Lewis v Broadcasturban Filmworks, LLC
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Lewis v Broadcasturban Filmworks, LLC 2015 NY Slip Op 32333(U) December 10, 2015 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 162705/14 Judge: Jennifer G. Schecter Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various state and local government websites. These include the New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service, and the Bronx County Clerk's office. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [* 1] SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK: PART 57 ----------------------------------------x Index No. 162705/14 LOIDA NICOLAS LEWIS, Plaintiff, -against- BROADCASTURBAN FILMWORKS, LLC, Defendant. ----------------------------------------x JENNIFER G. SCHECTER, J.: In February 2014, the U.S. District of Columbia entered a Nicolas Lewis LLC District Court for the judgment in favor of Loida (Lewis) and against BroadcastUrban Filmworks, (BroadcastUrban) that was primarily based on an arbitration award that Lewis won (Affirmation in Support of Cross-Motion [Cross), Ex E). The foreign judgment was then filed in New York and Index Number 162705/2014 was assigned (see NYSCEF DOC NO 1). Lewis subsequently served a subpoena duces tecum on TD Bank, N .A. (TD Bank), seeking, among other things, all documents concerning ( 1) "any account held by Why Should White Guys Have All the Fun L.P. (WSWG)" (Schedule A, Item 3) (2) any other assets of WSWG "that are identified in [TD Bank's] responses to (Schedule A, Wineberry the Information Item 4) (Wineberry) and ( 3) Subpoena served herewith" "any account for which Jesse is a signatory" (Schedule A, Item 5) (Affirmation in Support of Motion to Quash [Quash Supp), Ex A). [* 2] Index No. 162705/14 Page 2 Lewis v BroadcastUrban Filmworks, LLC WSWG and Wineberry (Movants) move to quash the subpoena. Movants urge that they are not and have never been parties to any proceeding commenced by Lewis and that the subpoena is "overly broad" and a "fishing expedition" and 11). (Quash Aff at 'II'II 5 They maintain that they are "separate entities with no interconnection" to BroadcastUrban (id. at 'II 7). Lewis opposes the motion and cross-mov~s to hold WSWG in contempt for failing to respond to an information subpoena and subpoena duces tecum. Alternatively, it seeks an order compelling WSWG to respond to the subpoenas. Motion to Quash The motion to quash is denied as to WSWG and TD Bank must produce documents responsive to item numbers three and four of Schedule A. Lewis has sufficiently demonstrated that the discovery sought is appropriate because the information is "relevant to the satisfaction of the judgment" (CPLR 5223). She established that Broadcasturban assigned the rights it acquired from her to WSWG importantly, (Cross, Ex B at 813) and, more that WSWG pays many of BroadcastUrban's bills (Cross, Exs G, H and I; cf. Bingham v Zolt, 231 AD2d 479 [1st Dept 1996]). [* 3] Index No. 162705/14 Page 3 Lewis v BroadcastUrban Filmworks, LLC On this record, however, Lewis has not demonstrated entitlement to documents related to "any" account for which Jesse Wineberry is a signatory. The demand is overbroad as it is not directed to any particular entity; therefore, such potential entity has not received notice or an opportunity to object. That "Jesse Wineberry is a signatory for bank accounts maintained by" BroadcastUrban and WSWG is, in itself, insufficient to justify production all of "documents concerning any account" for which he is a signatory. Though it is true that CPLR 5223 broadly compels disclosure of all matter relevant to satisfaction of the judgment from anyone with knowledge of the debtor's property, insufficient showing that "any" there has been an accounts for which Mr. Wineberry is a signatory--other than WSWG--could constitute the debtor's property or that BroadcastUrban transferred money to such .other unknown and unnamed entities judgment. to defeat the Thus, the motion to quash is granted to the limited extent that TD Bank is not to produce documents responsive to item number 5 of Schedule A of the subpoena duces tecum. Cross-Motion for Contempt or to Compel Lewis·' cross-motion must be denied as there "is no indication that service of a subpoena without the state is [* 4] Index No. 162705/14 Page 4 Lewis v BroadcastUrban Filmworks, LLC authorized" (Siemens & Halske v Gres, 37 AD2d 768, 768 [1st Dept 1971]; see also Siegel, NY Prac § 383 at 673 and§ 509 at 892-893 [5th ed 2011]). The subpoena duces tecum, moreover, was not properly served (see CPLR 2303; Cross, Ex N). Accordingly, it is ORDERED limited extent responsive to tecum. that the that motion TD Item 5 of Bank to quash is not Schedule A of In all other respects, is to granted produce the to the material subpoena duces the motion is denied and TD Bank must respond within 30 days; and it is further ORDERED that the cross-motion is denied. This constitutes the Decision and Order of the ~t. Dated: December 10, 2015 HON. J G. SCHECTER
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
