Professional Documents
Culture Documents
v. Civil Action
Defendant.
President of both Bishop Ford Central Catholic High School and Bishop
Ford Development Fund, John B. Casey, Individually and as Chief Financial Officer of
Defendant Bishop Ford Central Catholic High School, Bishop Ford Central Catholic
High School, Bishop Ford Development Fund and John Does 1-5, says:
since 2003 and specializes in baseball collectibles, as well as other sport, non-sport, and
offers the items through auction, and collects commissions upon sale for the services
rendered.
referenced herein as President of Bishop Ford Central Catholic High School. Defendant
Raymond Nash is also believed to have been President of Bishop Ford Development Fund.
herein acted as Chief Financial Officer of Defendant Bishop Ford Central Catholic High
6. Defendant Bishop Ford Central Catholic High School is upon information and
Catholic high school on a tax-exempt basis at 500 Nineteenth Street, Brooklyn, New York.
subsidiary account operating on a tax-exempt basis for the benefit of Bishop Ford Central
Catholic High School and located at 500 Nineteenth Street, Brooklyn, New York.
8. Defendants John Does 1-5 are fictitious names for individuals, legal entities,
Defendant Bishop Ford Central Catholic High School whose present identities are unknown.
9. Peter Nash and Cooperstown have used REA’s auction service on a number of
occasions since 2005 to sell collectible items which Peter Nash and Cooperstown claimed to
10. On several occasions since 2005, Peter Nash and Cooperstown have requested
cash advances and/or loans against items given to and held on consignment by REA until the
items were to be sold in REA’s major annual auction. All cash advances and/or loans given
by REA were acknowledged by Peter Nash and Cooperstown in writing and repayment plus
interest was guaranteed by Peter Nash and Cooperstown whether or not the consigned items
were sold. Under such agreements, REA advanced monies to Peter Nash and Cooperstown
totaling over $1,000,000 against future auction consignment proceeds and/or loans with
11. On or about November 29, 2005, REA entered into a Consignment Agreement
with Peter Nash and Cooperstown whereby REA accepted inter alia a baseball which Peter
Nash and Cooperstown alleged was the First Pitched Ball at the Grand Opening of Fenway
Park in 1912 (Athe 1912 Ball@). The 1912 Ball was to be held by REA, along with other
items submitted by Peter Nash and Cooperstown to be placed by REA in the Spring 2007
auction, against approximately $800,000.00 in cash advanced by REA to Peter Nash and
12. There were also additional baseball memorabilia items which Peter Nash and
Cooperstown promised to consign to REA as further collateral, but which were ultimately
13. Unbeknownst to Plaintiff, Peter Nash’s home in Cooperstown, New York was
14. Unbeknownst to Plaintiff, Peter Nash told Defendant Raymond Nash, who was
then and is now President of Defendant Bishop Ford Central Catholic High School and the
Defendant Bishop Ford Development Fund, of his foreclosure problem and one or both of
them decided to take and use charitable funds from Defendant Bishop Ford Development
Peter Nash secretly initiated a withdrawal of charitable funds in the sum of $52,551.60 from
the Defendant Bishop Ford Development Fund and Defendant Bishop Ford Central Catholic
High School to make payment to Fein, Such, Kahn & Shepard, P.C. on behalf of Peter Nash
and his wife, Roxanne Nash, which successfully prevented foreclosure of property in
Nash and/or Peter Nash from Defendant Bishop Ford Development Fund and Defendant
Bishop Ford Central Catholic High School could not have been carried out but for Defendant
Raymond Nash’s position as President of Defendant Bishop Ford Development Fund and/or
17. Defendant Bishop Ford Development Fund and Defendant Bishop Ford
Central Catholic High School had no written policy or banking restrictions in place to limit or
prevent Defendant Raymond Nash from taking the $52,551.60 in charitable funds to use for
18. Neither REA nor Lifson were told by any one of the actions of Peter Nash and
Defendant Raymond Nash in taking and using $52,551.60 in charitable funds from Defendant
Bishop Ford Development Fund and Defendant Bishop Ford Central Catholic High School to
use for personal purposes and/or for the personal benefit of Peter Nash.
19. After receipt of the collectibles provided by Peter Nash and Cooperstown,
REA had some of the items inspected as to authenticity by several highly respected experts in
the field. After spending in excess of $10,000.00 in fees, REA was advised that, despite Peter
Nash’s and Cooperstown’s representations to the contrary, the experts were Aunable to
authenticate@ many items and/or declared some of them to be forgeries. Those items that
experts were Aunable to authenticate@ and/or were declared to be forgeries could not be sold
in the annual online auction and were therefore without value to REA. As a result, the total
legitimate inventory of collectibles given by Peter Nash and Cooperstown were deemed
insufficient collateral for the total monies then owed by Peter Nash and Cooperstown to REA.
20. While REA made repeated requests to Peter Nash and Cooperstown for
assistance in obtaining appropriate authentication for the items which the experts were
21. During but before the close of the April 2007 auction, REA learned for the
first time that several of the legitimate items provided by Peter Nash and Cooperstown were
not owned by Peter Nash and Cooperstown at all. Rather, the items had been loaned by a
third party for Peter Nash’s and Cooperstown’s benefit in opening a museum and producing a
film documentary. Despite providing REA a written warranty of ownership of these very
same items, Peter Nash and Cooperstown in fact possessed no ownership in the property and
had fraudulently listed same for sale in REA’s April 2007 auction in exchange for additional
cash advances. Upon notice of the ownership dispute, REA immediately withdrew these items
from the online auction despite having already listed them in the printed Spring 2007 catalog.
22. By the time of the April 2007 auction, Peter Nash and Cooperstown owed
23. The remaining authentic items owned and provided by Peter Nash and
Cooperstown deemed worthy of auction were listed in REA’s Spring 2007 catalog for sale in
the April 2007 auction. These items resulted in total auction consignment proceeds of
$329,820.00, including proceeds from the 1912 Ball which was sold for $85,000.00 B the
24. Having offset the $329,820.00 against the cash advances and/or loans given by
REA, Peter Nash and Cooperstown still owed nearly $600,000.00 to REA which continued to
accrue interest.
25. In order to recover the substantial amount of debt owed, REA and Lifson were
compelled on June 4, 2007 to pursue Peter Nash and Cooperstown by way of counterclaim in
litigation, Nash v. Robert Edward Auctions, LLC, Somerset County, Law Division (Docket
No. L-1039-07). The litigation was started under a pretext by Peter Nash and Cooperstown
that they had a right to retake the 1912 Ball from REA. (On December 2, 2008 an
dismissing all claims brought against REA and Lifson by Peter Nash and Cooperstown.)
26. On or about December 12, 2007, Peter Nash appeared for his deposition.
that he claimed prevented him from answering certain questions as to the origin of the
collateral given to REA. Peter Nash contended that he had the documents associated with the
confidentiality agreements in a storage facility in New York state; he was to produce the
documents prior to his next scheduled deposition. Aside from one agreement, Peter Nash did
not produce the confidentiality agreements that he referenced at the earlier deposition. Peter
Nash promised to again obtain them for review prior to his next deposition. He did not
27. On or about February 27, 2008, Peter Nash appeared for another deposition.
During the deposition Peter Nash asserted the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-
pledged as security to REA. The second Peter Nash deposition could not be completed
because inter alia he had again failed to produce requested documents. Another date for his
28. Peter Nash never scheduled nor appeared for the conclusion of his liability
deposition.
Defendant Bishop Ford Central Catholic High School, Defendant John B. Casey and
Defendants John Doe 1-5 had discovered that Defendant Raymond Nash had taken the sum of
$52,551.60 in charitable funds from the Defendant Bishop Ford Development Fund and/or
Defendant Bishop Ford Central Catholic High School to make a payment to Fein, Such, Kahn
& Shepard, P.C. on behalf of Peter Nash and his wife, Roxanne Nash.
30. Defendant Bishop Ford Development Fund, Defendant Bishop Ford Central
Catholic High School, Defendant John B. Casey and Defendants John Doe 1-5 did not inform
the Diocese of Brooklyn, or the United States Attorney’s Office in New York or New Jersey,
or the Attorney General’s Office in New York or New Jersey, or the Brooklyn District
Attorney’s Office or the Somerset County Prosecutor’s Office, the Internal Revenue Service,
or The New York Division of Taxation, or the Federal Bureau of Investigation, or the New
York State Police or the New Jersey State Police, or the local police or any insurance
31. Adopting a A don’t ask, don’t tell policy Defendant Bishop Ford
Development Fund, Defendant Bishop Ford Central Catholic High School, Defendant John B.
Casey and Defendants John Doe 1-5, each of whom had knowledge of the wrongful taking of
$52,551.60 in charitable funds through illicit means decided to have Defendant Raymond
Nash and/or others replace an equal amount of money in the account from which it had been
taken without asking about the source or legitimacy of such monies and how or from whom
32. Upon information and belief, Defendant Bishop Ford Development Fund,
Defendant Bishop Ford Central Catholic High School, Defendant John B. Casey and
Defendants John Doe 1-5, advised that if the $52,551.60 in charitable funds was replaced the
jobs or other perquisites of office of Defendant Raymond Nash as either President of Bishop
Ford Central Catholic High School and/or Bishop Ford Development Fund and Defendant
John B. Casey as Chief Financial Officer of Bishop Ford Central Catholic High School would
not be affected.
33. Upon information and belief, Defendant Bishop Ford Development Fund,
Defendant Bishop Ford Central Catholic High School, Defendant John B. Casey and
Defendants John Doe 1-5 advised Defendant Raymond Nash that if the $52,551.60 in
charitable funds was replaced he and Peter Nash would not be referred to the Diocese of
Brooklyn or law enforcement authorities for prosecution for taking the $52,551.60 in
charitable funds from the Defendant Bishop Ford Development Fund and Defendant Bishop
34. Upon information and belief, Defendant Bishop Ford Development Fund,
Defendant Bishop Ford Central Catholic High School, Defendant John B. Casey and
Defendants John Doe 1-5 advised that if the money was replaced there would be no further
questions asked about the taking or replacement of the $52,551.60 in charitable funds by
Defendant Raymond Nash from the Defendant Bishop Ford Development Fund and/or
Fund, Bishop Ford Central Catholic High School, John B. Casey and John Does 1-5,
Defendant Raymond Nash contacted Peter Nash, the third element of the unholy trinity, to
tell him that the taking of the $52,551.60 in charitable funds from the Defendant Bishop Ford
Development Fund and/or Defendant Bishop Ford Central Catholic High School for a
payment to Fein, Such, Kahn & Shepard, P.C. on behalf of Peter Nash and his wife, Roxanne
Nash, had been discovered by Defendant Bishop Ford Development Fund, Defendant Bishop
Ford Central Catholic High School, Defendant John B. Casey and Defendant s John Doe 1-5.
36. Upon information and belief, Defendant Raymond Nash advised Peter Nash
that he, Raymond Nash, and Peter Nash could avoid referral to the Diocese of Brooklyn or
law enforcement authorities for prosecution for taking the $52,551.60 in charitable funds
(including the potential loss of the former’s job or other perquisites of office as either
President of Bishop Ford Central Catholic High School or Bishop Ford Development Fund
and that of Defendant John B. Casey as Chief Financial Officer of Defendant Bishop Ford
Central Catholic High School) if the $52,551.60 in charitable funds was returned.
Nash and Peter Nash sought and received a private loan of $53,000.00 from Alfred A.
Angelo, an individual residing in the State of New Jersey, to cover and replace the
$52,551.60 in charitable funds taken by them from Defendant Bishop Ford Development
38. Upon information and belief, Peter Nash advised Alfred A. Angelo that
Defendant Raymond Nash had taken the $52,551.60 in charitable funds from Defendant
Bishop Ford Development Fund and/or Defendant Bishop Ford Central Catholic High
School, that the taking had been discovered by Defendant John B. Casey and Defendant
Bishop Ford Development Fund and/or Defendant Bishop Ford Central Catholic High
School, and that Defendant Raymond Nash would lose his job and/or go to jail unless the
individual notarized Promissory Notes signed by Defendant Raymond Nash (or someone
purporting to be Defendant Raymond Nash) and Peter Nash in the amount of $55,000.00
(inclusive of $2,000 in prepaid interest) which were to be repaid on May 20, 2008, a Security
and Pledge Agreement dated March 20, 2008 in identified collateral (delivered, to be
delivered and/or held in escrow by Alfred A. Angelo’s attorney) which Peter Nash estimated
as having a value of between $100,000.00 and $167,000.00 (including one or more items
which had been pledged or promised to REA as security for the earlier loans given to Peter
Nash) and the promise of a letter of protection from Defendant John B. Casey, Chief
Financial Officer of Defendant Bishop Ford Central Catholic High School indicating as to the
$52,551.60 in charitable funds that Athe matter of the loan to Peter Nash is a closed issue
with Bishop Ford Central Catholic High School.@ 40. The loan from Alfred A. Angelo
was to be paid by May 20, 2008. No part of the principal or interest has ever been paid to
41. In or about March 20, 2008, Peter Nash delivered $53,000.00 to Defendant
Bishop Ford Development Fund and Defendant Bishop Ford Central Catholic High School.
42. Consistent with the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy created to protect Defendant
Raymond Nash, Defendant John B. Casey, Peter Nash, Defendant Bishop Ford Development
Fund, Defendant Bishop Ford Central Catholic High School, Defendant John B. Casey and
Defendants John Doe 1-5 accepted the payment without reporting the unauthorized taking of
money to the Diocese of Brooklyn, or the United States Attorney’s Office in New York or
New Jersey, or the Attorney General’s Office in New York or New Jersey, or the Brooklyn
District Attorney’s Office or the Somerset County Prosecutor’s Office, the Internal Revenue
Service, or The New York Division of Taxation, or the Federal Bureau of Investigation, or
the New York State Police or the New Jersey State Police, or the local police or any
insurance companies.
43. In further carrying out the secret “Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell” policy concerning
the $52,551.60 in charitable funds, Defendant Raymond Nash, Defendant Bishop Ford
Development Fund, Defendant Bishop Ford Central Catholic High School, Defendant John B.
Casey and Defendants John Doe 1-5 caused the issuance of a letter of protection from
Defendant John B. Casey, Chief Financial Officer of Defendant Bishop Ford Central Catholic
High School indicating that Athe matter of the loan to Peter Nash is a closed issue with
44. The letter from Defendant John B. Casey could not have been issued but for
his
position as Chief Financial Officer of Defendant Bishop Ford Central Catholic High School.
45. On June 15, 2009, Peter Nash appeared for his deposition as part of
supplemental proceedings for REA to recover on the judgment against Peter Nash and
Cooperstown. During the course of that deposition Peter Nash sought to and did further
promote the secret “don’tt ask, don’t tell” policy concerning the improper taking of
$52,551.60 in charitable funds, and the artifice, plan and scheme to obtain $53,000 using
property against which REA had a superior and untainted equitable and legal claim, by
providing false, incomplete and misleading answers to questions and refusing to produce
FIRST COUNT
(Unjust Enrichment)
46. Plaintiff repeats the allegations of the preceding paragraphs as if set forth at
length herein.
47. Defendant Raymond Nash, Defendant Bishop Ford Development Fund and
Defendant Bishop Ford Central Catholic High School have been unjustly enriched by having
received the proceeds from collateral of Peter Nash which was used to secure a $53,000.00
loan from Alfred A. Angelo to cover up a theft or other wrongful conduct by Defendant
Raymond Nash involving Defendant Bishop Ford Development Fund and Defendant Bishop
48. The collateral which was transferred and/or delivered to Alfred A. Angelo and
its cash equivalent value of between $100,000 and $167,000 is no longer available from Peter
Nash and Cooperstown as a source from which REA can recover its judgment against Peter
49. Had the Defendant Bishop Ford Development Fund, Defendant Bishop Ford
Central Catholic High School and Defendant John B. Casey followed proper legal channels,
recovery of any loss would have been secured from Defendant Raymond Nash and/or others
with due regard for the legal and equitable rights of REA and others against Peter Nash and
50. The Defendant Raymond Nash, Defendant Bishop Ford Development Fund
and Defendant Bishop Ford Central Catholic High School have received and will
51. If the Defendant Bishop Ford Development Fund and/or Defendant Bishop
Ford Central Catholic High School are permitted to retain the benefit of the
monies received they will have been unjustly enriched by reason of their unclean hands or
those of their agents, servants, representatives or employees, Defendant Raymond Nash and
SECOND COUNT
(Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage)
53. Plaintiff repeats the allegations of the preceding paragraphs as if set forth at
length herein.
54. The acts and omissions of Defendant Raymond Nash, Defendant Bishop Ford
Development Fund, Defendant Bishop Ford Central Catholic High School, Defendant John B.
Casey and Defendants John Doe 1-5 have interfered with REA’s collection on the judgment
and other claims against Peter Nash and Cooperstown which constitute interference with
THIRD COUNT
(Civil Conspiracy)
55. Plaintiff repeats the allegations of the preceding paragraphs as if set forth at
length herein.
Defendant Bishop Ford Central Catholic High School, Defendant John B. Casey and
Defendants John Doe 1-5 joined together with Peter Nash and wrongfully conspired to (1)
Nash, (2) have Defendant John B. Casey not report the taking to the proper authorities, (3)
secretly arrange for the repayment of $53,000 in charitable funds by Peter Nash to Defendant
Bishop Ford Development Fund and Defendant Bishop Ford Central Catholic High School
through the transfer to Alfred A. Angelo of personal property of Peter Nash estimated to be
worth between $100,000 and $169,000 which was subject to the equitable and legal claims of
REA, (4) arrange to use or transfer substantially all of Peter Nash’s assets so as to make
collection of a judgment from Peter Nash by REA more difficult or impossible, (5) issue one
or more false letters to Alfred A. Angelo by Defendant John B. Casey as to the wrongful
taking by Defendant Raymond Nash suggesting that the transaction had been a loan to Peter
Nash and stating it was a closed issue and (6) made material misrepresentations and/or
concealed facts concerning the taking of $52,551.60 in charitable funds which Defendant
John B. Casey and Defendant Raymond Nash had an affirmative duty to disclose to the
57. The foregoing schemes, artifices, acts and omissions and others unknown as a
result of the secret nature of the conspiracy among the named defendants and Peter Nash were
designed to conceal the wrongful taking of the $52,551.60 in charitable funds and obtain
repayment without regard for the rights of or potential injury to others including REA.
Raymond Nash, Defendant Bishop Ford Development Fund, Defendant Bishop Ford Central
Catholic High School, Defendant John B. Casey and Defendants John Doe 1-5 as set forth
FOURTH COUNT
(Fraudulent Conveyance)
59. Plaintiff repeats the allegations of the preceding paragraphs as if set forth at
length herein.
60. Since in or about 2005, Peter Nash has been indebted to REA and others in an
amount exceeding his ability to satisfy all creditor claims and payments when due.
61. In or about March 2007 Peter Nash notified Defendant Raymond Nash that his
Bishop Ford Central Catholic High School and/or President of Defendant Bishop Ford
Development Fund to transfer $52,551.60 in charitable funds to prevent the foreclosure sale.
63. In or about March 2008 Defendant John B. Casey exercised his authority as
Chief Financial Officer of Defendant Bishop Ford Central Catholic High School to not report
the transfer by Defendant Raymond Nash contrary to governing laws and by-laws applicable
to Defendant Bishop Ford Central Catholic High School and/or Defendant Bishop Ford
Defendant Bishop Ford Central Catholic High School, Defendant John B. Casey and
Defendants John Doe 1-5 directly or indirectly demanded that Peter Nash arrange for the
65. Peter Nash did arrange for the payment of $53,000 to Defendant Bishop Ford
Development Fund or Defendant Bishop Ford Central Catholic High School on behalf of
Defendant Raymond Nash and Defendant John B. Casey who were insiders as to both Peter
Nash and Defendant Bishop Ford Development Fund and/or Defendant Bishop Ford Central
66. Peter Nash was insolvent at the time of the transfer of the $53,000.
Defendant Bishop Ford Central Catholic High School, Defendant John B. Casey and
Defendants John Doe 1-5 all knew or had reason to know that Peter Nash was insolvent at the
time.
68. Peter Nash does not have the available resources to satisfy the balance of the
School, Defendant John B. Casey and Defendants John Doe 1-5 has interfered with the ability
70. As a result of the intentional and reckless bad acts as mentioned above, REA
follows:
(A) Damages;
(E) Such other further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
___________________________________
BARRY A. KOZYRA
LLC. Peter Nash who was a Plaintiff in that mater is a non-party who may
liability.
___________________________________
BARRY A. KOZYRA