Motion-Secondary: Michael Knopf, Norma Knopf v. Frank M. Esposito, Dorsey & Whitney, Llp, Nathaniel H. Akerman, Edward S. Feldman

On January 11, 2019 a Motion-Secondary was filed involving a dispute between Michael Knopf, Norma Knopf, and Dorsey & Whitney, Llp, Edward S. Feldman, Frank M. Esposito, Michael Hayden Sanford, Nathaniel H. Akerman, Sp Voyager Fund, Llc, for Torts - Other (Fraud;Judiciary L. 487) in the District Court of New York County.

Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/03/2019 01:24 PM INDEX NO. 150315/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 44 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/03/2019

EXHIBIT F

Memorandum of Law Submitted Simultaneously Herewith by
Co-Defendants Dorsey & Whitney LLP and Nathaniel H. Akerman

AFFIRMATIONPAGE9
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/03/2019 01:24 PM INDEX NO. 150315/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 44 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/03/2019

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK

NORMA KNOPF and MICHAEL KNOPF,
Index No. 150315/2019
Plaintiffs,

-vs.-

FRANK M. ESPOSITO, DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP,
NATHANIEL H. AKERMAN, EDWARD S.
FELDMAN, MICHAEL HAYDEN SANFORD AND SP
VOYAGER FUND, LLC,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OF LAW
IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP AND
NATHANIEL H. AKERMAN'S MOTION TO DISMISS THE AMENDED COMPLAINT

Dorsey & Whitney LLP
52nd
51 W. Street
New York, NY 10019
212-415-9200
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/03/2019 01:24 PM INDEX NO. 150315/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 44 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/03/2019

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT....................................................................................................
I

FACTS............................................................................................................................................
3

A. The June 2016 and November 2017 Appellate Division Orders Confirming the
Status of the Court's Earlier Orders at the Time of the Sale of the Apartment..................
5

1. The June 2016 Order.................................................................................................
5

2. The November 2017 Order.......................................................................................
6
Knopfs'
B. The Federal District Court's Opinions Dismissing the § 1983 Claim..................
8

1. The Original Order Dismissing the FAC..................................................................
8

2. The Federal District Court's Consideration of the OCA Report Resulting in its
Amended Order........................................................................................................
9

C. Allegations Relating to the June 7, 2017, Declaration Alleging that the Knopfs
Perpetrated a Fraud on the First Department....................................................................
10

ARGUMENT................................................................................................................................
13

A. The Knopfs Are Collaterally Estopped from Re-Litigating the Issues of the Phone
Call and the Cause of Their Injury by Virtue of the June 2016 Order..............................
13

B. The Knopfs Are Also Collaterally Estopped from Relitigating the Propriety of the

January 12, 2016 Telephone Call and Other Issues Raised by the OAC Report by
Knopfs'
Virtue of Judge Cote's Decisions Dismissing the § 1983 Claim........................
16

C. The Judiciary Law and Fraud Claims Are Barred Because the Alleged Fraud and

Perjury Exclusively Had to Be Raised in the Action in which the Alleged Fraud or

Perjury Occurred...............................................................................................................
18

D. The AC Should Be Dismissed Against Dorsey and Akerman Because There Are
Not Sufficient Allegations That Akerman and Dorsey Were Not Acting in their
Proper Roles as Attorneys.................................................................................................
20

E. The Alleged False June 7, 2017 Akerman Declaration Is Not Actionable.......................
22

1. The Complained of Actions Fall within the Scope of Akerman's Duty as an
Attorney..................................................................................................................
22

2. There Are Insufficient Allegations of an Intent to Deceive....................................
23

3. The Knopfs Fail to Allege That They Reasonably Relied on Any
Misrepresentations Made by the Declaration.........................................................
24
Knopfs'
F. This Court is Precluded from Considering the Tenth Claim Requesting a

Declaratory Judgment that the Revised Version of the June 16, 2016 Order Be
Declared Void and Invalid................................................................................................
25

CONCLUSION.............................................................................................................................
27

i
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/03/2019 01:24 PM INDEX NO. 150315/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 44 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/03/2019

