Meyer, Suozzi, English & Klein, P.C. v. Higbee et al

Filing 32

MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 24 MOTION to Vacate 21 MOTION for Default Judgment and in Support of Motion DE 30 filed by Meyer, Suozzi, English & Klein, P.C.. (Schlosser, Kevin)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
MEYER, SUOZZI, ENGLISH & KLEIN, P.C.,
Docket No.: 18-cv-3353 (ADS) (ARL)
Plaintiff,
-againstMATHEW K. HIGBEE, Esq.,
NICK YOUNGSON,
RM MEDIA, LTD.,
and HIGBEE & ASSOCIATES,
Defendants.

PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION
TO MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT AND IN SUPPORT
OF MOTION TO DEEM SERVICE EFFECTUATED

MEYER, SUOZZI, ENGLISH & KLEIN, P.C.
990 Stewart Avenue, Suite 300
P.O. Box 9194
Garden City, New York 11530-9194
[phone]
Attorney for Plaintiff (Pro Se)

Table of Contents
Page(s)
Table of Authorities........................................................................................................................ ii
Preliminary Statement......................................................................................................................1
FACTS............................................................................................................................................ 4
ARGUMENT..................................................................................................................................8
I.

THE CERTIFICATE OF DEFAULT AGAINST DEFENDANTS
YOUNGSON AND RM MEDIA SHOULD NOT BE VACATED
DUE TO DEFENDANTS’ OWN MANIPULATIVE AND
DECEITFUL CONDUCT.......................................................................................8

II.

IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SERVICE OF PROCESS SHOULD BE
DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN EFFECTUATED UPON
DEFENDANTS, REQUIRE4G THEM TO APPEAR AND DEFEND
THIS ACTION.......................................................................................................11

CONCLUSION............................................................................................................................. 13

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)
Cases
Ackermann v. Levine,
788 F.2d 830 (2d Cir. 1986).....................................................................................................12
Aristocrat Leisure Ltd. v. Deutsche Bank Tr. Co. Americas,
262 F.R.D. 293 (S.D.N.Y. 2009).............................................................................................12
City ofNew York v. Mickalis Pawn Shop, LLC,
645 F.3d 114 (2d Cir. 2011).....................................................................................................10
EOI Corp. V, Med. Mktg. Ltd.,
172 F.R.D.133 (D.N.J. 1997)...................................................................................................12
Ins. Corp. ofIreland v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee,
456 U.S. 694(1982).................................................................................................................10
Richardson v. Clinical Computing PLC,
69N.E.3d754 (Ohio 2016)......................................................................................................12
In re S. African Apartheid Litig.,
643 F.Supp.2d423 (S.D.N.Y. 2009).................................................................................11, 12
Other Authorities
FRCP 4(f).........................................................................................................................................8
FRCP 4(f)(1)....................................................................................................................................8
FRCP 4(h)........................................................................................................................................ 8
FRCP 4(m).............................................................................................................................. 8, 11

11

Preliminary Statement
Plaintiff Meyer, Suozzi, English & Klein, P.C. (“Plaintiff’) respeetfully submits this
memorandum of law in opposition to the motion (DE 24) of defendants Niek Youngson
(“Youngson”) and RM Media, Ltd. (“RM Media”) to vaeate the Certifieate of Default entered on
February 20, 2019 and in support of Plaintiff s motion for an order deeming serviee of process on
Youngson and RM Media effective.
As alleged in the Complaint, this action involves the deceitful scheme orchestrated by and
among the defendants to abuse the United States Copyright laws to “catch” unsuspecting and
innocent victims and thereby extort unjustified payments to settle bogus claims of “copyright
infringement” that the purported copyright owners never intended to pursue in any event (DE 1).
Defendants Youngson and RM Media claim to have a copyright in a digital photograph, which
they have made available on the Internet with a “free license” for use by anyone who locates their
photograph through a search of the Internet. Although the photograph is thereby made available
through a license without fee, the defendants then troll the Internet to locate anyone who has used
the photograph and then claim “copyright infringement” from allegedly using the photograph
“without a license.” Defendants Matthew Higbee and his law firm, Higbee & Associates (“Higbee
Defendants”), have implemented this scheme by threatening the innocent victims with purported
statutory damages of up to $150,000 for copyright infringement in order to extort thousands of
dollars of “settlemenf ’ payments from the victims.
Unfortunately, a clerk in Plaintiffs marketing department unsuspectingly found one such
photograph through a search of the Internet and posted it with a blog on the firm’s website. Almost
immediately after the photograph was posted. Plaintiff received threatening demands from the
Higbee Defendants, falsely and deceptively claiming that the photograph was used without any
license at all and constituted copyright infringement. Plaintiff then immediately discontinued use

