Motion for Leave in James Moran v. Grand Slam Ventures, Llc, Jon Steinberg, Glenn A. Reiner, Jg Real Estate Ventures, Llc, 'John Does' 1-10 Inclusive, The Last Ten Names Being Fictitious And Unknown To Plaintiff| Trellis.Law

On May 27, 2022 a Motion-Secondary was filed involving a dispute between James Moran, and Glenn A. Reiner, Grand Slam Ventures, Llc, Jg Real Estate Ventures, Llc, 'John Does' 1-10 Inclusive, The Last Ten Names Being Fictitious And Unknown To Plaintiff, Jon Steinberg, for Other Matters - Contract - Other in the District Court of Nassau County.

Preview
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 09/19/2022 04:01 PM INDEX NO. 001052/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 84 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/19/2022

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Return Date: 9/27/2022
COUNTY OF NASSAU Hon. Erica L. Prager
-------------------------------------------------------------------------x Index No. 001052/2019
JAMES MORAN,
Plaintiff,

(Motion Sequence No. 3)

-against-

GRAND SLAM VENTURES, LLC, JON STEINBERG,
GLENN A. REINER, JG REAL ESTATE VENTURES,
LLC, and "JOHN DOES" # 1-10 inclusive, the last ten
names being fictitious and unknown to plaintiff,

Defendants.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------x

PLAINTIFF'S REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT
OF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO REAR GUE AND RENEW

James Moran
Plaintiff pro se
28 Carrie Avenue
Bethpage, New York 11714
Tel; (516) 302-6581
Email: iim.catlawl(a)gmail.com

1 of 16
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 09/19/2022 04:01 PM INDEX NO. 001052/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 84 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/19/2022

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .......................................................................................................... ii

PLAINTIFF'S INSTANT MOTION ............................................................................................... 1

DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION ...................................................................................................... 1

PRELIMINARY REPLY ARGUMENT ......................................................................................... 1

REPLY POINT I: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEA VE
TO REARGUE AND RENEW ......................................................................... 4

A. LEAVE TO REARGUE ................................................................................................ 4

1) PROCEDURAL GROUNDS ................................................................................... 4

a) DEFENDANTS FAILURE TO SUBMIT
AN AFFIRMATION OF GOOD FAITH ......................................................... .4

b) DEFENDANTS' CROSS-MOTION FOR
A PROTECTIVE ORDER WAS UNTIMELY ................................................. 5

2) PLAINTIFF'S DISCOVERY DEMANDS ............................................................. 6

B. LEAVE TO RENEW ..................................................................................................... 9

CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................................. 11

2 of 16
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 09/19/2022 04:01 PM INDEX NO. 001052/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 84 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/19/2022

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)
Cases:

Allen v. Crowell-Collier Publ'g Co.,
21 N.Y.2d 403,406,288 N.Y.S.2d 449,452,235 N.E.2d 430,432 (N.Y., 1968) ....................... 7

Borgia v. Rothberg,
148 A.D.3d 1109, 1110, 50 N.Y.S.3d 452,454 (2d Dept., 2017) ................................................ 7

Borst v. Lower Manhattan Dev. Corp.,
2016 NY Slip Op 51233(U), 116, 52 Misc. 3d 1220(A), 43 N.Y.S.3d 766 (Sup. Ct.) .............. 10

Cheek v. Brooks,
188 A.D.3d 785, 786, 135 N.Y.S.3d 478,480 (2d Dept., 2020) ................................................. .2

Cornell Fed. Credit Union v. Thorpe,
199 A.D.2d 936, 937, 606 N.Y.S.2d 90, 91 (3d Dept., 1993) .......................... : ......................... 10

Cty. of Dutchess v. Dutchess Sanitation Servs., Inc.,
86 A.D.2d 884,885,447 N.Y.S.2d 531, 533 (2d Dept., 1982) ....................................................
f,,•
2
, .
DiMichel v. S. Buffalo Ry. Co.,
80 N.Y.2d 184, 193, 590 N.Y.S.2d 1, 4, 604 N.E.2d 63, 66 (N.Y., 1992) ... :.. ,..... :...................... 7

Hunt v. Odd Job Trading,
44 A.D.3d 714, 715-16, 843 N.Y.S.2d 423,425 (2d Dept., 2007) ....................... :....................... 6

