Motion for Change of Venue in Svetlana Travis v. Eliot Spitzer| Trellis.Law

On May 17, 2023 a No Value was filed involving a dispute between Svetlana Travis, and Eliot Spitzer, for Torts - Other (Transfer) in the District Court of New York County.

Preview
INDEX NO. 451295/2023
—
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/17/2023
(FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/06/2023 12:39 pM INDEX NO. 101124/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 219 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/03/2023

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
PRESENT: HON. PAULA. GOETZ PART 47
Justice
INDEX NO. 101124/2020
SVETLANA TRAVIS,
MOTION DATE 12/09/2022

“Ve
FIL Ep ‘WOHON SEQ. NO. 004

ELIOT SPITZER, WAR15 ‘DECISION + ORDER ON
MOTION
DeterEWY Yorx ¢
. Coup: TY
»
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document TaiBer (Motion 004) 74, 75, 76, 77,
78,
79, 80, 81, 126, 143, 151, 152; 153, 158, 191, 192
were read on this motion to/for CONSOLIDATE/JOIN FOR TRIAL
Upon the foregoing documents, it is

ORDERED that defendant’s motion to remove (1) Travis v. Plaza Hotel, No. CV-009037-

22/NY (Civ. Ct., N.Y. Cnty, filed June 29, 2022) (2) Travis v. Spitzer, No; CV-013271-22/NY

(Civ. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. filed Oct. 21, 2022) and (3) Travis v: Spitzer, No. CV 015444-22/NY (Civ.

Ct. N.Y. Cnty. filed December 8. 2022) to this court and to join these actions with this one is

granted; and it is further

ORDERED that. within 30 days from entry of this order, counsel for movant shall serve a

certified copy of this order upon the Clerk of the Civil Court and’shall contact the staff of the Clerk

to arrange for the effectuation of this transfer in an efficient manner; and it is further

ORDERED that the Clerk of the Civil Court shall, upon such service and the payment of

the appropriate fee. if any, transfer to this court all of the papers heretofore filed in said actions in

that Court; and it is further

ORDERED that the Clerk of the Civil Court and the Clerk of this Court shall coordinate

the transfer of the documents being transferred so.as to ensurean efficient transfer and to minimize
101124/2020 TRAVIS, SVETLANA vs. SPITZER, ELIOT
Motion No. 004
Paget of 3

1 of 3

1 of 36
INDEX NO. 451295/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/17/2023
(@ILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/06/2023 12:39 PM INDEX NO. 101124/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 219
RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/03/2023

insofar as practical the reproduction of documents, including with regard to documents in digital

format; and it is further

ORDERED that, upon receipt of the case file from the Clerk of the Civil Court, the Clerk

of this court shall, without further fee, assign a New York County. index number to the matters

transferred pursuant to this order and shall file under this number the documents transferred; and

it is further.

ORDERED that, within 30 days from entry of this order, movant shall serve'a copy of this

order with notice of entry upon the Clerk of the General Clerk's Office. together witha Request

for Judicial Intervention (“RJI”) in the actions that are transferred to this court pursuant to: this

order or, if an RJI had already been filed in that action, witha copy of that RJI (in which event, no

further fee shall be imposed): and it is further

ORDERED that the Clerk of the General Clerk*s Office shall assign the transferred action

to the undersigned; ‘and it is further

ORDERED that, within 30 days from entry of this order, counsel for movant shall serve a

copy of this order with notice of entry upon the Clerk of this-Court and the Clerk of the General

Clerk’s Office. who shall mark their records to reflect this consolidation: and it is further

ORDERED that such service upon the Clerk of this Court and the Clerk of the General

Clerk’s. Office shall be made in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Protocol on

Courthouse and County Clerk Procedures for Electronically Filed Cases (accessible at the “E-

101124/2020 TRAVIS, SVETLANA vs. SPITZER, ELIOT Page
2 of 3
Motion No. 004

2 of 3

2 of 36
INDEX NO. 451295/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/17/2023
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/06/2023 12:39 PM INDEX NO. 101124/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 219 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/03/2023

Filing” page on the court’s website)].

