Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/10/2015 02:04 PM INDEX NO. 652637/2013
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 287 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/10/2015
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------------------------------------------X
BRANDSWAY HOSPITALITY, LLC, a/k/a Index No. 652637/2013
BRANDSWAY HOSPITALITY and
MATTHEW LEVINE,
Plaintiffs, FIRST SET OF
-against- INTERROGATORIES
TO PLAINTIFF
DELSHAH CAPITAL LLC, MICHAEL K. SHAH,
and VICTOR JUNG
Defendants.
-------------------------------------------------------------------X
SIRS:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that DELSHAH CAPITAL LLC and MICHAEL K.
SHAH (collectively “Defendants”), by their attorneys, Cordova & Schwartzman, LLP,
requests that Plaintiffs, BRANDSWAY HOSPITALITY, LLC, a/k/a BRANDSWAY
HOSPITALITY and MATTHEW LEVINE, (collectively “Plaintiffs”) answer in writing
separately and under oath, pursuant to Sections 3130 and 3131 of the New York Civil
Practice Laws and Rules, the following interrogatories in accordance with those Rules.
INSTRUCTIONS AND DEFINITIONS
The following definitions and instructions shall apply to each of the requests set
forth, shall be deemed incorporated therein and supplement any particular requests for
information contained therein.
In answering these interrogatories, furnish all information available to Plaintiffs
including information in the possession of their attorneys, any investigators, and all
persons acting on Plaintiffs’ behalf. If Plaintiffs cannot answer the interrogatories in full
after exercising due diligence to secure such information, so state and answer to the
extent possible, specifying Plaintiffs’ inability to answer the remainder and stating
whatever information or knowledge Plaintiffs have concerning the unanswered portions.
The interrogatories which follow are to be considered as continuing, and Plaintiffs
are requested to provide, by way of supplemental answers thereto, such additional
information as Plaintiffs or any person acting on Plaintiffs’ behalf may obtain which will
augment, clarify, or otherwise modify the answers now given to these interrogatories.
Such supplementary answers are to be served upon counsel for Defendants within twenty
(20) days after Plaintiffs know or should know of such information.
A. The term "person" includes any natural persons, corporations,
partnerships, sole proprietorships, unions, associations, federations, or any other kind of
entity.
B. The term "document" includes, without limitation, the following items, in
whatever format, computerized or other, and whether or not claimed to be privileged or
confidential or subject to the attorney work product doctrine: agreements, memoranda of
agreements, assignments, licenses, books, notebooks, books of accounts, statements,
letters, communications including intra-company communications, correspondence,
emails, memoranda, reports, data sheets, newspaper or magazine articles, speeches,
summaries or records of telephone conversations, minutes or records of meetings, reports
and/or summaries of negotiations, opinions of counsel, records, reports or summaries of
negotiations, diaries, announcements, depositions, drafts of any documents, English
translations of any document written in foreign languages, and all other material of any
kind whatsoever known to, or in the possession, custody or control of Plaintiffs.
C. If Plaintiffs have possession, custody or control of a copy of a responsive
document, but not the original, the copy should be produced along with a notation that
Plaintiffs do not have the original.
2
D. The term "communication" shall mean any telex, cable, cell phone, e-mail,
telegram, written correspondence, or telecopies (in or out), faxed information (in or out),
telephone conversation or face to face discussion or meeting, whether intra office,
interoffice, or with outside persons.
E. The term "identify" when used with respect to a person shall mean the
answer must state (1) the person's name; (2) the person's gender; (3) the person's last
known address and telephone number; (4) the person's business address and telephone
number; (5) the name and address of the person's employer; (6) the person's job title; and
(7) the person's past and present relationship with Plaintiffs, if any.
F. The term "identify" when used with respect to a corporation, association,
or other entity, shall mean (1) the legal name under which such entity is incorporated or
registered; (2) the d/b/a name, if any; (3) the state in which such entity in incorporated or
registered; and (4) the officers of such entity; (5) the address and telephone number of the
entity.
G. The term "identify" when used in respect to a document, shall mean (1)
the originator(s) of the document; (2) the date of the document; (3) each and every
recipient of the document; (4) the substance of the document; (5) the source from whom
Plaintiffs obtained the document; (6) the current custodian of the document; (7) the
location at which the document is situated, and (8) each and every person and/or other
entity which Plaintiffs know were in possession at any time of the original or a copy of
the document.
H. The term "identify" when used with respect to a communication shall have
the same meaning as when that term is used with respect to a document.
3
I. The term "and/or" shall be construed either conjunctively or disjunctively
as necessary to bring within the scope of the discovery request all responses that might
otherwise be construed to be outside its scope.
J. The term “Plaintiffs” shall mean the plaintiffs, BRANDSWAY
HOSPITALITY, LLC, a/k/a BRANDSWAY HOSPITALITY and/or MATTHEW
LEVINE.
K. The term “Brandsway” shall mean solely the plaintiff BRANDSWAY
HOSPITALITY, LLC, a/k/a BRANDSWAY HOSPITALITY.
L. The term “Levine” shall mean solely the plaintiff MATTHEW LEVINE in
his individual capacity.
M. The term “Defendants” shall mean the defendants DELSHAH CAPITAL
LLC and/or MICHAEL K. SHAH
N. The term “Amended Verified Complaint” shall mean the Amended
Verified Complaint dated January 15, 2014 and efiled on January 16, 2014.
O. The term “Second Amended Verified Complaint” shall mean the Second
Amended Verified Complaint dated June 6, 2014 and efiled on June 11, 2014.
P. The term “Sons of Essex” shall mean the restaurant owned and operated
by 133 Essex Restaurant, LLC, and referred to in paragraph 1 of the Amended Verified
Complaint.
Q. The term “Cocktail Bodega” shall mean the restaurant and/or lounge as
referred to in paragraph 1 of the Amended Verified Complaint.
R. The term “Cocktail Bodega Underground” shall mean the restaurant
and/or lounge as referred to in paragraph 1 of the Amended Verified Complaint.
4
S. The term “61 Gans Restaurant, LLC” shall mean the restaurant and/or
lounge as referred to in paragraph 1 of the Amended Verified Complaint.
T. The term “Petaluma” shall mean the restaurant and/or lounge as referred
to in paragraph 1 of the Amended Verified Complaint.
U. The term “53-61 Gansevoort Street” shall mean the restaurant and/or
lounge as referred to in paragraph 2 of the Amended Verified Complaint.
V. The term “170 Mercer Street” shall mean the restaurant and/or lounge as
referred to in paragraph 2 of the Amended Verified Complaint.
W. The term “58-60 Ninth Avenue” shall mean the restaurant and/or lounge
as referred to in paragraph 2 of the Amended Verified Complaint.
INTERROGATORIES
1. Identify all persons who have or possess any knowledge or information
relevant to the subject matter of this action and, for each such person, set forth the
specific knowledge or information relevant to the subject matter of this action.
2. Identify each and every person Plaintiffs or their representatives contacted,
interviewed, or communicated with during any investigation in connection with this
matter, and state the date of each such contact, interview, or communication. Identify any
and all witnesses thereto and identify all documents relating to or reflecting the
information requested in this Interrogatory.
3. Identify each and every person whom Plaintiffs intend to call as a witness
at the trial of this matter, and state with particularity the nature of the testimony to be
elicited.
4. Identify all persons who have provided any information set forth herein.
5
5. Set forth a list of any and all documents which are or at any time were in
Plaintiffs’ possession which relate or refer to Defendants.
6. Set forth a list of any and all documents which are or at any time were in
Plaintiffs’ possession which relate or refer to Sons of Essex.
7. Set forth a list of any and all documents which are or at any time were in
Plaintiffs’ possession which relate or refer to Cocktail Bodega.
8. Set forth a list of any and all documents which are or at any time were in
Plaintiffs’ possession which relate or refer to Cocktail Bodega Underground.
9. Set forth a list of any and all documents which are or at any time were in
Plaintiffs’ possession which relate or refer to 61 Gans Restaurant, LLC.
10. Set forth a list of any and all documents which are or at any time were in
Plaintiffs’ possession which relate or refer to Petaluma.
11. Set forth a list of any and all documents which are or at any time were in
Plaintiffs’ possession which relate or refer to 53-61 Gansevoort Street.
12. Set forth a list of any and all documents which are or at any time were in
Plaintiffs’ possession which relate or refer to 170 Mercer Street.
13. Set forth a list of any and all documents which are or at any time were in
Plaintiffs’ possession which relate or refer to 58-60 Ninth Avenue.
14. Set forth a list of any and all email accounts used by Levine during the
calendar years 2012 through the present.
15. Set forth a list of any and all email accounts used by Brandsway during the
calendar years 2012 through the present.
16. Set forth in detail the factual bases for Plaintiffs’ claim that “Brandsway
6
had single-handedly built and branded [Sons of Essex] into [a] highly successful business
venture[]” as alleged in paragraph 2 of the Amended Verified Complaint.
17. Set forth in detail the factual bases for Plaintiffs’ claim that “Brandsway
had single-handedly built and branded [Cocktail Bodega] into [a] highly successful
business venture[]” as alleged in paragraph 2 of the Amended Verified Complaint.
18. Set forth in detail the factual bases for Plaintiffs’ claim that “Brandsway
had single-handedly built and branded [Cocktail Bodega Underground] into [a] highly
successful business venture[]” as alleged in paragraph 2 of the Amended Verified
Complaint.
19. Set forth in detail the factual bases for Plaintiffs’ claim that “Brandsway
had single-handedly built and branded [61 Gans Restaurant, LLC] into [a] highly
successful business venture[]” as alleged in paragraph 2 of the Amended Verified
Complaint.
20. Set forth in detail the factual bases for Plaintiffs’ claim that “Brandsway
had single-handedly built and branded [Petaluma] into [a] highly successful business
venture[]” as alleged in paragraph 2 of the Amended Verified Complaint.
21. Set forth in detail the factual bases for Plaintiffs’ claim that “Brandsway
had single-handedly built and branded [53-61 Gansevoort Street] into [a] highly
successful business venture[]” as alleged in paragraph 2 of the Amended Verified
Complaint.
22. Set forth in detail the factual bases for Plaintiffs’ claim that “Brandsway
had single-handedly built and branded [170 Mercer Street] into [a] highly successful
business venture[]” as alleged in paragraph 2 of the Amended Verified Complaint.
7
23. Set forth in detail the factual bases for Plaintiffs’ claim that “Brandsway
had single-handedly built and branded [58-60 Ninth Avenue] into [a] highly successful
business venture[]” as alleged in paragraph 2 of the Amended Verified Complaint.
24. Set forth in detail the factual bases for Plaintiffs’ claim that Levine had an
ownership interest in Sons of Essex, as alleged in paragraph 4 of the Amended Verified
Complaint.
25. Set forth a list of documents which support Plaintiffs’ claim that Levine
had an ownership interest in Sons of Essex, as alleged in paragraph 4 of the Amended
Verified Complaint.
26. Set forth the amount of money, if any, that Levine claims to have paid for
his alleged ownership interest in Sons of Essex, as alleged in paragraph 4 of the Amended
Verified Complaint.
27. Set forth in detail the factual bases for Plaintiffs’ claim that Levine had an
ownership interest in Cocktail Bodega, as alleged in paragraph 4 of the Amended
Verified Complaint.
28. Set forth a list of documents which support Plaintiffs’ claim that Levine
had an ownership interest in Cocktail Bodega, as alleged in paragraph 4 of the Amended
Verified Complaint.
29. Set forth the amount of money, if any, that Levine claims to have paid for
his alleged ownership interest in Cocktail Bodega, as alleged in paragraph 4 of the
Amended Verified Complaint.
30. Set forth in detail the factual bases for Plaintiffs’ claim that Levine had an
ownership interest in Cocktail Bodega Underground, as alleged in paragraph 4 of the
8
Amended Verified Complaint.
31. Set forth a list of documents which support Plaintiffs’ claim that Levine
had an ownership interest in Cocktail Bodega Underground, as alleged in paragraph 4 of
the Amended Verified Complaint.
32. Set forth the amount of money, if any, that Levine claims to have paid for
his alleged ownership interest in Cocktail Bodega Underground, as alleged in paragraph 4
of the Amended Verified Complaint.
33. Set forth in detail the factual bases for Plaintiffs’ claim that Levine had an
ownership interest in 61 Gans Restaurant, LLC, as alleged in paragraph 4 of the
Amended Verified Complaint.
34. Set forth a list of documents which support Plaintiffs’ claim that Levine
had an ownership interest in 61 Gans Restaurant, LLC, as alleged in paragraph 4 of the
Amended Verified Complaint.
35. Set forth the amount of money, if any, that Levine claims to have paid for
his alleged ownership interest in 61 Gans Restaurant, LLC, as alleged in paragraph 4 of
the Amended Verified Complaint.
36. Set forth in detail the factual bases for Plaintiffs’ claim that Levine had an
ownership interest in Petaluma, as alleged in paragraph 4 of the Amended Verified
Complaint.
37. Set forth a list of documents which support Plaintiffs’ claim that Levine
had an ownership interest in Petaluma, as alleged in paragraph 4 of the Amended
Verified Complaint.
38. Set forth the amount of money, if any, that Levine claims to have paid for
9
his alleged ownership interest in Petaluma, as alleged in paragraph 4 of the Amended
Verified Complaint.
39. Set forth in detail the factual bases for Plaintiffs’ claim that Levine had an
ownership interest in53-61 Gansevoort Street, as alleged in paragraph 4 of the Amended
Verified Complaint.
40. Set forth a list of documents which support Plaintiffs’ claim that Levine
had an ownership interest in 53-61 Gansevoort Street, as alleged in paragraph 4 of the
Amended Verified Complaint.
41. Set forth the amount of money, if any, that Levine claims to have paid for
his alleged ownership interest in 53-61 Gansevoort Street, as alleged in paragraph 4 of
the Amended Verified Complaint.
42. Set forth in detail the factual bases for Plaintiffs’ claim that Levine had an
ownership interest in 170 Mercer Street, as alleged in paragraph 4 of the Amended
Verified Complaint.
43. Set forth a list of documents which support Plaintiffs’ claim that Levine
had an ownership interest in 170 Mercer Street, as alleged in paragraph 4 of the Amended
Verified Complaint.
44. Set forth the amount of money, if any, that Levine claims to have paid for
his alleged ownership interest in 170 Mercer Street, as alleged in paragraph 4 of the
Amended Verified Complaint.
45. Set forth in detail the factual bases for Plaintiffs’ claim that Levine had an
ownership interest in 58-60 Ninth Avenue, as alleged in paragraph 4 of the Amended
Verified Complaint.
10
46. Set forth a list of documents which support Plaintiffs’ claim that Levine
had an ownership interest in 58-60 Ninth Avenue, as alleged in paragraph 4 of the
Amended Verified Complaint.
47. Set forth the amount of money, if any, that Levine claims to have paid for
his alleged ownership interest in 58-60 Ninth Avenue, as alleged in paragraph 4 of the
Amended Verified Complaint.
48. Set forth in detail the factual bases for Plaintiffs’ claim that Brandsway
had an ownership interest in Sons of Essex, as alleged in paragraph 4 of the Amended
Verified Complaint.
49. Set forth a list of documents which support Plaintiffs’ claim that
Brandsway had an ownership interest in Sons of Essex, as alleged in paragraph 4 of the
Amended Verified Complaint.