Itzkowitz v. King Kullen Grocery Co., Inc.,
22 A.D.3d 636,638,804 N.Y.S.2d 350,351 (2d Dept. 2005) ..................................................... 1

Millennium Constr., LLC v. Loupolover,
44 A.D.3d 1016, 1016-17, 845 N.Y.S.2d 110, 111 (2d Dept., 2007) ............................................. 3

Montalvo v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc.,
81 A.D.3d 611,612,915 N.Y.S.2d 865,866 (2d Dept., 2011) .................................................... 7

Munoz v. 147 Corp.,
309 A.D.2d 647, 648, 767 N.Y.S.2d 1, 2 (1 st Dept., 2003) ........................................................... 6

NPR, LLC v. Met Fin Mgmt.,
63 A.D.3d 1128, 1129-30, 882 N.Y.S.2d 253,254 (2d Dept., 2009) ........................................... 3

Ocean to Ocean Seafood Sales, Inc. v. Trans-O-Fish & Seafood Co.,
138 A.D.2d 265,266,525 N.Y.S.2d 611,612 (1 st Dept., 1988) .................................................. 6

3 of 16
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 09/19/2022 04:01 PM INDEX NO. 001052/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 84 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/19/2022

Palmerone v. Staples,
195 A.D.3d 736, 739, 150 N.Y.S.3d 723, 727 (2d Dept., 2021) .................................................. 3

Perez v. Stonehill,
121 A.D.3d 960, 961, 993 N.Y.S.2d 920, 920 (2d Dept., 2014) ................................................. .4

Recine v. City ofN.Y.,
156 A.D.3d 836, 836, 65 N.Y.S.3d 788, 788 (2d Dept., 2017) .................................................... 6

Spa Realty Assocs. v. Springs Assocs.,
155 A.D.2d 839,841,548 N.Y.S.2d 100, 102 (3d Dept., 1989) .................................................. 6

Vargas v. Lee,
170 A.D.3d 1073, 1075, 96 N.Y.S.3d 587, 590 (2d Dept., 2019) ................................................ 7

Wilensky v. JRB Mktg. & Op. Research, Inc.,
161 A.D.2d 761,763,556 N.Y.S.2d 356,358 (2d Dept., 1990) .................................................. 9

Statutes & Other Authorities:

CPLR §2221(£) ........................................................................................................................ 1, 11

CPLR §3101 .................................................................................................................................. 6

CPLR §3101(a) ............................................................................................................................. 7

CPLR §3122(a)(l) ........................................................................................................................ 5

CPLR 3133(a) ............................................................................................................................... 5

DCL §270 ···········································································································:·························2

DCL §271(1) ................................................................................................................................. 8

DCL §273 ..................................................................................................................................... 2

22 NYCRR 202.7 ...................................................................................................................... 4, 5

iii

4 of 16
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 09/19/2022 04:01 PM INDEX NO. 001052/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 84 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/19/2022

PLAINTIFF'S INSTANT MOTION

Plaintiff's instant motion (Mot. Seq. No. 3) seeks an Order, pursuant to CPLR §2221(f),

granting Plaintiff leave to reargue and renew the Order of this Court [Sullivan, J.] dated August

30, 2021 (NYSCEF Doc. #5); and/or for such other, further and different relief as this Honorable

Court may deem just, proper and equitable.

DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION

Defendants have submitted the affirmation of their counsel, with exhibits A-D, partially

opposing Plaintiff's instant motion contending, inter alia, that the Court properly granted

Defendants a protective order. (NYSCEF Doc. #'s 79-83)

PRELIMINARY REPLY ARGUMENT

Defendants do not dispute this Court's consideration of the instant motion is an appropriate

exercise of discretion. See, Itzkowitz v. King Kullen Grocery Co., Inc., 22 A.D.3d 636, 638, 804

N.Y.S.2d 350, 351 (2d Dept. 2005) ["The Supreme Court had jurisdiction to reconsider its prior

order 'regardless of statutory time limits concerning motions to reargue"']

Defendants' Counsel's contention that the parties in this action are somehow limited in the

scope of discovery by the oral ruling of the court attorney for Hon. Diccia Pineda-Kirwan made

in the Prior Action is without merit. 1 (NYSCEF Doc. #79 at ,r,r15-17) Defendant Reiner was

being deposed as a non-party in the Prior Action whereas in this action Defendant Reiner is a

named defendant and Plaintiff certainly did not agree to be bound by that ruling in this action.

