Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/27/2021 03:51 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 139
140 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/27/2021
11 of
of 70
2
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/27/2021 03:51 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 139
140 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/27/2021
22 of
of 70
2
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/25/2021
10/27/2021 05:50
03:51 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 134
140 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/25/2021
10/27/2021
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
--------------------------------------------------------------------X
STELLA STOLPER, Index No. 652352/2018
Plaintiff, AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT
-vs-
Motion Sequence No. 11
ZARINA BURBACKI, Justice Assigned:
Defendant. Hon. Andrew S Borrok, Esq.
--------------------------------------------------------------------X
State of New York )
) ss:
County of Queens )
ZARINA BURBACKI, being duly sworn deposes and says:
1. I am the Defendant and Counterclaimant in the above-captioned action. I make
this affidavit in support of my instant motion to strike Plaintiff’s complaint for her
tampering with evidence. I am fully familiar with all of the facts and circumstances
relevant to a proper determination of this matter.
2. Upon going through the text messages that Plaintiff had turned over in discovery,
I noticed that a few of them contained an instruction from Plaintiff to the group chat to
stop talking about what the group was talking about. These seemed strange to me,
because Plaintiff was an active participant in these types of conversations and had never
issued that instruction.
3. I pointed out to my attorney my belief that these text messages had been tampered
with. My attorney then realized that text had in fact been added to the text messages to
make them appear as part of the original conversation.
4. Plaintiff’s clear willingness to tamper with evidence calls into question her entire
Page 1 of 2
31 of
of 70
2
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/25/2021
10/27/2021 05:50
03:51 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 134
140 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/25/2021
10/27/2021
production. If Plaintiff was willing to tamper with these documents, which of her other
documents were tampered with and/or not produced?
5. Plaintiff has made abhorrent and false accusations against me in this case to try to
lash out at me and harm me because she was fired by Mariah Carey. Her detestable
claims should not be allowed to stand when it is clear that Plaintiff is willing to cheat, lie,
and spoliate evidence to try to get an advantage in this litigation.
WHEREFORE, for all of the foregoing reasons, it is respectfully prayed that
Defendant’s motion be granted in its entirety, together with such other, further and
different relief as to the Court may seem just and proper.
______________________________
ZARINA BURBACKI
Signed and sworn to before me
this 25th day of October 2021.
________________________
NOTARY PUBLIC
Page 2 of 2
42 of
of 70
2
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/25/2021
10/27/2021 05:50
03:51 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 135
140 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/25/2021
10/27/2021
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
--------------------------------------------------------------------X
STELLA STOLPER,
AFFIRMATION IN SUPPORT
Plaintiff,
Motion Sequence No. 11
-vs-
Index No. 652352/2018
ZARINA BURBACKI, Justice Assigned:
Defendant. Hon. Andrew S. Borrok, J.S.C.
--------------------------------------------------------------------X
JONATHAN E. NEUMAN, an attorney duly admitted to practice in the courts of
this State, does hereby affirm the truth of the following under the penalties of perjury,
pursuant to CPLR §2106:
1. I am the attorney for Defendant in the above-entitled action and am fully familiar
with all of the facts and circumstances heretofore had herein. I make this affirmation in
support of Defendant’s motion to strike Plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice due to
Plaintiff’s tampering with evidence.
2. No previous application has been made to any court or judge for the relief
requested herein. This motion was specifically authorized by the Court on October 5,
2021. See Transcript of Proceedings, NYSCEF Doc. 132, at *5.
3. As part of the discovery demands in this case, it was demanded that Plaintiff turn
over certain text messages.
4. As discussed in Defendant’s accompanying affidavit, upon reviewing these text
messages, a few of them contained a message wherein Plaintiff was instructing the other
texters to stop talking about the topic of the group text. These texts are annexed hereto as
EXHIBIT 1. However, Defendant was confused by these purported texts, because
Page 1 of 8
51 of
of 70
8
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/25/2021
10/27/2021 05:50
03:51 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 135
140 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/25/2021
10/27/2021
Plaintiff was an active participant in these types of chats, and had never given any such
instruction.
5. The undersigned noticed that it was strange that unlike other texts that were
turned over in color (see, e.g., a small sample of some other texts in EXHIBIT 2), these
texts from EXHIBIT 1 were in black in white. A closer inspection of the texts revealed
that in fact, these messages of “who cares please stop” were not text messages that had
even been sent by the Plaintiff, but rather the Plaintiff had added this text into her
cellphone and then taken a black and white photograph of the screen to make it appear
that this text was part of the group message.
