Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/22/2023 11:16 PM INDEX NO. 850052/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 51 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/22/2023
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
CONNECTONE BANK,
Plaintiff, Index No. 850052/2023
v.
WADSWORTH LP, AARON DRAZIN, NEW
YORK STATE DEPT. OF TAXATION &
FINANCE, NEW YORK CITY DEPT. OF
FINANCE, NEW YORK CITY
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL BOARD, and
“JOHN DOE” NOS. 1-25.
Defendants.
The Names of the “John Doe” Defendants Being
Fictitious and Unknown to Plaintiff, the Persons and
Entities Intended Being Those Who Have Possessory
Liens or Other Interests in, the Premises Herein
Described.
DEFENDANTS WADSWORTH LP’S AND AARON DRAZIN’S REPLY
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION TO
DISMISS AND IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S CROSS-MOTION FOR
SANCTIONS
SUKENIK, SEGAL & GRAFF, P.C.
Attorneys for Defendants Wadsworth LP and Aaron Drazin
450 Seventh Avenue, 42nd Floor
New York, New York 10123
(212) 725-9300
1 of 9
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/22/2023 11:16 PM INDEX NO. 850052/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 51 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/22/2023
The within reply memorandum of law is submitted by defendants Wadsworth LP and
Aaron Drazin (collectively, “Defendants”) in further support of their motion to dismiss the
complaint pursuant to C.P.L.R. 3211(a)(3). As set forth in the May 5, 2023, affirmation of
Douglas Segal submitted by Defendants in support of the instant motion (the “Initial Segal
Affirmation”),1 the instant motion arises out of the fact that evidence indicates that ConnectOne
operates numerous branches in the State of New York but is not duly licensed by the
Superintendent of Financial Services (the “Superintendent”), as required by the Banking Law.
ConnectOne, in its opposition papers, does not assert that it obtained authorization to operate
each of the branches which it operates in the State of New York. Instead, ConnectOne argues
that, as the Department of Financial Services (the “DFS”) previously authorized ConnectOne to
operate branch offices in the State of New York at three specific locations, and as ConnectOne’s
predecessor-in-interest was a New York bank, ConnectOne has satisfied its statutory
requirements. However, such arguments ignore the fact that ConnectOne apparently operates at
least two branches in the State of New York at locations which are not covered by the foregoing
DFS authorizations and at which ConnectOne’s predecessor-in-interest did not conduct business.
As such, ConnectOne’s conduct of business at such other locations is unauthorized and
ConnectOne cannot maintain the instant action.
Further, ConnectOne argues that a decision which was issued in a different judicial
district precludes the relief sought by Defendants herein and thus warrants the imposition of
sanctions against Defendants. However, ConnectOne ignores the fact that such decision is not
1
The facts and procedural history relevant to the instant motion are set forth in detail in the Initial
Memorandum. All defined terms contained herein shall have the meanings ascribed thereto in the Initial
Memorandum.
1
2 of 9
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/22/2023 11:16 PM INDEX NO. 850052/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 51 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/22/2023
binding on this Court. As this Court is well within its rights to reach a different conclusion from
such other court, Defendants are well within their rights to request that the Court do so. It is for
this reason that ConnectOne’s cross-motion for sanctions is improper and should be denied.
ARGUMENT
POINT I
CONNECTONE APPARENTLY CONDUCTS BUSINESS IN AT LEAST
TWO NEW YORK LOCATIONS WITHOUT THE REQUIRED LICENSING
As set forth in the Initial Segal Affirmation, ConnectOne cannot maintain the instant
action as evidence indicates that ConnectOne operates numerous branches in the State of New
York but has failed to comply with the requirements of Banking Law §200 as it is not duly
licensed by the Superintendent. In response, ConnectOne concedes that it is a foreign bank and
also concedes that it has not obtained a license to conduct business in the State of New York.
However, ConnectOne argues2 that such licensing is not required, as (i) it previously received
separate authorizations to open three specific branch offices in the State of New York and (ii) it
is the successor by merger to a New York bank which conducted business at various locations in
the State of New York. Such argument is unavailing, as ConnectOne operates at least two
branches in the State of New York for which ConnectOne did not receive authorizations to
operate and which were never operated by ConnectOne’s predecessor-in-interest. The flaws in
ConnectOne’s arguments are set forth in further detail below.
2
ConnectOne’s papers are improper as they are not supported by admissible evidence. The only evidence
submitted by ConnectOne in opposition to Defendant’s instant motion and in support of ConnectOne’s cross-motion
is the affidavit of Olivia Salazar-Picinich (NYSCEF Doc. No. 36), which was apparently executed and notarized in
New Jersey. However, such affidavit fails to satisfy the requirements of C.P.L.R. §2309(c) in that no certificate of
conformity was submitted therewith. As per McKinney’s Practice Commentaries (C2309:3), “[w]hen an oath or
affirmation is taken outside New York State, it must, for use in New York litigation, be accompanied by a
‘certificate of conformity’ attesting that the oath was administered in accordance with the laws of the jurisdiction
where taken, or the laws of New York.”
2
3 of 9
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/22/2023 11:16 PM INDEX NO. 850052/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 51 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/22/2023
The Authorizations Which ConnectOne Obtained Only Authorized
ConnectOne to Conduct Business at Certain Specified Locations:
ConnectOne argues that it satisfied the requirements of the Banking Law as it previously
obtained authorizations to open three specific branch offices in the State of New York.3 Had
ConnectOne’s New York operations been limited to such three specific locations, ConnectOne
would be correct. However, an examination of ConnectOne’s website indicates that
ConnectOne’s New York business operations exceeds the limited authorizations upon which
ConnectOne relies - each such authorization authorized ConnectOne to open only a single
branch, at a specific location, yet ConnectOne’s own website indicates that ConnectOne operates
multiple other branches in the State of New York (see pages 2-3 of Exhibit A to the Initial Segal
Affirmation). As the limited authorizations issued by the DFS to ConnectOne do not extend to
most of ConnectOne’s New York locations, such authorizations cannot be deemed to have
dispensed with ConnectOne’s obligation to comply with the requirements of Banking Law §200
to the extent ConnectOne operates branches at locations which were not specified in the three
limited authorizations which ConnectOne obtained.
ConnectOne’s Merger with a New York Bank Only Enables ConnectOne to
Conduct Business at the Locations which the Predecessor Bank Conducted Business:
ConnectOne apparently recognizes the insufficiency of the aforementioned
limited authorizations as ConnectOne further argues that, since it merged with Greater Hudson
Bank (“GHB”), and since GHB was a New York chartered bank, ConnectOne “has all of the
rights and powers” of GHB. Such assertion is wrong as Banking Law 223 merely provides that
“an out-of-state bank may maintain one or more branches or one or more trust offices located in
3
ConnectOne’s papers indicate that three authorizations were issued, each relating to a separate specified
branch office.
3
4 of 9
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/22/2023 11:16 PM INDEX NO. 850052/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 51 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/22/2023
this state that have been acquired by means of an acquisition transaction.” As such, ConnectOne,
as the successor to GHB, could only maintain those branches which GHB operated at the time of
the merger. Again, had ConnectOne limited itself to the branches previously operated by GHB,
or even to the branches previously operated by GHB and the three other branches for which
ConnectOne obtained authorizations to operate, ConnectOne would be correct. However,
ConnectOne’s website indicates that ConnectOne’s business practices extend beyond such
locations, as ConnectOne operates a branch at 485 Schutt Road, Middletown, New York (see
page 3 of Exhibit A of the Initial Segal Affirmation) yet evidence indicates that GHB did not
operate a branch at such location (see paragraph 2 of and Exhibit A to the June 22, 2023,
affirmation of Douglas Segal submitted by Defendants in support of the instant motion (the
“Reply Segal Affirmation”)). Further, a recent article in The Suffolk Times states that
ConnectOne maintains a branch in East Hampton, New York (see paragraph 3 of and Exhibit B
to the Reply Segal Affirmation) – again, evidence indicates that GHB did not operate a branch at
such location. As GHB apparently did not operate a branch at either 485 Schutt Road,
Middletown, New York, or anywhere in East Hampton, ConnectOne’s merger with GHB cannot
serve as authorization to conduct business at such locations.
Further, if the Court accepts ConnectOne’s arguments and holds that ConnectOne,
by reason of its merger with GHB, is entitled to open new branches which were not previously
operated by GHB, a massive hole would be opened in the intended regulatory regime imposed by
the State of New York upon banking institutions. This is because such a holding would allow a
foreign bank to bypass New York’s regulatory regime by simply merging with a New York bank
and then open whatever new branches it wishes and conduct any further business it wishes,
without obtaining the requisite approvals/licensing. Such danger cannot be dismissed as remote,
4
5 of 9
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/22/2023 11:16 PM INDEX NO. 850052/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 51 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/22/2023
particularly in light of the admission of ConnectOne’s “Long Island Market President,” who only
recently stated that he will “oversee the strategic direction of the expansion of ConnectOne Bank
onto the East End of Long Island. I will also lead growth initiatives and business line strategy
for ConnectOne in this area” (see paragraph 4 and Exhibit B to the Reply Segal Affirmation).
Clearly, ConnectOne has big plans for its New York operations. It makes little sense to allow
ConnectOne, or any other foreign bank, to expand its New York operations without limitation
and avoid the regulatory regime of the State of New York by merely acquiring a small New York
bank and then expanding as it sees fit, without limitation.
As approximately 22% of the locations at which ConnectOne conducts business
in the State of New York were neither the subject of any authorizations issued by the DFS nor
were utilized by GHB, ConnectOne’s conduct of business at such locations is improper. As
ConnectOne has failed to comply with the licensing requirements of Banking Law §200, it
cannot maintain the instant action.
POINT II
CONNECTONE’S CROSS-MOTION FOR SANCTIONS IS IMPROPER,
AS CONNECTONE FAILS TO CITE TO ANY BINDING AUTHORITY
WHICH PRECLUDES THE RELIEF SOUGHT BY DEFENDANTS
Further, ConnectOne’s cross-motion for sanctions is meritless, as Defendants
engaged in no sanctionable conduct. While ConnectOne repeatedly asserts that Defendants’
factual assertions “are not true,” Defendants in fact have ample reason to assert that ConnectOne
does in fact operate branches in the State of New York for which no authorization has been
provided, whether to ConnectOne or to GHB. Thus, for this reason alone, ConnectOne’s cross-
motion must be denied.
5
6 of 9
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/22/2023 11:16 PM INDEX NO. 850052/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 51 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/22/2023
ConnectOne makes much of the fact that a different judge, in a different court,
hearing a different action involving different defendants previously rejected similar arguments to
the ones presented by Defendants in the instant motion, implying that the decision in such other
action somehow requires the Court herein to reach the same conclusion as was reached in such
other action. However, ConnectOne ignores the fact that the decision which was issued in such
other action is not binding on this Court, as it was not issued by a court of superior jurisdiction.
Indeed, it was not even issued by a court of equal jurisdiction in the same county or even judicial
district in which the Court is located (such other action was brought in Westchester County).
Crucially, ConnectOne fails to identify any authority which was issued in the same department,
let alone the same judicial district, as the Court, which requires the denial of Defendants’ motion.
As the only authority cited by ConnectOne is not binding on the Court but is, at best, mere
persuasive authority, the Court is well within its rights to reach a different conclusion from such
other court and Defendants are well within their rights to bring the instant motion. Put simply, if
the Court may reach a different conclusion from the court which issued the other decision,
Defendants may request that the Court do so.
Finally, Defendants’ counsel specifically pointed out to ConnectOne’s counsel
that ConnectOne had failed to identify any authority which is binding on this Court which
requires the denial of Defendants’ motion and, further, that such lack of authority necessarily
renders ConnectOne’s threatened motion for sanctions improper, as Defendants are well within
the rights to bring the instant motion (see paragraph 5 of and Exhibit C to the Reply Segal
Affirmation). ConnectOne nevertheless brought its cross-motion for sanctions. In light of the
foregoing, it is ConnectOne’s cross-motion which is improper.
6
7 of 9
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/22/2023 11:16 PM INDEX NO. 850052/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 51 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/22/2023
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above and in the Initial Segal Affirmation, it is
respectfully requested that the Court grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant
to C.P.L.R. 3211, deny ConnectOne’s cross-motion and grant such other relief as the Court
deems appropriate.
Dated: New York, New York
June 22, 2023
Respectfully submitted,
SUKENIK, SEGAL & GRAFF, P.C.
By: /s/
Douglas Segal, Esq.
Attorneys for Defendants Wadsworth LP
and Aaron Drazin
450 Seventh Avenue, 42nd Floor
New York, New York 10123
(212) 725-9300
7
8 of 9
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/22/2023 11:16 PM INDEX NO. 850052/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 51 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/22/2023
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that the accompanying memorandum of law (excluding the
caption, table of contents, table of authorities, and signature block) contains 1,756 words (as
determined by the word count function of Microsoft “Word”) and said document complies with
the word count limit established by Section 202.8-b of the Uniform Civil Rules for the Supreme
Court & the County Court or Rule 17 of the Rules of the Commercial Division of the Supreme
Court, as applicable.
Dated: New York, New York
June 22, 2023
/s/
DOUGLAS SEGAL, ESQ.
N:\WP\PAMELA\DRAZIN\Wadsworth\3211'Reply memo of law.doc
8
9 of 9
Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/22/2023 11:16 PM INDEX NO. 850052/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 51 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/22/2023 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK CONNECTONE BANK, Plaintiff, Index No. 850052/2023 v. WADSWORTH LP, AARON DRAZIN, NEW YORK STATE DEPT. OF TAXATION & FINANCE, NEW YORK CITY DEPT. OF FINANCE, NEW YORK CITY ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL BOARD, and “JOHN DOE” NOS. 1-25. Defendants. The Names of the “John Doe” Defendants Being Fictitious and Unknown to Plaintiff, the Persons and Entities Intended Being Those Who Have Possessory Liens or Other Interests in, the Premises Herein Described. DEFENDANTS WADSWORTH LP’S AND AARON DRAZIN’S REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION TO DISMISS AND IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S CROSS-MOTION FOR SANCTIONS SUKENIK, SEGAL & GRAFF, P.C. Attorneys for Defendants Wadsworth LP and Aaron Drazin 450 Seventh Avenue, 42nd Floor New York, New York 10123 (212) 725-9300 1 of 9 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/22/2023 11:16 PM INDEX NO. 850052/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 51 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/22/2023 The within reply memorandum of law is submitted by defendants Wadsworth LP and Aaron Drazin (collectively, “Defendants”) in further support of their motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to C.P.L.R. 3211(a)(3). As set forth in the May 5, 2023, affirmation of Douglas Segal submitted by Defendants in support of the instant motion (the “Initial Segal Affirmation”),1 the instant motion arises out of the fact that evidence indicates that ConnectOne operates numerous branches in the State of New York but is not duly licensed by the Superintendent of Financial Services (the “Superintendent”), as required by the Banking Law. ConnectOne, in its opposition papers, does not assert that it obtained authorization to operate each of the branches which it operates in the State of New York. Instead, ConnectOne argues that, as the Department of Financial Services (the “DFS”) previously authorized ConnectOne to operate branch offices in the State of New York at three specific locations, and as ConnectOne’s predecessor-in-interest was a New York bank, ConnectOne has satisfied its statutory requirements. However, such arguments ignore the fact that ConnectOne apparently operates at least two branches in the State of New York at locations which are not covered by the foregoing DFS authorizations and at which ConnectOne’s predecessor-in-interest did not conduct business. As such, ConnectOne’s conduct of business at such other locations is unauthorized and ConnectOne cannot maintain the instant action. Further, ConnectOne argues that a decision which was issued in a different judicial district precludes the relief sought by Defendants herein and thus warrants the imposition of sanctions against Defendants. However, ConnectOne ignores the fact that such decision is not 1 The facts and procedural history relevant to the instant motion are set forth in detail in the Initial Memorandum. All defined terms contained herein shall have the meanings ascribed thereto in the Initial Memorandum. 1 2 of 9 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/22/2023 11:16 PM INDEX NO. 850052/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 51 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/22/2023 binding on this Court. As this Court is well within its rights to reach a different conclusion from such other court, Defendants are well within their rights to request that the Court do so. It is for this reason that ConnectOne’s cross-motion for sanctions is improper and should be denied. ARGUMENT POINT I CONNECTONE APPARENTLY CONDUCTS BUSINESS IN AT LEAST TWO NEW YORK LOCATIONS WITHOUT THE REQUIRED LICENSING As set forth in the Initial Segal Affirmation, ConnectOne cannot maintain the instant action as evidence indicates that ConnectOne operates numerous branches in the State of New York but has failed to comply with the requirements of Banking Law §200 as it is not duly licensed by the Superintendent. In response, ConnectOne concedes that it is a foreign bank and also concedes that it has not obtained a license to conduct business in the State of New York. However, ConnectOne argues2 that such licensing is not required, as (i) it previously received separate authorizations to open three specific branch offices in the State of New York and (ii) it is the successor by merger to a New York bank which conducted business at various locations in the State of New York. Such argument is unavailing, as ConnectOne operates at least two branches in the State of New York for which ConnectOne did not receive authorizations to operate and which were never operated by ConnectOne’s predecessor-in-interest. The flaws in ConnectOne’s arguments are set forth in further detail below. 2 ConnectOne’s papers are improper as they are not supported by admissible evidence. The only evidence submitted by ConnectOne in opposition to Defendant’s instant motion and in support of ConnectOne’s cross-motion is the affidavit of Olivia Salazar-Picinich (NYSCEF Doc. No. 36), which was apparently executed and notarized in New Jersey. However, such affidavit fails to satisfy the requirements of C.P.L.R. §2309(c) in that no certificate of conformity was submitted therewith. As per McKinney’s Practice Commentaries (C2309:3), “[w]hen an oath or affirmation is taken outside New York State, it must, for use in New York litigation, be accompanied by a ‘certificate of conformity’ attesting that the oath was administered in accordance with the laws of the jurisdiction where taken, or the laws of New York.” 2 3 of 9 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/22/2023 11:16 PM INDEX NO. 850052/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 51 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/22/2023 The Authorizations Which ConnectOne Obtained Only Authorized ConnectOne to Conduct Business at Certain Specified Locations: ConnectOne argues that it satisfied the requirements of the Banking Law as it previously obtained authorizations to open three specific branch offices in the State of New York.3 Had ConnectOne’s New York operations been limited to such three specific locations, ConnectOne would be correct. However, an examination of ConnectOne’s website indicates that ConnectOne’s New York business operations exceeds the limited authorizations upon which ConnectOne relies - each such authorization authorized ConnectOne to open only a single branch, at a specific location, yet ConnectOne’s own website indicates that ConnectOne operates multiple other branches in the State of New York (see pages 2-3 of Exhibit A to the Initial Segal Affirmation). As the limited authorizations issued by the DFS to ConnectOne do not extend to most of ConnectOne’s New York locations, such authorizations cannot be deemed to have dispensed with ConnectOne’s obligation to comply with the requirements of Banking Law §200 to the extent ConnectOne operates branches at locations which were not specified in the three limited authorizations which ConnectOne obtained. ConnectOne’s Merger with a New York Bank Only Enables ConnectOne to Conduct Business at the Locations which the Predecessor Bank Conducted Business: ConnectOne apparently recognizes the insufficiency of the aforementioned limited authorizations as ConnectOne further argues that, since it merged with Greater Hudson Bank (“GHB”), and since GHB was a New York chartered bank, ConnectOne “has all of the rights and powers” of GHB. Such assertion is wrong as Banking Law 223 merely provides that “an out-of-state bank may maintain one or more branches or one or more trust offices located in 3 ConnectOne’s papers indicate that three authorizations were issued, each relating to a separate specified branch office. 3 4 of 9 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/22/2023 11:16 PM INDEX NO. 850052/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 51 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/22/2023 this state that have been acquired by means of an acquisition transaction.” As such, ConnectOne, as the successor to GHB, could only maintain those branches which GHB operated at the time of the merger. Again, had ConnectOne limited itself to the branches previously operated by GHB, or even to the branches previously operated by GHB and the three other branches for which ConnectOne obtained authorizations to operate, ConnectOne would be correct. However, ConnectOne’s website indicates that ConnectOne’s business practices extend beyond such locations, as ConnectOne operates a branch at 485 Schutt Road, Middletown, New York (see page 3 of Exhibit A of the Initial Segal Affirmation) yet evidence indicates that GHB did not operate a branch at such location (see paragraph 2 of and Exhibit A to the June 22, 2023, affirmation of Douglas Segal submitted by Defendants in support of the instant motion (the “Reply Segal Affirmation”)). Further, a recent article in The Suffolk Times states that ConnectOne maintains a branch in East Hampton, New York (see paragraph 3 of and Exhibit B to the Reply Segal Affirmation) – again, evidence indicates that GHB did not operate a branch at such location. As GHB apparently did not operate a branch at either 485 Schutt Road, Middletown, New York, or anywhere in East Hampton, ConnectOne’s merger with GHB cannot serve as authorization to conduct business at such locations. Further, if the Court accepts ConnectOne’s arguments and holds that ConnectOne, by reason of its merger with GHB, is entitled to open new branches which were not previously operated by GHB, a massive hole would be opened in the intended regulatory regime imposed by the State of New York upon banking institutions. This is because such a holding would allow a foreign bank to bypass New York’s regulatory regime by simply merging with a New York bank and then open whatever new branches it wishes and conduct any further business it wishes, without obtaining the requisite approvals/licensing. Such danger cannot be dismissed as remote, 4 5 of 9 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/22/2023 11:16 PM INDEX NO. 850052/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 51 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/22/2023 particularly in light of the admission of ConnectOne’s “Long Island Market President,” who only recently stated that he will “oversee the strategic