Morgenthau v Western Express Intl., Inc.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Morgenthau v Western Express Intl., Inc. 2014 NY Slip Op 31915(U) July 23, 2014 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 406648/07 Judge: Martin Shulman Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various state and local government websites. These include the New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service, and the Bronx County Clerk's office. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [* 1] ---· ·Justice - -·-----~-~···-----··----------··-··-'---··-·-··-···----------~ Index Number : 406648/2007 MORGENTHAU, ROBERT M. vs WESTERN EXPRESS Sequence Number : 005 DEFAULT JUDGMENT ' [* 2] ;., " I S~PREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK - NEW YORK COUNTY, P~ESENT: Hon. MARTIN SHULMAN , Justice PART_1_ I I R bert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney of N w York County, I I Plaintiff-Claiming Authority, I I INDEX NO.: 406648/07 Decision/Order . v. W~stern Express lntemationat, Inc., dlb/a Paycard 2000, d/~/a Dengiforum, d/b/a Autoexchanger, d/b/a W~bexchanger, d/b/a Obmen Dengiforum, d/b/a R america, et al, FILED JUL 2 4 2014 Defendants. COUNTY CLERt<tS OFFICE In this CPLR Article 13-A forfeiture action, plaintiff-claiming aJt~ifyO~aintiff" or i "D~") moves for a default judgment against defendants Western Express International, I 'ln1. ("Western Express") and Vadim Va$1!ilenko (collectively "defendants'). Plaintiff al~o requests an order of attachment. 1 Defendant Vassilenko, who is presently I . in4arcerated, opposes the motion pro se. 2 I Defendants pleaded guilty to muJtiple counts of First Degree Scheme to Defraud anr First and Second Degree Money laundering, all felonies. They further pleaded gu,lty to one count of Fifth Degree Conspiracy, a misdemeanor. The complaint alleges I in~r alia that defendants and the co-defendants herein "engaged in an illegal identity th~ft conspiracy on the internet" and "laundered the ltlega1 proceeds obtained by I I i 1 The DA also requests an order of attachment in motion sequence 1 which is the su~ject of a separate decision/order issued simultaneously herewith. 2 Vassilenko purports to submit opposition on behalf of bOth himself and Western E><J>ress. However, corporations such as Western Express m.ust be represented by coj.msel. See CPLR §321(a). Accordingly, this court must treat the opposition papers asjhaving been interposed solely on Vassilenko's behalf. ,. I [* 3] individuals who trafficked in stolen credit card numbers". Complaint, Motion at Exh. A, 11114-5. The DA seeks judgment against defendants in the amount of $48,732,000, representing the proceeds of the foregoing crimes. Plaintiff bases the calculation of damages upon Investigator Michael Wigdor's ("Wigdor") affidavit dated October 4, 2007 submitted in support of the DA's order to show cause (motion sequence 001) seeking an order of attachment and preliminary injunction. Specifically, Wigdor states that 97,464 stolen credit card numbers were found in accounts belonging to four (4) of the co-defendants herein and four (4) criminal defendants not named in this forfeiture action. Under Penal Law §155.20(2)(a), the value of a stolen credit card is "the greatest amount of economic loss which the owner of [an] instrument might reasonably suffer by virtue of the loss of the instrument." Wigdor avers that in conversations with representatives of the five (5) largest credit card companies from which the credit card numbers were stolen, he was informed that the minimum amount of credit extended is $500. Plaintiff arrives at the figure of $48,732,000 by multiplying 97,464 by $500. In order to successfully oppose a motion for a default judgment, Vassilenko must demonstrate a justifiable excuse for his default and a meritorious defense. Johnson v Deas, 32 AD3d 253 (1st Dept 2006). Vassilenko's opposition does not include any explanation for his failure to timely interpose an answer. With respect to a meritorious defense, his 32 page opposing affidavit3 inter a/ia challenges the underlying criminal 3 The affidavit of service of Vassilenko's opposition indicates that in addition to serving plaintiff, he also served it upon various court, government and political officials and/or entities, including but not limited to Chief Justice Jonathan Lippman, the Departmental Disciplinary Committee, New York State Attorney General Eric T. -2- [* 4] arrest warrant as having been obtained under false pretenses, attacks the validity of his convictions for first and second degree money laundering 4 and contends the DA deprived the grand jury of vital information. These arguments are unavailing in light of Vassilenko's guilty pleas, which he is collaterally estopped from disputing. See Grayes v Distasio, 166 AD2d 261, 262-263 (1st Dept 1990) (a criminal conviction, whether by plea or after trial, is conclusive proof of its underlying facts; thus, a defendant who pleads guilty to a criminal charge is collaterally estopped from relitigating, in a subsequent civil action, the facts upon which the conviction is based). See also S. T. Grand, Inc. v City of New York, 32 NY2d 300 (1973). In light of Vassilenko's failure to establish a reasonable excuse for his default and a meritorious defense, plaintiff is entitled to judgment on default as to liability. However, while Vassilenko's guilty plea precludes him from challenging plaintiff's entitlement to judgment on liability, he also challenges the amount of damages claimed. Specifically, Vassilenko notes that Wigdor submits no supporting proof to substantiate that $500 is the minimum amount of credit extended for credit cards issued by the five (5) largest credit card companies. Schneiderman, Mayor Bill DeBlasio, Governor Andrew M. Cuomo, Secretary of State John Kerry, the Securities and Exchange Commission and Russian President Vladimir Putin. Also included were media entities such as Yahoo!, Google, CBS Broadcasting Corp. (60 Minutes) and The New York Times. 4 Vassilenko contends that the proceeds of the underlying crimes were unrelated to the criminal sale of controlled substances. However, in addition to proceeds derived from criminal sales of controlled substances, first and second degree money laundering can also be based upon transactions involving proceeds derived from other felony crimes. See generally, Penal Law§§ 470.20 and 470.15. -3- [* 5] This court agrees that the DA does not conclusively establish the amount of damages to be awarded. Wigdor's calculations are based upon hearsay, to wit, his conversations with representatives from various credit card companies. Accordingly, the portion of plaintiff's motion seeking judgment in the amount of $48,732,000 is denied without prejudice. The DA is granted leave to renew its application on notice to Vassilenko, which shall include further supporting proof. For the above reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for a default judgment is granted to the extent that plaintiff is entitled to a default judgment against Vassilenko and Western Express International, Inc. solely as to liability. The foregoing constitutes this court's Decision and Order. Courtesy copies of this Decision and Order have been provided to plaintiff's counsel and defendant Vassilenko. Dated: July 23, 2014 FILED JUL 2 4 2014 COUNTY Cl..ERK1S OFFICE NEW YORK -4-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
