WITH NOT ONE PROPER FIRSTHAND AFFIDAVIT OBSTRUCTS THE REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH IN: CPLR § 3212(B) REQUIRES THAT A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BE SUPPORTED BY AN AFFIDAVIT OF A PERSON WITH REQUISITE KNOWLEDGE

62

16. Unsworn Declarant Andrei exhibits provide no documentary evidence. On face value and after review, one can see that Andrei’s unsworn declaration provides no evidentiary foundation for her exhibits.

17. Unsworn Declarant Andrei provides no documents that support the facts stated in the motion for dismissal. She provides no other documents that support the admissibility of her primary supporting documents. She has not presented one affidavit of a person with requisite knowledge in obstruction to CPLR § 3212(B).

18. All of her exhibits are objected to and sought to be stricken, because not one of her exhibits had been properly authenticated.

19. The unauthenticated exhibits include, but are not limited to, copies of alleged rental statements, alleged rental lease, an alleged, presumed and nonexistent search warrant, an alleged NYCHA grievance procedure, an alleged NYCHA work order, an alleged NYCHA policy, an alleged non validated default rental arrears, alleged rental records, alleged due process, alleged timely elevator repairs and alleged NYC firemen involvement in attorney Andrei’s concocted and unsubstantiated water and insect repellant emergency scam to subterfuge unwarranted, traumatizing search and seizure of an elderly person’s home while not calling the listed emergency phone number.

20. Attorney Andrei’s exhibits are not authentic, unreliable, and present non relevant and deceitful issues in an attempt to subterfuge the many issues of material facts and the clearly stated claims for relief.

63

21. The exhibits are not sworn or certified copies, they are not identified, or referenced in the Declaration as a NYCHA purported authorized agent. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 56(E) states in pertinent part: Sworn or Certified copies of all papers or parts of papers Must be referred to in an affidavit. (Emphasis added.)

22. Pursuant to this rule, the trial court could refuse to consider Defendants Exhibits as evidence for two reasons. First, the exhibits are not certified copies, nor were they accompanied by an affidavit attesting to their authenticity; thus, it could not properly be considered under Civ.R. 56(E).

23. Clearly, an uncertified copy of a NYCHA policy is not a form of documentary evidence specified in Civ.R.56 (C). The proper procedure for introducing evidentiary matter not specifically authorized by Civ. R. 56 (C) is to incorporate it by reference in a properly framed affidavit pursuant to Civ. R.56 (E), ("The requirement of Civ. R. 56[E] that sworn or certified copies of all papers referred to in the affidavit be attached is satisfied by attaching the papers to the affidavit, coupled with a statement therein that such copies are true copies and reproductions.

24. The attachments to defendants’ Summary Judgment are not documentary evidence as specified in Civ. R. 56(C), they are hearsay and inadmissible, they are not authenticated via a competent fact witness as to the truth and accuracy of each attachment, only a competent fact witness may enter evidence into the record. Rules of Evidence 803(6).

25. The Declaration of Elena Andrei does not state he/she has personal knowledge of the attached records to the Summary Judgment.

64

CONCLUSION 26.

The attachments to the attorneys Summary Judgment Motion to Dismiss are inadmissible; they were not authenticated or certified by a competent fact witness; the attachments are not a form of documentary evidence specified in Civ.R.56 (C) and must be stricken from the Summary Judgment and record.

27. Additionally, attorney Andrei acting as witness and defendant, no certification in any of the Motion to Dismiss documents, delayed due process to continue harassment, noncompliance with due process procedures, and the filing of a frivolous motion with no real party of interest requires notification of attorney unethical, deceitful, and sanctionable conduct, that will not be tolerated.

WHEREFORE, based on all of the foregoing, Plaintiffs move the Court for an order to Strike all of the attorneys exhibits and documents and any argument based on the exhibits from the defendants summary Judgment and for such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.

Respectfully submitted,

Mazarine Levy Snyder, Plaintiff 2125 35th Avenue #5E Astoria, New York 11106 Fax: 866-244-9823

Miriam Snyder, Plaintiff 2125 35th Avenue #5E Astoria, New York 11106 Fax: 866-244-9823

65

66

67

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------------------------------------X MIRIAM SNYDER AND/ON BEHALF OF HER ELDERLY MOTHER MAZARINE LEVY SNYDER, PLAINTIFFS, CASE NO. 14-CV-02090 CERTIFICATE OF MAILING -VISSAC PERRY, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS GENERAL MANAGER IN THE NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY, JOHN RHEA INDIVIDUALLY AND AS COMMISSIONER IN THE NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY AND THE NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY DEFENDANTS, ------------------------------------------------------------------X CERTIFICATE OF MAILING I, Miriam Snyder, certify that a true and exact copy of the foregoing: 1.

2.

3.

4.

