Baum v Suzuki

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Baum v Suzuki 2020 NY Slip Op 33506(U) October 21, 2020 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 654981/2018 Judge: Debra A. James Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [* 1] INDEX NO. 654981/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 122 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/22/2020 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: HON. DEBRA A. JAMES PART IAS MOTION 59EFM . Justice ------------------------------------------------------------------------X MARK BAUM, INDEX NO. 65498112018 MOTION DATE Plaintiff, 1012112020 MOTION SEQ. NO. 004 005 -vDECISION + ORDER ON MOTION SAMMY SUZUKI. Defendant ---------------------------------------------------------------------X The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 004) 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72,90, 93,94,95, 96,97, 98, 99, 100, 120 -----~\/,ti.CATE - WARR,tl.f\l.~T_ _ __ were read on this motion to/for The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 005) 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86, 87,88,89, 91, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119 were read on this motion to/for CONTEMPT Upon the foregoing documents, it is ORDE:RED tl-lat defendant's motion to vacate the warrant and commitment order filed on June 4, 2020, effective upon "resumption of in person operations of courthouses in New York County" (which arrest have not resu:r.ed to date) (Mot. Seq. Nos. 004 and 005) is GRANTED and such warrant and commitment order are VACATED, condition that, authorizations, within 20 prepared and days of delivered 65498112G18 BAUM, MARK vs. SUZUKI, SAMMY !SAMU Motion No. 004 005 1 of 6 receipt to defense of on proposed counse~ Page 1of6 by [* 2] INDEX NO. 654981/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 122 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/22/2020 plaintiff's counsel, defendarit sign and return such authorizations to plaintiff that dir~ct (1) Citibank to release to plaintiff copies of defendant's statements of account pertaining to his Citi Card account ending 9674, for the period January 1, 2016 through August 21, 2018, and for the ~eriod after March 19, 2020 to date; records pertaining to any Citibank personal checking or saving account (s) belonging to defendant, for the period January 2016 to date to, or a statenent that there are no such personal checking or saving accounts belonging to defendant for such period; (2) Macy's to release to plaintiff copies of statements of account pertaining to defendant's credit card account eeding 2 991 for the period July 2019 through November 2019; . . (3) Schwab to release to plaintiff copies of statements of account pertaining to investment account ending (Individual) 817 for the period June 4, 2019 to date; and and and it is further ORDERED that to the extent that plaintiff cross moves to modify the foregoing warrant (mistakenly filed under Motion Seq. No. 005 instead of Motion Sequence No. 004), such motion is DENIED; and is further ORDERED that to the extent that the order to show cause of plaintiff to compel defendant to comply with an information subpoena issued to him on April 29, 2020, and to compel non-parties Bob Delidimitrious, Barry Regenstein and Darius Toraby Architects PC to comply with the information subpoenas, subpoenas duces tecum and subpoena ad testificandum issued to them on June 1, 2020, July 13, 2020 and March 9, 2020, 65498112018 BAUM, MARK vs. SUZUKI, SAMMY ISAMU Motion No. 004 005 2 of 6 Page2of6 [* 3] INDEX NO. 654981/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 122 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/22/2020 respectively, (Motion Seq. No. 005), such motion is granted to the extent that, within thirty days of service of a copy of this order with notice of entry (1) defendant shall respond to the information subpoena served.upon him on April 30, 2020; (2) non-party Barry Regenstein shall respond to the information subpoena issued to him on July 13, 2020; (3) non-party Bob Delidimitrious shall respond to the information subpoena issued to him on June 1, 2020; (4) non-party Darius Toraby Architects PC .shall respond to the information subpoena and subpoena duces tecum issued to it on March 9, 2020; and and and and it is further ORDERED that to the extent that plaintiff seeks to compel non-parties Regenstein and Delidimitrious to comply with the subpoena duces tecu:n and subpoena ad testificandum and to compel non-party Toraby Architects PC to comply with subpoenas ad testificandum, such motion held in abeyance for further oral argument upon the review by plaintiff of the information and/or records disclosed pursuant to the information subpoenas and the subpoenas duces tecum; and it is further ORDERED that to the extent that plaintiff seeks to hold non-parties Delidimitrious, Regenstein and Darius Toraby Architects PC in contempt for failing to comply with the various 65498112018 BAUM. MARK vs. SUZUKI, SAMMY !SAMU Motion No. 004 005 Page 3 of 6 3 of 6 [* 4] INDEX NO. 654981/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 122 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/22/2020 post judgment enforcement subpoenas issued by plaintiff's counsel (Mo::ion Seq. Ko. 005), such motion is denied; and it is further ORDERED that defendant shall serve a copy of this order with notice of entry on the Clerk of the General Clerk's Office (60 Centre Street, Room 119); and it is further ORDERED that such service upon the Clerk of the General Clerk's Office shall be made in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Protocol on Courthouse and County Clerk Procedures for Electronically Filed Cases (accessible at the "E- ling" page on the court's website at the address www.nycourts.gov/supctmanh); and it is further ORDERED that counsel are directed to appear for further argument a$ to the motion to compel the non-parties to submit to depositions on November 19, 2020, 11: 30 AM via Microsoft Teams, upon filing by any counsel of the standard reqaest for conference form (~fc-conferencereguest@ncourts.gov) no more than five and no than two days in advance of such hearing date' and it is further ORDERED that should no standard request for conference form be filed as aforesaid, the motion for depositions of· the non- parties shall be deemed denied. Page 4of 6 65498112018 BAUM, MARK vs. SUZUKI, SAMMY !SAMU Motion No. 004 005 4 of 6 --------------------------··-- --··---INDEX NO. 654981/2018 [* 5] NYSCEF DOC. NO. 122 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/22/2020 DECISION Defendant, who plaintiff does not deny has appeared for a post judgment deposition and made substantial payments toward satisfaction of the judgment, has demonstrated that to the extent that he was in violation of the order dated December 13, 2019 holding him in contempt, unless he produced certain records, he has now purged himself of such violation with the Dropbox production of documents and a statement, under oath, that he has no additional responsive documents in his possession. Defendant has also consented to providing a. signed authorization to allow plaintiff to subpoena any of statements belonging to him for the periods in question from Citibank, Schwab and Macy's. See Marino v Myers, 64 AD2d 600 (l•t Dept. 1978). To the extent that plaintiff seeks to hold the non-parties in contempt for failing to comply with the subpoenas that his counsel issued to them, such motion is unava_ilable, as 65496112018 BAUM. MARK vs. SUZUKI, SAMMY ISAMU Motion No. 004 005 5 of 6 Page 5 of 6 [* 6] INDEX NO. 654981/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 122 premature; RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/22/2020 since such subpoenas were non-judicial. See Reuters Limited v Dow'Jones Telerate, Inc., 231 AD2d 337 (l•t Dept. 1997); Citibank, N.A. v Angst, Inc., 61 AD3d 484 1012112020 DEBRA A~Aet, J . .Ci: DATE CHECK ONE: \1st Dept. 2009). CASE DISPOSED GRANtEO N.ON-FINAL DISPOSITION [:J DENIED GRANTED IN: PART APPLICATION: SETTLI! ORDER SUBMIT OROER CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT 65498112018 BAUM, MARK vs. SUZUKI, SAMMY !SAMU Motion No. 004 005 6 of 6 D .D OTHE.R REFERENCE Page 6 of 6

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.