Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/01/2022 03:17 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 186 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/01/2022
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
--------------------------------------------------------------------X
STELLA STOLPER,
AFFIRMATION IN SUPPORT
Plaintiff,
Motion Sequence No. 14
-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 for appropriate discovery relief and sanctions. Please additionally allow this
to serve as my affirmation of good faith pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.7.
2. No previous application has been made to any court or judge for the relief requested
herein.
3. As the Court will recall, Plaintiff’s complaint (NYSCEF Doc. 71) is primarily about
$275,000 (comprised of $125,000 and $150,000) that Plaintiff alleges was improperly taken by
Defendant. Plaintiff has also alleged a tortious interference claim, and a claim of legal
malpractice against my client. Defendant has categorically denied all of the allegations, and has
asserted a number of counterclaims against Plaintiff.
4. Following Plaintiff’s deposition, certain post-deposition demands were made upon
Plaintiff. These were summarized in the attached EXHIBIT 1, which was a post-deposition
demand letter that I served upon Plaintiff’s counsel.
Page 1 of 11
1 of 11
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/01/2022 03:17 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 186 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/01/2022
5. On March 18, 2022, Plaintiff responded that it would not be turning over any documents,
claiming that Plaintiff already turned over all documentation as set forth in her Jackson affidavit
dated November 8, 2021. (See EXHIBIT 2 annexed hereto.) This is of particular curiosity,
since Plaintiff essentially admitted during her deposition that she had not done any recent search
for any records as had been required by the Court, and that she had no idea what the Jackson
affidavit was or what any of its pertinent clauses meant, which is the subject of a discovery
sanction request below.
6. On March 28, 2022, the parties had a conference before the Court, in which I raised this
issue of Plaintiff’s refusal to provide any post-deposition discovery. The Court stated that
Plaintiff’s position that she would not turn over post‐deposition discovery was unacceptable, and
gave me permission to file a motion via order to show case if necessary.
7. On April 3, 2022, I wrote to Plaintiff’s counsel to see if we could avoid the motion
practice, however Plaintiff’s counsel persisted in the position that had just been rejected by the
Court, to wit: that they did not have to turn over any post-deposition discovery, thereby
unfortunately making this motion necessary. (See EXHIBIT 3 annexed hereto.)
PLAINTIFF SHOULD BE COMPELLED TO TURN OVER THE REQUESTED
DOCUMENTS, IDENTIFY THEM BY BATES-STAMP, OR CERTIFY THAT NO SUCH
DOCUMENT(S) EXIST.
8. Disclosure is guided by the principle of “full disclosure of all matter material and
necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action.” CPLR §3101(a). The phrase “material
and necessary” is “to be interpreted liberally to require disclosure, upon request, of any facts
bearing on the controversy which will assist preparation for trial by sharpening the issues and
Page 2 of 11
2 of 11
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/01/2022 03:17 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 186 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/01/2022
reducing delay and prolixity.” Matter of Kapon v. Koch, 23 N.Y.3d 32, 38, 988 N.Y.S.2d 559,
564, 11 N.E.3d 709, 714 (2014); accord Tower Ins. Co. of N.Y. v Murello, 68 AD3d 977, 889
N.Y.S.2d 852 (2nd Dep’t 2009). CPLR §3101 is interpreted liberally to require full disclosure of
any relevant document that may be useful throughout the litigation. Hoenig v. Westphal, 52
N.Y.2d 605, 422 N.E.2d 491, 439 N.Y.S.2d 831 (1981).
9. As the Court can see from my post-deposition letter (EXHIBIT 1), Defendant did not
seek an overburdensome or inappropriate number of post-deposition demands, which instead
were very limited and tailored to the case and Plaintiff’s deposition testimony. The specific
documents/items requested are dealt with immediately below.
10. The first document requested was Plaintiff’s Executed Declaration of Disclosure. This is
a document, which is essentially the equivalent of New York’s Statement of Net Worth filed in
divorce proceedings, that was filed in Plaintiff’s divorce action in California during the time in
which she claims that Defendant was holding the $150,000 on her behalf.
11. This document is an extraordinarily important documents to be produced. As the Court
will recall, Plaintiff’s claims revolve around two discrete sums of money: a $125,000 amount
that Plaintiff alleges was really her money and not an amount that was shared with Defendant as
a commission share for Defendant, and a $150,000 amount that Plaintiff alleges was a gift to her
from Defendant’s father-in-law (despite admitting that she has no documents relating to this
alleged gift and that she never spoke to him about it) that was allegedly being held for her by
Defendant.
12. As has already been brought up to the Court, the $125,000 was never declared by
Plaintiff on her tax returns, whereas it was declared by Defendant on hers. Plaintiff has produced
no documents relating to the declaration of this money on her tax returns, has admitted during
Page 3 of 11
3 of 11
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/01/2022 03:17 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 186 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/01/2022
her deposition that she does not know if it was declared, and has sworn under oath in her Jackson
Affidavit that she has no documents to show that she ever declared the $125,000 on her taxes.
(See EXHIBIT 4 annexed hereto.)
13. As the Court itself stated at the October 5, 2021, conference, in the event that Plaintiff
was unable to show that she had declared the $125,000 on her taxes, the Court was going to be
persuaded when I made a motion for summary judgment and relied on Mahoney-Buntzman v.
Buntzman, 12 NY3d 415, 909 N.E.2d 62, 881 N.Y.S.2d 369 (2009) for the position that because
Plaintiff lied about this money to the IRS, she is not estopped from claiming in this case that this
was really her money and not Defendant’s. See Transcript of Proceedings, NYSCEF Doc. 132,
at *17-22.
14. However, Buntzman is not just limited to tax returns. As this Court discussed in Robins
v. Procure Treatment Ctrs., Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 30803(U), ¶ 6 (Sup. Ct. NY Cty 2017),
numerous courts, at the state, federal, and appellate level in the First Department, have applied
Buntzman to essentially any document sworn to under penalty of perjury, including assets
omitted from a sworn Statement of Net Worth.
15. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s sworn statement of net worth from this time period when
Defendant was allegedly holding this alleged $150,000 gift for her is of vital importance.
Defendant has produced a copy of a signed, but not notarized version of this California statement
of net worth. As will surprise no one, although there were multiple places on the document
where the disclosure of the $150,000 could have been and should have been made, at no point in
the disclosure did Plaintiff ever disclose the alleged $150,000 gift allegedly being held for her by
Plaintiff. This was a document that was sworn to under penalty of perjury (see Cal. Fam. Code
§§ 2104, 2105.) Accordingly, under Buntzman, Plaintiff would now be collaterally estopped
Page 4 of 11
4 of 11
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/01/2022 03:17 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 186 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/01/2022
from arguing that in fact, Defendant was holding a $150,000 gift for her that she failed to
disclose under penalty of perjury. Accordingly, it is respectfully submitted that Plaintiff must be
ordered to turn over this very vital document, which essentially will put an end to Plaintiff’s false
and malicious claims against my client.
16. Similarly, the third post-deposition demand was for “Original responses and amended
responses to Brian Sher’s discovery demands, including all documents that were turned over
relating to any money being held in Burbacki account.” Once again, Defendant has produced
unexecuted copies of these documents. These documents too, were signed by Plaintiff under
penalty of perjury, and once again have specific items regarding any gifts or any money being
held by others on behalf of Plaintiff. Once again, to nobody’s surprise, Plaintiff did not disclose
any such money or gift. Accordingly, once again, under Buntzman, these documents would
collaterally estop Plaintiff’s false and malicious claims in this case that Defendant was holding a
$150,000 gift for Plaintiff that Defendant then failed to turn over to Plaintiff. Accordingly, these
two post-deposition demands go to the very heart of Plaintiff’s claims, and it is respectfully
submitted that Plaintiff must be ordered to turn over these documents.
17. Moving on to the next item, Defendant demanded that Plaintiff turn over notes that she
had in front of her during her deposition, and which were discovered by me during the course of
the deposition when I noticed Plaintiff reading from them. Similarly, during Plaintiff’s
deposition, which was taken virtually in light of Plaintiff being located in California, it was
discovered that Plaintiff was texting with one or more unknown recipients, and so all text
messages during her deposition were demanded. These two items are self-explanatory.