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page(s)

Cases

Amica Mut. Ins. Co. v. Jones,
85 A.D.2d 727 (2d Dep't 1981)...............................................................................--..............16

Art Capital Group, LLC v. Neuhaus,
70 A.D.3d 605 (1st Dep't 25
2010)..................................................................................22,
23,

Baystone Equities, Inc. v. Handel-Harbour,
No. 105732/05, 2005 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1908 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. July 19, 2005)..............18

Briarpatch Ltd., L.P. v. Frankfurt, Garbus, Klein & Selz, P.C.,
13 A.D.3d 296 (1st Dep't 2004)..............................................................................................20

Bruno v. Bruno,
83 A.D.3d 165 (1st Dep't 2011)..............................................................................................14

Burgos v. Hopkins,
14 F.3d 787 (2d Cir. 1994).......................................................................................................13

Costalas v. Amalfitano,
23 A.D.3d 303 (1st Dep't 2005)..............................................................................................21

Country-Wide Ins. Co. v. Ospina,
No. 155966/17, 2019 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 773 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. Feb. 22, 2019)...............16

Davis v. Halpern,
813 F.2d 37 (2d Cir. 1987).......................................................................................................13

Doscher v. Manatt,
148 A.D.3d 523 (1st Dep't 2017) ............................................................................................15

Facebook, Inc. v. DLA Piper LLP,
134 A.D.3d 610 (1st Dep't 24
2015)..........................................................................20,
21, 22,

Gonzalez v. Gordon,
233 A.D.2d 191 (1st Dep't 1996)............................................................................................20

Jean v. Chinitz,
163 A.D.3d 497 (1st Dep't 2018)............................................................................................15

Knopf et al.v. Esposito, et al.,
2018 WL 3579104 (S.D.N.Y. July 25, 9
2018)........................................................................8,

ii
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/03/2019 01:24 PM INDEX NO. 150315/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 44 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/03/2019

Little Rest Twelve, Inc. v. Zajic,
137 A.D.3d 540 (1st Dep't 2016)...................................................................................-........18

Maracina v. Schirrmeister,
152 A.D.2d 502 (1st Dep't 1989)............................................................................................26

Mason v. Ward,
No. 88-cv-4704(PNL), 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9965 (S.D.N.Y. July 20, 1991) ....................14

Matter of Jonmark Corp. v.New York State Liq. Auth.,
161 A.D.3d 1518 (4th Dep't 2018)............................................................................................4

M.O.C.H.A. Soc 'y,Inc. v. City of Buffalo,
689 F.3d 263 (2d Cir. 2012).....................................................................................................15

New Hampshire Ins. Co. v.Bobak,
72 A.D.3d 1647 (4th Dep't 2010)............................................................................................26

New York City Transit Auth. v. Morris J. Eisen, P.C.,
276 A.D.2d 78 (1st Dep't 2000)..............................................................................................19

New York Tile Wholesale Corp. v. Thomas Fatato Realty Corp.,
153 A.D.3d 1351 (2d Dep't 25
2017)...............................................................................23,
24,

Newin Corp. v. Hartford Acci. & Indem. Co.,
37 N.Y.2d 211 (1975) .............................................................................................................19

People v. Asiatic Petroleum,
45 A.D.2d 835 (1st Dep't 1974) ................................................................................................6

Ryan v.New York Telephone Co.,
62 N.Y.2d 494 27
(1984)........................................................................................................18,

Schwartz v. Public Administrator,
24 N.Y.2d 65 (1969) ...............................................................................................................13

Schiller v. Bender, Burrows & Rosenthal, LLP,
116 A.D.3d 756 (2d Dep't 2014) ............................................................................................23

St. Regis Tribe of Mohawk Indians v. State,
5 N.Y.2d 24 (1958)....................................................................................................................4

Taboola, Inc. v. Aitken,
No. 654404/2015, 2016 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2638 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. July 14, 2016) ...18,19

Tina X. v.John X.,
138 A.D.3d 1258 (3d Dep't 2016)...........................................................................................21

iii
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/03/2019 01:24 PM INDEX NO. 150315/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 44 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/03/2019

