GerritsenBeach.net

(Stephen Jemal assumes the position for a Daily News writer. - Courtesy of Daily News)

The investment companies that fund the Jemal’s Brooklyn projects in Mill Basin, Gerritsen beach and Sheepshead Bay have filed a civil suit against Stephen S Jemal and Sharon E Jemal in Texas Northern District Court.

The companies “Gerritsen Beach Investments Ltd” and “Riviera Investments I Ltd” filed their complaint on 7/14/2008 the cause is stated as a “Contract Dispute“.

The plaintiffs claim that the  Jemal’s (Stephen and Sharon) have not paid them back $5,580,000 plus interest. The Jemals are also allegedly also refusing to pay them back!

Both of the investment companies are being represented by Todd Hoodenpyle of Singer & Levick

What does this mean for his existing construction projects? Time will tell.

• Here is the Complaint that was  filed in court [Warning PDF]
  

For anyone that picks this up in the media, it would be really nice to have a credit for breaking this story.

Updated: Below the Fold

Update from SBPBCivic.org who adds a bit more to his past:

The lawsuit, first uncovered by GerritsenBeach.net, seeks a judgment of over 5 million dollars from Stephen S. Jemal and Sharon Jemal for failure to pay back money lent in connection with real estate projects in Brooklyn.

Apparently, Mr. Jemal and his family – founders of the Wiz chain of electronic stores – are no strangers to less than reputable business practices, as SB/PBCA has uncovered other dealings by Mr. Jemal and members of his family that have led to governmental sanctions, and even a criminal trial and conviction.

In 2003, the Federal Trade Commission filed a complaint against Stephen Jemal and his brother Marvin, both individually and as a part of two New York-based companies that marketed devices that purported to block harmful radiation from cell phones or video display units (VDUs) alleging that the companies’ claims were “false and unsubstantiated” The FTC further alleged that the defendants’ claims that scientific testing proves that their devices work were also “false and unsubstantiated.” The defendants agreed to pay $85,000 for consumer redress.

We should note that such a stipulated final order is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by the defendants of a law violation.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE INFORMATION

In 2005, Douglas and Norman Jemal were indicted on charges of bribery, wire fraud and conspiracy, amidst allegations that Douglas Jemal, a well known Washington developer, bribed a city official to get sweetheart contracts and inflated profits at taxpayers’ expense. The defendants were only convicted on the wire fraud charge and served no jail time. The wire fraud charge stemmed from a document that Jemal and co-defendant Blake Esherick falsified and then used as a justification to get a mortgage company to release $430,000 in loan proceeds. The money went to a different business deal than the one specified in the mortgage.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE INFORMATION

Another Update: As of July 23rd SBPBCivic.org clarified the statements above to avoid a lawsuit. See:GerritsenBeach.net Attacked by SSJ Development and Jemal family?

A local developer who was recently touted by a local newspaper as re-energizing our local coastline is being sued by two Texas investment companies for alleged breaching its obligation to pay back a multi-million dollar loan. (Photo Courtesy of NY Daily News)

The lawsuit, first uncovered by GerritsenBeach.net, seeks a judgment of over 5 million dollars from Stephen S. Jemal and Sharon Jemal for failure to pay back money lent in connection with real estate projects in Brooklyn.

SB/PBCA has uncovered other information about Mr. Jemal’s past business ventures.

In 2003, the Federal Trade Commission filed a complaint against Stephen Jemal and his brother Marvin, both individually and as a part of two New York-based companies that marketed devices that purported to block harmful radiation from cell phones or video display units (VDUs) alleging that the companies’ claims were “false and unsubstantiated” The FTC further alleged that the defendants’ claims that scientific testing proves that their devices work were also “false and unsubstantiated.” The defendants agreed to pay $85,000 for consumer redress.

We should note that such a stipulated final order is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by the defendants of a law violation.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE INFORMATION

SB/PBCA has also found other information in its research. Although none of the following information concerns Mr. Jemal, his past business ventures, or his current real estate plans in any way, shape or form, SB/PBCA believes the following information may be useful to its membership.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE INFORMATION

SB/PBCA will continue to monitor the situation.