Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Memorandum of Law in Opposition To Respondents' Pre-Trial Motion and in Support of The NYAG's Cross-Motion

    Uploaded by

    Janet Babin
    102 views43 pages
    Memorandum of law opposing Trump University's pre-trial motion and in support of the NYAG's cross-motion

    Original Title

    Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Respondents' Pre-Trial Motion and in Support of the NYAG's Cross-Motion

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Memorandum of law opposing Trump University's pre-trial motion and in support of the NYAG's cross-motion

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    102 views43 pages

    Memorandum of Law in Opposition To Respondents' Pre-Trial Motion and in Support of The NYAG's Cross-Motion

    Uploaded by

    Janet Babin
    Memorandum of law opposing Trump University's pre-trial motion and in support of the NYAG's cross-motion

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 43
    SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, by ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, Attomey General ofthe State of New York, Petitioner, -agtinst- Index No, 451463/2013 TAS Part $5 Assigned to Justice Kem THE TRUMP ENTREPRENEUR INITIATIVE LLC Pa ‘TRUMP UNIVERSITY LLC, DIT ENTREPRENEUR MEMBER LLC kia DUT UNIVERSITY MEMBER LLC, DIT ENTREPRENEUR MANAGING MEMBER LLC fkia DIT UNIVERSITY MANAGING MEMBER LLC, THE TRUMP ORGANIZATION, INC., TRUMP. ORGANIZATION LLC, DONALD J. TRUMP, XTON, and MICHAEL S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO RESPONDENTS’ PRE-TRIAL MOTION AND IN SUPPORT OF THE NYAG'S CROSS-MOTION ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, Attorney General ofthe State of New York Attomey for Petitioner 120 Broadway New York, NY 10271 (212) 416-8296 ‘Of Counsel JANE M.AZIA, Bureau Chiet Consumer Frauds and Protetion Bureau LAURAJ. LEVINE Deputy Bureau Chie? Consumer Frauds and Protection Bureau CAROLYN FAST. MELVIN L. GOLDBERG MELISSA O'NEILL Assistant Attorneys General ‘TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ARGUMENT |. INDIVIDUAL CONSUMERS ARE NOT PARTIES IN THIS PROCEEDING AND. RESPONDENTS HAVE NOT FOLLOWED APPROPRIATE PROCEDURES TO. DEPOSE THEM A. The NYAG Represents the People of The State of New York, Not Individual Consumers, Nor are Consumers the Real Parties in Interest B._ The NYAG Timely Objected to Respondents” Notice of Deposition and Respondents Never Filed a Motion to Compl i. The NYAG timety objected to Respondents" notice of deposition. li, The Notice of Deposition Was Palpaly Improper ‘ii Respondent ad the burden t flea motion to compel compliance with themotceof deposition IL RESPONDENTS" NOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH THEIR DEMAND. FOR A BILL OF PARTICULARS MUST BE DENIED. |A. Respondents Motion to Compl Compliance with Their Demand fora Bill of Particulars Must be Denied as Procedural Imprope B, Respondents” Motion to Compel Compliance Must be Denied Because the ‘Amended Demand Improper Sesks Evidentiary Materials, IIL,” RESPONDENTS ARE NOT ENTITLED TO TRIAL BY JURY. IV, THE NYAG WILL PROVIDE A WITNESS LIST ATTHE APPROPRIATE ‘TIME AS DETERMINED BY THE COURT \V. THE COURT SHOULD GRANT THE STATE'S CROSS-MOTION AND HOLD ‘THAT RESPONDENTS’ COMPLIANCE REVIEWS ARE ADMISSIBLE AND NOT PRIVILEGED. A. The Compliance Reviews Are Not Privileged And Should Be Admitted. Respondents Waived Any Claim Of Privilege CONCLUSION, PAGE an a4 ‘TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES £2 West 15th Si Corp, w. Friedman, 208 Mise. 123 (App. Term Ist Dep't 1955). 911 Alwyn Owners Corp. v. Rosenthal, 160 A.D.24 321 (Ist Dep't 1990) Adelsein v. City of New York, 212 A.D.2d 748 (24 Dep't 1995) Aetna v. Loyd's of London, 176 Mise, 24 605 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. 1998)... AFA Protective Sy, In. v City of New York, 13 A.D.3d S64 (24 Dep't 2004), Aled L. Snapp & Son. Puerto Rico ex rel. Barez, 458 U.S, 592 (1982) Anonymous v. High School for Enel Studies, 32. A.D.3d 353 (Ist Dep't 2006) ne Bardi v. Mosher, 197 A.D.2d 797 (3d Dep't 1993). Briand Parenteau tne. v. Dean Witer Reynolds tne., 267 A.D.24 $76 (24 Dep't 1999) on Brooklyn Union Gas Co, v Am. Home Assur, Co., 23,A.D.3d 190 (Ist Dep't 2005). Bualer v. City of New York, 2014 N.Y, Mise. LEXIS 2571 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Caty, June 3, 2014).. Cadwalader Wickersham & Taft». Spinale, 177 A.D.24 315 (1s Dep't 1991) Carp v. Marcus, 116 A.D.2d 854 (3¢ Dep't 19865. (Charter One Bank FSB¥. Houston, 300 A.D.2d 429 (24 Dep't 2002), Chipman » Steinberf {65 N.Y.2d 842 (1985) PAGE(S) 2 aI 2s 30 3 9-10 ATS 23 Clarke v. LP. Morgan Chase, 2009 U.S. Dist, LEXIS 30719 (S.D.N.Y. Ape, 10, 2009), Cobwin v. Kar 90 A.D.3d 516 (1st Dep't 2011). Douthin v. Nassau Five Ins. Co. 11S A.D. 902 (2d Dep't 1906), Downtown Att Cov, Zimmerman, 227 A.D.2d 226 (Ist Dep't 1996), Estate», Rothko, 71 Mise, 24 320 (N.Y. Sur. Ct, 1972), FIC y. Gem Merch, Corp 87 F.3d 466 (11th Cir. 1996) Gartner v. Unified Window 68 A.D.3d 815 (24 Dep't 2009). Georgia-Pacific Corp. x. GAF Roofing Mie. Co.. 1995 U.S. Dist, LEXIS 3338 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 20, 1995) Ginsberg v. Ginsberg, 104 A.D.2d 482 (24 Dep't 1984), Gonzales v: Int'l Bus. Macks, Corp.. 236 A.D.2d 363 (24 Dep't 1997), Greenfield , Phillies Record, 243 AD.2d 353 (1st Dep't 1997) Hardy v. New York News Ine., TAF RD. 63 Harris v. Ariel Transp. Corp, 37 A.D.3d 308 (Ist Dep't 2007). Hebranko v. Bioline Labs. 149 A.D.24 567 (24 Dep't 1989)... Homburger v. Levitin, 140 A.D.2d 583 (2d Dep't 1988). Ine Grand Jury Subpoena Dated July 6, 2008, 510 F.3d 180 (2d Cit. 2007)... 2 1.26 3 1819 26 31 26 2s 3t Inve Insurance Amtitest Lit, 938 F.2d 919 (0thCir. 1991) Jamaica Sav. Bank. MS. Investing Co., 274 NY. 215 (1997) Jones v. MeDonough 143 A.D. 178 (2d Dep't 1911). Kaufinan » Brenner, {65 A.D.24 692 (24 Dep't 1978), afl 46.N.Y.24 787 Kovacs x: Castle Restoration and Const, In. 262 A.D.2d 16S (Ist Dep't 1999), LaSalle Bank N.A. v. Merrill Lynch Mortg. Lending. ine. 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS $9301 ($.D.N.Y, Aug. 13, 2007). Lasearis v. Hyatt 84 Mise. 2d 68 (Fam. CL. Onondaga Cnty. 1975). Lewis » Baker, 279 A.D.24 380 (Ist Dep't 2001) Liz Claiborne, Ine. Mademoiselle Knitwear. Ine., 1996 US. Dist, LEXIS 17094 (S.D.N.Y. Now. 19, 1996) Lynch ¥. Metropolitan Elevated Ry: Co.. 19 N.Y. 274 (189°)... Mississippl v, AU Optronics Corp. 13458. Ct, 736 2014). MYMA ». Stare, TSN.V.2d at 175. ‘New Hampshire v. Lousiana, 108 U.S. 76 (1883).. New York Times Newspaper Div. of New York Times Co. x. Lehrer McGovern Bovis, Ine, 300 A.D.24 169 (1s Dep't 2002) Oftahoma v. Cook, 308 US. 387 (1938) Parker v, Parker, 2 Mise. 3d 484 (Sup. Ct. Nassau Cnty. 2003), 22,25 a 26 2s Pasqua v. Pas 212 A.D, 24 356 (st Dep't 1998) People ex rel. Cuomo. Greenbert 95 A.D.34 474 (Is: Dep't 2012) People ex rel. Spitzer v Applied Card Sys, Ine. TIN.Y3d 105 (2008) sens People . Coventry Fist LLC, IB NY.3d 108 (2009), People v. First Am. Carp. 2OLT N.Y. Mise, LEXIS $581 (Sup. Ct, N.Y. Cnty. Nov, 18, 2011) People». Greenberg. DTN.Y. 34-490 (2016) People v Imported Quality Guard Dogs, Ine, 88 A.D.3d 800 (24 Dep't 2011). People v. Telehublink, 301 A.D.24 1006 (3d Dep't 2003). People w. Teller. 