Why did judge Francois Rivera, who only had to read one page left out of 40+/- page document filed by plaintiff and attorney Kyle Taylor, Esq. (employed by Quinn Emmanuel), not find that the attorney committed a fraud upon the court and why did the judge refuse to address the fraud allegation leading to an estimated $1,000,000 in legal fees and at least 40 hours of judge facetime in hearings on the case? What could the court have done with 40 hours of court time and untolled hours of reading papers and crafting decisions designed to avoid clear cut issues?
UPDATE: Kyle Taylor, Esq., a longstanding Associate at bad-ass law firm Quinn Emmanuel, has decamped north of the border to be an entry level associate at Affleck Greene McMurtry LLP.
Park Slope Brooklyn is quite a nice place to live. When it was a bit less so nice, Brett Wynkoop and his wife, Kathleen, bought into co-op on nice, if not usually quiet, President Street (February, 1995).
The co-op was quite straight forward with 4 units, each with 55 shares (25%) of the co-op and a rule that said changes to the co-op had to be be approved by a majority (which, by definition, is 51%+).
Brett and Kathleen bought two units, obtaining 110 shares. The kicker that made them jump was a rider to all the proprietary leases (Section 7A), the document that spells out rights and responsibilities of each shareholder, that made it clear the in addition to the Floor thru of Unit 1, Unit 1 also has exclusive access to the backyard and the cellar. They could now make a home.
Many years later, after a few transfers of units 3 (3rd floor) and 4 (4th floor), along came Kyle Taylor. Kyle signed the same lease that every single shareholder had ever signed which included the rider that that made it clear that the back yard and the cellar were under the control of Unit 1.
Unfortunately, Kyle Taylor, Esq. and his eventual wife Hilary Pinnington soon became irked that anyone should have the cellar all to themselves, the proprietary lease be damned.
So they (Unit 3) and Rajeev Subramanyam linkedin.com (Unit 4) legally gang-tackled Brett and his wife with a lawsuit seeking to wrest the cellar from the Wynkoops that was full of lawyerly near slander and weaselly words.
- Court: Kings Civil Supreme - Index Number: 006548/2012 - Date: May 8, 2012
In it they allege that Brett and Kathleen occupy the basement both illegally and in violation of the proprietary lease.
48. The occupancy of the cellar is unlawful.
49. The occupancy of the cellar is contrary to the proprietary lease.
Now, setting aside number 48 for the moment, number 49 seems to only need a judge to do something we did in about 30 minutes, read the proprietary lease.
As noted before, section 7A which occurs in every proprietary lease ever signed for any shares in the building, says the following (excerpted for clarity but feel free to read the whole page HERE).
The cellar and the yard at the rear of the building, shall not be deemed part of the common area. Such space shall be exclusively used, maintained and repaired by the Lessee of Apartment 1 ...
Looks cut and dry. The judge should make quick work for the Wynkoops upon reading the submitted evidence and maybe a hearing.
But no, Kyle Taylor, Esq., who got a loan from Wells Fargo Bank for the shares, did not submit the lease he signed that contained Section 7A and that he sent to his bank. Kyle Taylor, in a petulant act of malfeasance, submitted an unsigned copy of the offering lease, not the thing that he signed.
How can he do that? Weasel words folks. But the weasel words do not protect him paying a price for the malfeasance.
Well Brett and his attorney saw this bit of trickery and made motion for summary judgment. The judge, Francois Rivera, never scheduled oral argument and sat on the summary judgement motion in an attempt to avoid sanctioning an attorney, or at least avoiding even the appearance of working:
You want me to rule on the evidence, I don't want to work that hard. - Judge F. Rivera
If the absurdity of using an unsigned & incomplete copy of what you did sign as the sole basis for your lawsuit wasn't proof enough of Kyle Taylor's nefarious ways, this next part has all the indicia of embezzlement.
