Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/112145783/Shurat-HaDin-Targets-Warwick-Hotel-hosting-Ahmadinejad
Timestamp: 2017-08-19 16:52:49
Document Index: 131662467

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 5222', '§ 201', '§ 1610', '§ 202', '§ 1610', '§ 5222', '§ 201', '§ 1610', 'art 1']

Shurat HaDin Targets Warwick Hotel hosting Ahmadinejad | Judgment (Law) | Iran
Description: Stuart Hersh, a terror victim represented by Shurat HaDin, won a $12 million lawsuit against Iran a number of years ago in a US federal court, which ruled Tehran was responsible for his critical in...
Stuart Hersh, a terror victim represented by Shurat HaDin, won a $12 million lawsuit against Iran a number of years ago in a US federal court, which ruled Tehran was responsible for his critical injuries. This lawsuit demands the NY Warwick Hotel hand over any money received by Iran, or Ahmadinejad's rooms, to the terror victim. For more info: http://www.israellawcenter.org/page.asp?id=&show=photo&pn=1279&ref=report
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------------------X STUART E.
HERSH, Plaintiff / JudgmentCreditor, -againstISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN, Defendant / JudgmentDebtor -andWARWICK NEW YORK HOTEL Garnishee. --------------------------------------------------------------------X Docket No: 12-mc-153
RESTRAINING NOTICE PURSUANT TO CPLR § 5222(b) AND FRCP 69(a)
WARWICK NEW YORK HOTEL 65 West 54th Street New York, New York 10019 WHEREAS Petitioner Hersh was severely injured in a September 4, 1997
bombing at the Ben Yehuda pedestrian mall in Jerusalem, Israel, in a bombing carried out by Hamas with the support and training of the Islamic Republic of Iran; and WHEREAS the bomb mentioned in the prior paragraph was packed with nails, screws, pieces of glass, and chemical poisons in order to maximize pain, suffering, and death; and
-Page 1 of 6-
WHEREAS following the bombing, Petitioner Hersh suffered numerous severe shrapnel wounds, has attempted to commit suicide, has post traumatic stress disorder, suffers from nightmares and other psychological and/or social problems, lost 60 percent of his hearing, has a speech impediment, has difficulty walking, and has tinnitus, back pain, chronic ear infections, and burn scars; and WHEREAS Petitioner Hersh received from the federal district court for the District of Columbia a judgment in the amount of $12 million in damages, plus interest, against several defendants, including the Islamic Republic of Iran (“Iran”), jointly and severally, on September 10, 2003 (hereinafter “Judgment”); and WHEREAS the other defendants against whom the Judgment was entered, jointly and severally, are the Iranian Ministry of Information and Security, Ayatollah Ali Hoseini Khamenei, Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani, and Ali Fallahian-Khuzestani; and WHEREAS the Judgment remains unsatisfied and Iran still owes Petitioner Hersh $12 million, plus interest; and WHEREAS § 201 of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002 (“TRIA”) provides that when a person has obtained a judgment against a terrorist party on a claim based upon an act of terrorism, the blocked assets of the terrorist party judgment debtor, and the blocked assets of any agency or instrumentality of the terrorist party judgment debtor, shall be subject to execution or attachment in aid of execution in order to satisfy such judgment to the extent of any compensatory damages for which such terrorist party judgment debtor has been adjudged liable; and WHEREAS 28 U.S.C. § 1610(g) provides that when a person has obtained a qualified judgment against a state sponsor of terrorism, the assets of the state sponsor of
-Page 2 of 6-
terrorism and the assets of any agency or instrumentality of the state sponsor of terrorism, shall be subject to execution or attachment in aid of execution in order to satisfy such judgment to the extent of any compensatory damages for which such terrorist party judgment debtor has been adjudged liable; and WHEREAS the Judgment was given on a claim based upon an “act of terrorism” as defined by TRIA and judgment debtor Iran is a “terrorist party” as defined by TRIA; and WHEREAS the Judgment was against Iran, a state sponsor of terrorism; and WHEREAS the WARWICK NEW YORK HOTEL has done, is doing, or is planning to do business with Iran by accepting money from Iran and/or its president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, in exchange for a hotel room and related services; and WHEREAS the business that the Iranian president has done and/or seeks to do with the WARWICK NEW YORK HOTEL is not official United Nations business or in the direct aid of official United Nations business and thus not protected by agreements between the United States and the United Nations; and WHEREAS the WARWICK NEW YORK HOTEL is prohibited from doing such business with Iran; and WHEREAS the proceeds of the illicit transaction that the Warwick has completed and/or seeks to complete with Iran, by and through its president and his assistants, and the hotel room itself, are blocked pursuant to Executive Orders 12947 and 13224 and §§ 202 and 203 of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701; 1702) and are thus “blocked assets” as defined by TRIA; and
-Page 3 of 6-
WHEREAS, pursuant to TRIA, all blocked assets of Iran in the United States are therefore subject to execution and attachment in aid of execution in satisfaction of the Judgment; and WHEREAS, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1610(g), all assets of Iran in the United States are therefore subject to execution and attachment in aid of execution in satisfaction of the Judgment; and WHEREAS, it appears that WARWICK NEW YORK HOTEL is either currently in the possession of blocked assets of Iran or will soon be in possession of blocked assets of Iran and/or assets in which Iran holds an interest; and WHEREAS, WARWICK NEW YORK HOTEL currently holds, in the name of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and/or his assistants, an intangible asset, being a reservation of a room or rooms at the WARWICK NEW YORK HOTEL and a license to occupy same: TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to § 5222(b) of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules, which is set forth in full below in Schedule A (and is applicable pursuant to Rule 69(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure), and to § 201 of Title II of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002, and to 28 U.S.C. § 1610(g), the WARWICK NEW YORK HOTEL is hereby forbidden to make or suffer any sale, assignment or transfer of, or any interference with any such property or pay over or otherwise dispose of any such asset of Iran or any such property in which Iran has an interest (whether tangible or intangible), except as therein provided. TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that this notice also covers all property in which Iran has an interest (whether tangible or intangible), hereafter coming into your possession or custody, and all debts hereafter coming due to you from Iran.
-Page 4 of 6-
SPECIFICALLY, this notice covers any funds received by Iran, its agents, servants, or employees, including Mahmoud Ahmadinijad, as well as the right to any room(s) reserved by them. TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that disobedience of this Restraining Notice is punishable as a contempt of court, and could subject the WARWICK NEW YORK HOTEL to liability for any assets wrongfully released. Dated: Brooklyn, New York September 13, 2012 Yours, THE BERKMAN LAW OFFICE, LLC Attorneys for the Plaintiff / JudgmentCreditor
by: Robert J. Tolchin Meir Katz 111 Livingston Street, Suite 1928 Brooklyn, New York 11201 718-855-3627 NITSANA DARSHAN LEITNER, ADV. Israeli Counsel for Plaintiff / JudgmentCreditor 10 Hata’as Street Ramat Gan, Israel 011-972-3-751-4175
-Page 5 of 6-
SCHEDULE A Section 5222(b) of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules (b) Effect of restraint; prohibition of transfer; duration. A judgment debtor or obligor served with a restraining notice is forbidden to make or suffer any sale, assignment, transfer or interference with any property in which he or she has an interest, except as set forth in subdivisions (h) and (i) of this section, and except upon direction of the sheriff or pursuant to an order of the court, until the judgment or order is satisfied or vacated. A restraining notice served upon a person other than the judgment debtor or obligor is effective only if, at the time of service, he or she owes a debt to the judgment debtor or obligor or he or she is in the possession or custody of property in which he or she knows or has reason to believe the judgment debtor or obligor has an interest, or if the judgment creditor or support collection unit has stated in the notice that a specified debt is owed by the person served to the judgment debtor or obligor or that the judgment debtor or obligor has an interest in specified property in the possession or custody of the person served. All property in which the judgment debtor or obligor is known or believed to have an interest then in and thereafter coming into the possession or custody of such a person, including any specified in the notice, and all debts of such a person, including any specified in the notice, then due and thereafter coming due to the judgment debtor or obligor, shall be subject to the notice except as set forth in subdivisions (h) and (i) of this section. Such a person is forbidden to make or suffer any sale, assignment or transfer of, or any interference with, any such property, or pay over or otherwise dispose of any such debt, to any person other than the sheriff or the support collection unit, except as set forth in subdivisions (h) and (i) of this section, and except upon direction of the sheriff or pursuant to an order of the court, until the expiration of one year after the notice is served upon him or her, or until the judgment or order is satisfied or vacated, whichever event first occurs. A judgment creditor or support collection unit which has specified personal property or debt in a restraining notice shall be liable to the owner of the property or the person to whom the debt is owed, if other than the judgment debtor or obligor, for any damages sustained by reason of the restraint. If a garnishee served with a restraining notice withholds the payment of money belonging or owed to the judgment debtor or obligor in an amount equal to twice the amount due on the judgment or order, the restraining notice is not effective as to other property or money.
-Page 6 of 6-
Documents Similar To Shurat HaDin Targets Warwick Hotel hosting Ahmadinejad
PHILIPPINE ALUMINUM WHEELS, INC vs. FASGI ENT. INC (CASE DIGEST).doc
RemLawRev Notes
(GR) Floreza v Evangelista (1980)
Chapter 1 Part 1 Case Digest
Final Conversation Reflection
Wansing v. Hargett, 10th Cir. (2004)