Defendants' Counsel further avers that " ... Plaintiff's theory of the case is that the Defendants

allegedly knew, in September of 2013, that Mr. Moran would commence the Prior Action in

August of2014." (NYSCEF Doc. #79 at i[25)

1 Notably, Defendants have taken the exact opposite position in response to Plaintiff's motion seeking summary

judgment and in support of their own cross-motion seeking summary judgment and have asserted that the
"supplementary proceedings" are irrelevant to the action at bar. (NYSCEF Doc. #64 at i]21)

5 of 16
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 09/19/2022 04:01 PM INDEX NO. 001052/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 84 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/19/2022

Intent is not a necessary element of Plaintiffs First Cause of Action. See, DCL §273; Cty. of

Dutchess v. Dutchess Sanitation Servs., Inc., 86 A.D.2d 884, 885, 447 N.Y.S.2d 531, 533 (2d

Dept., 1982) [Under §273, actual intent to defraud need not be proven]

Further, contrary to Defendants' assertions, Defendant Grand Slam appeared at the inquest in

the Prior Action and the Court found in part as follows:

"Grand Slam's only witness was its managing member, John Steinberg. He could
not recall when he entered the Building, but stated that upon entering, he saw 'a
pile of stuff.' He testified that about a week after the sale, Grand Slam hired
non-party Dreygo Development (Dreygo) to enter the premises and remove
plaintiffs property, for which Mr. Steinberg was not present."

"In contrast, defendant failed to present any evidence or provide any reasoning for
why the amount of damages claimed should be reduced (see Kalfus v Margolies,
88 AD2d 528, 528-29 [ 1982]). Mr. Steinberg admittedly could not recall a single
item in the Building or provide any insight into their condition, and did not
produce a witness from Dreygo, the company that actually removed plaintifrs
property. Thus, plaintiff demonstrated damages in the amount of $92,540."

(See, Exhibit "2" sub Exhibit "12", NYSCEF Doc. #6, emphasis added)

Accordingly, Defendant Steinberg knew that Defendant Grand Slam took possession of

Plaintiffs personal property valued at $92,540.00 and was thereby indebted to Plaintiff as of

August 27, 2013 (See, Exhibit "2" sub Exhibit "12", NYSCEF Doc. #6) and the entry of the final

judgment in the Prior Action (See, Exhibit "2" sub Exhibit "13", Doc. #6) establishes as a matter

of law that Plaintiff was a creditor of the conveyor Defendant Grand Slam prior to the

conveyance of the subject Property. See, DCL §270; Cheek v. Brooks, 188 A.D.3d 785, 786, 135

N.Y.S.3d 478,480 (2d Dept., 2020) ["Where an individual has a tort claim against the conveyor,

she or he becomes a creditor at the moment the claim accrues, viz., at the moment of injury"]

6 of 16
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 09/19/2022 04:01 PM INDEX NO. 001052/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 84 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/19/2022

Defendants' opposition is further premised on the fundamentally flawed argument that before

Plaintiff is entitled to discovery Plaintiff must first demonstrate that the transfer of the subject

Property from Defendant Grand Slam to Defendant JG Real Estate was without fair

consideration and that Defendant Grand Slam was left insolvent as a result.

" ... Plaintiffs demands are, if not improper and/or a fishing expedition, mostly
premature in that he has not, and cannot, demonstrate a failure of consideration
and demonstrate that Grand Slam was left insolvent as a result of the conveyance
of the Property to JG." (NYSCEF Doc. #79 at ,-i39)

Defendants' argument seems to suggest that discovery in this case was someho~ bifurcated

without any support for such a contention.

Nonetheless, Plaintiffs discovery demands sought documents and information relevant to,

inter alia, the consideration purportedly given for the conveyance of the subject Property and

Defendant Grand Slam's solvency. (See, Exhibit "2" sub Exhibits "6" & "7", NYSCEF Doc. #6)

Defendants' argument also overlooks the fact that a successful fraudulent conveyance claim

establishes wrongdoing sufficient to justify veil-piercing separate and apart from other reasons

such as a failure to adhere to corporate formalities, inadequate capitalization, commingling of

assets and use of corporate funds for personal use. See, Millennium Constr., LLC v. Loupolover,

44 A.D.3d 1016, 1016-17, 845 N.Y.S.2d 110, 111 (2d Dept., 2007); Palmerone v. Staples, 195

A.D.3d 736, 739, 150 N.Y.S.3d 723, 727 (2d Dept., 2021) [fraudulent conveyance under

former §§273 and 274 sufficient basis for veil piercing]; NPR, LLC v. Met Fin Mgmt., 63

A.D.3d 1128, 1129-30, 882 N.Y.S.2d 253, 254 (2d Dept., 2009) [affirming holding that deemed

actually fraudulent conveyances under DCL §276 a sufficient basis for veil piercing]

It is respectfully submitted; the Court [Sullivan, J.], for some reason mistakenly arrived at its

earlier decision. (NYSCEF Doc. #5)

7 of 16
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 09/19/2022 04:01 PM INDEX NO. 001052/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 84 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/19/2022

REPLY POINT I

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO REARGUE AND RENEW

A. LEAVE TO REARGUE

1) PROCEDURAL GROUNDS

a) DEFENDANTS FAILURE TO SUBMIT AN AFFIRMATION
OF GOOD FAITH

Defendants' opposition contends that their failure to set forth an affirmation demonstrating

that a good faith effort was made to resolve the issues, 22 NYCRR 202.7, is excusable.

Defendants' fail to distinguish Perez v. Stonehill, 121 A.D.3d 960, 961, 993 N.Y.S.2d 920,

920 (2d Dept., 2014) ["The defendants' failure to submit an affirmation of the parties' good faith

effort to resolve the disclosure dispute pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.7 (a) (2) in connection with

their motion required the denial of the motion"]

Defendants' Counsel avers that it was highly unlikely that the parties could have resolved

their disclosure dispute without judicial intervention based upon an excerpt of then non-party

Defendant Reiner's deposition taken in the Prior Action. (NYSCEF Doc. #79 at ,r,r28-32)

Defendants' Counsel's argument here is without merit. Defendant Reiner was being deposed

as a non-party in the Prior Action whereas in this action Defendant Reiner and Defendant JG

Real Estate are named defendants.

Further, the ruling of the court attorney in the Prior Action was not reduced to writing or

otherwise put on the record and the parties have vigorously disputed the content and extent of

that ruling which has no bearing in this action.

Notably, on September 3, 2019 the Court in the Prior Action [Pineda-Kirwan, J.] denied

Defendants' second ex-parte application seeking to quash the subpoena served upon Defendant

Reiner. (NYSCEF Doc. #36)

8 of 16
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 09/19/2022 04:01 PM INDEX NO. 001052/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 84 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/19/2022

Moreover, if every party could simply state that it was highly unlikely that the parties could

have resolved their disclosure dispute without judicial intervention the requirements of 22

NYCRR 202.7(a)(2) would be rendered meaningless.

Defendants have not disputed that Plaintiff contacted Defendants' Counsel in good faith prior

to bringing his motion and Defendants' Counsel stated that he had " ... no idea when and if

responses would be served and that his clients are 'big boys' and refused to fix a time or to

indicate that responses would be forthcoming" and did not raise any objection to Plaintiff's

discovery demands. (See, Exhibit "2" Moran Affidavit at ,15, NYSCEF Doc. #6)

Further, Defendants' Counsel voiced no objection to any of Plaintiff's discovery demands

when appearing before the Court [Libert, J] on January 24, 2020. (See, Exhibit "6" sub Exhibit

"20", NYSCEF Doc. #10) when any issues could have been addressed by the Court and instead

Defendants' Counsel remained silent, entered into a stipulation which was so-ordered by the

Court (See, Exhibit "2" sub Exhibit "9", NYSCEF Doc. #6) and then simply ignored the Court's

Order.

b) DEFENDANTS' CROSS-MOTION FOR
A PROTECTIVE ORDER WAS UNTIMELY

Defendants do not dispute that they failed to timely respond to Plaintiff's discovery demands,

(See, Exhibit "2" sub Exhibits "6" and "7", NYSCEF Doc. #6) failed to comply with the PC