6. Unlike the other black and white texts that Plaintiff turned over, almost all of
which involved cut-off texts and partial images (see, e.g., a small sample in EXHIBIT
3), the tampered texts in EXHIBIT 1 had the additional doctored text perfectly placed to
make it appear as if it was the original continuation of the conversation. However, no
such text had ever been sent, and the text was clearly added by Plaintiff now during
discovery, years after the original chats, in order to make it appear that Plaintiff was
telling the group to stop such talks, when no such text ever existed at the time.
7. During oral arguments on the record, Plaintiff’s counsel stated to the Court that
these were “merely a draft” that were “not, actually, sent.” NYSCEF Doc 132, at 33:7-
17. However, this is a red herring. These text messages were turned over as purported
originals. At no point did Plaintiff say, “by the way, these contain a draft that was never
sent.” These documents were turned over, hidden amongst the other texts, with this
added text, purportedly as photos/screenshots of the original conversations. Clearly, they
were not.
Page 2 of 8
62 of
of 70
8
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/25/2021
10/27/2021 05:50
03:51 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 135
140 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/25/2021
10/27/2021
8. As further proof that this was not “merely a draft” that had “accidentally” been
included by Plaintiff, one need only examine the screenshots. These text messages were
either from 2016 or 2017 (the year does not appear in the texts, but the parties went their
separate ways in 2017), and hence were from 2-3 years before they were turned over in
November 2019. Accordingly, if this text was “merely a draft” that was “never sent” and
“accidentally” included as photos/screenshots of the text messages as they were being
taken by Plaintiff as she was gathering them for discovery, then one would expect the
screenshots to look the same. Unfortunately for Plaintiff, she was not as sneaky as she
believed herself to be.
9. Looking at batesstamp 47 (from EXHIBIT 1), one can see a forward angle
bracket and three auto-predict suggestions underneath the message (which because of the
black and white image is very faint and difficult to see), as well as a digital qwerty
keyboard under the auto-predict suggestions (which I have circled in red):
Page 3 of 8
73 of
of 70
8
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/25/2021
10/27/2021 05:50
03:51 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 135
140 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/25/2021
10/27/2021
10. Looking at batesstamp 95 and 124 (also in EXHIBIT 1), however, none of these
appear; instead the camera icon and app store icon appear to the left of the text box, and
app icons below the text line:
95:
Page 4 of 8
84 of
of 70
8
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/25/2021
10/27/2021 05:50
03:51 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 135
140 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/25/2021
10/27/2021
124:
11. The only way for the angle bracket (which only appears if someone is adding an
attachment to a text, or types enough text to fill up the text box), auto-predict text, and
digital keyboard to appear, would be if someone was actively typing when they took the
Page 5 of 8
95 of
of 70
8
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/25/2021
10/27/2021 05:50
03:51 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 135
140 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/25/2021
10/27/2021
screenshot/picture. They would then have to manually exit this by clicking on the angle
bracket to bring the screen back to the camera and app store icons that appear in
batesstamp 95 and 124.
12. Accordingly, it is patently clear that this was not “merely a draft” that had been
left over from 2016/2017, but rather that Plaintiff was actively adding this text when she
took the screenshot in batesstamp 47 to turn over in discovery, and that she then
remembered to exit out of it when taking the screenshots in 95 and 124, making sure to
carefully line up the text so that it appeared to be the continuation of the conversation.
13. There can be no greater sin during discovery than the tampering of evidence. The
fact that I was able to realize and figure out that something was wrong does not change
the fact that Plaintiff doctored these text messages to try to make them appear as if they
were something they weren’t, presumably in order to try to help her case.
14. It is respectfully submitted that this evidence alone is enough to demonstrate
Plaintiff’s tampering of evidence, and that in light of this egregious behavior, that
Plaintiff’s complaint be stricken with prejudice.
15. However, at oral arguments, the Court suggested that a forensic expert would be
required.