18. The next item demanded was the “Trust Document that Ms. Stolper claims existed that
Yonatan was named on and signed naming Zarina or Yoni as beneficiaries or executors.” This
Page 5 of 11
5 of 11
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/01/2022 03:17 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 186 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/01/2022
was one of the few concrete claims that Ms. Stolper actually made in her Complaint with regard
to her alleged legal malpractice claim. However, no such executed document has ever been
provided by Plaintiff, and Plaintiff has refused to identify the bates-stamp number of the alleged
signed document that she claims to have turned over. The reason for this is simple. No such
document exists, nor has one been turned over, which is why Plaintiff is refusing to identify the
bates-stamp number, because this would once again demonstrate yet another blatant lie by
Plaintiff in her sworn Complaint. It is respectfully submitted that Plaintiff should be compelled
to either identify the bates-stamp number of the executed document, or admit that no such
document exists.
19. The next item is again an easy one. Defendant demanded “Signed contracts that have
been turned over in this case that Burbacki allegedly interfered with.” As mentioned, Plaintiff
has asserted a secondary claim that Defendant tortiously interfered with her contracts. Yet
Plaintiff has not turned over any such signed contracts, and refuses to identify the bates-stamps
for any such alleged contracts. Plaintiff should be compelled to do so or should have to admit
that no such documents exist.
20. The next item is a demand that Plaintiff “Provide the amount that Stella was paid by
Mariah to settle their case.” As the Court knows, our case is inextricably tied into the Mariah
Carey case that was previously before this Court, and Plaintiff admitted during her deposition
that the alleged contracts that Defendant allegedly interfered with were the subject of her
settlement with Mariah Carey. Accordingly, the settlement amount that Plaintiff received is
clearly relevant to her allegations of damages in this case, since if she was already compensated
for them, Plaintiff would not be able to make a double recovery off of my client, and Plaintiff
should clearly be compelled to disclose such amount.
Page 6 of 11
6 of 11
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/01/2022 03:17 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 186 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/01/2022
21. Similarly, a later demand asks for the settlement documents and amount between Plaintiff
and Lianna Shakhnazaryan, which as this Court knows was once again a case inextricably
intertwined with our own case, since in that suit Plaintiff alleged that it was Ms. Shakhnazaryan
who tortiously interfered with Plaintiff’s relationship with Ms. Carey and caused Ms. Carey to
fire her, while in our case Plaintiff blames Defendant. Clearly these document are relevant to
Plaintiff’s tortious interference claim, and they should be compelled to be turned over. For the
same reason, a later demand asks for “any deposition transcripts from Plaintiff’s case with
Shakhnazaryan,” and those should be compelled to be turned over for the same reason.
22. The next item is also an easy one and goes to Plaintiff’s alleged legal malpractice claim.
Defendant demanded that Plaintiff “Identify by Bate Stamp all contracts the “tons of contracts”
that Burbacki advised Stolper not to sign to advance her own interests””. No such documents
have been turned over, and Plaintiff has refused to identify any such alleged documents.
Plaintiff should clearly be compelled to do so.
23. The next item is related to Plaintiff’s deposition testimony that Defendant had provided
her with copies of bank account statements, and that Plaintiff had turned over such documents.
However, I am not aware of any such documents, and so a demand was made that such
documents be identified by bates-stamp. Plaintiff has once again refused, because in fact
Plaintiff never turned over such documents. This is clearly relevant to Plaintiff’s causes of
action, including her accounting cause of action, and therefore Plaintiff should be compelled to
identify the documents she allegedly turned over, or admit that she has failed to do so.
24. The next item should also be an easy one. It asks for the “Bates Stamp of any
communication from Sept 2017‐Dec 2017 where Stolper is complaining to any third party that
Burbacki withheld $150k from her.” Plaintiff was in fact previously ordered by this Court to
Page 7 of 11
7 of 11
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/01/2022 03:17 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 186 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/01/2022
turn over any such documents. See NYSCEF Doc. 123 at *4. During her deposition, Plaintiff
alleges that she complained in writing to numerous third parties about the $150,000. Yet, I am
unaware of any such document. Plaintiff has unsurprisingly refused to identify any such
document, because no such document exists. Plaintiff should be compelled to identify the
alleged documents, or admit that no such documents exist.
25. The next document demanded was an “Alleged Closed contract for a 2 year extension
between Stella and Mariah.” During her deposition, Plaintiff alleged that Defendant interfered
with her contract with Ms. Carey into which Plaintiff was otherwise going to enter absent
Plaintiff’s interference, and that Defendant therefore caused the termination of Plaintiff’s
relationship with Ms. Carey. This goes to the heart of Plaintiff’s alleged tortious interference
claim; however, no such document has been turned over, and therefore Plaintiff should be
compelled to do so, or admit that no such document exists.
26. The next demand, which is related, is for “Any communication regarding sending a
signed contract to Mariah or her team.” Once again, Plaintiff has alleged that she had signed the
contract and sent it to Ms. Carey, and it was because of Defendant that the contract was never
executed and returned by Ms. Carey. This goes to the heart of Plaintiff’s alleged tortious
interference claim, and Plaintiff should be compelled to turn over these documents or admit that
they don’t exist.
27. Finally, the last item is an easy one: it asks for “Written communication with any third
party about the factual allegations of this lawsuit.” During her deposition, Plaintiff alleged that
she had spoken about this suit with a number of third parties. Defendant would clearly be
entitled to any such communications, and in fact the Court previously ordered that Plaintiff turn
Page 8 of 11
8 of 11
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/01/2022 03:17 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 186 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/01/2022
over third-party communications relevant to the allegations of this action. See NYSCEF Doc.
123 at *4.
28. The relevant deposition excerpts showing that all of these items were demanded is
annexed hereto as EXHIBIT 5.
29. As such, it is respectfully submitted that pursuant to CPLR §3124, the Court compel the
production of all of these documents and information from Plaintiff, with leave to seek further
sanctions upon Plaintiff’s failure to do so.
PLAINTIFF SHOULD BE SANCTION FOR SUBMITTING A FALSE JACKSON
AFFIDAVIT TO THE COURT
30. More disturbing than Plaintiff’s refusal to turn over post-deposition documents and
information after the Court specifically warned that such a position would be unacceptable,
Plaintiff admitted during her deposition that she did not do a search for documents as required by
this Court, and that she had no idea what the Jackson affidavit that she submitted to this Court
said or meant. See EXHIBIT 5 at 75:20-83:9. This Court had previously ordered such a search
and Jackson Affidavit. See NYSCEF Doc. 123 at *6.
31. This is shocking, sanctionable conduct, and it is respectfully submitted that the Court
should award appropriate sanctions, including attorney’s fees, as allowed under this Court’s
general authority under CPLR §3126 as well as pursuant to 22 NYCRR § 130-1.1.
32. Additionally, in light of Plaintiff’s clear failure to actually conduct a search for
responsive documents and submit a truthful Jackson Affidavit, it is respectfully submitted that
the Court allow Defendant to conduct a forensic search of Plaintiff’s computers and phones for
responsive discovery documents (through a third party vendor), with a reservation of
Page 9 of 11
9 of 11
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/01/2022 03:17 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 186 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/01/2022
Defendant’s right to seek further CPLR §3126 sanctions in the event that documents are
discovered that were not turned over.
WHEREFORE, for all of the foregoing reasons, it is respectfully prayed that the Court
issue an order granting Defendant’s motion in its entirety, compelling Plaintiff to produce the
demanded documentation and information, awarding appropriate sanctions against Plaintiff
including an award of attorney’s fees, and ordering a forensic search of Plaintiff’s computers and
cellphones; together with such other, further, and different relief as to the Court may seem just
and proper.
Dated: Fresh Meadows, New York
July 1, 2022
/Jonathan E. Neuman/
JONATHAN E. NEUMAN, ESQ.