Order (See, Exhibit "2" sub Exhibit "8", NYSCEF Doc. #6) and failed to comply with the Order

of this Court [Libert, J] dated January 24, 2020 requiring Defendants to respond to Plaintiff's

discovery demands by February 3, 2020. (See, Exhibit "2" sub Exhibit "9", NYSCEF Doc. #6)

Defendants do not dispute that their failure to make a timely challenge to Plaintiff's

document demands and interrogatories pursuant to CPLR §3122(a)(l) and CPLR §3133(a)

9 of 16
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 09/19/2022 04:01 PM INDEX NO. 001052/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 84 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/19/2022

forecloses inquiry into the propriety of the information sought except with regard to material that

is privileged pursuant to CPLR §3101 or requests that are palpably improper.

Defendants attempt to distinguish Hunt v. Odd Job Trading, 44 A.D.3d 714, 715-16, 843

N.Y.S.2d 423, 425 (2d Dept., 2007) is unavailing and seemingly confirms that their admitted

failure to make a timely challenge to Plaintiffs discovery demands constituted a waiver of any

objection based on any ground other than privilege or that the demands are palpably improper.

See, Recine v. City ofN.Y., 156 A.D.3d 836, 65 N.Y.S.3d 788 (2d Dept., 2017)

Defendants' have made no claims of privilege and argue that "a majority", not all, of

Plaintiffs discovery demands are overly broad, unduly burdensome and/or irrelevant and are

thus "palpably improper". (NYSCEF Doc. #79 at i-[38)

2) PLAINTIFF DISCOVERY DEMANDS

Defendants have failed to specifically identify any document demand or interrogatory and

how that demand is overly broad, unduly burdensome and/or irrelevant and thus "palpably

improper." Defendants must offer more than conclusory assertions that the requested disclosure

is overly broad, unduly burdensome and/or irrelevant. See, Spa Realty Assocs. v. Springs

Assocs., 155 A.D.2d 839, 841, 548 N.Y.S.2d 100, 102 (3d Dept., 1989) ["Defendants also have

failed to specify with particularity how the various discovery demands were unduly burdensome

and improper so that it is hard to take their objections seriously"]; Ocean to Ocean Seafood

Sales, Inc. v. Trans-O-Fish & Seafood Co., 138 A.D.2d 265, 266, 525 N.Y.S.2d 611, 612 (1 st

Dept., 1988) [" ... defendants failed to substantiate their conclusory claims that the interrogatories

are burdensome and irrelevant..."]; Munoz v. 147 Corp., 309 A.D.2d 647, 648, 767 N.Y.S.2d 1,

2 (1 st Dept., 2003) [" ... the City has not shown that the requests are overly broad or unduly

burdensome."]

10 of 16
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 09/19/2022 04:01 PM INDEX NO. 001052/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 84 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/19/2022

Defendants' contention appears to be based upon the fundamentally flawed argument that

Plaintiffs discovery demands are " ... mostly premature in that he has not, and cannot,

demonstrate a failure of consideration and demonstrate that Grand Slam was left insolvent as a

result of the conveyance of the Property to JG." (NYSCEF Doc. #79 at i-f39)

The very purpose of discovery is to determine if material relevant to a claim or defense exists

Vargas v. Lee, 170 A.D.3d 1073, 1075, 96 N.Y.S.3d 587, 590 (2d Dept., 2019) and in this

context it bears repeating that §31 0l(a) provides for disclosure of "all matter material and

necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action, regardless of the burden of proof' and the

words, "material and necessary", are 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 reducing delay and prolixity. See, Allen v. Crowell-Collier Publ'g Co.,

21 N.Y.2d 403, 406, 288 N.Y.S.2d 449, 452, 235 N.E.2d 430, 432 (N.Y., 1968) ["If there is any

possibility that the information is sought in good faith for possible use as evidence-in-chief or in

rebuttal or for cross-examination, it should be considered evidence material in the prosecution or

defense"]

"New York has long favored open and far-reaching pretrial discovery" Quoting, DiMichel v.

S. Buffalo Ry. Co., 80 N.Y.2d 184, 193, 590 N.Y.S.2d 1, 4, 604 N.E.2d 63, 66 (N.Y., 1992) and

pretrial disclosure extends not only to proof that is admissible, but also to matters that may lead

to the disclosure of admissible proof See, Montalvo v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., 81 A.D.3d 611, 612,

915 N.Y.S.2d 865, 866 (2d Dept., 2011) and the party seeking to preclude discovery has the

burden of proving that the material sought is not discoverable. See generally, Borgia v. Rothberg,

148 A.D.3d 1109, 1110, 50 N.Y.S.3d 452, 454 (2d Dept., 2017) ["the defendant had the burden

of proving that the Alcon documents were not discoverable"]

11 of 16
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 09/19/2022 04:01 PM INDEX NO. 001052/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 84 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/19/2022

As demonstrated in detail through Plaintiff's initial Memorandum of Law (NYSCEF Doc.

#15), Plaintiff's document demands and interrogatories seek documents and information

"material and necessary" in an action brought under former Debtor and Creditor Law and

seeking to pierce the corporate veil and Defendants have woefully fail to prove that the material

sought is not discoverable.

For example, Plaintiff's document demands numbered 9 & 10 sought "documents relating to,

summarizing, memorializing and/or evidencing accounting books and records for GRAND

SLAM VENTURES, LLC" and "documents relating to, summarizing, memorializing and/or

evidencing defendant GRAND SLAM VENTURES, LLC's assets for the years 2012 to date."

Former Debtor and Creditor Law §271(1) provides that a person is insolvent "when the

present fair salable value of his assets is less than the amount that will be required to pay his

probable liability on his existing debts as they become absolute and matured."

Certainly, Defendant Grand Siam's accounting books and records and their assets are

"material and necessary" in making a determination of whether Defendant was insolvent and/or

render insolvent by the conveyance of the subject Property.

Also, Plaintiff's document demand numbered 45 sought the production of documents related

to the conveyance of the subject Property (See, Exhibit "2" sub Exhibit "6", NYSCEF Doc. #6)

which in an action brought under DCL article 10 can hardly be considered palpably improper.

It is respectfully submitted; the Court's Order dated August 30, 2021 improperly struck

Plaintiff's document demands 2-4, 7, 9-17, 19-21, 24, 26-42, 44-46 and 48-50. (See, Exhibit "1",

NYSCEF Doc. #5 and Exhibit "2" sub Exhibit "6", NYSCEF Doc. #6) and Plaintiff's

interrogatories numbered 3, 4, 7-12, 15, 18-22 and 25-31. (See, Exhibit "1", NYSCEF Doc. #5

and Exhibit "2" sub Exhibit "7", NYSCEF Doc. #6)

12 of 16
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 09/19/2022 04:01 PM INDEX NO. 001052/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 84 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/19/2022

B. LEAVE TO RENEW

The Court's Order dated August 30, 2021 (See, Exhibit "l", NYSCEF Doc. #5) required

Defendants to produce, inter alia, Defendant Grand Slam's and Defendant JG Real Estate's

" ... banking records including, but not limited to, monthly account statements, cancelled

checks, deposit slips and copies of checks deposited ... " for the years 2012 through 2014. (See,

Exhibit "2" sub Exhibit "6" at i!i18 & 25, NYSCEF Doc. #6)

Defendants failed to produce any banking records for the years 2012 through 2014 claiming:

"Defendants are not in possession of the requested documents" (See, Exhibit "7" at ,i,is & 25,

NYSCEF Doc. # 11)

When moving for a protective order, Defendants made no claim whatsoever that Defendants'

banking records were no longer available. (See, Exhibits "3" & "5", NYSCEF Doc. #'s 7 & 9;

Wilensky v. JRB Mktg. & Op. Research, Inc., 161 A.D.2d 761, 763, 556 N.Y.S.2d 356, 358 (2d

Dept., 1990) [" ... the purported unavailability or nonexistence of documents should have, to the

extent possible, been raised when this disclosure dispute first arose"]

The issue with regards to this branch of Plaintiffs instant motion is had Defendants informed

the Court of Defendants' intentional and willful spoliation of key evidence, i.e., banking records,

it is Plaintiffs position that the Court would have denied Defendants a protective order with

regards to other document demands and interrogatories seeking documents and information

including, but not limited to, accounting books, records and tax returns.

Defendants' Counsel's affirmation in opposition does not address this branch of Plaintiffs

motion :seeking kuvc to renew- und insteud urgues thut Defendants should not be sanctioned for

their intentional and willful spoliation of evidence. (Defendants' Counsel's Affirm. at i!i162-70

NYSCEF Doc. #79)

13 of 16
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 09/19/2022 04:01 PM INDEX NO. 001052/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 84 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/19/2022

It is respectfully submitted, Defendants' failure to oppose that branch of Plaintiff's instant

motion seeking renewal is a concession that the relief sought should be granted. See e.g., Cornell

Fed. Credit Union v. Thorpe, 199 A.D.2d 936, 937, 606 N.Y.S.2d 90, 91 (3d Dept., 1993)

["defendant's failure to oppose plaintiff's appeal may be considered tantamount to a concession

that the relief sought on appeal should be granted"]; Borst v. Lower Manhattan Dev. Corp., 2016

NY Slip Op 51233(U), ~ 16, 52 Misc. 3d 1220(A), 43 N.Y.S.3d 766 (Sup. Ct.) ["the court deems

plaintiffs' failure to oppose same as a concession on that point and those claims are dismissed."]

It must be noted, in opposition to Plaintiff's motion seeking summary judgment (Mot. Seq.

#5) and in support of their own motion seeking summary judgment (Mot. Seq. #6), Defendants

claim that Defendant Grand Slam and Defendant JG Real Estate maintained corporate formalities

by " ... appropriate filing of tax returns and segregated bank accounts" without any documentary

evidence to support their claims. (NYSCEF Doc. #72 at page 9)

Here, Defendants claim that Plaintiff's demands seeking tax returns are premature.

(Defendants' Counsel's Affirm. at ~53, NYSCEF Doc. #79)

Without Defendants' tax returns and banking records how can it be determined that

Defendant Grand Slam and Defendant JG Real Estate maintained corporate formalities by

" ... appropriate filing of tax returns and segregated bank accounts" and how can Plaintiff

effectively cross-examine Defendants with regards to such claims.

It is respectfully submitted based upon the intentional and willful spoliation of Defendant

Grand Slam's and Defendant JG Real Estate's banking records the Court must grant that branch

of Plaintiff's motion seeking leave to renew and upon renewal issuance of an order denying

Defendants a protective order and, at a minimum, compelling Defendants to fully respond to

Plaintiff's discovery demands.

14 of 16
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 09/19/2022 04:01 PM INDEX NO. 001052/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 84 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/19/2022

CONCLUSION

For all of the foregoing, Plaintiff must be granted an Order, pursuant to CPLR §2221(±),

granting Plaintiff leave to reargue and renew, this Court's Order dated August 30, 2021; and/or

for such other, further and different relief as this Honorable Court may deem just, proper and

equitable.

Dated: September 19, 2022
Bethpage, New York

James Moran
Plaintiff pro se
28 Carrie Avenue
Bethpage, New York 11714
Tel: (516) 302-6581
Email: iim.catlawl ra)gmail.com

To: Siegel & Reiner, LLP
Attorneys for Defendants
130 East 59th Street, 12th Floor
New York, New York 10022
Tel: (212) 447-5599
Email: rdelvalle@siegelreiner.com

15 of 16
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 09/19/2022 04:01 PM INDEX NO. 001052/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 84 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/19/2022

MOTION PRINTING SPECIFICATIONS STATEMENT

Pursuant to Uniform Rules §202.8-b, I hereby certify that this Memorandum of Law

complies with the word count limit of 4,200 words set forth therein. The total number of words

in the Memorandum of Law, exclusive of any captions, tables of contents, tables of authorities

and signature blocks, is 3,043 pursuant to the word count in Microsoft Word, the word

processing system used to prepare the document.

Dated: September 19, 2022
Bethpage, New York

Plaintiff pro se
28 Carrie Avenue
Bethpage, New York 11714
Tel: (516) 302-6581
Email: jim.catlawl@gmail.com

16 of 16

Case Info

Judge

Francis Ricigliano Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

September 19, 2022

Case Filing Date

May 27, 2022

County

Parties

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Motion-Secondary: James Moran v. Grand Slam Ventures, Llc, Jon Steinberg, Glenn A. Reiner, Jg Real Estate Ventures, Llc, 'John Does' 1-10 Inclusive, The Last Ten Names Being Fictitious And Unknown To Plaintiff

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties