At
`
`the
`
`Supreme
`in and
`for
`Courthouse
`
`PRESENT:
`
`Brooklyn,
`March,
`
`Part COM 11, of
`IAS
`Term,
`of New York,
`the State
`of
`Court
`the County
`of Kings,
`at
`the
`360
`Adams
`thereof,
`New York,
`on the
`2018.
`
`Street,
`
`day
`
`of
`
`the
`held
`
`JUSTICE
`
`OF THE
`SUPREME
`---------------------------------------------------------------x
`
`COURT
`
`Index
`
`No.:
`
`500202/2018
`
`MARY
`
`BERGAM,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`-against-
`
`BARRY
`
`DINERMAN,
`
`Respondent.
`
`---------------------------------------------------------------x
`
`:
`
`:
`
`:
`
`:
`
`ORDER
`TO
`SHOW CAUSE
`
`Upon
`
`the
`
`reading
`
`and
`
`filing
`
`of
`
`the
`
`annexed
`
`Emergency
`
`Affidavit
`
`of
`
`the Respondent,
`
`Barry
`
`Dinerman,
`
`duly
`
`sworn
`
`to the
`
`22nd
`
`day
`
`of March,
`
`2018,
`
`the
`
`annexed
`
`202.7
`
`affirmation
`
`of
`
`Henry
`
`James
`
`Joseph,
`
`duly
`
`affirmed
`
`the
`
`26th
`
`day
`
`of March,
`
`2018,
`
`the
`
`annexed
`
`Supporting
`
`Affidavit
`
`of
`
`Dinerman,
`
`sworn
`
`to the
`
`22nd
`
`of March,
`
`2018,
`
`the
`
`the Respondent,
`
`Barry
`
`duly
`
`day
`
`annexed
`
`affirmation
`
`of Henry
`
`James
`
`Joseph,
`
`duly
`
`affirmed
`
`the
`
`10th
`
`day
`
`of March,
`
`2018,
`
`and
`
`the
`
`exhibits
`
`annexed
`
`thereto:
`
`LET
`
`the Petitioner
`
`SHOW CAUSE
`
`at
`
`the
`
`I.A.S.
`
`Term,
`
`Part COM 11,
`
`of
`
`the Supreme
`
`Court
`
`of
`
`the State
`
`of New York,
`
`County
`
`of Kings,
`
`360 Adams
`
`Street,
`
`Brooklyn,
`
`New York,
`
`Room 541,
`
`on the
`
`day
`
`of
`
`, 2018,
`
`at 9:30
`
`in the
`
`forenoon
`
`of
`
`that
`
`day,
`
`or as soon
`
`thereafter
`
`as counsel
`
`can
`
`be heard,
`
`why
`
`an Order
`
`should
`
`not
`
`be made
`
`and
`
`entered:
`
`a) GRANTING
`
`reargument
`
`of
`
`the Order
`
`of
`
`this
`
`Court,
`
`dated
`
`February,
`
`21,
`
`2018;
`
`and
`
`

`

`b) upon
`
`the
`
`granting
`
`of
`
`reargument
`
`of
`
`that Order,
`
`vacating
`
`it and
`
`issuing
`
`a new
`
`order,
`
`which
`
`addresses
`
`the
`
`issues
`
`raised
`
`by
`
`the Respondent
`
`in his
`
`supporting
`
`papers;
`
`and
`
`c) VACATING
`
`the
`
`order
`
`of
`
`the Honorable
`
`Delores
`
`J. Thomas,
`
`J.S.C.,
`
`which
`
`divided
`
`the
`
`time
`
`the
`
`parties
`
`have
`
`access
`
`to the
`
`premises
`
`where
`
`the
`
`firm
`
`that
`
`is the
`
`subject
`
`of
`
`this
`
`proceeding
`
`has
`
`its offices;
`
`and
`
`further
`
`relief
`
`which
`
`deems
`
`and
`
`equitable.
`
`d)
`
`for
`
`such
`
`other
`
`and
`
`this Court
`
`just,
`
`proper,
`
`PENDING
`
`THE HEARING
`
`AND DETERMINATION
`
`HEREOF,
`
`paragraphs
`
`1, 2, 4, and
`
`5 of
`
`this
`
`Court's
`
`February
`
`21,
`
`2018
`
`Order
`
`are hereby
`
`STAYED;
`
`SUFFICIENT
`
`CAUSE
`
`APPEARING
`
`THEREFORE,
`
`LET
`
`service
`
`of
`
`this Order
`
`to Show
`
`Cause,
`
`along
`
`with
`
`the
`
`papers
`
`upon
`
`which
`
`it was
`
`granted,
`
`by
`
`service
`
`upon
`
`the
`
`attorney
`
`for
`
`the
`
`Petitioner,
`
`on or before
`
`the
`
`day
`
`of
`
`, be deemed
`
`sufficient
`
`service
`
`hereof.
`
`E N T E R:
`
`J.S.C.
`
`

`

`SUPREME
`COUNTY
`---------------------------------------------------------------x
`
`COURT
`OF KINGS
`
`OF THE
`
`STATE
`
`OF NEW YORK
`
`Index
`
`No.:
`
`500202/2018
`
`:
`
`:
`
`:
`
`:
`
`EMERGENCY
`AFFIDAVIT
`
`MARY
`
`BERGAM,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`-against-
`
`BARRY
`
`DINERMAN,
`
`Respondent.
`
`---------------------------------------------------------------X
`
`—
`
`ss.:
`
`) )
`
`)
`
`STATE
`
`OF NEW YORK
`
`COUNTY
`
`OF KINGS
`
`BARRY
`
`DINERMAN,
`
`being
`
`first
`
`duly
`
`sworn,
`
`hereby
`
`deposes
`
`and
`
`says
`
`that:
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`I am the Respondent
`
`in this
`
`proceeding.
`
`I make
`
`this
`
`affidavit
`
`in support
`
`of my
`
`application
`
`that
`
`the within
`
`Order
`
`to Show
`
`Cause
`
`by heard
`
`as an emergency.
`
`3.
`
`On February
`
`21,
`
`2018,
`
`the Court
`
`issued
`
`the Order
`
`which
`
`is the
`
`subject
`
`of
`
`this
`
`motion
`
`to reargue,
`
`annexed
`
`hereto
`
`as Exhibit
`
`"A".
`
`That
`
`order
`
`was made
`
`after
`
`a conference
`
`Principal
`
`Court
`
`Attorney.
`
`The
`
`between
`
`my counsel,
`
`the Petitioner's
`
`counsel,
`
`and
`
`the Court's
`
`Court
`
`itself
`
`did
`
`not
`
`hear
`
`argument
`
`nor
`
`participate
`
`in the
`
`promulgation
`
`of
`
`the
`
`terms
`
`of
`
`the Order.
`
`My attorney
`
`makes
`
`it very
`
`clear
`
`that
`
`he did
`
`not
`
`consent
`
`to the
`
`terms
`
`of
`
`the Order.
`
`4.
`
`The Order
`
`is insufficient
`
`in many
`
`ways,
`
`explained
`
`in more
`
`detail
`
`in my
`
`affidavit
`
`in chief
`
`attached
`
`hereto.
`
`The
`
`reason
`
`that
`
`this motion
`
`should
`
`be heard
`
`as an emergency
`
`is that
`
`the
`
`terms
`
`of
`
`the
`
`order
`
`are unjust
`
`as well
`
`as unworkable.
`
`It makes
`
`no provision
`
`for who
`
`will
`
`receive
`
`a
`
`potential
`
`new
`
`client
`
`who
`
`calls
`
`in at
`
`times
`
`not
`
`covered
`
`the
`
`prior
`
`office
`
`access
`
`division
`
`order
`
`by
`
`

