arrow left
arrow right
  • People Of The State Of New York, By Letitia James, Attorney General Of The State Of New York v. Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump, Ivanka Trump, Allen Weisselberg, Jeffrey Mcconney, The Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, The Trump Organization, Inc., Trump Organization Llc, Djt Holdings Llc, Djt Holdings Managing Member, Trump Endeavor 12 Llc, 401 North Wabash Venture Llc, Trump Old Post Office Llc, 40 Wall Street Llc, Seven Springs LlcCommercial - Other (EL 63(12)Fraud Illegality) document preview
  • People Of The State Of New York, By Letitia James, Attorney General Of The State Of New York v. Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump, Ivanka Trump, Allen Weisselberg, Jeffrey Mcconney, The Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, The Trump Organization, Inc., Trump Organization Llc, Djt Holdings Llc, Djt Holdings Managing Member, Trump Endeavor 12 Llc, 401 North Wabash Venture Llc, Trump Old Post Office Llc, 40 Wall Street Llc, Seven Springs LlcCommercial - Other (EL 63(12)Fraud Illegality) document preview
  • People Of The State Of New York, By Letitia James, Attorney General Of The State Of New York v. Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump, Ivanka Trump, Allen Weisselberg, Jeffrey Mcconney, The Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, The Trump Organization, Inc., Trump Organization Llc, Djt Holdings Llc, Djt Holdings Managing Member, Trump Endeavor 12 Llc, 401 North Wabash Venture Llc, Trump Old Post Office Llc, 40 Wall Street Llc, Seven Springs LlcCommercial - Other (EL 63(12)Fraud Illegality) document preview
  • People Of The State Of New York, By Letitia James, Attorney General Of The State Of New York v. Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump, Ivanka Trump, Allen Weisselberg, Jeffrey Mcconney, The Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, The Trump Organization, Inc., Trump Organization Llc, Djt Holdings Llc, Djt Holdings Managing Member, Trump Endeavor 12 Llc, 401 North Wabash Venture Llc, Trump Old Post Office Llc, 40 Wall Street Llc, Seven Springs LlcCommercial - Other (EL 63(12)Fraud Illegality) document preview
  • People Of The State Of New York, By Letitia James, Attorney General Of The State Of New York v. Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump, Ivanka Trump, Allen Weisselberg, Jeffrey Mcconney, The Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, The Trump Organization, Inc., Trump Organization Llc, Djt Holdings Llc, Djt Holdings Managing Member, Trump Endeavor 12 Llc, 401 North Wabash Venture Llc, Trump Old Post Office Llc, 40 Wall Street Llc, Seven Springs LlcCommercial - Other (EL 63(12)Fraud Illegality) document preview
  • People Of The State Of New York, By Letitia James, Attorney General Of The State Of New York v. Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump, Ivanka Trump, Allen Weisselberg, Jeffrey Mcconney, The Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, The Trump Organization, Inc., Trump Organization Llc, Djt Holdings Llc, Djt Holdings Managing Member, Trump Endeavor 12 Llc, 401 North Wabash Venture Llc, Trump Old Post Office Llc, 40 Wall Street Llc, Seven Springs LlcCommercial - Other (EL 63(12)Fraud Illegality) document preview
  • People Of The State Of New York, By Letitia James, Attorney General Of The State Of New York v. Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump, Ivanka Trump, Allen Weisselberg, Jeffrey Mcconney, The Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, The Trump Organization, Inc., Trump Organization Llc, Djt Holdings Llc, Djt Holdings Managing Member, Trump Endeavor 12 Llc, 401 North Wabash Venture Llc, Trump Old Post Office Llc, 40 Wall Street Llc, Seven Springs LlcCommercial - Other (EL 63(12)Fraud Illegality) document preview
  • People Of The State Of New York, By Letitia James, Attorney General Of The State Of New York v. Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump, Ivanka Trump, Allen Weisselberg, Jeffrey Mcconney, The Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, The Trump Organization, Inc., Trump Organization Llc, Djt Holdings Llc, Djt Holdings Managing Member, Trump Endeavor 12 Llc, 401 North Wabash Venture Llc, Trump Old Post Office Llc, 40 Wall Street Llc, Seven Springs LlcCommercial - Other (EL 63(12)Fraud Illegality) document preview
						
                                

