On February 16, 2024 a
Motion-Secondary
was filed
involving a dispute between
Joel Friedman,
and
Abraham Friedman,
for Other Matters - Contract - Other
in the District Court of Kings County.
Preview
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/15/2024 06:56 PM INDEX NO. 504754/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 58 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/15/2024
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF KINGS
Index No. 504754/2024
JOEL FRIEDMAN,
Assigned Justice:
Plaintiff, Hon. Francois Rivera
-against- Motion Sequence Nos. 2 and 3
ABRAHAM FRIEDMAN, AFFIRMATION
OF ETHAN A. KOBRE
Defendant. IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION
AND IN SUPPORT
OF CROSS-MOTION
ETHAN A. KOBRE, an attorney at law duly admitted to practice before the courts of the
State of New York, affirms the following under penalty of perjury:
1. I am a partner with Schwartz Sladkus Reich Greenberg Atlas LLP, counsel to
defendant Abraham Friedman (“Abraham”). I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth
below.
2. I respectfully submit this affirmation (i) in opposition to plaintiff Joel Friedman’s
(“Joel”) defective and premature motion to compel non-party Gary Snitow (“Snitow”) to comply
with a defective February 20, 2024 subpoena (“Subpoena”) seeking a copy of the parties’
Settlement Agreement being held in escrow under strict confidentiality and non-disclosure terms;
and (ii) in support of Abraham’s cross-motion to quash the Subpoena (CPLR 2304) and/or for a
protective order (CPLR 3103) preventing Snitow from releasing the Settlement Agreement unless
directed by the parties’ chosen arbitrator, Rabbi Moshe Yonah Mandel (“Rabbi Mandel”).
3. Joel’s discovery motion is defective. Joel’s counsel does not include the good faith
affirmation required of all discovery motions. Indeed, Joel’s counsel made no effort to contact
me or my co-counsel to hold a meet-and-confer before making his motion. I do not believe Joel or
his counsel want to resolve this discovery impasse—they only want to bully the Court into giving
1 of 4
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/15/2024 06:56 PM INDEX NO. 504754/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 58 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/15/2024
them what they want (much the way they tried to bully the parties’ chosen arbitrator into giving
up a copy of the Settlement Agreement).
4. Joel’s Subpoena is also defective. Joel’s counsel never served a copy of the
Subpoena (or provided notice of the Subpoena) on me or my co-counsel. That violates CPLLR
3120[3] and renders the Subpoena defective and invalid.
5. I believe Joel’s counsel tried to keep the existence of the Subpoena a secret from
Abraham and his counsel, hoping Snitow would simply comply with his demand to turn over the
Settlement Agreement before we had an opportunity to move to quash and for a protective order.
6. That is incredibly underhanded and warrants the Court’s reprimand, if not
sanctions. Indeed, there is ample case law supporting the imposition of sanctions against counsel
who serves non-party subpoenas without providing a copy and notice to all parties.
7. Another underhanded tactic being employed by Joel and his legal team is the
commencement of a sham family court proceeding against Abraham based on phony accusations
of “harassment” and “intimidation.” (It is Joel and his family and cronies who are harassing and
intimidating Abraham and his family and friends.) Much like this case, Joel is also trying to use
that sham proceeding as an end-run around the mandatory arbitration and non-disclosure
provisions of the Settlement Agreement and Escrow Agreement.
8. In that sham proceeding—again without providing any notice or a copy to Abraham
or his counsel—Joel’s counsel submitted to the family court judge an ex parte request to so-order
a subpoena to Snitow for the Settlement Agreement. A copy of that proposed subpoena is annexed
as Exhibit 1.
9. Abraham and I learned of this ex parte request for the first time at the initial, April
5, 2024 appearance before Judge Marjorie R. Steinberg.
2
2 of 4
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/15/2024 06:56 PM INDEX NO. 504754/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 58 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/15/2024
10. Judge Steinberg was perplexed by how a December 2020 settlement agreement
could possibly bear on Joel’s sham family court proceeding.
11. Even worse for Joel, Judge Steinberg was deeply troubled by the fact that Joel’s
counsel chose to hide from her the fact that Joel had started this action (in Supreme Court) and
was seeking to compel compliance with the Subpoena here too.
12. Judge Steinberg quickly grasped the mischief Joel was up to, and she doubted the
validity of Joel’s multiple attempts to subpoena the Settlement Agreement out of escrow.
13. Judge Steinberg declined to so-order Joel’s improper subpoena, and she has placed
the onus on Joel’s lawyers to make a motion justifying the need for and validity of the requested
subpoena.
14. Based on the foregoing, Abraham not only opposes Joel’s motion to compel but
also cross-moves to quash the Subpoena and for a protective order. Because Joel had already
moved to compel (albeit prematurely and defectively), Abraham had to file opposition papers
anyway, so holding a meet-and-confer with Joel’s counsel and demanding the withdrawal of the
Subpoena would have been pointless and is thus excused.
15. Abraham thus opposes Joel’s motion and cross-moves to quash the Subpoena
(CPLR 2304) and/or for a protective order (CPLR 3103).
16. Abraham has made no prior request for the relief sought in his cross-motion.
Defendant respectfully requests that the Court deny Joel’s motion, grant his cross-motion,
and grant to Abraham such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Dated: April 13, 2024
New York, New York
Ethan A. Kobre
Ethan A. Kobre
3
3 of 4
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/15/2024 06:56 PM INDEX NO. 504754/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 58 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/15/2024
CERTIFICATION OF WORD COUNT
Pursuant to Section 202.8-b of the Uniform Civil Rules for the Supreme Court & the
County Court, I hereby certify that the above affidavit contains 740 words, excluding the caption,
table of contents, table of authorities, signature block, and this Certification. Accordingly, the
above affidavit is in compliance with the word count set forth in Section 202.8-b, as it contains
fewer than 7,000 words.
_/s/Ethan A. Kobre_________________
ETHAN A. KOBRE
4
4 of 4
Document Filed Date
April 15, 2024
Case Filing Date
February 16, 2024
Category
Other Matters - Contract - Other
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/15/2024 06:56 PM INDEX NO. 504754/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 58 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/15/2024 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS Index No. 504754/2024 JOEL FRIEDMAN, Assigned Justice: Plaintiff, Hon. Francois Rivera -against- Motion Sequence Nos. 2 and 3 ABRAHAM FRIEDMAN, AFFIRMATION OF ETHAN A. KOBRE Defendant. IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION AND IN SUPPORT OF CROSS-MOTION ETHAN A. KOBRE, an attorney at law duly admitted to practice before the courts of the State of New York, affirms the following under penalty of perjury: 1. I am a partner with Schwartz Sladkus Reich Greenberg Atlas LLP, counsel to defendant Abraham Friedman (“Abraham”). I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth below. 2. I respectfully submit this affirmation (i) in opposition to plaintiff Joel Friedman’s (“Joel”) defective and premature motion to compel non-party Gary Snitow (“Snitow”) to comply with a defective February 20, 2024 subpoena (“Subpoena”) seeking a copy of the parties’ Settlement Agreement being held in escrow under strict confidentiality and non-disclosure terms; and (ii) in support of Abraham’s cross-motion to quash the Subpoena (CPLR 2304) and/or for a protective order (CPLR 3103) preventing Snitow from releasing the Settlement Agreement unless directed by the parties’ chosen arbitrator, Rabbi Moshe Yonah Mandel (“Rabbi Mandel”). 3. Joel’s discovery motion is defective. Joel’s counsel does not include the good faith affirmation required of all discovery motions. Indeed, Joel’s counsel made no effort to contact me or my co-counsel to hold a meet-and-confer before making his motion. I do not believe Joel or his counsel want to resolve this discovery impasse—they only want to bully the Court into giving 1 of 4 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/15/2024 06:56 PM INDEX NO. 504754/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 58 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/15/2024 them what they want (much the way they tried to bully the parties’ chosen arbitrator into giving up a copy of the Settlement Agreement). 4. Joel’s Subpoena is also defective. Joel’s counsel never served a copy of the Subpoena (or provided notice of the Subpoena) on me or my co-counsel. That violates CPLLR 3120[3] and renders the Subpoena defective and invalid. 5. I believe Joel’s counsel tried to keep the existence of the Subpoena a secret from Abraham and his counsel, hoping Snitow would simply comply with his demand to turn over the Settlement Agreement before we had an opportunity to move to quash and for a protective order. 6. That is incredibly underhanded and warrants the Court’s reprimand, if not sanctions. Indeed, there is ample case law supporting the imposition of sanctions against counsel who serves non-party subpoenas without providing a copy and notice to all parties. 7. Another underhanded tactic being employed by Joel and his legal team is the commencement of a sham family court proceeding against Abraham based on phony accusations of “harassment” and “intimidation.” (It is Joel and his family and cronies who are harassing and intimidating Abraham and his family and friends.) Much like this case, Joel is also trying to use that sham proceeding as an end-run around the mandatory arbitration and non-disclosure provisions of the Settlement Agreement and Escrow Agreement. 8. In that sham proceeding—again without providing any notice or a copy to Abraham or his counsel—Joel’s counsel submitted to the family court judge an ex parte request to so-order a subpoena to Snitow for the Settlement Agreement. A copy of that proposed subpoena is annexed as Exhibit 1. 9. Abraham and I learned of this ex parte request for the first time at the initial, April 5, 2024 appearance before Judge Marjorie R. Steinberg. 2 2 of 4 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/15/2024 06:56 PM INDEX NO. 504754/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 58 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/15/2024 10. Judge Steinberg was perplexed by how a December 2020 settlement agreement could possibly bear on Joel’s sham family court proceeding. 11. Even worse for Joel, Judge Steinberg was deeply troubled by the fact that Joel’s counsel chose to hide from her the fact that Joel had started this action (in Supreme Court) and was seeking to compel compliance with the Subpoena here too. 12. Judge Steinberg quickly grasped the mischief Joel was up to, and she doubted the validity of Joel’s multiple attempts to subpoena the Settlement Agreement out of escrow. 13. Judge Steinberg declined to so-order Joel’s improper subpoena, and she has placed the onus on Joel’s lawyers to make a motion justifying the need for and validity of the requested subpoena. 14. Based on the foregoing, Abraham not only opposes Joel’s motion to compel but also cross-moves to quash the Subpoena and for a protective order. Because Joel had already moved to compel (albeit prematurely and defectively), Abraham had to file opposition papers anyway, so holding a meet-and-confer with Joel’s counsel and demanding the withdrawal of the Subpoena would have been pointless and is thus excused. 15. Abraham thus opposes Joel’s motion and cross-moves to quash the Subpoena (CPLR 2304) and/or for a protective order (CPLR 3103). 16. Abraham has made no prior request for the relief sought in his cross-motion. Defendant respectfully requests that the Court deny Joel’s motion, grant his cross-motion, and grant to Abraham such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. Dated: April 13, 2024 New York, New York Ethan A. Kobre Ethan A. Kobre 3 3 of 4 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/15/2024 06:56 PM INDEX NO. 504754/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 58 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/15/2024 CERTIFICATION OF WORD COUNT Pursuant to Section 202.8-b of the Uniform Civil Rules for the Supreme Court & the County Court, I hereby certify that the above affidavit contains 740 words, excluding the caption, table of contents, table of authorities, signature block, and this Certification. Accordingly, the above affidavit is in compliance with the word count set forth in Section 202.8-b, as it contains fewer than 7,000 words. _/s/Ethan A. Kobre_________________ ETHAN A. KOBRE 4 4 of 4