`

`issued
`
`by
`
`Justice
`
`Delores
`
`Thomas
`
`in the matrimonial
`
`proceeding
`
`between
`
`these
`
`parties.
`
`It makes
`
`no provision
`
`with
`
`respect
`
`to fees
`
`being
`
`paid
`
`to the Dinerman
`
`Bergam
`
`& Dinerman
`
`LLP
`
`firm
`
`as it
`
`winds
`
`up.
`
`And most
`
`significantly,
`
`it
`
`fails
`
`to address
`
`the
`
`disparity
`
`between
`
`the
`
`office
`
`responsibilities
`
`of
`
`the Petitioner
`
`and
`
`your
`
`undersigned.
`
`5.
`
`Without
`
`further
`
`Court
`
`intervention,
`
`cases
`
`are languishing
`
`in the
`
`office
`
`and
`
`there
`
`is
`
`no order
`
`in place
`
`to preserve
`
`the
`
`fees
`
`that
`
`are being
`
`paid
`
`into
`
`the Dinerman
`
`Bergam
`
`& Dinerman
`
`LLP bank
`
`account.
`
`I ask
`
`that
`
`this Order
`
`to Show
`
`Cause
`
`be heard
`
`immediately
`
`as an emergency.
`
`6.
`
`C.P.L.R.
`
`R.
`
`2217
`
`(b)
`
`compliance:
`
`no
`
`prior
`
`request
`
`for
`
`the
`
`relief
`
`sought
`
`herein
`
`has
`
`heretofore
`
`been made.
`
`Sworn
`12th
`
`to before
`of
`
`day
`
`this
`
`h, 2
`
`8
`
`Barry
`
`nerman,
`
`Respondent
`
`e
`
`,
`
`tfiry Public
`.
`He1µ
`8397
`6
`Reg. No. 0
`in Kings County
`Qualified
`My Commission
`expires
`
`Apri14,
`
`2019
`
`

`

`SUPREME
`COUNTY
`---------------------------------------------------------------x
`
`OF NEW YORK
`
`—
`
`Index
`
`No.:
`
`500202/2018
`
`COURT
`OF KINGS
`
`OF THE
`
`STATE
`
`MARY BERGAM,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`-against-
`
`BARRY
`
`DINERMAN,
`
`Respondent.
`
`---------------------------------------------------------------x
`
`:
`
`:
`
`:
`
`202.7
`(f)
`COMPLAINCE
`AFFIRMATION
`
`HENRY
`
`JAMES
`
`JOSEPH,
`
`an attorney
`
`duly
`
`admitted
`
`to practice
`
`law before
`
`the Courts
`
`of
`
`the State
`
`of New York,
`
`hereby
`
`affirms
`
`the
`
`truth
`
`of
`
`the
`
`following,
`
`pursuant
`
`to CPLR R. 2016
`
`and
`
`under
`
`penalty
`
`of perjury,
`
`that:
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`I am the Attorney
`
`of
`
`record
`
`for
`
`the within
`
`Respondent
`
`in this
`
`proceeding.
`
`My adversary
`
`received
`
`notice
`
`of my
`
`intention
`
`to file
`
`the within
`
`Order
`
`to Show
`
`and
`
`I
`
`Cause,
`
`including
`
`the
`
`temporary
`
`restraining
`
`order,
`
`on Thursday,
`
`March
`
`22,
`
`2018.
`
`Counsel
`
`were
`
`actually
`
`present
`
`in the Supreme
`
`Court,
`
`County
`
`of Kings,
`
`that
`
`day,
`
`for
`
`the
`
`same motion,
`
`however,
`
`there
`
`were
`
`problems
`
`with
`
`the way
`
`I
`
`filed
`
`it and
`
`before
`
`we
`
`left
`
`the
`
`building
`
`I
`
`told
`
`him
`
`that we would
`
`be back
`
`here
`
`today,
`
`March
`
`26,
`
`2018,
`
`at 2:15
`
`p.m.
`
`3.
`
`Counsel
`
`for
`
`the Petitioner
`
`then
`
`texted
`
`me yesterday
`
`at 5:09
`
`p.m.
`
`to confirm
`
`today's
`
`appearance,
`
`which
`
`I confirmed.
`
`Dated:
`
`Brooklyn,
`March
`
`26,
`
`New York
`2018
`
`

`

`SUPREME
`COUNTY
`
`COURT
`OF KINGS
`
`OF THE
`
`STATE
`
`OF NEW YORK
`
`---------------------------------------------------------------x
`
`Index
`
`No.:
`
`500202/2018
`
`:
`
`:
`
`:
`
`:
`
`:
`
`SUPPORTING
`AFFIDAVIT
`
`MARY
`
`BERGAM,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`-against-
`
`BARRY
`
`DINERMAN,
`
`Respondent.
`
`---------------------------------------------------------------x
`
`ss.:
`
`) )
`
`)
`
`STATE
`
`OF NEW YORK
`
`COUNTY
`
`OF KINGS
`
`BARRY
`
`DINERMAN,
`
`being
`
`first
`
`duly
`
`sworn,
`
`hereby
`
`deposes
`
`and
`
`says
`
`that:
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`I am the Respondent
`
`in this
`
`proceeding.
`
`I make
`
`this
`
`affidavit
`
`in support
`
`of my motion,
`
`Motion
`
`Sequence
`
`3, brought
`
`by
`
`order
`
`to show
`
`cause
`
`and
`
`seeking
`
`a stay
`
`of,
`
`then
`
`reargument
`
`of,
`
`this
`
`Court's
`
`February
`
`21,
`
`2018
`
`Order,
`
`annexed
`
`hereto
`
`as Exhibit
`
`"A"
`
`(hereinafter
`
`the
`
`"Case
`
`Division
`
`Order"
`
`or
`
`"CDO".)
`
`3.
`
`It
`
`submitted
`
`that
`
`upon
`
`consideration
`
`of
`
`the
`
`the
`
`is respectfully
`
`points
`
`made
`
`herein,
`
`Court
`
`should
`
`grant
`
`reargument,
`
`and
`
`upon
`
`that
`
`grant,
`
`enter
`
`a new
`
`order
`
`that
`
`addresses
`
`the
`
`serious
`
`questions
`
`left
`
`open
`
`the CDO as it stands.
`
`by
`
`4.
`
`The CDO provides
`
`no
`
`direction
`
`with
`
`respect
`
`to what
`
`happens
`
`to fees
`
`that
`
`are
`
`earned
`
`on the
`
`cases
`
`that
`
`are to be divided
`
`"one
`
`case
`
`each".
`
`For
`
`any
`
`given
`
`case
`
`that
`
`I or
`
`the
`
`Petitioner
`
`select,
`
`what
`
`happens
`
`to the
`
`fees
`
`recovered?
`
`There
`
`are cases
`
`in the
`
`office
`
`which
`
`I have
`
`settled
`
`but
`
`am still
`
`awaiting
`
`payment.
`
`If
`
`the Petitioner
`
`selects
`
`that
`
`case,
`
`does
`
`she then
`
`keep
`
`the
`
`fee?
`
`What
`
`about
`
`verdicts
`
`on these
`
`cases,
`
`future
`
`settlements,
`
`or
`
`cases
`
`that
`
`are
`
`going
`
`to settle
`
`

`

`imminently?
`
`Do the
`
`proceeds
`
`go to the
`
`party
`
`who
`
`selected
`
`that
`
`case?
`
`If
`
`that
`
`is the
`
`effect
`
`of
`
`the
`
`CDO,
`
`then
`
`the Petitioner
`
`could
`
`select
`
`a case
`
`on which
`
`she did
`
`no work
`
`and
`
`pocket
`
`the
`
`entire
`
`fee.
`
`I am confident
`
`the Court
`
`will
`
`agree
`
`that
`
`result
`
`is untenable,
`
`but
`
`the CDO leaves
`
`open
`
`that
`
`possibility.
`
`5.
`
`A notable
`
`portion
`
`of our
`
`client
`
`base
`
`comes
`
`from
`
`referrals
`
`from
`
`past
`
`clients
`
`and
`
`other
`
`attorneys.
`
`In the
`
`event
`
`that
`
`one
`
`of
`
`those
`
`clients
`
`specifically
`
`asks
`
`for me or
`
`is referred
`
`specifically
`
`to me,
`
`but
`
`the
`
`phone
`
`rings
`
`during
`
`the Petitioner's
`
`office
`
`hours,
`
`the CDO allocates
`
`that
`
`client
`
`to her.
`
`6.
`
`The CDO direct
`
`that
`
`both
`
`parties
`
`form
`
`new
`
`practices,
`
`but
`
`then
`
`prohibits
`
`the
`
`parties
`
`from
`
`securing
`
`the
`
`files
`
`on clients
`
`of
`
`the
`
`individual
`
`parties.
`
`If
`
`I get
`
`a new
`
`client,
`
`I cannot
`
`lock
`
`that
`
`file
`
`in a cabinet.
`
`The
`
`Petitioner,
`
`who
`
`is clearly
`
`antithetical
`
`to my
`
`interests,
`
`then
`
`has
`
`open
`
`access
`
`to my
`
`client's
`
`file(s).
`
`7.
`
`provision
`
`for
`
`clients
`
`call
`
`the
`
`covered
`
`The CDO makes
`
`incoming
`
`by
`
`the Office
`
`Access
`
`Order,
`
`however,
`
`the Office
`
`Access
`
`Order
`
`who
`
`only
`
`during
`
`hours
`
`controls
`
`the
`
`office
`
`between
`
`the
`
`hours
`
`of 9:00
`
`a.m.
`
`and
`
`5:00
`
`p.m.,
`
`and
`
`7:30
`
`a.m.
`
`- 8:45
`
`a.m.
`
`on the
`
`days
`
`that
`
`the Petitioner
`
`has
`
`the morning
`
`office
`
`session.
`
`Who
`
`receives
`
`the
`
`client
`
`who
`
`calls
`
`before
`
`9:00
`
`a.m.
`
`(or
`
`7:30
`
`a.m.
`
`on
`
`the
`
`days
`
`the Plaintiff
`
`has
`
`the morning),
`
`or after
`
`5:00
`
`p.m.,
`
`or on weekends?
`
`What
`
`if
`
`the
`
`call
`
`Does
`
`she
`
`comes
`
`in during
`
`the weekend,
`
`but
`
`the Petitioner
`
`has
`
`office
`
`access
`
`Monday
`
`morning.
`
`then
`
`get
`
`all
`
`the
`
`clients
`
`that
`
`called
`
`over
`
`the weekend?
`
`8.
`
`Inasmuch
`
`as this
`
`Court
`
`is now overseeing
`
`the
`
`dissolution
`
`of
`
`the
`
`practice,
`
`it must
`
`consequently
`
`have
`
`the
`
`power
`
`to abrogate
`
`or at
`
`least modify
`
`the Office
`
`Access
`
`Order
`
`of
`
`Justice
`
`Thomas,
`
`issued
`
`on an oral
`
`application,
`
`made
`
`without
`
`notice,
`
`for which
`
`my
`
`attorney
`
`and
`
`I were
`
`given
`
`about
`
`two minutes
`
`to respond,
`
`See Exhibit
`
`"B".
`
`While
`
`generally
`
`speaking,
`
`judges
`
`will
`
`not
`
`

`

`vacate
`
`or modify
`
`orders
`
`made
`
`by jurists
`
`of
`
`collateral
`
`jurisdiction,
`
`in this matter
`
`the Petitioner
`
`herself
`
`has
`
`submitted
`
`the
`
`controversy
`
`to Your
`
`Honor
`
`and with
`
`that
`
`submission
`
`comes
`
`the
`
`power
`
`to review
`
`and modify
`
`the Office
`
`Access
`
`Order.
`
`I ask
`
`that
`
`Your
`
`Honor
`
`do just
`
`that.
`
`9.
`
`The mutual
`
`Orders
`
`of Protection
`
`issued
`
`in the matrimonial
`
`matter,
`
`which,
`
`upon
`
`information
`
`and
`
`belief,
`
`have
`
`expired,
`
`were
`
`not
`
`full-stay-away
`
`orders.
`
`The Office
`
`Access
`
`Order
`
`was
`
`unnecessary
`
`when
`
`issued,
`
`and
`
`certainly,
`
`with
`
`no
`
`orders
`
`of protection
`
`in effect,
`
`superfluous
`
`now.
`
`10.
`
`Please
`
`note
`
`that
`
`there
`
`is a wasted
`
`half
`
`hour
`
`gap
`
`in time
`
`each
`
`day
`
`in which
`
`no
`
`one
`
`is permitted
`
`to be in the
`
`office.
`
`For
`
`example,
`
`on those
`
`days
`
`that
`
`I have
`
`the
`
`"morning
`
`hours",
`
`I
`
`must
`
`leave my
`
`office
`
`at 12:45
`
`p.m.,
`
`even
`
`though
`
`the
`
`plaintiff's
`
`"afternoon
`
`hours"
`
`do not
`
`start
`
`until
`
`1:15
`
`p.m.
`
`Similarly,
`
`I cannot
`
`enter my
`
`office
`
`until
`
`1:15
`
`p.m.
`
`on those
`
`days
`
`that
`
`I have
`
`the
`
`"afternoon
`
`hours"
`
`even
`
`though
`
`the
`
`plaintiff's
`
`"morning
`
`hours"
`
`end
`
`at 12:45
`
`p.m.
`
`There
`
`is no
`
`good
`
`reason
`
`why
`
`I cannot
`
`stay
`
`in the
`
`office
`
`the
`
`extra
`
`half
`
`hour
`
`until
`
`the
`
`plaintiff
`
`either
`
`arrives
`
`or
`
`leaves
`
`which
`
`amounts
`
`to an extra
`
`2.5
`
`hours
`
`of work
`
`that
`
`I can
`
`get
`
`accomplished
`
`each week.
`
`11.
`
`The Office
`
`Access
`
`Order
`
`provides
`
`that
`
`I can work
`
`from
`
`7:30
`
`a.m.
`
`until
`
`8:45
`
`a.m.
`
`on those
`
`days
`
`where
`
`Ms.
`
`Bergam
`
`has
`
`the
`
`office
`
`at 9:00
`
`a.m.
`
`The
`
`15 minute
`
`allowed
`
`for
`
`the
`
`gap
`
`between
`
`and Ms.
`
`Bergam's
`
`office
`
`time
`
`in the morning
`
`belies
`
`the
`
`"necessity"
`
`for
`
`a 30
`
`my time
`
`minute
`
`gap.
`
`In fact,
`
`on these
`
`days
`
`where
`
`our
`
`paths
`
`have
`
`crossed
`
`in the
`
`office,
`
`there
`
`have
`
`been
`
`no
`
`problems.
`
`parties'
`
`12.
`
`Additionally,
`
`the
`
`firm
`
`rents
`
`a suite
`
`of
`
`three
`
`offices.
`
`Only
`
`one
`
`office
`
`is used
`
`the
`
`by
`
`firm,
`
`Dinerman
`
`Bergam
`
`2 Dinerman,
`
`LLP (hereinafter
`
`"DBD".)
`
`The
`
`original
`
`intention
`
`was
`
`to sublease
`
`the
`
`additional
`
`two
`
`offices,
`
`however,
`
`no subtenants
`
`have materialized.
`
`The
`
`appropriate
`
`revision
`
`of
`
`the Office
`
`Access
`
`Order
`
`would
`
`be to assign
`
`each
`
`of
`
`the
`
`parties
`
`one
`
`of
`
`the
`
`

`

`vacant
`
`offices,
`
`assign
`
`each
`
`party
`
`the
`
`financial
`
`responsibility
`
`for
`
`one-third
`
`of
`
`the
`
`lease, make
`
`DBD responsible
`
`for
`
`one-third,
`
`restrict
`
`the
`
`locking
`
`of
`
`cabinets
`
`to only
`
`that
`
`office
`
`that
`
`is shared
`
`by
`
`the
`
`firm,
`
`direct
`
`that
`
`once
`
`cases
`
`are divided
`
`(and
`
`the
`
`numerous
`
`questions
`
`of what
`
`that means
`
`fiscally
`
`and how the
`
`division
`
`of new
`
`cases
`
`is to be handled)
`
`those
`
`files may
`
`be restricted
`
`to the
`
`party
`
`who
`
`has
`
`selected
`
`them,
`
`and
`
`allowing
`
`also
`
`for
`
`the
`
`locking
`
`of
`
`cabinets
`
`containing
`
`the
`
`new
`
`our
`
`individual
`
`cases
`
`that
`
`firms
`
`take
`
`on.
`
`13.
`
`My right
`
`to work
`
`in the
`
`office,
`
`the
`
`lease
`
`for which
`
`is in my name
`
`only,
`
`and which
`
`is costing
`
`thousands
`
`of dollars
`
`to rent monthly,
`
`as well
`
`as the
`
`necessity
`
`of additional
`
`time
`
`to meet
`
`and
`
`discharge
`
`my professional
`
`responsibilities,
`
`outweigh
`
`any
`
`discomfort
`
`the Petitioner
`
`may
`
`feel
`
`being
`
`around
`
`me.
`
`If
`
`she
`
`is uncomfortable,
`
`she need
`
`not
`
`come
`
`in,
`
`or she may
`
`come
`
`in and work
`
`in her
`
`own
`
`office.
`
`There
`
`is no need
`
`for
`
`us to have
`
`anything
`
`more
`
`than
`
`incidental
`
`contact
`
`- which,
`
`the
`
`order
`
`of protection
`
`in the
`
`first
`
`to my
`
`understanding,
`
`would
`
`not
`
`violate
`
`place.
`
`14.
`
`Despite
`
`the
`
`fact
`
`that
`
`I have
`
`a full
`
`day
`
`of work
`
`to do,
`
`every
`
`day,
`
`I am only
`
`allotted
`
`a half
`
`a day
`
`to do it. Matters
`
`are languishing.
`
`I
`
`require
`
`the
`
`use
`
`of a secretary,
`
`and am not
`
`"tech
`
`savvy"
`
`to any
`
`degree
`
`which
`
`would
`
`allow
`
`me to work
`
`from
`
`home
`
`- I have
`
`an approximately
`
`ten
`
`year
`
`old
`
`cell
`
`phone
`
`running
`
`first
`
`gen
`
`software,
`
`a computer
`
`that
`
`cannot
`
`open
`
`a Microsoft
`
`Word
`
`and
`
`no
`
`discernable
`
`IT skills;
`
`not
`
`those
`
`which
`
`would
`
`allow
`
`and
`
`document,
`
`certainly
`
`me to set up
`
`run
`
`a virtual
`
`office.
`
`15.
`
`Besides
`
`that,
`
`and
`
`incredibly
`
`importantly,
`
`I need
`
`to have
`
`access
`
`to many
`
`of
`
`the
`
`actual
`
`case
`
`files
`
`every
`
`day which
`
`changes
`
`every
`
`day, which
`
`are all
`
`in the
`
`office,
`
`and which
`
`obviously
`
`cannot
`
`be brought
`
`home
`
`and
`
`back
`
`to the
`
`office
`
`every
`
`day.
`
`I need
`
`to be in the
`
`office,
`
`each
`
`day,
`
`every
`
`day,
`
`all
`
`day,
`
`and
`
`to not
`
`be there
`
`is tantamount
`
`to malpractice.
`
`Already,
`
`I have
`
`had
`
`to bring
`
`approximately
`
`six motions
`
`to restore
`
`cases
`
`that were
`
`marked
`
`off
`
`the
`
`calendar,
`
`

`

`disposed
`
`of,
`
`and
`
`one which
`
`was
`
`actually
`
`dismissed,
`
`for
`
`failure
`
`to timely
`
`file Notes
`
`of
`
`Issue
`
`and
`
`other
`
`reasons,
`
`all
`
`as a result
`
`of
`
`the
`
`aforementioned
`
`Office
`
`Access
`
`Order.
`
`The
`
`Petitioner
`
`has
`
`had
`
`this
`
`happen
`
`as well.
`
`16.
`
`It
`
`is no joke
`
`and
`
`I cannot
`
`stress
`
`enough
`
`the
`
`fact
`
`that my
`
`legal
`
`practice
`
`is falling
`
`apart, my livelihood
`
`is in severe
`
`jeopardy
`
`and my
`
`clients'
`
`cases
`
`are being
`
`grossly
`
`neglected.
`
`17.
`
`I can
`
`no longer
`
`risk multiple
`
`malpractice
`
`lawsuits
`
`and
`
`clients
`
`taking
`
`their
`
`cases
`
`to
`
`other
`
`attorneys
`
`by not
`
`being
`
`in the
`
`office
`
`full
`
`time
`
`as I have
`
`been
`
`since
`
`1985.
`
`This
`
`is also
`
`clearly
`
`not
`
`fair
`
`to my
`
`clients,
`
`so many
`
`of whom are upset
`
`because
`
`their
`
`cases
`
`are moving
`
`way
`
`too
`
`slowly.
`
`18.
`
`It
`
`is no
`
`exaggeration,
`
`no hyperbole
`
`to state
`
`that
`
`this
`
`failed
`
`experiment
`
`in which
`
`I
`
`am only
`
`allowed
`
`in my own
`
`office
`
`for
`
`a total
`
`of 2½ days
`
`a week
`
`instead
`
`of
`
`the
`
`usual
`
`five
`
`full
`
`days
`
`(while
`
`still
`
`over
`
`four
`
`thousand
`
`dollars
`
`a month
`
`in rent
`
`and
`
`has
`
`been
`
`an
`
`paying
`
`electricity)
`
`unmitigated
`
`disaster
`
`and
`
`cannot
`
`continue
`
`one more
`
`day.
`
`19.
`
`Without
`
`violating
`
`CPLR,
`
`there
`
`exists
`
`a settlement
`
`concept
`
`known
`
`by
`
`the
`
`parties
`
`as
`
`the
`
`"Brian
`
`Plan"
`
`- similar
`
`to the Court's
`
`CDO,
`
`however,
`
`the
`
`concept
`
`requires
`
`that
`
`all
`
`fees
`
`received
`
`by
`
`deposited
`
`into
`
`the
`
`firm's
`
`general
`
`account.
`
`The Petitioner
`
`herself
`
`has
`
`suggested
`
`this.
`
`Please
`
`see same
`
`attached
`
`as Exhibit
`
`"C".
`
`A new
`
`order
`
`should
`
`be issued
`
`consistent
`
`with
`
`that
`
`plan,
`
`account
`
`except
`
`for
`
`office
`
`operational
`
`and
`
`directing
`
`that
`
`no funds
`
`shall
`
`be drawn
`
`from
`
`that
`
`costs,
`
`or otherwise
`
`upon
`
`the
`
`agreement
`
`of
`
`the
`
`parties.
`
`As
`
`the Court
`
`is aware,
`
`there
`
`is a dispute
`
`as to
`
`whether
`
`the
`
`parties
`
`are 50% each
`
`partners
`
`(as the Petitioner
`
`claims)
`
`or
`
`I am the
`
`52.5%
`
`percent
`
`owner
`
`and
`
`the Petitioner
`
`47.5%.
`
`Annexed
`
`as Exhibit
`
`"D"
`
`are copies
`
`of
`
`the DBD operating
`
`agreement,
`
`and
`
`the Addendum
`
`thereto,
`
`which
`
`the Petitioner
`
`herself
`
`composed,
`
`hand-wrote
`
`and
`
`signed,
`
`These
`
`documents
`
`clearly
`
`demonstrate
`
`that
`
`the
`
`parties
`
`do not
`
`have
`
`equal
`
`ownership
`
`

`

`interests.
`
`Other
`
`than
`
`office
`
`expenditures,
`
`5% of all
`
`revenue
`
`should
`
`be held
`
`in escrow
`
`until
`
`the
`
`ownership
`
`percentages
`
`dispute
`
`is resolved.
`
`20.
`
`Additionally,
`
`in the matrimonial
`
`action,
`
`the
`
`fair market
`
`value
`
`of
`
`100% of DBD
`
`was
`
`valued
`
`at $31,000.00
`
`as of
`
`June
`
`30,
`
`2017
`
`(Exhibit
`
`"E",
`
`first
`
`two
`
`pages
`
`of evaluation
`
`report.)
`
`The Court
`
`should
`
`issue
`
`an order
`
`permitting
`
`me to purchase
`
`the
`
`firm
`
`outright
`
`for
`
`47.5%
`
`of
`
`that
`
`amount.
`
`please
`
`note
`
`as per
`
`our
`
`respective
`
`In addition,
`
`that,
`
`Statements
`
`of Proposed
`
`Disposition
`
`in the matrimonial
`
`action,
`
`I am the
`
`only
`
`one
`
`of
`
`the
`
`two
`
`parties
`
`that
`
`has
`
`requested
`
`buying
`
`the
`
`entire
`
`business
`
`that my
`
`late
`
`father
`
`started,
`
`that
`
`I entered
`
`way
`
`back
`
`in
`
`1985,
`
`six
`
`(6)
`
`years
`
`before
`
`we
`
`brought
`
`the Petitioner
`
`into
`
`same.
`
`See Exhibits
`
`"F"
`
`and
`
`"G",
`
`the
`
`parties'
`
`Statements
`
`of
`
`Proposed
`
`Distribution.
`
`21.
`
`The CDO is completely
`
`inequitable
`
`to me.
`
`Notwithstanding
`
`the Petitioner's
`
`legal
`
`of
`
`allegations
`
`to the
`
`contrary,
`
`I have
`
`handled
`
`the majority
`
`of
`
`the
`
`work
`
`on the majority
`
`the
`
`cases,
`
`doing
`
`all
`
`or most
`
`of
`
`the
`
`pleadings
`
`and motion
`
`work
`
`on them,
`
`litigating
`
`them to the
`
`point
`
`of
`
`placing
`
`swoop
`
`them
`
`on the
`
`trial
`
`calendar
`
`or close
`
`to it;
`
`the CDO as written
`
`allows
`
`the Petitioner
`
`to just
`
`in and
`
`take
`
`those
`
`cases
`
`and
`
`settle
`
`them
`
`or simply
`
`wait
`
`for
`
`them to be tried
`
`without
`
`doing
`
`work
`
`and
`
`while
`
`stuck
`
`with
`
`some
`
`ofher
`
`less
`
`any more
`
`on them,
`
`reap
`
`a windfall,
`
`I am potentially
`
`valuable
`
`cases
`
`in which
`
`no
`
`or close
`
`to no work
`
`has
`
`been
`
`done.
`
`22.
`
`The CDO is potentially
`
`unfair
`
`and
`
`disastrous
`
`to each
`
`of us in that
`
`no
`
`one
`
`knows
`
`exactly
`
`how much
`
`a case will
`
`be resolved
`
`for,
`
`clients
`
`(and witnesses)
`
`can
`
`die,
`
`become
`
`missing
`
`or
`
`get
`
`into
`
`other
`
`accidents
`
`(which
`
`has
`
`repeatedly
`
`happened
`
`with
`
`a number
`
`of
`
`clients)
`
`and which
`
`obviously
`
`significantly
`
`diminishes
`
`the
`
`value
`
`of
`
`the
`
`cases,
`
`

`

`23.
`
`As
`
`just
`
`another
`
`way
`
`in which
`
`the CDO is flawed,
`
`it
`
`forces
`
`us to split
`
`up the
`
`cases
`
`but
`
`still
`
`allows
`
`us to work
`
`on each
`
`other's
`
`cases. Why
`
`would
`
`either
`
`of us want
`
`to work
`
`on cases
`
`that
`
`the
`
`other
`
`one
`
`has
`
`and
`
`to which
`
`we
`
`cannot
`
`get
`
`any
`
`fee?
`
`24.
`
`The CDO also
`
`needs
`
`clarification
`
`as to "referred
`
`cases".
`
`Does
`
`that
`
`also mean
`
`cases
`
`taken
`
`away
`
`from DBD by
`
`other
`
`attorneys'
`
`25.
`
`It
`
`is respectfully
`
`submitted
`
`that
`
`the Honorable
`
`Court
`
`should
`
`stay
`
`its own
`
`order
`
`further
`
`at
`
`least
`
`a full
`
`oral
`
`argument
`
`before
`
`at
`
`pending
`
`proceedings,
`
`in particularly
`
`the Court
`
`which
`
`these
`
`infirmities
`
`and
`
`open
`
`questions
`
`can
`
`be addressed.
`
`26.
`
`C.P.L.R.
`
`R. 2217
`
`(b)
`
`compliance:
`
`no
`
`prior
`
`request
`
`for
`
`the
`
`relief
`
`sought
`
`herein
`
`has
`
`heretofore
`
`been
`
`made.
`
`WHEREFORE,
`grant
`
`Division
`
`that
`
`grant,
`wrought
`
`Order,
`issue
`
`thereby.
`
`I ask
`
`the Court
`
`reargument
`
`of
`
`issue
`
`a temporary
`the Petitioner's
`motion
`
`the
`
`of
`
`stay
`which
`
`a new
`
`order
`
`which
`
`properly
`
`addresses
`
`all
`
`of
`
`the
`
`open
`
`2018
`21,
`February
`lead
`to that Order,
`questions
`and
`
`Case
`
`and
`
`upon
`
`injustices
`
`Sworn
`22nd
`
`to before
`
`th'
`me th
`
`da
`
`of Mar
`
`2
`
`18:
`
`/24tt
`BARRY
`
`G¼+tA&n
`DINERMAN
`
`Henry J o ep ,
`
`, Reg. No. 02106238397
`xpires April 4, 2019
`
`

`

`SUPREME
`COUNTY
`---------------------------------------------------------------x
`
`OF THE
`
`STATE
`
`COURT
`OF KINGS
`
`OF NEW YORK
`
`Index
`
`No.:
`
`500202/2018
`
`:
`
`:
`
`:
`
`SUPPORTING
`AFFIDAVIT
`
`MARY
`
`BERGAM,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`-against-
`
`BARRY
`
`DINERMAN,
`
`Respondent.
`
`---------------------------------------------------------------x
`
`HENRY
`
`JAMES
`
`JOSEPH,
`
`an attorney
`
`duly
`
`admitted
`
`to practice
`
`law before
`
`the Courts
`
`of
`
`the State
`
`of New York,
`
`hereby
`
`affirms
`
`the
`
`truth
`
`of
`
`the
`
`following,
`
`pursuant
`
`to CPLR R. 2016
`
`and
`
`under
`
`penalty
`
`of perjury,
`
`that:
`
`1.
`
`of
`
`record
`
`for
`
`the within
`
`Respondent
`
`in this
`
`proceeding.
`
`I am the Attorney
`
`2.
`
`I make
`
`this
`
`affidavit
`
`in support
`
`of Respondent's
`
`motion,
`
`Motion
`
`Sequence
`
`3,
`
`brought
`
`by
`
`order
`
`to show
`
`cause
`
`and
`
`seeking
`
`a stay
`
`of,
`
`then
`
`reargument
`
`of,
`
`this
`
`Court's
`
`February
`
`21,
`
`2018
`
`Order,
`
`annexed
`
`hereto
`
`as Exhibit
`
`"A"
`
`(hereinafter
`
`the
`
`"Case
`
`Division
`
`Order"
`
`or
`
`ccCDO)t
`"CDO".)
`
`3.
`
`CPLR 2221
`
`provides,
`
`in pertinent
`
`part:
`
`for
`
`leave
`
`(a) A motion
`a prior
`to reargue
`or
`to renew
`or
`to stay,
`leave
`to appeal
`vacate
`or modify,
`from,
`to the judge
`on notice,
`signed
`the
`who
`made,
`order,
`A motion
`unable
`is for
`to hear
`reason
`it...(d)
`any
`be identified
`as such;
`1. shall
`reargue:
`specifically
`or
`overlooked
`fact
`law allegedly
`upon matters
`of
`the
`the
`in determining
`prior
`court
`by
`on the
`any matters
`of
`fact
`not
`
`for
`motion,
`an order
`be
`shall
`he or she
`unless
`to
`leave
`be based
`2. shall
`or misapprehended
`shall
`not
`include
`
`for
`
`f.]
`
`offered
`
`motion,
`prior
`
`but
`motion
`
`

`

`4.
`
`I
`
`rely
`
`on the
`
`accompanying
`
`affidavit
`
`of
`
`the Respondent
`
`for
`
`the
`
`factual,
`
`and
`
`indeed
`
`equitable,
`
`basis
`
`upon
`
`which
`
`the Court
`
`should
`
`grant
`
`reargument
`
`and
`
`issue
`
`a new
`
`order.
`
`I confirm
`
`that
`
`the
`
`order
`
`in question
`
`was
`
`issued
`
`after
`
`a conference
`
`with
`
`the Court's
`
`Principal
`
`Court
`
`Attorney,
`
`and
`
`that
`
`I did
`
`not
`
`consent
`
`to its
`
`terms.
`
`Indeed,
`
`I specifically
`
`stated
`
`on several
`
`occasions,
`
`"I
`
`can't
`
`consent
`
`to
`
`that"
`
`and
`
`"I
`
`do not
`
`have
`
`the
`
`authority
`
`to consent
`
`to
`
`The
`
`reasons
`
`that."
`
`order
`
`5.
`
`offered
`
`by my
`
`client
`
`justifying
`
`reargument
`
`and
`
`a new
`
`need
`
`not
`
`be repeated
`
`here.
`
`The
`
`infirmities
`
`in the
`
`order
`
`are patent,
`
`and
`
`the
`
`open
`
`questions
`
`proffered
`
`the
`
`by
`
`Respondent
`
`foretell
`
`great
`
`trouble
`
`for
`
`the
`
`parties
`
`if not
`
`answered
`
`with
`
`a new
`
`order.
`
`6.
`
`C.P.L.R.
`
`R. 2217
`
`(b)
`
`compliance:
`
`no
`
`prior
`
`request
`
`for
`
`the
`
`relief
`
`sought
`
`herein
`
`has
`
`heretofore
`
`been
`
`made.
`
`WHEREFORE,
`
`I join
`
`the Respondent
`
`in his
`
`prayer
`
`for
`
`relief.
`
`Dated:
`
`Brooklyn,
`March
`
`New York
`10, 2018
`
`He
`
`J
`
`s J
`
`, Esq.
`
`

`

`EXHIBIT
`
`

`

`-,.
`
`-Il
`
`Supreme
`the
`Part
`Trial
`of
`At an LA.S.
`Term,
`held in and for
`the
`of New York,
`the State
`Court
`of
`located
`at
`at
`the Courthouse,
`of Kings,
`County
`and State.
`of Brooldyn,
`Borough
`Civic Center,
`the"-
`of New York,
`on
`of
`f(fday
`207:g
`the-y
`
`City
`',,,'.",'
`
`P . R
`
`E
`
`Hon.
`
`S . E
`5
`
`f~
`
`N
`
`T
`
`:
`
`Justice
`
`Cal. No.
`
`Index
`
`No.
`
`- against
`
`-
`
`/ j«>t,'',.t
`
`j/
`
`j/
`
`l/ V
`
`//)
`
`Plaintiff(s)
`
`Defendant(s)
`
`1
`
`to
`
`read
`
`on
`
`this
`
`motion
`
`Papers
`
`Numbered
`
`numbered
`papers
`The
`following
`of Motion.- Order
`to Show Cause
`Notice
`Annexed
`and Affidavits
`(Affirmations)
`Affidavit
`(Affirmation)
`Answering
`Reply Affidavit
`(Affirmation)
`Affidavit
`
`Pleadings
`Stipulations
`Filed Papers
`
`- Exhibits
`- Minutes
`
`(Affirmation)
`
`.
`
`.
`
`+
`
`,L:,::i'-j':,:.
`
`i<:Xljjii'j
`
`/
`
`l.»'«,,
`
`~
`
`(i
`
`(i(
`
`/(«-
`
`(j+"
`
`L/(
`
`ti(::/«",(j
`
`"(
`
`.(t
`
`j,jj-
`
`'i««"
`
`j<«
`
`/
`
`//$ J
`
`l-(
`
`'
`
`$((
`
`/$
`
`//
`
`l
`
`IW',
`
`(ii,,i.3
`
`'
`
`I
`
`//
`
`(
`
`»t'(t(»
`
`''
`
`i («q'«./
`
`g
`
`0 ~«Q( t»$ g I
`
`For Clerks
`MG
`
`use only
`
`):I
`
`t-
`
`(,
`
`I
`
`("]-
`
`//@'
`
`l/"
`
`//.t
`
`a
`
`/;(gati~;.
`
`//;»;
`
`(
`
`t:("(j
`
`((tj.ii
`
`Motion
`
`Seq. #
`, )ri
`
`(~(
`
`((j(
`
`i
`
`.
`«'j')t'
`
`ji:((('
`
`j
`
`j
`
`jt~
`
`i„:,t,"tt
`
`~
`
`t
`
`g
`
`l
`
`//i
`
`!'iii,-«;-:::<!
`
`-!Ii~!'
`i
`2 W
`
`(E
`
`Eiv.
`
`»e4
`
`/';
`
`i'.:.I
`
`'i/
`
`(:-.':.'j
`
`j$~
`
`L
`il
`
`j
`
`/(."
`
`'/3'i»
`
`MON.
`
`(/i
`
`YMAG.A
`4((it'(j
`
`j( 6
`
`'
`
`l
`
`i
`
`jjt~((
`
`j)g'
`
`i
`
`//i~,„::,t„;!
`
`"i,
`
`j'„t!
`
`„:/::.
`
`((ii
`
`(I
`
`(/
`
`((li~
`
`/(((l(
`
`.»
`
`Ui
`
`('
`
`L
`
`

`

`EXHIBIT
`EXHIBIT
`
`B
`
`

`

`At
`
`an
`
`IAS
`
`Trial
`
`Term,Part5T
`
`Court
`in
`
`of
`
`the
`for
`
`and
`
`held
`
`State
`
`the
`
`of
`the
`of New
`of
`
`on
`
`the
`
`County
`at. Civic
`
`Supreme
`
`York,
`
`Kings,
`
`at
`
`the
`
`Center,
`286
`
`day
`
`Brooklyn,
`of April,
`
`Courthouse,
`New York,
`2017.
`
`P R E S E N T:
`
`HON.
`
`DELORES
`
`J. THOMAS,
`
`J.S.C.
`
`_ _ _--
`_ _----.-.
`MARY BERGAM,
`
`_---_..--..-
`
`- _. _ _ -..,X
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`INDEX
`
`NO.:
`
`52375/2013
`
`-against-
`
`BARRY
`
`DINERMAN,
`
`-------------••--------------------X
`
`Defendant.
`
`ORDER
`PLAINTIFF'S
`ACCESS
`
`REGARDING
`APPLICATION
`TO THE PARTIES'
`OFFICE
`
`FOR
`LAW
`
`Upon
`
`all
`
`prior
`
`proceedings
`
`in this matrimonial
`
`action,
`
`and
`
`Upon
`
`Plaintiff's
`
`oral
`
`application
`
`on April
`
`25, 2017
`
`and
`
`April
`
`27,
`
`2017for
`
`keys
`
`and
`
`access
`
`to the
`
`parties'
`
`law
`
`office
`
`leased
`
`by Defendant,
`
`the
`
`court
`
`finds
`
`as follows:
`
`the
`
`instant
`
`for
`
`On May
`
`30,
`
`2013,
`
`Plaintiff
`
`MARY
`
`BERGAM
`
`commenced
`
`action
`
`divorce
`
`and
`
`ancillary
`
`relief
`
`against
`
`Defendant
`
`BARRY
`
`DINERMAN.
`
`On
`
`or
`
`about
`
`August
`
`18,
`
`2014,
`
`Plaintiff
`
`filed
`
`a family
`
`offense
`
`petition
`
`against
`
`Defendant
`
`in Kings
`
`County
`
`Family
`
`Court
`
`seeking
`
`an
`
`order
`
`of
`
`protection
`
`alleging
`
`Defendant
`
`had
`
`locked
`
`her
`
`out
`
`of
`
`the marital
`
`residence,
`
`that
`
`he was
`
`menacing
`
`that
`
`and
`
`harassing
`
`her,
`
`and
`
`that
`
`she was
`
`afraid
`
`that
`
`Defendant
`
`would
`
`"explode"
`
`on
`
`her
`
`in
`
`their
`
`office.
`
`The
`
`Pamily
`
`Court
`
`issued
`
`a
`
`temporary
`
`order
`
`of protection
`
`in favor
`
`of Plaintiff
`
`and
`
`

`

`against
`
`Defendant
`
`directing
`
`hini
`
`to refrain
`
`from
`
`committing
`
`any
`
`criminal
`
`offense
`
`against
`
`Plaintiff.
`
`On November
`
`26,
`
`2014,
`
`Plaintiff
`
`filed
`
`an
`
`order
`
`to
`
`show
`
`cause
`
`seeking,
`
`among
`
`other
`
`things,
`
`consolidation
`
`of
`
`the Pamily
`
`Court
`
`proceeding,
`
`claiming
`
`that
`
`Defendant
`
`had
`
`violated
`
`the
`
`order
`
`of
`
`protection
`
`in their
`
`law
`
`office
`
`in
`
`the
`
`presence
`
`of
`
`their
`
`employees
`
`(Motion
`
`Sequence
`
`No,
`
`6),
`
`On March
`
`Defendant
`
`filed
`
`an
`
`order
`
`show
`
`cause
`
`an
`
`4, 2015,
`
`to
`
`seeking
`
`order
`
`of.of
`
`protection
`
`against
`
`Plaintiff
`
`and
`
`in
`
`favor
`
`of Defendant,
`
`claiming
`
`that
`
`she
`
`committed
`
`acts
`
`that
`
`constitute
`
`disorderly
`
`conduct,
`
`harassment,
`
`menacing
`
`and
`
`assault
`
`(Motion
`
`Seq. No.
`
`8).
`
`Defendant
`
`alleged
`
`that
`
`Plaintiff
`
`had
`
`hit,
`
`shoved
`
`and
`
`scratched
`
`him;
`
`threw
`
`hot
`
`coffee
`
`on
`
`him;
`
`cursed
`
`at him in
`
`front
`
`of
`
`one
`
`of
`
`the
`
`secretaries;
`
`and
`
`committed
`
`other
`
`actions
`
`which
`
`his
`
`and
`
`property.
`
`In opposition
`
`caused
`
`him
`
`to be fearful
`
`for
`
`person
`
`to Defendant's
`
`motion,
`
`Plaintiff
`
`indicated
`
`that
`
`he should
`
`not
`
`be granted
`
`an
`
`order
`
`of protection
`
`because
`
`he would
`
`likely
`
`use
`
`it
`
`to call
`
`the
`
`police
`
`for.no
`
`other.reason
`
`than
`
`to intimidate
`
`and
`
`destroy
`
`her.
`
`On
`
`April
`
`9, 2015,
`
`the
`
`court
`
`entered
`
`two
`
`temporary
`
`orders
`
`protection."
`of protection:
`
`one
`
`in
`
`favor
`
`of Plaintiff
`
`and
`
`against
`
`Defendant,
`
`and
`
`one
`
`in
`
`favor
`
`of'
`of Defendant
`
`and
`
`against
`
`each
`
`to
`
`refrain
`
`from
`
`or
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`directing
`
`party
`
`assaulting,
`
`stalking,
`
`harassing
`
`committing
`
`any
`
`such
`
`criminal
`
`offense
`
`against
`
`the
`
`other,
`
`The
`
`temporary
`
`order
`
`of
`
`protection
`
`also
`
`directed
`
`Plaintiff
`
`to refrain
`
`from
`
`communicating
`
`with
`
`Defendant
`
`by mail,
`
`telephone,
`
`email,
`
`voice
`
`mail,
`
`or any
`
`other
`
`means.
`
`decision
`
`and
`
`order
`
`dated
`
`By
`
`July
`
`6, 2015,
`
`the
`
`court
`
`consolidated
`
`Plaintiff's
`
`family
`
`offense
`
`proceeding
`
`with
`
`the
`
`instant
`
`matrimonial
`
`case
`
`in
`
`the
`
`interest
`
`of
`
`judicial
`
`2
`
`

`

`expediency,
`
`and
`
`granted
`
`Defendant
`
`a
`
`temporary
`
`order
`
`of
`
`protection
`
`based
`
`on
`
`the
`
`allegations
`
`set
`
`forth
`
`after
`
`a hearing,
`
`The
`
`parties'
`
`requests
`
`for
`
`final
`
`orders
`
`of protection
`
`were
`
`referred
`
`to trial.
`
`t
`
`The
`
`trial
`
`of
`
`this
`
`case
`
`commenced
`
`on
`
`or
`
`about
`
`March
`
`22,
`
`2016
`
`and
`
`is presently
`
`ongoing.
`
`The
`
`parties'
`
`respective
`
`temporary
`
`orders
`
`of
`
`protection
`
`have
`
`been
`
`extended
`
`since
`
`their
`
`first
`
`of
`
`this
`
`action.1
`
`issuance,
`
`pending
`
`resolution
`
`divorce
`
`The
`
`parties
`
`have
`
`a personal
`
`injury
`
`law
`
`practice,
`
`Dinerman
`
`Bergam
`
`& Dinerman,
`
`which
`
`is
`
`presently
`
`subject
`
`to
`
`equitable
`
`distribution.
`
`Since
`
`the
`
`entry
`
`of
`
`the
`
`temporary
`
`orders
`
`of protection,
`
`they
`
`have
`
`refrained
`
`from
`
`working
`
`in the
`
`law
`
`firm's
`
`office
`
`at
`
`the
`
`same
`
`time,
`
`with
`
`Defendant
`
`working
`
`at
`
`the
`
`office
`
`and
`
`Plaintiff
`
`working
`
`primarily
`
`from
`
`home.
`
`At
`
`some
`
`point.after
`
`the
`
`of
`
`commencement
`
`trial,
`
`Defendant
`
`leased
`
`a new
`
`office
`
`space.
`
`During
`
`the
`
`continued
`
`trial
`
`on April
`
`25, 2017,
`
`Plaintiff's
`
`counsel
`
`made
`
`an oral
`
`application
`
`for Defendant
`
`to
`
`provide
`
`Plaintiff
`
`a copy
`
`of
`
`the
`
`keys
`
`to the new office,
`
`so
`
`that
`
`she
`
`could
`
`gain
`
`access
`
`to
`
`the
`
`case
`
`files
`
`and
`
`other
`
`materials
`
`pertinent
`
`to
`
`active
`
`cases.
`
`On April
`
`27,
`
`Plaintiff's
`
`counsel
`
`made
`
`an
`
`oral
`
`application
`
`for
`
`the
`
`court
`
`to set
`
`an
`
`access
`
`schedule,
`
`2017,
`
`allowing
`
`each
`
`party
`
`time
`
`in
`
`the.office
`
`outside
`
`of
`
`the
`
`presence
`
`of
`
`the
`
`other
`
`party.
`
`The
`
`parties
`
`set
`
`forth
`
`their
`
`respective
`
`arguments
`
`on
`
`the
`
`record,
`
`and
`
`the
`
`court
`
`indicated
`
`that
`
`it
`
`would
`
`issue
`
`a written
`
`decision
`
`regarding
`
`their
`
`access
`
`schedtile.
`
`to
`
`1 Due
`expired
`extensions
`
`an
`
`oversight
`
`on March
`on their
`
`the
`by
`2016.
`
`22,
`
`temporary
`
`court
`The
`orders
`
`the
`
`the
`and
`parties,
`come
`to
`parties
`may
`to the
`of protection
`
`last
`the
`
`temporary
`Part
`court
`
`order
`next
`
`of protection
`week
`to
`obtain
`
`5T
`
`date.
`
`next
`
`3
`
`

`

`Plaintiff
`
`initially
`
`requested
`
`that
`
`whatever
`
`schedule
`
`Defendant
`
`proposed,
`
`Plaintiff
`
`would
`
`like
`
`the
`
`opposite
`
`schedule
`
`alternated
`
`from
`
`week
`
`to week.
`
`Plaintiff
`
`noted
`
`that
`
`she
`
`typically
`
`works
`
`from
`
`9:00
`
`a.m.
`
`to
`
`5:00
`
`p.m.,
`
`and
`
`that
`
`she
`
`needs
`
`access
`
`to
`
`the
`
`office
`
`to
`
`facilitate
`
`her
`
`ability
`
`to settle
`
`their
`
`clients'
`
`cases.
`
`.Defendant
`
`proposed
`
`that
`
`he
`
`should
`
`have
`
`every
`
`morning
`
`of
`
`the
`
`week
`
`and
`
`that
`
`Plaintiff
`
`could
`
`work
`
`the
`
`in
`
`office
`
`every
`
`afternoon.
`
`Defendant
`
`indicated
`
`that
`
`he
`
`gets
`
`to
`
`work
`
`at 7:30
`
`a.m.
`
`and
`
`is responsible
`
`for
`
`legal
`
`as well
`
`as administrative
`
`work
`
`for
`
`the
`
`firm.
`
`He also
`
`indicated
`
`that
`
`he
`
`requires
`
`the
`
`assistance
`
`of
`
`the
`
`secretary
`
`who
`
`works
`
`from
`
`9:00
`
`a.m.
`
`to 5:00
`
`p.m.,
`
`and
`
`does
`
`not
`
`have
`
`access
`
`to
`
`technology
`
`fromhome.
`
`The
`
`parties
`
`agreed
`
`on
`
`the
`
`record
`
`that
`
`because
`
`they
`
`would
`
`not
`
`be
`
`occupying
`
`the
`
`office
`
`at
`
`the
`
`same
`
`time,
`
`they
`
`could
`
`share
`
`an office
`
`so that
`
`the
`
`other
`
`three
`
`offices
`
`could
`
`be
`
`leased
`
`to other
`
`attorneys.
`
`After
`
`careful
`
`consideration
`
`of
`
`the
`
`parties'
`
`respective
`
`proposals
`
`for
`
`scheduling
`
`their
`
`time
`
`in
`
`the
`
`law
`
`firm,
`
`and
`
`the
`
`facts
`
`and
`
`circumstances
`
`of
`
`the
`
`case,
`
`particularly
`
`(1)
`
`the
`
`parties'
`
`temporary
`
`orders
`
`protection,'
`of protection;(2)
`
`parties'
`
`the
`
`duty
`
`of professional
`
`responsibility
`
`and
`
`parties'
`parties'
`
`to preserve
`
`this
`
`law
`
`practice
`
`as a marital
`
`asset
`
`to their
`
`clients;
`
`(3)
`
`the
`
`duty
`
`subject
`
`to
`
`equitable
`
`distribution
`
`in
`
`accordance
`
`with
`
`the
`
`automatic
`
`orders
`
`and
`
`to
`
`avoid
`
`possible
`
`marital
`
`waste;
`
`and
`
`the
`
`(4)
`
`inability
`
`of
`
`the
`
`parties
`
`to work
`
`together
`
`in
`
`the
`
`law
`
`office
`
`at
`
`the
`
`same
`
`time
`
`without
`
`engaging
`
`in
`
`conduct
`
`that
`
`would
`
`violate
`
`their
`
`respective
`
`temporary
`
`orders
`
`of protection,
`
`.
`
`IT
`
`IS HEREBY
`
`ORDERED
`
`that
`
`the
`
`parties'
`parties'
`
`access
`
`to their
`
`law
`
`office
`
`is as follows:
`
`

`

`Commencing
`
`Moriday,
`
`May
`
`1, 2017,
`
`Defendant
`
`shall
`
`have
`
`exclusive
`
`use
`
`of
`
`the
`
`law
`
`office
`
`on Mondays,
`
`Wednesdays
`
`and
`
`Fridays
`
`from
`
`9:00'
`9:00
`
`a.m.
`
`until
`
`12:45
`
`p.m.
`
`and
`
`on
`
`Tuesdays
`
`and
`
`Thursdays
`
`from
`
`1:15
`
`p.m.
`
`until
`
`5:00
`
`p.m.
`
`Plaintiff
`
`shall
`
`have
`
`exclusive
`
`use
`
`of
`
`the
`
`law
`
`office
`
`on Mondays,
`
`Wednesdays
`
`and
`
`Fridays
`
`from
`
`1:15
`
`p.m.
`
`until
`
`5:00
`
`p.m.
`
`and
`
`on Tuesdays
`
`and
`
`Thursdays
`
`from
`
`9:00
`
`a.m.
`
`until
`
`12:45
`
`p.m.
`
`The
`
`parties
`
`shall
`
`alternate
`
`this
`
`schedule
`
`pending
`
`further
`
`order
`
`of
`
`this
`
`court
`
`or written
`
`agreement
`
`of
`
`the
`
`parties.
`
`weekly
`
`Should
`
`Defendant
`
`wish
`
`to work
`
`at
`
`the
`
`office
`
`7:30
`
`a.m.
`
`on
`
`days
`
`that
`
`Plaintiff
`
`has
`
`use
`
`of
`
`the
`
`office
`
`in the morning,
`
`he may
`
`do
`
`so as long
`
`as he leaves
`
`the
`
`office
`
`no later
`
`than
`
`8:45
`
`a.m.
`
`This
`
`schedule
`
`is set
`
`forth
`
`to minimize
`
`the
`
`parties'
`
`interaction
`
`with
`
`each.
`
`other
`
`and
`
`to
`
`promote
`
`the
`
`effective
`
`practice
`
`of
`
`law
`
`on
`
`behalf
`
`of
`
`their
`
`clients
`
`pending
`
`any
`
`final
`
`resolution
`
`of
`
`this
`
`divorce
`
`action.
`
`HON.
`
`H M ,
`
`S.
`
`HON.
`
`DELORES
`
`1 THOMAS,
`
`J.S.C.
`
`5
`
`

`

`EXHIBIT
`EXHIBIT
`
`C
`
`

`

`--------
`
`Subject:
`
`Original
`
`Message
`
`--------
`
`Fwd:
`
`Proposed
`
`good
`
`faith
`
`letter
`
`to Jim Jo