3/3/2023
DATE ees
CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED NON-FINAL DISPOSITION
GRANTED O DENIED GRANTED IN PART [omen
APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER ‘SUBMIT ORDER
CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFERIREASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT. O REFERENCE,

101124/2020. TRAVIS, SVETLANA vs. SPITZER, ELIOT Page
3 of 3
Motion No. 004,

3 of 3

3 of 36
(FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/17/2023 10:45 AM INDEX NO. 451295/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF 05/17/2023

Mo Oey: +
CIVIL COURT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK

SVETLANA TRAVIS,
Index Now V-0
Plaintiff,

-against- Notice ot Mton —_——
ELIOT SPITZER,
ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED
Defendant.
aoneeee nee:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that upon the affirmation of Arthur D. Middlemiss, counsel for

defendant Eliot Spitzer, the exhibits thereto, and the accompanying Memorandum of Law, and

upon all the pleadings and proceedings in this case to date, defendant Eliot Spitzer will move this

Court located at the New York County Civil Courthouse, located at 111 Centre Street, New York,

New York, Part A on February 10, 2023 at 9:30 a.m. or as soon thereafter as counsel may be

heard, (i) for an order under CPLR 3211(a)(4) dismissing the latest complaint brought by plaintiff

as duplicative of a claim already pending in a different lawsuit, (ii) for an order under CPLR

3211(a)(6) dismissing the complaint for failure to state a claim, or, if dismissal is not granted (iii)

for an order under CPLR 3024 requiring plaintiff to file a more definite statement and permitting

defendant to renew any CPLR 3211 motions thereafter, and (iv) granting such other and further

relief as this Court may deem just and proper, including postponing determination of the dismissal

motion pending determination of a pending motion in Supreme Court to remove this action there.

The above-entitled action is for “Breach of Contract or Warranty.” This action is not ona

trial calendar. The Summons and Complaint in this action were served upon defendant via means

other than personal service, and the affidavit of service was filed with the Clerk of Court on

December 9, 2022.
i
ib aw
ne anh

TY
A’
NEV

4 of 36
INDEX NO. 451295/2023
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/17/2023 10:45 AM
NYSCEF DOC. NO. a RECEIVED NYSCEF 05/17/2023

PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that any answering papers are required to be served

at least seven days before the return date of this motion pursuant to CPLR 2214(b).

Dated: New York, New York
January 9, 2023
Respectfully submitted,

LEWIS BAACH KAUFMANN
MIDDLEMI: LLC

By
ur D. Middlemiss
The Chrysler Building
405 Lexington Avenue, 64th Floor
New York, NY 10174
Tel: (212) 826-7001
Fax: (212) 826-7146
arthur.middlemiss@lbkmlaw.com

Attorney for Defendant Eliot Spitzer

TO: Plaintiff Svetlana Travis pro se
442 Fifth Avenue, #1993
New York, New York 10018

— ee

5 of 36
INDEX NO. 451295/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2° RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/17/2023

CIVIL COURT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
wenn ene
SVETLANA TRAVIS,
Index No.: CV-015444-22/NY
Plaintiff,

-against-

ELIOT SPITZER,

Defendant.
aan. penne nnn nenen ene ne ns!

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT
ELIOT SPITZER’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

The instant complaint is part of plaintiff Svetlana Travis’ ongoing campaign of harassment

and vexatious litigation against defendant Eliot Spitzer, all of which appear to relate in some way

to an event that allegedly occurred in February 2016 at the Plaza Hotel. Two years ago, Plaintiff

sued the defendant in Supreme Court, New York County alleging harm arising from that incident;

the case is pending under Travis v. Spitzer, Index No. 101124/2020 (filed on December 11, 2020).

Since then, Plaintiff has filed at least 14 other pro se lawsuits (including the instant matter) that

are related to Mr. Spitzer and the Supreme Court matter.!

' Travis v. NY Post, No. CV-003135-22/NY (Civ. Ct., N.Y. Cnty, filed March 14, 2022); Travis v. Kaufmann, No.
CV-008908-22/NY (Civ. Ct., N.Y. Cnty, filed June 24, 2022); Travis v. Plaza Hotel, Index No. CV-009037-22/NY
(Civ. Ct., N.Y. Cnty, filed June 29, 2022); Travis v. Bank of America, No. CV-010352-22/NY (Civ. Ct., N.Y. Cnty,
filed Aug. 5, 2022); Travis v. Daily Mail et al., No. CV-010973-22/NY (Civ. Ct., N.Y. Cnty, filed Aug. 25, 2022);
Travis v. Latin Times, No. CV-010972-22/NY (Civ. Ct., N.Y. Cnty, filed Aug. 25, 2022); Travis v. Bank of America,
No. 100968/2022 (Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cnty, filed Oct. 19, 2022); Travis v. Spitzer, No. CV-013271-22/NY (Civ. Ct., N.Y.
Cnty, filed Oct. 21, 2022); Travis v. Miller, No. CV-013644-22/NY (Civ. Ct., N.Y. Cnty, filed Nov. 1, 2022); Travis
v. 800 Fifth Avenue Assocs., No. CV-015441-22/NY (Civ. Ct., N.Y. Cnty, filed Dec. 8, 2022); Travis v. Chelsea New
York Realty Company LLC, No. CV-015442-22/NY (Civ. Ct., N.Y. Cnty, filed Dec. 8, 2022); Travis v. The New York
Times Co., No. CV-015443-22/NY (Civ. Ct., N.Y. Cnty, filed Dec. 8, 2022); Travis v. Spitzer, No. CV-015444-22/NY
(Civ. Ct., N.Y. Cnty, filed Dec. 8, 2022); Travis v. Sahara Plaza LLC, No. CV-015450-22/NY (Civ. Ct., N.Y. Cnty,
filed Dec. 9, 2022). In aggregate, including the fourteen pro se actions relating to Mr. Spitzer, Plaintiff has filed no
less than 27 pro se actions in New York courts since March 2022, including two lawsuits against the alleged victims
of a pending Kings County criminal indictment where plaintiff is charged with second degree robbery. Separately,

6 of 36
INDEX NO. 451295/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/17/2023
©

THE CURRENT SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT

Plaintiff's summons with endorsed complaint states that she is suing for “Breach of

Contract or Warranty” and that she seeks $50,000 with interest from November 29, 2017.

According to the four-page complaint, Plaintiff alleges that, in July 2016 she, “under duress,”

signed a “non disclosure agreement” (“NDA”) with Mr. Spitzer. Plaintiff selectively quotes from

the NDA language that (1) obligated Mr. Spitzer to dismiss a civil action he had filed against “Ms

Zakharova”; (2) obligated Mr. Spitzer, so long as “Ms Zakharova” abided by the terms of NDA,

not to sue her for certain damages; (3) obligated Mr. Spitzer, so long as “Ms Zakharova” abided

by the terms of the NDA, not to discuss “his interactions” with her with reporters or social media;

(4) obligated Mr. Spitzer to “continue to use his best efforts” to help “Ms Zakharova” to secure

return of property from the Bronx County District Attorney’s Office. (Complaint at 1-2).

Plaintiff asserts that the NDA was violated because (1) some unidentified clothes and

documents of plaintiff were destroyed by “Police Safekeeping” in April 2017 (Complaint at 2); (2)

in a New York Post article, the date of which is not given, there is alleged to be a quote by a “Lisa

Linden,” identified as Mr. Spitzer’s “spokeswoman,” referring to allegations in a “court filing” by

“Zakharov: “reprehensible lies from an extortionist” and further that Linden said “the record

in this case and her guilty plea speak for themselves” (Complaint at 2); and (3) “Lisa Linden” has

made other statements at unidentified times to the “Associated Press” and the “New York Times,”

Mr. Spitzer has asked the Supreme Court to consolidate certain of the pro se matters relating to him, including the
instant case (Middlemiss Aff. { 4). That motion is fully submitted and pending before Justice Goetz (id.). Mr. Spitzer
has also asked the Supreme Court to enjoin Plaintiff from filing additional pro se matters related to the 2016 incident.
Justice Goetz granted preliminary injunctive relief on December 15, 2022, and Mr. Spitzer’s motion is calendared in
for January 26, 2023.

7 of 36
INDEX NO. 451295/2023
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/17/2023 10:45 AM
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 20 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/17/2023

described as “High Profile Newspapers,” that plaintiff was a “non-credible person, a liar and an

extortionist.”

Plaintiff appears to argue that the conduct alleged constituted a breach of contract

(Complaint at 2-4).

POINT I

BECAUSE THE COMPLAINT FAILS TO STATE A CLAIM, IT SHOULD
BE DISMISSED.

Plaintiff brings a lawsuit alleging breach of contract. The complaint facially sounds in

fraud. To state a contract breach claim requires allegations of “the existence of a contract, the

plaintiff's performance thereunder, the defendant's breach thereof, and resulting damages.” Park

v. Kim, 205 A.D.3d 429, 430 (1st Dept. 2022). Under CPLR 3211(a)(7), a cause of action may be

dismissed if, as alleged, it “fails to state a cause of action.” The standard is whether from whatever

can be reasonably implied from the pleading, a cause of action can be sustained. BRT Realty Trust

v. AHI Agency, 233 A.D.2d 200, 200 (1st Dept. 1996). When ruling on a motion to dismiss, the

court must read the pleading to determine if the pleader has a cause of action and not whether the

elements of a cause of action have been formulaically alleged. See Guggenheimer v Ginzburg, 43

N.Y.2d 268 (1977); Rovello v Orofino Realty Co., 40 N.Y.2d 633 (1976). The court must determine

from the facts as pled, and the inferences which can be drawn from those facts, whether the pleader

has a legally cognizable cause of action. See Frank v DaimlerChrysler Corp., 292 A.D.2d 118,

120-21 (1st Dept. 2002). It is true that the complaint should be viewed liberally, and a plaintiff is

entitled to reasonable inferences. Jd. But even on a liberal standard, the complaint here is woefully

deficient.

ene

8 of 36
INDEX NO. 451295/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/17/2023

First, Plaintiff identifies herself as Svetlana Travis. Nowhere in her complaint does she

allege or otherwise claim that she is, in fact, the “Ms. Zakharova” cited in the complaint.”

Second, the complaint on the one hand asserts the existence of a contract, but on the other

hand, asserts that the NDA was signed under “duress.” Therefore, the complaint facially denies

the existence of an enforceable contract. More significantly, in current pending litigation in the

Supreme Court, New York County, Plaintiff affirmatively insists that the NDA was not a valid

contract (Middlemiss Aff. { 6, Exh. B).? That being the case, it follows that the complaint here

fails to allege the existence of an enforceable contract.

Third, Plaintiff has not alleged, assuming there was an enforceable contract, and she is the

one identified in the contract as “Ms. Zakharova,” that she abided by the terms of the contract that

she asserts to be the subject of this lawsuit. Nowhere does Plaintiff allege that Plaintiff performed

under the contract. Indeed, the agreement required her to “not discuss her interactions with Mr.

Spitzer with any third person” (Middlemiss Aff. § 5; Exhibit A). Putting aside Plaintiffs various

lawsuits involving Mr. Spitzer and her interactions with him, the simple fact is that the New York

Post article cited by Plaintiff in the complaint proves that she did not abide by the terms of the

contract (id.).

Fourth, Plaintiff has not alleged anything by Mr. Spitzer that — assuming Plaintiff was a

party to the NDA, the NDA was a valid contract, and Plaintiff abided by the terms of the contract

—raises a “breach” of the contract. Plaintiff alleges only that (a) the police destroyed some clothes

and documents of hers and (b) a spokesperson for Mr. Spitzer, not Mr. Spitzer, made a general

? To be sure, Mr. Spitzer understands that Plaintiff and “Ms. Zakharova” are one and the same person. Indeed, despite
filing this lawsuit under the name Svetlana Travis, Plaintiff has more recently changed her legal name to Sasha March.
Plaintiffs name change is a matter of public record. No. NC-001296-22/NY (Civ. Ct., N.Y. Cnty, filed Jun. 24, 2022),
available at https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/webcivilLocal/LCMain.
3 To the extent that the Court believes that consideration of Exhibit B or other exhibits would result in this matter
being converted to a summary judgment motion under CPLR 3211(c), Mr. Spitzer would agree to such and would
provide additional factual matter as requested by the Court for resolution under that standard.

eee _ pe —. ne

9 of 36
INDEX NO. 451295/2023
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/17/2023 10:45 AM
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/17/2023

comment that advised the media, in response to allegations being made by Plaintiff, that the public

record demonstrated those allegations to be false. Neither shows a breach of the terms alleged in

the complaint to be Mr. Spitzer’s obligations. Neither allows for the conclusion that Mr. Spitzer

did not use “best efforts” to request the Bronx County District Attorney’s Office to return property.

Indeed, the District Attorney and the Police are two different agencies and entities. And, neither

allows for the conclusion that Mr. Spitzer spoke to or contacted any reporter or social media about

his interactions with “Ms. Zakharova,” directly or indirectly. Defending allegations that “Ms

Zakharova” was making by generally asserting they are false and denying them is not the

equivalent of describing what the interactions were.

Fifth, the complaint fails to allege actual damages. Plaintiff alleges that the police destroyed

some clothes and documents, but there is no allegation that those damages resulted proximately or

otherwise from anything Mr. Spitzer did or did not do or was obliged or not obliged to do. That

being the case, the contract claim fails for that reason as well.