Kyle Taylor, who had no right to the cellar or backyard but tried to get access, was regularly attempting fishing expeditions (poking around with allegations absent a scintilla of evidence). In court cases it is analogous to conducting a search without a warrant. Poor Kyle Taylor went hat in hand to Judge David I Schmidt (this has gone on for over 4 years before 2 different judges) saying that Wynkoop "might" be doing something odd with the corporate funds. No proof, just a teary eye to a judge.
Well Judge Schmidt, who left the bench under a cloud of scandal, was suckered or he was complicit when he commanded :
- --Kyle Taylor's name be added to the Co-op bank account in addition to Brett Wynkoop.
- --All actions by the corporation (including any payments by the corporation) must be in agreement of the two names.
- --If the two could not agree on things like fixing the roof they were to go to a court appointed referee (Jaime Lathrop).
- --If the determination by the referee was unacceptable then the parties could ask the court.
- --Other than that the co-op corporation could do nothing by order of the court.
- --Those terms clearly do not allow for theft and embezzlement of the corporate funds.
Well, Brett did his part and put Kyle Taylor on the bank account in addition to himself around noon on November 14, 2015. Brett then left the bank.
Before the ink was dry adding Kyle Taylor to the account in compliance with the court order that also forbade any action unless both Kyle an Brett agreed, former Quinn Emmanuel and now Affleck Greene McMurtry LLP attorney Kyle Taylor violated the court order, emptied and closed the account.
More than a year later Mr. Wynkoop has been given no answer to the disposition of the corporate funds in spite of making written repeated legal demands via his attorney for the bank records and for Kyle Taylor to comply with the court order and reinstate Mr. Wynkoop as a cosignatory to whatever account he moved the funds to.
Kyle Taylor refused to give Wynkoop the bank records in discovery proceedings or add him to the account.
The only takeaway is that Kyle Taylor embezzled the funds.
The Partners did not respond when we asked them about the fraud. Maybe they will when they take a gander at the indications of embezzlement.
SIMPLE SLIDE-SHOW COMING SOON
What happens when a lawyer gets called out for filing a completely bogus document as the only proof for a vexatious and frivolous lawsuit?
An honest lawyer corrects the mistake and apologizes profusely and the world moves on. A slimy lawyer might double down and lie some more and only the brave of heart and stout of character fight this insidiousness.
Especially when the lawyer contradicts the initial affidavit filed with the bogus document with a new affidavit laden with accusations that would be comical if they weren't so nasty and unsupported save for the sly non-speak words of an Ivy League-er background.
Such is the continuing saga the Curious Case of Kyle Taylor.
Kyle Taylor, who we have shown seems to have violated his oath, misrepresented the only fact in the case and seems to have embezzled funds from the co-op where he lived, seems to have also lied to the court.
Generally courts don't like it when you flip flop in affidavits. That is called perjury.
In the first affidavit Kyle Taylor said :
Mr. Wynkoop also advised us that he sublet Apartment 2. He specifically stated, however, that he had shareholder approval to sublet ...
In the second Kyle did an about face purporting to the court that Brett Wynkoop never told him of any approvals .
55. Mr. Wynkoop never disclosed any prior votes or resolutions made between him and other shareholders, either before or after Hilary and I moved in.
Which one is the lie Kyle Taylor, which one is untrue? Doesn't matter as one or the other is a misrepresentation in a sworn affidavit.
Kyle has absconded to Canada...
Maybe Kyle left Quinn Emmanuel because of the Judiciary Law 487 issue. Maybe because of embezzlement. Or maybe because he has lied so many times the Kings County DA might pay attention.
One wonders if partners in Affleck Greene McMurtry LLP, Peter Greene, Kenneth Dekker, Michael Osborne, Kyle Peterson, Michael Binetti, Donald Affleck, are aware of what looks like perjury by Kyle Taylor.
The Partners did not respond when we asked them about the Judiciary Law 487 issue or the embezzlement issue.
Maybe they will when they take a gander at the indications of perjury.
SIMPLE SLIDE-SHOW COMING SOON
Just as it seemed it could not get any more down the rabbit hole, the tongue twister summary comes out.
Lieing lawyer lies to lawyer who lies for lieing lawyer. Say that ten times fast. We dare you.
Kyle Taylor lied (see how here ) in Kings County Supreme Court swearing to one thing in one affidavit and then to the opposite thing in a second affidavit.
Kyle Taylor and his consort, Rajeev Subramanyem of American Express, violated co-op by-laws and lied to NYU Law School grad and former editor if the NYU Law Journal Joanna C. Peck of ADAM LEITMAN BAILEY, P.C. by leading Peck to believe that Kyle and Rajeev were members of the Board of Directors and that they had the right to engage Peck prior to an annual shareholders meeting. The process they violated is outlined in Section 6 of the co-op by laws.
Joanna C. Peck, after being hired in violation of the by-laws (by being hired before the annual meeting by non-board members and aforementioned lieing attorney Kyle Taylor and his consort, Rajeev Subramanyem of American Express (https://www.facebook.com/rajeev.subramanyam), swears that she showed her oath to Brett Wynkoop, the one required by New York Business Corporation Law § 610. Selection of inspectors at shareholders' meetings where it is made blatantly clear that no inspector of elections can start until they file an oath :
"Each inspector, before entering upon the discharge of his duties, shall take and sign an oath faithfully to execute the duties of inspector at such meeting with strict impartiality and according to the best of his ability."
See what Peck did there? Peck showed an oath to Wynkoop at the meeting on May 16, 2014 as noted in her affidavt two days later on May 18, 2014:
2. On Friday, May 16, 2014, at approximately 1:00p.m., I attended the meeting of the shareholders of 622A Peresident Street Owners Corp.(the "Corporation") at 251 Fifth Avenue,Brooklyn, New York (the "Shareholder Meeting.").
10. Mr. Wynkoop continued his objection to my designation as inspector. He also indicated that I did not have an oath to discharge my duties as an inspector as required under the BCL.
11. I indicated to Mr. Wynkoop that I did have such an oath and showed him a copy of the oath for his review.
Now, that becomes very interesting as Peck said that she produced a copy of the required oath on May 16, 2014. But, wait a minute. The affidavit contained an oath with this jabberwocky non-speak:
"...I have taken and signed an oath in which I acted fairly and impartially to perform my duties as Inspector of Election at the Annual Meeting of Shareholders held on the 16th day of May 2014, and honestly and truthfully report the results of said vote.
Wait... What? Peck, who was required to file an oath before taking any actions, swears under penalty of perjury that she produced one at the hearing but then submits an oath after the fact, after the May 16th "election" on the 18th, and that oath is not a promise, as required, to act fairly before the election, it is an oath that she already acted fairly.
Can't imagine that lieing is acting fairly. Maybe Peck will produce her oath. Why did she not file the oath she claims she took before acting with the affidavit?
Weaselly words, folks, weaselly.
The only takeaway a reasonable person, be they judge, jury or street peddler, is that Peck lied in her affidavit and covered up that lie with a nonsensical after the fact oath stating, not that she would act impartially, but that she had already acted impartially.
What a steaming pile by Peck.
Does her firm, ADAM LEITMAN BAILEY, P.C., condone this?
In fact, in a video stumping her firm, ADAM LEITMAN BAILEY, P.C., she bemoaned the fact that no one will ever pay attention to a poor little researchers legal gold nuggets:
"Nobody cares about what case you might know about, what little smoking gun you find in the documents." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYgFOXNmwtE
Joanna C. Peck complained that no one notices the unheralded researcher's little smoking gun you find in the documents. Well, we noticed.
If this is the standard for being employed as a lawyer, it is a pretty low bar to pass (pun intended).