U2 Home Entm 't,Inc. v. Hong Wei Int'l Trading, Inc.,
2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64297 (S.D.N.Y. 21, 2008)........................................................14
Aug

Yalkowsky v. Shedler,
94 A.D.2d 684 (1stDep't 20
1983)........................................................................................18,

Statutes

42 U.S.C § 1983.....................................................................................................................
passim

Judiciary Law § 487...............................................................................................................
passim

Other Authorities

CPLR 3211.......................................................................................................................................1

CPLR 4511.......................................................................................................................................4

CPLR 5015(a)(3)...........................................................................................................................12

Fed. R. Civ. P. 62.1 .......................................................................................................................17

Fed. R. Civ. P.15(a)(2) ..................................................................................................................17

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1)..................................................................................................................17

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(2)..................................................................................................................17

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3)..................................................................................................................17

New York State Unified Court System Rules of Professional Conduct § 3.5(a)(2)......................21

iv
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/03/2019 01:24 PM INDEX NO. 150315/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 44 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/03/2019

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

Defendants Nathaniel Akerman and Dorsey & Whitney LLP ("Dorsey") submit this

memorandum in support of their motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 the Amended

Complaint ("AC") of Norma Knopf and Michael Knopf (together, the "Knopfs").

The AC asserts five claims against Akerman and Dorsey:

• The First violations of Law based on events pre-
Claim, alleging Judiciary § 487,
dating October 13, 2017;

• The Second to violate Law 487;
Claim, alleging conspiracy Judiciary §

• The Third Fraud and
Claim, alleging Deceit;

• The Seventh violations of Law 487 based on the
Claim, alleging Judiciary §
events in the Esposito federal civil rights action; and

• The Tenth judgment and an Order
Claim, seeking declaratory voiding invalidating
of the Appellate Division.

Knopfs'
The claims with one exception arise out of a four-minute call by Akerman and

another attorney, Defendant Edward Feldman, made on January 12, 2016, on behalf of their

client, Michael Sanford, to a Court Attorney at the First Department to inquire as to the

procedural status of an October 22, 2015, interim order of a single justice of the Appellate

67th
Division requiring the sales proceeds of the apartment at 44 East Street, New York, New

York (the "Apartment") to be placed in escrow. The other claim relates to a declaration filed by

Akerman on behalf his client, Sanford, to support his position in a New York State Supreme

Court proceeding between him and one of his former attorneys that sought to confirm an

arbitration award.

All five claims should be dismissed, for the following reasons:

First, the First, Second, Third and Tenth claims are barred by collateral estoppel arising

out of orders by the Appellate Division, First Departrñent and the federal court in the Southern
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/03/2019 01:24 PM INDEX NO. 150315/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 44 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/03/2019

District of New York. The Appellate Division held that those orders did not impose a

requirement that the sale proceeds of the Apartment had to be escrowed when the property was

sold on February 1, 2016, because the interim escrow requirement had been extinguished when

Knopfs'
the motion for a preliminary injunction was denied in November 2015. The federal

court held that the Knopfs failed to show that they had a right to participate in the January 12,

2016 phone call. Both issues, the validity of the escrow order as of the time of the phone call

Knopfs'
and the sale of the Apartment and the right to participate in the phone call,were fully

litigated and essential to those orders.

Second, the First, Second, Third, and Seventh Claims are barred because the allegations

of fraud and perjury underlying those claims may only be raised in the action in which the

alleged fraud or perjury occurred. More specifically, allthe claims relating to the sale of the

Apartment (the First, Second, and Third claims) are barred because the exclusive remedy for that

conduct had to be pursued in Knopf v. Sanford, 113227/09, and the Knopfs failed to raise those

claims in that action. Similarly, the claim related to alleged perjury in the federal action is barred

because the exclusive remedy for that conduct was in that case, where the Knopfs raised the

same issue in a motion for sanctions, and the federal court denied that motion.

Third, the First, Second, Third, and Seventh claims must be dismissed because they do

not plead with sufficient particularity any fraudulent or perjurious conduct that is actionable.

Judiciary Law § 487 and fraud and deceit claims must be pled with particularity, and such claims

Knopfs'
are not valid against an attorney who is properly acting in the role of an attorney. The

claims are predicated entirely on a four-minute lawyer's call to the Appellate Division to confirm

the procedural status of certain Appellate Division orders and on testimony related to that call, all

of which was done in Akerman's capacity as an attorney for Sanford and his companies. AC ¶¶

2
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/03/2019 01:24 PM INDEX NO. 150315/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 44 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/03/2019

48-57. That is the only fact alleged in the AC with respect to Akerman and Dorsey; the restis

belief,"
simply innuendo alleged on "information and which the Appellate Division has squarely

held is insufficient to support a § 487 claim. As a result, there are no sufficiently particularized

allegations that Akerman was not acting in a proper role as an attorney or that he acted with an

intent to deceive in his deposition testimony.

Fourth, that portion of the First claim based on the Akerman declaration of June 7, 2017

is not actionable because the complained-of declaration falls within the scope of Akerman's duty

as an attorney, there are insufficient allegations of an intent to deceive, and the Knopfs could not

have reasonably relied on any misrepresentations in the declaration since the declaration was not

provided to them or directed at them and was submitted in a proceeding in which they were not

Knopfs'
parties, and because the exclusive remedy with respect to the declaration was in the

action in which the declaration was filed.

Fifth, the Tenth Claim should be dismissed because this Court does not have the authority

to issue a declaratory judgment voiding a duly issued, binding decision of the Appellate Division

that was issued upon full briefing of the parties.

For all of these reasons, the AC should be dismissed in itsentirety with prejudice as

against Akerman and Dorsey.

FACTS

The allegations against Akerman and Dorsey in the AC can be sum-marized as follows:

• Akerman's and Dorsey's participation in the 12, 2016 telephone call with
January
the Court Attorney, who "advised Akerman and Feldman that the apartment could
proceeds."
be sold without escrowing the AC ¶ 19;

• The 12, 2016 telephone call was an improper ex parte call,AC 23, 81,
January ¶¶
83, 86-90, 92, 107, 147, 187;

3
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/03/2019 01:24 PM INDEX NO. 150315/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 44 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/03/2019

• Akerman knew in advance what the Court would about the
Attorney say validity
of the October 22, 2015 Order requiring the escrow of any proceeds from the sale
of the Property, AC ¶¶ 34(d), 144-45;

• Akerman submitted perjured in support of his motion for dismissal and
testimony
sanctions in the federal case, AC ¶¶ 24-25, 27, 34(a)(b), 129-30, 131-34; and

• Akerman's June 2017 Declaration in the action to confirm an
7, seeking
arbitration award was a fraud on the Knopfs and the Court, AC ¶¶ 154-60.

With the exception of the June 7, 2017 Akerman Declaration, allthe factual issues

underlying the above captioned action have been fully litigated by the Knopfs in two separate

matters in which final judgments have been entered. The firstwas before the Appellate Division

Knopfs'
in itsJune 2016 Order denying the motion for contempt against Sanford, his companies

Knopfs'
and his lawyers. That order from a full panel of the Appellate Division denied the

motion forcontempt against Sanford, his entities and his lawyers for not escrowing the proceeds

from the sale of the Apartment "because the [October] TRO [requiring the escrow of the

plaintiffs'
proceeds of the sale of the Apartment} was vacated once prior motion for a

denied."
preliminary injunction was See Affirmation of Nathaniel H. Akerman ("Akerman

A.¹ Knopfs'
Aff.") Ex. On November 2, 2017, the Appellate Division denied the motion to

vacate the June 16, 2016 Order, predicated on most of the same reasons alleged in the AC.

Akerman Aff. Ex. D.

The second was in the case of Norma Knopf and Michael Knopf v. Frank M. Esposito,

Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Nathaniel H. Akerman, Edward S. Feldman and Michael Hayden

' of the but are courtordersor
Certain exhibitstothe Akerman Affirmation arenot directlyreferenced in the
AC,
filings
directlyrelevantto negating theallegationsin theAC. These include ExhibitsB, C, D, H, Jand K. This
Court can properly takejudicial noticeof thesecourt recordson thismotion. CPLR 4511; see alsoSt. RegisTribe of
Mohawk Indians v. State,
5 N.Y.2d 24,36 (1958). "Where 'evidentiarymaterialoutside thepleading's four corners
is considered,and the motion is notconverted into one forsummary judgment, the questionbecomes whether the
one.'"
pleader has a causeof action,not whether the pleader hasstated Matter ofJonmark Corp. v.New York State
Liq. 161 A.D.3d 1518 (4th Dep't2018). The factsin thosecourt documents arepresented to negate
Auth., 1518,
that" action."
allegationsin theAC "so thatit mightbe ruled the Knopfs do not have a cause of Id.
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/03/2019 01:24 PM INDEX NO. 150315/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 44 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/03/2019

Sanford, 17 Civ. 5833 (DLC) in the federal court for the Southern District of New York

dismissing the Knopfs coniplahit for a conspiracy to violate their civilrights in violation of Title

42 U.S.C § 1983. The complaint in that action, as here, also alleged claims against Dorsey and

Akerman under the New York Judiciary Law § 487 and for fraud and deceit. After dismissing

the federal claim under § 1983, the districtcourt declined "to exercise supplemental jurisdiction

claims."
over their state law Akerman Aff. Ex. E at *8 (Knopf v. Esposito, 2017 WL 6210851

(S.D.N.Y. Dec. 7, 2017)). However, in the federal case, allof the facts underlying those two

realleged"
state claims were "repeated and as essentially the same operative facts underlying the

§ 1983 claim. Indeed, most of the facts underlying the AC relating to the January phone call and

the results of the report of the New York State Unified Court System of Court Administration

("OCA") were before the federal district court in itsdismissal of the § 1983 claim and the

Knopfs'
request for sanctions against Dorsey and Akerman predicated on Akerman's alleged

perjury.

A. The June 2016 and November 2017 Appellate Division Orders Confirming the
Status of the Court's Earlier Orders at the Time of the Sale of the Apartment

1. The June 2016 Order

On June 16, 2016, in an initial order and then in a subsequently issued revised order on

the same day, an Appellate Division panel denied a motion by the Knopfs for "an order of

contempt against defendants and their counsel for allegedly violating a temporary restraining

(TRO)."
order issued by a single justice of this Court on October 22, 2015 Akerman Aff. Ex. A.

In its revised June 2016 Order, the Appellate Division panel explained why the October 2015

Order granting interim relief requiring the escrowing of the sales proceeds was no longer

Knopfs'
effective after the November 2015 Order denying the application for a preliminary

Knopfs'
injunction. The revised June 2016 Order denied the motion for contempt "because the

5
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/03/2019 01:24 PM INDEX NO. 150315/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 44 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/03/2019

plaintiffs'
TRO [the October 2015 Order] was vacated once prior motion for a preliminary

denied."
injunction was Akerman Aff Ex. A (emphasis added.) In so ruling, the Appellate

Division cited itsown decision in People v. Asiatic Petroleum, 45 A.D.2d 835, 836 (App. Div.

1st Dep't 1974). Id.

2. The November 2017 Order

Over a year later,on June 22, 2017, the Knopfs challenged the revised June 2016 Order

before the Appellate Division and moved to vacate that Order and reinstate the initialOrder.

Akerman Aff. Ex. C. In challenging the June 2016 Order, the Knopfs presented to the Appellate

Division many of the same issues they raise in the AC. The Knopfs argued that the June 16

Order should be vacated because:

• "the revision of the order was not prejudicial to the Knopfs (because of the potential
only
adverse collateral estoppel of the revised order, see Rodrigues supra) but also unfairly so,
since the Knopfs have never had an opportunity to analyze or dispute the information and
memoranda,"
conclusions set forth in thisthe Akerman and Feldman Akerman Aff. Ex B,
¶ 48; see AC ¶¶ 36, 119, 280, 284.

• "Akerman indicated that he knew when [he and contacted the
already that, they Feldman]
Appellate Division, they would be told that the restraints had been 'dissolved as a matter
law,'"
of Akerman Aff Ex. C, ¶ 8,see AC ¶¶ 34(d), 144-45;

• The court "did not recuse herself, nor did she insistthat the Knopfs be added to
attorney
call,"
the Akerman Aff Ex. C, ¶ 8, and therefore "the ex parte conference call in which . .
opinion," unethical,"
. [she] issued her advisory was "unlawful and Akerman Aff Ex. C,
¶ 19, violating New York ethical rules, Akerman Aff. Ex. C, ¶ 20, see AC ¶¶ 34(c), 89.

• Even though the court stated "that the reason the December 29, 2015 motion was
attorney
moot,'"
denied was 'because itwas Akerman Aff. Ex. C, ¶ 9, and the June 16, 2016
plaintiffs'
Order held that "the TRO was vacated once prior motion for a preliminary
denied,"
injunction was "Justice Sweeny's escrow order [of October 22, 2015] was not a
TRO,"
Akerman Aff Ex. A, Ex. C, ¶ ¶ 22-23, it"was part of a different motion sequence
decision"
than the November 12, 2015 denying the preliminary injunction, Akerman Aff.
Ex. C, ¶ 25, and Justice Moskowitz's entry of a new escrow order on February 25, 2016,
Akerman Aff. Ex. C, ¶ 17, "made itclear that she agreed with the Knopfs that the
December 29, 2015 order had continued the escrow requirement in effect,"Akerman Aff.
Ex. C, ¶ 26, see AC ¶ ¶ 101-102, 117.

6
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/03/2019 01:24 PM INDEX NO. 150315/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 44 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/03/2019

Knopfs'
The centerpiece of the motion to vacate the revised June 2016 Order was to

plaintiffs'
eliminate the language-"the TRO [the October 2015 Order] was vacated once prior

motion for a preliminary injunction was denied"-that was not present in the initialorder, so as

effect."
to avoid "collateral estoppel Akerman Aff. Ex. A, Ex. C, ¶¶ 21-22. The Knopfs argued

TRO,"
that "Justice Sweeny's escrow order [of October 22, 2015] was not a Akerman Aff. Ex. C

¶ 23, and that a subsequent December 2015 order denying a cross-motion made by some of the

effect,"
defendants had "continued the escrow requirement in Akerman Aff. Ex. C ¶ 26.

Knopfs'
On November 2, 2017, the Appellate Division denied the motion to vacate the

revised June 2016 Order and reinstate the initialversion of the June 16, 2016 Order based "upon

motion,"
reading and filing the papers with respect to the [Knopfs'] Akerman Aff. Ex. D, thereby

Knopfs'
denying the effort to eliminate the key language in the revised order.

Thus, the orders of the Appellate Division establish that as of November 2015 (the date

Knopfs'
the Court denied the preliminary injunction motion), the temporary restraining order of

October 2015, requiring the escrowing of the proceeds from sale of the Apartment, had been

extinguished. On two occasions, a full panel of the Appellate Division confirmed that result. On

Case Info

Judge

Gerald Lebovits Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

July 03, 2019

Case Filing Date

January 11, 2019

County

Parties

AKERMAN, NATHANIEL H. Attorney for the Defendant
AKERMAN, NATHANIEL H. Attorney for the Defendants
BADARACCO, ANTHONY PETER Attorney for the Defendant
BADARACCO, ANTHONY PETER Attorney for the Defendants
Berry, Eric Attorney for the Plaintiff
Dorsey & Whitney, LLP Defendant
DROOYAN, KATHERINE JANNA Attorney for the Defendant
Edward S. Feldman Defendant
ESPOSITO, FRANK MICHAEL Attorney for the Defendant
ESPOSITO, FRANK MICHAEL Attorney for the Defendants
FELDMAN, EDWARD S Attorney for the Defendant
FELDMAN, EDWARD S Attorney for the Defendants
Frank M. Esposito Defendant
GREENBERG, GARY H Attorney for the Plaintiff
HATCH, JONATHAN H Attorney for the Defendants
Michael Hayden Sanford Defendant
Michael H Sanford MR. Non Party
Michael Knopf Plaintiff
Nathaniel H. Akerman Defendant
Norma Knopf Plaintiff
Sanford, Michael Hayden Attorney for the Defendants
SPIRO, EDWARD MARK Attorney for the Defendant
SP Voyager Fund, LLC Defendant
VITALE, MARY GRACE Attorney for the Defendant
WARDER, FREDERICK B Attorney for the Defendants
KATHLEEN MARREN Attorney
MICHAEL SCHOENBERG Attorney
PETER LANE Attorneys for Plaintiffs
ADAM HANAN Attorney
LORRAINE NADEL Attorney
DIANA MALAVE Attorney
DAVID SCHRADER Attorney
ROMAN BEJGER Attorney
Lauren Goldman Attorney
DEBORAH PIAZZA Attorney
SCOTT MARKOWITZ Attorney
EDWARD STEWART Attorney
JAMES MCMAHON Attorney
MARK CHERTOK Attorney
TRACY BURNETT Attorney
LORI BRAVERMAN Attorney
PETER KATZ Attorney
MIRIAM SPIRO Attorney
DAVID MOSS Attorney
JAMES PRESTIANO Attorney
HARRIS FREIDUS Attorney
DANIEL OSBORN Attorney
MICHAEL BROWNSTEIN Attorney
JOSEPH PAYKIN Attorney
CHARLES KRIEG Attorney
ANDREW BLUESTONE Attorney
CYRUS VANCE Attorney
STEVE PILNYAK Attorney
DANIEL PASSESER Attorney
PATRICIA BAILEY Attorney
AARON GINANDES Attorney
PAUL MALON Attorney
VALERIE PHILLIPS Attorney
WILLIAM BERRY Attorneys for Plaintiffs
DANIEL GOLDBERG Attorneys for Defendants
KAREN SEBASKI Attorneys for Defendants
PAUL SCHWARTZBERG Attorney
TODD DUFFY Attorney
SANDRA FELDMAN Attorney
MELISSA RINGEL Attorney
CAROL HAMM Attorney
David Tennant Attorney
STEPHEN MEISTER Attorneys for Defendants
JAMES MCGUIRE Attorney
LAURIE LEVIN Attorney
Daniel Horwitz Attorney
GERALD LEBOVITS Attorney
GARY MENNITT Attorneys for Defendants
JERRY MONTAG Attorneys for Plaintiffs
GERSHON AKERMAN Attorney
HOWARD BENJAMIN Attorney
FRANK MAFFEI Attorney
JEREMY HAVENS Attorney
VINCENT ESPOSITO Attorney
SETH FELDMAN Attorney
ERIC WRIGHT Attorney
PAUL SHECHTMAN Attorney
MICHAEL GILBERT Attorney
MACAILAGH HERMAN Attorney
LEO ESSES Attorney
DEREK JOHNSON Attorneys for Plaintiffs
MICHAEL CIARLO Attorney
MARTIN FISHMAN Attorney
MARK SHAWHAN Attorney
SALLY FELDMAN Attorney
GARY CHEN Attorney
MICHAEL SIRKIN Attorney
ERROL MARGOLIN Attorney
JAMES JOHNSTON Attorney
ILENE BERKOWITZ Attorney
MICHELLE CURTIS Attorney
JACK LAZARUS Attorney
ALAN GOLDBERG Attorney
JIMMY WAGNER Attorney
VIVIENNE GILBERT Attorney
SAMUEL FELDMAN Attorney
BEN KINZLER Attorney
GUY PETRILLO Attorney
DANIEL GOLDMAN Attorney
RICHARD SILBERBERG Attorneys for Plaintiffs
DAVIN GOLDMAN Attorney
Jeffrey Recher Attorney
JONATHAN HERMAN Attorneys for Defendants
RICHARD ALBERT Attorney

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Motion-Secondary: Michael Knopf, Norma Knopf v. Frank M. Esposito, Dorsey & Whitney, Llp, Nathaniel H. Akerman, Edward S. Feldman

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties