FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/28/2024 10:30 AM
`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/28/2024 10:30 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1788
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1788
`
`INDEX NO. 452564/2022
`INDEX NO. 452564/2022
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/28/2024
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/28/2024
`
`SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
`COUNTY OF NEW YORK
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`VS.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, BY
`LETITIA JAMES, Attorney General of the State of New
`
`York,
`
`
`
`
`DONALD J. TRUMP, DONALD TRUMP, JR., ERIC
`
`TRUMP, ALLEN WEISELBERG, JEFFREY
`
`MCCONNEY, THE DONALD J. TRUMP
`
`REVOCABLE TRUST, THE TRUMP
`ORGANIZATION,INC., TRUMP ORGANIZATION
`
`LLC, DIT HOLDINGS LLC, DJT HOLDINGS
`MANAGING MEMBER, TRUMP ENDEAVOR12
`
`LLC, 401 NORTH WABASH VENTURE LLC,
`TRUMP OLD POST OFFICE LLC, 40 WALL STREET
`
`LLC and SEVEN SPRINGSLLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Index No. 452564/2022
`
`Engoron,J.S.C.
`
`
`
`Mtn. Seq. No.41
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`REPLY AFFIRMATION OF JOHN M. DESIDERIO IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF
`MOTION TO QUASH, CONDITION OR MODIFY DEFENDANTS’ SUBPOENA
`TO ADAM LEITMANBAILEY, ESQ. AND TO ADAM LEITMANBAILEY,P.C.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JOHN M. DESIDERIO,an attorney duly admitted to practice law before the Courts of
`
`the State of New York, hereby affirms the following statements to be true underthe penalties of
`
`perjury:
`
`
`
`
`
`1.
`
`I am a partnerin the law firm of Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. (““ALBPC”), and
`
`Chair of the firm’s Real Estate Litigation Group, and, as such, I am fully familiar with the facts
`
`and circumstances set forth herein based on the files and materials related to the above-entitled
`
`Action, as maintained by the firm and by Adam Leitman Bailey.
`
`
`
`[1020807/1]
`
`1
`
`1 of 5
`1 of 5
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/28/2024 10:30 AM
`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/28/2024 10:30 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1788
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1788
`
`INDEX NO. 452564/2022
`INDEX NO. 452564/2022
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/28/2024
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/28/2024
`
`
`
`2.
`
`I submit this Reply Affirmation on behalf of Adam Leitman Bailey, Esq., and on
`
`behalf of ALBPC(collectively “Bailey”), in further support of Bailey’s motion, pro se, for an
`
`order, pursuant to CPLR §2304:
`
`
`
`
`(a) Granting Bailey’s motion to quash the Subpoenaserved by Defendants upon Bailey,
`
`dated June 20, 2024; or, in the alternative,
`
`
`
`
`(b) Granting Bailey’s motion to condition or modify said Subpoena,to limit compliance
`
`with the Subpoena to documents and information relevant to the “Action,” as defined
`
`in Exhibit A to the Subpoena; and
`
`
`
`
`(c) Granting such other and furtherrelief as this Court deems just and proper.
`
`
`
`
`
`3.
`
`For the reasons stated herein, Defendants’ argumentin opposition to the motion to
`
`quash, condition, or modify the subpoena served upon Bailey, NYSCEF Doc. No. 1786-1787, in
`
`connection with Defendants’ motion for recusal (the “Motion”), NYSCEF Doc. No. 1761-1767
`
`(Mot. Seq. 40), should be rejected in its entirety, and Bailey’s motion, NYSCEF Doc. No. 1769-
`
`1782, should be granted.
`
`
`
`
`
`4.
`
`In short, Defendants’ argument in opposition to Bailey’s motionisitself an
`
`admission and confirmation of the fact that Defendants’ Subpoena Demand No. 2 is a demand
`
`for “any” documents or information NOTrelating to the Action, and, therefore,is not “necessary
`
`to bring within the scope of Defendants’ requests for production of documents and information
`
`“relating to the Action.”
`
`
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`
`
`
`
`5.
`
`Defendants claim (a) that “[t]he subpoenaseeksfull transparency relative to the
`
`nature and extent of this Court’s relationship with Mr. Bailey, including any pattern of
`
`communication between Mr. Bailey and this Court, see Affirmation of Clifford S. Robert (the
`
`[1020807/1]
`
`2
`
`2 of 5
`2 of 5
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/28/2024 10:30 AM
`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/28/2024 10:30 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1788
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1788
`
`INDEX NO. 452564/2022
`INDEX NO. 452564/2022
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/28/2024
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/28/2024
`
`“Robert Affirmation”) (NYSCEF Doc. 1786) 4 3 (emphasis added), and (b) that “such
`
`information is undoubtedly relevant to Defendants’ recusal application.” Jd. See also Robert
`
`Affirmation, J 6, 18 (NYSCEF Doc. 1786).