of the photograph. Because the photograph was used pursuant to the “free license,” however, there
is no copyright infringement as a matter of law and therefore no exposure to $150,000 in “statutory
damages,” even if Defendants could claim that the terms of the license were not followed, i.e.,
attribution to the purported author. There are numerous other legal reasons why the purported
claim for copyright infringement is invalid as a matter of law.
As further part of their deceptive and fraudulent scheme, the Higbee Defendants
specifically threatened to institute an action against Plaintiff for copyright infringement in this
Court, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. In fact, the Higbee
Defendants prepared a complaint that they sent to Plaintiff and threatened that they would file that
Complaint in this Court within 15 days if their extortionate settlement demand was not paid in full.
The plaintiff in that lawsuit prepared by the Higbee Defendants was in fact RM Media, and
Defendant Youngson was referred to in that complaint as the individual holder of the copyright.
After facing Defendants’ extortionate threats. Plaintiff instituted this action for, among
other things, a declaratory judgment declaring that the subject of Defendants’ demands did not
constitute copyright infringement. The Higbee Defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint,
which motion is now pending.
Defendants Youngson and RM Media allegedly both reside in England, so service upon
them by Plaintiff was not as straightforward.

Nevertheless, Plaintiff used the address for

Defendant Youngson identified in the Copyright Registration that he filed with the United States
Copyright Office. Moreover, Plaintiff used the precise address for RM Media that it now claims
is its official place of business, but the Official Royal Courts of Justice Group in England returned
that service of proeess request indicating: “Defendant company not known at the address given.”
It is remarkable that Defendants Youngson and RM Media are now seeking to circumvent
the jurisdietion of this Court, relying upon technical issues of service of process, especially when

the Higbee Defendants threatened to bring a lawsuit in this Court against Plaintiff on behalf of RM
Media immediately before this action was instituted by Plaintiff against RM Media.
Consistent with their deceptive and manipulative conduct in abuse of the United States
Copyright laws, Defendants are now also trying to manipulate the Court process. First, Defendants
had actual knowledge and receipt of service of the Summons and Complaint upon Youngson as
far back as December 3, 2018 (see DE 15, Certificate of Service), and as far back as January 17,
2019 on RM Media (DE 16). Since the Higbee Defendants had appeared in this action, they
obviously had direct and immediate access to all filings in this action. Moreover, the Higbee
Defendants are admittedly the attorneys for both Youngson and RM Media. Further, the attorney
who has appeared in this action for Defendants Youngson and RM Media, Jeanne Weisneck, has
worked in the past with the very attorneys who have appeared for the Higbee Defendants in this
action from the firm of Higbee & Associates. Despite having such actual knowledge of service of
the Summons and Complaint in this action since December and January, Defendants Youngson
and RM Media waited until March 11, 2019 (DE 24) to make this motion - long after the deadline
to appear, after a Certificate ofDefault had already been issued, and after Plaintiff had moved for
a default judgment (DE 21).
As further discussed below, under these circumstances. Plaintiff respectfully submits that
Defendants Youngson and RM Media should be estopped from objecting to jurisdiction over them
in this action. Indeed, the United States Supreme Court has made clear that personal jurisdiction,
like any other right, is subject to waiver and estoppel. There is no better case for application of
that principle than this one. In fact. Plaintiff acted reasonably in its efforts to serve Defendants
Youngson and RM Media in England. To the extent they claim that the location where service
was effectuated was not their proper address, this was through no fault of Plaintiff, but rather, the
deception of Defendants. Moreover, the Second Circuit has acknowledged that service of process
3

