Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/08/2022 05:57 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 194 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/08/2022
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
--------------------------------------------------------------------X
STELLA STOLPER,
Plaintiff, AFFIRMATION IN OPPOSITION
-vs- Motion Sequence No. 13
Index No. 151425/2018
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 the Defendant and counterclaimant, ZARINA BURBACKI, in the
above-entitled action and am fully familiar with all of the facts and circumstances heretofore had
herein. I make this affirmation in opposition to Plaintiff’s motion to compel.
2. As can be seen from Plaintiff’s exhibits, unlike the position taken by Plaintiff, who is
simply refusing to provide any post-deposition discovery as discussed in Defendant’s pending
motion to compel, Defendant was willing to work in good faith to redouble her efforts and search
for and produce any additional documents, if any. Unfortunately, Defendant’s father was
hospitalized, which slowed down the search. I informed Plaintiff of this fact before Plaintiff
filed its motion and told Plaintiff that we were almost finished with the search and would be
done shortly, but Plaintiff went ahead and filed the motion anyway. Not surprisingly, while
Plaintiff made reference to this email and annexed other emails between us, Plaintiff chose to
omit the email in which I told Plaintiff’s counsel that Defendant’s father had been hospitalized,
which had slowed things down a bit, and that we were almost done. Plaintiff in its description
(which is probably why Plaintiff failed to annex the email) also deceptively left out the part of
Page 1 of 9
1 of 9
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/08/2022 05:57 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 194 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/08/2022
the email when I told Plaintiff’s counsel that we were almost finished. That email is annexed
hereto as EXHIBIT 1. Accordingly, contrary to its statement that it tried to resolve in good
faith, Plaintiff did no such thing.
3. Now that Plaintiff has filed the motion, however, and clearly does not want to work in
good faith, Defendant will address the motion on the merits.
4. Respectfully, Plaintiff’s motion should be denied.
5. Initially, it should be of some import to the Court that despite Plaintiff’s claim that these
documents should have been turned over in the original discovery rounds, Plaintiff never wrote
any letter, made any phone call, made any sort of demand, or made any motion relating to the
documents that Plaintiff now claims should have been turned over, such as the bank account
statements. As Plaintiff is forced to admit in her motion, following the Court’s October order,
additional statements were in fact turned over by Defendant. Plaintiff raised no issue with them
or the production. These bank statements clearly exist, and so if Plaintiff really wanted or
needed them or thought that Defendant’s production in that regard was insufficient in any way,
there is no reason why this was ignored for 7 months and then left for a post-deposition demand
after the Court had already closed discovery based on the original scheduling order. There is
nothing that Plaintiff can point to in the deposition that it did not already know as it relates to
these documents. Accordingly, it is clear that these are not proper post-deposition demands, and
what this really is is yet another tit-for-tat by Plaintiff, as Plaintiff has done throughout this
litigation, because Defendant sent out our post-deposition demand letter and raised the issue of
Plaintiff’s position that it would not turn over any documents and Defendant’s intention to file a
motion to compel with the Court at a prior conference (as referenced in Plaintiff’s own papers),
and so Plaintiff is now acting in kind by filing this motion.
Page 2 of 9
2 of 9
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/08/2022 05:57 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 194 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/08/2022
6. Additionally, contrary to the contention by Plaintiff, the Court’s decision to which
Plaintiff refers never stated that Plaintiff was entitled to all of the bank account statements.
Rather, the Court said that Plaintiff was entitled to more than just the two transfers, because
Plaintiff was entitled to know whether there was commingling of funds (the Court did not say
commingling with who, but presumably the Court refers to commingling with Defendant’s own
funds since an attorney is allowed to maintain one escrow account for multiple clients as long as
it is non-interest bearing) and any outflows. As stated, Defendant in fact turned over additional
statements, and Defendant has already turned over all documents in this regard, because there
was no comingling and no outflows to anyone other than Plaintiff or on Plaintiff’s behalf beyond
the identified amounts. To the extent that Plaintiff argues that she is entitled to all of the
statements without any redactions whatsoever, she is not so entitled, because this would be the
ultimate relief of her accounting cause of action, as discussed shortly below.
