Exhibit,Appendix: The Bank Of New York Mellon F/K/A The Bank Of New Youk As Indenture Trustee On Behalf Of The Noteholders And The Note Insurer Of Abfs Mortgage Loan Trust 2000-4, v. Theresa Brodwith INDIBIDUALLY AND AS ADMINISTRATRIX AND HEIR OF THE ESTATE OF LEROY BRODWITH, Beniah Anokam, New York State Department Of Taxation And Finance, New York City Environmental Control Board, United States Of America,, Charles Anokam, May Anokam, Fati Obogulo, Solomon Mbagwu, Moussa Bagawaw, John Doe "JOHN DOE # 6 through JOHN DOE # 12, " the last seven names being fictitious and unknown to plaintiff, the persons or parties intended being the tenants, occupants, persons or corporations, if any, having or claiming an interest in or lien upon the premi

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/03/2023 12:12 PM                                       INDEX NO. 508445/2015
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 198                                                         RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/03/2023




          PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL - Bank v. Brodwith Motion Conference
          January 12, 2023 Index 508445/2015
          Inbox

          Jon Daba 
          Wed, Jan 18, 2:23 PM
          to jetra, lvalle, bcc: Anastasia

          Counselor,

          As you well know, I represent the Defendant Brodwith and the Estate of Brodwith,
          owners of the property Bank of New York illegally seeks to foreclose.

          At the motion conference on Jan. 12, 2023 herein, you concealed the fact that you
          were personally involved with the litigation of this action and have an interest in
          it.

          In fact, your conduct as court attorney to the late Judge Dear herein was brought to
          the attention of the Appellate Division in connection with the apparent facilitation
          of sanctionable and illegal conduct of Plaintiff herein, particularly Attorney Dustin
          Mansoor.

          As detailed in Defendant's papers, you handled the calendar call for Judge Dear on
          or about November 10, 2018 when Defendant moved for discovery. I sat with you
          and you said we needed to wait to see if Plaintiff Attorney Dustin Mansoor would
          arrive. After about 30 minutes, when neither Mansoor or anyone else from Bank
          of New York appeared, you stated that you were going to look for Mansoor - and
          you left the courtroom. Much later, you returned and said you could not find
          anyone for the Bank, so you would mark Defendant's unopposed motion as "down
          as granted on default".

          But in reality, it appears you subsequently marked the motion as "Fully
          submitted"! This was regrettably false.

          NYSCEF shows that Defendant's motion for discovery was filed 8-2-18.
          (NYSCEF 90) THERE WERE NO FILINGS BY PLAINTIFF AFTER THAT
          UNTIL 10-17 when Dustin Mansoor filed a Notice of Entry relative to Judge
          Dear's decision denying Defendant's motion.
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/03/2023 12:12 PM                                     INDEX NO. 508445/2015
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 198                                                         RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/03/2023




          Judge Dear's wrongful decision was based on the false representation the Bank
          made to him - ex parte - that Defendant had defaulted and therefore was not
          entitled to discovery. (The App Div flatly rejected this perjurious default claim)

          You knew that Plaintiff had defaulted on Defendant's motion and never filed any
          opposition to Defendant's motion! NYSCEF shows no opposition papers filed on
          the motion.

          Nonetheless, someone, apparently you, arranged for the Judge to issue this false
          ruling based on a perjured claim of a default by Defendant:

              "Plaintiff met its burden, producing an affidavit of default and the note and
          mortgage. Defendant makes no effort to vacate her default, focusing solely on
          allegations that Plaintiff must have been renting out the property (based seemingly
          on an argument that no one was paying the mortgage between 2003 and 2008
          default date claimed by Plaintiff) - a contention that does not appear supported by
          any evidence.

                A party in default is not entitled to discovery (see, for example, US Bank
          Natl. Assn. v Williams, 153 AD3d 650 [2d Dept 2017]).”

               (Order of Justice Noach Dear, J.S.C., dated 10/1/18)

          This ruling was a completely fictional account which it appears you made up
          solely to help the Bank, apparently at Dustin Mansoor's request.

          Since the Bank had filed no written opposition to the motion, the appearance is
          strongly created that you communicated ex parte with the Bank after their motion
          default, found out what the Bank wanted, and wrote this false 10/1/18 decision for
          Judge Dear at the Bank's request.

          Obviously, Black Lives DON'T Matter to you! How could you write this
          "Defendant's default" decision when there had been no papers submitted by the
          Bank on the motion?

          The App Div reversed the false Defendant's default decision that you apparently
          wrote for Judge Dear:

                      "Here, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/03/2023 12:12 PM                                     INDEX NO. 508445/2015
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 198                                                        RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/03/2023




          defendant’s motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3101 to direct disclosure.
                     Contrary to the court’s determination, the defendant did not default in
          answering the complaint (see generally Jeffers v Stein, 99 AD3d 970, 971).

                      Moreover, the plaintiff failed to oppose the motion and never moved to
          vacate its default; thus, “the court should not have raised the issue sua sponte”

          (Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Morales, 178 AD3d 881, 883; see Emigrant Mtge. Co.,
          Inc v Fisher, 90 AD3d 823, 824-825).

          The App Div found: "Moreover, plaintiff failed to oppose the motion... Yet you -
          even though you yourself witnessed the Bank's default - didn't record a default!
          Instead, you apparently marked the motion as "fully submitted!" Why did you do
          that?

          The App Div found: “the court should not have raised the issue sua sponte”
          Since there was no Bank opposition, how would Judge Dear know to rule just
          what the Bank wanted?

          If all this weren't clear enough about your determination to help the Bank of New
          York in this matter, your statements at the motion conference on January 12 made
          it pellucidly clear that you have a personal bias in favor of Attorney Dustin
          Mansoor and the Bank and against Black Leroy Brodwith and his successors.

          After we discussed Mansoor's sanction-worthy behavior of lying in court papers -
          particularly the perjurious allegation that Defendant had defaulted in answering -
          you said:

                 "Take it up with the Appellate Division, I am not interested."

          When the Bank's refusal to appear for deposition came up, I displayed to you
          Judge Knipel's order dated 5-3-21 NYSCEF 137 requiring the Bank to appear for
          deposition, you actually stated:

                 "That's just one of Knipel's form orders, it doesn't mean anything".

          Next, I displayed the decision of the Appellate Division reversing your denial of
          discovery for Defendant: The App Div said:
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/03/2023 12:12 PM                                       INDEX NO. 508445/2015
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 198                                                          RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/03/2023




                 CPLR 3101(a) provides that “[t]here shall be full disclosure of all matter
          material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action, regardless of the
          burden of proof.” “A party is entitled to choose both the discovery devices it
          wishes to use and the order in which to use them”

                (Nimkoff v Central Park Plaza Assoc., LLC, 123 AD3d 679, 680 [internal
          quotation marks omitted]). NYSCEF 132

          I asked you to set dates for deposition of the Bank and its witnesses as per the
          Appellate Division decision: Your reply:

                 "Well, this is a weird decision, I've never seen an App Div decision like this.
          I don't know what it means. It doesn't entitle Defendant to depositions".

          In view of all the foregoing and the reasons summarized below, Defendant and I
          believe your conduct indicates you are not and cannot be impartial in this case:

            1. You personally participated in the proceedings in the foreclosure litigation
          wherein Defendant has been unfairly prejudiced.

             2. You have a personal interest in vindicating the decisions of Judge Dear
          (that you wrote) herein.

             3. It appears that you have had ex parte communications with the Bank's
          attorneys herein. It appears you have had some personal interactions with the
          Bank and           Dustin Mansoor or the Bank's other attorneys and are unfairly
          prejudiced in the Bank's favor.

             4. You have stated that you consider Judge Knipel's prior order herein to be
          of no consequence and non-binding.

             5. You indicate you do not feel bound by the ruling of the Appellate Division
          herein. NYSCEF 132

          Accordingly, we respectfully request that because you have a personal bias or
          interest with respect to the matters involved herein, you peacefully recuse yourself
          and let another attorney who was not previously involved with this case handle
          your role for the Court herein.
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/03/2023 12:12 PM                         INDEX NO. 508445/2015
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 198                                             RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/03/2023




          Thank you for your courtesy and cooperation herein.

          Yours truly,

          Jonathan David Bachrach, Esq.
          55 Water Street - 32nd Floor
          New York, NY 10041-0041
          O: 212-977-2400
           jondaba@gmail.com