Gorelik Versus Gorelik. Husband Allegedly Watched Ex In Her West Boca Home From His Condo On Miami Beach.
BY: LITIGATION DESK | BocaNewsNow.com
BOCA RATON, FL (BocaNewsNow.com) (Copyright © 2024 MetroDesk Media, LLC) — A Boca Raton woman claims her ex-husband secretly placed cameras in the bedroom of her home in the community of “Lotus” while he was picking up their children for timeshare, then monitored her physical activities with another man who is now her fiance. Her Ex, according to a lawsuit just filed in Palm Beach County Circuit Court, told others that he was watching her. BocaNewsNow.com obtained the just-filed lawsuit which we are publishing in its entirety below. Here is a key excerpt:
[Plaintiff Korina Gorelik (K. G.) and Defendant Ariel Gorelik (Gorelik) were previously married until September 18, 2019, when the Final Judgment of Divorce was entered. Following their divorce, K. G. and Gorelik relocated to Florida, where they established separate residences. At all material times hereto, K. G. resided in the residential property located on Apple Falls Lane, Boca Raton, Florida 33496 (the “Property”). The Property is owned by both K. G. and Gorelik.
Gorelik owns and resides in a luxury condominium, the Residences by Armani Casa, located at 18975 Collins Avenue, Sunny Isles, Florida 33160. This Armani condominium, which he purchased for approximately $2.7 million, is situated two counties away from the Property, thereby physically distancing himself from K. G. Indeed, while K. G. and Gorelik share minor children, Gorelik typically sends a driver to pick up the children for his timesharing periods and requires specific permission to enter the Property. At all material times hereto, Plaintiff Michael Blumstein, K. G.’s fiancé, would also reside at the Property.
Unbeknownst to Plaintiffs, and without their consent, when Gorelik requested permission to utilize the bathroom when he was dropping off the children to K. G. at the Property on or about April 18, 2024, he secretly connected several surveillance cameras and other audio recording devices within the Property. Plaintiffs had no idea that these devices were connected, and Defendant strategically hid them in a way to avoid detection and were used to view and record the Plaintiffs’ private lives.
At all material times hereto, and without Plaintiffs’ knowledge or consent, Gorelik covertly accessed the video and audio footage captured by these devices at any time, day or night. The footage, upon information and belief, included both live streams and recordings stored for later viewing, providing Gorelik with continuous surveillance of the Plaintiffs in their home.
Upon information and belief, Gorelik accessed the footage and/or recordings through an application installed on his mobile phone, allowing him unrestricted and unauthorized access to the Plaintiffs’ most private moments. The recordings that Gorelik viewed and listened to included highly intimate and personal content, such as private conversations between the Plaintiffs and their intimate interactions, including, but not limited to (intimate) encounters. Some of the intercepted communications were privileged conversations between K. G. and her attorney, related to ongoing post-divorce proceedings in Florida., as well as discussions with other individuals, whether in person at the Property or via telephone. Gorelik confessed to a former female companion that he had secretly connected these surveillance devices, specifically to monitor K. G. inside the Property without her knowledge. He boasted about watching her on numerous occasions, stating that K. G. was entirely unaware of his ability to spy on her, and of course, Blumstein as well.]
The suit seeks unspecified damages but calls for jury trial. The statutory minimum for filing in Palm Beach County Circuit Court is $50,000. The suit claims that Karina Gorelik and Michael Blumstein suffered, “pain, humiliation, mental and emotional anguish, loss of capacity for the enjoyment life, and severe emotional distress.” The suit also alleges that Ariel Gorelik committed a third degree felony by placing and viewing the cameras — but there is no record of a criminal charge in the case.
Read the complete filing here. We note that a civil court filing is an allegation.