7. Regardless, getting to the merits of the motion, as Plaintiff admits, Plaintiff’s demands
revolve mainly around the payments into and out of Defendant’s account along with the
corresponding bank account statements. Plaintiff, making a patent stretch of an argument,
somehow argues that these documents are relevant to her remaining claims against Defendant.
This, notwithstanding the fact that Plaintiff’s claims relate to two discrete sums of money:
$125,000 that Defendant has already stated was transferred to her because this was a commission
split (a $125,000 that Plaintiff cannot show was ever declared on her tax returns, whereas
Defendant did declare this money, as discussed in Defendant’s presently pending motion to
compel), and $150,000 that Plaintiff claims was a gift from Defendant’s father-in-law, Avi
Shimroni, even though Plaintiff stated in her deposition that she never met him or spoke to him
about the gift, and which Defendant has already stated was sent to Mr. Shimroni as the money’s
Page 3 of 9
3 of 9
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/08/2022 05:57 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 194 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/08/2022
rightful and only owner. Accordingly, it is hard to understand how any of the documents or
information to which Plaintiff argues it is entitled have any relevance to this action, and Plaintiff
has not provided any cogent or rational argument to that effect.
8. However, there is a bigger issue. As Plaintiff conveniently keeps on omitting to the
Court, Plaintiff, aside from her laundry list of other claims, filed an accounting claim against
Defendant. The ultimate relief of the accounting claim would be precisely the discovery that
Plaintiff now seeks in terms of the records of payments and the corresponding bank account
statements.
9. It is black letter law that a party cannot use discovery to obtain the ultimate relief where
there is an accounting action. See, e.g., Macklowe v. 42nd St. Dev. Corp., 157 A.D.2d 566, 567,
550 N.Y.S.2d 309, 310 (1st Dep’t 1990) (“a party may not seek, through discovery, the ultimate
relief sought on the merits of its action for an accounting.”); Wolther v. Samuel, 110 A.D.2d
506, 507, 487 N.Y.S.2d 45, 46 (1st Dept’t 1985) (“Special Term denied the motion for a
protective order, concluding that the interrogatories properly related to the subject of the action.
In doing so, the court rejected defendants' claim that, to the extent the action sought an
accounting, discovery of finances could not be obtained until after a right to an accounting had
been established. We disagree. While the action is styled as one to impress a constructive trust,
the essential relief sought is in the nature of an accounting as well as for a constructive trust.
Under established principles, discovery as to fiscal matters in an action for an accounting may
not be obtained in the usual situation unless and until plaintiff establishes a right to an
accounting.”)
Page 4 of 9
4 of 9
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/08/2022 05:57 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 194 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/08/2022
10. As Plaintiff has not yet established her right to an accounting, she cannot do an end-
around and obtain her ultimate relief through discovery. Thus, Plaintiff would not be entitled to
the documents she identifies in her motion under paragraphs A, B, or C.
11. Again, these documents are at best tangentially related to Plaintiff’s other causes of
action by a hairsbreadth, since Defendant already concedes that she transferred the $125,000 to
her own account as a commission split, and that the $150,000 was sent to Avi Shimroni, its
rightful owner. Accordingly, if Plaintiff prevails on her claims, there is no further need for the
bank account statements because there is nothing further that the bank account statements would
show.
12. In order to try to put forth some showing of why she allegedly needs these documents,
Plaintiff quotes from a comment that the Court made last year that Plaintiff would be entitled to
see whether Defendant comingled money into the account. However, even assuming that
Plaintiff could prove that this happened, Plaintiff has not alleged any such activity as a cause of
action or how this has any impact on her claims, and so this would be nothing more than a
fishing expedition to try to invent new claims. Moreover, the preamble (note 12) to the NY
Rules of Professional Conduct, explicitly state that “Violation of a Rule should not itself give
rise to a cause of action against a lawyer nor should it create any presumption in such a case that
a legal duty has been breached.” This matches the black letter law in the First Department, that
“an allegation of legal malpractice based on a violation of the disciplinary rules does not, without
other allegations supporting the cause of action , support a malpractice claim.” Drasche v.
Edelman & Edelman, 201 A.D.3d 434, 435, 156 N.Y.S.3d 733, 734 (1st Dep’t 2022); accord
Cohen v. Kachroo, 115 A.D.3d 512, 513, 981 N.Y.S.2d 711, 713 (1st Dep’t 2014) (“To the
extent that plaintiff seeks to allege malpractice based on a violation of the New York Rules
Page 5 of 9
5 of 9
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/08/2022 05:57 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 194 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/08/2022
of Professional Conduct, such an alleged violation does not, without more, support a malpractice
claim. Moreover, ‘[t]he violation of a disciplinary rule does not, without more, generate a cause
of action’.”) (internal citations omitted).
13. Accordingly, even if there was some showing of comingling of funds, which is not
conceded at all, such comingling has nothing to do with Plaintiff’s claims in this case, and so it
would not create a cause of action and would be irrelevant to Plaintiff’s actual claims, which
relate to two discrete sums of money, $125,000 of which Defendant already states went to her
account, and $150,000 of which Defendant already states went to Avi Shimroni’s account, the
alleged gift donor (but in reality, the sole owner of the money). Accordingly, there are no further
documents that Plaintiff requires for her alleged claims.
14. Plaintiff makes a specific complaint about not having the statement showing the transfer
of the sales price of the ring to Avi Shimroni. However, there is no claim in this case that
Plaintiff had any right or portion in that amount, nor would she, since Avi Shimroni is the one
that sold Mariah Carey the ring. Plaintiff’s alleged claim is that Avi Shimroni gave Plaintiff a
$150,000 gift, and that she is owed that amount. Plaintiff makes no claim to any other portion of
the ring sales price, and as previously shown to the Court, Plaintiff stated in her deposition she
had no idea where the alleged gift was from. Therefore, the transfer of the rest of the sales price
to Avi Shimroni has absolutely nothing to do with Plaintiff’s claims, and Plaintiff has no
entitlement to the documents related thereto.
15. Plaintiff’s argument that the redactions in the bank statements (again, which Plaintiff did
not take any issue with for 7 months) has hindered their case or access to evidence is
nonsensical. Plaintiff has access to all of her own bank statements, statements that Plaintiff has
refused to turn over in this case even though they were demanded. Plaintiff can easily match up
Page 6 of 9
6 of 9
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/08/2022 05:57 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 194 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/08/2022
any transfers from the account with her own bank statements. Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate
that any of the transfers that she now identifies did not go to her own account, nor has she made
any claim for any additional amounts in this case. Plaintiff instead is choosing to try to use
obfuscation and innuendo to invent and concoct additional claims 4 years into the case.
16. For the sake of clarity, however, Defendant once again reiterates that she already turned
over the excel spreadsheets of the money going into and out of her account, her escrow
statements for 2016 and 2017, documents relating to the $364,750 in escrow (which Plaintiff
produced in her production), and the bank account statements relating to the newly-identified
transfers. Accordingly, Plaintiff is seeking the compulsion of documents to which it is not
entitled for the reasons discussed above, but that it already has.
17. With respect to Plaintiff’s item “D,” Plaintiff has failed to explain why Defendant’s
financial relationship with Mariah Carey has anything to do with this case, nor does it have
anything to do with any of Plaintiff’s claims. This is personal information that has no relevance
to any of Plaintiff’s claims in this case, nor will invoices sent to Ms. Carey tend to sharpen any
of the issues in this action. Accordingly, the request is patently improper, and seeks merely to
harass Defendant to try to find out her financial relationship with Ms. Carey, and therefore
should be denied.
18. Finally, with respect to Plaintiff’s item “E,” there has been no contention by Plaintiff that
Defendant did not work from New York. Obviously, the nature of the relationship, as described
in Defendant’s counterclaim, is that Defendant had to travel for Ms. Carey. Accordingly,
whether Defendant was in New York at any particular point in time is irrelevant to the claims in
this case and sheds no light on any of the claims in this case, unless Plaintiff is now claiming that
Defendant was never in New York. Plaintiff has never made any such claim in her reply to
Page 7 of 9
7 of 9
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/08/2022 05:57 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 194 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/08/2022
Defendant’s counterclaims, and thus this request seeks overbroad and irrelevant documents that
have nothing to do with this case and are merely meant to harass Defendant and pry into her
personal life. Accordingly, they too should be denied.
19. Accordingly, it is respectfully submitted that Plaintiff’s motion be denied in its entirety.
As stated, to the extent the Court disagrees, Defendant is ready, willing, and able to turn over
whatever additional documents the Court orders her to produce, to the extent they exist and have
not been previously turned over, which she was willing to do before Plaintiff decided to cut off
the good faith discussions and file this motion. However, Defendant believes that she has
already fully complied with her obligations in good faith, and that for the reasons stated above,
the Court should deny Plaintiff’s motion in its entirety.
WHEREFORE, for all of the foregoing reasons, it is respectfully prayed that the Court
deny Plaintiff’s motion in its entirety, together with such other, further, and different relief as to
the Court may seem just and proper.
Dated: Fresh Meadows, New York
July 7, 2022
/Jonathan E. Neuman/
JONATHAN E. NEUMAN, ESQ.
Page 8 of 9
8 of 9
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/08/2022 05:57 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 194 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/08/2022
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 7, 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 2,424 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 7, 2022
/Jonathan E. Neuman/
JONATHAN E. NEUMAN, ESQ.
Page 9 of 9
9 of 9
Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/08/2022 05:57 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 194 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/08/2022 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------------------X STELLA STOLPER, Plaintiff, AFFIRMATION IN OPPOSITION -vs- Motion Sequence No. 13 Index No. 151425/2018 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 the Defendant and counterclaimant, ZARINA BURBACKI, in the above-entitled action and am fully familiar with all of the facts and circumstances heretofore had herein. I make this affirmation in opposition to Plaintiff’s motion to compel. 2. As can be seen from Plaintiff’s exhibits, unlike the position taken by Plaintiff, who is simply refusing to provide any post-deposition discovery as discussed in Defendant’s pending motion to compel, Defendant was willing to work in good faith to redouble her efforts and search for and produce any additional documents, if any. Unfortunately, Defendant’s father was hospitalized, which slowed down the search. I informed Plaintiff of this fact before Plaintiff filed its motion and told Plaintiff that we were almost finished with the search and would be done shortly, but Plaintiff went ahead and filed the motion anyway. Not surprisingly, while Plaintiff made reference to this email and annexed other emails between us, Plaintiff chose to omit the email in which I told Plaintiff’s counsel that Defendant’s father had been hospitalized, which had slowed things down a bit, and that we were almost done. Plaintiff in its description (which is probably why Plaintiff failed to annex the email) also deceptively left out the part of Page 1 of 9 1 of 9 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/08/2022 05:57 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 194 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/08/2022 the email when I told Plaintiff’s counsel that we were almost finished. That email is annexed hereto as EXHIBIT 1. Accordingly, contrary to its statement that it tried to resolve in good faith, Plaintiff did no such thing. 3. Now that Plaintiff has filed the motion, however, and clearly does not want to work in good faith, Defendant will address the motion on the merits. 4. Respectfully, Plaintiff’s motion should be denied. 5. Initially, it should be of some import to the Court that despite Plaintiff’s claim that these documents should have been turned over in the original discovery rounds, Plaintiff never wrote any letter, made any phone call, made any sort of demand, or made any motion relating to the documents that Plaintiff now claims should have been turned over, such as the bank account statements. As Plaintiff is forced to admit in her motion, following the Court’s October order, additional statements were in fact turned over by Defendant. Plaintiff raised no issue with them or the production. These bank statements clearly exist, and so if Plaintiff really wanted or needed them or thought that Defendant’s production in that regard was insufficient in any way, there is no reason why this was ignored for 7 months and then left for a post-deposition demand after the Court had already closed discovery based on the original scheduling order. There is nothing that Plaintiff can point to in the deposition that it did not already know as it relates to these documents. Accordingly, it is clear that these are not proper post-deposition demands, and what this really is is yet another tit-for-tat by Plaintiff, as Plaintiff has done throughout this litigation, because Defendant sent out our post-deposition demand letter and raised the issue of Plaintiff’s position that it would not turn over any documents and Defendant’s intention to file a motion to compel with the Court at a prior conference (as referenced in Plaintiff’s own papers), and so Plaintiff is now acting in kind by filing this motion. Page 2 of 9 2 of 9 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/08/2022 05:57 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 194 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/08/2022 6. Additionally, contrary to the contention by Plaintiff, the Court’s decision to which Plaintiff refers never stated that Plaintiff was entitled to all of the bank account statements. Rather, the Court said that Plaintiff was entitled to more than just the two transfers, because Plaintiff was entitled to know whether there was commingling of funds (the Court did not say commingling with who, but presumably the Court refers to commingling with Defendant’s own funds since an attorney is allowed to maintain one escrow account for multiple clients as long as it is non-interest bearing) and any outflows. As stated, Defendant in fact turned over additional statements, and Defendant has already turned over all documents in this regard, because there was no comingling and no outflows to anyone other than Plaintiff or on Plaintiff’s behalf beyond the identified amounts. To the extent that Plaintiff argues that she is entitled to all of the statements without any redactions whatsoever, she is not so entitled, because this would be the ultimate relief of her accounting cause of action, as discussed shortly below. 7. Regardless, getting to the merits of the motion, as Plaintiff admits, Plaintiff’s demands revolve mainly around the payments into and out of Defendant’s account along with the corresponding bank account statements. Plaintiff, making a patent stretch of an argument, somehow argues that these documents are relevant to her remaining claims against Defendant. This, notwithstanding the fact that Plaintiff’s claims relate to two discrete sums of money: $125,000 that Defendant has already stated was transferred to her because this was a commission split (a $125,000 that Plaintiff cannot show was ever declared on her tax returns, whereas Defendant did declare this money, as discussed in Defendant’s presently pending motion to compel), and $150,000 that Plaintiff claims was a gift from Defendant’s father-in-law, Avi Shimroni, even though Plaintiff stated in her deposition that she never met him or spoke to him about the gift, and which Defendant has already stated was sent to Mr. Shimroni as the money’s Page 3 of 9 3 of 9 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/08/2022 05:57 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 194 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/08/2022 rightful and only owner. Accordingly, it is hard to understand how any of the documents or information to which Plaintiff argues it is entitled have any relevance to this action, and Plaintiff has not provided any cogent or rational argument to that effect. 8. However, there is a bigger issue. As Plaintiff conveniently keeps on omitting to the Court, Plaintiff, aside from her laundry list of other claims, filed an accounting claim against Defendant. The ultimate relief of the accounting claim would be precisely the discovery that Plaintiff now seeks in terms of the records of payments and the corresponding bank account statements. 