Opinion
INDEX 156744/2020
02-18-2022
TGT, LLC, Petitioner, v. AVENUES WORLD HOLDINGS, LLC, AVENUES THE WORLD SCHOOL, 95-97 HORATIO LLC, TF CORNERSTONE INC., Respondent. MOTION SEQ. NO. 001003
DATE CAROL EDMEAD, J.S.C.
Unpublished Opinion
MOTION DATE 08/09/2021, 09/07/2021
PRESENT: HON. CAROL EDMEAD Justice
DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION
DATE CAROL EDMEAD, J.S.C.
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 2 were read on this motion to/for POST JUDGMENT OTHER.
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 003) 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 92, 93, 94 were read on this motion to/for QUASH SUBPOENA, FIX CONDITIONS.
Upon the foregoing documents, it is
ORDERED that the application of Petitioner TGT LLC ("TGT") for an order pursuant to CPLR 5223 and 5251 compelling Respondents to produce all documents demanded in compliance with the Subpoenas Duces Tecum and Ad Testificandum dated November 20, 2019 and December 2, 2019 (Motion Seq. 001) is deemed moot; and it is further
ORDERED that the proceeding is dismissed as against Respondents 95-97 Horatio LLC and TF Cornerstone, Inc.; and it is further
This proceeding was dismissed as against Respondents Avenues World Holdings, LLC and Avenues The World School by Decision and Order dated January 21, 2021 (NYSCEF doc No. 37).
ORDERED that non-party witness Richard Meli's motion for an order quashing the Restraining Notice and Information Subpoena served by TGT on October 1, 2020 (the "October 2020 Subpoena"), pursuant to CPLR 2304, as well as a protective order denying TGT the information sought in the October 2020 Subpoena pursuant to CPLR 3103, and TGT's cross-motion for an order pursuant to CPLR 2308 compelling Richard Meli's compliance with the October 2020 Subpoena (Motion Seq. 003) are both resolved in accordance with the Orders delineated herein; and it is further
ORDERED that Richard Meli shall produce the materials sought in the October 2020 Subpoena within 45 days; and it is further
ORDERED that TGT's cross-motion for an order pursuant to CPLR 305(c) granting leave to amend the caption of this proceeding to add Richard Meli as the sole Respondent to this matter (Motion Seq. 003) is granted, and an Order amending the caption shall be issued simultaneously with the instant Decision and Order; and it is further
ORDERED that counsel for TGT shall serve a copy of this order with notice of entry on all parties within 10 days of entry.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Petitioner TGT LLC ("TGT") commenced this special proceeding pursuant to CPLR 5223, 5224 and 2308(b) seeking an order compelling Respondents Avenues World Holdings, LLC ("World Holdings"), Avenues: The World School ("World School"), 95-97 Horatio LLC and TF Cornerstone Inc. ("TF Cornerstone") to comply with various post-judgment subpoenas (Motion Seq. 001).
Non-party witness Richard Meli moves, pursuant to CPLR 2304, to quash a Restraining Notice and Information Subpoena served by TGT on October 1, 2020 ("the October 2020 Subpoena"). Richard Meli also seeks a protective order pursuant to CPLR 3103 denying TGT the information sought in the October 2020 Subpoena (Motion Seq. 003.)
TGT opposes Richard Meli's motion in its entirety and cross-moves for an order compelling Richard Meli's compliance with the October 2020 Subpoena pursuant to CPLR 2308. TGT also cross-moves for an order pursuant to CPLR 305(c) granting leave to amend the caption of this proceeding to add Richard Meli as a Respondent.
Motion Seqs. 001 and 003 are consolidated for joint disposition.
Motion Seq. 002 was resolved by Decision and Order dated January 21, 2021 (NYSCEF doc No. 37).
BACKGROUND
The special proceeding before this Court concerns TGT's efforts to enforce an October 25, 2019 judgment rendered in TGT's prior default judgment action for fraud against Joseph Meli and Advance Entertainment, LLC ("Advance") (See TGT, LLC v Advance Entertainment, LLC, et al, NY Sup. Ct. Index No. 650633/2017.) There, the Court (J. Andrea Masley) entered a judgment in the amount of $7,860,000 against Joseph Meli and Advance, a company owned and operated by Joseph Meli. To date, neither Joseph Meli nor Advance have paid down the $7,860,000 Judgment entered against them.
Per Justice Masley's Judgment, with interest accruing from January 2017, TGT is now owed more than $11.1 million.
Background of the Federal Indictment of Joseph Meli
In January 2017, the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York indicted Joseph Meli for securities fraud related to a scheme he orchestrated to defraud investors. (See United States v Meli, et al, 17-cr-00127, SDNY.) The U.S. Attorney's Office, in its criminal complaint, and the Securities and Exchange Commission, in a related civil complaint, have stated that Joseph Meli's scheme defrauded investors of more than $97 million. (Id; SEC v. Meli, et. al, l:17-CIV-632 [LLS]). Joseph Meli pled guilty to felony fraud charges in October 2017 and was sentenced to a 78-month prison term. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York also entered an Order of Restitution directing Joseph Meli to repay $56,037,924.28 to his victims. (NYSCEF doc No. 61.) Notwithstanding the 2017 fraud charges, Joseph Meli-while on pretrial release-orchestrated a separate, though similar, scheme to defraud investors. The U.S. Attorney's Office subsequently filed a new, second set of fraud charges in 2019, to which Joseph Meli pled guilty and received an additional 37-month prison sentence. (See United States v Meli, etal, l:19-CR-00480 [RA], SDNY.)
Joseph Meli's investors relied on false representations that investor funds would be used to purchase various Broadway and concert tickets for resale on secondary markets. (US Attorney's Sentencing Statement, NYSCEF doc No. 63.)
TGT's Default Judgment Action
In February 2017, shortly after the U.S. Attorney's Office's 2017 indictment, TGT, an investor and victim in Joseph Meli's first fraud scheme, commenced its underlying default action for fraud, conversion, and breach of contract against Joseph Meli and Advance in this Court's Commercial Division before Justice Masley. TGT's default judgment against Joseph Meli and Advance was granted on October 25, 2019, during the pendency of Joseph Meli's criminal trials (See NYSCEF doc No. 66.) Joseph Meli and Advance subsequently filed a motion to vacate the default judgment, which Justice Masley denied by Decision and Order dated June 28, 2021.(Index No. 650633/2017; NYSCEF doc No. 791.)
Joseph Meli has filed an appeal of the Court's denial with the Appellate Division, First Department but has yet to perfect it.
As part of its effort to enforce the default judgment, TGT served separate subpoenas on Avenues World Holdings LLC, Avenues: The World School, 95-97 Horatio LLC, and TF Cornerstone Inc. to produce information regarding large payments these entities may have received from Joseph or Richard Meli. Avenues: The World School is a private school that Joseph Meli's children attended at the time the 2017 fraud charges were filed, and Avenues: World Holding is its parent company (NYSCEF doc No. l at 2.). 95-97 Horatio LLC owns the residential building wherein Joseph Meli's family resides, and where Advance maintained its principal place of business. TF Cornerstone is the building's management company (id.).
The Special Proceeding Before This Court
In September 2020, TGT filed the Petition now in this Court against the aforementioned entities, seeking court orders compelling compliance with the subpoenas (Mot. Seq. 001). However, these entities have each since resolved their disputes with TGT. TGT filed a motion to withdraw the Petition against Avenues World Holdings LLC and Avenues: The World School as all disputes were resolved against them (Motion Seq. 002). The Court granted TGT's motion by Decision and Order dated January 21, 2021 (NYSCEF doc No. 37). By emails dated December 22, 2021 and February 15, 2022, TGT informed the Court that it had resolved its remaining disclosure disputes with, respectively, TF Cornerstone and 95-97 Horatio LLC, the sole remaining original Respondents to TGT's petition.
Accordingly, Motion Seq. 001 is now deemed moot.
The October 2020 Subpoena and the Instant Motion Before This Court
On October 1, 2020, pursuant to CPLR 5223 and 5224, TGT served a post-judgment subpoena Duces Tecum and Ad Testificandum on non-party witness Richard Meli as part of its attempt to obtain documents and testimony relevant to its judgment against Joseph Meli and Advance (the "October 2020 Subpoena").
On March 16, 2021, Richard Meli filed the motion now before this Court, seeking to quash the October 2020 Subpoena as well as a protective order pursuant to CPLR 3103 denying TGT the information sought (Motion Seq. 003). On September 30, 2021, TGT cross-moved for an order pursuant to CPLR 5223 and 5251 compelling Richard Meli to comply with the October 2020 Subpoena, as well as order granting leave to amend the caption to add Richard Meli as a Respondent to this proceeding pursuant to CPLR 305(c).
Richard Meli originally moved to quash the October 2020 Subpoena by Order to Show Cause in TGT's default judgment action before Justice Masley. By Order dated February 10, 2021, Justice Masley "Declined to Sign" the Order to Show Cause given that Rule 22 NYCRR 202.70(c)(5) prohibits the Commercial Division from entertaining actions or claims related to enforcing judgments. Justice Masley advised Richard Meli to file the instant motion in this Court.
The October 2020 Subpoena contains a list of twenty-seven demands, which the Court breaks down into three broad categories. (See NYSCEF doc No. 68 for TGT's full list of demands.) The first category consists of TGT's first two demands, which relate to Joseph Meli's email and text communications with Kevin Law, an alleged partner in Joseph Meli's fraud schemes. The second category-demand numbers three through eight; 13 and 14; and 18 through 24-seeks all financial documents and communications concerning "entities owned or controlled by Advance Entertainment, Meli and/or a Meli entity." The sought documents include (but are not limited to) information regarding investments, assets, income, sources of revenues, business deals and/or opportunities, and the entities' financial status or ability to pay the judgment. (Id.) The final category-demand numbers nine through 12; 15 through 17; and 26 and 27-seeks documentation concerning payments, gifts, distributions, and other transfers of assets made by Richard Meli to members of Joseph Meli's family.
In support of his motion to quash, Richard Meli maintains that the October 2020 Subpoena and its twenty-seven demands are irrelevant, overbroad, and unduly burdensome to the point that many of the demands require impossible-to-provide responses. (See NYSCEF doc No. 46 at 4-5.) While Richard Meli objects to each demand on these grounds, he also identifies certain demands as particularly burdensome. For example, Richard Meli argues that Request 3, which seeks "any and all documents and communications concerning any entity owned or controlled by Advance Entertainment, Meli, and/or Meli Entity," could be properly read to include every email among employees and every document the entity received, rendering the demand so vague that it is meaningless. (Id. at 6.) Similarly, Richard Meli maintains that any requests seeking information regarding gifts and transfers of assets to Joseph Meli's family members would necessarily be so broad as to reveal ordinary (and undiscoverable) gifts given to his grandchildren for holidays and birthdays.
Richard Meli also asserts that the material sought in the subpoenas are shielded from production by a federal protective order issued by United States District Court Judge for the Southern District of New York Ronnie Abrams. However, Richard Meli does not articulate a basis for this proposition. Furthermore, the Court notes that the federal protective order clearly states that it covers only confidential material the U.S. Attorney's Office provided to Joseph Meli and his counsel as part of his defense in the criminal matter. (See NYSCEF doc No 62.) The federal protective order does not include references to any documents that Richard Meli or Joseph Meli maintain as personal or business records.
Richard Meli argues that the nature of TGT's demands demonstrate that TGT is using its subpoena power as a proverbial fishing expedition. He maintains that TGT has not produced evidence of his custody of or control over the financial documents TGT is seeking and claims that TGT possesses only suspicions of his involvement with his son Joseph Meli's fraud. (NYSCEF doc No. 92 at ¶10.)
TGT's Cross-Motion Seeking Compliance with the October 2020 Subpoena
TGT, in support of its cross-motion, characterizes the evidence against Richard Meli in an entirely different light. TGT notes that Joseph Meli went to extensive lengths to hide his involvement in his second fraud scheme-lengths that included laundering money earmarked for his personal expenses through various companies controlled by his cousin, James Siniscalchi, and paying entities in which Richard Meli was a principal. (US Attorney's Office Sentencing Statement, NYSCEF doc No. 63 ["$45,000 and $449,000, respectively, were paid to entities in which the defendant's father was a principal, at least in part to repay credit card payments that Meli was charging on his father's credit cards."].)
