Preview
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 02/08/2024 06:36 PM INDEX NO. 603548/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 3 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/08/2024
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
In the Matter of the Application of:
Index No.
METROPOLITAN AFRICAN METHODIST
EPISCOPAL CHURCH, Originating State: District of
Columbia
Petitioner,
Originating Court: Superior Court
To compel compliance with Subpoena issued to of the District of Columbia
non-party:
Originating Case No. 2021 CA
BRAD BALDWIN, 000004 B
Respondent, AFFIRMATION OF
JONATHAN HURWITZ IN
SUPPORT OF PETITION TO
In the action entitled METROPOLITAN COMPEL COMPLIANCE
AFRICAN METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH WITH SUBPOENA
v. PROUD BOYS INTERNATIONAL, L.L.C., et
al.
I, Jonathan H. Hurwitz, an attorney admitted to practice before the courts of this
State, hereby affirm under penalty of perjury:
I. Introduction
1. I am a counsel with the law firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton &
Garrison LLP (“Paul, Weiss”). Together with the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under
Law and the Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights & Urban Affairs, Paul, Weiss
represents Petitioner Metropolitan African Methodist Episcopal Church (“Petitioner” or the
“Church”) in a civil action pending in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, captioned
Metropolitan African Methodist Episcopal Church v. Proud Boys International, L.L.C., et al.,
No. 2021 CA 000004 B (the “D.C. Action”).
1 of 9
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 02/08/2024 06:36 PM INDEX NO. 603548/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 3 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/08/2024
2. I submit this affirmation in support of Petitioner’s Petition to Compel
Compliance with Out-of-State Subpoena Issued Pursuant to CPLR § 3119. I have personal
knowledge of the facts stated herein.
3. Petitioner brings this Special Proceeding pursuant to CPLR §§ 2308(b),
3119(e), and 3124 to enforce an out-of-state subpoena (the “Subpoena”) that was served upon
Respondent Brad Baldwin, a resident of this County, calling for him to appear and testify at a
deposition and to produce documents in this County. A true and correct copy of the Subpoena is
attached as Exhibit 1. A true and correct copy of the affidavit of service is attached as
Exhibit 2.
4. The D.C. Action arises from an attack on the Church on December 12,
2020, by a mob of members and followers of a white supremacist organization known as the
Proud Boys. The named defendants in the D.C. Action are the Proud Boys organization, four
Proud Boys leaders, and one of the members of the mob that attacked the Church (the “Named
Defendants”). The Amended Complaint, a copy of which is annexed to the Subpoena, also
asserts claims against multiple John Doe and John Roe defendants, other members of the
attacking mob whose identities were unknown to the Church when it filed the Amended
Complaint.
5. The discovery sought by the Church from Respondent is relevant to the
D.C. Action. In particular, the Church has reason to believe, based upon video recordings of the
attack and other evidence, including deposition testimony obtained from other witnesses, that
Respondent is a member or follower of the Proud Boys who participated in the mob attack on the
2
2 of 9
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 02/08/2024 06:36 PM INDEX NO. 603548/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 3 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/08/2024
Church, and that he may have information about the identities of the other participants involved
in the attack on the Church, or other relevant matters.
6. Although properly served, Respondent entirely ignored the Subpoena. He
failed to appear or to produce the required documents. Respondent did not serve any objections
to the Subpoena or communicate in any way with the Church or its counsel regarding the
Subpoena, the D.C. Action, or anything else.
7. Accordingly, the Church is entitled to an order, pursuant to CPLR
§§ 2308(b), 3119(e), and 3124, compelling Respondent to appear for a deposition and to produce
the documents set forth in the Subpoena. Petitioner respectfully requests that Respondent be
directed to appear for a deposition and to produce all documents called for by the Subpoena on
or before March 11, 2024. Petitioner is also entitled to recover costs, penalties, and damages
sustained by reason of Respondent’s failure to comply with the Subpoena.
II. The Church and the D.C. Action
8. As set forth in the Amended Complaint, Petitioner is a historic Black
church located in downtown Washington, D.C. It was founded in 1872 after the merger of two
predecessor congregations formed during the slavery era. The Church building is the oldest
property in Washington, D.C. with an unbroken chain of Black ownership and is designated in
the National Register of Historic Places for its significance as a historic African American
church. The Church has been the spiritual home of several notable African American leaders,
including Frederick Douglass.
9. The Church commenced the D.C. Action on January 4, 2021. On January
10, 2022, the Church filed an amended complaint (the “Amended Complaint”) against Proud
3
3 of 9
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 02/08/2024 06:36 PM INDEX NO. 603548/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 3 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/08/2024
Boys International, L.L.C., a limited liability company governing the Proud Boys, four national
Proud Boys leaders, and one member of the mob that attacked the Church. In addition to the
Named Defendants, the Amended Complaint asserts claims against 23 John Doe and Roe
defendants—individual participants in the attack whom the Church was unable to identify at the
time of filing (the “John Does and Roes”).
10. As set forth in the Amended Complaint, the D.C. Action arises out of an
attack on the Church by a mob of individuals, many of whom were disguised in masks and other
concealing garments, during the night of December 12, 2020. The attackers were members or
followers of a violent white supremacist organization called the Proud Boys. The attackers
climbed over a fence surrounding the Church, trespassed onto the Church’s property, and stole
and triumphantly destroyed a large Black Lives Matter sign displayed in front of the Church.
Amended Complaint ¶¶ 104–17; Exhibit 3 at 13–14.
11. On June 30, 2023, following a full-day evidentiary hearing on damages,
the D.C. Superior Court entered a default judgment (“Judgment”) jointly and severally against all
but one of the Named Defendants for compensatory and punitive damages in the amount of
$1,036,626.78 plus costs and interest, together with injunctive relief. On August 17, 2023, the
court amended the Judgment to add the last Named Defendant. A true and correct copy of the
Judgment is attached as Exhibit 3.
12. On December 6, 2023, the D.C. Superior Court awarded the Church
$1,848,769.58 in attorney’s fees, thus increasing the judgment total to $2,885,396.36. A true and
correct copy of the court’s order awarding attorney’s fees to the Church is attached as Exhibit 4.
4
4 of 9
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 02/08/2024 06:36 PM INDEX NO. 603548/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 3 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/08/2024
13. By order entered January 9, 2024, the D.C. Superior Court gave the
Church until May 11, 2024, to file affidavits of service establishing that the John Does and Roes
had been properly served with process. A true and correct copy of the court’s order is attached
as Exhibit 5.
III. The Church Identifies Respondent as a Witness And Potential John Doe/Roe
Defendant
14. The Church’s counsel has made extensive efforts to identify the
participants in the attack on the Church. Among other things, they have reviewed video
evidence of the Proud Boys’ activities in Washington, D.C. on December 12, 2020, including the
attack on the Church, and have taken depositions of Proud Boys members and affiliates
regarding the attack on the Church.
15. Upon information and belief based upon the Church’s investigation and
discovery in the D.C. Action, Brad Baldwin is a resident in New York, a member or follower of
the Proud Boys, who was among the participants in the attack on the Church. Accordingly, the
Church believes he may have information about the attack, including information about his own
participation and the identities of other participants.
16. On January 4, 2024, I issued a subpoena to Respondent in accordance with
D.C. Super. Ct. Civ. R. 45.
17. On January 4, 2024, pursuant to CPLR § 3119(b)(4), I issued the
domesticated New York Subpoena, commanding Respondent to appear for a deposition on
January 26, 2024 at 10:00 a.m. at Regus, 68 South Service Road, Suite 100, Melville, NY 11747,
and commanded Respondent to produce various responsive documents. The Subpoena directed
5
5 of 9
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 02/08/2024 06:36 PM INDEX NO. 603548/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 3 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/08/2024
Respondent to “direct all inquiries” to me, and listed my telephone number and email address.
The Subpoena attached the D.C. subpoena and the Amended Complaint.
18. On January 9, 2024, the Subpoena was validly served on Respondent
pursuant to CPLR § 308(2), in West Islip, New York. Exhibit 2.
IV. Respondent Fails to Appear or Otherwise Respond to the Church
19. On January 26, 2024, two attorneys at Paul, Weiss appeared for the
deposition at the place and time set forth in the Subpoena. Respondent failed to appear. A true
and correct copy of the transcript contemporaneously documenting Respondent’s failure to
appear is attached as Exhibit 6. Respondent also failed to produce any documents in response to
the Subpoena. Respondent has not asserted any objections to the Subpoena or communicated
with the Church or its counsel either before or after the return date of the Subpoena.
V. Petitioner is Entitled to an Order Compelling Mr. Baldwin to Appear and Produce
Documents in Accordance with the Subpoena
20. CPLR § 3119(b)(4) authorizes the issuance of an “out-of-state subpoena”
if the “party to an out-of-state proceeding retains an attorney licensed to practice in this state, and
that attorney receives the original or a true copy of an out-of-state subpoena.” I am licensed to
practice law in the State of New York, was retained by Petitioner, and I received a true copy of
the out-of-state subpoena, which was attached to the Subpoena served on Mr. Baldwin. Exhibits
1–2.
21. The Subpoena was properly served on Mr. Baldwin, a nonparty, pursuant
to CPLR § 308(2), commanding him to appear for a deposition on January 26, 2024, and produce
documents by that date. See Exhibit 2.
6
6 of 9
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 02/08/2024 06:36 PM INDEX NO. 603548/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 3 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/08/2024
22. As set forth in paragraphs 13–15 of this affirmation, the information
sought from Mr. Baldwin is relevant to the D.C. Action.
23. Thus, Mr. Baldwin was obligated to comply with the Subpoena. See
Matter of Kapon v. Koch, 23 N.Y.3d 32, 38 (2014) (“Thus, so long as the disclosure sought is
relevant to the prosecution or defense of an action, it must be provided by the nonparty”)
(emphasis added).
24. “If a person fails to respond to or comply with any request” under Article
31 of the CPLR, “the party seeking disclosure may move to compel compliance or a response.”
See CPLR § 3124. CPLR § 2308(b)(1) provides:
Unless otherwise provided, if a person fails to comply with a subpoena which is
not returnable in a court, the issuer or the person on whose behalf the subpoena
was issued may move in the supreme court to compel compliance. If the court
finds that the subpoena was authorized, it shall order compliance and may impose
costs not exceeding fifty dollars. A subpoenaed person shall also be liable to the
person on whose behalf the subpoena was issued for a penalty not exceeding fifty
dollars and damages sustained by reason of the failure to comply.
(emphasis added.)
25. Pursuant to CPLR § 3119(e), a party may enforce an out-of-state subpoena
by “submit[ing] to the court in the county in which discovery is to be conducted” an “application
to the court . . . to enforce” the out-of-state subpoena. As noted, and as shown on the face of the
Subpoena, the discovery sought by the Subpoena was to be conducted in this County.
26. As set forth herein, Mr. Baldwin has failed to respond and comply with
Petitioner’s duly authorized and properly served Subpoena.1
1
While the Subpoena bears a Nassau County caption, the affidavit of service, Exhibit 2, was served on
Respondent at his residence in West Islip, New York, in Suffolk County, and provides for the deposition to be
7
7 of 9
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 02/08/2024 06:36 PM INDEX NO. 603548/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 3 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/08/2024
27. Accordingly, Petitioner is entitled to an order compelling Mr. Baldwin to
appear and produce documents in accordance with the Subpoena. Matter of Kapon, 23 N.Y.3d at
40 (enforcing out-of-state subpoena pursuant to CPLR § 3119 because the deposition testimony
of the nonparty New York resident was relevant to the underlying out-of-state action).
28. Pursuant to CPLR § 2308(b), Petitioner is also entitled to (i) costs not
exceeding fifty dollars, (ii) penalties not exceeding fifty dollars, and (iii) damages sustained by
reason of Respondent’s failure to comply with the Subpoena.
I affirm this 8th day of February, 2024, under the penalties of perjury under the
laws of New York, which may include a fine or imprisonment, that the foregoing is true, and I
understand that this document may be filed in an action or proceeding in a court of law.
/s/ Jonathan H. Hurwitz
Jonathan H. Hurwitz
held in Suffolk County. Out of an abundance of caution, on February 1, 2024, Petitioner issued a new subpoena
with a Suffolk County caption that is otherwise materially identical to the original subpoena. The new
subpoena was duly served on February 2, 2024. The return date of the new subpoena is February 26, 2024.
8
8 of 9
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 02/08/2024 06:36 PM INDEX NO. 603548/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 3 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/08/2024
Certification of Compliance with Word Count
Pursuant to Section 202.8-b of the New York Codes, Rules and Regulations, I certify that
this affirmation complies with that rule because it contains 2,107 words. In making this
certification, I relied on Microsoft Word’s “Word Count” tool.
Dated: New York, New York
February 8, 2024
By: /s/ Jonathan H. Hurwitz_
Jonathan H. Hurwitz
9
9 of 9
Preview
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 02/08/2024 06:36 PM INDEX NO. 603548/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 3 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/08/2024 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF SUFFOLK In the Matter of the Application of: Index No. METROPOLITAN AFRICAN METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, Originating State: District of Columbia Petitioner, Originating Court: Superior Court To compel compliance with Subpoena issued to of the District of Columbia non-party: Originating Case No. 2021 CA BRAD BALDWIN, 000004 B Respondent, AFFIRMATION OF JONATHAN HURWITZ IN SUPPORT OF PETITION TO In the action entitled METROPOLITAN COMPEL COMPLIANCE AFRICAN METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH WITH SUBPOENA v. PROUD BOYS INTERNATIONAL, L.L.C., et al. I, Jonathan H. Hurwitz, an attorney admitted to practice before the courts of this State, hereby affirm under penalty of perjury: I. Introduction 1. I am a counsel with the law firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP (“Paul, Weiss”). Together with the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law and the Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights & Urban Affairs, Paul, Weiss represents Petitioner Metropolitan African Methodist Episcopal Church (“Petitioner” or the “Church”) in a civil action pending in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, captioned Metropolitan African Methodist Episcopal Church v. Proud Boys International, L.L.C., et al., No. 2021 CA 000004 B (the “D.C. Action”). 1 of 9 FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 02/08/2024 06:36 PM INDEX NO. 603548/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 3 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/08/2024 2. I submit this affirmation in support of Petitioner’s Petition to Compel Compliance with Out-of-State Subpoena Issued Pursuant to CPLR § 3119. I have personal knowledge of the facts stated herein. 3. Petitioner brings this Special Proceeding pursuant to CPLR §§ 2308(b), 3119(e), and 3124 to enforce an out-of-state subpoena (the “Subpoena”) that was served upon Respondent Brad Baldwin, a resident of this County, calling for him to appear and testify at a deposition and to produce documents in this County. A true and correct copy of the Subpoena is attached as Exhibit 1. A true and correct copy of the affidavit of service is attached as Exhibit 2. 4. The D.C. Action arises from an attack on the Church on December 12, 2020, by a mob of members and followers of a white supremacist organization known as the Proud Boys. The named defendants in the D.C. Action are the Proud Boys organization, four Proud Boys leaders, and one of the members of the mob that attacked the Church (the “Named Defendants”). The Amended Complaint, a copy of which is annexed to the Subpoena, also asserts claims against multiple John Doe and John Roe defendants, other members of the attacking mob whose identities were unknown to the Church when it filed the Amended Complaint. 5. The discovery sought by the Church from Respondent is relevant to the D.C. Action. In particular, the Church has reason to believe, based upon video recordings of the attack and other evidence, including deposition testimony obtained from other witnesses, that Respondent is a member or follower of the Proud Boys who participated in the mob attack on the 2 2 of 9 FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 02/08/2024 06:36 PM INDEX NO. 603548/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 3 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/08/2024 Church, and that he may have information about the identities of the other participants involved in the attack on the Church, or other relevant matters. 6. Although properly served, Respondent entirely ignored the Subpoena. He failed to appear or to produce the required documents. Respondent did not serve any objections to the Subpoena or communicate in any way with the Church or its counsel regarding the Subpoena, the D.C. Action, or anything else. 7. Accordingly, the Church is entitled to an order, pursuant to CPLR §§ 2308(b), 3119(e), and 3124, compelling Respondent to appear for a deposition and to produce the documents set forth in the Subpoena. Petitioner respectfully requests that Respondent be directed to appear for a deposition and to produce all documents called for by the Subpoena on or before March 11, 2024. Petitioner is also entitled to recover costs, penalties, and damages sustained by reason of Respondent’s failure to comply with the Subpoena. II. The Church and the D.C. Action 8. As set forth in the Amended Complaint, Petitioner is a historic Black church located in downtown Washington, D.C. It was founded in 1872 after the merger of two predecessor congregations formed during the slavery era. The Church building is the oldest property in Washington, D.C. with an unbroken chain of Black ownership and is designated in the National Register of Historic Places for its significance as a historic African American church. The Church has been the spiritual home of several notable African American leaders, including Frederick Douglass. 9. The Church commenced the D.C. Action on January 4, 2021. On January 10, 2022, the Church filed an amended complaint (the “Amended Complaint”) against Proud 3 3 of 9 FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 02/08/2024 06:36 PM INDEX NO. 603548/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 3 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/08/2024 Boys International, L.L.C., a limited liability company governing the Proud Boys, four national Proud Boys leaders, and one member of the mob that attacked the Church. In addition to the Named Defendants, the Amended Complaint asserts claims against 23 John Doe and Roe defendants—individual participants in the attack whom the Church was unable to identify at the time of filing (the “John Does and Roes”). 10. As set forth in the Amended Complaint, the D.C. Action arises out of an attack on the Church by a mob of individuals, many of whom were disguised in masks and other concealing garments, during the night of December 12, 2020. The attackers were members or followers of a violent white supremacist organization called the Proud Boys. The attackers climbed over a fence surrounding the Church, trespassed onto the Church’s property, and stole and triumphantly destroyed a large Black Lives Matter sign displayed in front of the Church. Amended Complaint ¶¶ 104–17; Exhibit 3 at 13–14. 11. On June 30, 2023, following a full-day evidentiary hearing on damages, the D.C. Superior Court entered a default judgment (“Judgment”) jointly and severally against all but one of the Named Defendants for compensatory and punitive damages in the amount of $1,036,626.78 plus costs and interest, together with injunctive relief. On August 17, 2023, the court amended the Judgment to add the last Named Defendant. A true and correct copy of the Judgment is attached as Exhibit 3. 12. On December 6, 2023, the D.C. Superior Court awarded the Church $1,848,769.58 in attorney’s fees, thus increasing the judgment total to $2,885,396.36. A true and correct copy of the court’s order awarding attorney’s fees to the Church is attached as Exhibit 4. 4 4 of 9 FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 02/08/2024 06:36 PM INDEX NO. 603548/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 3 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/08/2024 13. By order entered January 9, 2024, the D.C. Superior Court gave the Church until May 11, 2024, to file affidavits of service establishing that the John Does and Roes had been properly served with process. A true and correct copy of the court’s order is attached as Exhibit 5. III. The Church Identifies Respondent as a Witness And Potential John Doe/Roe Defendant 14. The Church’s counsel has made extensive efforts to identify the participants in the attack on the Church. Among other things, they have reviewed video evidence of the Proud Boys’ activities in Washington, D.C. on December 12, 2020, including the attack on the Church, and have taken depositions of Proud Boys members and affiliates regarding the attack on the Church. 15. Upon information and belief based upon the Church’s investigation and discovery in the D.C. Action, Brad Baldwin is a resident in New York, a member or follower of the Proud Boys, who was among the participants in the attack on the Church. Accordingly, the Church believes he may have information about the attack, including information about his own participation and the identities of other participants. 16. On January 4, 2024, I issued a subpoena to Respondent in accordance with D.C. Super. Ct. Civ. R. 45. 17. On January 4, 2024, pursuant to CPLR § 3119(b)(4), I issued the domesticated New York Subpoena, commanding Respondent to appear for a deposition on January 26, 2024 at 10:00 a.m. at Regus, 68 South Service Road, Suite 100, Melville, NY 11747, and commanded Respondent to produce various responsive documents. The Subpoena directed 5 5 of 9 FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 02/08/2024 06:36 PM INDEX NO. 603548/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 3 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/08/2024 Respondent to “direct all inquiries” to me, and listed my telephone number and email address. The Subpoena attached the D.C. subpoena and the Amended Complaint. 18. On January 9, 2024, the Subpoena was validly served on Respondent pursuant to CPLR § 308(2), in West Islip, New York. Exhibit 2. IV. Respondent Fails to Appear or Otherwise Respond to the Church 19. On January 26, 2024, two attorneys at Paul, Weiss appeared for the deposition at the place and time set forth in the Subpoena. Respondent failed to appear. A true and correct copy of the transcript contemporaneously documenting Respondent’s failure to appear is attached as Exhibit 6. Respondent also failed to produce any documents in response to the Subpoena. Respondent has not asserted any objections to the Subpoena or communicated with the Church or its counsel either before or after the return date of the Subpoena. V. Petitioner is Entitled to an Order Compelling Mr. Baldwin to Appear and Produce Documents in Accordance with the Subpoena 20. CPLR § 3119(b)(4) authorizes the issuance of an “out-of-state subpoena” if the “party to an out-of-state proceeding retains an attorney licensed to practice in this state, and that attorney receives the original or a true copy of an out-of-state subpoena.” I am licensed to practice law in the State of New York, was retained by Petitioner, and I received a true copy of the out-of-state subpoena, which was attached to the Subpoena served on Mr. Baldwin. Exhibits 1–2. 21. The Subpoena was properly served on Mr. Baldwin, a nonparty, pursuant to CPLR § 308(2), commanding him to appear for a deposition on January 26, 2024, and produce documents by that date. See Exhibit 2. 6 6 of 9 FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 02/08/2024 06:36 PM INDEX NO. 603548/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 3 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/08/2024 22. As set forth in paragraphs 13–15 of this affirmation, the information sought from Mr. Baldwin is relevant to the D.C. Action. 23. Thus, Mr. Baldwin was obligated to comply with the Subpoena. See Matter of Kapon v. Koch, 23 N.Y.3d 32, 38 (2014) (“Thus, so long as the disclosure sought is relevant to the prosecution or defense of an action, it must be provided by the nonparty”) (emphasis added). 24. “If a person fails to respond to or comply with any request” under Article 31 of the CPLR, “the party seeking disclosure may move to compel compliance or a response.” See CPLR § 3124. CPLR § 2308(b)(1) provides: Unless otherwise provided, if a person fails to comply with a subpoena which is not returnable in a court, the issuer or the person on whose behalf the subpoena was issued may move in the supreme court to compel compliance. If the court finds that the subpoena was authorized, it shall order compliance and may impose costs not exceeding fifty dollars. A subpoenaed person shall also be liable to the person on whose behalf the subpoena was issued for a penalty not exceeding fifty dollars and damages sustained by reason of the failure to comply. (emphasis added.) 25. Pursuant to CPLR § 3119(e), a party may enforce an out-of-state subpoena by “submit[ing] to the court in the county in which discovery is to be conducted” an “application to the court . . . to enforce” the out-of-state subpoena. As noted, and as shown on the face of the Subpoena, the discovery sought by the Subpoena was to be conducted in this County. 26. As set forth herein, Mr. Baldwin has failed to respond and comply with Petitioner’s duly authorized and properly served Subpoena.1 1 While the Subpoena bears a Nassau County caption, the affidavit of service, Exhibit 2, was served on Respondent at his residence in West Islip, New York, in Suffolk County, and provides for the deposition to be 7 7 of 9 FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 02/08/2024 06:36 PM INDEX NO. 603548/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 3 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/08/2024 27. Accordingly, Petitioner is entitled to an order compelling Mr. Baldwin to appear and produce documents in accordance with the Subpoena. Matter of Kapon, 23 N.Y.3d at 40 (enforcing out-of-state subpoena pursuant to CPLR § 3119 because the deposition testimony of the nonparty New York resident was relevant to the underlying out-of-state action). 28. Pursuant to CPLR § 2308(b), Petitioner is also entitled to (i) costs not exceeding fifty dollars, (ii) penalties not exceeding fifty dollars, and (iii) damages sustained by reason of Respondent’s failure to comply with the Subpoena. I affirm this 8th day of February, 2024, under the penalties of perjury under the laws of New York, which may include a fine or imprisonment, that the foregoing is true, and I understand that this document may be filed in an action or proceeding in a court of law. /s/ Jonathan H. Hurwitz Jonathan H. Hurwitz held in Suffolk County. Out of an abundance of caution, on February 1, 2024, Petitioner issued a new subpoena with a Suffolk County caption that is otherwise materially identical to the original subpoena. The new subpoena was duly served on February 2, 2024. The return date of the new subpoena is February 26, 2024. 8 8 of 9 FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 02/08/2024 06:36 PM INDEX NO. 603548/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 3 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/08/2024 Certification of Compliance with Word Count Pursuant to Section 202.8-b of the New York Codes, Rules and Regulations, I certify that this affirmation complies with that rule because it contains 2,107 words. In making this certification, I relied on Microsoft Word’s “Word Count” tool. Dated: New York, New York February 8, 2024 By: /s/ Jonathan H. Hurwitz_ Jonathan H. Hurwitz 9 9 of 9