Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/12/2022 11:29 PM INDEX NO. 150315/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 842 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/12/2022
EXHIBIT
5
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/12/2022 11:29 PM INDEX NO. 150315/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 842 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/12/2022
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK: PART 7
---------------------------------------------------------------x
NORMA KNOPF and MICHAEL KNOPF, : Index No. 652743/2018
:
Petitioners, : Hon. Gerald Lebovits
:
v. :
: STIPULATION THAT THE
MICHAEL H. SANFORD and PURSUIT : JANUARY 14, 2022 ORDER
HOLDINGS, LLC, : IS FINAL AND NON-APPEALABLE
: WITH AGREEMENT REGARDING
Respondents. : PROTECTIVE ORDERS
---------------------------------------------------------------x
1. WHEREAS on January 18, 2022, the Court's January 14, 2022 dated Order
granting motion sequences #003, #004 and #005 (the "January 14, 2022 Order") in favor of
respondent Michael H. Sanford and non-party SP Voyager Fund, LLC and against sole
remaining petitioner Norma Knopf 1 was entered in the Office of the Clerk of the Court, New
York County Clerk's Office. See NYSCEF Doc. 370 or (Ex. A) January 14, 2022 Order; and
2. WHEREAS Norma Knopf ("Knopf"); Knopf's non-party entity Delphi Capital
Management, LLC ("Delphi"); Knopf's counsel Eric W. Berry ("Berry"), in his individual
capacity; Michael Hayden Sanford ("Sanford"); and SP Voyager Fund, LLC ("Voyager LLC"),
each being a "Party" and, collectively, "Parties" to this stipulation (the "Stipulation"), interpret
the January 14, 2022 Order as granting movants Sanford and Voyager LLC protective orders on
motion sequences #003, #004 and #005.
3. WHEREAS due to the absence of specific terms for the protective orders and
related relief in the January 14, 2022 Order, the Parties wish to resolve these ongoing issues
through this Stipulation to avoid the unnecessary delays and expense of further litigation; and
1
Petitioner Michael Knopf died in January 2021.
-1-
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/12/2022 11:29 PM INDEX NO. 150315/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 842 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/12/2022
4. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED that
Knopf, Delphi, Berry, Sanford and Voyager LLC mutually and irrevocably promise and agree
that they will not move to appeal, reargue, renew, clarify, vacate, modify or otherwise set-aside
any portion of the January 14, 2022 Order; therefore, that order is final and non-appealable; and
5. IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that Knopf, Delphi and Berry
irrevocably promise and agree that they shall not attempt in any way whatsoever to enforce the
judgment entered in this veil piercing action in New York County on or about March 6, 2019
(the "Knopf Judgment") against Sanford in favor of Knopf, Michael Knopf and Delphi until and
at such time there exists a final and non-appealable order issued in Suffolk County Supreme
Court Index No. 619288/2021 that specifically and unambiguously declares that the contract
dated November 1, 2019 (the "Agreement"), attached hereto as (Ex. B), and the stipulation dated
January 24, 2020 (the "January 24, 2020 Stipulation"), attached hereto as (Ex. C), to be void,
vacated, rescinded, illegal and/or nullified and that this order or orders are entered with the Clerk
of the Court of Suffolk County and thereafter become final and non-appealable (such an order or
orders hereinafter referred to as "Final and Non-Appealable Knopf Voiding Orders"); and
6. IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that, until Knopf or Delphi
obtain Final and Non-Appealable Knopf Voiding Orders, Knopf, Delphi and Berry irrevocably
promise and agree that they shall not attempt to enforce the Knopf Judgment against Sanford, or
against Sanford's heirs, assigns or beneficiaries, or attempt to enforce the Knopf Judgment
against any of Sanford's current or future entities, whether wholly owned by Sanford or if
Sanford is a manager or beneficiary of such business, entity or organization, and that Sanford's
acknowledged entities include, but are not limited to, Voyager LLC, Sanford Partners, LP, MH
Sanford & Co., LLC, the Sanford Partners Voyager Fund, LP, Moonshadow1928, LLC and
Harvest Moon Beach House, LLC; and
-2-
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/12/2022 11:29 PM INDEX NO. 150315/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 842 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/12/2022
7. IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that, until such time Knopf or
Delphi obtain Final and Non-Appealable Knopf Voiding Orders, Knopf, Delphi and Berry
irrevocably promise and agree that they will not issue any money collection devices to enforce
the Knopf Judgment, such devices including but not limited to letters, subpoenas or legal
process, with or without a copy of the Knopf Judgment, to anyone, including but not limited to
banks, brokerages, employers, property owners, credit agencies, sheriffs, clerks of the court in
New York State or clerks of any court outside the jurisdiction of New York State; and
8. IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that Knopf, Delphi and Berry
hereby irrevocably promise and agree that they will send letter(s) to (a.) the Sheriff of Suffolk
County, New York and (b.) the Sheriff of New York County, New York, by no later than
February 1, 2022, with a copy of the letter and proof of mailing via Federal Express sent to
Sanford's e-mail address at mhs@sanfordpartners.com by February 1, 2022, advising the
respective Sheriff's Offices of Civil Enforcement that the Knopf Judgment is not an enforceable
judgment at this time and that no action shall be taken against Mr. Sanford or his entities'
property until such time that Knopf, Delphi or Berry notify the Sheriff that the Knopf Judgment
is enforceable and they do so in writing with a copy of that communication simultaneously e-
mailed to Sanford at mhs@sanfordpartners.com; and, furthermore, such letters may state that Mr.
Sanford's entities no longer include Pursuit Holdings, LLC, which filed for bankruptcy court
protection in the Southern District of New York in 2018; and
9. IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that Knopf, Delphi and Berry
hereby irrevocably promise and agree that they will send letters to: (a.) Dime Bank f/k/a BNB
Bank; (b.) Bank of America; (c.) JP Morgan Chase; (d.) CapitalOne Bank, and (e.) Borro, LLC,
by no later than February 1, 2022, with a copy of each letter and proof of mailing via Federal
Express sent to Sanford's e-mail address at mhs@sanfordpartners.com by February 1, 2022; and
-3-
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/12/2022 11:29 PM INDEX NO. 150315/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 842 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/12/2022
10. IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the letters described in
paragraph 9, above, shall include language which clearly explains that:
(i.) Knopf, Delphi and or Berry submitted letters, subpoenas and or restraining orders
upon such banks or businesses seeking to restrain any accounts or monies that
Michael Hayden Sanford maintains at the institution, or that his social security
number is associated with, or that he is a beneficiary of or signatory to; and
(ii.) the sender of these communications revokes, rescinds and withdraws the prior
communications and their related requests for banking and other financial
information because the judgment in favor of Knopf and or Delphi is not an
enforceable judgment at this time; and
(iii.) with respect to Dime Bank, the sender is aware that the bank had placed a
restraint upon SP Voyager LLC's account and the sender hereby notifies Dime
Bank that no restraint should exist against SP Voyager Fund, LLC's accounts or
those of Michael Hayden Sanford because no enforceable judgment exists at this
time against Mr. Sanford; and
11. IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED by the Parties and on behalf of
their respective heirs, assigns and beneficiaries, that no Party shall challenge the enforceability of
any term, provision, obligation or responsibility herein (such language generally referred to
hereinafter as a "Term" or "Terms") for any reason whatsoever, including but not limited to
claims of mistake, inadvertence, coercion, fraud, illegality, or lack of authority to enter into the
Stipulation; and
12. IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that each of the Parties entered
into this agreement following a full and fair opportunity to seek the advice of independent
-4-
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/12/2022 11:29 PM INDEX NO. 150315/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 842 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/12/2022
counsel; the Stipulation was mutually and equally drafted by all Parties and is unambiguous; and
the Stipulation is a binding and fully enforceable contract upon each signatory; and
13. IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that none of the Terms herein
may be altered, revised or withdrawn unless by unanimous written consent by all Parties; and
14. IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that this document, entitled
Stipulation that the January 14, 2022 Order is Final and Non-Appealable with Agreement
Regarding Protective Orders, may be executed in counterpart and that facsimiles and electronic
t"
signatures shall be deemed as originals.
Dated: January 27, 2022
New York, New York
Berry Law PLLC
By:
Eric W. Berry, Esq. Michael Hayden Sanfor
745 Fifth Avenue 23 McKinley Road
New York, New York 10151 Montauk, New York 11954
(212) 355-0777 (212) 767-9494
berrylawpllc@gmail.com mhs@sanfordpartners.com
In his individual capacity and as Pro se Respondent
attorney for Petitioner
and non-party Delphi
Norma Knopf
Capital Management, LLC ~ .'/2-sf~2-
Osborn Law, P.C.
CHRISTINE BALCUNS
NOTARY PUBLIC-STATE OF NEW YORK
By: Isl Daniel A. Osborn No. 01 BA5077471
-------------
Daniel A. Osborn, Esq. Qualifiedin Suffolk County
My Commission Expires 05-12-2023
43 West 43rd Street, Suite 131
New York, New York 10036
(212) 725-9800
dosborn@osbornlawpc.com
Pro bona attorney for non-party
SP Voyager Fund, LLC
-5-
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/12/2022 11:29 PM INDEX NO. 150315/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 842 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/12/2022
EXHIBIT A
January 14, 2022 Order
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/18/2022
07/12/2022 08:26
11:29 AM
PM INDEX NO. 652743/2018
150315/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 370
842 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/14/2022
07/12/2022
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
PRESENT: HON. GERALD LEBOVITS PART 07
Justice
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X
INDEX NO. 652743/2018
NORMA KNOPF, MOTION SEQ. NO. 003 004 005
Plaintiff,
-v- DECISION + ORDER ON
MICHAEL SANFORD and PURSUIT HOLDINGS, LLC, MOTION
Defendants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 003) 187, 188, 189, 190,
191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211,
212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232,
233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252, 253,
254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259, 260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269, 270, 271, 337, 341, 366
were read on this motion to QUASH SUBPOENA .
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 004) 272, 278, 285, 286,
287, 288, 289, 290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299, 300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307,
308, 309, 310, 311, 312, 313, 338, 342
were read on this motion to QUASH SUBPOENA .
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 005) 273, 274, 275, 276,
279, 280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319, 320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328,
329, 330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 339, 343
were read on this motion to QUASH SUBPOENA .
Berry Law PLLC, New York, NY (Eric W. Berry of counsel), attorney for plaintiff.
Michael H. Sanford, Montauk, NY, defendant pro se on motion sequences 003 and 004.
Osborn Law, P.C., New York, NY (Daniel A. Osborn), attorney for defendant Sanford on
motion sequence 005.
Gerald Lebovits, J.:
This proceeding is an effort by Norma Knopf (plaintiff here) to enforce a multi-million-
dollar judgment against defendant Michael Sanford. Knopf obtained this judgment against
Sanford based on loans that Knopf and her late husband made to Sanford’s wholly owned
limited-liability company, defendant Pursuit Holdings LLC, and which Pursuit and Sanford
failed to repay.
In February 2016, while the Knopfs were heatedly litigating against Pursuit and Sanford
over these loans, Pursuit sold an Upper East Side penthouse apartment to a third party, netting
1 of 5
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/18/2022
07/12/2022 08:26
11:29 AM
PM INDEX NO. 652743/2018
150315/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 370
842 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/14/2022
07/12/2022
more than $2 million. Knopf contends that Sanford and his former attorneys conspired with a
then-special master in the Appellate Division, First Department, Melissa Ringel, to evade an
October 2015 First Department order that would have required putting the proceeds of this sale
into escrow—and that Sanford then dissipated the proceeds instead of satisfying his obligations
to the Knopfs.
In February 2018, this court entered judgment against Pursuit related to those obligations
for $9,867,832.61. (See Knopf v Sanford, 2019 NY Slip Op 30269[U], at *1 [Sup Ct, NY County
Feb. 4, 2019]; see also Index No. 113227/2009, NYSCEF No. 1, at 1 [County Clerk minutes].)
The Knopfs then brought this post-judgment proceeding against Sanford to have him held
personally liable on the judgment against Pursuit. In February 2019, this court held that Sanford
is also liable (on an alter-ego or veil-piercing theory) for Pursuit’s judgment debt owed to the
Knopfs. (See Sanford, 2019 NY Slip Op 30269[U], at *1, *9.)
In the summer of 2021, Knopf served post-judgment information subpoenas on third
parties, seeking Sanford’s cellphone records and bank records of a business entity controlled by
Sanford. In motion sequence 003, Sanford moves to quash the telephone-records subpoena. In
motion sequences 004 and 005, Sanford moves to quash the bank-records subpoena.1
Motion sequences 003, 004, and 005 are consolidated here for disposition. The motions
to quash are granted.
DISCUSSION
Knopf’s first subpoena is directed to AT&T Mobility, Sanford’s cellphone provider. (See
generally NYSCEF No. 189.) The subpoena seeks “records of phone calls,” “[t]ext message
details,” and other information for a specified cell number, and any other number “assigned to
Michael Hayden Sanford” or “to ‘Sanford Partners,’” for the “period October 1, 2015 through
August 15, 2017.” (NYSCEF No. 189 at 4.) The second subpoena is directed to Dime
Community Bank for several categories of account and transaction records for SP Voyager Fund,
LLC, a business entity controlled solely by Sanford. (See NYSCEF No. 293 at 2-3.)
1
The record does not reflect why the bank-records subpoena is the subject of two motions
(although the court notes that one motion was filed by Sanford pro se, and the other by an
attorney on Sanford’s behalf). It does appear, though, that both motions address the same
subpoena directed to the same bank for records of the same Sanford-controlled business entity.
This decision therefore addresses the two bank-records motions together.
2
2 of 5
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/18/2022
07/12/2022 08:26
11:29 AM
PM INDEX NO. 652743/2018
150315/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 370
842 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/14/2022
07/12/2022
Sanford makes subpoena-specific arguments why the two subpoenas are invalid and
should be quashed.2 These arguments are cogent.3 But this court need not definitively decide
whether Sanford’s subpoena-specific contentions warrant granting his motions to quash: Instead,
this court is persuaded by Sanford’s broader argument that Knopf has no judgment against him
that she may validly seek to enforce.
It is undisputed that in November 2019, the Knopfs and Sanford executed an agreement
under which (i) the Knopfs would cease all efforts to enforce the judgment against Sanford, and
(ii) execute a stipulation vacating that judgment as against Sanford. (See NYSCEF No. 296 at 1.)
It is also undisputed that the Knopfs executed the stipulation of vacatur. (See NYSCEF No. 190.)
Therefore, Sanford contends, no judgment supports the subpoenas at issue here.
In response, Knopf argues that the November 2019 settlement agreement between she
and Sanford was conditioned on Sanford’s providing truthful testimony at his deposition (see
NYSCEF No. 290 at 2), and that Sanford did not do so (see NYSCEF No. 292 at ¶¶ 11, 14).
Knopf emphasizes Sanford’s deposition testimony about the circumstances surrounding a
January 12, 2016, telephone call between counsel for Sanford and Ringel. Knopf contends that
call enabled Sanford to evade the First Department’s October 2015 order requiring proceeds of
any sale of the penthouse apartment to be put into escrow. The day before the January 12 call,
Sanford hired Ringel’s husband, Frank Esposito, to serve for sixth months as general counsel to a
business entity controlled by Sanford in exchange for a $55,000 non-refundable fee. (See Knopf v
Esposito, 2021 NY Slip Op 50250[U], at *4, *30 [Sup Ct, NY County Mar. 4, 2021].) In the call
itself, Ringel gave Sanford’s attorneys an ex parte opinion that the October 2015 escrow order
was no longer in place. That order, if given effect, would have effectively blocked the apartment
sale altogether: Sanford was not willing to close if he had to escrow the sale proceeds. Ringel’s
ex parte opinion thus allowed the sale of the penthouse apartment to close and Sanford to
exercise full control over the millions in resulting proceeds, without having to pay those
proceeds over to the Knopfs to satisfy their judgment against him. (See generally id. at *3-*6,
*16, *19, *27.)
2
With respect to the telephone-records subpoena, Sanford contends that it “seeks highly personal
information” that is “irrelevant for collection” of any judgment held by Knopf against Sanford
and Pursuit. (NYSCEF No. 188 at ¶¶ 5-6.) With respect to the bank-records subpoena, Sanford
argues that a post-judgment enforcement subpoena is an improper means of obtaining what is, in
essence, discovery in aid of unwinding an assertedly fraudulent conveyance. (See NYSCEF No.
339 at ¶¶ 13-14, 16-17.)
3
The telephone-records subpoena seeks more than 20 months of detailed telephone records for a
personal cellphone, premised only on the possibility that “the subpoenaed records may show who
Sanford conducts his off-the-books business with, lead to the source of his funds, and permit a
modest collection on Mrs. Knopf’s behalf.” (NYSCEF No. 192 at ¶ 26 [emphasis added].) The
bank records subpoena seeks extensive nonparty account and transaction records based on a
limited, five-year-old showing of transfers from Pursuit to that nonparty. (See NYSCEF No. 314
at ¶¶ 33-35.)
3
3 of 5
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/18/2022
07/12/2022 08:26
11:29 AM
PM INDEX NO. 652743/2018
150315/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 370
842 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/14/2022
07/12/2022
When the Knopfs asked Sanford at his deposition why he had agreed to pay Esposito a
$55,000 fee the day before the ex parte call, Sanford testified that he paid Esposito that sum
essentially as a referral fee “to get Dechert” to take him and Pursuit on as a client in his ongoing
litigation with the Knopfs and to “shepherd it through.” (See NYSCEF No. 297 at Tr. 87-88.)
Retired First Department Justice James M. McGuire, then a partner at Dechert LLP, represented
Sanford in that litigation beginning in February 2016.
Knopf contends that Sanford’s testimony was false—that the $55,000 payment to
Esposito was instead a bribe to secure the ex parte opinion from Ringel that no escrow order
restricted the closing of the sale of the penthouse apartment. (See NYSCEF No. 292 at 5-9; see
also Esposito, 2021 NY Slip Op 50250[U], at *29-*30 [discussing these allegations].) As this
court has discussed in prior decisions,4 Knopf’s characterization of the call as the product of a
bribe has considerable force. At the same time, one might understand Sanford’s testimony as
truthfully (if cagily) acknowledging that the $55,000 payment was intended both to buy Esposito
and Ringel’s help in obtaining legal representation for Sanford from McGuire, in particular,5 and
also their help in allegedly evading the First Department escrow order.
Even if Knopf were correct that Sanford gave false testimony at his November 2019
deposition, that would not avail her here. Whether or not a court should hold that Sanford
breached the 2019 settlement agreement, thereby freeing her from her reciprocal obligations
under that agreement, it is undisputed that no court has, in fact, declared the agreement breached
and therefore unenforceable. Knopf does not explain why, in these circumstances, this court may
simply disregard the 2019 settlement agreement (and the ensuing stipulation vacating the
judgment against Sanford) for purposes of the current judgment-enforcement subpoena.
Nor, for that matter, does Knopf now ask this court to declare the settlement agreement
breached and unenforceable. To the contrary, the same day Knopf filed her opposition here to
Sanford’s motion to quash, she brought an action in Supreme Court, Suffolk County, to have the
2019 settlement agreement voided based on Sanford’s alleged breaches of the agreement.6 (See
Complaint, Knopf v Sanford, Index No. 619288/2021, NYSCEF No. 2 [Sup Ct, Suffolk County
Oct. 12, 2021].) Knopf’s opposition papers on the bank-records-subpoena motions before this
court represent that the Suffolk County declaratory-judgment action—not these motions—is the
proper forum for deciding the issue of “the enforceability of the Settlement Agreement.”
(NYSCEF No. 292 at ¶ 31.)
4
See Esposito, 2021 NY Slip Op 50250[U], at *19-*30; see also Knopf v Sanford, 65 Misc 3d
463, 483-489, 492-501, 515-516 [Sup Ct, NY County 2019].)
5
Ringel had served as McGuire’s court attorney when he was a First Department justice. And
she first contacted him about the possibility of representing Sanford only two days after the ex
parte call with Sanford’s other attorneys—and thus only three days after Sanford agreed to pay
Esposito $55,000. (See Sanford, 65 Misc 3d at 482 & n 20.)
6
The record does not disclose why Knopf waited until October 2021 to seek a declaration that
the settlement agreement is unenforceable, given that the assertedly false testimony by Sanford
on which Knopf relies was offered in November 2019.
4
4 of 5
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/18/2022
07/12/2022 08:26
11:29 AM
PM INDEX NO. 652743/2018
150315/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 370
842 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/14/2022
07/12/2022
This court sees no justification for addressing the issue of enforceability before Supreme
Court, Suffolk County, has had a full opportunity to resolve that question. By the same token,
though, this court is obliged—at least for now—to treat Knopf as contractually barred from
undertaking any effort to enforce the judgment she had previously obtained against Sanford. The
phone- and bank-records subpoenas at issue on these motions thus lack a proper basis.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, it is hereby
ORDERED that Sanford’s motions to quash are granted; and it is further
ORDERED that Knopf shall, by January 17, 2022, serve a copy of this order on the
recipients of the two subpoenas and notify the recipients in writing that they need not comply
with the subpoenas.
1/14/2022
DATE
CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED X NON-FINAL DISPOSITION
X GRANTED DENIED GRANTED IN PART OTHER
APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER
CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT REFERENCE
5
5 of 5
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/12/2022 11:29 PM INDEX NO. 150315/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 842 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/12/2022
EXHIBIT B
November 1, 2019 Agreement
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/12/2022 11:29 PM INDEX NO. 150315/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 842 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/12/2022
Case 1:16-cv-06601-DLC-SN Document 280-1 Filed 07/01/20 Page 4 of 8
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/12/2022 11:29 PM INDEX NO. 150315/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 842 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/12/2022
Case 1:16-cv-06601-DLC-SN Document 280-1 Filed 07/01/20 Page 5 of 8
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/12/2022 11:29 PM INDEX NO. 150315/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 842 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/12/2022
EXHIBIT C
January 24, 2020 Stipulation
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/12/2022 11:29 PM INDEX NO. 150315/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 842 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/12/2022
Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/12/2022 11:29 PM INDEX NO. 150315/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 842 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/12/2022 EXHIBIT 5 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/12/2022 11:29 PM INDEX NO. 150315/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 842 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/12/2022 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK: PART 7 ---------------------------------------------------------------x NORMA KNOPF and MICHAEL KNOPF, : Index No. 652743/2018 : Petitioners, : Hon. Gerald Lebovits : v. : : STIPULATION THAT THE MICHAEL H. SANFORD and PURSUIT : JANUARY 14, 2022 ORDER HOLDINGS, LLC, : IS FINAL AND NON-APPEALABLE : WITH AGREEMENT REGARDING Respondents. : PROTECTIVE ORDERS ---------------------------------------------------------------x 1. WHEREAS on January 18, 2022, the Court's January 14, 2022 dated Order granting motion sequences #003, #004 and #005 (the "January 14, 2022 Order") in favor of respondent Michael H. Sanford and non-party SP Voyager Fund, LLC and against sole remaining petitioner Norma Knopf 1 was entered in the Office of the Clerk of the Court, New York County Clerk's Office. See NYSCEF Doc. 370 or (Ex. A) January 14, 2022 Order; and 2. WHEREAS Norma Knopf ("Knopf"); Knopf's non-party entity Delphi Capital Management, LLC ("Delphi"); Knopf's counsel Eric W. Berry ("Berry"), in his individual capacity; Michael Hayden Sanford ("Sanford"); and SP Voyager Fund, LLC ("Voyager LLC"), each being a "Party" and, collectively, "Parties" to this stipulation (the "Stipulation"), interpret the January 14, 2022 Order as granting movants Sanford and Voyager LLC protective orders on motion sequences #003, #004 and #005. 3. WHEREAS due to the absence of specific terms for the protective orders and related relief in the January 14, 2022 Order, the Parties wish to resolve these ongoing issues through this Stipulation to avoid the unnecessary delays and expense of further litigation; and 1 Petitioner Michael Knopf died in January 2021. -1- FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/12/2022 11:29 PM INDEX NO. 150315/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 842 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/12/2022 4. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED that Knopf, Delphi, Berry, Sanford and Voyager LLC mutually and irrevocably promise and agree that they will not move to appeal, reargue, renew, clarify, vacate, modify or otherwise set-aside any portion of the January 14, 2022 Order; therefore, that order is final and non-appealable; and 5. IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that Knopf, Delphi and Berry irrevocably promise and agree that they shall not attempt in any way whatsoever to enforce the judgment entered in this veil piercing action in New York County on or about March 6, 2019 (the "Knopf Judgment") against Sanford in favor of Knopf, Michael Knopf and Delphi until and at such time there exists a final and non-appealable order issued in Suffolk County Supreme Court Index No. 619288/2021 that specifically and unambiguously declares that the contract dated November 1, 2019 (the "Agreement"), attached hereto as (Ex. B), and the stipulation dated January 24, 2020 (the "January 24, 2020 Stipulation"), attached hereto as (Ex. C), to be void, vacated, rescinded, illegal and/or nullified and that this order or orders are entered with the Clerk of the Court of Suffolk County and thereafter become final and non-appealable (such an order or orders hereinafter referred to as "Final and Non-Appealable Knopf Voiding Orders"); and 6. IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that, until Knopf or Delphi obtain Final and Non-Appealable Knopf Voiding Orders, Knopf, Delphi and Berry irrevocably promise and agree that they shall not attempt to enforce the Knopf Judgment against Sanford, or against Sanford's heirs, assigns or beneficiaries, or attempt to enforce the Knopf Judgment against any of Sanford's current or future entities, whether wholly owned by Sanford or if Sanford is a manager or beneficiary of such business, entity or organization, and that Sanford's acknowledged entities include, but are not limited to, Voyager LLC, Sanford Partners, LP, MH Sanford & Co., LLC, the Sanford Partners Voyager Fund, LP, Moonshadow1928, LLC and Harvest Moon Beach House, LLC; and -2- FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/12/2022 11:29 PM INDEX NO. 150315/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 842 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/12/2022 7. IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that, until such time Knopf or Delphi obtain Final and Non-Appealable Knopf Voiding Orders, Knopf, Delphi and Berry irrevocably promise and agree that they will not issue any money collection devices to enforce the Knopf Judgment, such devices including but not limited to letters, subpoenas or legal process, with or without a copy of the Knopf Judgment, to anyone, including but not limited to banks, brokerages, employers, property owners, credit agencies, sheriffs, clerks of the court in New York State or clerks of any court outside the jurisdiction of New York State; and 8. IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that Knopf, Delphi and Berry hereby irrevocably promise and agree that they will send letter(s) to (a.) the Sheriff of Suffolk County, New York and (b.) the Sheriff of New York County, New York, by no later than February 1, 2022, with a copy of the letter and proof of mailing via Federal Express sent to Sanford's e-mail address at mhs@sanfordpartners.com by February 1, 2022, advising the respective Sheriff's Offices of Civil Enforcement that the Knopf Judgment is not an enforceable judgment at this time and that no action shall be taken against Mr. Sanford or his entities' property until such time that Knopf, Delphi or Berry notify the Sheriff that the Knopf Judgment is enforceable and they do so in writing with a copy of that communication simultaneously e- mailed to Sanford at mhs@sanfordpartners.com; and, furthermore, such letters may state that Mr. Sanford's entities no longer include Pursuit Holdings, LLC, which filed for bankruptcy court protection in the Southern District of New York in 2018; and 9. IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that Knopf, Delphi and Berry hereby irrevocably promise and agree that they will send letters to: (a.) Dime Bank f/k/a BNB Bank; (b.) Bank of America; (c.) JP Morgan Chase; (d.) CapitalOne Bank, and (e.) Borro, LLC, by no later than February 1, 2022, with a copy of each letter and proof of mailing via Federal Express sent to Sanford's e-mail address at mhs@sanfordpartners.com by February 1, 2022; and -3- FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/12/2022 11:29 PM INDEX NO. 150315/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 842 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/12/2022 10. IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the letters described in paragraph 9, above, shall include language which clearly explains that: (i.) Knopf, Delphi and or Berry submitted letters, subpoenas and or restraining orders upon such banks or businesses seeking to restrain any accounts or monies that Michael Hayden Sanford maintains at the institution, or that his social security number is associated with, or that he is a beneficiary of or signatory to; and (ii.) the sender of these communications revokes, rescinds and withdraws the prior communications and their related requests for banking and other financial information because the judgment in favor of Knopf and or Delphi is not an enforceable judgment at this time; and (iii.) with respect to Dime Bank, the sender is aware that the bank had placed a restraint upon SP Voyager LLC's account and the sender hereby notifies Dime Bank that no restraint should exist against SP Voyager Fund, LLC's accounts or those of Michael Hayden Sanford because no enforceable judgment exists at this time against Mr. Sanford; and 11. IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED by the Parties and on behalf of their respective heirs, assigns and beneficiaries, that no Party shall challenge the enforceability of any term, provision, obligation or responsibility herein (such language generally referred to hereinafter as a "Term" or "Terms") for any reason whatsoever, including but not limited to claims of mistake, inadvertence, coercion, fraud, illegality, or lack of authority to enter into the Stipulation; and 12. IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that each of the Parties entered into this agreement following a full and fair opportunity to seek the advice of independent -4- FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/12/2022 11:29 PM INDEX NO. 150315/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 842 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/12/2022 counsel; the Stipulation was mutually and equally drafted by all Parties and is unambiguous; and the Stipulation is a binding and fully enforceable contract upon each signatory; and 13. IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that none of the Terms herein may be altered, revised or withdrawn unless by unanimous written consent by all Parties; and 14. IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that this document, entitled Stipulation that the January 14, 2022 Order is Final and Non-Appealable with Agreement Regarding Protective Orders, may be executed in counterpart and that facsimiles and electronic t" signatures shall be deemed as originals. Dated: January 27, 2022 New York, New York Berry Law PLLC By: Eric W. Berry, Esq. Michael Hayden Sanfor 745 Fifth Avenue 23 McKinley Road New York, New York 10151 Montauk, New York 11954 (212) 355-0777 (212) 767-9494 berrylawpllc@gmail.com mhs@sanfordpartners.com In his individual capacity and as Pro se Respondent attorney for Petitioner and non-party Delphi Norma Knopf Capital Management, LLC ~ .'/2-sf~2- Osborn Law, P.C. CHRISTINE BALCUNS NOTARY PUBLIC-STATE OF NEW YORK By: Isl Daniel A. Osborn No. 01 BA5077471 ------------- Daniel A. Osborn, Esq. Qualifiedin Suffolk County My Commission Expires 05-12-2023 43 West 43rd Street, Suite 131 New York, New York 10036 (212) 725-9800 dosborn@osbornlawpc.com Pro bona attorney for non-party SP Voyager Fund, LLC -5- FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/12/2022 11:29 PM INDEX NO. 150315/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 842 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/12/2022 EXHIBIT A January 14, 2022 Order FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/18/2022 07/12/2022 08:26 11:29 AM PM INDEX NO. 652743/2018 150315/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 370 842 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/14/2022 07/12/2022 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: HON. GERALD LEBOVITS PART 07 Justice ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X INDEX NO. 652743/2018 NORMA KNOPF, MOTION SEQ. NO. 003 004 005 Plaintiff, -v- DECISION + ORDER ON MICHAEL SANFORD and PURSUIT HOLDINGS, LLC, MOTION Defendants. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 003) 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259, 260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269, 270, 271, 337, 341, 366 were read on this motion to QUASH SUBPOENA . The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 004) 272, 278, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289, 290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299, 300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309, 310, 311, 312, 313, 338, 342 were read on this motion to QUASH SUBPOENA . The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 005) 273, 274, 275, 276, 279, 280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319, 320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329, 330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 339, 343 were read on this motion to QUASH SUBPOENA . Berry Law PLLC, New York, NY (Eric W. Berry of counsel), attorney for plaintiff. Michael H. Sanford, Montauk, NY, defendant pro se on motion sequences 003 and 004. Osborn Law, P.C., New York, NY (Daniel A. Osborn), attorney for defendant Sanford on motion sequence 005. Gerald Lebovits, J.: This proceeding is an effort by Norma Knopf (plaintiff here) to enforce a multi-million- dollar judgment against defendant Michael Sanford. Knopf obtained this judgment against Sanford based on loans that Knopf and her late husband made to Sanford’s wholly owned limited-liability company, defendant Pursuit Holdings LLC, and which Pursuit and Sanford failed to repay. In February 2016, while the Knopfs were heatedly litigating against Pursuit and Sanford over these loans, Pursuit sold an Upper East Side penthouse apartment to a third party, netting 1 of 5 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/18/2022 07/12/2022 08:26 11:29 AM PM INDEX NO. 652743/2018 150315/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 370 842 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/14/2022 07/12/2022 more than $2 million. Knopf contends that Sanford and his former attorneys conspired with a then-special master in the Appellate Division, First Department, Melissa Ringel, to evade an October 2015 First Department order that would have required putting the proceeds of this sale into escrow—and that Sanford then dissipated the proceeds instead of satisfying his obligations to the Knopfs. In February 2018, this court entered judgment against Pursuit related to those obligations for $9,867,832.61. (See Knopf v Sanford, 2019 NY Slip Op 30269[U], at *1 [Sup Ct, NY County Feb. 4, 2019]; see also Index No. 113227/2009, NYSCEF No. 1, at 1 [County Clerk minutes].) The Knopfs then brought this post-judgment proceeding against Sanford to have him held personally liable on the judgment against Pursuit. In February 2019, this court held that Sanford is also liable (on an alter-ego or veil-piercing theory) for Pursuit’s judgment debt owed to the Knopfs. (See Sanford, 2019 NY Slip Op 30269[U], at *1, *9.) In the summer of 2021, Knopf served post-judgment information subpoenas on third parties, seeking Sanford’s cellphone records and bank records of a business entity controlled by Sanford. In motion sequence 003, Sanford moves to quash the telephone-records subpoena. In motion sequences 004 and 005, Sanford moves to quash the bank-records subpoena.1 Motion sequences 003, 004, and 005 are consolidated here for disposition. The motions to quash are granted. DISCUSSION Knopf’s first subpoena is directed to AT&T Mobility, Sanford’s cellphone provider. (See generally NYSCEF No. 189.) The subpoena seeks “records of phone calls,” “[t]ext message details,” and other information for a specified cell number, and any other number “assigned to Michael Hayden Sanford” or “to ‘Sanford Partners,’” for the “period October 1, 2015 through August 15, 2017.” (NYSCEF No. 189 at 4.) The second subpoena is directed to Dime Community Bank for several categories of account and transaction records for SP Voyager Fund, LLC, a business entity controlled solely by Sanford. (See NYSCEF No. 293 at 2-3.) 1 The record does not reflect why the bank-records subpoena is the subject of two motions (although the court notes that one motion was filed by Sanford pro se, and the other by an attorney on Sanford’s behalf). It does appear, though, that both motions address the same subpoena directed to the same bank for records of the same Sanford-controlled business entity. This decision therefore addresses the two bank-records motions together. 2 2 of 5 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/18/2022 07/12/2022 08:26 11:29 AM PM INDEX NO. 652743/2018 150315/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 370 842 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/14/2022 07/12/2022 Sanford makes subpoena-specific arguments why the two subpoenas are invalid and should be quashed.2 These arguments are cogent.3 But this court need not definitively decide whether Sanford’s subpoena-specific contentions warrant granting his motions to quash: Instead, this court is persuaded by Sanford’s broader argument that Knopf has no judgment against him that she may validly seek to enforce. It is undisputed that in November 2019, the Knopfs and Sanford executed an agreement under which (i) the Knopfs would cease all efforts to enforce the judgment against Sanford, and (ii) execute a stipulation vacating that judgment as against Sanford. (See NYSCEF No. 296 at 1.) It is also undisputed that the Knopfs executed the stipulation of vacatur. (See NYSCEF No. 190.) Therefore, Sanford contends, no judgment supports the subpoenas at issue here. In response, Knopf argues that the November 2019 settlement agreement between she and Sanford was conditioned on Sanford’s providing truthful testimony at his deposition (see NYSCEF No. 290 at 2), and that Sanford did not do so (see NYSCEF No. 292 at ¶¶ 11, 14). Knopf emphasizes Sanford’s deposition testimony about the circumstances surrounding a January 12, 2016, telephone call between counsel for Sanford and Ringel. Knopf contends that call enabled Sanford to evade the First Department’s October 2015 order requiring proceeds of any sale of the penthouse apartment to be put into escrow. The day before the January 12 call, Sanford hired Ringel’s husband, Frank Esposito, to serve for sixth months as general counsel to a business entity controlled by Sanford in exchange for a $55,000 non-refundable fee. (See Knopf v Esposito, 2021 NY Slip Op 50250[U], at *4, *30 [Sup Ct, NY County Mar. 4, 2021].) In the call itself, Ringel gave Sanford’s attorneys an ex parte opinion that the October 2015 escrow order was no longer in place. That order, if given effect, would have effectively blocked the apartment sale altogether: Sanford was not willing to close if he had to escrow the sale proceeds. Ringel’s ex parte opinion thus allowed the sale of the penthouse apartment to close and Sanford to exercise full control over the millions in resulting proceeds, without having to pay those proceeds over to the Knopfs to satisfy their judgment against him. (See generally id. at *3-*6, *16, *19, *27.) 2 With respect to the telephone-records subpoena, Sanford contends that it “seeks highly personal information” that is “irrelevant for collection” of any judgment held by Knopf against Sanford and Pursuit. (NYSCEF No. 188 at ¶¶ 5-6.) With respect to the bank-records subpoena, Sanford argues that a post-judgment enforcement subpoena is an improper means of obtaining what is, in essence, discovery in aid of unwinding an assertedly fraudulent conveyance. (See NYSCEF No. 339 at ¶¶ 13-14, 16-17.) 3 The telephone-records subpoena seeks more than 20 months of detailed telephone records for a personal cellphone, premised only on the possibility that “the subpoenaed records may show who Sanford conducts his off-the-books business with, lead to the source of his funds, and permit a modest collection on Mrs. Knopf’s behalf.” (NYSCEF No. 192 at ¶ 26 [emphasis added].) The bank records subpoena seeks extensive nonparty account and transaction records based on a limited, five-year-old showing of transfers from Pursuit to that nonparty. (See NYSCEF No. 314 at ¶¶ 33-35.) 3 3 of 5 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/18/2022 07/12/2022 08:26 11:29 AM PM INDEX NO. 652743/2018 150315/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 370 842 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/14/2022 07/12/2022 When the Knopfs asked Sanford at his deposition why he had agreed to pay Esposito a $55,000 fee the day before the ex parte call, Sanford testified that he paid Esposito that sum essentially as a referral fee “to get Dechert” to take him and Pursuit on as a client in his ongoing litigation with the Knopfs and to “shepherd it through.” (See NYSCEF No. 297 at Tr. 87-88.) Retired First Department Justice James M. McGuire, then a partner at Dechert LLP, represented Sanford in that litigation beginning in February 2016. Knopf contends that Sanford’s testimony was false—that the $55,000 payment to Esposito was instead a bribe to secure the ex parte opinion from Ringel that no escrow order restricted the closing of the sale of the penthouse apartment. (See NYSCEF No. 292 at 5-9; see also Esposito, 2021 NY Slip Op 50250[U], at *29-*30 [discussing these allegations].) As this court has discussed in prior decisions,4 Knopf’s characterization of the call as the product of a bribe has considerable force. At the same time, one might understand Sanford’s testimony as truthfully (if cagily) acknowledging that the $55,000 payment was intended both to buy Esposito and Ringel’s help in obtaining legal representation for Sanford from McGuire, in particular,5 and also their help in allegedly evading the First Department escrow order. Even if Knopf were correct that Sanford gave false testimony at his November 2019 deposition, that would not avail her here. Whether or not a court should hold that Sanford breached the 2019 settlement agreement, thereby freeing her from her reciprocal obligations under that agreement, it is undisputed that no court has, in fact, declared the agreement breached and therefore unenforceable. Knopf does not explain why, in these circumstances, this court may simply disregard the 2019 settlement agreement (and the ensuing stipulation vacating the judgment against Sanford) for purposes of the current judgment-enforcement subpoena. Nor, for that matter, does Knopf now ask this court to declare the settlement agreement breached and unenforceable. To the contrary, the same day Knopf filed her opposition here to Sanford’s motion to quash, she brought an action in Supreme Court, Suffolk County, to have the 2019 settlement agreement voided based on Sanford’s alleged breaches of the agreement.6 (See Complaint, Knopf v Sanford, Index No. 619288/2021, NYSCEF No. 2 [Sup Ct, Suffolk County Oct. 12, 2021].) Knopf’s opposition papers on the bank-records-subpoena motions before this court represent that the Suffolk County declaratory-judgment action—not these motions—is the proper forum for deciding the issue of “the enforceability of the Settlement Agreement.” (NYSCEF No. 292 at ¶ 31.) 4 See Esposito, 2021 NY Slip Op 50250[U], at *19-*30; see also Knopf v Sanford, 65 Misc 3d 463, 483-489, 492-501, 515-516 [Sup Ct, NY County 2019].) 5 Ringel had served as McGuire’s court attorney when he was a First Department justice. And she first contacted him about the possibility of representing Sanford only two days after the ex parte call with Sanford’s other attorneys—and thus only three days after Sanford agreed to pay Esposito $55,000. (See Sanford, 65 Misc 3d at 482 & n 20.) 6 The record does not disclose why Knopf waited until October 2021 to seek a declaration that the settlement agreement is unenforceable, given that the assertedly false testimony by Sanford on which Knopf relies was offered in November 2019. 4 4 of 5 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/18/2022 07/12/2022 08:26 11:29 AM PM INDEX NO. 652743/2018 150315/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 370 842 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/14/2022 07/12/2022 This court sees no justification for addressing the issue of enforceability before Supreme Court, Suffolk County, has had a full opportunity to resolve that question. By the same token, though, this court is obliged—at least for now—to treat Knopf as contractually barred from undertaking any effort to enforce the judgment she had previously obtained against Sanford. The phone- and bank-records subpoenas at issue on these motions thus lack a proper basis. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that Sanford’s motions to quash are granted; and it is further ORDERED that Knopf shall, by January 17, 2022, serve a copy of this order on the recipients of the two subpoenas and notify the recipients in writing that they need not comply with the subpoenas. 1/14/2022 DATE CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED X NON-FINAL DISPOSITION X GRANTED DENIED GRANTED IN PART OTHER APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT REFERENCE 5 5 of 5 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/12/2022 11:29 PM INDEX NO. 150315/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 842 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/12/2022 EXHIBIT B November 1, 2019 Agreement FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/12/2022 11:29 PM INDEX NO. 150315/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 842 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/12/2022 Case 1:16-cv-06601-DLC-SN Document 280-1 Filed 07/01/20 Page 4 of 8 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/12/2022 11:29 PM INDEX NO. 150315/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 842 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/12/2022 Case 1:16-cv-06601-DLC-SN Document 280-1 Filed 07/01/20 Page 5 of 8 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/12/2022 11:29 PM INDEX NO. 150315/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 842 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/12/2022 EXHIBIT C January 24, 2020 Stipulation FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/12/2022 11:29 PM INDEX NO. 150315/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 842 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/12/2022