Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/03/2023 12:29 AM INDEX NO. 150315/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1069 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/03/2023
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK: PART 7
-----------------------------------------------X
NORMA KNOPF and MICHAEL
KNOPF,
Plaintiffs, Index No. 150315/2019
- against -
Hon. Gerald Lebovits, J.S.C.
FRANK M. ESPOSITO,
DORSEY & WHITNEY, LLP, Motion Sequence 18
NATHANIEL H. AKERMAN,
and EDWARD S. FELDMAN,
Defendants.
-----------------------------------------------X
EDWARD FELDMAN,
Third-Party Plaintiff,
- against -
ERIC W. BERRY,
Third-Party Defendant.
-----------------------------------------------X
KNOPF’S STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS
Plaintiff Norma Knopf submits the following Statement of Material Facts pursuant to
Uniform Civil Rule 202.8-g[a]1 in support of her motion for summary judgment against all
defendants.
I. Background
1. Knopf’s Second Amended Complaint (Exhibit 1 [NYSCEF 935]was filed on June
1
A Statement of Material Facts is required in this Part. Birds & Bubbles NYC LLC v. 100
Forsyth LLC, 2022 WL 519204, *1 (Sup. Ct. New York Co., Feb. 18. 2022) (Lebovits, J.).
1 of 48
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/03/2023 12:29 AM INDEX NO. 150315/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1069 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/03/2023
13, 2019. Answers on behalf of defendants Edward Feldman [NYSCEF 324], Frank Esposito
[NYSCEF 325] and Dorsey & Whitney, LLP and Nathaniel Akerman [NYSCEF 326] were filed
on March 29, 2021. The First and Second Claims allege attorney deceit and collusion in
violation of Judiciary Law §487, and further allege that defendants’ client, Michael Sanford, was
a participant in the deceit and collusion. The Seventh Claim alleges false statements in a related
federal action, Knopf v. Esposito, 17 Civ. 5833 (S.D.N.Y.)
2. Esposito, Akerman and Feldman are lawyers. Akerman was a partner at defendant
Dorsey & Whitney, LLP at the time of the events underlying this action. The case arises, in part,
out of an ex parte telephone call that Akerman and Feldman made to Esposito’s wife, Melissa
Ringel, on January 12, 2016. At the time of the call, Ringel was employed as an attorney in the
First Department. Akerman and Feldman alleged that in their ex parte call, they obtained
Ringel’s interpretation of at least two First Department orders.
3. Knopf’s allegations concern events investigated by the Office of Court
Administration (“OCA”) and resulting in a report assigned IG Case No.: 17-130 and dated
March 16, 2018. Exhibit 2 [NYSCEF 936]. On April 24, 2018, the OCA report was filed in
Knopf v. Esposito, 17 Civ. 5833 (S.D.N.Y.), the related federal action. Shortly after the OCA
report was filed, Ringel resigned from the First Department. The OCA report states that, in
depositions, Akerman and Feldman incorrectly stated that their call was transferred to Ringel,
when it was in fact made to her directly. Id., p. 20.
4. In 2021, Ringel and Esposito were indicted based on allegations relating to
Akerman’s and Feldman’s call to Ringel. People v. Ringel and Esposito, Sup. Ct., New York
Co., Crim. Term, Indictment No. 1237/2021 . Exhibit 3 [NYSCEF 937]. The District
2
2 of 48
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/03/2023 12:29 AM INDEX NO. 150315/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1069 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/03/2023
Attorney’s “Statement of Facts” accompanying the indictment refers to Akerman and Feldman
as their client’s real estate attorneys, and states that Esposito arranged to have them speak to
Ringel at the First Department. Exhibit 4 [NYSCEF 938]. Following the indictment, the
related Knopf v. Esposito federal action was stayed.
II. The Events Preceding the Motions Decided in the
Appellate Division in the Latter Part of 2015
5. In 2000, Knopf, and her late husband (together, “Knopf”) contributed $11,607,810 to
Michael Sanford’s so-called “hedge fund,” becoming its sole investors. Accompanying April
March 29, 2023 affidavit of Norma Knopf [NYSCEF 1068], ¶2.
6. Knopf made five loans to Sanford and Sanford’s companies. Knopf aff. [NYSCEF
1068], ¶3. One, in the amount of $1,690,860, financed the purchase, by Sanford’s wholly owned
company, Pursuit Holdings, LLP, of an apartment located at 44 East 67th Street, PHC, in
Manhattan (“67th Street property”). January 23, 2006 contract (Exhibit 5 [NYSCEF 939]);
February 9, 2006 contract (Exhibit 6 [NYSCEF 940]). Sanford and Pursuit contracted to deliver
to Knopf a recordable mortgage against the 67th Street property to secure the $1,690,860 loan.
Exhibit 5 [NYSCEF 939], pp. 1, 3; Exhibit 6 [NYSCEF 940], p. 1.
7. Knopf’s separate $3,250,000 loan to Pursuit financed its purchase of three
condominium units on at 10 Bedford Street (“Bedford properties”). Knopf aff. [NYSCEF 1068],
¶4.
8. Sanford failed to repay the loans or deliver the promised mortgages against the 67th
Street property. Knopf v. Esposito, 2019 WL 429469, *2 (Sup. Ct., New York Co., Feb. 4, 2019)
(Lebovits, J.) (“Despite the agreement, Pursuit did not provide the mortgages for the PHC and
the Townhouse or repay the underlying loans.”)
3
3 of 48
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/03/2023 12:29 AM INDEX NO. 150315/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1069 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/03/2023
9. In 2009, Knopf filed an action, Knopf v. Sanford, Sup. Ct., New York County, Index
No. 113227/2009. The complaint alleged that Sanford and his companies breached the loan
agreements, including those for the $1,690,860 and the $3.25 million loans. The complaint
demanded money damages and/or the imposition of constructive trusts upon the 67th Street and
Bedford properties. Exhibit 7 [NYSCEF 941] ¶¶11-28, ¶¶401-46 & pp. 8-10).
10. On December 11, 2014, the First Department granted Knopf summary judgment on
all five loan agreements, including the $1,690,860 loan. Knopf v. Sanford, 123 A.D.3d 521, 521-
522, 1 N.Y.S.3d 18, 19 (1st Dept. 2014). The decision did not determine damages, and denied
summary judgment on the constructive trust claim. Id.
11. On December 23, 2014, the trial court (Tingling, J.S.C.) terminated notices of
pendency that Knopf filed against the 67th Street and Bedford properties. Knopf aff. [NYSCEF
1068], ¶8.
12. In his submissions to Justice Tingling, Sanford disclosed that he had a buyer for the
67th Street apartment, but did not disclose the buyer’s identity, or the purchase price. Knopf did
not become aware of the buyer’s identity until February 24, 2016. The buyer, in fact, was
Michael Phillips, who agreed to pay $3,000,000 for the 67th Street apartment. Knopf aff.
[NYSCEF 1068] , ¶8.
13. Knopf sought to prevent a sale of the 67th Street property. In the Appellate Division,
she obtained a stay, followed by a preliminary injunction, entered on April 2, 2015, that
prohibited the sale of the 67th Street property. Exhibit 8 [NYSCEF 942] at the July 24, 2015
Berry aff., Ex. C.
14. In early 2015, Knopf moved in the trial court for judgment in the amount of the
4
4 of 48
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/03/2023 12:29 AM INDEX NO. 150315/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1069 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/03/2023
loans or, alternatively, an attachment, and obtained a temporary restraining order pending
determination of the attachment motion. Exhibit 8 [NYSCEF 942], at the July 24, 2015 Berry
aff., ¶2, ¶19.
15. On July 2, 2015, Knopf’s appeal from the cancellation of the notice of pendency
was denied. Knopf v. Sanford, 130 A.D.3d 407, 13 N.Y.S.3d 365 (1st Dept. 2015), recalled,
vacated and modified, 132 A.D.3d 416, 17 N.Y.S.3d 674 (1st Dept. 2015). .
16. On July 23, 2015, Knopf’s motion for a either a money judgment in the sum certain
amounts of the loans or, alternatively, an attachment was denied by the trial court (Hon. Richard
Braun, J.S.C.) Exhibit 8 [NYSCEF 942], at the July 24, 2015 Berry aff., ¶2.
17. On July 23, 2015, Knopf noticed an appeal from the denial of her motion for
judgment or an attachment. Exhibit 8 [NYSCEF 942], at the July 24, 2015 Berry aff., Ex. B.
18. On July 24, 2015, Knopf moved in the First Department for a preliminary injunction
prohibiting the sale of Pursuit’s properties pending the determination of the appeal noticed on
July 23, 2015. Exhibit 8 [NYSCEF 942], at the July 24, 2015 Notice of Motion. The motion
was assigned No. M-3660.
III. The October 22, 2015 Escrow Order
19. On October 22, 2015, prior to any decision on the July 24, 2015 motion, Knopf filed
a second motion (Exhibit 9 [NYSCEF 943]) in the First Department, which was assigned No.
M-5459. At the time, Knopf’s earlier July 24, 2015 motion, M-3660 (i.e., Exhibit 8 [NYSCEF
942], remained sub judice.
20. The October 22, 2015 motion requested, inter alia, reinstatement of the notices of
pendency, an interim stay of the sale of the 67th Street property, a preliminary injunction against
5
5 of 48
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/03/2023 12:29 AM INDEX NO. 150315/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1069 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/03/2023
the sale of both properties and re-calendaring of the July 23, 2015 appeal from the March 2016
term to the December 2015 Term. Exhibit 9 [NYSCEF 943]. (Previously, Sanford obtained a
re-calendaring from the December 2015 to March 2016 term by means of an ex parte application
that he made on a date when Knopf’s attorneys had scheduling conflicts and at which he falsely
represented to the First Department that Knopfs’ attorneys consented to that re-calendaring.)
21. Justice John W. Sweeny denied the requested stay, but issued an order, dated
October 22, 2015, that required any sale proceeds to be escrowed. Exhibit 10 [NYSCEF 944],
p. 2.
22. The July 23, 2015 appeal was re-calendared from March, 2016 to January, 2016.
Id.
IV. Sanford Understood that the Escrow Order
Allowed the 67th Street Property to Be Sold
23. Sanford provided the escrow order to Akerman and, on October 24, 2015, Sanford
emailed Akerman that, under the escrow order, “Pursuit ‘may sell’ PHC but th[e] proceeds
would then be held for ‘further motion practice.” Exhibit 11 [NYSCEF 945], at DOR0001959.
24. Sanford refused to close if the proceeds had to be escrowed. An internal November
3, 2015 email produced by Phillip’s title examiner, CB Title, stated: “Fyi – deal got canned at
about 6:30 last night . . . creditors on the L[is] P[endens] got an order that the seller had to put
sales proceeds in escrow and [Sanford] wasn’t having it.” Exhibit 12 [NYSCEF 946].
V. Sanford and Feldman Knew that the
Escrow Order Could Only Be Judicially
Clarified on Notice to Knopf
25. On November 4, 2015, Feldman and Phillips’ attorneys, Lori Braverman and
Matthew Bronfman, exchanged emails discussing Feldman, who was Sanford’s closing attorney,
6
6 of 48
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/03/2023 12:29 AM INDEX NO. 150315/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1069 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/03/2023
possibly making an in-person application to the First Department to clarify the October 22 order.
Exhibit 13 [NYSCEF 947].
26. Later on November 4, 2015, Feldman emailed Sanford: “I was going to go to the
Court and get definition of ‘proceeds’. Are you telling me not to do that?” Exhibit 14
[NYSCEF 948]. Still later that day, Braverman emailed Bronfman that Feldman had informed
her that he was not making the in-person application because Sanford was “concerned that the
Court will notify Berry [Knopf’s lawyer]. . . [.]” Exhibit 15 [NYSCEF 949]. Feldman agrees
that Braverman’s email to Bronfman “accurately put down whatever we talked about, . . [.]”
Feldman’s Mar. 16, 2022 deposition (Exhibit 16 [NYSCEF 950]), at 104:12-21; see also: id., at
102:11-17; and 103:6-13.
VI. The November 12, 2015 Order and Sanford’s Belief
that it Did Not Terminate the Escrow Requirement
27. On November 12, 2015, the First Department, Justice Karla Moskowitz presiding,
issued an order (Exhibit 17 [NYSCEF 951]) that denied Knopf’ July 24, 2015 motion for a
preliminary injunction (M-3660). The November 12, 2015 order did not decide, or refer to, the
October 22, 2015 motion (M-5459) (i.e., Ex. 9 [NYSCEF 943]) or Justice Sweeny’s October 22,
2015 interim escrow order (i.e., Exhibit 10 [NYSCEF 944], p. 2).
28. When the November 12 order was filed, Akerman emailed Sanford: “Does this
moot Berry’s present bulls– before the Appellate Division? Can you now just sell the PH?”
Sanford replied “No; not yet.” Exhibit 18 [NYSCEF 952].
VII. Ringel’s Introduction to Stanley Quinn Casey
29. Ringel met Sanford’s assistant, Stanley Quinn Casey, at the Keno Brothers Rolling
7
7 of 48
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/03/2023 12:29 AM INDEX NO. 150315/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1069 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/03/2023
Sculpture Auction (a vintage automobile auction) in Manhattan on November 19, 2015.2
Esposito had invited Casey to the auction. Ringel informed Casey that she was a lawyer at the
First Department. Casey’s July 13, 2022 deposition (Exhibit 19 [NYSCEF 953]), at 63:19-64:5;
74:4-9; 82:7-12; 83:24-85:16.
VIII. Pursuit’s and Sanford’s Unsuccessful Motion
to Vacate the Escrow Requirement
30. On November 20, Pursuit filed a cross-motion to vacate the October 22 escrow
order. Pursuit’s memorandum of law in support of the cross-motion acknowledged: “The
October 22 Interim Order Is Working An Inequitable Hardship On Respondents.” Exhibit 20
[NYSCEF 954], p. 33.
31. On December 29, a First Department panel that included Justice Sweeny denied
Pursuit’s cross-motion to vacate the escrow requirement, holding: “The cross motion for vacatur
of the interim order dated October 22, 2015 is denied[.]” Exhibit 21 [NYSCEF 955].
IX. Sanford, His Attorneys and Phillips Interpreted the December 29
Ruling as Keeping the Escrow Requirement in Place
32. Sanford and Daniel Goldberg, Pursuit’s appellate attorney at the time, agreed in a
December 29, 2015 email exchange that they should consider moving for reargument of the
December 29 order. Exhibit 22 [NYSCEF 956], pp. 3-4.
33. Sanford believed that the December 29, 2015 order was adverse to his position. He
testifies:
Q . . . Did you discuss with [Goldberg] the possibility of moving to [for]
[re]argument again after December 29th?
A. He wrote, or says to me, like, “ugh (sic). This is awful. What a mess.”
2
See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYmdCYmfU1A
8
8 of 48
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/03/2023 12:29 AM INDEX NO. 150315/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1069 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/03/2023
Q That’s on December 29th?
A Right. And on the same day, he’s like, “we’re going to have to figure
out what to do.
Q Right.
A And I’m like, “I’m sick of this.”
Nov. 1, 2019 deposition (Exhibit 23 [NYSCEF 957]), at 15:2-12.
34. Sanford believed that the December 29 order was wrong:
Q It was confused?
A It wasn’t confusing. It was wrong.
Exhibit 23 [NYSCEF 957]. at 35:18-36:3.
35. Feldman stated in an affirmation that: “When the closing of the PHC Sale became a
possibility, [Phillips’] title company raised a question as to the meaning of the December 29,
2015 Order’s denial of Defendants’ cross-motion to vacate all restraints.” Exhibit 24 [NYSCEF
958] , ¶7.
X. Sanford, Esposito and Ringel Devised a Scheme to Overcome
the Apparent Escrow Requirement without Notice to Knopf
36. Esposito called Casey on December 29, 2015 because either Esposito or Sanford
wanted to meet the other. Sanford and Esposito met on January 4, 2016. Exhibit 19 [NYSCEF
953], at 85:12-25; 93:20-94:21; 97:17-22.
37. By the time of the January 4 meeting Sanford knew that Esposito was married to a
Court Attorney employed in the First Department. He testifies:
I know what the meeting was for, the primary purpose for me and Quinn
coming to that meeting, so certainly on January 4. [2016], Frank Esposito was
discussing the fact that his wife worked at the First Department and in fact I may
have known it a few days before that, or even a week or so before that, but
certainly by January 4th, now looking at the dates, I would have known that his
wife worked at the First Department[.]
Exhibit 25 [NYSCEF 959], at 23:20-24:8
9
9 of 48
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/03/2023 12:29 AM INDEX NO. 150315/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1069 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/03/2023
38. Sanford met with Esposito because he didn’t want to move for reargument. He
testifies:
Q What led you to meeting with [Esposito] on January 4, 2016?
A I think I wanted to meet with him right after the December decision which –
Q Denied the motion to vacate the escrow requirement.
A Right, right. And Holwell Schuster [Goldberg’s firm] wanted to reargue
that, because they were in shock. And it was just going to take more time, and it
was clear to me it was simply – deny, because it was mooted, and we would be
playing this game of motion practice. And Lori Braverman’s idea, just simply call
and say – “what’s going on. Is there any restraint in place” – came out of the blue
as – “Huh. That’s not a bad idea.” So when –
Q This is way beyond the scope of the question.
A When I said to him, “why don’t we meet and go over this” – I think I
must have brought a mini file of the documents that got us to that place, and I’m
like, “can you look at these” – which is my general recollection” – “and tell me if
you think I’m right?”
Exhibit 23 [NYSCEF 958], at 40:9- 41:20.
39. Sanford asked Esposito whether there was a means of obtaining a clarification of the
First Department orders with out giving notice to Knopf. He testifies:
Q . . . Did you ask him to enlist his wife in finding out the appropriate
person to call?
A * * * I said, “Can you find out how you go out about doing this? Is there
someone we could call?” The whole point is, is there an alternative to walking
into the First Department, which the last time got nowhere.
Q What do you mean by “walking in”?
A There is only one way I know how to go to the First Department. You
walk in to 27 Madison Avenue. You go through security, you make a left, and
you walk into a room by Lauren Holmes. There’s a counter there. And that’s the
only place I’ve ever walked into, except for when I’ve gotten there and they
escorted me with you upstairs to an elevator.
Q When you walk in, there’s what’s called interim applications, they’re
handled by Ms. Holmes, right?
A Correct.
Q And you’re required to give your adversary 24 hours [notice]?
A As interim application, right. I didn’t know, is there any other interface
–
Q . . . [Y]ou discussed with Mr. Esposito doing another interim
application?
10
10 of 48
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/03/2023 12:29 AM INDEX NO. 150315/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1069 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/03/2023
A No. Absolutely not. * * *
Q Did you talk with him about the interim application process?
A No. I said, “We don’t need to do any kind of application. That was the
whole point. I said to him, “Can’t we just call someone to confirm a fact? Why do
we have to keep wasting money and time on motions?”
Exhibit 23 [NYSCEF 958], at 46:17- 48:11 (emphasis added).
40. After his January 4 meeting with Esposito, Sanford continued to view the December
29 order as adverse to him. A summary Sanford emailed to Esposito on January 6, 2016 stated
that the December 29, 2016 order “Freezes Penthouse Indefinitely. . . [.]” Exhibit 26 [NYSCEF
960], at the attachment to the email.
41. On January 7, 2016, between 3:15 and 3:30 p.m., Sanford and Esposito exchanged
emails agreeing that Sanford would send a “compendium” of documents to Esposito’s home: “so
M can get a look.” Exhibit 27 [NYSCEF 961], at p. 1. Sanford testifies that the compendium
was “information I brought with me on October 22nd to . . . hand up to Justice Sweeny.”
Sanford’s March 11, 2022 deposition (Exhibit 28 [NYSCEF 962]), at 92:6-15. At 3:55 p.m. on
January 7, Esposito called Ringel; they spoke for 6 minutes, 12 seconds. Exhibit 2 [NYSCEF
936], Document 129-3, Page 43 of 56, at the 15:55 MT call.3 At 4:40 p.m., Bronfman emailed
Phillips and Braverman that Sanford “[s]aid he has an order saying no restraint on Pursuit
selling PH.” Exhibit 30 [NYSCEF 964]. At 4:59 p.m., Sanford and Esposito spoke for 37
minutes, 37 seconds. Sanford phone records (Exhibit 31 [NYSCEF 965]), page 10, at Item 156.
A call from Esposito to Ringel immediately followed, lasting 4 minutes, 19 seconds. Exhibit 29
[NYSCEF 963], page 13, at Item 200.
3
516-922-2545 is Esposito’s home number. He frequently works from home. Exhibit 2
[NYSCEF 936], p. 2.
11
11 of 48
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/03/2023 12:29 AM INDEX NO. 150315/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1069 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/03/2023
42. Esposito told Sanford there were First Department personnel who could be contacted
for a clarification. Sanford testifies:
Q Did Mr. Esposito represent to you that the First Department had a desk
or a number or a division to call to obtain the clarification of a[n] [order]?
A He said there are people upstairs that do this.
Exhibit 23 [NYSCEF 958], at 18:12-17.
***
Q What did you say to [Esposito] next, after [he] said to
[you], “there are people you can call upstairs”?
A “Okay. So who do we call?”
Q Did he tell you immediately who to call?
A I don’t think he said in that minute. He said he will call me back, and
called me back, and gave me a number.
Q That number, would you tell me approximately what day he
gave that number?
A It was couple of days before the January 12th phone call.
Exhibit 23 [NYSCEF 958], at 49:4-16.
43. Sanford knew that the call Esposito was suggesting would be answered by Ringel:
Q. Before you received that 1:59 e-mail [from Esposito] on January 12th,
did you have any reason to think that the call would end up being answered by Ms.
Ringel?
A. I thought it was a possibility. I asked Frank if she felt it was a problem
and he said no she is allowed to.
Exhibit 25 [NYSCEF 959], at 169:14-20.
44. On January 7, immediately after Sanford and Esposito concluded their 37 minute, 37
second call, Esposito called Ringel again; the call lasted 4 minutes, 19 seconds. Exhibit 29
[NYSCEF 963], page 13, at Item 200.
XI. Sanford’s Request that Akerman Call the First Department
45. On January 8, 2016, Sanford called Akerman at 12:46 p.m. They spoke for 33
minutes, 28 seconds. Exhibit 31[NYSCEF 965], page 11, at Items 167.
12
12 of 48
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/03/2023 12:29 AM INDEX NO. 150315/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1069 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/03/2023
46. Sanford’s phone calls to Akerman on January 8 concerned the December 29 order.
47. Immediately following that call, Sanford emailed Akerman the December 29 order,
attached to an email that stated: “12-29-15 AD Denies Cross Motion.” Exhibit 32 [NYSCEF 966
].
XII. Esposito’s Request for Compensation from Sanford
48. On Sunday, January 10, Sanford called Esposito at 3:14 p.m. They spoke for 19
minutes, 22 seconds. Exhibit 31 [NYSCEF 965], page 12, at Item 192. Esposito called Sanford
at 6:02:55 p.m. They spoke for 41 minutes, 26 seconds. Exhibit 31 [NYSCEF 965], page 13, at
Item 197.
49. Esposito requested compensation for assisting Sanford in their scheme. According
to Sanford, Esposito “shock[ed] me with this call that I should hire him, and he is going to now
help me get a lawyer.” Exhibit 23 [NYSCEF 957], at 129:21-23. Esposito was requesting 10
percent of the amount that Sanford would pay as an initial retainer to new counsel. Exhibit
23,[NYSCEF 957] at 21:24-22:3 (Sanford’s testimony that the amount he paid Esposito would be
“10 percent of an amount which wound up to be ten percent of what I was going to pay the bigger
firm”). Sanford and Esposito understood that the money Sanford needed to pay for lawyers
would come from the sale of the 67th Street apartment. Exhibit 23 [NYSCEF 957 ], p. 22, lines
20-24 (Sanford’s testimony that the $500,000 budget for a large law firm would be available
“[w]hen Pursuit sold the apartment[.]”).
50. Sanford did not intend to pay Esposito unless Akerman was willing to call the First
Department for an interpretation as to whether an escrow requirement subsisted. Immediately
after Sanford’s second call with Esposito on January 10 (i.e., 6:45:58 pm), Sanford called
13
13 of 48
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/03/2023 12:29 AM INDEX NO. 150315/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1069 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/03/2023
Akerman on his cell phone, 917-848-3793. Sanford and Akerman spoke for 6 minutes, 23
seconds. Exhibit 31 [NYSCEF 965 ], page 13, at Item 200.
XIII. After Obtaining Akerman’s and Feldman’s Agreement to Call
the First Department, Sanford Agreed to Pay Esposito $55,000
51. The next morning, January 11, Esposito called Sanford at 9:05:54 a.m.; they spoke for
17 minutes, 31 seconds. Exhibit 31 [NYSCEF 965], page 13, at Item 214. According to Sanford,
Esposito demanded $50,000. Exhibit 23 [NYSCEF 957], at 20:12-13; see also: id., at 21:25-
22:3.
52. Sanford “thought about” Esposito’s demand. (Exhibit 23 [NYSCEF 957], at 104:12-
14; at 106:3-5).
53. Sanford then called Akerman at 11:30:10 a.m.; they spoke for 43 seconds. Exhibit
31 [NYSCEF 965], page 14, at Item 217. He called Feldman at 11:34 a.m.; they spoke for 15
minutes, 25 seconds. Exhibit 31 [NYSCEF 965], page 14, at Item 220.
54. In these calls Akerman and Feldman agreed to call the First Department to obtain
clarification as to whether an escrow requirement remained in effect.
55. Sanford asked Akerman “to call [First Department personnel] to confirm if there
[are] no restraints or if an order had been resolved, or decision adjudicated.” Exhibit 23
[NYSCEF 957], at 6:11-20.
56. Sanford made this request and Akerman agreed to make the call on January 11,
2016. August 11, 2017 Akerman Deposition (Exhibit 33 [NYSCEF 967]), at 17:22-18:8, 19:3-7.
57. At 11:54 a.m., Sanford received Esposito’s engagement agreement, which provided
for a single $55,000 payment. Exhibit 34 [NYSCEF 968], Bates Nos. Pursuit000306-000308.
58. Two minutes later, Sanford sent Akerman and Feldman an email that attached the
14
14 of 48
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/03/2023 12:29 AM INDEX NO. 150315/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1069 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/03/2023
November 12, 2015 order and set forth his desired clarification, which read:
As a matter of law, the full panel Order of Nov 12, 2015 [M-3660]
dissolved the Oct 22, 2015 Interim Order [M-5942] regarding an escrow of PHC
proceeds .. “pending further court order’ according to appellate dept. The Nov
12,2015 Order is the “further court order.”
Exhibit 35 [NYSCEF 969].
59. At 12:08 p.m., Ringel called Evan Glassman, an attorney at Steptoe & Johnson, LLP,
on his direct line (212-506-3909), and spoke to him for 11 minutes and 2 seconds. Exhibit 2
[NYSCEF 936], Document 129-3, Page 43 of 56. Ringel asked Glassman whether he was
interested in helping out Esposito on a case. May 30, 2018 Glassman deposition (Exhibit 36
[NYSCEF 970]), at 18:13-19:7; 21:20-22:13.
60. At 12:21 Sanford countersigned and emailed the fee agreement back to Esposito,
Exhibit 34 [NYSCEF 968], at Bates Nos. Pursuit000309-000311.
61. At 12:28 Esposito emailed Sanford: “Now let’s go kick a– .” Exhibit 34 [NYSCEF
968], at Bates Nos. Pursuit000312.
62. Sanford testifies:
Q And you signed the agreement [with Esposito] on January 11th, and
you –
A Just so you know, it wasn’t any – you can tie these together, but it’s a
mistake. It wasn’t as if there wasn't going to be a call or whatever on the 12th,
unless something was signed. It was – I think – got a number on the 9th or 10th or
whatever it was. And I knew people were available to call on the 12 th. And out of
nowhere, out of the blue on the 11th, me not expecting anything, he’s like, “by the
way, your life is going to get better soon, because there was no question in my
mind or in his that anyone at the First Department would tell my lawyers, there is
no restraint. So he was like, “hey, almost home free. You can now get a lawyer.
You have this idea for a budget.”
Exhibit 23 [NYSCEF 957], at 132:2-24.
63. At 12:28 p.m. Ringel spoke with Glassman again. Exhibit 2 [NYSCEF 936], at
15
15 of 48
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/03/2023 12:29 AM INDEX NO. 150315/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1069 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/03/2023
ECF 129-3, Page 43 of 56 (call to 212-506-3909).
64. At 1:14 p.m., Feldman emailed Akerman to set up the call with a female clerk that
he did not identify by name:
I need to set up a time for a conference call with the counsel to Fidelity and
the Appellate Division Clerk to confirm that no restraints exist on the sale to
Michael Phillips. Once I know when everyone is available I will call the clerk to
get her time and availability.
Exhibit 37 [NYSCEF 971] (emphasis added).
65. Akerman asked Sanford what number he should call. Exhibit 28 [NYSCEF 962] , at
103:5-17 (Sanford’s testimony that after agreeing in a “first call” to request the clarification, in a
subsequent call, Akerman asked Sanford for the number to use to request the clarification).
Sanford also testifies:
Q Did Akerman ask you how you obtained this phone number
for someone who was responsible for clarifying orders?
A He didn’t. But – well – not trying to give you too
much information, but he never went to the First Department very much. He said,
Who do I call and what do I do,” because he literally just didn’t do this much.
Q Fine. What did you say in response to that?
A I said, “let me find out.”
Q Right. And then –
A I didn’t tell him the source of finding out.
Q Then you went and spoke with Esposito and got this number.
A Yes.
Exhibit 23 [NYSCEF 957], at 57:23-58:16.
***
Q When do you think you gave Mr. Akerman the number that
you got from Esposito?
A * * * What happened was * * * . . . Nick called me and said, “What
number does he call?”
Exhibit 23 [NYSCEF 957], at 134:22-135:6 (emphasis added).
66. When Akerman asked Sanford what number he should call, Sanford asked Esposito
16
16 of 48
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/03/2023 12:29 AM INDEX NO. 150315/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1069 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/03/2023
and Esposito gave Sanford Ringel’s private line at the First Department.
Q Did you give them that number? You had plenty of chances to think
about it, read about it–
A I have no idea, after all these years. I got a number, and ten minutes later
I gave it to Nick Akerman, and that was it.
Q Do you doubt that that's the number that you gave Mr. Akerman,
212-340-0539?
A Here’s what I know. I asked Mr. Esposito for a number and I gave that
number to Mr. Akerman.
Exhibit 23 [NYSCEF 957], at 17:5-16 (emphasis added).4
***
A. . . . So when I called Frank, I said, “okay. What number?”
And I, again, believe he said he would call me back. And he did. And he gave me a
number, which I don’t remember what it was. But then I called Nick and gave him
that number.
Exhibit 23 [NYSCEF 957], at 8:8-13.
67. Still on January 11, at 1:54:20 p.m., Phillip’s lawyer, Bronfman, called Sanford. They
spoke for 6 minutes, 15 seconds. Exhibit 31 [NYSCEF 965] , page 14, at Item 225.5 At 2:05
p.m., Bronfman emailed Phillips and Braverman:
Michael S. and I spoke. He is arranging a call with underwriter and Ed
Feldman who is back today from vacation. Michael says he will be able to support
clear title and be in a position to close by Wednesday or Thursday.
Exhibit 38 [NYSCEF 972].
4
The OCA Report disclosed that Ringel’s direct number at the First Department was
212-340-0539. Exhibit 2 [NYSCEF 936], p. 8. n.18)
5
770-805-1000 is the number for Bronfman’s company, Jamestown Premier Property
Fund, L.P.
https://www.apollo.io/companies/Jamestown-Premier-Property-Fund--L-P-/55921de373696418d
26e7a00
17
17 of 48
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/03/2023 12:29 AM INDEX NO. 150315/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1069 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/03/2023
XIV. The Events of January 12, 2016
(a) Preceding the Phone Call to Ringel
68. On January 12, Sanford called Braverman at 9:39:38 a.m. The call lasted five
seconds. Exhibit 31 [NYSCEF 965], page 16, at Item 246.6 At 9:43, Sanford sent Akerman
Braverman’s and Feldman’s email addresses, with the message: “Nick: pls email them now.”
Exhibit 39 [NYSCEF 973]. Also at 9:43, Sanford called Akerman; they spoke for 7 minutes, 36
seconds. Exhibit 31 [NYSCEF 965], page 16, at Item 247.7 At 9:48 – when Akerman and
Sanford were still on the phone – Akerman emailed Feldman and Braverman that he was: “. . .
available throughout the day, but right now would be best for our quick call. Can we please do it
now?” Exhibit 40 [NYSCEF 974]. At 9:51 a.m., Feldman responded, copying Braverman:
“Waiting to hear back from title counsel – call may not be necessary. He has the November
order.” Exhibit 41 [NYSCEF 975]. At 9:54, Braverman responded to Akerman and Feldman: “I
am available-please let me know.” Exhibit 42 [NYSCEF 976]. At 9:54 Akerman separately
forwarded Feldman’s and Braverman’s responses to Sanford. Exhibits 41 [NYSCEF 975] and 42
[NYSCEF 976].
69. At 9:59:03, Sanford called Feldman; the call lasted 13 minutes, 6 seconds. Exhibit
31 [NYSCEF 965], page 16, at Item 250.
70. At 10:13, as Sanford’s call with Feldman concluded, Akerman called Ringel on her
private line; the call lasted 8 seconds, the length of Ringel’s voice mail greeting, which stated her
6
The phone number 212-721-7625 is listed for Braverman by OCA Attorney
Registration.
7
212-415-9217 was Akerman’s direct dial at Dorsey.
18
18 of 48
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/03/2023 12:29 AM INDEX NO. 150315/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1069 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/03/2023
name. Exhibit 43 [NYSCEF 977], p. 51, at reference id 9; Exhibit 2 [NYSCEF 936], Document
129-3, Page 43 of 56, at the 10:13 a.m. incoming call from 212-415-9200; id., Document 129-3,
at Page 49 of 56
71. At 10:33 Tracy Miller, of CB Title (Phillips’ title agent) emailed Braverman:
“Fidelity will not insure Michael Phillips’ deal.” Exhibit 44 [NYSCEF 978].
(b) The call to Ringel
72. The emails among Braverman, Akerman and Feldman on the morning of January 12
indicate that Akerman intended to include Braverman on the call to the First Department.
Exhibits 40 [NYSCEF 974], 41 [NYSCEF 975] and 42 [NYSCEF 976] However, Akerman did
not even attempt to patch her in before they called Ringel. Exhibit 43 [NYSCEF 977], at page
51.
73. Before calling Ringel, Akerman told Feldman that he had already learned from the
First Department that the escrow requirement was dissolved. Feldman testifies that Akerman:
. . . called me and said he was advised by the Appellate Division that the
restraints were dissolved as a matter of law, and I said, fine, and then when he
knew I was on the phone, he called the Appellate Division, and we – excuse me.
And he asked for the clerk, and we got transferred once or twice, and we talked to
this nice lady. She said she was the Court Attorney. [Sh]e said she was the Court
Attorney, whatever, and she confirmed, yes, that the denial of the motion resulted
in the dissolution of all restraints, and we can close.
Exhibit 45 [NYSCEF 979], at 26:12-23.
74. Akerman’s statement to Feldman that he had already been advised by the Appellate
Division was a reference to information Sanford had given Akerman to the effect that Sanford had
a contact in the First Department who advised Sanford that, if a call were made on Sanford’s
behalf, the contact would state that escrow requirement had been dissolved as a matter of law.
19
19 of 48
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/03/2023 12:29 AM INDEX NO. 150315/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1069 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/03/2023
75. Feldman stated at a hearing that: “Mr. Akerman indicated to me that these restraints
had been resolved by the subsequent denial of the motion. THE COURT: . . . Mr. Akerman told
you that? MR. FELDMAN: Yes. THE COURT: Before the phone call? MR. FELDMAN: Yes.”
Knopf v. Feldman & Associates, PLLC, Index No. 153821/2019 (Sup. Ct., New York Co.), May
23, 2019 hearing transcript (Exhibit 46 [NYSCEF 980]), at 55:23-56:5.
76. Akerman’s statement to Feldman that he had already learned from the Appellate
Division that the restraints had been dissolved was made in the call that immediately preceded the
call to Ringel on January 12, since that was the only call Akerman made to Feldman between
December 20, 2015 and January 12, 2016. Exhibit 43 [NYSCEF 977].
77. Akerman called Feldman at 10:43 a.m. and they patched in Ringel at 10:44 am.
Their call to Ringel lasted four minutes. Exhibit 43,[NYSCEF 977] page 51, at reference ids. 31
and 32; Exhibit 2 [NYSCEF 936], Document 129-3, Page 43 of 56, at the 10:44 a.m. incoming
call from 212-415-9200.
78. Ringel testified that Akerman and Feldman identified themselves as Michael
Sanford’s lawyers and asked if she was familiar with the case. Exhibit 47 [NYSCEF 981], at
44:11-23.
79. Ringel informed Akerman and Feldman that she was already familiar with the Knopf
v. Sanford case. Exhibit 45 [NYSCEF 979], at 101:9-11 (Feldman’s testimony that “Mr.
Akerman did not go through the litany of litigation, because Ms. Ringel indicated she was fully
familiar.”)
80. Ringel also revealed that she was aware of the orders Akerman was asking about.
Exhibit 45 [NYSCEF 979], at 37:7-13 (Feldman’s testimony that: “[Ringel] knew the issues. She
20
20 of 48
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/03/2023 12:29 AM INDEX NO. 150315/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1069 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/03/2023
knew the case. Assuming she got it. I’m using the term got it in front of her, whether it was on her
computer, in her files, or in her memory. She knew what was going on and she knew the order to
which she was referring to.”); Exhibit 47 [NYSCEF 981], at 56:22-23 (Ringel’s testimony that
“they asked me if I was familiar with the order I was [sic] speaking about. I said yes,
Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/03/2023 12:29 AM INDEX NO. 150315/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1069 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/03/2023 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK: PART 7 -----------------------------------------------X NORMA KNOPF and MICHAEL KNOPF, Plaintiffs, Index No. 150315/2019 - against - Hon. Gerald Lebovits, J.S.C. FRANK M. ESPOSITO, DORSEY & WHITNEY, LLP, Motion Sequence 18 NATHANIEL H. AKERMAN, and EDWARD S. FELDMAN, Defendants. -----------------------------------------------X EDWARD FELDMAN, Third-Party Plaintiff, - against - ERIC W. BERRY, Third-Party Defendant. -----------------------------------------------X KNOPF’S STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS Plaintiff Norma Knopf submits the following Statement of Material Facts pursuant to Uniform Civil Rule 202.8-g[a]1 in support of her motion for summary judgment against all defendants. I. Background 1. Knopf’s Second Amended Complaint (Exhibit 1 [NYSCEF 935]was filed on June 1 A Statement of Material Facts is required in this Part. Birds & Bubbles NYC LLC v. 100 Forsyth LLC, 2022 WL 519204, *1 (Sup. Ct. New York Co., Feb. 18. 2022) (Lebovits, J.). 1 of 48 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/03/2023 12:29 AM INDEX NO. 150315/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1069 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/03/2023 13, 2019. Answers on behalf of defendants Edward Feldman [NYSCEF 324], Frank Esposito [NYSCEF 325] and Dorsey & Whitney, LLP and Nathaniel Akerman [NYSCEF 326] were filed on March 29, 2021. The First and Second Claims allege attorney deceit and collusion in violation of Judiciary Law §487, and further allege that defendants’ client, Michael Sanford, was a participant in the deceit and collusion. The Seventh Claim alleges false statements in a related federal action, Knopf v. Esposito, 17 Civ. 5833 (S.D.N.Y.) 2. Esposito, Akerman and Feldman are lawyers. Akerman was a partner at defendant Dorsey & Whitney, LLP at the time of the events underlying this action. The case arises, in part, out of an ex parte telephone call that Akerman and Feldman made to Esposito’s wife, Melissa Ringel, on January 12, 2016. At the time of the call, Ringel was employed as an attorney in the First Department. Akerman and Feldman alleged that in their ex parte call, they obtained Ringel’s interpretation of at least two First Department orders. 3. Knopf’s allegations concern events investigated by the Office of Court Administration (“OCA”) and resulting in a report assigned IG Case No.: 17-130 and dated March 16, 2018. Exhibit 2 [NYSCEF 936]. On April 24, 2018, the OCA report was filed in Knopf v. Esposito, 17 Civ. 5833 (S.D.N.Y.), the related federal action. Shortly after the OCA report was filed, Ringel resigned from the First Department. The OCA report states that, in depositions, Akerman and Feldman incorrectly stated that their call was transferred to Ringel, when it was in fact made to her directly. Id., p. 20. 4. In 2021, Ringel and Esposito were indicted based on allegations relating to Akerman’s and Feldman’s call to Ringel. People v. Ringel and Esposito, Sup. Ct., New York Co., Crim. Term, Indictment No. 1237/2021 . Exhibit 3 [NYSCEF 937]. The District 2 2 of 48 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/03/2023 12:29 AM INDEX NO. 150315/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1069 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/03/2023 Attorney’s “Statement of Facts” accompanying the indictment refers to Akerman and Feldman as their client’s real estate attorneys, and states that Esposito arranged to have them speak to Ringel at the First Department. Exhibit 4 [NYSCEF 938]. Following the indictment, the related Knopf v. Esposito federal action was stayed. II. The Events Preceding the Motions Decided in the Appellate Division in the Latter Part of 2015 5. In 2000, Knopf, and her late husband (together, “Knopf”) contributed $11,607,810 to Michael Sanford’s so-called “hedge fund,” becoming its sole investors. Accompanying April March 29, 2023 affidavit of Norma Knopf [NYSCEF 1068], ¶2. 6. Knopf made five loans to Sanford and Sanford’s companies. Knopf aff. [NYSCEF 1068], ¶3. One, in the amount of $1,690,860, financed the purchase, by Sanford’s wholly owned company, Pursuit Holdings, LLP, of an apartment located at 44 East 67th Street, PHC, in Manhattan (“67th Street property”). January 23, 2006 contract (Exhibit 5 [NYSCEF 939]); February 9, 2006 contract (Exhibit 6 [NYSCEF 940]). Sanford and Pursuit contracted to deliver to Knopf a recordable mortgage against the 67th Street property to secure the $1,690,860 loan. Exhibit 5 [NYSCEF 939], pp. 1, 3; Exhibit 6 [NYSCEF 940], p. 1. 7. Knopf’s separate $3,250,000 loan to Pursuit financed its purchase of three condominium units on at 10 Bedford Street (“Bedford properties”). Knopf aff. [NYSCEF 1068], ¶4. 8. Sanford failed to repay the loans or deliver the promised mortgages against the 67th Street property. Knopf v. Esposito, 2019 WL 429469, *2 (Sup. Ct., New York Co., Feb. 4, 2019) (Lebovits, J.) (“Despite the agreement, Pursuit did not provide the mortgages for the PHC and the Townhouse or repay the underlying loans.”) 3 3 of 48 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/03/2023 12:29 AM INDEX NO. 150315/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1069 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/03/2023 9. In 2009, Knopf filed an action, Knopf v. Sanford, Sup. Ct., New York County, Index No. 113227/2009. The complaint alleged that Sanford and his companies breached the loan agreements, including those for the $1,690,860 and the $3.25 million loans. The complaint demanded money damages and/or the imposition of constructive trusts upon the 67th Street and Bedford properties. Exhibit 7 [NYSCEF 941] ¶¶11-28, ¶¶401-46 & pp. 8-10). 10. On December 11, 2014, the First Department granted Knopf summary judgment on all five loan agreements, including the $1,690,860 loan. Knopf v. Sanford, 123 A.D.3d 521, 521- 522, 1 N.Y.S.3d 18, 19 (1st Dept. 2014). The decision did not determine damages, and denied summary judgment on the constructive trust claim. Id. 11. On December 23, 2014, the trial court (Tingling, J.S.C.) terminated notices of pendency that Knopf filed against the 67th Street and Bedford properties. Knopf aff. [NYSCEF 1068], ¶8. 12. In his submissions to Justice Tingling, Sanford disclosed that he had a buyer for the 67th Street apartment, but did not disclose the buyer’s identity, or the purchase price. Knopf did not become aware of the buyer’s identity until February 24, 2016. The buyer, in fact, was Michael Phillips, who agreed to pay $3,000,000 for the 67th Street apartment. Knopf aff. [NYSCEF 1068] , ¶8. 13. Knopf sought to prevent a sale of the 67th Street property. In the Appellate Division, she obtained a stay, followed by a preliminary injunction, entered on April 2, 2015, that prohibited the sale of the 67th Street property. Exhibit 8 [NYSCEF 942] at the July 24, 2015 Berry aff., Ex. C. 14. In early 2015, Knopf moved in the trial court for judgment in the amount of the 4 4 of 48 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/03/2023 12:29 AM INDEX NO. 150315/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1069 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/03/2023 loans or, alternatively, an attachment, and obtained a temporary restraining order pending determination of the attachment motion. Exhibit 8 [NYSCEF 942], at the July 24, 2015 Berry aff., ¶2, ¶19. 15. On July 2, 2015, Knopf’s appeal from the cancellation of the notice of pendency was denied. Knopf v. Sanford, 130 A.D.3d 407, 13 N.Y.S.3d 365 (1st Dept. 2015), recalled, vacated and modified, 132 A.D.3d 416, 17 N.Y.S.3d 674 (1st Dept. 2015). . 16. On July 23, 2015, Knopf’s motion for a either a money judgment in the sum certain amounts of the loans or, alternatively, an attachment was denied by the trial court (Hon. Richard Braun, J.S.C.) Exhibit 8 [NYSCEF 942], at the July 24, 2015 Berry aff., ¶2. 17. On July 23, 2015, Knopf noticed an appeal from the denial of her motion for judgment or an attachment. Exhibit 8 [NYSCEF 942], at the July 24, 2015 Berry aff., Ex. B. 18. On July 24, 2015, Knopf moved in the First Department for a preliminary injunction prohibiting the sale of Pursuit’s properties pending the determination of the appeal noticed on July 23, 2015. Exhibit 8 [NYSCEF 942], at the July 24, 2015 Notice of Motion. The motion was assigned No. M-3660. III. The October 22, 2015 Escrow Order 19. On October 22, 2015, prior to any decision on the July 24, 2015 motion, Knopf filed a second motion (Exhibit 9 [NYSCEF 943]) in the First Department, which was assigned No. M-5459. At the time, Knopf’s earlier July 24, 2015 motion, M-3660 (i.e., Exhibit 8 [NYSCEF 942], remained sub judice. 20. The October 22, 2015 motion requested, inter alia, reinstatement of the notices of pendency, an interim stay of the sale of the 67th Street property, a preliminary injunction against 5 5 of 48 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/03/2023 12:29 AM INDEX NO. 150315/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1069 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/03/2023 the sale of both properties and re-calendaring of the July 23, 2015 appeal from the March 2016 term to the December 2015 Term. Exhibit 9 [NYSCEF 943]. (Previously, Sanford obtained a re-calendaring from the December 2015 to March 2016 term by means of an ex parte application that he made on a date when Knopf’s attorneys had scheduling conflicts and at which he falsely represented to the First Department that Knopfs’ attorneys consented to that re-calendaring.) 21. Justice John W. Sweeny denied the requested stay, but issued an order, dated October 22, 2015, that required any sale proceeds to be escrowed. Exhibit 10 [NYSCEF 944], p. 2. 22. The July 23, 2015 appeal was re-calendared from March, 2016 to January, 2016. Id. IV. Sanford Understood that the Escrow Order Allowed the 67th Street Property to Be Sold 23. Sanford provided the escrow order to Akerman and, on October 24, 2015, Sanford emailed Akerman that, under the escrow order, “Pursuit ‘may sell’ PHC but th[e] proceeds would then be held for ‘further motion practice.” Exhibit 11 [NYSCEF 945], at DOR0001959. 24. Sanford refused to close if the proceeds had to be escrowed. An internal November 3, 2015 email produced by Phillip’s title examiner, CB Title, stated: “Fyi – deal got canned at about 6:30 last night . . . creditors on the L[is] P[endens] got an order that the seller had to put sales proceeds in escrow and [Sanford] wasn’t having it.” Exhibit 12 [NYSCEF 946]. V. Sanford and Feldman Knew that the Escrow Order Could Only Be Judicially Clarified on Notice to Knopf 25. On November 4, 2015, Feldman and Phillips’ attorneys, Lori Braverman and Matthew Bronfman, exchanged emails discussing Feldman, who was Sanford’s closing attorney, 6 6 of 48 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/03/2023 12:29 AM INDEX NO. 150315/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1069 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/03/2023 possibly making an in-person application to the First Department to clarify the October 22 order. Exhibit 13 [NYSCEF 947]. 26. Later on November 4, 2015, Feldman emailed Sanford: “I was going to go to the Court and get definition of ‘proceeds’. Are you telling me not to do that?” Exhibit 14 [NYSCEF 948]. Still later that day, Braverman emailed Bronfman that Feldman had informed her that he was not making the in-person application because Sanford was “concerned that the Court will notify Berry [Knopf’s lawyer]. . . [.]” Exhibit 15 [NYSCEF 949]. Feldman agrees that Braverman’s email to Bronfman “accurately put down whatever we talked about, . . [.]” Feldman’s Mar. 16, 2022 deposition (Exhibit 16 [NYSCEF 950]), at 104:12-21; see also: id., at 102:11-17; and 103:6-13. VI. The November 12, 2015 Order and Sanford’s Belief that it Did Not Terminate the Escrow Requirement 27. On November 12, 2015, the First Department, Justice Karla Moskowitz presiding, issued an order (Exhibit 17 [NYSCEF 951]) that denied Knopf’ July 24, 2015 motion for a preliminary injunction (M-3660). The November 12, 2015 order did not decide, or refer to, the October 22, 2015 motion (M-5459) (i.e., Ex. 9 [NYSCEF 943]) or Justice Sweeny’s October 22, 2015 interim escrow order (i.e., Exhibit 10 [NYSCEF 944], p. 2). 28. When the November 12 order was filed, Akerman emailed Sanford: “Does this moot Berry’s present bulls– before the Appellate Division? Can you now just sell the PH?” Sanford replied “No; not yet.” Exhibit 18 [NYSCEF 952]. VII. Ringel’s Introduction to Stanley Quinn Casey 29. Ringel met Sanford’s assistant, Stanley Quinn Casey, at the Keno Brothers Rolling 7 7 of 48 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/03/2023 12:29 AM INDEX NO. 150315/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1069 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/03/2023 Sculpture Auction (a vintage automobile auction) in Manhattan on November 19, 2015.2 Esposito had invited Casey to the auction. Ringel informed Casey that she was a lawyer at the First Department. Casey’s July 13, 2022 deposition (Exhibit 19 [NYSCEF 953]), at 63:19-64:5; 74:4-9; 82:7-12; 83:24-85:16. VIII. Pursuit’s and Sanford’s Unsuccessful Motion to Vacate the Escrow Requirement 30. On November 20, Pursuit filed a cross-motion to vacate the October 22 escrow order. Pursuit’s memorandum of law in support of the cross-motion acknowledged: “The October 22 Interim Order Is Working An Inequitable Hardship On Respondents.” Exhibit 20 [NYSCEF 954], p. 33. 31. On December 29, a First Department panel that included Justice Sweeny denied Pursuit’s cross-motion to vacate the escrow requirement, holding: “The cross motion for vacatur of the interim order dated October 22, 2015 is denied[.]” Exhibit 21 [NYSCEF 955]. IX. Sanford, His Attorneys and Phillips Interpreted the December 29 Ruling as Keeping the Escrow Requirement in Place 32. Sanford and Daniel Goldberg, Pursuit’s appellate attorney at the time, agreed in a December 29, 2015 email exchange that they should consider moving for reargument of the December 29 order. Exhibit 22 [NYSCEF 956], pp. 3-4. 33. Sanford believed that the December 29, 2015 order was adverse to his position. He testifies: Q . . . Did you discuss with [Goldberg] the possibility of moving to [for] [re]argument again after December 29th? A. He wrote, or says to me, like, “ugh (sic). This is awful. What a mess.” 2 See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYmdCYmfU1A 8 8 of 48 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/03/2023 12:29 AM INDEX NO. 150315/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1069 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/03/2023 Q That’s on December 29th? A Right. And on the same day, he’s like, “we’re going to have to figure out what to do. Q Right. A And I’m like, “I’m sick of this.” Nov. 1, 2019 deposition (Exhibit 23 [NYSCEF 957]), at 15:2-12. 34. Sanford believed that the December 29 order was wrong: Q It was confused? A It wasn’t confusing. It was wrong. Exhibit 23 [NYSCEF 957]. at 35:18-36:3. 35. Feldman stated in an affirmation that: “When the closing of the PHC Sale became a possibility, [Phillips’] title company raised a question as to the meaning of the December 29, 2015 Order’s denial of Defendants’ cross-motion to vacate all restraints.” Exhibit 24 [NYSCEF 958] , ¶7. X. Sanford, Esposito and Ringel Devised a Scheme to Overcome the Apparent Escrow Requirement without Notice to Knopf 36. Esposito called Casey on December 29, 2015 because either Esposito or Sanford wanted to meet the other. Sanford and Esposito met on January 4, 2016. Exhibit 19 [NYSCEF 953], at 85:12-25; 93:20-94:21; 97:17-22. 37. By the time of the January 4 meeting Sanford knew that Esposito was married to a Court Attorney employed in the First Department. He testifies: I know what the meeting was for, the primary purpose for me and Quinn coming to that meeting, so certainly on January 4. [2016], Frank Esposito was discussing the fact that his wife worked at the First Department and in fact I may have known it a few days before that, or even a week or so before that, but certainly by January 4th, now looking at the dates, I would have known that his wife worked at the First Department[.] Exhibit 25 [NYSCEF 959], at 23:20-24:8 9 9 of 48 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/03/2023 12:29 AM INDEX NO. 150315/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1069 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/03/2023 38. Sanford met with Esposito because he didn’t want to move for reargument. He testifies: Q What led you to meeting with [Esposito] on January 4, 2016? A I think I wanted to meet with him right after the December decision which – Q Denied the motion to vacate the escrow requirement. A Right, right. And Holwell Schuster [Goldberg’s firm] wanted to reargue that, because they were in shock. And it was just going to take more time, and it was clear to me it was simply – deny, because it was mooted, and we would be playing this game of motion practice. And Lori Braverman’s idea, just simply call and say – “what’s going on. Is there any restraint in place” – came out of the blue as – “Huh. That’s not a bad idea.” So when – Q This is way beyond the scope of the question. A When I said to him, “why don’t we meet and go over this” – I think I must have brought a mini file of the documents that got us to that place, and I’m like, “can you look at these” – which is my general recollection” – “and tell me if you think I’m right?” Exhibit 23 [NYSCEF 958], at 40:9- 41:20. 39. Sanford asked Esposito whether there was a means of obtaining a clarification of the First Department orders with out giving notice to Knopf. He testifies: Q . . . Did you ask him to enlist his wife in finding out the appropriate person to call? A * * * I said, “Can you find out how you go out about doing this? Is there someone we could call?” The whole point is, is there an alternative to walking into the First Department, which the last time got nowhere. Q What do you mean by “walking in”? A There is only one way I know how to go to the First Department. You walk in to 27 Madison Avenue. You go through security, you make a left, and you walk into a room by Lauren Holmes. There’s a counter there. And that’s the only place I’ve ever walked into, except for when I’ve gotten there and they escorted me with you upstairs to an elevator. Q When you walk in, there’s what’s called interim applications, they’re handled by Ms. Holmes, right? A Correct. Q And you’re required to give your adversary 24 hours [notice]? A As interim application, right. I didn’t know, is there any other interface – Q . . . [Y]ou discussed with Mr. Esposito doing another interim application? 10 10 of 48 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/03/2023 12:29 AM INDEX NO. 150315/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1069 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/03/2023 A No. Absolutely not. * * * Q Did you talk with him about the interim application process? A No. I said, “We don’t need to do any kind of application. That was the whole point. I said to him, “Can’t we just call someone to confirm a fact? Why do we have to keep wasting money and time on motions?” Exhibit 23 [NYSCEF 958], at 46:17- 48:11 (emphasis added). 40. After his January 4 meeting with Esposito, Sanford continued to view the December 29 order as adverse to him. A summary Sanford emailed to Esposito on January 6, 2016 stated that the December 29, 2016 order “Freezes Penthouse Indefinitely. . . [.]” Exhibit 26 [NYSCEF 960], at the attachment to the email. 41. On January 7, 2016, between 3:15 and 3:30 p.m., Sanford and Esposito exchanged emails agreeing that Sanford would send a “compendium” of documents to Esposito’s home: “so M can get a look.” Exhibit 27 [NYSCEF 961], at p. 1. Sanford testifies that the compendium was “information I brought with me on October 22nd to . . . hand up to Justice Sweeny.” Sanford’s March 11, 2022 deposition (Exhibit 28 [NYSCEF 962]), at 92:6-15. At 3:55 p.m. on January 7, Esposito called Ringel; they spoke for 6 minutes, 12 seconds. Exhibit 2 [NYSCEF 936], Document 129-3, Page 43 of 56, at the 15:55 MT call.3 At 4:40 p.m., Bronfman emailed Phillips and Braverman that Sanford “[s]aid he has an order saying no restraint on Pursuit selling PH.” Exhibit 30 [NYSCEF 964]. At 4:59 p.m., Sanford and Esposito spoke for 37 minutes, 37 seconds. Sanford phone records (Exhibit 31 [NYSCEF 965]), page 10, at Item 156. A call from Esposito to Ringel immediately followed, lasting 4 minutes, 19 seconds. Exhibit 29 [NYSCEF 963], page 13, at Item 200. 3 516-922-2545 is Esposito’s home number. He frequently works from home. Exhibit 2 [NYSCEF 936], p. 2. 11 11 of 48 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/03/2023 12:29 AM INDEX NO. 150315/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1069 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/03/2023 42. Esposito told Sanford there were First Department personnel who could be contacted for a clarification. Sanford testifies: Q Did Mr. Esposito represent to you that the First Department had a desk or a number or a division to call to obtain the clarification of a[n] [order]? A He said there are people upstairs that do this. Exhibit 23 [NYSCEF 958], at 18:12-17. *** Q What did you say to [Esposito] next, after [he] said to [you], “there are people you can call upstairs”? A “Okay. So who do we call?” Q Did he tell you immediately who to call? A I don’t think he said in that minute. He said he will call me back, and called me back, and gave me a number. Q That number, would you tell me approximately what day he gave that number? A It was couple of days before the January 12th phone call. Exhibit 23 [NYSCEF 958], at 49:4-16. 43. Sanford knew that the call Esposito was suggesting would be answered by Ringel: Q. Before you received that 1:59 e-mail [from Esposito] on January 12th, did you have any reason to think that the call would end up being answered by Ms. Ringel? A. I thought it was a possibility. I asked Frank if she felt it was a problem and he said no she is allowed to. Exhibit 25 [NYSCEF 959], at 169:14-20. 44. On January 7, immediately after Sanford and Esposito concluded their 37 minute, 37 second call, Esposito called Ringel again; the call lasted 4 minutes, 19 seconds. Exhibit 29 [NYSCEF 963], page 13, at Item 200. XI. Sanford’s Request that Akerman Call the First Department 45. On January 8, 2016, Sanford called Akerman at 12:46 p.m. They spoke for 33 minutes, 28 seconds. Exhibit 31[NYSCEF 965], page 11, at Items 167. 12 12 of 48 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/03/2023 12:29 AM INDEX NO. 150315/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1069 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/03/2023 46. Sanford’s phone calls to Akerman on January 8 concerned the December 29 order. 47. Immediately following that call, Sanford emailed Akerman the December 29 order, attached to an email that stated: “12-29-15 AD Denies Cross Motion.” Exhibit 32 [NYSCEF 966 ]. XII. Esposito’s Request for Compensation from Sanford 48. On Sunday, January 10, Sanford called Esposito at 3:14 p.m. They spoke for 19 minutes, 22 seconds. Exhibit 31 [NYSCEF 965], page 12, at Item 192. Esposito called Sanford at 6:02:55 p.m. They spoke for 41 minutes, 26 seconds. Exhibit 31 [NYSCEF 965], page 13, at Item 197. 49. Esposito requested compensation for assisting Sanford in their scheme. According to Sanford, Esposito “shock[ed] me with this call that I should hire him, and he is going to now help me get a lawyer.” Exhibit 23 [NYSCEF 957], at 129:21-23. Esposito was requesting 10 percent of the amount that Sanford would pay as an initial retainer to new counsel. Exhibit 23,[NYSCEF 957] at 21:24-22:3 (Sanford’s testimony that the amount he paid Esposito would be “10 percent of an amount which wound up to be ten percent of what I was going to pay the bigger firm”). Sanford and Esposito understood that the money Sanford needed to pay for lawyers would come from the sale of the 67th Street apartment. Exhibit 23 [NYSCEF 957 ], p. 22, lines 20-24 (Sanford’s testimony that the $500,000 budget for a large law firm would be available “[w]hen Pursuit sold the apartment[.]”). 50. Sanford did not intend to pay Esposito unless Akerman was willing to call the First Department for an interpretation as to whether an escrow requirement subsisted. Immediately after Sanford’s second call with Esposito on January 10 (i.e., 6:45:58 pm), Sanford called 13 13 of 48 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/03/2023 12:29 AM INDEX NO. 150315/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1069 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/03/2023 Akerman on his cell phone, 917-848-3793. Sanford and Akerman spoke for 6 minutes, 23 seconds. Exhibit 31 [NYSCEF 965 ], page 13, at Item 200. XIII. After Obtaining Akerman’s and Feldman’s Agreement to Call the First Department, Sanford Agreed to Pay Esposito $55,000 51. The next morning, January 11, Esposito called Sanford at 9:05:54 a.m.; they spoke for 17 minutes, 31 seconds. Exhibit 31 [NYSCEF 965], page 13, at Item 214. According to Sanford, Esposito demanded $50,000. Exhibit 23 [NYSCEF 957], at 20:12-13; see also: id., at 21:25- 22:3. 52. Sanford “thought about” Esposito’s demand. (Exhibit 23 [NYSCEF 957], at 104:12- 14; at 106:3-5). 53. Sanford then called Akerman at 11:30:10 a.m.; they spoke for 43 seconds. Exhibit 31 [NYSCEF 965], page 14, at Item 217. He called Feldman at 11:34 a.m.; they spoke for 15 minutes, 25 seconds. Exhibit 31 [NYSCEF 965], page 14, at Item 220. 54. In these calls Akerman and Feldman agreed to call the First Department to obtain clarification as to whether an escrow requirement remained in effect. 55. Sanford asked Akerman “to call [First Department personnel] to confirm if there [are] no restraints or if an order had been resolved, or decision adjudicated.” Exhibit 23 [NYSCEF 957], at 6:11-20. 56. Sanford made this request and Akerman agreed to make the call on January 11, 2016. August 11, 2017 Akerman Deposition (Exhibit 33 [NYSCEF 967]), at 17:22-18:8, 19:3-7. 57. At 11:54 a.m., Sanford received Esposito’s engagement agreement, which provided for a single $55,000 payment. Exhibit 34 [NYSCEF 968], Bates Nos. Pursuit000306-000308. 58. Two minutes later, Sanford sent Akerman and Feldman an email that attached the 14 14 of 48 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/03/2023 12:29 AM INDEX NO. 150315/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1069 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/03/2023 November 12, 2015 order and set forth his desired clarification, which read: As a matter of law, the full panel Order of Nov 12, 2015 [M-3660] dissolved the Oct 22, 2015 Interim Order [M-5942] regarding an escrow of PHC proceeds .. “pending further court order’ according to appellate dept. The Nov 12,2015 Order is the “further court order.” Exhibit 35 [NYSCEF 969]. 59. At 12:08 p.m., Ringel called Evan Glassman, an attorney at Steptoe & Johnson, LLP, on his direct line (212-506-3909), and spoke to him for 11 minutes and 2 seconds. Exhibit 2 [NYSCEF 936], Document 129-3, Page 43 of 56. Ringel asked Glassman whether he was interested in helping out Esposito on a case. May 30, 2018 Glassman deposition (Exhibit 36 [NYSCEF 970]), at 18:13-19:7; 21:20-22:13. 60. At 12:21 Sanford countersigned and emailed the fee agreement back to Esposito, Exhibit 34 [NYSCEF 968], at Bates Nos. Pursuit000309-000311. 61. At 12:28 Esposito emailed Sanford: “Now let’s go kick a– .” Exhibit 34 [NYSCEF 968], at Bates Nos. Pursuit000312. 62. Sanford testifies: Q And you signed the agreement [with Esposito] on January 11th, and you – A Just so you know, it wasn’t any – you can tie these together, but it’s a mistake. It wasn’t as if there wasn't going to be a call or whatever on the 12th, unless something was signed. It was – I think – got a number on the 9th or 10th or whatever it was. And I knew people were available to call on the 12 th. And out of nowhere, out of the blue on the 11th, me not expecting anything, he’s like, “by the way, your life is going to get better soon, because there was no question in my mind or in his that anyone at the First Department would tell my lawyers, there is no restraint. So he was like, “hey, almost home free. You can now get a lawyer. You have this idea for a budget.” Exhibit 23 [NYSCEF 957], at 132:2-24. 63. At 12:28 p.m. Ringel spoke with Glassman again. Exhibit 2 [NYSCEF 936], at 15 15 of 48 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/03/2023 12:29 AM INDEX NO. 150315/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1069 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/03/2023 ECF 129-3, Page 43 of 56 (call to 212-506-3909). 64. At 1:14 p.m., Feldman emailed Akerman to set up the call with a female clerk that he did not identify by name: I need to set up a time for a conference call with the counsel to Fidelity and the Appellate Division Clerk to confirm that no restraints exist on the sale to Michael Phillips. Once I know when everyone is available I will call the clerk to get her time and availability. Exhibit 37 [NYSCEF 971] (emphasis added). 65. Akerman asked Sanford what number he should call. Exhibit 28 [NYSCEF 962] , at 103:5-17 (Sanford’s testimony that after agreeing in a “first call” to request the clarification, in a subsequent call, Akerman asked Sanford for the number to use to request the clarification). Sanford also testifies: Q Did Akerman ask you how you obtained this phone number for someone who was responsible for clarifying orders? A He didn’t. But – well – not trying to give you too much information, but he never went to the First Department very much. He said, Who do I call and what do I do,” because he literally just didn’t do this much. Q Fine. What did you say in response to that? A I said, “let me find out.” Q Right. And then – A I didn’t tell him the source of finding out. Q Then you went and spoke with Esposito and got this number. A Yes. Exhibit 23 [NYSCEF 957], at 57:23-58:16. *** Q When do you think you gave Mr. Akerman the number that you got from Esposito? A * * * What happened was * * * . . . Nick called me and said, “What number does he call?” Exhibit 23 [NYSCEF 957], at 134:22-135:6 (emphasis added). 66. When Akerman asked Sanford what number he should call, Sanford asked Esposito 16 16 of 48 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/03/2023 12:29 AM INDEX NO. 150315/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1069 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/03/2023 and Esposito gave Sanford Ringel’s private line at the First Department. Q Did you give them that number? You had plenty of chances to think about it, read about it– A I have no idea, after all these years. I got a number, and ten minutes later I gave it to Nick Akerman, and that was it. Q Do you doubt that that's the number that you gave Mr. Akerman, 212-340-0539? A Here’s what I know. I asked Mr. Esposito for a number and I gave that number to Mr. Akerman. Exhibit 23 [NYSCEF 957], at 17:5-16 (emphasis added).4 *** A. . . . So when I called Frank, I said, “okay. What number?” And I, again, believe he said he would call me back. And he did. And he gave me a number, which I don’t remember what it was. But then I called Nick and gave him that number. Exhibit 23 [NYSCEF 957], at 8:8-13. 67. Still on January 11, at 1:54:20 p.m., Phillip’s lawyer, Bronfman, called Sanford. They spoke for 6 minutes, 15 seconds. Exhibit 31 [NYSCEF 965] , page 14, at Item 225.5 At 2:05 p.m., Bronfman emailed Phillips and Braverman: Michael S. and I spoke. He is arranging a call with underwriter and Ed Feldman who is back today from vacation. Michael says he will be able to support clear title and be in a position to close by Wednesday or Thursday. Exhibit 38 [NYSCEF 972]. 4 The OCA Report disclosed that Ringel’s direct number at the First Department was 212-340-0539. Exhibit 2 [NYSCEF 936], p. 8. n.18) 5 770-805-1000 is the number for Bronfman’s company, Jamestown Premier Property Fund, L.P. https://www.apollo.io/companies/Jamestown-Premier-Property-Fund--L-P-/55921de373696418d 26e7a00 17 17 of 48 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/03/2023 12:29 AM INDEX NO. 150315/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1069 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/03/2023 XIV. The Events of January 12, 2016 (a) Preceding the Phone Call to Ringel 68. On January 12, Sanford called Braverman at 9:39:38 a.m. The call lasted five seconds. Exhibit 31 [NYSCEF 965], page 16, at Item 246.6 At 9:43, Sanford sent Akerman Braverman’s and Feldman’s email addresses, with the message: “Nick: pls email them now.” Exhibit 39 [NYSCEF 973]. Also at 9:43, Sanford called Akerman; they spoke for 7 minutes, 36 seconds. Exhibit 31 [NYSCEF 965], page 16, at Item 247.7 At 9:48 – when Akerman and Sanford were still on the phone – Akerman emailed Feldman and Braverman that he was: “. . . available throughout the day, but right now would be best for our quick call. Can we please do it now?” Exhibit 40 [NYSCEF 974]. At 9:51 a.m., Feldman responded, copying Braverman: “Waiting to hear back from title counsel – call may not be necessary. He has the November order.” Exhibit 41 [NYSCEF 975]. At 9:54, Braverman responded to Akerman and Feldman: “I am available-please let me know.” Exhibit 42 [NYSCEF 976]. At 9:54 Akerman separately forwarded Feldman’s and Braverman’s responses to Sanford. Exhibits 41 [NYSCEF 975] and 42 [NYSCEF 976]. 69. At 9:59:03, Sanford called Feldman; the call lasted 13 minutes, 6 seconds. Exhibit 31 [NYSCEF 965], page 16, at Item 250. 70. At 10:13, as Sanford’s call with Feldman concluded, Akerman called Ringel on her private line; the call lasted 8 seconds, the length of Ringel’s voice mail greeting, which stated her 6 The phone number 212-721-7625 is listed for Braverman by OCA Attorney Registration. 7 212-415-9217 was Akerman’s direct dial at Dorsey. 18 18 of 48 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/03/2023 12:29 AM INDEX NO. 150315/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1069 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/03/2023 name. Exhibit 43 [NYSCEF 977], p. 51, at reference id 9; Exhibit 2 [NYSCEF 936], Document 129-3, Page 43 of 56, at the 10:13 a.m. incoming call from 212-415-9200; id., Document 129-3, at Page 49 of 56 71. At 10:33 Tracy Miller, of CB Title (Phillips’ title agent) emailed Braverman: “Fidelity will not insure Michael Phillips’ deal.” Exhibit 44 [NYSCEF 978]. (b) The call to Ringel 72. The emails among Braverman, Akerman and Feldman on the morning of January 12 indicate that Akerman intended to include Braverman on the call to the First Department. Exhibits 40 [NYSCEF 974], 41 [NYSCEF 975] and 42 [NYSCEF 976] However, Akerman did not even attempt to patch her in before they called Ringel. Exhibit 43 [NYSCEF 977], at page 51. 73. Before calling Ringel, Akerman told Feldman that he had already learned from the First Department that the escrow requirement was dissolved. Feldman testifies that Akerman: . . . called me and said he was advised by the Appellate Division that the restraints were dissolved as a matter of law, and I said, fine, and then when he knew I was on the phone, he called the Appellate Division, and we – excuse me. And he asked for the clerk, and we got transferred once or twice, and we talked to this nice lady. She said she was the Court Attorney. [Sh]e said she was the Court Attorney, whatever, and she confirmed, yes, that the denial of the motion resulted in the dissolution of all restraints, and we can close. Exhibit 45 [NYSCEF 979], at 26:12-23. 74. Akerman’s statement to Feldman that he had already been advised by the Appellate Division was a reference to information Sanford had given Akerman to the effect that Sanford had a contact in the First Department who advised Sanford that, if a call were made on Sanford’s behalf, the contact would state that escrow requirement had been dissolved as a matter of law. 19 19 of 48 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/03/2023 12:29 AM INDEX NO. 150315/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1069 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/03/2023 75. Feldman stated at a hearing that: “Mr. Akerman indicated to me that these restraints had been resolved by the subsequent denial of the motion. THE COURT: . . . Mr. Akerman told you that? MR. FELDMAN: Yes. THE COURT: Before the phone call? MR. FELDMAN: Yes.” Knopf v. Feldman & Associates, PLLC, Index No. 153821/2019 (Sup. Ct., New York Co.), May 23, 2019 hearing transcript (Exhibit 46 [NYSCEF 980]), at 55:23-56:5. 76. Akerman’s statement to Feldman that he had already learned from the Appellate Division that the restraints had been dissolved was made in the call that immediately preceded the call to Ringel on January 12, since that was the only call Akerman made to Feldman between December 20, 2015 and January 12, 2016. Exhibit 43 [NYSCEF 977]. 77. Akerman called Feldman at 10:43 a.m. and they patched in Ringel at 10:44 am. Their call to Ringel lasted four minutes. Exhibit 43,[NYSCEF 977] page 51, at reference ids. 31 and 32; Exhibit 2 [NYSCEF 936], Document 129-3, Page 43 of 56, at the 10:44 a.m. incoming call from 212-415-9200. 78. Ringel testified that Akerman and Feldman identified themselves as Michael Sanford’s lawyers and asked if she was familiar with the case. Exhibit 47 [NYSCEF 981], at 44:11-23. 79. Ringel informed Akerman and Feldman that she was already familiar with the Knopf v. Sanford case. Exhibit 45 [NYSCEF 979], at 101:9-11 (Feldman’s testimony that “Mr. Akerman did not go through the litany of litigation, because Ms. Ringel indicated she was fully familiar.”) 80. Ringel also revealed that she was aware of the orders Akerman was asking about. Exhibit 45 [NYSCEF 979], at 37:7-13 (Feldman’s testimony that: “[Ringel] knew the issues. She 20 20 of 48 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/03/2023 12:29 AM INDEX NO. 150315/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1069 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/03/2023 knew the case. Assuming she got it. I’m using the term got it in front of her, whether it was on her computer, in her files, or in her memory. She knew what was going on and she knew the order to which she was referring to.”); Exhibit 47 [NYSCEF 981], at 56:22-23 (Ringel’s testimony that “they asked me if I was familiar with the order I was [sic] speaking about. I said yes,