`
`
`
`
`
`6.
`
`Defendants’ admitted search for “any pattern” of communication between Mr.
`
`Bailey and this Court confirms that Subpoena Demand No. 2 is the “fishing expedition,”for
`
`“unknown documents that may or may notexist, concerning information which, by Defendants’
`
`own statement of interest, is NOT related to the ‘Action’ or to ‘factual issues raised thereby,’” as
`
`Bailey previously suggested it is. See Bailey Memorandum of Law, at 3 (NYSCEF Doc. 1783).
`
`
`
`7.
`
`Indeed, Defendants amplify the fact that, even if such documents exist, they
`
`would be neither “material” nor “necessary” to this Action or to Defendants’ motion of recusal,
`
`as required by CPLR §3101(a), by actually admitting that Bailey’s opposition to Demand No. 2,
`
`“on the basis that it is overbroad,i.e., does notrelate to this action, .. . strongly suggests that
`
`there are a large volume of communications between the Bailey Parties and this Court, or
`
`members of this Court’s staff, that are unrelated to this action.” Robert Affirmation, { 18
`
`(NYSCEFDoc. 1786)(Italics in original).
`
`
`
`
`
`8.
`
`Defendants’ admission is clear confirmation that Defendants’ Subpoenaseeksto
`
`probe for communications, which may or may notexist, but, which if they do exist, have no
`
`relationship to the Action or to Defendants’ motion of recusal. The intended improper nature of
`
`Defendants’ demand could not be more apparent.
`
`
`
`
`
`9.
`
`Moreover, to the extent that Defendants do seek “full transparency” regarding
`
`Bailey’s communications “relating to the Action,” Defendants do not deny, because they cannot
`
`deny, that Bailey has produced copies of Bailey’s communications with the media “relating to
`
`[1020807/1]
`
`3
`
`3 of 5
`3 of 5
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/28/2024 10:30 AM
`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/28/2024 10:30 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1788
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1788
`
`INDEX NO. 452564/2022
`INDEX NO. 452564/2022
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/28/2024
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/28/2024
`
`the Action” which“relate to” Bailey’s communications with this Court “relating to the Action.”
`
`(See Robert Affirmation, §] 18 (NYSCEF Doc. 1786).
`
`10.
`
`
`
`Finally, Defendants’ contention that Bailey’s motion “is not a proper cross-
`
`motion”because Bailey is not a “party” to the Action, and, therefore, that Bailey may not invoke
`
`CPLR §2015, as a basis for moving to quash Defendants’ Subpoena, see Robert Affirmation,
`
`14 (NYSCEFDoc. 1786), is frivolous. Defendants’ Subpoena was served upon Bailey on June
`
`20, 2024, eight days before the hearing on Defendants’ motion of recusal. Bailey’s motion is
`
`clearly permitted under CPLR 2304, which provides only that a motion to quash, fix conditions
`
`or modify a subpoena “shall be made promptly.” Given that Bailey admittedly is not a “party” to
`
`the Action, the motion was “promptly” made before the return date of Defendants’ motion, so
`
`that Bailey’s motion, which clearly relates to the issues raised in Defendants’ motion could be
`
`heard together. This is hardly ground for denying Bailey’s motion. See CPLR 2102(f)(“A defect
`
`in the form or a paper, if a substantial right of a party is not prejudiced, shall be disregarded by
`
`the court, and leave to correct shall be freely given.”). No claim can be madethat a “substantial
`
`right” of Defendants has been prejudiced by Bailey’s invocation of CPLR §2015, as a basis for
`
`making Bailey’s motion returnable simultaneously with the return date of Defendants’ motion.
`
`And, indeed, although Defendants claim that Bailey’s motion is “improper,” Defendants have not
`
`claimed that a “substantial right” of Defendants has been prejudiced.
`
`
`11. Wherefore, for all the reasons stated herein, the Desiderio Affirmation dated June
`
`25, 2024 (NYSCEF Doc. 1770), and in Bailey’s Memorandum of Law submitted in support of
`
`Bailey’s motion (NYSCEFDoc. 1783), Bailey respectfully submits that Defendants Subpoena to
`
`Bailey should be quashed, conditioned or modified by striking Demand No. 2 of the Subpoena
`
`[1020807/1]
`
`4
`
`4 of 5
`4 of 5
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/28/2024 10:30 AM
`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/28/2024 10:30 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1788
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1788
`
`INDEX NO. 452564/2022
`INDEX NO. 452564/2022
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/28/2024
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/28/2024
`
`for being overbroad, burdensome, and not necessary for any purpose related to the Action or
`
`Defendants’ motion ofrecusal.
`
`
`
`
`
`12. Dated: New York, New York
`
`June 28, 2024
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ John M. Desiderio
`
`JOHN M. DESIDERIO
`
`
`
`[1020807/1]
`
`5
`
`5 of 5
`5 of 5
`
`