16. To the extent that the Court still believes that, notwithstanding this clear evidence
of tampering, a forensic expert would still be required, I have consulted with a forensic
expert and have been informed that assuming that Plaintiff did not further tamper with the
evidence by editing or removing the alleged “draft” (and since Plaintiff is claiming that
this was “merely a draft” from 2-3 years ago, there would be no reason why anything
would have been changed), he would need access to the original phone. There would be
Page 6 of 8
106 of 8
70
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/25/2021
10/27/2021 05:50
03:51 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 135
140 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/25/2021
10/27/2021
no way to determine when the “draft” message was entered into the phone just based off
of the photos/screenshots that have been sent. However, if Plaintiff did further tamper
with the evidence, then since this message was only in the text box and was not actually
ever sent, there would be no way to determine when the message was entered into the
phone. The expert is based in California, where Plaintiff resides. Accordingly, to the
extent that the Court does not believe that the above showing is enough, Defendant would
respectfully ask that the Court order Plaintiff to turn over the phone to Defendant’s expert
so that the text messages contained thereon can be pulled and forensically examined.
WHEREFORE, for all of the foregoing reasons, it is respectfully prayed that the
Court issue an order granting Defendant’s motion in its entirety and striking Plaintiff’s
complaint with prejudice based on Plaintiff’s tampering with evidence; or alternatively,
reserving decision on the motion and ordering the Plaintiff to turn over her phone to
Defendant’s forensic expert so that the phone and messages can be forensically examined
and a report issued thereon, at which point the Court would rule on the motion; together
with such other, further, and different relief as to the Court may seem just and proper.
Dated: Fresh Meadows, New York
October 25, 2021
/Jonathan E. Neuman/
JONATHAN E. NEUMAN, ESQ.
Page 7 of 8
117 of 8
70
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/25/2021
10/27/2021 05:50
03:51 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 135
140 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/25/2021
10/27/2021
ATTORNEY CERTIFICATION
I, JONATHAN E. NEUMAN, ESQ., an attorney at law licensed to practice in the
State of New York, hereby certify that to the best of my knowledge, information and
belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances, the presentation of the
within papers or the contentions therein are not frivolous within the meaning of 22
NYCRR § 130.1.1(c).
Dated: Fresh Meadows, NY
October 25, 2021
/Jonathan E. Neuman/
JONATHAN E. NEUMAN, ESQ.
ATTORNEY CERTIFICATION
I, JONATHAN E. NEUMAN, ESQ., an attorney at law licensed to practice in the
State of New York, hereby certify that this document contains 1,294 words exclusive of
the caption, table of contents, table of authorities, and/or signature block, as counted by
the word count of the word-processing system used to prepare this document.
Dated: Fresh Meadows, NY
October 25, 2021
/Jonathan E. Neuman/
JONATHAN E. NEUMAN, ESQ.
Page 8 of 8
128 of 8
70
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/25/2021
10/27/2021 05:50
03:51 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 136
140 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/25/2021
10/27/2021
CONFIDENTIAL SB - 000047
13 of 70
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/25/2021
10/27/2021 05:50
03:51 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 136
140 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/25/2021
10/27/2021
CONFIDENTIAL SB - 000095
14 of 70
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/25/2021
10/27/2021 05:50
03:51 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 136
140 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/25/2021
10/27/2021
CONFIDENTIAL SB - 000124
15 of 70
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/25/2021
10/27/2021 05:50
03:51 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 137
140 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/25/2021
10/27/2021
CONFIDENTIAL SB - 000181
16 of 70
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/25/2021
10/27/2021 05:50
03:51 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 137
140 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/25/2021
10/27/2021
CONFIDENTIAL SB - 000182
17 of 70
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/25/2021
10/27/2021 05:50
03:51 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 137
140 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/25/2021
10/27/2021
CONFIDENTIAL SB - 000183
18 of 70
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/25/2021
10/27/2021 05:50
03:51 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 137
140 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/25/2021
10/27/2021
CONFIDENTIAL SB - 000184
19 of 70
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/25/2021
10/27/2021 05:50
03:51 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 138
140 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/25/2021
10/27/2021
CONFIDENTIAL SB - 000001
20 of 70
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/25/2021
10/27/2021 05:50
03:51 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 138
140 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/25/2021
10/27/2021
CONFIDENTIAL SB - 000002
21 of 70
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/25/2021
10/27/2021 05:50
03:51 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 138
140 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/25/2021
10/27/2021
CONFIDENTIAL SB - 000003
22 of 70
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/25/2021
10/27/2021 05:50
03:51 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 138
140 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/25/2021
10/27/2021
CONFIDENTIAL SB - 000004
23 of 70
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/25/2021
10/27/2021 05:50
03:51 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 138
140 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/25/2021
10/27/2021
CONFIDENTIAL SB - 000005
24 of 70
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/25/2021
10/27/2021 05:50
03:51 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 138
140 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/25/2021
10/27/2021
CONFIDENTIAL SB - 000006
25 of 70
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/25/2021
10/27/2021 05:50
03:51 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 138
140 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/25/2021
10/27/2021
CONFIDENTIAL SB - 000007
26 of 70
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/25/2021
10/27/2021 05:50
03:51 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 138
140 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/25/2021
10/27/2021
CONFIDENTIAL SB - 000008
27 of 70
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/25/2021
10/27/2021 05:50
03:51 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 138
140 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/25/2021
10/27/2021
CONFIDENTIAL SB - 000009
28 of 70
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/25/2021
10/27/2021 05:50
03:51 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 138
140 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/25/2021
10/27/2021
CONFIDENTIAL SB - 000010
29 of 70
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/25/2021
10/27/2021 05:50
03:51 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 138
140 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/25/2021
10/27/2021
CONFIDENTIAL SB - 000011
30 of 70
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/25/2021
10/27/2021 05:50
03:51 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 138
140 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/25/2021
10/27/2021
CONFIDENTIAL SB - 000012
31 of 70
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/25/2021
10/27/2021 05:50
03:51 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 138
140 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/25/2021
10/27/2021
CONFIDENTIAL SB - 000013
32 of 70
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/25/2021
10/27/2021 05:50
03:51 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 138
140 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/25/2021
10/27/2021
CONFIDENTIAL SB - 000014
33 of 70
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/25/2021
10/27/2021 05:50
03:51 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 138
140 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/25/2021
10/27/2021
CONFIDENTIAL SB - 000015
34 of 70
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/25/2021
10/27/2021 05:50
03:51 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 138
140 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/25/2021
10/27/2021
CONFIDENTIAL SB - 000016
35 of 70
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/25/2021
10/27/2021 05:50
03:51 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 138
140 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/25/2021
10/27/2021
CONFIDENTIAL SB - 000017
36 of 70
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/25/2021
10/27/2021 05:50
03:51 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 138
140 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/25/2021
10/27/2021
CONFIDENTIAL SB - 000018
37 of 70
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/25/2021
10/27/2021 05:50
03:51 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 138
140 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/25/2021
10/27/2021
CONFIDENTIAL SB -
Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/27/2021 03:51 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 139 140 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/27/2021 11 of of 70 2 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/27/2021 03:51 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 139 140 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/27/2021 22 of of 70 2 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/25/2021 10/27/2021 05:50 03:51 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 134 140 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/25/2021 10/27/2021 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------------------X STELLA STOLPER, Index No. 652352/2018 Plaintiff, AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT -vs- Motion Sequence No. 11 ZARINA BURBACKI, Justice Assigned: Defendant. Hon. Andrew S Borrok, Esq. --------------------------------------------------------------------X State of New York ) ) ss: County of Queens ) ZARINA BURBACKI, being duly sworn deposes and says: 1. I am the Defendant and Counterclaimant in the above-captioned action. I make this affidavit in support of my instant motion to strike Plaintiff’s complaint for her tampering with evidence. I am fully familiar with all of the facts and circumstances relevant to a proper determination of this matter. 2. Upon going through the text messages that Plaintiff had turned over in discovery, I noticed that a few of them contained an instruction from Plaintiff to the group chat to stop talking about what the group was talking about. These seemed strange to me, because Plaintiff was an active participant in these types of conversations and had never issued that instruction. 3. I pointed out to my attorney my belief that these text messages had been tampered with. My attorney then realized that text had in fact been added to the text messages to make them appear as part of the original conversation. 4. Plaintiff’s clear willingness to tamper with evidence calls into question her entire Page 1 of 2 31 of of 70 2 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/25/2021 10/27/2021 05:50 03:51 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 134 140 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/25/2021 10/27/2021 production. If Plaintiff was willing to tamper with these documents, which of her other documents were tampered with and/or not produced? 5. Plaintiff has made abhorrent and false accusations against me in this case to try to lash out at me and harm me because she was fired by Mariah Carey. Her detestable claims should not be allowed to stand when it is clear that Plaintiff is willing to cheat, lie, and spoliate evidence to try to get an advantage in this litigation. WHEREFORE, for all of the foregoing reasons, it is respectfully prayed that Defendant’s motion be granted in its entirety, together with such other, further and different relief as to the Court may seem just and proper. ______________________________ ZARINA BURBACKI Signed and sworn to before me this 25th day of October 2021. ________________________ NOTARY PUBLIC Page 2 of 2 42 of of 70 2 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/25/2021 10/27/2021 05:50 03:51 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 135 140 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/25/2021 10/27/2021 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------------------X STELLA STOLPER, AFFIRMATION IN SUPPORT Plaintiff, Motion Sequence No. 11 -vs- Index No. 652352/2018 ZARINA BURBACKI, Justice Assigned: Defendant. Hon. Andrew S. Borrok, J.S.C. --------------------------------------------------------------------X JONATHAN E. NEUMAN, an attorney duly admitted to practice in the courts of this State, does hereby affirm the truth of the following under the penalties of perjury, pursuant to CPLR §2106: 1. I am the attorney for Defendant in the above-entitled action and am fully familiar with all of the facts and circumstances heretofore had herein. I make this affirmation in support of Defendant’s motion to strike Plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice due to Plaintiff’s tampering with evidence. 2. No previous application has been made to any court or judge for the relief requested herein. This motion was specifically authorized by the Court on October 5, 2021. See Transcript of Proceedings, NYSCEF Doc. 132, at *5. 3. As part of the discovery demands in this case, it was demanded that Plaintiff turn over certain text messages. 4. As discussed in Defendant’s accompanying affidavit, upon reviewing these text messages, a few of them contained a message wherein Plaintiff was instructing the other texters to stop talking about the topic of the group text. These texts are annexed hereto as EXHIBIT 1. However, Defendant was confused by these purported texts, because Page 1 of 8 51 of of 70 8 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/25/2021 10/27/2021 05:50 03:51 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 135 140 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/25/2021 10/27/2021 Plaintiff was an active participant in these types of chats, and had never given any such instruction. 5. The undersigned noticed that it was strange that unlike other texts that were turned over in color (see, e.g., a small sample of some other texts in EXHIBIT 2), these texts from EXHIBIT 1 were in black in white. A closer inspection of the texts revealed that in fact, these messages of “who cares please stop” were not text messages that had even been sent by the Plaintiff, but rather the Plaintiff had added this text into her cellphone and then taken a black and white photograph of the screen to make it appear that this text was part of the group message. 6. Unlike the other black and white texts that Plaintiff turned over, almost all of which involved cut-off texts and partial images (see, e.g., a small sample in EXHIBIT 3), the tampered texts in EXHIBIT 1 had the additional doctored text perfectly placed to make it appear as if it was the original continuation of the conversation. However, no such text had ever been sent, and the text was clearly added by Plaintiff now during discovery, years after the original chats, in order to make it appear that Plaintiff was telling the group to stop such talks, when no such text ever existed at the time. 7. During oral arguments on the record, Plaintiff’s counsel stated to the Court that these were “merely a draft” that were “not, actually, sent.” NYSCEF Doc 132, at 33:7- 17. However, this is a red herring. These text messages were turned over as purported originals. At no point did Plaintiff say, “by the way, these contain a draft that was never sent.” These documents were turned over, hidden amongst the other texts, with this added text, purportedly as photos/screenshots of the original conversations. Clearly, they were not. Page 2 of 8 62 of of 70 8 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/25/2021 10/27/2021 05:50 03:51 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 135 140 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/25/2021 10/27/2021 8. As further proof that this was not “merely a draft” that had “accidentally” been included by Plaintiff, one need only examine the screenshots. These text messages were either from 2016 or 2017 (the year does not appear in the texts, but the parties went their separate ways in 2017), and hence were from 2-3 years before they were turned over in November 2019. Accordingly, if this text was “merely a draft” that was “never sent” and “accidentally” included as photos/screenshots of the text messages as they were being taken by Plaintiff as she was gathering them for discovery, then one would expect the screenshots to look the same. Unfortunately for Plaintiff, she was not as sneaky as she believed herself to be. 9. Looking at batesstamp 47 (from EXHIBIT 1), one can see a forward angle bracket and three auto-predict suggestions underneath the message (which because of the black and white image is very faint and difficult to see), as well as a digital qwerty keyboard under the auto-predict suggestions (which I have circled in red): Page 3 of 8 73 of of 70 8 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/25/2021 10/27/2021 05:50 03:51 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 135 140 