50. Set forth the amount of money, if any, that Brandsway claims to have paid
for its alleged ownership interest in Sons of Essex, as alleged in paragraph 4 of the
Amended Verified Complaint.
51. Set forth in detail the factual bases for Plaintiffs’ claim that Brandsway
had an ownership interest in Cocktail Bodega, as alleged in paragraph 4 of the Amended
Verified Complaint.
52. Set forth a list of documents which support Plaintiffs’ claim that
Brandsway had an ownership interest in Cocktail Bodega, as alleged in paragraph 4 of
the Amended Verified Complaint.
53. Set forth the amount of money, if any, that Brandsway claims to have paid
for its alleged ownership interest in Cocktail Bodega, as alleged in paragraph 4 of the
11
Amended Verified Complaint.
54. Set forth in detail the factual bases for Plaintiffs’ claim that Brandsway
had an ownership interest in Cocktail Bodega Underground, as alleged in paragraph 4 of
the Amended Verified Complaint.
55. Set forth a list of documents which support Plaintiffs’ claim that
Brandsway had an ownership interest in Cocktail Bodega Underground, as alleged in
paragraph 4 of the Amended Verified Complaint.
56. Set forth the amount of money, if any, that Brandsway claims to have paid
for its alleged ownership interest in Cocktail Bodega Underground, as alleged in
paragraph 4 of the Amended Verified Complaint.
57. Set forth in detail the factual bases for Plaintiffs’ claim that Brandsway
had an ownership interest in 61 Gans Restaurant, LLC, as alleged in paragraph 4 of the
Amended Verified Complaint.
58. Set forth a list of documents which support Plaintiffs’ claim that
Brandsway had an ownership interest in 61 Gans Restaurant, LLC, as alleged in
paragraph 4 of the Amended Verified Complaint.
59. Set forth the amount of money, if any, that Brandsway claims to have paid
for its alleged ownership interest in 61 Gans Restaurant, LLC, as alleged in paragraph 4
of the Amended Verified Complaint.
60. Set forth in detail the factual bases for Plaintiffs’ claim that Brandsway
had an ownership interest in Petaluma, as alleged in paragraph 4 of the Amended
Verified Complaint.
61. Set forth a list of documents which support Plaintiffs’ claim that
12
Brandsway had an ownership interest in Petaluma, as alleged in paragraph 4 of the
Amended Verified Complaint.
62. Set forth the amount of money, if any, that Brandsway claims to have paid
for its alleged ownership interest in Petaluma, as alleged in paragraph 4 of the Amended
Verified Complaint.
63. Set forth in detail the factual bases for Plaintiffs’ claim that Brandsway
had an ownership interest in 53-61 Gansevoort Street, as alleged in paragraph 4 of the
Amended Verified Complaint.
64. Set forth a list of documents which support Plaintiffs’ claim that
Brandsway had an ownership interest in 53-61 Gansevoort Street, as alleged in paragraph
4 of the Amended Verified Complaint.
65. Set forth the amount of money, if any, that Brandsway claims to have paid
for its alleged ownership interest in 53-61 Gansevoort Street, as alleged in paragraph 4 of
the Amended Verified Complaint.
66. Set forth in detail the factual bases for Plaintiffs’ claim that Brandsway
had an ownership interest in 170 Mercer Street, as alleged in paragraph 4 of the Amended
Verified Complaint.
67. Set forth a list of documents which support Plaintiffs’ claim that
Brandsway had an ownership interest in 170 Mercer Street, as alleged in paragraph 4 of
the Amended Verified Complaint.
68. Set forth the amount of money, if any, that Brandsway claims to have paid
for its alleged ownership interest in 170 Mercer Street, as alleged in paragraph 4 of the
Amended Verified Complaint.
13
69. Set forth in detail the factual bases for Plaintiffs’ claim that Brandsway
had an ownership interest in 58-60 Ninth Avenue, as alleged in paragraph 4 of the
Amended Verified Complaint.
70. Set forth a list of documents which support Plaintiffs’ claim that
Brandsway had an ownership interest in 58-60 Ninth Avenue, as alleged in paragraph 4
of the Amended Verified Complaint.
71. Set forth the amount of money, if any, that Brandsway claims to have paid
for its alleged ownership interest in 58-60 Ninth Avenue, as alleged in paragraph 4 of the
Amended Verified Complaint.
72. Set forth a list of any and all documents, including, without limitation,
correspondence, which support Plaintiffs’ claim that the defendants herein attempted to
defraud the Internal Revenue Service, as alleged in paragraph 13 of the Amended
Verified Complaint.
73. Set forth a list of any and all documents, including, without limitation,
correspondence, which support Plaintiffs’ claim that the defendants herein attempted to
defraud the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance, as alleged in paragraph
13 of the Amended Verified Complaint.
74. Set forth a list of any and all documents, including, without limitation,
correspondence, which support Plaintiffs’ claim that the defendants herein attempted to
“steal from Plaintiffs”, as alleged in paragraph 13 of the Amended Verified Complaint.
75. Set forth a list of all rules of ethics that Levine claims he relied upon, as
alleged in paragraph 14 of the Amended Verified Complaint.
76. Set forth a list of any and all documents, including, without limitation,
14
correspondence, which support Plaintiffs’ claim that “Shah . . . commingl[ed] funds
between the various businesses he owned to defraud the IRS and NYS Dept. Tax”, as
alleged in paragraph 14 of the Amended Verified Complaint.
77. Set forth a list of any and all documents, including, without limitation,
correspondence, which support Plaintiffs’ claim that “Shah . . . divert[ed] funds for
personal gain”, as alleged in paragraph 14 of the Amended Verified Complaint.
78. Set forth a list of all alleged “violations of SLA regulations”, as alleged in
paragraph 15 of the Amended Verified Complaint.
79. Set forth a list and the amount of all cash receipts of Sons of Essex
allegedly diverted, as alleged in paragraph 15 of the Amended Verified Complaint.
80. Set forth a list and the amount of all company funds of Sons of Essex
allegedly commingled, as alleged in paragraph 15 of the Amended Verified Complaint.
81. Set forth a list and the amount of all companies that the funds of Sons of
Essex were allegedly commingled with, as alleged in paragraph 15 of the Amended
Verified Complaint.
82. Set forth a list of all premium foods of Sons of Essex allegedly converted,
as alleged in paragraph 15 of the Amended Verified Complaint.
83. Set forth a list of all liquor of Sons of Essex allegedly illegally transported,
as alleged in paragraph 15 of the Amended Verified Complaint.
84. Set forth a list of any and all dates on which Plaintiffs allege that liquor of
Sons of Essex allegedly illegally transported, as alleged in paragraph 15 of the Amended
Verified Complaint.
85. Set forth a list of any and all names of the persons and/or entities Plaintiffs
15
allege to have transported the liquor of Sons of Essex, as alleged in paragraph 15 of the
Amended Verified Complaint.
86. Set forth the first date on which Levine and/or Brandsway became aware
of the alleged illegal transport of the liquor of Sons of Essex, as alleged in paragraph 15
of the Amended Verified Complaint.
87. Set forth whether Levine and/or Brandsway ever approved of or consent to
the transport, legal and/or illegal, of liquor of Sons of Essex, as alleged in paragraph 15
of the Amended Verified Complaint.
88. Set forth the name and/or address of each and every location where liquor
of Sons of Essex was allegedly transported to, as alleged in paragraph 15 of the Amended
Verified Complaint..
89. Set forth each and every SLA regulation purportedly violated by the
transport, legal and/or illegal, of liquor of Sons of Essex, as alleged in paragraph 15 of
the Amended Verified Complaint.
90. Set forth the amount of cash receipts purportedly diverted, as alleged in
paragraph 15 of the Amended Verified Complaint.