Preview

INDEX NO. 452564/2022 NYSCEF BOC. NO. 1621 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/30/2023 In The Matter Of: PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK v. DONALD J. TRUMP, et al. SHERI DILLON October 27, 2023 NICOLE C. ROBINSON So Ord ared ofS 6 1023 HON. ARTHUR F. ENGORON OCT 30 2023 Original File 102723TRUMP.txt Min-U-Script® with Word Index 1 of 13 = INDEX NO. 452564/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1621 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/30/2023 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK vy. SHERI DILLON DONALD J. TRUMP, et al. October 27, 2023 Page 2640 | PROCEEDINGS Page 2642 » SOUR ORM CORRE EMAL BRO BARTS 1 THE COURT OFFICER: All rise. Part 37 is now in = ETE A gi ONE 8 2 session. Honorable Judge Arthur Engoron presiding. Make 3 sure all cellphones are on silent. Laptops and cellphones will be permitted, but only to members of the press. Plaintiff, There's absolutely no recording or photography of any kind allowed in the courtroom. Now, be seated and come to order. Donati tRuMp: vowed RUMP, JR.; ERIC RaNex TRUM PEN WEISSELBERG, JEFFREYM TRUMP; THE COURT: Okay. So why are we here at 9:30 instead of 10:00? Because we're going to hear oral argument SRG ANZA ONAN. TH ENS VOC, PROM UST TRUI RGANIZAT! IN, LL INGS. MANAG! | MEMBER: on a motion by Ivanka Trump to quash a subpoena, trial Rp |20 fenTARE SORT iat Le cor subpoena issued against her. 10 Re geCe Ee 40 WALL STREE 11 Tread the papers, so, please, don't be too 11 12 repetitive. I'm hoping that we can finish by 10:00. If we 12 an = X 'p 13 can't, then by 10:30. We want to try to finish with the 13 14 current witness, Sheri Dillon, today. And without further ew Vor Se. | York 14 October 15 ado, who would like to speak on behalf of the motion? 15 16 BONGRABLE AR THU F, ENG RON, 16 MR. MOSKOWITZ: Good morning, Your Honor. Bennet Justice, jupreme 17 Moskowitz on behalf of non-party witness Ivanka Trump 18 19 pele F “Kk Fa HOOP (A JAMES 18 First, let me say thank you everyone here, especially Your Honor, Ms. Greenfield and the parties for giving us the time 19 20 ne 20 for this in the middle of a very busy trial 21 Ag lew York 1 21 I heard you loud and clear. I have no intention to 22 iets 22 just rehash what's in my moving papers. As Your Honor 23 24 e 23 24 knows, I wasn't afforded a reply opportunity, so I'll take this opportunity to address things mostly that the AG 25 INKELSTEIN. 25 raised. What I will say just to level set here and I don't Page 2641 PROCEEDINGS Page 2643 want to get lost in the shuffle with all the papers flying Ae or. Defen back and forth on thi We're not here about technical roe, Sti to puite 750 service defects. Thi: is about fundamental issues of we Keres JESUS M. gerne BS jurisdiction. THE COURT: Good. That makes things a lot simpler. ROBERT SprisetendaT; mu MR. MOSKOWITZ: Right, and hearing only facts that mes matter for purposes of the jurisdiction. Ms. Trump does not We Fes VALE B50. live in New York. She's not domiciled here and despite the fact that the AG concludes otherwise and doesn't present HABBA sfobe M: lO dasASSOCIATES, LLP 10 ee 10 evidence supporting that conclusion, she does not transact ae ay - Sie 240 business here. Let me say it again, she does not transact ug ae en Tse! $677! A, 11 12 business here. That has a very specific meaning under New Ky lewDetendats MORIAN 13 York law. 13 Beit ite 4600 iN RoelNrESO. l he 14 Weinstein, Korn & Miller, no offense to Professor 14 N 1s Siegal. He's great, too. I picked it up and Section 30809 as? 16 of Weinstein, Korn & Miller, so that section of Weinstein, E,eR UMP. seggonsiaro 16 oH ee N Arh 10022 17 Korn & Miller provides, Your Honor, that actual place of 17 business under New York law means where that person is is Po TR rat ee PEAS TON SANDERS, LLP 19 regularly, physically present and regularly transacts 19 Ah BEYER 20 business. 875SKAIr Aven Ne 10022 20 Beet WITZ, ESQ. 21 22 Ivanka Trump does not regularly transact business and does not regularly at any of the addresses where they 22 23 served these subpoenas to these entities at most since 2017 23 enior f ‘ourt Reporters 24 25 TAREE SLORBON AME ERR 24 and if they want an affidavit for that business, that's fine. By the way, side note, they didn't put in an Min-U-Seript® NICOLE C. ROBINSON, SCR, & JANELLE LONDON, RMR, CRR (1) Pages 2640 - 2643 2 of 13 INDEX NO. 452564/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1621 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/30/2023 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK v. SHERI DILLON DONALD J. TRUMP, et al. October 27, 2023 PROCEEDINGS Page 2644 | PROCEEDINGS Page 2646 affidavit because I urge the Court, and you read the papers, months leading up to this. So if that's the best case they if you revisit it, maybe you don't need to, the can do, I'm happy with it. It doesn't help them. It helps correspondence attached to my affirmation, the AG's position me. on this motion has been like a moving target. There are other cases. The Court doesn't have to First they said, "Oh, it is a subpoena to these take my word for it. A lot of cases have cited that Gibson entities." No, it is a subpoena to her. Now I'm hearing in Dunn case and what they rely upon such as this Napoli vs. their papers for the first time that she transacts business Bern which is 2021 Westlaw 5458747 at page three, 2021 case at Trump Tower. She does not. Since 2017, she's been there with the line of cases that I found talking about the Gibson once or twice a year, never for business, to say hello, Dunn case. They'll hook on to that inducement. This guy 10 people including family members for 15 minutes, 30 minutes, 10 had the legal fees sent there, represented that's where he 11 things like that. So there is no basis to say a service on 11 worked, and then he turned around and said ha-ha, fee over 12 an entity at Trump Tower is service on her individually. 12 legal dispute, can't get me there. 13 That's just wrong. 13 Now, there is another new argument and, you know, 4 Let's look at the case law here and I'll address 14 Your Honor, | always tell younger associates there comes a 15 mostly the case law that was cited by my friends across on 15 time in trial where parties go a bridge too far and try not 16 the other side. First, they don't deal with the fact that 16 to do it. Here is the AG's bridge way too far. How they 17 Justice Fried’s decision just as an example, Amelius is 17 assert for the first time and they are getting a little 18 decisive. A non-party, non-domiciliary is not subject to 18 desperate here, respectfully, that Ms. Trump consented to 19 the subpoena power of the court, That's 64 New York State 19 this jurisdiction in this case because she's a party in the 20 3d 855 at 866. Again, that was Justice Fried. 20 special proceedings. 21 When we had the ongoing discussions leading up to 21 They must take us all for fools. I'm looking 22 this motion and still today, perhaps the AG relied on cases 22 around. This is not the special proceedings. They didn't 23 like 2323 Communications Corp. Those cases stand for a 23 issue the subpoenas in the special proceedings. There was 24 principle that's very different which is that where an 24 no trial in the special proceedings, so that's just false on 25 entity is a party, it can be compelled to appear through a 25 its face. And in any event, we could cite case law that PROCEEDINGS Page 2645 PROCEEDINGS Page 2647 specific person. The entities they subpoenaed are not stands for the proposition, including First Department case parties, so those cases are not applicable. law and this is pretty basic, that even consent in one They also talk about this Gibson Dunn case. Let's action does not mean that there's jurisdiction over a person take a close look at that case, Your Honor. It is a First who consents even in a related action. Here is not what we Department case, doesn't help them. Maybe they didn't find are dealing with. They're saying we had this years-long anything better. In that case, you could tell that -- it's social proceeding. She was subject to jurisdiction in that a Gibson Dunn case, is a dispute over legal fees and the proceeding. Therefore, in this trial, under separate index person trying to evade service, Your Honor, had the legal number, which we issued subpoenas, she must come today. Not fees sent to a specific Madison Avenue address. In the few how it works and there's a reason we didn't hear that 10 months leading up to -- 10 argument previously. It doesn't fly. 11 THE COURT: Wait. Wait, you don't mean that the 11 So let's talk about the entities. Again, I urge 12 legal fee was sent. How the bills were sent. 12 Your Honor to revisit the fact that the AG kind of spoke 13 MR. MOSKOWITZ: The bill, excuse me, for the legal 13 from both sides of the mouth about what these subpoenas 4 fees. Invoice me here kind of thing. Then there is a suit 14 were. Itis pretty simple. We all know what happened here. 15 over legal fees. The person trying to say service didn't 15 They had easy jurisdiction over Ivanka Trump. They could 16 apply, jurisdiction didn't apply had been to that address 16 have served her at her house. Much different. We probably 17 for work multiple times leading up to the legal proceedings 17 wouldn't be here today. What appears to happen is they task 18 and leading up to the service. And what the court found 18 ‘one someone in their office for saying let's go to the 19 there was this guy induced Gibson Dunn to rely on this place 19 transcript let's look at documents let's find some entities 20 where he does go to work sometimes. He can't now turn to 20 that have something to do with her and let's fire off 21 the court and say that "I'm actually not really there that 21 subpoenas. That's what they did. 22 much." That's not this case. 22 THE COURT: Wait. Wai Entities that had 23 Ivanka Trump didn't induce anyone to go to Trump 23 something to do with her? Didn't she own some of them and 24 Tower. She hasn't been there working since 2017 and she did 24 didn't some of them own parts of others? 25 not go to work there since then, certainly not in the three 25 MR. MOSKOWITZ: I'll get to that. It is not clear. Min- U-Seript NICOLE C. ROBINSON, SCR, & JANELLE LONDON, RMR, CRR (2) Pages 2644 - 2647 3 of 13 INDEX NO. 452564/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1621 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/30/2023 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK v. SHERI DILLON DONALD J. TRUMP, et al. October 27, 2023 PROCEEDINGS Page 2648 | PROCEEDINGS. Page 2650 The TTT and OPO entity, she absolutely has an affiliation person. with those entities as do other people who can competently MR. MOSKOWITZ: That's exactly right. At the end testify for those entities, but let me stop there. Again, of the day, Your Honor, they just don't have jurisdiction as non-parties, you don't get to subpoena those entities and over her. They tried with this transient business again say you must appear via specific person X rather, I'll get articulated to me for the first time in their papers that to it in a minute, it's black letter law an entity can they submitted to Your Honor and I just addressed it. It's provide anyone who's competent to testify which goes back to just wrong and if they want an affidavit saying what I just my point. represented to the Court as an officer and I'll say it again Iasked them why TTT? Why this OPO entity? Why that she does not transact business at any of those places 10 502 Park? I never got an answer because what they were very 10 they served, I will be happy to do it. il honest about, and I appreciate, is that they want her to 11 THE COURT: Did she ever transact business? 12 appear and there's no limitation in their mind of what they 12 MR. MOSKOWITZ: Yes. 13 could ask her about because it is really not about these 13 THE COURT: When was the last time she transacted 14 entities. That's just the way that they're trying to get 14 business? 15 jurisdiction over her. 502 Park, I said to them, “Guys, I'm 15 MR. MOSKOWITZ: Before 2017. 16 having trouble here. I can't find anything on my end that 16 THE COURT: Okay. So what? 17 shows what she has to do with this entity. What did you 17 MR. MOSKOWITZ: You have to have jurisdiction over 18 have before you served the subpoena." | didn't get an 18 her now. If someone worked in New York 50 years ago and 19 answer. You don't get to - subpoena powers are awesome ~ 19 leaves, you don't get to say, "Hey, you once worked at this 20 THE COURT: You might get an answer today if there 20 address. Come to trial." That's not how it works. It has 21 is an answer. 21 to be jurisdiction now, transact business here now. 22 MR. MOSKOWITZ: Yeah, I would like to know the 22 THE COURT: How are we going to define now? What 23 answer because | haven't found it. I said, "Please, share 23 if somebody transacts business here, leaves on a vacation or 24 it because if there is something "-- I'll note I spent a 24 a business trip or is away? 25 lot of time. I don't even know that that entity was used 25 MR. MOSKOWITZ: Again -- PROCEEDINGS Page 2649 PROCEEDINGS Page 2651 for anything. It exists, I grant you that. I could THE COURT: A week later, they're not still -- speculate at what it might have been. I have no document MR. MOSKOWITZ: No. The Weinstein, Korn & Miller that says that like the other two that she was an officer or basic principle addresses that, Your Honor. If it is a anything like that. She doesn't know what it is and the AG place you regularly return to work such as like I work on doesn't know what Third Avenue where my law firm offices are. If I leave for So they weren't served on Ivanka Trump. They were a week and they serve me there, I can't turn around and say, served at best on these entities. And, by the way, not all "Oh, I was gone that week." Here, you have someone who cleanly, but again, I'm not here about service stands or didn't work at the place for many, many years. They no what. If they insist they need those entities, those longer return there for work. 10 entities can appear. | think they should articulate with 10 THE COURT: Let me ask you a question. Did Ivanka ili why they need those entities, but I understand the 11 submit any sworn statement? 12 defendants will speak for themselves. They offered -- for 12 MR. MOSKOWITZ: On this motion, no, because again, 13 the two that we concern that they offer, they offered for 13 I didn't hear this argument and didn't get a reply for it. 14 someone who has lived here appear and testify for those 14 I'm happy to submit one now. I would have done it ina 15 entities, which you are allowed to do. 15 reply brief. 16 New York law again, I pulled out Weinstein, Korn & 16 THE COURT: Now is too late. I'm hoping to decide 17 Miller. You can look at Section 230504, "If a subpoena to 17 this today and if she testifies, it will be fairly soon. 18 testify is served on and is addressed to an entity, that 18 MR. MOSKOWITZ: I wasn't put on notice that that 19 entity may choose the person who will be deposed," period. 19 was their argument because they kept changi it. How could 20 So they cite -- 20 I respond to something they didn't articulate? I can't 21 THE COURT: I'm very familiar with that concept 21 guess what their position is. 22 that the entity has the right in the first instance to 22 THE COURT: Well, it's standard practice in New 23 decide who to produce. I think we are in a different 23 York Jaw that you need to have an affidavit from someone 24 situation than the normal one here. As we all recognize, we 24 with personal knowledge if you're going to start spouting 25 are not looking for the entities. They're looking for the 25 facts, but -- Min-U-Seript® NICOLE C. ROBINSON, SCR, & JANELLE LONDON, RMR, CRR (3) Pages 2648 - 2651 4 of 13 INDEX NO. 452564/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1621 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/30/2023 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK v. SHERI DILLON DONALD J. TRUMP, et al. October 27, 2023 PROCEEDINGS Page 2652 | PROCEEDINGS Page 2654 MR, MOSKOWITZ: I agree, and they don't have one sorry. She is and that changes things fundamentally. either showing the opposite, but I'm happy to put one in You're no longer in the case. You're not a resident. You tod: don't work here. You don't have jurisdiction over that THE COURT: I'm not sure that they can prove a person. That's the breaks. negative. Ivanka would be the person best able to say when THE COURT: The expression is "that is the breaks." she ever -- when was the last time she worked in New York MR. MOSKOWITZ: I'm referring in the singular or whether she still works in New York, what she owns here, situation, but I appreciate Your Honor’s. et cetera, et cetera, but -- THE COURT: All right. Anything else on your MR. MOSKOWITZ: I could get it to the Court ASAP. initial -- I don't know whether we will have time for a 10 THE COURT: I promise you I'm not a "Ha-ha, I got 10 reply, but was that it for now? 1i you" judge. I'm not trying to say, "Ha-ha, you didn't have 11 MR. MOSKOWITZ: Yes, Your Honor. J mean, I 12 an affidavit from her," but it does weaken your argument 12 appreciate the possibility if 1 hear something new, to 13 because you keep talking about what she does and doesn't do. 13 address it. 14 She would know better than you. 4 THE COURT: Probably. Probably. 15 MR. MOSKOWITZ: I agree, and if { had been afforded 15 MR. MOSKOWITZ: Yeah. 16 an opportunity to reply, I would have submitted it. I did 16 THE COURT: Okay. It is my understanding that the 17 not want to disregard what the Court advised me which was no 17 defendants themselves do not have standing to contest this, 18 reply afforded, which was the e-mail I received. 18 but I'll let them talk if they want to. 19 THE COURT: Whether you should have needed a reply, 19 MR. KISE: Thank you, Your Honor. I don't know 20 waited for a reply, a reply is to respond to their 20 that I would say we don't have standing since it affects the 21 arguments, but if you don't make out a prima facie case by 21 impact of the trial and it affects the course of the trial, 22 an affidavit from Ivanka saying "I don't do these things. I 22 but in all events, | appreciate the opportunity to address. 23 don't live there,” et cetera, I don't think that should have 23 THE COURT: We always like to hear your mellifluous 24 been in the reply. That should have been in moving papers, 24 voice. 25 but that’s just my opinion. All right, continue. 25 MR. KISE: That's good. At least there's something PROCEEDINGS, Page 2653 PROCEEDINGS Page 2655 MR. MOSKOWITZ: Thank you, Your Honor. So going positive that may happen here. I will try not to go over as back to the idea that corporations can designate their own you suggested, Your Honor. I'm not going to belabor the witnesses, they cite the Standard Fruit case, totally papers. I know you've read them and you've seen in our different. In that case -- by the way, it was from papers that we view the subpoena truly as just continued 1977 -- the court did allow a party to subpoena an harassment of President Trump's children. They were all out-of-state witness. It was after the witness provided by named and included in this case as leverage. There's no the subpoenaed corporation was unable to testify to the serious evidence that any of them had any involvement in the relevant facts. And even then, the court allowed the Statement of Financial Condition preparation. corporate entity to select between two different Ms. Trump was dismissed from the lawsuit by the 10 individuals. 10 First Department and now despite having a year to depose Ms. 11 THE COURT: When I said, I read all the papers, I 11 Trump in this case, several months post-dismissal to depose 12 didn't read all the cases, but that case, I did read. 12 her, now all of a sudden in the trial, the Attorney General 13 MR. MOSKOWITZ: Right. Right. So again, that's 13 claims that her testimony is somehow essential. I thought 14 our point. The corporation gets to put someone up and it 14 Mr. Wallace was going to object when he stood up. I'm just 15 has to be someone who can speak to the facts, again, which 15 so used to it. No. No. 16 is why my first question to them when we got notice that 16 THE COURT: Obviously, testimony does not have to 17 they were trying to serve these subpoenas, "Hey, what 17 be “essential.” 18 testimony are you going for" and we quoted this and it is in 18 MR. KISE: Even if it were relevant then, then they 19 the exhibits to my affirmation, They were honest about it. 19 should have done it during discovery. They'te claiming now 20 I appreciate that. It was basically limited. It was, "She 20 that only she can provide this information and if it was so 21 knows this, she knows that, but I can't really limit it," so 21 essential, then why are we here in the middle of trial? 22 they want her here. They want it to be unlimited. They 22 There was no even attempt to do a de benne esse deposition 23 didn't depose her. They could have. They didn't de benne 23 which was done with other witnesses who may or may not be 24 esse, you know, subpoena her. They could have done that. I 24 available for trial. 25 guess they didn't think she'd be out of the case. I'm 25 The exhibits attached to their motion demonstrate Min-U-Seript® NICOLE C. ROBINSON, SCR, & JANELLE LONDON, RMR, CRR (4) Pages 2652 - 2655 5 of 13 INDEX NO. 452564/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1621 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/30/2023 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK v. SHERI DILLON DONALD J. TRUMP, et al. October 27, 2023 PROCEEDINGS Page 2656 | PROCEEDINGS Page 2658 that this is an inexcusable delay. All of the documents 1 information about that entity, about Standard F1 about that I saw that were attached as exhibits were all things 2 that specific entity. They produced, as was their right, they had in their possession for at least a year, if not 3 the first witness, the corporate designee to testify about more. The Attorney General certified in their NOI, their 4 relevant facts. Only after that witness testified and there note of issue, that all discovery was complete and the 5 was a demonstration that that witness could not -- could service of that prohibits reopening. I'll cite the Court to 6 not testify did the court order another witness. the Melcher case, 38 AD3d 376. It is a First Department 7 The Amelius case, which we also cite 64 NY Supp. 3d case that stands for that proposition that their 8 855, draws the distinction further bearing out, Standard certification meant that they've completed their 9 Fruit draws the distinction between a non-party corporation 10 investigative efforts for trial, their discovery efforts for 10 and a corporation under investigation. Here, you have three 11 trial and yet, this is tantamount to a discovery subpoena. 11 non-parties, none of which are under investigation, none of 12 Nothing was done. 12 which have any association heretofore with this case. 13 To us, again, our answer is obvious they want to 13 So, the subpoenas were not served. They were 14 put Ms. Trump on the stand, create another media event while 14 served all on Ms. Trump. They were served on the non-party 15 I'm always certainly happy to have the Attorney General in 15 entities. Those non-party entities are entitled to 16 the courtroom. her presence today demonstrates that that's 16 designate a corporate representative and the Attorney 17 what this is about. 1 doubt she came here to hear Ms. 17 General has the burden in the first instance to demonstrate 18 Dillon. I doubt she came here to hear Mr. Flores. 18 that that designation was inadequate. The Barone case, 260 19 Although, I'm sure the testimony will be riveting. Really 19 AD2d 417 and the other cases we cite stands for that 20 the purpose here is to focus on another one of Mr. Trump's 20 proposition that there must be some demonstration that the 21 children who has been dismissed from the lawsuit. 21 initial witness that is designated by the entity is 22 To the jurisdictional point that Mr. Moskowitz 22 inadequate. 23 raised, there's just no legal authority for the Court to 23 There's no showing that the individual that's been 24 require a non-party, non-domiciliary to appear at trial as a 24 designated here by the corporate entities, Eric Trump is 25 representative of a non-party entity. It's non, non, non. 25 inadequate. In fact, the Attorney General herself alleged PROCEEDINGS Page 2657 PROCEEDINGS Page 2659 | And the Court itself could not compel her attendance under in the complaint that Eric Trump is responsible for all these circumstances. aspects of management. I mean, that's their allegation. So The service issue, I'll just touch on briefly. The I don't see how they can claim without any explanation service on -- and the cases -- I'm not citing all the that -- or any proof that Eric Trump is now somehow an. papers. They're in their papers, Your Honor. The service inadequate corporate designee, and they're not entitled to on a non-party entity registered agent is not service. It raise that issue unless and until they make that -- make is not service on Ms. Trump in her individual capacity and a that showing and that has been established by the court. non-party, non-domiciliary not subject to the court's Finally, and just briefly, the subpoena itself subpoena power does not constitute service on Ms. Trump. revealing what this is all about is truly overly broad. 10 And I'll cite, as in our papers, the Genger case, 10 There is no attempt to narrow the issues. They just want 11 50 Misc.2d 361. The Attorney General argues that Ms. Trump 11 another free-for-all on one of President Trump's children. 12 did not contest jurisdiction in the special proceeding, but 12 There's no real relevanceto the proceeding. It's more in 13 that's frankly a complete non sequitur. The Coutts case 13 the nature of a subpoena for a deposition where we're going 14 they cite is completely in opposite. That's a judgment 14 to spend seven hours. "What do you know about this?” "What 15 debtor who fled the jurisdiction after judgment that then 15 do you know about that"? 16 filed a parallel action against the creditor ina New York 16 THE COURT: She was deposed already in a different 17 court. 17 case related, if you pardon the expression, so it is not 18 There was no dispute that the court could obtain 18 like they're not -- it is not like a total shot in the 19 the jurisdiction over the debtor in the very case at issue, 19 dark. 20 but here, you have Ms. Trump is not a party. She was 20 MR. KISE: It may not be a total shot in the dark, 21 dismissed by the First Department. She's not a judgment 21 but the subpoena is pretty close. The lights are on dimly 22 debtor and she's not actively litigating any affirmative 22 and they're shooting off to the right when there's someone 23 case in New York. 23 over on the left that's their target. So yeah, maybe it is 24 The Standard Fruit case that they cite is also in 24 in the same room, but the lights are dim and they're going 25 opposite. There, an investigative subpoena sought 25 in the wrong direction. So there's -- if they had a Min-U-Seript® NICOLE C. ROBINSON, SCR, & JANELLE LONDON, RMR, CRR (5) Pages 2656 - 2659 6 of 13 INDEX NO. 452564/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1621 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/30/2023 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK v. SHERI DILLON DONALD J. TRUMP, et al. October 27, 2023 PROCEEDINGS Page 2660 Page 2662 specific focus, then they would have put that in the this case. She was dismissed in the case the end of June. subpoena. If they had a specific purpose, they would have There was still time to do the de benne esse deposition and put that in the subpoena. they did not and instead of coming before this Court And frankly, had they had such specific focus and forthright and saying, "Listen, we want Ivanka Trump and specific purpose, we wouldn't be here because they would these are the reasons why," they come up with this Ruth have either deposed Ms. Trump during the long course of Goldberg, coming up with these three companies that have discovery in this case. They had ample opportunity to nothing to do with it. We want them. depose anyone they wanted, She was certainly available for Mr. Moskowitz in consultation with my client says, that while she was a party. And then after she wasn't a you know what, for the two companies that have something to 10 party as of June of this year, they still had several months 10 do with Trump, Eric Trump is willing to be the corporate 11 to conduct a de benne esse deposition. 11 representative because he's going to be testifying anyway 12 They haven't even deposed -- made any showing to 12 and they said, "Well, no, no, not so fast." They were 13 the Court as to why that wouldn't suffice or wouldn't have 13 smoked out as Your Honor pointed out. They want Ivanka 14 sufficed. Even after the commencement of trial, they 14 Trump. If they want Ivanka Trump, there is a mechanism to 15 haven't even proposed that. And I'm not going to agree to 15 do it. If they do it in the appropriate way and even if 16 that on behalf of Mr. Moskowitz’ client. I'm just showing 16 there is still an objection by Mr. Moskowitz, that becomes a 17 that it just shows the real purpose here is to drag her into 17 motion that's before Your Honor. But right now, all there 18 court. It is bad faith and it is harassment of another one 18 are are three subpoenas, three subpoenas in our view in