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/25/2021 10/27/2021 10. Looking at batesstamp 95 and 124 (also in EXHIBIT 1), however, none of these appear; instead the camera icon and app store icon appear to the left of the text box, and app icons below the text line: 95: Page 4 of 8 84 of of 70 8 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/25/2021 10/27/2021 05:50 03:51 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 135 140 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/25/2021 10/27/2021 124: 11. The only way for the angle bracket (which only appears if someone is adding an attachment to a text, or types enough text to fill up the text box), auto-predict text, and digital keyboard to appear, would be if someone was actively typing when they took the Page 5 of 8 95 of of 70 8 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/25/2021 10/27/2021 05:50 03:51 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 135 140 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/25/2021 10/27/2021 screenshot/picture. They would then have to manually exit this by clicking on the angle bracket to bring the screen back to the camera and app store icons that appear in batesstamp 95 and 124. 12. Accordingly, it is patently clear that this was not “merely a draft” that had been left over from 2016/2017, but rather that Plaintiff was actively adding this text when she took the screenshot in batesstamp 47 to turn over in discovery, and that she then remembered to exit out of it when taking the screenshots in 95 and 124, making sure to carefully line up the text so that it appeared to be the continuation of the conversation. 13. There can be no greater sin during discovery than the tampering of evidence. The fact that I was able to realize and figure out that something was wrong does not change the fact that Plaintiff doctored these text messages to try to make them appear as if they were something they weren’t, presumably in order to try to help her case. 14. It is respectfully submitted that this evidence alone is enough to demonstrate Plaintiff’s tampering of evidence, and that in light of this egregious behavior, that Plaintiff’s complaint be stricken with prejudice. 15. However, at oral arguments, the Court suggested that a forensic expert would be required. 16. To the extent that the Court still believes that, notwithstanding this clear evidence of tampering, a forensic expert would still be required, I have consulted with a forensic expert and have been informed that assuming that Plaintiff did not further tamper with the evidence by editing or removing the alleged “draft” (and since Plaintiff is claiming that this was “merely a draft” from 2-3 years ago, there would be no reason why anything would have been changed), he would need access to the original phone. There would be Page 6 of 8 106 of 8 70 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/25/2021 10/27/2021 05:50 03:51 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 135 140 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/25/2021 10/27/2021 no way to determine when the “draft” message was entered into the phone just based off of the photos/screenshots that have been sent. However, if Plaintiff did further tamper with the evidence, then since this message was only in the text box and was not actually ever sent, there would be no way to determine when the message was entered into the phone. The expert is based in California, where Plaintiff resides. Accordingly, to the extent that the Court does not believe that the above showing is enough, Defendant would respectfully ask that the Court order Plaintiff to turn over the phone to Defendant’s expert so that the text messages contained thereon can be pulled and forensically examined. WHEREFORE, for all of the foregoing reasons, it is respectfully prayed that the Court issue an order granting Defendant’s motion in its entirety and striking Plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice based on Plaintiff’s tampering with evidence; or alternatively, reserving decision on the motion and ordering the Plaintiff to turn over her phone to Defendant’s forensic expert so that the phone and messages can be forensically examined and a report issued thereon, at which point the Court would rule on the motion; together with such other, further, and different relief as to the Court may seem just and proper. Dated: Fresh Meadows, New York October 25, 2021 /Jonathan E. Neuman/ JONATHAN E. NEUMAN, ESQ. Page 7 of 8 117 of 8 70 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/25/2021 10/27/2021 05:50 03:51 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 135 140 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/25/2021 10/27/2021 ATTORNEY CERTIFICATION I, JONATHAN E. NEUMAN, ESQ., an attorney at law licensed to practice in the State of New York, hereby certify that to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances, the presentation of the within papers or the contentions therein are not frivolous within the meaning of 22 NYCRR § 130.1.1(c). Dated: Fresh Meadows, NY October 25, 2021 /Jonathan E. Neuman/ JONATHAN E. NEUMAN, ESQ. ATTORNEY CERTIFICATION I, JONATHAN E. NEUMAN, ESQ., an attorney at law licensed to practice in the State of New York, hereby certify that this document contains 1,294 words exclusive of the caption, table of contents, table of authorities, and/or signature block, as counted by the word count of the word-processing system used to prepare this document. Dated: Fresh Meadows, NY October 25, 2021 /Jonathan E. Neuman/ JONATHAN E. NEUMAN, ESQ. Page 8 of 8 128 of 8 70 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/25/2021 10/27/2021 05:50 03:51 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 136 140 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/25/2021 10/27/2021 CONFIDENTIAL SB - 000047 13 of 70 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/25/2021 10/27/2021 05:50 03:51 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 136 140 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/25/2021 10/27/2021 CONFIDENTIAL SB - 000095 14 of 70 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/25/2021 10/27/2021 05:50 03:51 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 136 140 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/25/2021 10/27/2021 CONFIDENTIAL SB - 000124 15 of 70 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/25/2021 10/27/2021 05:50 03:51 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 137 140 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/25/2021 10/27/2021 CONFIDENTIAL SB - 000181 16 of 70 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/25/2021 10/27/2021 05:50 03:51 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 137 140 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/25/2021 10/27/2021 CONFIDENTIAL SB - 000182 17 of 70 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/25/2021 10/27/2021 05:50 03:51 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 137 140 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/25/2021 10/27/2021 CONFIDENTIAL SB - 000183 18 of 70 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/25/2021 10/27/2021 05:50 03:51 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 137 140 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/25/2021 10/27/2021 CONFIDENTIAL SB - 000184 19 of 70 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/25/2021 10/27/2021 05:50 03:51 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 138 140 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/25/2021 10/27/2021 CONFIDENTIAL SB - 000001 20 of 70 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/25/2021 10/27/2021 05:50 03:51 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 138 140 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/25/2021 10/27/2021 CONFIDENTIAL SB - 000002 21 of 70 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/25/2021 10/27/2021 05:50 03:51 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 138 140 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/25/2021 10/27/2021 CONFIDENTIAL SB - 000003 22 of 70 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/25/2021 10/27/2021 05:50 03:51 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 138 140 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/25/2021 10/27/2021 CONFIDENTIAL SB - 000004 23 of 70 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/25/2021 10/27/2021 05:50 03:51 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 138 140 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/25/2021 10/27/2021 CONFIDENTIAL SB - 000005 24 of 70 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/25/2021 10/27/2021 05:50 03:51 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 138 140 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/25/2021 10/27/2021 CONFIDENTIAL SB - 000006 25 of 70 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/25/2021 10/27/2021 05:50 03:51 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 138 140 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/25/2021 10/27/2021 CONFIDENTIAL SB - 000007 26 of 70 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/25/2021 10/27/2021 05:50 03:51 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 138 140 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/25/2021 10/27/2021 CONFIDENTIAL SB - 000008 27 of 70 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/25/2021 10/27/2021 05:50 03:51 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 138 140 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/25/2021 10/27/2021 CONFIDENTIAL SB - 000009 28 of 70 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/25/2021 10/27/2021 05:50 03:51 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 138 140 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/25/2021 10/27/2021 CONFIDENTIAL SB - 000010 29 of 70 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/25/2021 10/27/2021 05:50 03:51 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 138 140 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/25/2021 10/27/2021 CONFIDENTIAL SB - 000011 30 of 70 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/25/2021 10/27/2021 05:50 03:51 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 138 140 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/25/2021 10/27/2021 CONFIDENTIAL SB - 000012 31 of 70 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/25/2021 10/27/2021 05:50 03:51 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 138 140 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/25/2021 10/27/2021 CONFIDENTIAL SB - 000013 32 of 70 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/25/2021 10/27/2021 05:50 03:51 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 138 140 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/25/2021 10/27/2021 CONFIDENTIAL SB - 000014 33 of 70 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/25/2021 10/27/2021 05:50 03:51 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 138 140 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/25/2021 10/27/2021 CONFIDENTIAL SB - 000015 34 of 70 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/25/2021 10/27/2021 05:50 03:51 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 138 140 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/25/2021 10/27/2021 CONFIDENTIAL SB - 000016 35 of 70 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/25/2021 10/27/2021 05:50 03:51 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 138 140 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/25/2021 10/27/2021 CONFIDENTIAL SB - 000017 36 of 70 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/25/2021 10/27/2021 05:50 03:51 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 138 140 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/25/2021 10/27/2021 CONFIDENTIAL SB - 000018 37 of 70 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/25/2021 10/27/2021 05:50 03:51 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 138 140 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/25/2021 10/27/2021 CONFIDENTIAL SB -