91. Set forth the name and address of each and every person who allegedly
diverted any and all cash receipts, as alleged in paragraph 15 of the Amended Verified
Complaint.
92. Set forth the dates on which any and all cash receipts were allegedly
diverted, as alleged in paragraph 15 of the Amended Verified Complaint.
93. Set forth the amount of company funds allegedly comingled, as alleged in
paragraph 15 of the Amended Verified Complaint.
16
94. Set forth the name and address of each and every person who allegedly
comingled company funds, as alleged in paragraph 15 of the Amended Verified
Complaint.
95. Set forth the dates on which any and all company funds were allegedly
comingled, as alleged in paragraph 15 of the Amended Verified Complaint.
96. Set forth a list of any and all documents which show that Shah allegedly
authorized any person to forge Levine’s name on documents, as alleged in paragraph 16
of the Amended Verified Complaint.
97. Set forth a list of any and all documents which alleged bear Levine’s
forged name, as alleged in paragraph 16 of the Amended Verified Complaint.
98. Set forth the name and address of each and every person Shah allegedly
authorized any person to forge Levine’s name on documents, as alleged in paragraph 16
of the Amended Verified Complaint.
99. Set forth any and all date(s) on which Shah allegedly authorized any
person to forge Levine’s name on documents, as alleged in paragraph 16 of the Amended
Verified Complaint.
100. Set forth a list of any and all documents which show that Shah allegedly
acted in concert with Jung to use Sons of Essex employees, as alleged in paragraph 17 of
the Amended Verified Complaint.
101. Set forth the name and address of each and every Sons of Essex employee
Shah allegedly used to work at the Restaurants and the Catering Venues, as alleged in
paragraph 17 of the Amended Verified Complaint.
102. Set forth whether Brandsway and/or Levine was aware that Sons of Essex
17
employees were allegedly used to work at the Restaurants and the Catering Venues, as
alleged in paragraph 17 of the Amended Verified Complaint.
103. If the answer to the preceding interrogatory is affirmative, set forth the
first date on which Brandsway and/or Levine first became aware that Sons of Essex
employees were allegedly used to work at the Restaurants and the Catering Venues, as
alleged in paragraph 17 of the Amended Verified Complaint.
104. Set forth whether Brandsway and/or Levine ever consented to having Sons
of Essex employees work at the Restaurants and the Catering Venues, as alleged in
paragraph 17 of the Amended Verified Complaint.
105. Set forth the dates(s) on which each and every Sons of Essex employee
was allegedly used by Shah to work at the Restaurants and the Catering Venues, as
alleged in paragraph 17 of the Amended Verified Complaint.
106. Identify each and every Sons of Essex employee was allegedly used by
Shah to work at the Restaurants and the Catering Venues, as alleged in paragraph 17 of
the Amended Verified Complaint.
107. For each Sons of Essex employee identified in response to the previous
interrogatories, set forth the specific Restaurant and/or Catering Venue at which the
respective employee allegedly worked and the date(s) the respective employee is alleged
to have worked at said Restaurant and/or Catering Venue.
108. Set forth a list of any and all documents which show that any Sons of
Essex employee allegedly worked at Shah’s personal residence, as alleged in paragraph
17 of the Amended Verified Complaint.
109. Identify each and every Sons of Essex employee was allegedly used by
18
Shah to work at his personal residence, as alleged in paragraph 17 of the Amended
Verified Complaint.
110. Set forth the address which Plaintiffs claim to be Shah’s personal
residence, as alleged in paragraph 17 of the Amended Verified Complaint.
111. Set forth whether Brandsway and/or Levine was aware that Sons of Essex
employees were allegedly used to work at Shah’s personal residence, as alleged in
paragraph 17 of the Amended Verified Complaint.
112. If the answer to the preceding interrogatory is affirmative, set forth the
first date on which Brandsway and/or Levine first became aware that Sons of Essex
employees were allegedly used to work at Shah’s personal residence, as alleged in
paragraph 17 of the Amended Verified Complaint.
113. Set forth whether Brandsway and/or Levine ever consented to having Sons
of Essex employees allegedly work at Shah’s personal residence, as alleged in paragraph
17 of the Amended Verified Complaint.
114. For each Sons of Essex employee identified in response to the previous
interrogatories set forth the date(s) on which the respective employee is alleged to have
worked at Shah’s personal residence, as alleged in paragraph 17 of the Amended Verified
Complaint.
115. Set forth a list of any and all documents which show that any Sons of
Essex employee allegedly worked at Jung’s personal residence, as alleged in paragraph
17 of the Amended Verified Complaint.
116. Identify each and every Sons of Essex employee was allegedly used by
Jung to work at his personal residence, as alleged in paragraph 17 of the Amended
19
Verified Complaint, as alleged in paragraph 17 of the Amended Verified Complaint.
117. Set forth the address which Plaintiffs claim to be Jung’s personal
residence, as alleged in paragraph 17 of the Amended Verified Complaint.
118. Set forth whether Brandsway and/or Levine was aware that Sons of Essex
employees were allegedly used to work at Jung’s personal residence, as alleged in
paragraph 17 of the Amended Verified Complaint.
119. If the answer to the preceding interrogatory is affirmative, set forth the
first date on which Brandsway and/or Levine first became aware that Sons of Essex
employees were allegedly used to work at Jung’s personal residence, as alleged in
paragraph 17 of the Amended Verified Complaint.
120. Set forth whether Brandsway and/or Levine ever consented to having Sons
of Essex employees allegedly work at Jung’s personal residence, as alleged in paragraph
17 of the Amended Verified Complaint.
121. For each Sons of Essex employee identified in response to the previous
interrogatories set forth the date(s) on which the respective employee is alleged to have
worked at Jung’s personal residence, as alleged in paragraph 17 of the Amended Verified
Complaint.
122. Set forth a list of any and all documents which show that any Sons of
Essex employee allegedly performed any and all personal tasks for Shah, as alleged in
paragraph 17 of the Amended Verified Complaint.
123. Identify each and every personal task allegedly performed for Shah, as
alleged in paragraph 17 of the Amended Verified Complaint.
124. Set forth whether Brandsway and/or Levine was aware that Sons of Essex
20
employees were allegedly used to perform personal tasks for Shah, as alleged in
paragraph 17 of the Amended Verified Complaint.
125. If the answer to the preceding interrogatory is affirmative, set forth the
first date on which Brandsway and/or Levine first became aware that Sons of Essex
employees were allegedly performing personal tasks for Shah, as alleged in paragraph 17
of the Amended Verified Complaint.
126. Set forth whether Brandsway and/or Levine ever consented to having Sons
of Essex employees allegedly perform personal tasks for Shah, as alleged in paragraph 17
of the Amended Verified Complaint.
127. Identify each and every Sons of Essex employee who allegedly performed
any and all personal tasks for Shah, as alleged in paragraph 17 of the Amended Verified
Complaint.
128. For each Sons of Essex employee identified in response to the previous
interrogatories, set forth the date(s) on which the respective employee is alleged to have
performed any and all personal tasks for Shah, as alleged in paragraph 17 of the
Amended Verified Complaint.
129. Set forth a list of any and all documents which show that any Sons of
Essex employee allegedly performed any and all personal tasks for Jung, as alleged in
paragraph 17 of the Amended Verified Complaint.
130. Identify each and every personal task allegedly performed for Jung, as
alleged in paragraph 17 of the Amended Verified Complaint.
131. Set forth whether Brandsway and/or Levine ever consented to having Sons
of Essex employees allegedly perform personal tasks for Jung, as alleged in paragraph 17
21
of the Amended Verified Complaint.
132. Identify each and every Sons of Essex employee who allegedly performed
any and all personal tasks for Jung, as alleged in paragraph 17 of the Amended Verified
Complaint.
133. For each Sons of Essex employee identified in response to the previous
interrogatories, set forth the date(s) on which the respective employee is alleged to have
performed any and all personal tasks for Jung, as alleged in paragraph 17 of the Amended
Verified Complaint.
134. Identify each and every Sons of Essex employee who allegedly performed
any and all personal tasks for Jung, as alleged in paragraph 1
Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/10/2015 02:04 PM INDEX NO. 652637/2013 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 287 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/10/2015 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------------------------------------X BRANDSWAY HOSPITALITY, LLC, a/k/a Index No. 652637/2013 BRANDSWAY HOSPITALITY and MATTHEW LEVINE, Plaintiffs, FIRST SET OF -against- INTERROGATORIES TO PLAINTIFF DELSHAH CAPITAL LLC, MICHAEL K. SHAH, and VICTOR JUNG Defendants. -------------------------------------------------------------------X SIRS: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that DELSHAH CAPITAL LLC and MICHAEL K. SHAH (collectively “Defendants”), by their attorneys, Cordova & Schwartzman, LLP, requests that Plaintiffs, BRANDSWAY HOSPITALITY, LLC, a/k/a BRANDSWAY HOSPITALITY and MATTHEW LEVINE, (collectively “Plaintiffs”) answer in writing separately and under oath, pursuant to Sections 3130 and 3131 of the New York Civil Practice Laws and Rules, the following interrogatories in accordance with those Rules. INSTRUCTIONS AND DEFINITIONS The following definitions and instructions shall apply to each of the requests set forth, shall be deemed incorporated therein and supplement any particular requests for information contained therein. In answering these interrogatories, furnish all information available to Plaintiffs including information in the possession of their attorneys, any investigators, and all persons acting on Plaintiffs’ behalf. If Plaintiffs cannot answer the interrogatories in full after exercising due diligence to secure such information, so state and answer to the extent possible, specifying Plaintiffs’ inability to answer the remainder and stating whatever information or knowledge Plaintiffs have concerning the unanswered portions. The interrogatories which follow are to be considered as continuing, and Plaintiffs are requested to provide, by way of supplemental answers thereto, such additional information as Plaintiffs or any person acting on Plaintiffs’ behalf may obtain which will augment, clarify, or otherwise modify the answers now given to these interrogatories. Such supplementary answers are to be served upon counsel for Defendants within twenty (20) days after Plaintiffs know or should know of such information. A. The term "person" includes any natural persons, corporations, partnerships, sole proprietorships, unions, associations, federations, or any other kind of entity. B. The term "document" includes, without limitation, the following items, in whatever format, computerized or other, and whether or not claimed to be privileged or confidential or subject to the attorney work product doctrine: agreements, memoranda of agreements, assignments, licenses, books, notebooks, books of accounts, statements, letters, communications including intra-company communications, correspondence, emails, memoranda, reports, data sheets, newspaper or magazine articles, speeches, summaries or records of telephone conversations, minutes or records of meetings, reports and/or summaries of negotiations, opinions of counsel, records, reports or summaries of negotiations, diaries, announcements, depositions, drafts of any documents, English translations of any document written in foreign languages, and all other material of any kind whatsoever known to, or in the possession, custody or control of Plaintiffs. C. If Plaintiffs have possession, custody or control of a copy of a responsive document, but not the original, the copy should be produced along with a notation that Plaintiffs do not have the original. 2 D. The term "communication" shall mean any telex, cable, cell phone, e-mail, telegram, written correspondence, or telecopies (in or out), faxed information (in or out), telephone conversation or face to face discussion or meeting, whether intra office, interoffice, or with outside persons. E. The term "identify" when used with respect to a person shall mean the answer must state (1) the person's name; (2) the person's gender; (3) the person's last known address and telephone number; (4) the person's business address and telephone number; (5) the name and address of the person's employer; (6) the person's job title; and (7) the person's past and present relationship with Plaintiffs, if any. F. The term "identify" when used with respect to a corporation, association, or other entity, shall mean (1) the legal name under which such entity is incorporated or registered; (2) the d/b/a name, if any; (3) the state in which such entity in incorporated or registered; and (4) the officers of such entity; (5) the address and telephone number of the entity. G. The term "identify" when used in respect to a document, shall mean (1) the originator(s) of the document; (2) the date of the document; (3) each and every recipient of the document; (4) the substance of the document; (5) the source from whom Plaintiffs obtained the document; (6) the current custodian of the document; (7) the location at which the document is situated, and (8) each and every person and/or other entity which Plaintiffs know were in possession at any time of the original or a copy of the document. H. The term "identify" when used with respect to a communication shall have the same meaning as when that term is used with respect to a document. 3 I. The term "and/or" shall be construed either conjunctively or disjunctively as necessary to bring within the scope of the discovery request all responses that might otherwise be construed to be outside its scope. J. The term “Plaintiffs” shall mean the plaintiffs, BRANDSWAY HOSPITALITY, LLC, a/k/a BRANDSWAY HOSPITALITY and/or MATTHEW LEVINE. K. The term “Brandsway” shall mean solely the plaintiff BRANDSWAY HOSPITALITY, LLC, a/k/a BRANDSWAY HOSPITALITY. L. The term “Levine” shall mean solely the plaintiff MATTHEW LEVINE in his individual capacity. M. The term “Defendants” shall mean the defendants DELSHAH CAPITAL LLC and/or MICHAEL K. SHAH N. The term “Amended Verified Complaint” shall mean the Amended Verified Complaint dated January 15, 2014 and efiled on January 16, 2014. O. The term “Second Amended Verified Complaint” shall mean the Second Amended Verified Complaint dated June 6, 2014 and efiled on June 11, 2014. P. The term “Sons of Essex” shall mean the restaurant owned and operated by 133 Essex Restaurant, LLC, and referred to in paragraph 1 of the Amended Verified Complaint. Q. The term “Cocktail Bodega” shall mean the restaurant and/or lounge as referred to in paragraph 1 of the Amended Verified Complaint. R. The term “Cocktail Bodega Underground” shall mean the restaurant and/or lounge as referred to in paragraph 1 of the Amended Verified Complaint. 4 S. The term “61 Gans Restaurant, LLC” shall mean the restaurant and/or lounge as referred to in paragraph 1 of the Amended Verified Complaint. T. The term “Petaluma” shall mean the restaurant and/or lounge as referred to in paragraph 1 of the Amended Verified Complaint. U. The term “53-61 Gansevoort Street” shall mean the restaurant and/or lounge as referred to in paragraph 2 of the Amended Verified Complaint. V. The term “170 Mercer Street” shall mean the restaurant and/or lounge as referred to in paragraph 2 of the Amended Verified Complaint. W. The term “58-60 Ninth Avenue” shall mean the restaurant and/or lounge as referred to in paragraph 2 of the Amended Verified Complaint. INTERROGATORIES 1. Identify all persons who have or possess any knowledge or information relevant to the subject matter of this action and, for each such person, set forth the specific knowledge or information relevant to the subject matter of this action. 2. Identify each and every person Plaintiffs or their representatives contacted, interviewed, or communicated with during any investigation in connection with this matter, and state the date of each such contact, interview, or communication. Identify any and all witnesses thereto and identify all documents relating to or reflecting the information requested in this Interrogatory. 3. Identify each and every person whom Plaintiffs intend to call as a witness at the trial of this matter, and state with particularity the nature of the testimony to be elicited. 4. Identify all persons who have provided any information set forth herein. 5 5. Set forth a list of any and all documents which are or at any time were in Plaintiffs’ possession which relate or refer to Defendants. 6. Set forth a list of any and all documents which are or at any time were in Plaintiffs’ possession which relate or refer to Sons of Essex. 7. Set forth a list of any and all documents which are or at any time were in Plaintiffs’ possession which relate or refer to Cocktail Bodega. 8. Set forth a list of any and all documents which are or at any time were in Plaintiffs’ possession which relate or refer to Cocktail Bodega Underground. 9. Set forth a list of any and all documents which are or at any time were in Plaintiffs’ possession which relate or refer to 61 Gans Restaurant, LLC. 10. Set forth a list of any and all documents which are or at any time were in Plaintiffs’ possession which relate or refer to Petaluma. 11. Set forth a list of any and all documents which are or at any time were in Plaintiffs’ possession which relate or refer to 53-61 Gansevoort Street. 12. Set forth a list of any and all documents which are or at any time were in Plaintiffs’ possession which relate or refer to 170 Mercer Street. 13. Set forth a list of any and all documents which are or at any time were in Plaintiffs’ possession which relate or refer to 58-60 Ninth Avenue. 14. Set forth a list of any and all email accounts used by Levine during the calendar years 2012 through the present. 15. Set forth a list of any and all email accounts used by Brandsway during the calendar years 2012 through the present. 16. Set forth in detail the factual bases for Plaintiffs’ claim that “Brandsway 6 had single-handedly built and branded [Sons of Essex] into [a] highly successful business venture[]” as alleged in paragraph 2 of the Amended Verified Complaint. 17. Set forth in detail the factual bases for Plaintiffs’ claim that “Brandsway had single-handedly built and branded [Cocktail Bodega] into [a] highly successful business venture[]” as alleged in paragraph 2 of the Amended Verified Complaint. 18. Set forth in detail the factual bases for Plaintiffs’ claim that “Brandsway had single-handedly built and branded [Cocktail Bodega Underground] into [a] highly successful business venture[]” as alleged in paragraph 2 of the Amended Verified Complaint. 19. Set forth in detail the factual bases for Plaintiffs’ claim that “Brandsway had single-handedly built and branded [61 Gans Restaurant, LLC] into [a] highly successful business venture[]” as alleged in paragraph 2 of the Amended Verified Complaint. 20. Set forth in detail the factual bases for Plaintiffs’ claim that “Brandsway had single-handedly built and branded [Petaluma] into [a] highly successful business venture[]” as alleged in paragraph 2 of the Amended Verified Complaint. 21. Set forth in detail the factual bases for Plaintiffs’ claim that “Brandsway had single-handedly built and branded [53-61 Gansevoort Street] into [a] highly successful business venture[]” as alleged in paragraph 2 of the Amended Verified Complaint. 22. Set forth in detail the factual bases for Plaintiffs’ claim that “Brandsway had single-handedly built and branded [170 Mercer Street] into [a] highly successful business venture[]” as alleged in paragraph 2 of the Amended Verified Complaint. 7 23. Set forth in detail the factual bases for Plaintiffs’ claim that “Brandsway had single-handedly built and branded [58-60 Ninth Avenue] into [a] highly successful business venture[]” as alleged in paragraph 2 of the Amended Verified Complaint. 24. Set forth in detail the factual bases for Plaintiffs’ claim that Levine had an ownership interest in Sons of Essex, as alleged in paragraph 4 of the Amended Verified Complaint. 25. Set forth a list of documents which support Plaintiffs’ claim that Levine had an ownership interest in Sons of Essex, as alleged in paragraph 4 of the Amended Verified Complaint. 26. Set forth the amount of money, if any, that Levine claims to have paid for his alleged ownership interest in Sons of Essex, as alleged in paragraph 4 of the Amended Verified Complaint. 27. Set forth in detail the factual bases for Plaintiffs’ claim that Levine had an ownership interest in Cocktail Bodega, as alleged in paragraph 4 of the Amended Verified Complaint. 28. Set forth a list of documents which support Plaintiffs’ claim that Levine had an ownership interest in Cocktail Bodega, as alleged in paragraph 4 of the Amended Verified Complaint. 29. Set forth the amount of money, if any, that Levine claims to have paid for his alleged ownership interest in Cocktail Bodega, as alleged in paragraph 4 of the Amended Verified Complaint. 30. Set forth in detail the factual bases for Plaintiffs’ claim that Levine had an ownership interest in Cocktail Bodega Underground, as alleged in paragraph 4 of the 8 Amended Verified Complaint. 31. Set forth a list of documents which support Plaintiffs’ claim that Levine had an ownership interest in Cocktail Bodega Underground, as alleged in paragraph 4 of the Amended Verified Complaint. 32. Set forth the amount of money, if any, that Levine claims to have paid for his alleged ownership interest in Cocktail Bodega Underground, as alleged in paragraph 4 of the Amended Verified Complaint. 33. Set forth in detail the factual bases for Plaintiffs’ claim that Levine had an ownership interest in 61 Gans Restaurant, LLC, as alleged in paragraph 4 of the Amended Verified Complaint. 34. Set forth a list of documents which support Plaintiffs’ claim that Levine had an ownership interest in 61 Gans Restaurant, LLC, as alleged in paragraph 4 of the Amended Verified Complaint. 35. Set forth the amount of money, if any, that Levine claims to have paid for his alleged ownership interest in 61 Gans Restaurant, LLC, as alleged in paragraph 4 of the Amended Verified Complaint. 36. Set forth in detail the factual bases for Plaintiffs’ claim that Levine had an ownership interest in Petaluma, as alleged in paragraph 4 of the Amended Verified Complaint. 37. Set forth a list of documents which support Plaintiffs’ claim that Levine had an ownership interest in Petaluma, as alleged in paragraph 4 of the Amended Verified Complaint. 38. Set forth the amount of money, if any, that Levine claims to have paid for 9 his alleged ownership interest in Petaluma, as alleged in paragraph 4 of the Amended Verified Complaint. 39. Set forth in detail the factual bases for Plaintiffs’ claim that Levine had an ownership interest in53-61 Gansevoort Street, as alleged in paragraph 4 of the Amended Verified Complaint. 40. Set forth a list of documents which support Plaintiffs’ claim that Levine had an ownership interest in 53-61 Gansevoort Street, as alleged in paragraph 4 of the Amended Verified Complaint. 41. Set forth the amount of money, if any, that Levine claims to have paid for his alleged ownership interest in 53-61 Gansevoort Street, as alleged in paragraph 4 of the Amended Verified Complaint. 42. Set forth in detail the factual bases for Plaintiffs’ claim that Levine had an ownership interest in 170 Mercer Street, as alleged in paragraph 4 of the Amended Verified Complaint. 43. Set forth a list of documents which support Plaintiffs’ claim that Levine had an ownership interest in 170 Mercer Street, as alleged in paragraph 4 of the Amended Verified Complaint. 44. Set forth the amount of money, if any, that Levine claims to have paid for his alleged ownership interest in 170 Mercer Street, as alleged in paragraph 4 of the Amended Verified Complaint. 45. Set forth in detail the factual bases for Plaintiffs’ claim that Levine had an ownership interest in 58-60 Ninth Avenue, as alleged in paragraph 4 of the Amended Verified Complaint. 10 46. Set forth a list of documents which support Plaintiffs’ claim that Levine had an ownership interest in 58-60 Ninth Avenue, as alleged in paragraph 4 of the Amended Verified Complaint. 47. Set forth the amount of money, if any, that Levine claims to have paid for his alleged ownership interest in 58-60 Ninth Avenue, as alleged in paragraph 4 of the Amended Verified Complaint. 48. Set forth in detail the factual bases for Plaintiffs’ claim that Brandsway had an ownership interest in Sons of Essex, as alleged in paragraph 4 of the Amended Verified Complaint. 49. Set forth a list of documents which support Plaintiffs’ claim that Brandsway had an ownership interest in Sons of Essex, as alleged in paragraph 4 of the Amended Verified Complaint. 50. Set forth the amount of money, if any, that Brandsway claims to have paid for its alleged ownership interest in Sons of Essex, as alleged in paragraph 4 of the Amended Verified Complaint. 51. Set forth in detail the factual bases for Plaintiffs’ claim that Brandsway had an ownership interest in Cocktail Bodega, as alleged in paragraph 4 of the Amended Verified Complaint. 52. Set forth a list of documents which support Plaintiffs’ claim that Brandsway had an ownership interest in Cocktail Bodega, as alleged in paragraph 4 of the Amended Verified Complaint. 53. Set forth the amount of money, if any, that Brandsway claims to have paid for its alleged ownership interest in Cocktail Bodega, as alleged in paragraph 4 of the 11 Amended Verified Complaint. 54. Set forth in detail the factual bases for Plaintiffs’ claim that Brandsway had an ownership interest in Cocktail Bodega Underground, as alleged in paragraph 4 of the Amended Verified Complaint. 55. Set forth a list of documents which support Plaintiffs’ claim that Brandsway had an ownership interest in Cocktail Bodega Underground, as alleged in paragraph 4 of the Amended Verified Complaint. 56. Set forth the amount of money, if any, that Brandsway claims to have paid for its alleged ownership interest in Cocktail Bodega Underground, as alleged in paragraph 4 of the Amended Verified Complaint. 57. Set forth in detail the factual bases for Plaintiffs’ claim that Brandsway had an ownership interest in 61 Gans Restaurant, LLC, as alleged in paragraph 4 of the Amended Verified Complaint. 58. Set forth a list of documents which support Plaintiffs’ claim that Brandsway had an ownership interest in 61 Gans Restaurant, LLC, as alleged in paragraph 4 of the Amended Verified Complaint. 59. Set forth the amount of money, if any, that Brandsway claims to have paid for its alleged ownership interest in 61 Gans Restaurant, LLC, as alleged in paragraph 4 of the Amended Verified Complaint. 60. Set forth in detail the factual bases for Plaintiffs’ claim that Brandsway had an ownership interest in Petaluma, as alleged in paragraph 4 of the Amended Verified Complaint. 61. Set forth a list of documents which support Plaintiffs’ claim that 12 Brandsway had an ownership interest in Petaluma, as alleged in paragraph 4 of the Amended Verified Complaint. 62. Set forth the amount of money, if any, that Brandsway claims to have paid for its alleged ownership interest in Petaluma, as alleged in paragraph 4 of the Amended Verified Complaint. 63. Set forth in detail the factual bases for Plaintiffs’ claim that Brandsway had an ownership interest in 53-61 Gansevoort Street, as alleged in paragraph 4 of the Amended Verified Complaint. 64. Set forth a list of documents which support Plaintiffs’ claim that Brandsway had an ownership interest in 53-61 Gansevoort Street, as alleged in paragraph 4 of the Amended Verified Complaint. 65. Set forth the amount of money, if any, that Brandsway claims to have paid for its alleged ownership interest in 53-61 Gansevoort Street, as alleged in paragraph 4 of the Amended Verified Complaint. 66. Set forth in detail the factual bases for Plaintiffs’ claim that Brandsway had an ownership interest in 170 Mercer Street, as alleged in paragraph 4 of the Amended Verified Complaint. 67. Set forth a list of documents which support Plaintiffs’ claim that Brandsway had an ownership interest in 170 Mercer Street, as alleged in paragraph 4 of the Amended Verified Complaint. 68. Set forth the amount of money, if any, that Brandsway claims to have paid for its alleged ownership interest in 170 Mercer Street, as alleged in paragraph 4 of the Amended Verified Complaint. 13 69. Set forth in detail the factual bases for Plaintiffs’ claim that Brandsway had an ownership interest in 58-60 Ninth Avenue, as alleged in paragraph 4 of the Amended Verified Complaint. 70. Set forth a list of documents which support Plaintiffs’ claim that Brandsway had an ownership interest in 58-60 Ninth Avenue, as alleged in paragraph 4 of the Amended Verified Complaint. 71. Set forth the amount of money, if any, that Brandsway claims to have paid for its alleged ownership interest in 58-60 Ninth Avenue, as alleged in paragraph 4 of the Amended Verified Complaint. 72. Set forth a list of any and all documents, including, without limitation, correspondence, which support Plaintiffs’ claim that the defendants herein attempted to defraud the Internal Revenue Service, as alleged in paragraph 13 of the Amended Verified Complaint. 73. Set forth a list of any and all documents, including, without limitation, correspondence, which support Plaintiffs’ claim that the defendants herein attempted to defraud the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance, as alleged in paragraph 13 of the Amended Verified Complaint. 74. Set forth a list of any and all documents, including, without limitation, correspondence, which support Plaintiffs’ claim that the defendants herein attempted to “steal from Plaintiffs”, as alleged in paragraph 13 of the Amended Verified Complaint. 75. Set forth a list of all rules of ethics that Levine claims he relied upon, as alleged in paragraph 14 of the Amended Verified Complaint. 76. Set forth a list of any and all documents, including, without limitation, 14 correspondence, which support Plaintiffs’ claim that “Shah . . . commingl[ed] funds between the various businesses he owned to defraud the IRS and NYS Dept. Tax”, as alleged in paragraph 14 of the Amended Verified Complaint. 77. Set forth a list of any and all documents, including, without limitation, correspondence, which support Plaintiffs’ claim that “Shah . . . divert[ed] funds for personal gain”, as alleged in paragraph 14 of the Amended Verified Complaint. 78. Set forth a list of all alleged “violations of SLA regulations”, as alleged in paragraph 15 of the Amended Verified Complaint. 79. Set forth a list and the amount of all cash receipts of Sons of Essex allegedly diverted, as alleged in paragraph 15 of the Amended Verified Complaint. 80. Set forth a list and the amount of all company funds of Sons of Essex allegedly commingled, as alleged in paragraph 15 of the Amended Verified Complaint. 81. Set forth a list and the amount of all companies that the funds of Sons of Essex were allegedly commingled with, as alleged in paragraph 15 of the Amended Verified Complaint. 82. Set forth a list of all premium foods of Sons of Essex allegedly converted, as alleged in paragraph 15 of the Amended Verified Complaint. 83. Set forth a list of all liquor of Sons of Essex allegedly illegally transported, as alleged in paragraph 15 of the Amended Verified Complaint. 84. Set forth a list of any and all dates on which Plaintiffs allege that liquor of Sons of Essex allegedly illegally transported, as alleged in paragraph 15 of the Amended Verified Complaint. 85. Set forth a list of any and all names of the persons and/or entities Plaintiffs 15 allege to have transported the liquor of Sons of Essex, as alleged in paragraph 15 of the Amended Verified Complaint. 86. Set forth the first date on which Levine and/or Brandsway became aware of the alleged illegal transport of the liquor of Sons of Essex, as alleged in paragraph 15 of the Amended Verified Complaint. 87. Set forth whether Levine and/or Brandsway ever approved of or consent to the transport, legal and/or illegal, of liquor of Sons of Essex, as alleged in paragraph 15 of the Amended Verified Complaint. 88. Set forth the name and/or address of each and every location where liquor of Sons of Essex was allegedly transported to, as alleged in paragraph 15 of the Amended Verified Complaint.. 89. Set forth each and every SLA regulation purportedly violated by the transport, legal and/or illegal, of liquor of Sons of Essex, as alleged in paragraph 15 of the Amended Verified Complaint. 90. Set forth the amount of cash receipts purportedly diverted, as alleged in paragraph 15 of the Amended Verified Complaint. 91. Set forth the name and address of each and every person who allegedly diverted any and all cash receipts, as alleged in paragraph 15 of the Amended Verified Complaint. 92. Set forth the dates on which any and all cash receipts were allegedly diverted, as alleged in paragraph 15 of the Amended Verified Complaint. 93. Set forth the amount of company funds allegedly comingled, as alleged in paragraph 15 of the Amended Verified Complaint. 16 94. Set forth the name and address of each and every person who allegedly comingled company funds, as alleged in paragraph 15 of the Amended Verified Complaint. 95. Set forth the dates on which any and all company funds were allegedly comingled, as alleged in paragraph 15 of the Amended Verified Complaint. 96. Set forth a list of any and all documents which show that Shah allegedly authorized any person to forge Levine’s name on documents, as alleged in paragraph 16 of the Amended Verified Complaint. 97. Set forth a list of any and all documents which alleged bear Levine’s forged name, as alleged in paragraph 16 of the Amended Verified Complaint. 98. Set forth the name and address of each and every person Shah allegedly authorized any person to forge Levine’s name on documents, as alleged in paragraph 16 of the Amended Verified Complaint. 99. Set forth any and all date(s) on which Shah allegedly authorized any person to forge Levine’s name on documents, as alleged in paragraph 16 of the Amended Verified Complaint. 100. Set forth a list of any and all documents which show that Shah allegedly acted in concert with Jung to use Sons of Essex employees, as alleged in paragraph 17 of the Amended Verified Complaint. 101. Set forth the name and address of each and every Sons of Essex employee Shah allegedly used to work at the Restaurants and the Catering Venues, as alleged in paragraph 17 of the Amended Verified Complaint. 102. Set forth whether Brandsway and/or Levine was aware that Sons of Essex 17 employees were allegedly used to work at the Restaurants and the Catering Venues, as alleged in paragraph 17 of the Amended Verified Complaint. 103. If the answer to the preceding interrogatory is affirmative, set forth the first date on which Brandsway and/or Levine first became aware that Sons of Essex employees were allegedly used to work at the Restaurants and the Catering Venues, as alleged in paragraph 17 of the Amended Verified Complaint. 104. Set forth whether Brandsway and/or Levine ever consented to having Sons of Essex employees work at the Restaurants and the Catering Venues, as alleged in paragraph 17 of the Amended Verified Complaint. 105. Set forth the dates(s) on which each and every Sons of Essex employee was allegedly used by Shah to work at the Restaurants and the Catering Venues, as alleged in paragraph 17 of the Amended Verified Complaint. 106. Identify each and every Sons of Essex employee was allegedly used by Shah to work at the Restaurants and the Catering Venues, as alleged in paragraph 17 of the Amended Verified Complaint. 107. For each Sons of Essex employee identified in response to the previous interrogatories, set forth the specific Restaurant and/or Catering Venue at which the respective employee allegedly worked and the date(s) the respective employee is alleged to have worked at said Restaurant and/or Catering Venue. 108. Set forth a list of any and all documents which show that any Sons of Essex employee allegedly worked at Shah’s personal residence, as alleged in paragraph 17 of the Amended Verified Complaint. 109. Identify each and every Sons of Essex employee was allegedly used by 18 Shah to work at his personal residence, as alleged in paragraph 17 of the Amended Verified Complaint. 110. Set forth the address which Plaintiffs claim to be Shah’s personal residence, as alleged in paragraph 17 of the Amended Verified Complaint. 111. Set forth whether Brandsway and/or Levine was aware that Sons of Essex employees were allegedly used to work at Shah’s personal residence, as alleged in paragraph 17 of the Amended Verified Complaint. 112. If the answer to the preceding interrogatory is affirmative, set forth the first date on which Brandsway and/or Levine first became aware that Sons of Essex employees were allegedly used to work at Shah’s personal residence, as alleged in paragraph 17 of the Amended Verified Complaint. 113. Set forth whether Brandsway and/or Levine ever consented to having Sons of Essex employees allegedly work at Shah’s personal residence, as alleged in paragraph 17 of the Amended Verified Complaint. 114. For each Sons of Essex employee identified in response to the previous interrogatories set forth the date(s) on which the respective employee is alleged to have worked at Shah’s personal residence, as alleged in paragraph 17 of the Amended Verified Complaint. 115. Set forth a list of any and all documents which show that any Sons of Essex employee allegedly worked at Jung’s personal residence, as alleged in paragraph 17 of the Amended Verified Complaint. 116. Identify each and every Sons of Essex employee was allegedly used by Jung to work at his personal residence, as alleged in paragraph 17 of the Amended 19 Verified Complaint, as alleged in paragraph 17 of the Amended Verified Complaint. 117. Set forth the address which Plaintiffs claim to be Jung’s personal residence, as alleged in paragraph 17 of the Amended Verified Complaint. 118. Set forth whether Brandsway and/or Levine was aware that Sons of Essex employees were allegedly used to work at Jung’s personal residence, as alleged in paragraph 17 of the Amended Verified Complaint. 119. If the answer to the preceding interrogatory is affirmative, set forth the first date on which Brandsway and/or Levine first became aware that Sons of Essex employees were allegedly used to work at Jung’s personal residence, as alleged in paragraph 17 of the Amended Verified Complaint. 120. Set forth whether Brandsway and/or Levine ever consented to having Sons of Essex employees allegedly work at Jung’s personal residence, as alleged in paragraph 17 of the Amended Verified Complaint. 121. For each Sons of Essex employee identified in response to the previous interrogatories set forth the date(s) on which the respective employee is alleged to have worked at Jung’s personal residence, as alleged in paragraph 17 of the Amended Verified Complaint. 122. Set forth a list of any and all documents which show that any Sons of Essex employee allegedly performed any and all personal tasks for Shah, as alleged in paragraph 17 of the Amended Verified Complaint. 123. Identify each and every personal task allegedly performed for Shah, as alleged in paragraph 17 of the Amended Verified Complaint. 124. Set forth whether Brandsway and/or Levine was aware that Sons of Essex 20 employees were allegedly used to perform personal tasks for Shah, as alleged in paragraph 17 of the Amended Verified Complaint. 125. If the answer to the preceding interrogatory is affirmative, set forth the first date on which Brandsway and/or Levine first became aware that Sons of Essex employees were allegedly performing personal tasks for Shah, as alleged in paragraph 17 of the Amended Verified Complaint. 126. Set forth whether Brandsway and/or Levine ever consented to having Sons of Essex employees allegedly perform personal tasks for Shah, as alleged in paragraph 17 of the Amended Verified Complaint. 127. Identify each and every Sons of Essex employee who allegedly performed any and all personal tasks for Shah, as alleged in paragraph 17 of the Amended Verified Complaint. 128. For each Sons of Essex employee identified in response to the previous interrogatories, set forth the date(s) on which the respective employee is alleged to have performed any and all personal tasks for Shah, as alleged in paragraph 17 of the Amended Verified Complaint. 129. Set forth a list of any and all documents which show that any Sons of Essex employee allegedly performed any and all personal tasks for Jung, as alleged in paragraph 17 of the Amended Verified Complaint. 130. Identify each and every personal task allegedly performed for Jung, as alleged in paragraph 17 of the Amended Verified Complaint. 131. Set forth whether Brandsway and/or Levine ever consented to having Sons of Essex employees allegedly perform personal tasks for Jung, as alleged in paragraph 17 21 of the Amended Verified Complaint. 132. Identify each and every Sons of Essex employee who allegedly performed any and all personal tasks for Jung, as alleged in paragraph 17 of the Amended Verified Complaint. 133. For each Sons of Essex employee identified in response to the previous interrogatories, set forth the date(s) on which the respective employee is alleged to have performed any and all personal tasks for Jung, as alleged in paragraph 17 of the Amended Verified Complaint. 134. Identify each and every Sons of Essex employee who allegedly performed any and all personal tasks for Jung, as alleged in paragraph 1