FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 05/12/2021 08:45 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 145
`
`INDEX NO. 613817/2019
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/12/2021
`
`OF NEW YORK
`
`COURT OF THE STATE
`SUPREME
`COUNTY
`OF NASSAU
`-----------------------------
`ALYSON
`SANDLER
`SANDLER
`FRANK,
`
`VENEZIA
`
`and MARISSA
`
`Index
`
`No.:
`
`613817/2019
`
`AFFIRMATION
`TO MOTION
`
`IN OPPOSITION
`TO REARGUE
`
`x
`
`x
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`- against
`
`-
`
`PAMELA
`ELISA
`
`GREENBAUM,
`SHAFRAN,
`
`ADAM SANDLER
`
`and
`
`Defendants.
`
`ss.:
`
`) )
`
`)
`
`-------------------------
`OF NEW YORK
`STATE
`
`COUNTY
`
`OF NASSAU
`
`GREGORY
`
`J. POND,
`
`an attorney
`
`duly
`
`licensed
`
`to practice
`
`law
`
`in the
`
`courts
`
`of
`
`the State
`
`of New York,
`
`hereby
`
`affirms
`
`the
`
`following
`
`to be true
`
`under
`
`the
`
`penalties
`
`of perjury.
`
`1.
`
`I am a member
`
`of
`
`the
`
`law
`
`firm Certilman
`
`Balin
`
`Adler
`
`& Hyman,
`
`LLP,
`
`attorneys
`
`for
`
`defendant,
`
`Pamela
`
`Greenbaum
`
`("Pamela"),
`
`and
`
`as such
`
`am fully
`
`familiar
`
`with
`
`the
`
`facts
`
`and
`
`circumstances
`
`herein.
`
`affirmation
`
`is submitted
`
`in opposition
`
`to
`
`Plaintiffs'
`
`2.
`
`This
`
`motion
`
`seeking
`
`(a)
`
`leave
`
`to reargue
`
`this Court's
`
`Decision
`
`and Order
`
`dated
`
`March
`
`26,
`
`2021;
`
`(b)
`
`leave
`
`to renew
`
`Plaintiffs'
`
`opposition
`
`to Defendant's
`
`motion
`
`for
`
`summary
`
`judgment;
`
`and
`
`(c)
`
`a stay
`
`of enforcement
`
`of
`
`the
`
`Decision
`
`and Order
`
`and/or
`
`the
`
`Judgment
`
`entered
`
`based
`
`upon
`
`it.
`
`HISTORY
`
`AND BACKGROUND
`
`3.
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`filed
`
`a Summons
`
`and Complaint
`
`with
`
`this
`
`Court
`
`dated
`
`October
`
`3, 2019.
`
`In
`
`the Complaint,
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`claimed
`
`that
`
`Pamela
`
`improperly
`
`made
`
`payments
`
`from
`
`a trust
`
`(The
`
`AWS Trust)
`
`to
`
`or
`
`for
`
`the
`
`benefit
`
`of Adam Sandler
`
`("Adam").
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`sought
`
`damages
`
`in
`
`an
`
`7408290.1
`
`1 of 10
`
`

`

`FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 05/12/2021 08:45 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 145
`
`INDEX NO. 613817/2019
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/12/2021
`
`amount
`
`not
`
`less
`
`than
`
`$250,000.00,
`
`or
`
`in
`
`the
`
`alternative,
`
`the
`
`imposition
`
`of
`
`a constructive
`
`trust
`
`upon
`
`Adam or Pamela
`
`and
`
`the
`
`repayment
`
`to The AWS Trust
`
`the
`
`entirety
`
`of
`
`funds
`
`paid
`
`from
`
`the
`
`The AWS Trust
`
`to Adam,
`
`plus
`
`interest,
`
`and
`
`an award
`
`of punitive
`
`damages.
`
`4.
`
`Pamela
`
`filed
`
`h.er Answer
`
`dated
`
`November
`
`15,
`
`2019,
`
`with
`
`affirmative
`
`defenses,
`
`and
`
`a Counterclaim
`
`pursuant
`
`to CPLR
`
`3001
`
`for
`
`judgment
`
`rescinding
`
`The
`
`AWS
`
`Trust
`
`and
`
`and
`
`void
`
`ab initio.
`
`declaring
`
`it
`
`to be null
`
`5.
`
`Subsequently,
`
`on
`
`January
`
`10,
`
`2020,
`
`Pamela
`
`filed
`
`a motion
`
`to
`
`dismiss
`
`Complaint
`
`against
`
`her
`
`in
`
`its
`
`entirety
`
`and
`
`sought
`
`a declaratory
`
`judgment
`
`rescinding
`
`Plaintiffs'
`
`The AWS
`
`Trust
`
`and
`
`declaring
`
`it null
`
`and
`
`void.
`
`6.
`
`This
`
`Court
`
`rendered
`
`a Decision
`
`and Order
`
`dated
`
`March
`
`26,
`
`2021,
`
`duly
`
`entered
`
`in
`
`the Office
`
`of
`
`the Nassau
`
`County
`
`Clerk
`
`on March
`
`30,
`
`2021,
`
`dismissing
`
`Plaintiffs'
`
`Complaint
`
`and
`
`The AWS Trust,
`
`it
`
`to be null
`
`and
`
`void
`
`ab initio.
`
`rescinding
`
`finding
`
`7.
`
`Phintiffs
`
`filed
`
`a notice
`
`of
`
`appeal
`
`and
`
`have
`
`filed
`
`the
`
`instant
`
`motion
`
`seeking
`
`(a)
`
`leave
`
`to reargue
`
`this Court's
`
`Decision;
`
`(b)
`
`leave
`
`to renew
`
`their
`
`opposition
`
`to Defendant's
`
`motion
`
`for
`
`summary
`
`judgment;
`
`and
`
`(c)
`
`a stay
`
`of enforcement
`
`of
`
`the
`
`Judgment.
`
`SUMMARY
`
`OF ARGUMENT
`
`8.
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`request
`
`to
`
`reargue
`
`and
`
`for
`
`leave
`
`to
`
`renew
`
`should
`
`be
`
`denied
`
`in
`
`the
`
`entirety.
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`have
`
`not
`
`demonstrated
`
`that
`
`this Court
`
`overlooked
`
`the
`
`facts
`
`or misapprehended
`
`or
`
`the
`
`law,
`
`nor
`
`have
`
`they
`
`set
`
`forth
`
`any nE facts
`
`not
`
`offered
`
`on
`
`the
`
`prior
`
`motion
`
`that
`
`would
`
`change
`
`the
`
`prior
`
`determination
`
`nor
`
`a
`
`change
`
`in
`
`the
`
`law
`
`that
`
`would
`
`change
`
`the
`
`prior
`
`determination.
`
`CPLR
`
`2221.
`
`9.
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`claim
`
`entitlement
`
`to reargue
`
`this
`
`Court's
`
`Decision,
`
`based
`
`on
`
`Plaintiffs'
`
`belief
`
`that
`
`this Court
`
`misapprehended
`
`certain
`
`facts
`
`and
`
`the
`
`law.
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`frivolously
`
`assert
`
`that
`
`2
`
`2 of 10
`
`7408290.1
`
`

`

`FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 05/12/2021 08:45 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 145
`
`INDEX NO. 613817/2019
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/12/2021
`
`this Court:
`
`(1)
`
`misapprehended
`
`that
`
`the
`
`question
`
`of
`
`settlor's
`
`intent
`
`in
`
`signing
`
`The AWS Trust
`
`can
`
`not
`
`be decided
`
`on
`
`a motion
`
`for
`
`summary
`
`judgment
`
`and
`
`prior
`
`to the
`
`completion
`
`of discovery;
`
`(2) misapprehended
`
`Adam's
`
`income,
`
`and
`
`that
`
`such misapprehension
`
`undermined
`
`Adam's
`
`claim
`
`that
`
`he did
`
`not
`
`intend
`
`to make
`
`a gift;
`
`(3) misapprehended
`
`the
`
`law by
`
`incorrectly
`
`identifying
`
`"donee"
`
`the
`
`of
`
`the
`
`purported
`
`gift;
`
`(4) misapprehêñded
`
`Pamela's
`
`and/or
`
`Adam's
`
`actions
`
`to
`
`stand
`
`for
`
`the
`
`proposition
`
`that
`
`Adam did
`
`not
`
`intend
`
`to create
`
`an irrevocable
`
`trust;
`
`and
`
`(5)
`
`overlooked
`
`the
`
`fact
`
`that
`
`The AWS Trust
`
`was
`
`allegedly
`
`a vehicle
`
`to shelter
`
`assets
`
`from
`
`creditors.
`
`10.
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`request
`
`for
`
`leave
`
`to renew
`
`is based
`
`solely
`
`on their
`
`irrelevant
`
`contention
`
`discovery.
`
`that
`
`they were
`
`unable
`
`to complete
`
`non-party
`
`11.
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`fail
`
`to meet
`
`the
`
`standard
`
`set
`
`forth
`
`in CPLR
`
`2221(d)(2)
`
`which
`
`sets
`
`forth
`
`the
`
`parameters
`
`allowing
`
`reargument,
`
`and
`
`do
`
`not
`
`even
`
`come
`
`close
`
`to meeting
`
`the
`
`standard
`
`for
`
`leave
`
`to renew
`
`under
`
`CPLR
`
`2221(e).
`
`POINT
`
`ONE
`
`Plaintiffs'
`
`Motion
`
`For
`
`Leave
`
`to Reargue
`
`Should
`
`be Denied
`
`12.
`
`Pursuant
`
`to CPLR
`
`2221(d)(2),
`
`a motion
`
`for
`
`leave
`
`to reargue
`
`upon
`
`be based
`"shall
`or misapprehended
`but
`shall
`not
`include
`
`of
`matters
`court
`the
`by
`any matters
`
`overlooked
`law allegedly
`or
`fact
`the prior
`in determining
`motion,
`prior
`of
`fact
`not
`on the
`offered
`
`motion."
`
`"A
`
`motion
`
`for
`
`leave
`
`to reargue
`
`is
`
`not
`
`designed
`
`to
`
`provide
`
`an
`
`unsuccessful
`
`party
`
`with
`
`successive
`
`opportunities
`
`to reargue
`
`issues
`
`previously
`
`decided,
`
`or
`
`to present
`
`arguments
`
`different
`
`from
`
`those
`
`originally
`
`presented."
`
`See Ahmed
`
`v. Pannone,
`
`116 A.D.3d
`
`802,
`
`805,
`
`984 N.Y.S.2d
`
`3
`
`3 of 10
`
`7408290.1
`
`

`

`FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 05/12/2021 08:45 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 145
`
`INDEX NO. 613817/2019
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/12/2021
`
`104,
`
`107
`
`(2d Dept.
`
`2014)
`
`quoting
`
`Anthony
`
`J. Carter,
`
`DDS,
`
`P.C.
`
`v. Carter,
`
`81 A.D.3d
`
`819,
`
`820,
`
`916 N.Y.S.2d
`
`821
`
`(2d Dept.
`
`2011).
`
`13.
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`must
`
`establish
`
`that
`
`this
`
`Court
`
`overlooked
`
`or misapprehended
`
`a matter
`
`of
`
`fact
`
`or
`
`law
`
`in its decision
`
`to warrant
`
`the
`
`granting
`
`of a motion
`
`to reargue,
`
`without
`
`introducing
`
`new
`
`arguments
`
`not
`
`previously
`
`presented.
`
`See
`
`Ahmed
`
`v. Pannone,
`
`116
`
`A.D.3d
`
`802,
`
`805,
`
`984
`
`N.Y.S.2d
`
`104,
`
`107
`
`(2d Dept.
`
`2014).
`
`As
`
`demonstrated
`
`Plaintiffs'
`
`motion
`
`fails
`
`to meet
`
`this
`
`standard
`
`to warrant
`
`leave
`
`to reargue.
`
`below,
`
`14.
`
`In
`
`their
`
`motion
`
`to reargue,
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`are
`
`simply
`
`attempting
`
`to have
`
`a second
`
`bite
`
`at
`
`the
`
`apple.
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`do
`
`not
`
`set
`
`forth
`
`any misapprehension
`
`by
`
`the Court
`
`of
`
`the
`
`law
`
`or
`
`facts
`
`which
`
`would
`
`impact
`
`the Court's
`
`Decision.
`
`An
`
`analysis
`
`of
`
`each
`
`of
`
`Plaintiffs'
`
`baseless
`
`claims
`
`are
`
`discussed
`
`herein.
`
`(1)
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`allege
`
`that
`
`this
`
`Court
`
`should
`
`not
`
`have
`
`declared
`
`The AWS Trust
`
`void
`
`ab
`
`initioprior
`
`to the completion
`
`ofthird-party
`
`discovery.
`
`15.
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`raise,
`
`for
`
`the
`
`first
`
`time,
`
`an argument
`
`that
`
`seems
`
`to
`
`assert
`
`that
`
`summary
`
`judgment
`
`should
`
`not
`
`have
`
`been
`
`granted
`
`because
`
`Defendants
`
`(and
`
`the
`
`third-party
`
`witness)
`
`had
`
`not
`
`yet
`
`responded
`
`to discovery
`
`demands.
`
`This
`
`contention,
`
`that
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`missed
`
`the
`
`opportunity
`
`for
`
`discovery,
`
`is,
`
`at best,
`
`a new
`
`argument,
`
`and must
`
`be rejected.
`
`It
`
`is not
`
`a "new
`
`fact"
`
`that
`
`would
`
`justify
`
`reargument.
`
`People
`
`v. D'Alessandro,
`
`13 N.Y.3d
`
`216,
`
`219
`
`(2009)("Necessarily,
`
`where
`
`a
`
`is presented
`
`on
`
`that
`
`new
`
`argument
`
`the motion,
`
`argument
`
`could
`
`not
`
`have
`
`been
`
`'overlooked
`
`or
`
`misapprehended'...in
`
`the
`
`first
`
`instance.");
`
`Levi
`
`v Utica
`
`First
`
`Ins.
`
`Co.,
`
`12 A.D.3d
`
`256,
`
`258
`
`(1st
`
`Dept
`
`2004)(a
`
`motion
`
`to
`
`reargue
`
`is not
`
`the
`
`appropriate
`
`vehicle
`
`for
`
`raising
`
`new
`
`issues);
`
`Cross
`
`v
`
`Welcome,
`
`52 Misc.
`
`3d
`
`1221(A),
`
`*2
`
`(Sup
`
`Ct
`
`2016)("Reargument
`
`is not
`
`designed
`
`to
`
`afford
`
`the
`
`unsuccessful
`
`party
`
`successive
`
`opportunities
`
`to
`
`reargue
`
`issues
`
`previously
`
`decided
`
`or
`
`to
`
`present
`
`4
`
`4 of 10
`
`7408290.1
`
`

`

`FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 05/12/2021 08:45 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 145
`
`INDEX NO. 613817/2019
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/12/2021
`
`arguments
`
`different
`
`from
`
`those
`
`originally
`
`asserted.");
`
`Aetna
`
`Cas.
`
`and
`
`Sur.
`
`Co.
`
`v. Certain
`
`Underwriters
`
`at
`
`Lloyd's,
`
`London,
`
`176 Misc.
`
`2d
`
`598,
`
`600
`
`(Sup
`
`Ct
`
`1998),
`
`affd
`
`sub
`
`nom.
`
`Aetna
`
`Cas.
`
`and
`
`Sur.
`
`Co.
`
`v Certain
`
`Underwriters
`
`at
`
`Lloyd's,
`
`263
`
`A.D.2d
`
`367
`
`(1st
`
`Dept
`
`1999)
`
`("Reargument
`
`does
`
`not
`
`provide
`
`a party
`
`with
`
`an
`
`opportunity
`
`to
`
`advance
`
`new
`
`arguments...Nor
`
`may
`
`a party
`
`seek
`
`reargument
`
`to
`
`address
`
`issues
`
`previously
`
`decided").
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`are
`
`precluded
`
`from
`
`novel
`
`arguments
`
`in
`
`a motion
`
`to reargue.
`
`See Ahmed
`
`making
`
`v. Pannone,
`
`116 A.D.3d
`
`802,
`
`805,
`
`984
`
`N.Y.S.2d
`
`104,
`
`107
`
`(2d
`
`Dept.
`
`2014)
`
`(holding
`
`no
`
`grounds
`
`for
`
`reargument
`
`were
`
`stated
`
`where
`
`movant
`
`included
`
`new
`
`arguments
`
`not
`
`offered
`
`on the
`
`prior
`
`motion);
`
`see also
`
`Foley
`
`v. Roche,
`
`68 A.D.2d
`
`558,
`
`567-568,
`
`418 N.Y.S.2d
`
`588
`
`(1st
`
`Dept.
`
`1979);
`
`Blair
`
`v. Allstate
`
`Indem.
`
`Co.,
`
`124
`
`A.D.3d
`
`1224,
`
`1225,
`
`998 N.Y.S.2d
`
`754,
`
`755
`
`(4th
`
`Dept.
`
`2015).
`
`16.
`
`Further,
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`do not
`
`indicate
`
`with
`
`any
`
`specificity
`
`what
`
`facts
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`missed
`
`out
`
`failing
`
`to complete
`
`discovery.
`
`Nor
`
`do Plaintiffs
`
`explain
`
`how
`
`would
`
`on by
`
`ongoing
`
`discovery
`
`have
`
`had
`
`any
`
`bearing
`
`on
`
`the
`
`summary
`
`judgment
`
`motion.
`
`Here,
`
`both
`
`parties
`
`had
`
`an opportunity
`
`to set
`
`forth
`
`evidence
`
`to
`
`support
`
`or
`
`contradict
`
`a motion
`
`for
`
`summary
`
`judgment.
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`had
`
`the
`
`opportunity
`
`to
`
`substantiate
`
`Plaintiffs'
`
`claims
`
`and
`
`avoid
`
`summary
`
`judgment,
`
`which
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`could
`
`not
`
`and
`
`did
`
`not
`
`do. See Fleet
`
`Credit
`
`Corp.
`
`v. Harvey
`
`Hutter
`
`& Co,
`
`207
`
`A.D.2d
`
`380,
`
`381,
`
`615
`
`N.Y.S.2d
`
`702,
`
`703
`
`(2d
`
`Dept.
`
`1994)
`
`(finding
`
`that
`
`defendant's
`
`unsubstantiated
`
`claims
`
`were
`
`insufficient
`
`to
`
`avoid
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`never
`
`summary
`
`judgment.)
`
`Simply
`
`put,
`
`had
`
`evidence
`
`to
`
`support
`
`Plaintiffs'
`
`untenable
`
`claims
`
`and
`
`does
`
`not
`
`have
`
`any
`
`new
`
`evidence
`
`now.
`
`17.
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`cite
`
`the
`
`case,
`
`Piro
`
`v. Piro,
`
`819 N.Y.S.2d
`
`850,
`
`2006
`
`N.Y.
`
`Slip
`
`Op.
`
`50680
`
`in support
`
`of
`
`their
`
`contention
`
`that
`
`this
`
`Court
`
`prematurely
`
`rescinded
`
`The AWS Trust.
`
`However,
`
`it
`
`is Plaintiffs,
`
`not
`
`this
`
`Court,
`
`who misapprehêñded
`
`the
`
`law.
`
`Piro
`
`does
`
`not
`
`require
`
`discovery
`
`to
`
`be completed
`
`before
`
`a Court
`
`can
`
`declare
`
`a trust
`
`void
`
`ab initio.
`
`Piro
`
`simply
`
`supports
`
`the
`
`theory
`
`5
`
`5 of 10
`
`7408290.1
`
`

`

`FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 05/12/2021 08:45 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 145
`
`INDEX NO. 613817/2019
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/12/2021
`
`that
`
`an irrevocable
`
`trust
`
`may
`
`be dissolved
`
`"[u]pon
`
`proof
`
`of
`
`the
`
`settlor's
`
`misunderstanding
`
`of
`
`the
`
`nature
`
`of
`
`the
`
`instrument".
`
`Kreindler
`
`v.
`
`Irving
`
`Trust
`
`Co.,
`
`26 A.D.2d
`
`746,
`
`2727
`
`N.Y.S.2d
`
`202
`
`(3d
`
`Dep't
`
`1996).
`
`This
`
`Court
`
`followed
`
`Piro,
`
`considered
`
`all
`
`of
`
`the
`
`facts
`
`presented,
`
`in
`
`a light
`
`most
`
`favorable
`
`to Plaintiffs,
`
`and
`
`concluded
`
`that
`
`the
`
`facts
`
`sufficiently
`
`demonstrated
`
`that
`
`the
`
`terms
`
`of
`
`The AWS Trust,
`
`as drafted,
`
`did
`
`not
`
`effectuate
`
`Adam's
`
`wishes.
`
`the Court
`
`misapprehended
`
`(2)
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`Claim
`
`Adam s income,
`
`and
`
`that
`
`such
`
`misapprehension
`
`undermined
`
`Adam's
`
`claim
`
`that
`
`he did
`
`not
`
`intend
`
`to make
`
`a gift.
`
`18.
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`argue
`
`that
`
`the
`
`Court
`
`misunderstood
`
`Adam's
`
`income
`
`and
`
`therefore
`
`incorrectly
`
`concluded
`
`that Adam did
`
`not
`
`intend
`
`to make
`
`a gift
`
`to The AWS Trust.
`
`This
`
`is just
`
`ridiculous.
`
`No
`
`facts
`
`were
`
`overlooked.
`
`In
`
`support
`
`of
`
`their
`
`motions,
`
`both
`
`defendants
`
`clearly
`
`outlined
`
`Adam's
`
`income.
`
`In Pamela's
`
`Affidavit,
`
`she
`
`sets
`
`forth
`
`all
`
`the
`
`income
`
`that
`
`Adam was
`
`An
`
`provided
`
`what
`
`receiving.
`
`item
`
`by
`
`item
`
`accounting
`
`was
`
`demonstrating
`
`funds
`
`were
`
`deposited
`
`into
`
`the
`
`Trust
`
`account,
`
`and
`
`then
`
`quickly
`
`withdrawn
`
`from
`
`the
`
`Trust
`
`account.
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`are
`
`grasping
`
`at
`
`straws
`
`and
`
`trying
`
`to
`
`point
`
`out
`
`a "misunderstanding
`
`fact"
`
`of
`
`which
`
`simply
`
`does
`
`not
`
`exist.
`
`(3)
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`alleges
`
`that
`
`this Court
`
`misapprehended
`
`the
`
`law by
`
`incorrectly
`
`identifying
`
`"donee"
`
`the
`
`ofthe
`
`purported
`
`gift;
`
`19.
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`claim
`
`that
`
`this
`
`Court
`
`misunderstood
`
`the
`
`law
`
`in
`
`regard
`
`who
`
`the
`
`to
`
`"donee"
`
`is when
`
`property
`
`is transferred
`
`to a Trust.
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`cite Gruen
`
`v. Gruen,
`
`68 N.Y.2d
`
`48,
`
`56 (1986),
`
`a completely
`
`inapposite
`
`case,
`
`for
`
`the
`
`proposition
`
`that
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`were
`
`the
`
`donees
`
`of
`
`the
`
`alleged
`
`gift,
`
`not
`
`the
`
`Trustee.
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`quote
`
`language
`
`from
`
`Gruen,
`
`which
`
`is
`
`applicable
`
`to
`
`transfers
`
`of
`
`a remainder
`
`interest
`
`with
`
`a retained
`
`life
`
`estate.
`
`The
`
`quoted
`
`language
`
`has
`
`no
`
`applicability
`
`to
`
`supposed
`
`transfers
`
`to
`
`a trust.
`
`Again,
`
`it
`
`is Plaintiffs
`
`who
`
`are misapplying
`
`and
`
`6
`
`6 of 10
`
`7408290.1
`
`

`

`FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 05/12/2021 08:45 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 145
`
`INDEX NO. 613817/2019
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/12/2021
`
`misunderstanding
`
`the
`
`law,
`
`not
`
`this Court.
`
`In any
`
`event,
`
`the
`
`issue
`
`of who
`
`the
`
`intended
`
`"donee"
`
`is
`
`irrelevant
`
`to the Court's
`
`ultimate
`
`decision
`
`in this
`
`case.
`
`The
`
`crux
`
`of
`
`the Court's
`
`Decision
`
`is that
`
`Adam's
`
`transfers
`
`were
`
`not
`
`a valid
`
`inter
`
`vivos
`
`gift
`
`because
`
`he
`
`never
`
`intended
`
`to
`
`part
`
`with
`
`his
`
`income.
`
`Adam
`
`never
`
`intended
`
`to make
`
`an
`
`irrevocable
`
`transfer
`
`of
`
`ownership
`
`of
`
`his monthly
`
`disability
`
`income
`
`to anyone
`
`(whether
`
`it be the Trust
`
`or
`
`the Plaintiffs).
`
`He
`
`demnmtrated
`
`that
`
`time
`
`and
`
`time
`
`month
`
`after
`
`withdrawing,
`
`and
`
`on
`
`his
`
`again,
`
`month,
`
`by
`
`immediately
`
`spending
`
`living
`
`income.
`
`His
`
`intentions
`
`with
`
`respect
`
`to the
`
`creation
`
`of
`
`the
`
`Trust
`
`are
`
`not what
`
`is pertinent
`
`here.
`
`His
`
`intent
`
`with
`
`respect
`
`to
`
`each
`
`deposit
`
`in
`
`the
`
`Trust
`
`is what
`
`is
`
`relevant
`
`and
`
`is exactly
`
`what
`
`the
`
`Court
`
`focused
`
`on.
`
`Adam's
`
`actions
`
`demonstrate
`
`that
`
`no
`
`gifts
`
`were
`
`made.
`
`Whether
`
`case
`
`law
`
`would
`
`deem the Trust
`
`or
`
`the Plaintiffs
`
`as the
`
`"donee"
`
`is irrelevant.
`
`(4) Plaintiffs
`
`alleges
`
`that
`
`this
`
`Court
`
`misapprehended
`
`Pamela
`
`and
`
`Adam
`
`actions
`
`to stand
`
`for
`
`the proposition
`
`that Adam and Pamela
`
`misunderstood
`
`the
`
`terms
`
`the trust;
`
`of
`
`20.
`
`This
`
`argument,
`
`to
`
`the
`
`extent
`
`that
`
`it
`
`even
`
`makes
`
`any
`
`sense,
`
`is
`
`simply
`
`another
`
`desperate
`
`attempt,
`
`based
`
`solely
`
`on
`
`speculation
`
`and
`
`innuendo,
`
`to show
`
`an issue
`
`of
`
`fact
`
`when
`
`the
`
`time
`
`to do
`
`so has
`
`come
`
`and
`
`gone.
`
`It also misses
`
`the
`
`point.
`
`The
`
`Court
`
`has
`
`already
`
`considered
`
`the
`
`facts,
`
`in
`
`a light
`
`most
`
`favorable
`
`to Plaintiffs,
`
`and
`
`rendered
`
`a nineteen
`
`(19)
`
`page
`
`decision
`
`which
`
`carefully
`
`and methodically
`
`lays
`
`out
`
`and
`
`analyzes
`
`the
`
`facts
`
`in determining
`
`that
`
`the Trust
`
`was
`
`void
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`have
`
`not
`
`new
`
`nor
`
`ab
`
`initio.
`
`raised
`
`any
`
`facts,
`
`have
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`demonstrated
`
`that
`
`this
`
`Court
`
`misunderstood
`
`the
`
`facts
`
`picsented.
`
`Bare
`
`and
`
`baseless
`
`allegations
`
`that
`
`this
`
`Court
`
`misunderstood
`
`or
`
`failed
`
`to consider
`
`all of
`
`the
`
`facts
`
`are insufficient
`
`to allow
`
`reargument.
`
`21.
`
`Plaintiffs'
`
`focus
`
`on
`
`"Adam's
`
`intent
`
`with
`
`regard
`
`to
`
`the
`
`creation
`
`of
`
`the
`
`Trust"
`
`evidences
`
`Plaintiffs'
`
`own
`
`misunderstanding
`
`of
`
`the
`
`crux
`
`of
`
`Defendant's
`
`argument
`
`and
`
`the
`
`decision
`
`of
`
`this Court.
`
`This
`
`Court
`
`zeroed
`
`in on the
`
`issue
`
`of whether
`
`a valid
`
`inter
`
`vivos
`
`gift
`
`was
`
`7
`
`7 of 10
`
`7408290.1
`
`

`

`FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 05/12/2021 08:45 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 145
`
`INDEX NO. 613817/2019
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/12/2021
`
`made
`
`to the
`
`Trust.
`
`Finding
`
`that
`
`no
`
`valid
`
`intervives
`
`gifts
`
`were
`
`made,
`
`this
`
`Court
`
`stated,
`
`"While
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`may
`
`be
`
`correct
`
`regarding
`
`the
`
`terms
`
`of
`
`the AWS
`
`Trust
`
`on
`
`its
`
`face,
`
`the
`
`issue
`
`not
`
`expounded
`
`upon
`
`is
`
`the
`
`source
`
`of
`
`funds
`
`that
`
`comprise
`
`the AWS Trust
`
`and
`
`whether
`
`Plaintiffs'
`
`father
`
`intended
`
`to
`
`actually
`
`surrender
`
`control
`
`and
`
`authority
`
`over
`
`his
`
`sole
`
`source
`
`of
`
`income..."
`
`if
`
`this
`
`Therefore,
`
`even
`
`Court
`
`determined
`
`that Adam created
`
`an irrevocable
`
`trust,
`
`the Court
`
`made
`
`it
`
`clear
`
`that
`
`no
`
`transfer
`
`of
`
`assets
`
`was made
`
`to the
`
`Trust.
`
`That
`
`is the
`
`bottom
`
`line.
`
`There
`
`was
`
`no
`
`transfer
`
`of assets
`
`and
`
`no gifts.
`
`Even
`
`if a trust
`
`agreement
`
`was
`
`signed,
`
`it essentially
`
`went
`
`unfunded
`
`and Plaintiffs
`
`are
`
`"entitled"
`
`to nothing.
`
`22.
`
`In
`
`sum,
`
`the
`
`issues
`
`raised
`
`by Plaintiffs
`
`in
`
`support
`
`of
`
`leave
`
`to
`
`reargue
`
`are merely
`
`restatements
`
`of
`
`arguments
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`their
`
`original
`
`previously
`
`raised
`
`by
`
`in
`
`opposition
`
`to
`
`defendants'
`
`motions,
`
`arguments
`
`that were
`
`duly
`
`considered
`
`by
`
`this Court
`
`and
`
`rejected.
`
`Plaintiffs'
`
`motion
`
`to
`
`reargue
`
`does
`
`not
`
`set
`
`forth
`
`a single
`
`new
`
`material
`
`fact
`
`or matter
`
`of
`
`law
`
`that
`
`was
`
`overlooked
`
`or
`
`inicapprehended
`
`by
`
`this
`
`Court
`
`in
`
`its Decision.
`
`Leave
`
`to
`
`reargue
`
`under
`
`CPLR
`
`2221(d)
`
`must
`
`be denied.
`
`POINT
`
`TWO
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`Motion
`
`For
`
`Leave
`
`to Renew
`
`Must
`
`Denied
`
`23.
`
`that
`
`for
`
`leave
`
`to renew
`
`CPLR 2221(e)(2)
`
`provides
`
`a motion
`
`"shall
`upon
`be based
`the
`prior
`change
`would
`has been
`a change
`in the
`
`facts
`not
`new
`determination
`law that would
`
`prior
`on the
`offered
`or shall
`demonstrate
`change
`the
`prior
`
`that
`motion
`there
`that
`determination."
`
`24.
`
`In order
`
`for
`
`leave
`
`to renew
`
`to be granted,
`
`not
`
`only
`
`must
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`offer
`
`evidence
`
`of
`
`new
`
`facts,
`
`Plaintiffs'
`
`moving
`
`papers
`
`must
`
`"contain
`
`reasonable
`
`justification
`
`for
`
`the
`
`failure
`
`to
`
`present
`
`such
`
`facts
`
`on
`
`the
`
`prior
`
`motion."
`
`CPLR
`
`2221(e)(3).
`
`See Giovanni
`
`v. Moran,
`
`34 A.D.3d
`
`733,
`
`823
`
`N.Y.S.2d
`
`911
`
`(2d
`
`Dept.
`
`2006)
`
`("[t]he
`
`court
`
`providently
`
`exercised
`
`its
`
`discretion
`
`in
`
`8
`
`8 of 10
`
`7408290.1
`
`

`

`FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 05/12/2021 08:45 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 145
`
`INDEX NO. 613817/2019
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/12/2021
`
`denying
`
`the
`
`defendant's
`
`cross motion
`
`for
`
`leave
`
`to renew
`
`because
`
`he failed
`
`to present
`
`'new
`
`facts'
`
`which
`
`were
`
`unavailable
`
`at
`
`the
`
`time
`
`of
`
`the
`
`original
`
`motion
`
`and which
`
`would
`
`change
`
`the
`
`prior
`
`determination");
`
`Jones
`
`v. Amiee
`
`Lynn
`
`Accessories,
`
`38 A.D.3d
`
`613,
`
`832
`
`N.Y.S.2d
`
`85
`
`(2d Dept.
`
`2007).
`
`25.
`
`In the
`
`instant
`
`case,
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`DO NOT
`
`set
`
`forth
`
`any
`
`new
`
`facts
`
`or
`
`changes
`
`in the
`
`which
`
`would
`
`leave
`
`to
`
`renew
`
`the
`
`prior
`
`motion.
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`allege
`
`that
`
`law
`
`justify
`
`merely
`
`IF they
`
`conducted
`
`discovery,
`
`perhaps
`
`they
`
`would
`
`have
`
`uncovered
`
`new
`
`facts
`
`which
`
`may
`
`be
`
`relevant.
`
`CPLR 2221(e)(2)
`
`does
`
`not
`
`afford
`
`an opportunity
`
`for
`
`renewal
`
`on the
`
`"chance"
`
`that
`
`new
`
`facts may
`
`be discovered.
`
`This
`
`aspect
`
`of
`
`Plaintiffs'
`
`motion
`
`must
`
`be denied.
`
`POINT
`
`THREE
`
`P__laintiffs'
`
`Motion
`
`for
`
`a Stay
`
`of Enforcement
`
`Should
`
`be Denied
`
`26.
`
`This
`
`Court
`
`shot!!d
`
`deny
`
`Plaintiffs'
`
`request
`
`to
`
`stay
`
`enforcement
`
`of
`
`the
`
`Judgment
`
`this
`
`Court's
`
`Decision
`
`Order.
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`cites
`
`CPLR
`
`entered
`
`pursuant
`
`to
`
`and
`
`2201,
`
`which
`
`provides,
`
`"Except
`
`where
`
`otherwise
`
`prescribed
`
`by
`
`law,
`
`the
`
`court
`
`in which
`
`an
`
`action
`
`is pending
`
`may
`
`grant
`
`a stay
`
`of proceedings
`
`in a proper
`
`case,
`
`upon
`
`such
`
`terms
`
`as may
`
`be
`
`just."
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`fail
`
`to
`
`state
`
`any
`
`reason
`
`why
`
`this
`
`is
`
`a proper
`
`case
`
`for
`
`a stay,
`
`nor
`
`do Plaintiffs
`
`cite
`
`any
`
`case
`
`law
`
`supporting
`
`their
`
`request
`
`for
`
`a stay.
`
`Stay
`
`of
`
`enforcement
`
`of
`
`a judgment
`
`can
`
`easily
`
`be
`
`a drastic
`
`basis
`
`but
`
`good
`
`remedy,
`
`on the
`
`simple
`
`that
`
`justice
`
`delayed
`
`is justice
`
`denied.
`
`Nothing
`
`cause
`
`would
`
`make
`
`for
`
`a "proper
`
`case."
`
`Since
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`have
`
`s set
`
`forth
`
`no good
`
`cause
`
`for
`
`granting
`
`a stay,
`
`this
`
`aspect
`
`of Plaintiff's
`
`motion
`
`should
`
`also
`
`be denied.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`27.
`
`It
`
`is
`
`clear
`
`from
`
`the
`
`above
`
`that
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`are
`
`not
`
`entitled
`
`to
`
`any
`
`of
`
`the
`
`relief
`
`requested,
`
`specifically:
`
`(1)
`
`leave
`
`to
`
`reargue
`
`this
`
`Court's
`
`Decision
`
`and Order
`
`dated
`
`March
`
`26,
`
`9
`
`9 of 10
`
`7408290.1
`
`

`

`FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 05/12/2021 08:45 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 145
`
`INDEX NO. 613817/2019
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/12/2021
`
`2021;
`
`(2)
`
`leave
`
`to renew
`
`Plaintiffs'
`
`opposition
`
`to Defendant's
`
`Motion
`
`for
`
`Summary
`
`Judgement;
`
`nor
`
`(3)
`
`a stay
`
`of
`
`enforcement
`
`of
`
`this
`
`Court's
`
`Decision
`
`and Order.
`
`As
`
`such,
`
`Plaintiffs'
`
`motion
`
`must
`
`be denied.
`
`WHEREFORE,
`
`Defendant,
`
`PAMELA
`
`GREENBAUM,
`
`respectfully
`
`requests
`
`that
`
`this
`
`court
`
`enter
`
`an order
`
`denying
`
`Plaintiffs'
`
`motion
`
`in its
`
`entirety
`
`and
`
`granting
`
`such
`
`other
`
`and
`
`further
`
`relief
`
`as this Court
`
`may
`
`deem just
`
`and proper.
`
`Dated:
`
`East Meadow,
`11, 2021
`May
`
`New York
`
`GRE
`
`Y
`
`OD,
`
`E
`
`10
`
`10 of 10
`
`7408290.1
`
`