9. It is black letter law that a party cannot use discovery to obtain the ultimate relief where there is an accounting action. See, e.g., Macklowe v. 42nd St. Dev. Corp., 157 A.D.2d 566, 567, 550 N.Y.S.2d 309, 310 (1st Dep’t 1990) (“a party may not seek, through discovery, the ultimate relief sought on the merits of its action for an accounting.”); Wolther v. Samuel, 110 A.D.2d 506, 507, 487 N.Y.S.2d 45, 46 (1st Dept’t 1985) (“Special Term denied the motion for a protective order, concluding that the interrogatories properly related to the subject of the action. In doing so, the court rejected defendants' claim that, to the extent the action sought an accounting, discovery of finances could not be obtained until after a right to an accounting had been established. We disagree. While the action is styled as one to impress a constructive trust, the essential relief sought is in the nature of an accounting as well as for a constructive trust. Under established principles, discovery as to fiscal matters in an action for an accounting may not be obtained in the usual situation unless and until plaintiff establishes a right to an accounting.”) Page 4 of 9 4 of 9 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/08/2022 05:57 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 194 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/08/2022 10. As Plaintiff has not yet established her right to an accounting, she cannot do an end- around and obtain her ultimate relief through discovery. Thus, Plaintiff would not be entitled to the documents she identifies in her motion under paragraphs A, B, or C. 11. Again, these documents are at best tangentially related to Plaintiff’s other causes of action by a hairsbreadth, since Defendant already concedes that she transferred the $125,000 to her own account as a commission split, and that the $150,000 was sent to Avi Shimroni, its rightful owner. Accordingly, if Plaintiff prevails on her claims, there is no further need for the bank account statements because there is nothing further that the bank account statements would show. 12. In order to try to put forth some showing of why she allegedly needs these documents, Plaintiff quotes from a comment that the Court made last year that Plaintiff would be entitled to see whether Defendant comingled money into the account. However, even assuming that Plaintiff could prove that this happened, Plaintiff has not alleged any such activity as a cause of action or how this has any impact on her claims, and so this would be nothing more than a fishing expedition to try to invent new claims. Moreover, the preamble (note 12) to the NY Rules of Professional Conduct, explicitly state that “Violation of a Rule should not itself give rise to a cause of action against a lawyer nor should it create any presumption in such a case that a legal duty has been breached.” This matches the black letter law in the First Department, that “an allegation of legal malpractice based on a violation of the disciplinary rules does not, without other allegations supporting the cause of action , support a malpractice claim.” Drasche v. Edelman & Edelman, 201 A.D.3d 434, 435, 156 N.Y.S.3d 733, 734 (1st Dep’t 2022); accord Cohen v. Kachroo, 115 A.D.3d 512, 513, 981 N.Y.S.2d 711, 713 (1st Dep’t 2014) (“To the extent that plaintiff seeks to allege malpractice based on a violation of the New York Rules Page 5 of 9 5 of 9 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/08/2022 05:57 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 194 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/08/2022 of Professional Conduct, such an alleged violation does not, without more, support a malpractice claim. Moreover, ‘[t]he violation of a disciplinary rule does not, without more, generate a cause of action’.”) (internal citations omitted). 13. Accordingly, even if there was some showing of comingling of funds, which is not conceded at all, such comingling has nothing to do with Plaintiff’s claims in this case, and so it would not create a cause of action and would be irrelevant to Plaintiff’s actual claims, which relate to two discrete sums of money, $125,000 of which Defendant already states went to her account, and $150,000 of which Defendant already states went to Avi Shimroni’s account, the alleged gift donor (but in reality, the sole owner of the money). Accordingly, there are no further documents that Plaintiff requires for her alleged claims. 14. Plaintiff makes a specific complaint about not having the statement showing the transfer of the sales price of the ring to Avi Shimroni. However, there is no claim in this case that Plaintiff had any right or portion in that amount, nor would she, since Avi Shimroni is the one that sold Mariah Carey the ring. Plaintiff’s alleged claim is that Avi Shimroni gave Plaintiff a $150,000 gift, and that she is owed that amount. Plaintiff makes no claim to any other portion of the ring sales price, and as previously shown to the Court, Plaintiff stated in her deposition she had no idea where the alleged gift was from. Therefore, the transfer of the rest of the sales price to Avi Shimroni has absolutely nothing to do with Plaintiff’s claims, and Plaintiff has no entitlement to the documents related thereto. 15. Plaintiff’s argument that the redactions in the bank statements (again, which Plaintiff did not take any issue with for 7 months) has hindered their case or access to evidence is nonsensical. Plaintiff has access to all of her own bank statements, statements that Plaintiff has refused to turn over in this case even though they were demanded. Plaintiff can easily match up Page 6 of 9 6 of 9 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/08/2022 05:57 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 194 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/08/2022 any transfers from the account with her own bank statements. Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that any of the transfers that she now identifies did not go to her own account, nor has she made any claim for any additional amounts in this case. Plaintiff instead is choosing to try to use obfuscation and innuendo to invent and concoct additional claims 4 years into the case. 16. For the sake of clarity, however, Defendant once again reiterates that she already turned over the excel spreadsheets of the money going into and out of her account, her escrow statements for 2016 and 2017, documents relating to the $364,750 in escrow (which Plaintiff produced in her production), and the bank account statements relating to the newly-identified transfers. Accordingly, Plaintiff is seeking the compulsion of documents to which it is not entitled for the reasons discussed above, but that it already has. 17. With respect to Plaintiff’s item “D,” Plaintiff has failed to explain why Defendant’s financial relationship with Mariah Carey has anything to do with this case, nor does it have anything to do with any of Plaintiff’s claims. This is personal information that has no relevance to any of Plaintiff’s claims in this case, nor will invoices sent to Ms. Carey tend to sharpen any of the issues in this action. Accordingly, the request is patently improper, and seeks merely to harass Defendant to try to find out her financial relationship with Ms. Carey, and therefore should be denied. 18. Finally, with respect to Plaintiff’s item “E,” there has been no contention by Plaintiff that Defendant did not work from New York. Obviously, the nature of the relationship, as described in Defendant’s counterclaim, is that Defendant had to travel for Ms. Carey. Accordingly, whether Defendant was in New York at any particular point in time is irrelevant to the claims in this case and sheds no light on any of the claims in this case, unless Plaintiff is now claiming that Defendant was never in New York. Plaintiff has never made any such claim in her reply to Page 7 of 9 7 of 9 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/08/2022 05:57 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 194 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/08/2022 Defendant’s counterclaims, and thus this request seeks overbroad and irrelevant documents that have nothing to do with this case and are merely meant to harass Defendant and pry into her personal life. Accordingly, they too should be denied. 19. Accordingly, it is respectfully submitted that Plaintiff’s motion be denied in its entirety. As stated, to the extent the Court disagrees, Defendant is ready, willing, and able to turn over whatever additional documents the Court orders her to produce, to the extent they exist and have not been previously turned over, which she was willing to do before Plaintiff decided to cut off the good faith discussions and file this motion. However, Defendant believes that she has already fully complied with her obligations in good faith, and that for the reasons stated above, the Court should deny Plaintiff’s motion in its entirety. WHEREFORE, for all of the foregoing reasons, it is respectfully prayed that the Court deny Plaintiff’s motion in its entirety, together with such other, further, and different relief as to the Court may seem just and proper. Dated: Fresh Meadows, New York July 7, 2022 /Jonathan E. Neuman/ JONATHAN E. NEUMAN, ESQ. Page 8 of 9 8 of 9 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/08/2022 05:57 PM INDEX NO. 652352/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 194 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/08/2022 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 7, 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 2,424 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 7, 2022 /Jonathan E. Neuman/ JONATHAN E. NEUMAN, ESQ. Page 9 of 9 9 of 9