direction of the expansion of ConnectOne Bank onto the East End of Long Island. I will also lead growth initiatives and business line strategy for ConnectOne in this area” (see paragraph 4 and Exhibit B to the Reply Segal Affirmation). Clearly, ConnectOne has big plans for its New York operations. It makes little sense to allow ConnectOne, or any other foreign bank, to expand its New York operations without limitation and avoid the regulatory regime of the State of New York by merely acquiring a small New York bank and then expanding as it sees fit, without limitation. As approximately 22% of the locations at which ConnectOne conducts business in the State of New York were neither the subject of any authorizations issued by the DFS nor were utilized by GHB, ConnectOne’s conduct of business at such locations is improper. As ConnectOne has failed to comply with the licensing requirements of Banking Law §200, it cannot maintain the instant action. POINT II CONNECTONE’S CROSS-MOTION FOR SANCTIONS IS IMPROPER, AS CONNECTONE FAILS TO CITE TO ANY BINDING AUTHORITY WHICH PRECLUDES THE RELIEF SOUGHT BY DEFENDANTS Further, ConnectOne’s cross-motion for sanctions is meritless, as Defendants engaged in no sanctionable conduct. While ConnectOne repeatedly asserts that Defendants’ factual assertions “are not true,” Defendants in fact have ample reason to assert that ConnectOne does in fact operate branches in the State of New York for which no authorization has been provided, whether to ConnectOne or to GHB. Thus, for this reason alone, ConnectOne’s cross- motion must be denied. 5 6 of 9 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/22/2023 11:16 PM INDEX NO. 850052/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 51 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/22/2023 ConnectOne makes much of the fact that a different judge, in a different court, hearing a different action involving different defendants previously rejected similar arguments to the ones presented by Defendants in the instant motion, implying that the decision in such other action somehow requires the Court herein to reach the same conclusion as was reached in such other action. However, ConnectOne ignores the fact that the decision which was issued in such other action is not binding on this Court, as it was not issued by a court of superior jurisdiction. Indeed, it was not even issued by a court of equal jurisdiction in the same county or even judicial district in which the Court is located (such other action was brought in Westchester County). Crucially, ConnectOne fails to identify any authority which was issued in the same department, let alone the same judicial district, as the Court, which requires the denial of Defendants’ motion. As the only authority cited by ConnectOne is not binding on the Court but is, at best, mere persuasive authority, the Court is well within its rights to reach a different conclusion from such other court and Defendants are well within their rights to bring the instant motion. Put simply, if the Court may reach a different conclusion from the court which issued the other decision, Defendants may request that the Court do so. Finally, Defendants’ counsel specifically pointed out to ConnectOne’s counsel that ConnectOne had failed to identify any authority which is binding on this Court which requires the denial of Defendants’ motion and, further, that such lack of authority necessarily renders ConnectOne’s threatened motion for sanctions improper, as Defendants are well within the rights to bring the instant motion (see paragraph 5 of and Exhibit C to the Reply Segal Affirmation). ConnectOne nevertheless brought its cross-motion for sanctions. In light of the foregoing, it is ConnectOne’s cross-motion which is improper. 6 7 of 9 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/22/2023 11:16 PM INDEX NO. 850052/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 51 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/22/2023 CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above and in the Initial Segal Affirmation, it is respectfully requested that the Court grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to C.P.L.R. 3211, deny ConnectOne’s cross-motion and grant such other relief as the Court deems appropriate. Dated: New York, New York June 22, 2023 Respectfully submitted, SUKENIK, SEGAL & GRAFF, P.C. By: /s/ Douglas Segal, Esq. Attorneys for Defendants Wadsworth LP and Aaron Drazin 450 Seventh Avenue, 42nd Floor New York, New York 10123 (212) 725-9300 7 8 of 9 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/22/2023 11:16 PM INDEX NO. 850052/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 51 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/22/2023 CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the accompanying memorandum of law (excluding the caption, table of contents, table of authorities, and signature block) contains 1,756 words (as determined by the word count function of Microsoft “Word”) and said document complies with the word count limit established by Section 202.8-b of the Uniform Civil Rules for the Supreme Court & the County Court or Rule 17 of the Rules of the Commercial Division of the Supreme Court, as applicable. Dated: New York, New York June 22, 2023 /s/ DOUGLAS SEGAL, ESQ. N:\WP\PAMELA\DRAZIN\Wadsworth\3211'Reply memo of law.doc 8 9 of 9