can be effectuated under the Hague Convention through international mail. Thus, as Defendants
themselves admit, service of process could be easily effectuated against Defendants. It serves no
purpose to require such unnecessary re-service when Defendants have received actual knowledge
and copies of the Summons and Complaint.
Thus, Plaintiff respectfully submits that the motion by Defendants Youngson and RM
Media to vacate the Certificate of Default be denied. In the alternative. Plaintiff requests that its
motion for an order deeming service upon Defendants Youngson and RM Media to have been
effectuated be granted.
FACTS
This action was instituted on June 7,2018 (DE 1). As set forth in the Complaint, the factual
background involves a basic digital photograph that a clerk from the marketing department of the
Plaintiff law firm found on the Internet through a simple search. This clerk posted the photograph
with a blog article vwitten by one of the attorneys of the law firm. Shortly after the photograph
and blog were posted. Plaintiff received threatening correspondence, emails and telephone calls
from Defendant Matthew Higbee and other representatives of his law firm. Defendant Higbee &
Associates. As soon as the first such letter was received by the Plaintiff, it immediately removed
the photograph from its website and never used it again. The Higbee Defendants claim that the
photograph was copyrighted by their clients. Defendant Youngson and Defendant RM Media. The
Higbee Defendants threatened Plaintiff with an action for copyright infringement, claiming
statutory damages of $150,000 under the Copyright laws allegedly because the photo was used
without a license.
The allegation of copyright infringement was false as a matter of law, and, therefore, no
such statutory damages were available or recoverable. The clerk in Plaintiffs law firm obtained
the photograph online, with an accompanying “free license” and, therefore, any use of the
4

photograph cannot be deemed copyright infringement for which statutory damages are available,
even if the alleged attribution required by the lieense was not posted with the photograph.
Although Plaintiff responded to the Higbee Defendants’ demands, and explained the
innocent, de minimis and non-actionable nature of the use, the Higbee Defendants stepped up their
harassment and extortionate tactics, as further detailed in the Complaint.

In fact. Plaintiff

discovered that the Higbee Defendants had repeatedly employed this deceptive scheme numerous
other times aeross the eountry, for which many innocent victims had complained. Indeed, there is
an Internet website devoted exclusively to the Higbee Defendants’ fraudulent and deceptive
praetices.
As part of Defendants’ extortionate demands. Defendant Higbee threatened Plaintiff with
a lawsuit for eopyright infringement that the Higbee Defendants represented would be filed within
15 days. See the letter dated May 9, 2018 annexed to the Declaration of Kevin Schlosser dated
March 25, 2019 (“Schlosser Dec.”) submitted herewith. Ex. A. With that letter, the Higbee
Defendants enelosed a draft of the Complaint that would be filed, naming RM Media as the
plaintiff and the Plaintiff law firm herein as the Defendant. That lawsuit was threatened to be
brought in this Court, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
Shortly after receiving the threatening letter from the Higbee Defendants in whieh they represented
that an action would be brought on behalf of RM Media in this Court, Plaintiff commenced the
instant action in the same Court. Among other things. Plaintiff sought a deelaratory judgment that
the subject of the Higbee Defendants’ threatening letters did not eonstitute eopyright infringement
as a matter of law and did not give rise to statutory damages, especially not the $150,000 that was
asserted by the Higbee Defendants in an effort to extort $5280 from Plaintiff. Plaintiff named as
Defendants in this aetion, the Higbee Defendants and Defendants Youngson and RM Media.

After filing the Complaint and obtaining the issuance of the Summons, Plaintiff sent an
acknowledgment of service by mail. (Schlosser Dec., Ex. B.) Thereafter, the Higbee Defendants
moved to dismiss this action (DE 7-9). Plaintiff opposed that motion (DE 10 & 11). After the
Court recently struck the Higbee Defendants’ reply papers, they were re-filed on March 15, 2019
(DE 27). Plaintiff has requested oral argument of that motion (DE 28).
Based upon the Copyright Registration filed with the United States Copyright Office on
behalf of Defendant Youngson, Plaintiff obtained the location of Defendant Youngson in
Liverpool, England at 15 Church Road. (Schlosser Dec., Ex. C.) No supplemental registration
was ever filed on behalf of Defendant Youngson updating his address as the copyright owner of
the subject photograph. (Schlosser Dec., Ex. D.) Plaintiff further identified an address for service
of process for RM Media at Suite 11, Stanley Grange Business Village, Ormskirk Road, Knowsley
Village, United Kingdom. (This is the precise address that Defendants Youngson and RM Media
now claim is purportedly the correct address for service upon RM Media. (DE 24-1, ^ 2.)) Plaintiff
then used the Foreign Process Section of the Royal Courts of Justice Group, Queen’s Bench
Division to effectuate service of process on Defendants Youngson and RM Media in England.
Pursuant to Plaintiffs request, process was thereafter effectuated on Defendant Youngson at the
address indicated in the Copyright Registration and the certificate of service was filed in this Court
on December 3, 2018 (DE 15).
With respect to Defendant RM Media, the Royal Courts of Justice Group returned the
request for service (Ex. E), indicating; “Defendant company not known at the address given.”
(Schlosser Dec., Ex. F). As a result. Plaintiff requested that the Royal Courts of Justice Group
serve RM Media through its designated “CEO” - Defendant Youngson at the same address
provided in his Copyright Registration. Thus, the Royal Courts of Justice Group effectuated

service upon RM Media at such address, and proof of such service was filed in this Court on
January 17, 2019 (DE 16).
Thereafter, neither the Higbee Defendants nor Defendants Youngson and RM Media
responded in any respect, despite the explicit filings in this case of the Certificates of Service of
the Summons and Complaint upon Defendants Youngson and RM Media (DE 15 & 16).
Obviously, the Higbee Defendants admit that they are attorneys representing Defendants
Youngson and RM Media by virtue of their repeated extortionate demands on behalf of such
alleged copyright owners. It is inexplicable that the Higbee Defendants would not have notified
their own clients of the Certificates of Service of the Summons and Complaint in this matter as
and when they were filed in December 2018 and January 2019 respectively (DE 15 & 16).
In view of the failure of Defendants Youngson and RM Media to respond to the Summons
and Complaint in any marmer, including to challenge the Certificates of Service, after months
thereafter. Plaintiff applied for a Certificate of Default against Defendants Youngson and RM
Media (DE 17). The Clerk entered such Certificate of Default on February 20, 2019 (DE 18).
Nevertheless, thereafter. Defendants Youngson and RM Media still failed to take any action at all.
As a result, on March 4, 2019, Plaintiff moved for a default judgment against Defendants
Youngson and RM Media (DE 21). Then, suddenly, an attorney appeared on behalf of Defendants
Youngson and RM Media (DE 20). This attorney, Jeanne Weisneck, has appeared in previous
cases as co-eounsel with the Higbee Defendants and their counsel in this matter, Rayminh L. Ngo.
(Schlosser Dee., Ex. G.) Thus, there is no question that the Higbee Defendants coordinated the
appearance of counsel on behalf of Defendants Youngson and RM Media in March 2019 even
though they knew as far back as December 2018 that a Certifieate of Serviee of Proeess had been
filed. In any event, it is undisputed, at this point, that Defendants Youngson and RM Media have

7

received actual notice and copies of the Summons and Complaint, as confirmed in their attorney’s
motion to vacate the Certificate of Default (DE 24).
Under the circumstances, Plaintiff respectfully submits that the motion by Defendants
Youngson and RM Media to vacate the Certificate of Default should be denied in the interests of
justice. Defendants Youngson and RM Media should not be allowed to register a purported
copyright under United States Copyright laws, threaten innocent victims with a lawsuit in this very
Court, and then try to dodge service and circumvent this Court’s jurisdiction over the very subject
matter of the extortionate threats made on behalf of these Defendants. Alternatively, Plaintiff
respectfully submits that the Court grant its motion to deem service of process effectuated on
Defendants Youngson and RM Media.
ARGUMENT
I.

THE CERTIFICATE OF DEFAULT AGAINST DEFENDANTS YOUNGSON
AND RM MEDIA SHOULD NOT BE VACATED DUE TO DEFENDANTS’
OWN MANIPULATIVE AND DECEITFUL CONDUCT
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) 4(f) governs service on an individual in a
foreign country. (Under FRCP 4(m), there is no deadline for service of process in a foreign country
under FRCP 4(f) or 4(h).) More specifically, FRCP 4(f)(1) allows service of process upon a
foreign individual “by any internationally agreed means of service that is reasonably calculated to
give notice, such as those authorized by the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial
and Extrajudicial Documents.” Plaintiff used the assistance of the Royal Courts of Justice Group,
Queen’s Bench Division of the Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London to effectuate service
pursuant to the Hague Convention. (Schlosser Dec., Exs. E & F.) The address that was used by
the Royal Courts of Justice was the very same address identified by Defendant Youngson in his

Copyright Registration filed in the United States Copyright Office, which he never changed in any
supplemental registration after its initial filing.
Plaintiff requested that service of process be effectuated on Defendant RM Media at the
very address now claimed by Defendant RM Media to be its correct address for service of process
- Suite 11, Stanley Grange Business Village, Ormskirk Road, Knowsley Village, United Kingdom.
(See DE 24-1, ^ 2.) Notwithstanding this request. Plaintiff received back from the Royal Courts
of Justice Group a Certificate indicating that process had not been served because: “Defendant
company not known at the address given.” (Schlosser Dec., Ex. F.) Thus, as a result thereof.
Plaintiff requested that service of process upon RM Media be effectuated by virtue of service on
its reported CEO, Defendant Youngson, at the same address indicated in his Copyright
Registration. Thus, the Royal Courts of Justice Group effectuated service upon Defendant RM
Media at that location (DE 16).
Under the circumstances, especially in view of the fact that Defendants Youngson and RM
Media have obviously received actual notice of the Summons and Complaint in this action.
Plaintiff respectfully submits that service of process upon Defendants Youngson and RM Media
be deemed effective by virtue of the Certificates of Service filed in this action (DE 15 & 16), and
that their motion to vacate the default be denied.
In addition to the foregoing, there are other compelling reasons for deeming service of
process effective as indicated above. Under the egregious circumstances of this case. Defendants
Youngson and RM Media should be estopped from contesting service of process and this Court’s
jurisdiction over them in this action. There is clear legal authority for estopping Defendants under
these circumstances. The United States Supreme Court has firmly held that the strict requirements
of in personam jurisdiction can be waived or forfeited by a Defendant: “Because the requirement
of personal jurisdiction represents first of all an individual right, it can, like other such rights, be
9

waived.... A variety of legal arrangements have been taken to represent express or implied consent
to the personal jurisdiction of the court. ... Furthermore, the Court has upheld state procedures
which find constructive consent to the personal jurisdiction of the state court in the voluntary use
of certain state procedures. ... The actions of the defendant may amount to a legal submission to
the jurisdiction of the court, whether voluntary or not.” Ins, Corp. of Ireland v. Compagnie des
Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694, 703-05 (1982). As recognized by the Second Circuit, relying
upon the Supreme Court decision in Ins. Corp. ofIreland: “There are ‘various [additional] reasons
a defendant may be estopped from raising the issue [of lack of personal jurisdiction].’” City of
New York v. Mickalis Pawn Shop, LLC, 645 F.3d 114, 133-34 (2d Cir. 2011).
Flere, Defendants should estopped from denying personal jurisdiction where service of
process was made upon the address they identified in their Copyright Registration, which was
never updated through any supplemental registration. Moreover, the address Defendant RM
Media claims is proper was found by the Royal Courts of Justice to be ineffective. Furthermore,
and most egregious, is Defendants’ abuse of the United States Copyright laws to assert bogus
claims of copyright infringement and threaten suit in this very Court, while thereafter trying to
evade personal jurisdiction over them over the very subject of their extortionate and deceptive
copyright claim in the same court they threatened to bring their action. We respectfully submit
that Defendants’ manipulative conduct should not be condoned.
As such. Plaintiff respectfully requests that Defendants’ motion to vacate the Certificate of
Default be denied.

10

II.
IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SERVICE OF PROCESS SHOULD
BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN EFFECTUATED UPON DEFENDANTS,
REQUIRING THEM TO APPEAR AND DEFEND THIS ACTION
If the Court is not inclined to deny the motion to vacate the default, service of process
should be deemed effectuated in any event. In arguing to vacate the Certificate of Default entered
against them, Defendants Youngson and RM Media repeatedly represent to this Court that there
would be no prejudice to Plaintiff because service of process could be re-effectuated upon them,
and that the case is in its early stages, having no discovery proceedings to date. See DE 24-17, at
pp. 5, 6 & 10. For the very same reason, in view of the fact that Defendants Youngson and RM
Media have indisputably received actual notice of the Summons and Complaint, requiring any
further “service” upon them would cause unnecessary inconvenience and expense with no
justification. Indeed, courts are loathe to endorse the manipulative dodging of service of process
when there is no substantive prejudice to the defendant.
Here, the circumstances justify deeming process effectuated upon Defendants Youngson
and RM Media. As noted above, FRCP 4(m) does not impose any deadline upon service of process
upon foreign individuals or entities. As observed by the Court in In re S. African Apartheid Litig.,
643 F.Supp.2d 423,433 (S.D.N.Y. 2009): “‘Although the Hague Convention “carefully articulates
the procedure which a litigant must follow in order to perfect service abroad.. .it does not prescribe
the procedure for the forum Court to follow should an element of the procedure fail.’” Where a
plaintiff ‘attempted in good faith to comply with the Hague Convention’ and the defendant does
‘not dispute having received the complaint in this action...there is no prejudice to him [or her].”’
The Court continued: “Even when nations have expressly agreed on a means of service [FRCP]
4(f)(3) provides that a defendant may be served ‘by other means not prohibited by international
agreement, as the court orders. ’ ‘A court is “afforded wide discretion in ordering service of process
11

under [FRCP] 4(f)(3).’” Id. Thus, it is within this Court’s discretion to deem service to have been
effectuated on Defendants Youngson and RM Media or condition vacating the Certificate of
Default entered against them upon their acceptance of service of process and appearing and
defending in this action.
There is yet another reason why the actual notice and receipt of the Summons and
Complaint in this action should be deemed effective service on Defendants Youngson and RM
Media. The Second Circuit has made clear that service by international mail can be effectuated in
compliance with the Hague Convention. As the court in Aristocrat Leisure Ltd. v. Deutsche Bank
Tr. Co. Americas, 262 F.R.D. 293 (307-08) (S.D.N.Y. 2009) observed, the Second Circuit has
endorsed service of process by international registered mail as satisfying both the Hague
Convention and constitutional due process. SseAckermann v. Levine, 788 F.2d 830, 839 (2d Cir.
1986). Courts have explicitly recognized that service of process by international mail to residents
of England complies with the Hague Convention by virtue of England’s failure to object thereto.
See, e.g., EOICorp. v. Med. Mktg. Ltd, 172 F.R.D.133, 139, 140-41 (D.N.J. 1997); Richardson v.
Clinical Computing PLC, 69 N.E.3d 754, 760 (Ohio 2016).
In view of the fact that service of process can be made by international mail in compliance
with the Hague Convention, it would be unjust under the circumstances to require yet another
mailing of the Summons and Complaint to Defendants Youngson and RM Media given all of the
circumstances described above and the fact that they have already reeeived the Summons and
Complaint. As Defendants Youngson and RM Media assert themselves, there will be no prejudiee
to anyone if they were re-served - it would simply be an unnecessary, unfortunate and
inappropriate waste of time and resources.
Accordingly, Plaintiff respectfully submits that in the alternative, in the event the Court
declines to uphold the Certificate of Default entered against Defendants Youngson and RM Media,
12

the vacating of that default be conditioned upon such Defendants submitting to the jurisdiction of
this Court and/or service of process be deemed duly effectuated upon such Defendants, requiring
them to appear and defend in this action.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the motion of Defendants
Youngson and RM Media be denied or, in the alternative, service of process be deemed duly
effectuated.
Dated: Garden City, New York
March 25, 2019

MEYER, SUOZZI, ENGLISH & KLEJN, P.C.
By:
/s/________________________
Kevin Schlosser ([e-mail])
Attorney for Plaintiff (Pro Se)
990 Stewart Ave
Garden City, New York 11530
[phone]

13
4230925