In short, Plaintiffs complaint does not allege a valid claim of breach of contract. First, she

does not admit her identity as a party to the contract. Second, she does not allege the existence of

a valid and enforceable contract. Third, she does not allege that she performed fully the obligations

she was required to perform under the contract. Fourth, she does not allege anything that would

have been a breach of the contract. Fifth, she does not allege damages that resulted from the

claimed breach.

—

10 of 36
(FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/17/2023 10:45 AM INDEX NO. 451295/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/17/2023

POINT II

BECAUSE PLAINTIFF APPEARS TO BE SUING IN CONNECTION
WITH SAME EVENTS THAT INVOLVE ANOTHER LAWSUIT, THIS
ONE SHOULD BE DISMISSED UNDER CPLR 3211(a)(4).

There is no question that this complaint relates to conduct that arises from what Plaintiff

has alleged was a 2016 assault that took place in Manhattan. The first matter, pending in the

Supreme Court, New York County, is a lawsuit that, as stated above, was brought by Plaintiff

against Mr. Spitzer two years ago alleging that in 2016 Mr. Spitzer assaulted her at the Plaza Hotel.

(Supreme Court, New York County, Index No. 101124/2020). The twist here is that Plaintiff is

alleging that an agreement that was reached after that alleged assault and after Plaintiff's criminal

prosecution for extortion was somehow breached by Mr. Spitzer. Notably, the contract, the NDA,

is at issue in the Supreme Court case as well (Middlemiss Aff. § 4).

Under CPLR 3211(a)(4), a court has broad discretion as to the disposition of an action

when another action is pending, and dismissal may be ordered “where there is a substantial identity

of the parties and causes of action” Nakazawa v. Horowitz, 50 A.D.3d 985, 986 (2d Dept 2008).

Dismissal is appropriate where the two actions are “sufficiently similar” and the relief sought is

“the same or substantially the same.” Montalvo v. Air Dock Sys., 37 A.D.3d 567, 567 (2d Dept.

2007). It is “not necessary that the precise legal theories presented in the first proceeding also be

presented in the second proceeding,” but rather that “both suits arise out of the same subject matter

or series of alleged wrongs.” Simonetti v. Larson, 44 A.D.3d 1028, 1029 (2d Dept 2007).

The parties in this lawsuit are identical, and undoubtedly arise out of the interactions in

2016 between Plaintiff and Mr. Spitzer that were investigated by the police and the Bronx District

Attorney, and which involved an allegation of assault. Likewise, the relief sought is the same, ie,

11 of 36
INDEX NO. 451295/2023
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/17/2023 10:45 AM
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/17/2023

money damages from Mr. Spitzer. That Plaintiff describes torts differently in each is of no moment.

See Simonetti v. Larson, 44 A.D.3d 1028, 1029 (2d Dept 2007). Notably, the Supreme Court matter

has been pending for two years, a consideration that further justifies dismissing this latest iteration.

San Ysidro Corp. v. Robinow, 1 A.D.3d 185, 186 (2d Dept. 2003).

It is true that there is pending in the Supreme Court a motion to remove this lawsuit to that

court and consolidate it with the action there. But until that motion is decided, this Court retains

jurisdiction and should dismiss this frivolous lawsuit.

POINT HI

IF THE COMPLAINT IS NOT DISMISSED OUTRIGHT, PLAINTIFF
SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO FILE A MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT.

As observed above, the complaint is exceptionally vague in its allegations.

Under CPLR 3024(a), “{i]f a pleading is so vague or ambiguous that a party cannot

reasonably be required to frame a response he may move for a more definite statement.” True, Mr.

Spitzer has made some reasonable assumptions about Plaintiff's complaint and about the nature of

the transactions that form the corpus of Plaintiff's complaint, but that is because the complaint

does not provide necessary allegations. To the extent that the Court is not prepared to dismiss the

woefully vague and deficiently-pleaded complaint, the Court should require Plaintiff to file a more

definite statement. That statement should clarify Plaintiff's identity, allege whether the NDA was

valid and enforceable, set forth the terms that Plaintiff was required to abide by and allege that she

performed fully under the valid and enforceable contract, and allege what it was that Mr. Spitzer

did that constituted a breach of the contract.

If the Court permits such, Mr. Spitzer should be allowed to renew his dismissal motion, if

appropriate, at the time that the more definite statement is served and filed.

a —- eo ee

12 of 36
(FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/17/2023 10:45 AM INDEX NO. 451295/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/17/2023

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Mr. Spitzer respectfully requests that the Court dismiss

Plaintiff's latest complaint. Based upon what is stated in the complaint, it fails to state a claim and

is sufficiently duplicative of another pending action. To the extent that the Court cannot reach

those determinations on the current complaint, the Court should direct Plaintiff to provide a more

definite statement. Alternatively, or in addition, Mr. Spitzer seeks all relief from the Court as would

be just and proper including postponing determination of the dismissal motion pending

determination of a pending motion in Supreme Court to remove this action and consolidate it there.

Dated: January 9, 2023
New York, New York

LEWIS BAAC. FMANN MIDDLEMISS PLLC

BY.
thur D. Middlemiss
The Chrysler Building
405 Lexington Avenue, 64" Floor
New York, NY 10174
Tel: (212) 826-7001
Fax: (212) 826-7146
Arthur, Middlemiss@lbkmlaw.com
Counsel for Defendant

13 of 36
(FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/17/2023 10:45 AM INDEX NO. 451295/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 / RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/17/2023

CIVIL COURT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK

wanna nanan nnn nn nn nnn nnn nnn nn nnn nn nnn nnn nen nn nnn nnn nce)
SVETLANA TRAVIS,
Index No.: CV-015444-22/NY
Plaintiff,
AFFIRMATION
-against-

ELIOT SPITZER,

Defendant.
x

Arthur D. Middlemiss, an attorney licensed to practice in the State of New York, affirms

under penalty of perjury:

1 Iam a partner in the law firm Lewis Baach Kaufmann Middlemiss pllc and am counsel

for defendant Eliot Spitzer.

This affirmation is made in support of a motion to dismiss and for other relief in the

instant action. This affirmation is based upon personal knowledge except to the extent

it is based upon information and belief as stated herein.

Pending before the Supreme Court, New York County is a motion to remove this action

to that court. That motion is fully submitted as of December 16, 2022 and pending

before Justice Paul A. Goetz (Index No. 101124/2020, NYSCEF Nos. 74 - 87).

Plaintiff's complaint purports to quote from a 2016 agreement between plaintiff and

Mr. Spitzer. The agreement is subject to sealing order in Index No. 101124/2020.

Should the Court wish to review the agreement, Mr. Spitzer is prepared to submit it

under seal.

Plaintiff's complaint refers to what purports to be a statement in a New York Post

article by a Lisa Linden, identified as Mr. Spitzer’s spokesperson, and which quotes

14 of 36
(FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/17/2023 10:45 AM INDEX NO. 451295/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/17/2023

the phrase “reprehensible lies from an extortionist.” I have found such an article and it

is submitted herein as Exhibit A. I believe that the article, having been quoted by

Plaintiff in the complaint, can be before this Court.

Ina filing submitted on January 4, 2023 in Supreme Court, New York County, Plaintiff

writes: “This agreement was signed under severe duress . THEREFORE the

Honorable court cannot consider Plaintiff's signature under DURESS AS VALID.”

(Index No. 101124/2020, NYSCEF No. 129.) This filing is attached (sans its exhibits)

as Exhibit B.

Dated: New York, NY
January 9, 2023
Me
Arthur D. Middlemiss
The Chrysler Building
405 Lexington Avenue, 64th Floor
New York, NY 10174
Tel: (212) 826-7001
Fax: (212) 826-7146
Arthur.Middlemiss@lbkmlaw.com
Counsel for Defendant Eliot Spitzer

15 of 36
NK INDEX NO. 451295/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/17/2023

EXHIBIT A

— oom

16 of 36
INDEX NO. 451295/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF 05/17/2023

Bes ome AL GAIA oo

ma ee

EXCLUSIVE @60e8 WHAT TOSHOPNOW

Spitzer’s leash fetish revealed y
By Lamy Cetona November29, 2017 | 7:30pm | Updated
e) ys
eo wy
x)
a You'll “fallin love" with these 60
Valentine's Day gifts for everyone on
your listin 2023
Looking to lose a litte weight? Raw
Generation’s Signature Reset can help
eee a

Case Info

Judge

Paul A. Goetz Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

May 17, 2023

Case Filing Date

May 17, 2023

County

Parties

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

No Value: Svetlana Travis v. Eliot Spitzer

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties