Sunday, November 29, 2015



Embattled Mayor-elect Richard Thomas ran a campaign of thuggery, shakedowns, bribery, and thievery.  Thomas promised a campaign and an administration of transparency, but has miserably failed to deliver on that promise.

Thomas has committed serious crimes and Mount Vernon taxpayers are wondering where is the long arm of the law to prosecute Thomas and his gang of thieves for the crimes they committed.

On Wednesday, October 7, 2015, Mayor-Elect Richard Thomas held an illegal fundraiser at Leewood Golf Club.  Kyle Munoz, Anthony DeBellis, and Frank Fraley hosted the fundraiser.  The price to attend this glitzy event was a whopping $2,500 per person.  The maximum contribution allowable by law was only $1,801. Richard Thomas named this illegal fundraiser "Win The Future".


A Mount Vernon business owner contacted Mount Vernon Exposed last week to report an attempted shakedown by Richard Thomas' campaign staff.  The business owner told Mount Vernon Exposed that he had scheduled a private meeting with Richard Thomas' prior to the "Win The Future" fundraiser.  The business owner who did not attend the "Win The Future" fundraiser met with Thomas about quality of life issues and about improving Mount Vernon's business climate.  The business owner said that at the conclusion of the meeting, Thomas gave him several invitations to the "Win The Future" fundraiser and Thomas said to the business owner, "I hope to see you there."

The business owner told Mount Vernon Exposed that they did not formally commit to going to the fundraiser because of the hefty price tag and because they thought that amount was a bit much for a fundraiser.  The business owner told Thomas that he will "see what they can do" about selling tickets.  The business then told Thomas that they will "see" if they can sell four tickets to the event.  The business owner told Mount Vernon Exposed that they did not sell any tickets to the "Win The Future" fundraiser. 

Several weeks after the fundraiser, the business owner said they were contacted by Richard Thomas' campaign team about the fundraiser.  The business owner said that the person from Richard Thomas' camp said, "You had a meeting several weeks ago with Richard Thomas and you committed to raising $10K."  The business owner told Mount Vernon Exposed that they were totally caught off guard by the phone call from Thomas' camp and at first thought it was a joke until the caller from Thomas' camp gave explicit details regarding the meeting held between the business owner and Thomas.

The caller then further stated, "Richard keeps a log of everyone he meets with and it doesn't show in the log that you gave $10K".  The business owner told Mount Vernon Exposed that the caller from Thomas' camp was very aggressive and demanding.  The caller further stated, "Richard remembers all of those who gave and all of those who didn't give and won't be having any meetings in the future with those who don't commit to him".   The business owner then said, "What do you want me to do? Cut a check for $10K right now?"  The caller then said "That will be nice".  The business owner then said "Not happening and hung up the phone".

Federal investigators must subpoena Richard Thomas and his campaign staff's financial records at once.  A paper trail of contributions and expenditures must be properly established since Thomas' campaign financial disclosures are permeated with fraud and riddled with errors. 

Richard Thomas has indicated that his administration will be "pay to play".  In other words, only those with serious cash will be able to develop and get things done in the City of Mount Vernon.

Thomas has aligned himself with shady businessman Joseph Spiezio who is alleged to have ties to the Lucchese Crime Family.  Spiezio, a known con man and fraudster, has a trail of lawsuits in State and Federal Court to support this claim.  Spiezio has even been named as a defendant in a Federal R.I.C.O. lawsuit claiming he swindled millions of dollars from a development project for his own personal gain and use. 

A political insider has informed Mount Vernon Exposed that all development projects will go through Spiezio.  One such project that Thomas has committed to building is a massive low-income project near the Mount Vernon East Train Station.

Sources have told Mount Vernon Exposed that in recent weeks, Thomas gave the "OK" for the project to move forward as soon as he takes office. It is unclear how much cash Richard received and what kickbacks he was promised for giving his blessing on the low-income project. 

The developer of the project is Larry Regan, CEO of Regan Development.  Thomas has promised Regan massive tax breaks through the City's Industrial Development Agency.  So what is in this deal for Richard one may ask? Did Larry Reegan drop an envelope in Richard's lap in exchange for Thomas allowing Reegan to construct low-income housing near the Mount Vernon East train station? Sources have also confirmed to Mount Vernon Exposed that Thomas is pushing for this project to go through because Thomas will become a part owner of the project once the development is completed. 



Reegan has retained Mark Weingarten of the law firm DelBello, Donnellan, Weingarten Tartaglia, Wise, & Wiederkehr L.L.P.  Many in political circles throughout Westchester County view Weingarten as a shady land use attorney that is involved in many controversial projects throughout Westchester. 


According to a Journal News article published on June 20, 2015 titled "Party favors: Dual posts, perks for political bosses", Weingarten represented G&S Investors of Long Island in a controversial development along the Port Chester waterfront.  Westchester County Election Commissioner Reginald Lafayette was also named in the controversy.

The Chairman's Circle
While not paid as party boss, LaFayette runs the Chairman's Circle, a committee that has spent $183,449 since 2008, when The Journal News first revealed the committee, according to records from the state Board of Elections.

Only $58,276, or 32 percent of the total, went to campaign-related expenses, and nearly half of that was for one Port Chester village election. The rest of the money paid for the various costs of vehicles LaFayette leases, unitemized reimbursements and for dozens of meals, including 21 at Mulino's Restaurant in White Plains.

To pay for it, LaFayette used $102,831 in contributions he received from 2008 through 2014, more than half of it from developers, contractors, and law and accounting firms that do business in Westchester. Other committees donated $43,826, including those of U.S. Rep. Eliot Engel and Westchester District Attorney Janet DiFiore, both Democrats.

In February 2013, the Chairman's Circle also received $5,000 each from Greg Wasser, Douglas Riley and Lawrence Traub, partners with the development firm G&S Investors of Old Bethpage. Another $2,500 came from G&S partner Robert Weinberg, and $5,000 from RMC Development Company, Weinberg's Elmsford-based firm.

G&S developed the Port Chester waterfront, and has been part of a lingering controversy over a damaged bulkhead along the Byram River. G&S, the village and Westchester County are at odds over who is responsible for rebuilding the bulkhead, a repair expected to cost upwards of $7 million.

Port Chester Republicans, who threatened to take control of the village board in 2013, were pushing for G&S to pay for the repairs, and also opposed rezoning a property on Main Street that the developer owns.

In March 2013, LaFayette's committee spent $25,018 on the village election, 93 percent of all campaign-related expenses that year and 43 percent of all campaign-related spending from 2008 through 2014. It was the only election that the committee devoted significant funds to over that span, according to the records.

Democrat Dennis Pilla lost the mayoral seat, but the board ended in a virtual deadlock between the parties. Bart Didden, a Republican trustee who lost a re-election bid, was among those who cried foul.

"G&S has, from the very beginning, supported the Democrats and their actions have hurt property owners through this whole development to the tune of millions of dollars," said Didden, who has a separate legal dispute with G&S. "It definitely doesn't smell right because the people of Port Chester would never know how their politics are being influenced by the largest property holder in the village of Port Chester. There is no transparency here."

Officials at G&S did not return calls seeking comment.
LaFayette maintained that he was not aware that G&S developed the Port Chester waterfront, nor that there was a dispute over the collapsed bulkhead. He said village Democrats simply asked for help and he provided it.
"In terms of coincidence, these are big companies who do business all over," he said. "You know, you do mailings out to people and ask for contributions, and you have a mailing list and you mail to the same people. You don't necessarily know where they're building."

Sources have told Mount Vernon Exposed that Thomas told folks during the campaign that Weingarten and his law firm pledged to raise $150K for Thomas' Mayoral campaign but according to sources, Weingarten never came through with any funds and has only surfaced recently in Mount Vernon with the Reegan development.
What did Weingarten promise Richard Thomas?  Did he promise to make Richard a partner in the deal?  Why is Richard selling off the City of Mount Vernon to the highest bidder?

Federal investigators must investigate the Thomas/Reegan/Spiezio/Weingarten relationship at once before they further destroy the City of Mount Vernon. 

To be continued...


Wednesday, November 25, 2015


Mayor Elect Thomas Transition Advisory Board: 
Symbolism without Substance


Mount Vernon Mayor Elect Richard Thomas announced his advisory council to the pubic yesterday. What was missing from Thomas' advisory council was his promise of real community connection. Where are the community leaders? Where are the people that have been out front in support of Thomas’s campaign from the beginning? Mayor Thomas has gone astray and alienated the core group of supporters that put him in office. 

As we say in Mount Vernon, the streets are talking and the streets are saying that Thomas has turned his back on his main supporters that gave him the credibility to galvanize the support of the masses of Mt. Vernon.

Are we to believe that the list of advisors presented by Mayor-elect Richard Thomas actually knows how to advise Thomas on the day-to-day operations in Mount Vernon?

Are we the people of Mt. Vernon to be bamboozled by titles and corporate positions and no real history in our community?

Mayor Elect Richard Thomas has assembled a transition team headed by an individual that has ties to former New York State Majority Leader Dean Skelos.  United States Attorney Preet Baharara has indicted Skelos and his son.