Page 10 of 11
10 of 11
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/01/2022 03:17 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 186 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/01/2022
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
July 1, 2022
/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 2,779 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
July 1, 2022
/Jonathan E. Neuman/
JONATHAN E. NEUMAN, ESQ.
Page 11 of 11
11 of 11
Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/01/2022 03:17 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 186 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/01/2022 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------------------X STELLA STOLPER, AFFIRMATION IN SUPPORT Plaintiff, Motion Sequence No. 14 -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 for appropriate discovery relief and sanctions. Please additionally allow this to serve as my affirmation of good faith pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.7. 2. No previous application has been made to any court or judge for the relief requested herein. 3. As the Court will recall, Plaintiff’s complaint (NYSCEF Doc. 71) is primarily about $275,000 (comprised of $125,000 and $150,000) that Plaintiff alleges was improperly taken by Defendant. Plaintiff has also alleged a tortious interference claim, and a claim of legal malpractice against my client. Defendant has categorically denied all of the allegations, and has asserted a number of counterclaims against Plaintiff. 4. Following Plaintiff’s deposition, certain post-deposition demands were made upon Plaintiff. These were summarized in the attached EXHIBIT 1, which was a post-deposition demand letter that I served upon Plaintiff’s counsel. Page 1 of 11 1 of 11 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/01/2022 03:17 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 186 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/01/2022 5. On March 18, 2022, Plaintiff responded that it would not be turning over any documents, claiming that Plaintiff already turned over all documentation as set forth in her Jackson affidavit dated November 8, 2021. (See EXHIBIT 2 annexed hereto.) This is of particular curiosity, since Plaintiff essentially admitted during her deposition that she had not done any recent search for any records as had been required by the Court, and that she had no idea what the Jackson affidavit was or what any of its pertinent clauses meant, which is the subject of a discovery sanction request below. 6. On March 28, 2022, the parties had a conference before the Court, in which I raised this issue of Plaintiff’s refusal to provide any post-deposition discovery. The Court stated that Plaintiff’s position that she would not turn over post‐deposition discovery was unacceptable, and gave me permission to file a motion via order to show case if necessary. 7. On April 3, 2022, I wrote to Plaintiff’s counsel to see if we could avoid the motion practice, however Plaintiff’s counsel persisted in the position that had just been rejected by the Court, to wit: that they did not have to turn over any post-deposition discovery, thereby unfortunately making this motion necessary. (See EXHIBIT 3 annexed hereto.) PLAINTIFF SHOULD BE COMPELLED TO TURN OVER THE REQUESTED DOCUMENTS, IDENTIFY THEM BY BATES-STAMP, OR CERTIFY THAT NO SUCH DOCUMENT(S) EXIST. 8. Disclosure is guided by the principle of “full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action.” CPLR §3101(a). The phrase “material and necessary” is “to be interpreted liberally to require disclosure, upon request, of any facts bearing on the controversy which will assist preparation for trial by sharpening the issues and Page 2 of 11 2 of 11 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/01/2022 03:17 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 186 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/01/2022 reducing delay and prolixity.” Matter of Kapon v. Koch, 23 N.Y.3d 32, 38, 988 N.Y.S.2d 559, 564, 11 N.E.3d 709, 714 (2014); accord Tower Ins. Co. of N.Y. v Murello, 68 AD3d 977, 889 N.Y.S.2d 852 (2nd Dep’t 2009). CPLR §3101 is interpreted liberally to require full disclosure of any relevant document that may be useful throughout the litigation. Hoenig v. Westphal, 52 N.Y.2d 605, 422 N.E.2d 491, 439 N.Y.S.2d 831 (1981). 9. As the Court can see from my post-deposition letter (EXHIBIT 1), Defendant did not seek an overburdensome or inappropriate number of post-deposition demands, which instead were very limited and tailored to the case and Plaintiff’s deposition testimony. The specific documents/items requested are dealt with immediately below. 10. The first document requested was Plaintiff’s Executed Declaration of Disclosure. This is a document, which is essentially the equivalent of New York’s Statement of Net Worth filed in divorce proceedings, that was filed in Plaintiff’s divorce action in California during the time in which she claims that Defendant was holding the $150,000 on her behalf. 11. This document is an extraordinarily important documents to be produced. As the Court will recall, Plaintiff’s claims revolve around two discrete sums of money: a $125,000 amount that Plaintiff alleges was really her money and not an amount that was shared with Defendant as a commission share for Defendant, and a $150,000 amount that Plaintiff alleges was a gift to her from Defendant’s father-in-law (despite admitting that she has no documents relating to this alleged gift and that she never spoke to him about it) that was allegedly being held for her by Defendant. 12. As has already been brought up to the Court, the $125,000 was never declared by Plaintiff on her tax returns, whereas it was declared by Defendant on hers. Plaintiff has produced no documents relating to the declaration of this money on her tax returns, has admitted during Page 3 of 11 3 of 11 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/01/2022 03:17 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 186 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/01/2022 her deposition that she does not know if it was declared, and has sworn under oath in her Jackson Affidavit that she has no documents to show that she ever declared the $125,000 on her taxes. (See EXHIBIT 4 annexed hereto.) 13. As the Court itself stated at the October 5, 2021, conference, in the event that Plaintiff was unable to show that she had declared the $125,000 on her taxes, the Court was going to be persuaded when I made a motion for summary judgment and relied on Mahoney-Buntzman v. Buntzman, 12 NY3d 415, 909 N.E.2d 62, 881 N.Y.S.2d 369 (2009) for the position that because Plaintiff lied about this money to the IRS, she is not estopped from claiming in this case that this was really her money and not Defendant’s. See Transcript of Proceedings, NYSCEF Doc. 132, at *17-22. 14. However, Buntzman is not just limited to tax returns. As this Court discussed in Robins v. Procure Treatment Ctrs., Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 30803(U), ¶ 6 (Sup. Ct. NY Cty 2017), numerous courts, at the state, federal, and appellate level in the First Department, have applied Buntzman to essentially any document sworn to under penalty of perjury, including assets omitted from a sworn Statement of Net Worth. 15. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s sworn statement of net worth from this time period when Defendant was allegedly holding this alleged $150,000 gift for her is of vital importance. Defendant has produced a copy of a signed, but not notarized version of this California statement of net worth. As will surprise no one, although there were multiple places on the document where the disclosure of the $150,000 could have been and should have been made, at no point in the disclosure did Plaintiff ever disclose the alleged $150,000 gift allegedly being held for her by Plaintiff. This was a document that was sworn to under penalty of perjury (see Cal. Fam. Code §§ 2104, 2105.) Accordingly, under Buntzman, Plaintiff would now be collaterally estopped Page 4 of 11 4 of 11 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/01/2022 03:17 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 186 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/01/2022 from arguing that in fact, Defendant was holding a $150,000 gift for her that she failed to disclose under penalty of perjury. Accordingly, it is respectfully submitted that Plaintiff must be ordered to turn over this very vital document, which essentially will put an end to Plaintiff’s false and malicious claims against my client. 16. Similarly, the third post-deposition demand was for “Original responses and amended responses to Brian Sher’s discovery demands, including all documents that were turned over relating to any money being held in Burbacki account.” Once again, Defendant has produced unexecuted copies of these documents. These documents too, were signed by Plaintiff under penalty of perjury, and once again have specific items regarding any gifts or any money being held by others on behalf of Plaintiff. Once again, to nobody’s surprise, Plaintiff did not disclose any such money or gift. Accordingly, once again, under Buntzman, these documents would collaterally estop Plaintiff’s false and malicious claims in this case that Defendant was holding a $150,000 gift for Plaintiff that Defendant then failed to turn over to Plaintiff. Accordingly, these two post-deposition demands go to the very heart of Plaintiff’s claims, and it is respectfully submitted that Plaintiff must be ordered to turn over these documents. 17. Moving on to the next item, Defendant demanded that Plaintiff turn over notes that she had in front of her during her deposition, and which were discovered by me during the course of the deposition when I noticed Plaintiff reading from them. Similarly, during Plaintiff’s deposition, which was taken virtually in light of Plaintiff being located in California, it was discovered that Plaintiff was texting with one or more unknown recipients, and so all text messages during her deposition were demanded. These two items are self-explanatory. 18. The next item demanded was the “Trust Document that Ms. Stolper claims existed that Yonatan was named on and signed naming Zarina or Yoni as beneficiaries or executors.” This Page 5 of 11 5 of 11 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/01/2022 03:17 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 186 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/01/2022 was one of the few concrete claims that Ms. Stolper actually made in her Complaint with regard to her alleged legal malpractice claim. However, no such executed document has ever been provided by Plaintiff, and Plaintiff has refused to identify the bates-stamp number of the alleged signed document that she claims to have turned over. The reason for this is simple. No such document exists, nor has one been turned over, which is why Plaintiff is refusing to identify the bates-stamp number, because this would once again demonstrate yet another blatant lie by Plaintiff in her sworn Complaint. It is respectfully submitted that Plaintiff should be compelled to either identify the bates-stamp number of the executed document, or admit that no such document exists. 19. The next item is again an easy one. Defendant demanded “Signed contracts that have been turned over in this case that Burbacki allegedly interfered with.” As mentioned, Plaintiff has asserted a secondary claim that Defendant tortiously interfered with her contracts. Yet Plaintiff has not turned over any such signed contracts, and refuses to identify the bates-stamps for any such alleged contracts. Plaintiff should be compelled to do so or should have to admit that no such documents exist. 20. The next item is a demand that Plaintiff “Provide the amount that Stella was paid by Mariah to settle their case.” As the Court knows, our case is inextricably tied into the Mariah Carey case that was previously before this Court, and Plaintiff admitted during her deposition that the alleged contracts that Defendant allegedly interfered with were the subject of her settlement with Mariah Carey. Accordingly, the settlement amount that Plaintiff received is clearly relevant to her allegations of damages in this case, since if she was already compensated for them, Plaintiff would not be able to make a double recovery off of my client, and Plaintiff should clearly be compelled to disclose such amount. Page 6 of 11 6 of 11 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/01/2022 03:17 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 186 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/01/2022 21. Similarly, a later demand asks for the settlement documents and amount between Plaintiff and Lianna Shakhnazaryan, which as this Court knows was once again a case inextricably intertwined with our own case, since in that suit Plaintiff alleged that it was Ms. Shakhnazaryan who tortiously interfered with Plaintiff’s relationship with Ms. Carey and caused Ms. Carey to fire her, while in our case Plaintiff blames Defendant. Clearly these document are relevant to Plaintiff’s tortious interference claim, and they should be compelled to be turned over. For the same reason, a later demand asks for “any deposition transcripts from Plaintiff’s case with Shakhnazaryan,” and those should be compelled to be turned over for the same reason. 22. The next item is also an easy one and goes to Plaintiff’s alleged legal malpractice claim. Defendant demanded that Plaintiff “Identify by Bate Stamp all contracts the “tons of contracts” that Burbacki advised Stolper not to sign to advance her own interests””. No such documents have been turned over, and Plaintiff has refused to identify any such alleged documents. Plaintiff should clearly be compelled to do so. 23. The next item is related to Plaintiff’s deposition testimony that Defendant had provided her with copies of bank account statements, and that Plaintiff had turned over such documents. However, I am not aware of any such documents, and so a demand was made that such documents be identified by bates-stamp. Plaintiff has once again refused, because in fact Plaintiff never turned over such documents. This is clearly relevant to Plaintiff’s causes of action, including her accounting cause of action, and therefore Plaintiff should be compelled to identify the documents she allegedly turned over, or admit that she has failed to do so. 24. The next item should also be an easy one. It asks for the “Bates Stamp of any communication from Sept 2017‐Dec 2017 where Stolper is complaining to any third party that Burbacki withheld $150k from her.” Plaintiff was in fact previously ordered by this Court to Page 7 of 11 7 of 11 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/01/2022 03:17 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 186 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/01/2022 turn over any such documents. See NYSCEF Doc. 123 at *4. During her deposition, Plaintiff alleges that she complained in writing to numerous third parties about the $150,000. Yet, I am unaware of any such document. Plaintiff has unsurprisingly refused to identify any such document, because no such document exists. Plaintiff should be compelled to identify the alleged documents, or admit that no such documents exist. 25. The next document demanded was an “Alleged Closed contract for a 2 year extension between Stella and Mariah.” During her deposition, Plaintiff alleged that Defendant interfered with her contract with Ms. Carey into which Plaintiff was otherwise going to enter absent Plaintiff’s interference, and that Defendant therefore caused the termination of Plaintiff’s relationship with Ms. Carey. This goes to the heart of Plaintiff’s alleged tortious interference claim; however, no such document has been turned over, and therefore Plaintiff should be compelled to do so, or admit that no such document exists. 26. The next demand, which is related, is for “Any communication regarding sending a signed contract to Mariah or her team.” Once again, Plaintiff has alleged that she had signed the contract and sent it to Ms. Carey, and it was because of Defendant that the contract was never executed and returned by Ms. Carey. This goes to the heart of Plaintiff’s alleged tortious interference claim, and Plaintiff should be compelled to turn over these documents or admit that they don’t exist. 27. Finally, the last item is an easy one: it asks for “Written communication with any third party about the factual allegations of this lawsuit.” During her deposition, Plaintiff alleged that she had spoken about this suit with a number of third parties. Defendant would clearly be entitled to any such communications, and in fact the Court previously ordered that Plaintiff turn Page 8 of 11 8 of 11 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/01/2022 03:17 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 186 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/01/2022 over third-party communications relevant to the allegations of this action. See NYSCEF Doc. 123 at *4. 28. The relevant deposition excerpts showing that all of these items were demanded is annexed hereto as EXHIBIT 5. 29. As such, it is respectfully submitted that pursuant to CPLR §3124, the Court compel the production of all of these documents and information from Plaintiff, with leave to seek further sanctions upon Plaintiff’s failure to do so. PLAINTIFF SHOULD BE SANCTION FOR SUBMITTING A FALSE JACKSON AFFIDAVIT TO THE COURT 30. More disturbing than Plaintiff’s refusal to turn over post-deposition documents and information after the Court specifically warned that such a position would be unacceptable, Plaintiff admitted during her deposition that she did not do a search for documents as required by this Court, and that she had no idea what the Jackson affidavit that she submitted to this Court said or meant. See EXHIBIT 5 at 75:20-83:9. This Court had previously ordered such a search and Jackson Affidavit. See NYSCEF Doc. 123 at *6. 31. This is shocking, sanctionable conduct, and it is respectfully submitted that the Court should award appropriate sanctions, including attorney’s fees, as allowed under this Court’s general authority under CPLR §3126 as well as pursuant to 22 NYCRR § 130-1.1. 32. Additionally, in light of Plaintiff’s clear failure to actually conduct a search for responsive documents and submit a truthful Jackson Affidavit, it is respectfully submitted that the Court allow Defendant to conduct a forensic search of Plaintiff’s computers and phones for responsive discovery documents (through a third party vendor), with a reservation of Page 9 of 11 9 of 11 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/01/2022 03:17 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 186 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/01/2022 Defendant’s right to seek further CPLR §3126 sanctions in the event that documents are discovered that were not turned over. WHEREFORE, for all of the foregoing reasons, it is respectfully prayed that the Court issue an order granting Defendant’s motion in its entirety, compelling Plaintiff to produce the demanded documentation and information, awarding appropriate sanctions against Plaintiff including an award of attorney’s fees, and ordering a forensic search of Plaintiff’s computers and cellphones; together with such other, further, and different relief as to the Court may seem just and proper. Dated: Fresh Meadows, New York July 1, 2022 /Jonathan E. Neuman/ JONATHAN E. NEUMAN, ESQ. Page 10 of 11 10 of 11 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/01/2022 03:17 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 186 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/01/2022 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 July 1, 2022 /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 2,779 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 July 1, 2022 /Jonathan E. Neuman/ JONATHAN E. NEUMAN, ESQ. Page 11 of 11 11 of 11