7 Mise. 24.43 (Sup Ct. N.Y. Cnty. 1956) People v Trump, 137 A.D3d 409 (Ist Dep't 2016), People w. Trump, 2014 N.Y. Mise. LEXIS 4533 People w. Trump, 2016 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1422 (Mat Porter v. Warner Holding Co., 328 US. 395 (1946). Presclent Partners, LP. ». Flelderest Cannon, ie.. No. 96-CV-7590, 1997 WL 736726 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 26, 1997). Pyron v, Banque Francuise du Commerce Exterieur, 256 A.D.2d 204 (Ist Dep't 1998), Remark Elee. Corp.» Manshul Constr. Corp, 242 A.D.24 694 (2d Dep't 1997) 25 2 passim 21 vod 33 "7 Roslyn v, Union Free School Dist.» Belkin, TON.Y.3d 643 2011). Schlick v. Am. Bus. Press, 246 A.D.2d 450 (1st Dep't 1988). 26 SBC. First City Fin. Corp, 890 F.2d 1215 (De Cir. 1989). vos soon Shomron ». Griffin, 70 A.D.3d 406 (Ist Dep't 2010). a 2s ‘Spectrum Ss. Int Corp. ». Chem. Bark, 157 A.D.2d 444 (Ist Dep't 1990) 31 Spectrum Sys. Int'l Corp. . Chemical Bank, TBNY.26371 (1991). ses soon 30 Sprague». Int Bus. Machines Corp., 114 A.D.24 1025 (ist Dep't 1985). 13,16 State of New York. Biegane, 23 A.D.2d 708 (Ist Dep't 1965). sensi DD State of New York v. Katz, 84 A.D.24 381 (IstDep't 1982). so 2 State v. Gen, Elec, 302 A.D.2d at 314, . 24 State v. General Motors, 574 F. Supp. 703 (DN.Y. 1982) os so 9 10 Stare»: Maiorano, 189 A.D.24 766 (24 Dep't 1993)... sos 224 State x. Master Plumbers Ass'n of Syracuse, 447 Mise. 2d 187 (Sup. Ct. Onondaga Cnty. 1965).. sos State v. Princess Prestige Co.. A2N.Y.2d 104 (1977), ve 24 State. SKG Assoe., 1974 N.Y. Mise” LEXIS 2067 (Sup. C1, N.Y. Caly. Ost. 29, 1974) soe 7 State v. Wolowits, 96 A.D.2d 47 (2d Dep't 1983) sos . 7 Tower Props, Ine. v. Castro, 99 Mise. 2d 405 (Rockland Cnty. Ct. 1979) Toiddy v. Standard Marine Transp. Servs, ne, 162 A.D.24. 264 (Ist Dep't 1990) United States ¥ Rigas. 281 F. Supp. 2d 733 (S.D.N.Y, 2003). Velez . Hunts Point Mult-Sere. Ctr, Ine, 29 A.D.3d 104 (Is: Dep't 2006). STATE STATUTES Education Law § 5001 $5010 Exceutive Law § 63112), Uniform Interstate Derosition and Discovery Act es FEDERAL STATUTES (Class Action Faiimess Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. § 133210) 1B), STATE REGULATIONS 22 NYCRR § 2027. § 202.70. sod 24 2d vs passim MW 89 LES CPLR § 3042. § 3042(0) § 31020, $3106. § 310640) § 310610)... 3107. § 3108. sail 53110. § 3120. $B nnn fie) - §4101 . § 4101.02, Rules ofthe Justices, New York County Supreme Court, Civil Branch, available «ar hitp:/ww.nycourts.gov/eours/1jd/supetmant/Uniform_ Rules pat Rule 22. ns MISCELLANEOUS AUTHORITIES 37 Am, Jur. 2d Fraud ond Deceit § 364 OT N.Y. Jur 24 dnjunetions § 7. TRAN, Jus, 24 Jury § Donald Trp says he may re-open Trump University, New York Daily News, Daily Politics (Oct. 16, 2014), available ar bape comiog ipoledonnamp--open- trump-university-blog-entry-1, 1976991 Donald Trump Full Press Conference After Winning MI and MS Primaries (Mar. 8, 2016), avaiable ar butps:/iwwe:youtube.com/watch?v=SCaL 8x75TiE;, NYAG consumer complaint form, available at ‘ntps!forms.ag.ny.goviCIS/consumser-complaints jsp. New York Pract Injunctions § 782101. {8 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, New York Civil Practice 28 24 WB a7 nT SUPREME COURT OF THE § COUNTY OF NEW YORK TATE OF NEW YORK, THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, by ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, Attorney General ofthe State of New York, Peaitoner, against Index No. 451463/2013 TAS Part 5S Assigned to Justice Kern THE TRUMP ENTREFRENEUR INITIATIVE LLC Pla ‘TRUMP UNIVERSITY LLC, DIT ENTREPRENEUR MEMBER LLC kia DIT UNIVERSITY MEMBER LLC, DIT ENTREPRENEUR MANAGING MEMBER LLC f/k'a DIT UNIVERSITY MANAGING MEMBER LLC, THE. TRUMP ORGANIZATION, INC. TRUMP ORGANIZATION LLC, DONALD J. TRUMP, and MICHAEL SEXTCN, Respondents x MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO RESPONDENTS’ PRE-TRIAL ‘MOTION AND IN SUPPORT OF THE NYAG'S CROSS-MOTION The New York Attorney General NAG") submits this memorandum of law in opposition to Respondents’ omnis motion: (2 to compel the NAG to identify and produce For depositions those consumers for whom the NYG seeks damages based on common law fra (b) 0 compel the NYAG to comply with Respondents Demand fora Bil of Particulars; (6) fora jury tral: and(d) Alieetng the NVAG to produce a lst of witnesses sixty days before tial, The NVAG also makes a ‘The andes demand arp ends at page 30 em 91, sugesing that Ks acpi demand os td st93 tone "7 Provide the opposing party wit hey days to respond or abject before moving to compel compliance. Responds failure to provide the NVAG with the required opportunity to respond to their amended demands fatal to their motion. Respondents ao filed to comply with the good faith requirements of 2 NYCRR § 202.7, hich provides that nomotion relating 0a bill of particulars shall be Filed “unless there have been served and filed withthe motion papers an affirmation that counsel has conferred with counsel for the opposing party in a pood faith effort to resolve the issues eased by the motion.” 22 NYCRR § 202.7. Respondents filed to make any such “good fuith” effort and failed to provide the required affirmation. Where a party ‘fo comply with this requirement, the party's motion must be denied ‘See, e44, Kovacs v. Cale Restoration and Constr, In., 262 A.D.28 165 (Ist Dep't 1999}; Charter ‘One Bank v, Houston, 300 A.D .24 429 (24 Dep't 2002); Gonzales ¥. Int? Bus: Machs. Corp, 236 A.D.24 363 (2d Dep't 1997), B. Respondents’ Motion fo Compel Compliance Must be Denied Because the Amended Demand Improperly Secks Evidentiary Materials, Respondents’ amended demand, which includes a east 30 pages, t leas 60 paragraphs, and a least 155 subparagraphs,’ is oppressive and burdensome and goes “ar beyond a mere amplification ofthe pleaings.” Ginsberg v Ginsberg, 108 A.D.2d 482,484 (2d Dep't 1988), Iisa transparent attempt fo ofan a variety of evidentiary material, including, infer ai the names and Addresses of potential witnesses; information conceming whether certain witneses' Fist contact with {he NYAG was initiated the witness ory the NVAGE the dat nd leation that alleged Imisrepresenations were heard by certain witness 1 information concerning certain witnesses" «fonts to achieve the successes promised by Respondents, Respondents” use ofthe demand for bill of particulars as an evidence-seking device is especially inappropriate in light of this Court's ruling «As noted in tnt 8, aes that Respondents acetal omit he as page(s) ofthe Amended Demin coring, itis mot lear how many pags, pararaps nd sulparaprape wee hed abe cde inthe Amen Demand Is that Respondents are not entitled to farther document discovery. See People v. Trump, 2014 N.Y. Mise. LEXIS 4533, a 52, ‘The purpose of bill of particulars is to “amplify the pleadings, limit proof and prevent surprise at its no an evidence-gathering device.” Imported Quality Guard Dogs, Inc., 88 ‘A.D.3d at 801 (intemal quotations omitted); see also Cotwin v. Kate, 90 A.D.3d S16, 616-17 (Ist Dep't 2011): Harris v Ariel Transp, Corp., 37 A.D.3d 308, 309 (Ist Dep't 2007): Ginsberg, 104 ‘A.D.2d 482, Where “the demanded bill of particulars largely [seeks] disclosure, rather than amplification,” its objectionable in its emirety and must be vacted, Imported Quality Guard Dogs, 88 A.D.3d at 801: se aso Ginsherg, 104 A.D.2d at 484 (va ing demand fora bill of particulars ‘based in parton a findirg that the demand improperly sought evidentiary information, such asthe datetime, and place ofeach occurrence andthe names, addreses and telephone numbers of persons ‘who observed the occurence). Likewise, demand for bill particulars that requests a massive «quantity of minute, detailed information of an evidentiary nature, which would be unreasonably burdensome to rishi objectionable in its emirety and must be vacated, Imported Quality Guard Dogs, 88 8.0.34 at 801: see als, Bardi: Mosher, 197 A.D.2d797, 798 (3d Dep't 1993) (nding that a demand comprisirg 40 pages and 161 paragraphs, many of which sought evidentiary material, including the names andadresses of witnesses, was propery vacate). ‘The NYAG's pleadings set forth extensively detailed allegations, attomey affirmations, and substantial supporting evidence, obviating any need for further amplification ofthe pleadings. The extensive evidence subyvitted by the NYAG ineludes: (i) representative advertisements and solicitations (se, e.g Affemation of Tristan C. Snel in Support of the Verified Petition, dated ® nf, respondent demand aso impropety seek information thts in resend possession. For example, raph 7 sees the name ofeach Tm Unersty instr that fered wel hone aly ed rosram pains “stan and he ads” an the date a lan ofeach ch erence Bean it vas the poly of Trump Univers o record ad asi each cnet el rspenden’s hve inh posession he ey fac nstvtr ht eared hms rhe as “aca and he proram pricpctasstadens an the gadis" See Oteton arated as EVMDLE te Respondent Af at (Boe No. 1 and 283, io ‘August 26, 2013 (“Srl AN") (Doe. No.6), at $$ 33-39, Exhibits MI-6, NI-N3 (Doe, No. 11) D Stadent affidavits and complaints (see, e, Snell AMT, Exhibits KI-28, L1-L43 (Doe. No. 10) ii) transeripts fom Trump University seminars (Snell AME, Exhibits HI-H160 (Doe. Nos, 8-9) i») som testimony oft of Trump University's former managers (Snell AF Exhibits B (Doc. No.7) and 1H (Dos, No, 14) (9) the Trump University Playbook, which provided step-by-step dretions ‘all ofits insruetors (Snell AME, Exhibit V (Dae. No, 2); and (i) oer internal dacuments ‘produced by Respondents and by third partis in response to subpoenas om the AMorney Gener This evidence applies tthe entre time-period thatthe Trump program was offered, inching the ost-May 31,2010 pero Respondents falsely assert that amplification of the pleadings is reqited because “the Petition has no facts or evidence that involve post-May 31, 2010 elaims as they relate tothe second, ‘hind, and fifth causes o°aetion.” (See Resp. Mem. at 24). Contrary to Respondents’ contention, the NYAG submitted details allegations and substantial evidence that specifically relates tothe post- May 31, 2010 period. n dition to the evidence described above, which relates tothe entire period of operation, representaive evidence specific tothe post-May 31, 2010 period includes, inter alia «advertisements (Tristan Snell Affirmation in Reply to Respondents" Answer and in Futher Support ‘ofthe Verified Petition, dated April 22,2014 ("Snell Reply AAT”) (Doe. No. 110), at $4 77-79 and Exhibit F (Doe. No, 120} Melvin Goldberg Affimation in Opposition to Respondents’ Motions for Partial Summary Judgment, dated January 30, 2013 (“Goldberg S.J. AMT") (Doe. No. 184) a $925 30} stem aiavis and complaints (Snell AM, Exhibit KIS (Doe, No, 10}; Snell Reply Af. (Doe No. 110) at 9 77-79 and Exhibits 15, J16, and J23 (Doe. No. 120); Golders S.J. AMF. at 9 15-22, (Doe. No, 188) and Exhints W- to W-3 (Doe. Nos. 213 ~215)}:poseMay 31,2010 student «enrollment forms that deveptvely use the name Trump University (Goldberg SJ. AME at$ 12 (Doe. No. 184) and Exhibit B (Doe. No. 186)); and evidence of Respondents fulure to deliver promised _mentorship services in th: post-May 31, 2010 period (Snell Reply Af at §Y 101-102 (Doe. No. 110) » ‘and Ex. J15, 316, and J28 (Doe. No, 120); Goldberg S.J. AfF (Doe. No. 184) at ff] 13-14 and Exhibits F-Hl (Doe. Nos, 190-190), [+l (Doc. No. 193) J+! (Doe. No, 195), Ky Ly Mel (Doe Nos, 197-199), Ne | (Doe. No, 201), 0, P,and Q-1 (Doe. Nos. 203-205), All ofthis evidence including the evidence in the NYAG's reply submissions. was properly submited and should be considered. People Trump, 2016 N.Y. App, Div, LEXIS 1422, *19 (Mar. 1, 2016) (finding that “the court should have considered the allegations of post-May3L, 2010 cond included in petitioner's reply submission”, Furthermore, Respondents contention that amplification of the pleadings i required with espeet 10 the ft cause of action must fil in light ofthe ct thatthe Court already granted the NYAG. summary judgment ons fith cause of ation." See People v. Trump, 2014 N.Y. Mise. LEXIS 4533, "26 ‘is undisputed that TEI was infact operating in New York State without a license after May 31, 2010.) "None of the eases Responds rely upon suppor heir contention that they are entitled toa bill of particulars. Respondents rely primarily on cases where either the court permitted a bill of particulars ase method of amplifying bare-bones or def int pleadings in plenary actions (see Jones ¥: MeDonoug, 83 A.D, 178 2d Dep't 1911); Dou». Nassau Fire Ins. Co., 115 A.D. 902 (28 Dep't 1906); State of Now York v Kaz, 84 A.D.24 381, 384 (Ist Dep't 1982}; Sate of New York Biggane, 23 4.0.24 705 (st Dept 1965), oF where he defendant would have been entiled to Aisovery ofthe materia sought in any event (see Tide. Standard Marine Tranyp. Servs, In, 162 4.0.24. 264 (Ist Dep't 1990). However, these cases diferfrom the instant case, where ampliticaion ofthe pleatings is unnecessary dc tothe extremely detailed allegations and supporting evidence already provided, and where the Court has already held that Respondents are not ented to locument discovery, The remaining case relied upon by Respondens simply held that a bill oF Pertculars was permissible in a summary proceeding by private partes, not that they would be "Inthe Memorandum of Li, Respondent repeatedly contend tht ampiftion ofthe lating rou with repesto the NV AG's Tih cause of ton. Ser =, Resp. Mem (Ove No. 28) 223 and 36 -Pelanes opel be ‘suid o ampli hue) a ation) a appropriate here, See 42 West 15th St. Corp. x Friedman, 208 Mise. 123 (App. Tem 1s Dep't 1955): Tower Props, le.» Castro, 99 Mise. 24408 (Rockland Cnty. Ct. 1979). In Friedman the parties failed to challenge the substance ofthe demand, And, in Castro the court made clear that bills permissible only°so ong sits used for the purpose of amplifying the pleadings, but not asa Alisguiseddissovery device to disclose evidentiary matters.” 99 Mise 2d at 406, Indeed, Respondents do not cite single example ofa ease in which use ofa bill of particulars was deemed appropriate where, a hr, the NYAG initiated a summary proceeding via detailed petition and robust supporting evidence. Accordingly, fr the easons set forth above, Respondents” demand i gompel compliance With their Amended Denand for bill of particulars must be denied MI, RESPONDENTS ARE NOT ENTITLED TO TRIAL BY JURY Wis well-settled law in New York that wal by jury does not attach to actions for equitable reliof, In MPMA v. Stary 75 N.Y.24 at 175, the Court of Appeals rejected a challenge tthe consttutonality of OBL § 198a, known as the“New Car Lemon Law,” onthe ground tha its compulsory aebitraion provision derived car manufacturers ofthe right ta tial by jury. The Court held that he remedies povided under the law; which ar the equivalents of specifi performance and restitution, ate “equitable in nature.” Asa result the Court concled that such elms “would not ‘have been triable by jury under the common aw” and thatthe automobile manufacturers “Were not nie toa jury tial under article 1, § 2 ofthe New York Constitution.” ld at 183. See alo Jamaica Sav, Bank v. MS. Investing Co, 274 N.Y. 215, 20 (1937) (“in an ation in equity there is 0 ht of trial by jury: Siege, N'Y. Pre. § 377 (Sth ed, 2011) actions for which jury als "equired under CPLR, § 4101 are “he aetons evolved through the common law courts, as opposed to ‘hose developed in equ (chancery), which continue to be rable by the court"): 8 Weinstin-Kom= Miller, New York Civ Practice: CPLR $4101.02 (The gence rule stat ithe matter was historically cognizable ina court of equity. no eight to a jury obtains, since equity cours operated 2 without juries." Respondents do not dispute the fundamental principle tha nl by jury when the underiying claims and relief sought are primarily eq able. (See Resp. Mem. at 27) Here the State's claims are equitable and the primary relief sought by the State consists of ‘equitable remedies, ine uding a permanent injunction, restitution, demand for an accounting, and Aisgorgement of profs. Respondents agree that these remedies areal equitable." (Resp. Mem. at 29) Cinjunetion [footnote omitted] request, demand for accounting. restitution and disgorgement of Profits” are “claims forequitable reli"). Morcover the causes of action under Executive Law § 63(12) and GDL § 349 are both equitable in nature, Executive Law §63(12) empowers the NYAG 10 bring an ation o special proceeding for injunctive elie, restitution, damazes, and costs where !ny person or business has engaged in repeated o persistent fraudulent o legal conduct, GBL§ 349 authorizes the NYAG to bring an ation to “wo enjoin [deceptive] acts or practices and obtain ‘restitution of any moneys or property obtained directly or inditetly by any such unlawful acts oF Practices." and GBI. § 350-4 authorizes the cour to impose civil penalties of up to $5,000 far each The suse of perma injunction ia quale remedy. Porter» Marne Hllding Co, 328 US. 39,397 (1946) deseibing jin of court ejon asad patns made unt tant equa" Pep Fs tm Comp 2011 NY, Min, LEXIS $581 a 1-6 (Sup.CU NY. CaN. IR 2011) People Tle le 2843, 34 (Sep. CEN Y. Cay. 1986) ojncsive wee unde the Matin Acs on ohichExcetve La $ 13) ns mal scl equitable in hase" se alo T2 Carmody. Wat 2, Now York Paci, numeton $8101 (4 at ‘seeking ome containing peranent ijncton smartly ape of ut egy NY. ra noon 82 The aaorky ofthe cout to avard ajuda incon aerial as man. oveltd ty the ules ad Principles governing ous of egy" ‘The power awa esi Hes iti he quale jraition fhe out. Reston san equitable ened Intends soley to ere thers quo Reston distedeerng the status aed eden Ie se of that wich ih belongs the purchaser" Pare Marner Holding C538 U Stu alas ae Nita Sie, 78 NV 2d TR desea reion s“equslen ate Disgrgment isan equitable emedy sinc fom etiion. People GreenBrg 27 LY. 84 90,498 2016) (iszogenem ey bean aan “qutale remedy dint estan ade Ne York's nan esaaion Sc aa People eel Spitzer: Apple Card Sy. ne, NY 38105, 12-26 (208) hig SEC Flea Cory, 133.34 170,178 Ga Cir. (*As an exercise cats power the cout nay ener Mangoes edges hes euduley ean pots"), Disgorgment san equa ene “dsigra Sepa + wrongdoer tet ‘avichmen and to dt thes" om fare lations, SEC Fist Clp Fn Corp, SSOF2G TSS 10D Ce 198, FTC Gem Merch Cap 87 Fd 466 (14 1996. An scouning isan qutabe ened, Ras Union Pee School ist, Belin, Y6NLY.34 643 (2011; Chmon Seinbrf 69.24 813 (198) 23 deceptive practice The First

    You might also like