Mayor Elect Richard Thomas has named Arthur "Jerry" Kremer who heads a company called Empire Government Strategies.  Kremer's company is tied to Senator Skelos' indictment. 

According to an article in the Shelter Island Reporter titled, "Suffolk Close-up: A Long Island web of corruption:

The arrest on federal corruption charges of Long Islander Dean Skelos, majority leader of the New York State Senate, and his resignation from that post last week, casts a spotlight on a major law firm.

Ruskin Moscou Faltischek is a mover-and-shaker of governments on Long Island and one of its partners is an East Ender in charge of lobbying activities for the firm.

The Times article said “the criminal complaint in the case — which cataloged a series of accusations centered on the senator’s efforts to use his official position to extort money for his son — did not reflect well on the firm.” The Times noted that the federal charge alleged, “At the senator’s request, the law firm ‘steered title insurance work’ to his son, Adam B. Skelos, ‘including at least one real estate transaction’ for over $32.6 million.”

Mr. Skelos was presented on the law firm’s website in the context of his official position — “Senator Dean G. Skelos, Of Counsel,” was its heading. Although now mired in legal problems involving alleged corruption, one passage speaks, with an irony that’s almost funny, about Senator Skelos “building upon his record of combating fraud and abuse in government.”

According to the federal charge, the senator began working at the firm in 1994, he has been paid more than $2.6 million, despite the fact that it appears, based on evidence gathered during the investigation, that Mr. Skelos “did not perform any actual legal work” for the firm.

An unusual aspect of the firm is what it calls its “government relations arm, Empire Government Strategies.” This is headed by Arthur “Jerry” Kremer of Bridgehampton.



In a section on the law firm’s website devoted to Mr. Kremer, under his photo is a quote: “Law and politics have always been closely aligned. Many of my clients turn to me for legal counsel, but also for my insights into the political arena, which is a constantly changing landscape.” He is described as a partner in the law firm.

Mr. Kremer is a Democrat and for 23 years was a member of the New York State Assembly. As a lobbyist, he’s been active in Suffolk County representing, among other clients, the tobacco industry and seeking to block measures advanced by the Suffolk Legislature to restrict smoking.

Although a highly active lobbyist, for 20 years he has regularly appeared as a political and government analyst on Cablevision’s News12.

Newsday, in an investigative article by reporter Mark Harrington in 2013, detailed how the “influential law firm and its government relations arm have a history of close ties to the Long Island Power Authority and stand to gain billions if new LIPA contracts come their clients’ way in coming weeks and months.”

It noted that the Uniondale-based firm “long has represented Caithness of New York City through its government relations arm” and “helped the energy company through lobbying and consulting work to secure a $1.49 billion LIPA contract for a new power plant.” Caithness is now pushing to add a second gas-fired power plant to the one it built in Yaphank.

The law firm through its “Empire Government Strategies,” the Newsday piece continued, “Also has represented PSEG of New Jersey since at least last year. PSEG is slated to see a $200 million-plus expansion of its $3.8 billion contract with LIPA if the State Legislature OKs Governor Andrew M. Cuomo’s proposal to give PSEG near total control of the LIPA grid in January,”

Preet Bharara, the United States attorney for the Southern District of New York, which includes Long Island, has been doing a extraordinary job exposing how New York State government functions (or dysfunctions). His charges against Mr. Skelos of Rockville Centre follow the indictment in February, also on corruption charges, of the top Democrat in the State Legislature, Sheldon Silver of Manhattan, the Assembly speaker, also forced to resign his leadership post. Earlier, Mr. Bharara brought a series of successful prosecutions against other state officials.

Thomas’s connection with alleged Lucchese crime family associate Joseph Spiezio has run all of Thomas’s credible support away and running for the hills. The exposure of the Spiezio Thomas connection has forced Thomas to downplay the leadership role of his lead advisor. Make no mistake about it, Spiezio is still running things and he still is making Thomas’ decisions.  

What we are witnessing are acts of desperation by an administration that has spiraled out of control before the administration has even taken office.

We must continue to hold elected officials accountable and not tolerate shenanigans from any elected official, even if he has a smile and a collage degree!!

Tuesday, November 24, 2015


Today at 3P.M. Mayor Elect Richard Thomas will hold a press conference to announce Mayor's advisory committee.  The happy go lucky camera happy Mayor Elect is having another baseless and meaningless press conference while evading the issue of his illegal fundraiser, lacking campaign finances, and his top advisors alleged ties to the Luchese Crime Family. 

The press conference is scheduled to be held at the Wartburg in the Soundview Room.

Media in attendance must ask Mayor Elect Thomas about Joseph Spiezio's alleged ties to the Luchese Crime Family.  It is also alleged that Spiezio dropped over $100K cash into the lap of Thomas and others in his immediate circle. 


Questions still remain as to why Richard Thomas would continue to surround himself with such a person who has a documented history of committing fraud. There is also a trail of lawsuits to support this claim. 

Over the next few months, Mount Vernon Exposed will provide an in depth analysis of the relationship between Joseph Spiezio and the Thomas family.  Mount Vernon Exposed will thoroughly get into the life of Joseph Spiezio and how he lives on a day to day basis.   Mount Vernon Exposed previously reported that Mayor Elect Richard Thomas' brother Butch Thomas has been on Spiezio's payroll for over ten years.  Butch was the one responsible for introducing the younger, naive, and inexperienced Thomas to Spiezio.  Sources have told Mount Vernon Exposed that Butch Thomas has started several corporations that will be used as shell corporations for development projects throughout the City of Mount Vernon. 

Butch Thomas and his puppet master, Joe Spiezio, according to political insiders, are planning to construct massive amounts of low income and welfare housing all throughout the City of Mount Vernon.  Mayor Elect Richard Thomas has already promised the duo unlimited tax breaks through the Industrial Development Agency of which Richard Thomas will be the chairman of once he is sworn in. 

The shady businessman Spiezio was named as a defendant in a Federal R.I.C.O. lawsuit.  The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, commonly referred to as the RICO Act or simply RICO, is a United States federal law that provides for extended criminal penalties and a civil cause of action for acts performed as part of an ongoing criminal organization. The RICO Act focuses specifically on racketeering, and it allows the leaders of a syndicate to be tried for the crimes which they ordered others to do or assisted them in doing, closing a perceived loophole that allowed a person who instructed someone else to, for example, murder, to be exempt from the trial because he did not actually commit the crime personally.

RICO also permits a private individual "damaged in his business or property" by a "racketeer" to file a civil suit. The plaintiff must prove the existence of an "enterprise". The defendant(s) are not the enterprise; in other words, the defendant(s) and the enterprise are not one and the same. There must be one of four specified relationships between the defendant(s) and the enterprise: either the defendant(s) invested the proceeds of the pattern of racketeering activity into the enterprise (18 U.S.C. § 1962(a)); or the defendant(s) acquired or maintained an interest in, or control of, the enterprise through the pattern of racketeering activity (subsection (b)); or the defendant(s) conducted or participated in the affairs of the enterprise "through" the pattern of racketeering activity (subsection (c)); or the defendant(s) conspired to do one of the above (subsection (d)). In essence, the enterprise is either the 'prize,' 'instrument,' 'victim,' or 'perpetrator' of the racketeers. A civil RICO action can be filed in state or federal court.

Both the criminal and civil components allow the recovery of treble damages (damages in triple the amount of actual/compensatory damages).

Under the law, the meaning of racketeering activity is set out at 18 U.S.C. § 1961. As currently amended it includes:
Any violation of state statutes against gambling, murder, kidnapping, extortion, arson, robbery, bribery, dealing in obscene matter, or dealing in a controlled substance or listed chemical (as defined in the Controlled Substances Act);
Any act of bribery, counterfeiting, theft, embezzlement, fraud, dealing in obscene matter, obstruction of justice, slavery, racketeering, gambling, money laundering, commission of murder-for-hire, and many other offenses covered under the Federal criminal code (Title 18);
Embezzlement of union funds;
Drug trafficking; long-term and elaborate drug networks can also be prosecuted using the Continuing Criminal Enterprise Statute;
Criminal copyright infringement;
Money laundering and related offenses;
Bringing in, aiding or assisting aliens in illegally entering the country (if the action was for financial gain);
Acts of terrorism.

Pattern of racketeering activity requires at least two acts of racketeering activity, one of which occurred after the effective date of this chapter and the last of which occurred within ten years (excluding any period of imprisonment) after the commission of a prior act of racketeering activity.

Joe Spiezio and his wife Louise Spiezio were sued in federal court under the R.I.C.O. statute.  The claims in the lawsuit were outright criminal in nature and it surprising Spiezio and his wife weren't indicted for their crimes.  Sources have told Mount Vernon Exposed that Spiezio is a government informant and Mob rat that gets free get out of jail cards.  Sources have also told Mount Vernon Exposed that Spiezio constantly brags about being a government informant.

The lawsuit against Spiezio and his wife arose from a development project in Yonkers called the Trolley Barn that Spiezio was a managing member.  The project was never developed and ended up getting taken over by the City of Yonkers.


23. This action arises out of, among other things, violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act, 18 U.S.C. Åò1961, et seq. by Spiezio and others; breach of fiduciary duty by Spiezio in connection with his management of limited liability corporations; breach of contract by Spiezio in connection with his management of limited liability corporations; conversion and unjust enrichment by Spiezio and others; breach of fiduciary duty by the accountant for the limited liability corporations; and breach of contract and unjust enrichment by the law firm retained by one of the limited liability corporations.

24. Commencing about 1998, Spiezio has been entrusted with managing the operations of single purpose limited liability companies ("LLCs") with whom he has shared ownership with plaintiffs Tarsia, Cook and others. Each of the LLCs was to own, manage and operate various real estate investments.

25. Rather than manage the operations of the LLCs in a loyal, trustworthy and professional manner, Spiezio has repeatedly violated his position of trust and his fiduciary duty.

Through artifice and deceit, Spiezio has intentionally diverted millions of dollars of corporate assets from the LLCs to himself, his family members, entities under his ownership and control,

26. Additionally, Spiezio has commingled corporate assets with his own assets and those of other individuals and/or entities that he controls and/or owns in violation of both his fiduciary duty and the provisions of the operating agreements governing the LLCs.

27. Finally, as an integral part of his scheme to cover up his illegal conduct, Spiezio has, notwithstanding repeated requests, stubbornly and arrogantly failed and refused to provide to other members of the LLC’s corporate records, information and documentation to which they are absolutely entitled.

28. As a result, plaintiffs seek both legal and equitable relief against Spiezio and those who have assisted him.


a. Failure to produce records to members

     36. The operating agreement for Trolley Barn expressly states that the managing member shall provide its members with a quarterly report of Trolley Barn's operations. The operating agreement also states that each member and his respective attorneys, accountants and other advisors shall have the right at all times to examine, review, audit and make copies of Trolley Barn’s books and records.
37.       Tarsia and Cook repeatedly demanded an accounting and backup documentation, including copies of invoices from and checks to Joni Management & Realty Services, LLC ("Joni Management") representing the payments made to certain vendors on behalf of Trolley Barn.  Spiezio and defendant Kalkstein adamantly failed and refused to provide same.
38.       On repeated occasions since at least 2003, both Cook and Tarsia have requested Spiezio to provide documentation regarding the expenses associated with Trolley Barn and the Trolley Barn Project.  On virtually all occasions, Spiezio failed and refused to provide the documentation requested or provided insufficient or intentionally misleading documentation.
39.      Reports and documentation that Spiezio refused to provide include: petty cash expenditures, monthly income/expense reports for Trolley Barn, an accounting of the receipt disposition of the constructionn funds for the Trolley Barn Project, an accounting of Spiezio controlled or owned entities that received funds from Trolley Barn and alleged payments to Trolley Barn vendors.

40.      As managing member, Spiezio was responsible for payment of all invoices and obligations relating to Trolley Barn and the Trolley Barn Project.
41.      Throughout 2003, 2004 and 2005, Spiezio failed to make timely payments to contractors, suppliers, material men and vendors who had supplied products or services for the Trolley Barn Project.
42.  Spiezio's failure to make timely payments was the result of his having diverted

Trolley Barn funds to non-Trolley Barn related expenses and/or to his own personal gain.

43.       As a consequence of Spiezio not making timely payments to various vendors, certain vendors obtained judgments against Trolley Barn and mechanic's liens were recorded against 92 Main Street.
   44.       Spiezio concealed from the other members of Trolley 
Barn that he had failed to make timely payments to vendors and 
that mechanic's liens had been recorded against 92 Main Street as
part of his scheme to divert Trolley Barn funds.
45.       As a result of Spiezio's conduct in this regard, Tarsia and Cook were required to satisfy these unpaid debts and incur expenses to seek relief from the mechanic's liens and were otherwise damaged.
46.       In addition, Spiezio, acting in concert with defendants Chess Abstract, Konecni, and Stewart Title, deliberately concealed the mechanic's liens from the construction lender in order to obtain construction financing "drawdowns" for the Trolley Barn Project.


47.       Spiezio functioned as the construction manager for the Trolley Barn Project.  His duties included weekly payment of certain on-site workers.
48.       Beginning as early as 2004, Spiezio elected to pay or arrange to have the various on-site workers paid in cash.
49.       Spiezio would receive a weekly list of the on-site workers to be paid and the amount to be paid to each from defendant Fredericks.  Spiezio and/or Fredericks would routinely pay the workers approximately 20 percent less than the amount listed.   On information and belief, Spiezio diverted the difference to non-Trolley Barn related expenses and/or retained the diverted money for his personal benefit.
50.       Spiezio knew that documentation kept as part of Trolley Barn records in support of the payments to on-site workers was false and fraudulent.


51.  As stated above, Spiezio had full responsibility for overseeing and managing the Trolley Barn Project.

    52.  Spiezio     failed    to perform his oversight and     construction   management responsibilities.

53.  Spiezio's failures include:

  •    failure to obtain engineering plans for the first floor commercial space of the Trolley Barn Project;

  •    failure to cause required electrical conduits to be installed;

  •    failure   to   cause   proper   plumbing   and   heating ventilation an air conditioning conduits and systems to be installed;

  •    causing an improper sub-floor to be installed on the third  floor of thTrolley Barn Project;

  •    generally failed to properly oversee and manage the construction process;

  •    delayed  the  construction  process  and  completion  of  the  Trolley  Barn Project, incurring additional interest expense and other carrying costs, (i.e., taxes, insurance and utilities);

  •    failed to test and winterize the fire sprinkler system;

  •    failed to properly seal and caulk the windows; and

  •    failed to point bricks on the side of the building facing the railroad.

54.  As a result of Spiezio's mismanagement of the Trolley Barn Project, Tarsia and Cook have been substantially damaged.



55.       Spiezio repeatedly provided false and misleading information with respect to the cost to complete the Trolley Barn Project.  On repeated occasions, Spiezio grossly understated the construction costs, without supporting documentation.  Spiezio's understatement of the cost to complete the Trolley Barn Project were made to induce Tarsia and Cook to continue in the Trolley Barn Project and to conceal Spiezio's diversion of massive amounts of construction fund dedicated to complete the Trolley Barn Project.  The understatements also resulted in the need to obtain multiple refinancings for the Trolley Barn Project.
56.       In connection with the refinancings, the members of Trolley Barn were required t submi t lendin institution certai financia informatio and   t make   certain representations.
57.       The members of Trolley Barn understood that submitting false information might result in a default by Trolley Barn under existing or refinanced loans.
58.       Spiezio, as one of the members of the Trolley Barn, submitted documentation to lending institutions that he knew to be false and misleading.  By way of example, he failed to disclose  that  he  had  transferred  his  interest  in  Trolley  Barn  to  defendant  Spiezio  Family Holdings.
59.       Spiezio's failure to disclose the transfer of his membership interest in Trolley Barn to Spiezio Family Holdings placed Tarsia and Cook at risk in that it caused Tarsia and Cook to bear a disproportionate share of the liability under the construction loan.   Tarsia and Cook  personally  guaranteed  thloan,  but  Spiezio  Family  Holdings  entered  into  no  such guarantee.


60.       During the period of at least 2002 through 2004, Spiezio, on multiple occasions, authorized and caused contributions to be made various political campaign funds from accounts of Trolley Barn that were earmarked for the payment of expenses for the Trolley Barn Project.
61.       The  payments  to  political  campaigns  were  made  without  the  approval  or knowledge of the other members of  Trolley Barn.

62.       The payments to political campaigns were part of Spiezio's scheme to divert funds from the Trolley Barn Project for non-Trolley Barn Project related expenses and/or for his personal interest and gain.

63.       Section  9.1  of  the  Trolley  Barn  operating  agreement  expressly  states  that  a member may not transfer his interest in the Trolley Barn without written consent of all the other members.
64.      On information and belief, some time before April 13, 2003, Spiezio secretly transferred his interest in Trolley Barn to Spiezio Family Holdings.
65.       After secretly transferring his interest in Trolley Barn to Spiezio Family Holdings, Spiezio falsely represented to parties dealing with Trolley Barn that he personally continued to be a member of Trolley Barn.
66.       During the period of at least 2002 through 2003, Spiezio, on multiple occasions, authorized and caused to be made from accounts of Trolley Barn payments to Spiezio Family Holdings.
67.       The payments to Spiezio Family Holdings were made without the knowledge or approval of the other members of Trolley Barn.
68.       The transfer of funds to Spiezio Family Holdings was part of Spiezio's scheme to divert funds from Trolley Barn to non-Trolley Barn related expenses and/or for his personal interest and gain.

69.  During the period of at least 2002 through 2004, Spiezio, on multiple occasions, illegally authorized and caused payments to be made from the accounts of Trolley Barn to
himself and/or to others totaling hundred of thousands of dollars.  By way of example:

  Spiezio  authorized  payments  to  an  insurance  company  for  automobile insurance.         However,  no  automobile  insurance  was  necessary  for  Trolley Barn.

Spiezio authorized payments to John Hancock Financial Services.  However, there was no need for Trolley Barn to use John Hancock Financial Services.

Spiezio authorized checks made payable to "cash" that were subsequently cashed or deposited by Spiezio into his personal accounts.  These checks total in excess of $200,000 through December 2004.

Spiezio authorized Trolley Barn to pay several credit card accounts The amount paid for these accounts for the period of July 2002 through December
2004 was in excess of $450,000.

Defendant Louise Spiezio, the spouse of Spiezio, charged items on credit cards that were paid for from Trolley Barn accounts.  Payments for these expenses were approved and authorized by Spiezio.

70.      Notwithstanding requests by Tarsia and Cook to Spiezio to produce supporting documentation as to how the above expenses and others relate to Trolley Barn, Spiezio has failed and refused to provide Tarsia or Cook the documentation supporting the underlying expenses.
71.       The payments referred to above were part of Spiezio's scheme to divert funds from Trolley Barn to non-Trolley Barn related expenses and/or for his personal interest and gain.

72.       The operating agreement of Trolley Barn has separateness covenants and provides that the managing member shall not commingle the assets of Trolley Barn with any other entity.
73.       Trolley Barn funds were transferred to and/or received from the bank accounts of Joni Property, Mercantile Lofts, LLC, Gazette Realty Holdings, LLC, Long Beach Road Holdings, LLC and South Broadway.  None of these entities was part of Trolley Barn.
74.       The  transfers  to  and/or  receipts  from  these  entities  were  made  without  the knowledge or approval of the other members of Trolley Barn.

75.       When  these  transfers  and  receipts  were  discovered,  Tarsia  and  Cook  made repeated requests to Spiezio, Fredericks (the bookkeeper) and Kalkstein (the accountant) for documentation explaining the transfer and receipt of funds to/from these entities.  However, in furtherance of and consistent with his scheme, Spiezio, (along with Fredericks and Kalkstein, at Spiezios direction)  failed and refused to provide any explanation or documentation.
76.       The commingling of funds was part of Spiezio's scheme to divert funds from Trolley Barn to non-Trolley Barn expenses and/or for his personal and his family’s personal gain.

77.       On  information  and  belief,  Spiezio  directed  and  authorized  that  construction materials be delivered to his residence in New Rochelle, New York and other locations.  These materials were improperly charged to and paid for by Trolley Barn although they were not part of the Trolley Barn Project.
78.      On information and belief, Spiezio directed and authorized workers who were ostensibly hired to perform work on the Trolley Barn Project to instead perform work at his residence in New Rochelle.  The work performed at Spiezio's residence was improperly charged to and paid for by Trolley Barn although the work was not for the Trolley Barn Project.
79.       Neither Tarsia nor Cook was aware of this diversion of labor and materials and neither of them approved this activity.
80.       Use of labor and materials designated for and paid for by Trolley Barn was part of Spiezio's scheme to divert funds from Trolley Barn to non-Trolley Barn expenses and/or for his personal and his family’s personal gain.


81.       Kalkstein,  a  convicted  felon,  was  retained  by  Spiezio  to  prepare  financial documents and income tax returns for Trolley Barn as well as other entities in which Spiezio, Tarsia and Cook had an interest.  Kalkstein performed such work under the names Kalkstein & Co. or MBA Tax Associates.
82.  As part of that work, Kalkstein had access to the financial records of Trolley


83.  Kalkstein knew that Tarsia and Cook were members of Trolley Barn.

84.       Notwithstanding this knowledge, Kalkstein failed to disclose to Tarsia and Cook the commingling, diversion and/or conversion of funds by Spiezio.
85.       Upon learning that Kalkstein was a convicted felon and required to surrender his license as a certified public accountant, Tarsia and Cook repeatedly demanded that Spiezio replace Kalkstein with a licensed certified public accountant in good standing.   Spiezio failed and refused to do same.
86.       Tarsia and Cook also repeatedly requested Kalkstein to provide Tarsia and Cook with all Trolley Barn financial information and records.
87.       Notwithstanding that Kalkstein knew that Tarsia and Cook were members of Trolley Barn, Kalkstein refused to produce financial information and records concerning Trolley Barn to Tarsia and Cook.
88.       Kalkstein’s actions were controlled by and done at the direction of Spiezio in furtherance of Spiezio’s scheme to divert funds from Trolley Barn to non-Trolley Barn expenses and/or for his personal gain.


89.       At various times, Chess Abstract, a title agency company owned and or controlled by Spiezio, was retained to perform title rundowns searches relating to construction loan "drawdowns" on the Trolley Barn Project.  Chess Abstract was an agent of defendant Stewart Title.  Konecni was the co-owner and director of operations of Chess Abstract.
90.       On multiple occasions, Chess Abstract and Konecni, with the knowledge and at the direction of Spiezio, deliberately failed to disclose mechanic's liens recorded against 92 Main Street.
91.       On information and belief, Chess Abstract, as agent for Stewart Title, failed to make disclosure of the mechanic's liens in furtherance of Spiezio's scheme to divert funds from Trolley Barn.
92.       Furthermore, on at least one occasion, Chess Abstract and Konecni, during loan closings for Trolley Barn, caused Trolley Barn monies to be used to pay the personal expenses of Spiezio in furtherance of Spiezio's scheme to divert funds from Trolley Barn.

93.       Fredericks was hired by Spiezio as a bookkeeper/controller for Trolley Barn and other entities that Spiezio managed, controlled or had a direct or indirect ownership interest in.
94.       Fredericks acted in furtherance of Spiezio’s scheme to divert funds from Trolley Barn to non-Trolley Barn related expenses and/or for Spiezio’s personal gain.  In that regard, Fredericks’ acts include:
   preparing false payroll records for the Trolley Barn Project;

   assisting in the unauthorized payments from the accounts of Trolley Barn to
other entities which had not provided goods or services to Trolley Barn;

assisting and/or failing to report Spiezios diversion of funds from Trolley
Barn; and

   failing to provide financial records to other members of Trolley Barn and assisting in Spiezios commingling of Trolley Barn funds.


95.       In October 2004, at the insistence of Spiezio, Smith Buss was retained by Trolley Barn  to  prepare  an  offering  plan  for  the  conversion  of  the  Trolley  Barn  Project  to  a condominium.
96.       Smith Buss and Trolley Barn entered into a written fee agreement concerning the legal services to be provided by Smith Buss.
97.  As part of the fee agreement, Trolley Barn was required to and did pay Smith

Buss an initial payment of  $10,000.

98.       None of the work required under the fee agreement for the conversion plan was performed by Smith Buss or was ever provided to Tarsia or Cook, notwithstanding their repeated requests for same.
99.       Although no conversion plan had been submitted, Smith Buss requested that Tarsia and Cook execute a certification that they had reviewed the conversion plan, when in fact no conversion plan had ever been prepared or provided. What is more, Smith Buss knew that making such a request was improper under the circumstances.
100.     Shortly thereafter, by letter dated October 5, 2005, Smith Buss advised Tarsia and Cook that it would no longer provide the legal services set forth in the fee agreement.  Smith Buss apparently decided that its relationship with Spiezio presented a conflict of interest.
101. As a result of the foregoing, Tarsia and Cook requested Smith Buss to refund the

$10,000 fee.  To date, none of the money has been returned.

102.     Furthermore, the failure of Smith Buss to complete the offering plan has caused Trolley  Barn  to  unnecessarily  incur  substantial  carrying  costs,  including  interest,  taxes, insurance, utilities, etc.
103.     As a result of the conduct of Smith Buss, the condominium conversion plan has not been accomplished and Tarsia and Cook have been substantially damaged.

104.     The members of Joni Property are Tarsia and Spiezio who each have a 50  percent interest.
105.    The sole asset of Joni Property is the Centuck Shopping Center ("Centuck"), a property located at 1557-1591 Central Park Avenue, Yonkers, New York.  Centuck consists of approximately 47,000 square feet of rentable commercial retail space with approximately 25 tenants.
106.     Spiezio is the managing member of Joni Property.   As the managing member, Spiezio is responsible for ensuring that the monthly rent payments are collected from the tenants of Centuck.
107.     On information and belief, beginning at least as early as 2005, Spiezio (or an entity owned or controlled by Spiezio) received monthly rent payments from commercial tenants in the form of cash.  Also on information and belief, all of the cash payments received have not been deposited with Centuck.
108.    Tarsia, on repeated occasions, requested that Spiezio (or an entity owned or controlled by Spiezio) provide documentation regarding rents collected from tenants and cash deposited on behalf of Centuck.  Spiezio has failed and refused to provide that information.  In addition,  Tarsia’s  personal  accountant,  Paul  Star,  has  requested  that  Spiezio  and  Kalkstein
provide copies of complete income returns and all schedules.  Spiezio and Kalkstein failed and refused to provide same.
109.     Tarsia,  as  an  equal  member  of  Joni  Property,  is  entitled  to  review  all documentation regarding the operations of Centuck, including records of rents received. Tarsia has requested all such information but Spiezio has refused to provide same.
110.     As a result of Spiezio's failure and refusal to provide the requested documentation to Tarsia, Tarsia is unable to independently determine if the finances of Centuck are in proper order.
111.     Spiezio's failure and refusal to account for the cash rental payments and his failure and refusal to provide documentation and information regarding operations of Centuck is part of his scheme to divert funds from Joni Property for his personal gain