Motion to Strike the Defendants Unauthorized Declaration Motion to Strike the Defendants Unauthorized Exhibits Memorandum in Opposition to the defendants Improper Motion to Dismiss Mazarine Levy Snyder’s Affidavit in Support of the Plaintiffs Two Motions to Strike and in Support of the Plaintiffs Memorandum in Opposition 5. Miriam Snyder’s Affidavit in Support of the Plaintiffs Two Motions to Strike and in Support of the Plaintiffs Memorandum in Opposition above documents and exhibits have been mailed to the NYCHA law Department on behalf of all of the NYCHA Defendants and to the court by ordinary first class mail postage prepaid this 24TH day of July 2014 at: ATTORNEYS ANDREI AND MACNEAL NYCHA LAW DEPT. 250 BROADWAY, 9 FLOOR NEW YORK, NEW YORK, 10007 PRO SE OFFICE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 225 CADMAN PLAZA EAST BROOKLYN, NY 11201 (718) 613-2665

Miriam Snyder, Pro Se Plaintiff 3230 Cruger Avenue 6B Bronx, New York 10467 Fax: 866-244-9823 68

69

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------------------------------------X MIRIAM SNYDER AND HER ELDERLY MOTHER MAZARINE LEVY SNYDER, PLAINTIFFS, CASE NO. 14-CV-02090 NOTICE OF CORRECTED AND REPLACED PAGE ON THE PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO STRIKE THE DEFENDANTS’ UNSWORN DECLARATION -VISSAC PERRY, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS GENERAL MANAGER IN THE NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY, JOHN RHEA INDIVIDUALLY AND AS COMMISSIONER IN THE NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY AND THE NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY DEFENDANTS, ------------------------------------------------------------------X

Plaintiffs, Mazarine Levy Snyder and Miriam Snyder move to Notice the Court and the NYCHA Defendants of typographical errors in the above noted introduction paragraph that was mailed to the Court and Defendants on July 24, 2014. Today is July 25th, 2014 and the Plaintiffs have caught the errors and are Noticing the Court and Defendants of such.

There are four typographical errors that have been corrected on the attached Replacement page. Mazarine Levy Snyder’s name was added in, Plaintiff is changed to Plaintiffs, Elenan is changed to Elena, and Rule 56 is changed to change to Rule 12 (F). For the record, please void that page which is page 1 and replace it with the below corrected page. Thank you.

Respectfully submitted,

Mazarine Levy Snyder, Plaintiff 2125 35th Avenue #5E Astoria, New York 11106 Fax: 866-244-9823

Miriam Snyder, Plaintiff 3230 Cruger Avenue 6B Bronx, NY 10467

70

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------------------------------------X MIRIAM SNYDER AND HER ELDERLY MOTHER MAZARINE LEVY SNYDER, PLAINTIFFS, CASE NO. CASE NO. 14-CV-02090 CORRECTED AND REPLACED PAGE PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO STRIKE THE DEFENDANTS’ UNSWORN DECLARATION -VISSAC PERRY, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS GENERAL MANAGER IN THE NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY, JOHN RHEA INDIVIDUALLY AND AS COMMISSIONER IN THE NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY AND THE NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY DEFENDANTS,

COMES NOW, Mazarine Levy Snyder and Miriam Snyder, (hereinafter Plaintiffs), pursuant to FRCP Rule 12(F), hereby move the Court for an Order to Strike the unsworn declaration of Elena Madalina Andrei and in support thereof states as follows: FACTS, ARGUMENT AND LAW 1.

Plaintiffs, Mazarine Levy and Miriam Snyder, filed this complaint against the NYCHA Defendants, for actual and statutory damages for defendants repetitious and wilful violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) 15 U.S.C. § 1692, Violations of Title VIII of The Civil Rights Act of 1968, as amended by the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601 – 3619, [42 U.S.C. 3613] Enforcement by Private Persons, 24 CFR 100.400 - Prohibited Interference, Coercion or Intimidation, violations of the 1st, 4th,, 5th, 9th and 14th Constitutional Amendments, Deprivation of Constitutional Rights and Privileges, 42 U. S. C. § 1983, Conspiracy to Depriving Persons of Equal 71

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------------------------------------X MIRIAM SNYDER AND/ON BEHALF OF HER ELDERLY MOTHER MAZARINE LEVY SNYDER, PLAINTIFFS, CASE NO. 14-CV-02090 CERTIFICATE OF MAILING -VISSAC PERRY, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS GENERAL MANAGER IN THE NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY, JOHN RHEA INDIVIDUALLY AND AS COMMISSIONER IN THE NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY AND THE NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY DEFENDANTS, ------------------------------------------------------------------X CERTIFICATE OF MAILING I, Miriam Snyder, certify that a true and exact copy of the foregoing: NOTICE OF CORRECTED AND REPLACED PAGE ON THE PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO STRIKE THE DEFENDANTS’ UNSWORN DECLARATION above page has been mailed to the NYCHA law Department on behalf of all of the NYCHA Defendants and to the court by ordinary first class mail postage prepaid this _____ day of July 2014 at: ATTORNEYS ANDREI AND MACNEAL NYCHA LAW DEPT. 250 BROADWAY, 9 FLOOR NEW YORK, NEW YORK, 10007 PRO SE OFFICE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 225 CADMAN PLAZA EAST BROOKLYN, NY 11201 (718) 613-2665

Miriam Snyder, Pro Se Plaintiff 3230 Cruger Avenue 6B Bronx, New York 10467 Fax: 866-244-9823

72