TGT also cites several pieces of circumstantial evidence that appear to indicate Richard Meli possesses more documents relevant to his son's fraud than he represents to the Court. The circumstantial evidence includes a copy of a PowerPoint presentation Joseph Meli sent to Richard that contained some of the particulars to his scheme (NYSCEF doc No. 57); records of payments made by other defrauded investors to RJM Ventures, a company in which Richard Meli is a principal (NYSCEF doc No. 58); and records detailing of Richard Meli's and RJM Venture's intimate involvement in negotiations with TF Cornerstone (NYSCEF doc No. 67). TGT further grounds its October 2020 Subpoena on another post-judgment subpoena it sent to Joseph Meli's former attorneys at Piliero & Associates. The former attorneys informed TGT that it provided Richard Meli with all relevant documents in its possession that it had obtained during Joseph Meli's criminal trial. (NYSCEF doc No. 54 at ¶ 21.)
TGT argues that the post-judgment subpoena power is broad and permits judgement creditors to compel disclosure of all maters relevant to the satisfaction of the judgment. (See Gryphon Domestic VI, LLC v GBR Information Services, Inc., 815 N.Y.S.2d 65, 66 [1st Dept 2006]; Oates v Oates, 306 N.Y.S.2d 108, 110 [1st Dept 1969]). As such, a broad inquiry into Richard Meli's financial records is appropriate considering the already-established evidence links him, in potentially intricate ways, to his son's fraud. TGT maintains that Richard Meli received sources of funds directly attributable to defrauded investors and made payments to a luxury residence using an unknown source of funds, and thus, the information contained in Richard Meli's records is directly related to TGT's ability to satisfy its judgment against Joseph Meli and Advance. Consequently, TGT not only opposes Richard Meli's motion to quash but also cross-moves for an order compelling compliance with its October 2020 Subpoena.
TGT's Cross-Motion to Amend the Caption
TGT also moves pursuant to CPLR 3025 (b) to amend its pleadings to add Richard Meli as a Respondent. TGT argues that motions to amend pleadings should be given freely absent prejudice or surprise to the opposing party, and here, there is no prejudice to Richard Meli given that he has already appeared in this proceeding. TGT notes that it has diligently attempted to resolve its judgment enforcement discovery dispute with Richard Meli for more than a year without success and seeks to add him now as a Respondent to this proceeding due to his failure to cooperate.
DISCUSSION
CPLR 5223 provides that "at any time before a judgment is satisfied or vacated, the judgment creditor may compel disclosure of all matter relevant to the satisfaction of the judgment, by serving upon any person a subpoena." By adopting a relevancy standard, CPLR 5223 permits a broad inquiry into the judgment debtor's property-through either the judgment debtor themselves or a knowledgeable third party. (Gryphon Domestic VI, LLC v GBR Information Services, Inc., 815 N.Y.S.2d 65, 66 [1st Dept. 2006], citing ICD Group vIsrael Foreign Trade Co. USA, 224 A.D.2d 293, 294 [1996].) While broad and consistent with a policy favoring the production of information, the scope of disclosure under CPLR 5223 is not unlimited.
A CPLR 2304 motion to quash a subpoena duces tecum should be granted "where the futility of the process to uncover anything legitimate is inevitable or obvious.. .or where the information sought is utterly irrelevant to any proper inquiry." (Technology Multi Sources, S.A. v Stack Global Holdings, Inc., 44 A.D.3d 931, 932 [2nd Dept. 2007, quoting Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v Abrams, 71 N.Y.2d 327, 331-332 [1988].) Courts therefore assume a responsibility for ensuring that the materials sought are relevant to a legitimate subject of inquiry and not as part of a "fishing expedition" to ascertain the existence of evidence or as a tool of harassment. (See Reuters Ltd. v Dow Jones Telerate Inc. 231 A.D.2d 337, 341 [1st Dept. 1997].) The party being subpoenaed holds the burden of showing the requested documents are utterly irrelevant and outside the scope of CPLR 5223. (Velezv Hunts Point Multi-Service Center, Inc., 29 A.D.3d 104 [1st Dept. 2006]).
With these principles in mind, the Court has conducted a thorough review of the 27 demands in the October 2020 Subpoena. Except as quashed or modified below, the Court finds that Richard Meli has not met his burden in demonstrating the utter irrelevancy of the requested documents. Taking the position that TGT attempts to "create the fish it views as necessary for its fishing expedition," Richard Meli argues that TGT characterizes his connection to Joseph Meli's criminal acts through innuendo and spurious claims (claims that, he asserts, are undermined by the SEC having apparently absolved him of wrongdoing after investigating his personal finances) (See NYSCEF doc No. 92 at 4). Richard Meli further argues TGT has no basis to believe he ever received or transferred stolen money or that he has documents that would reveal where the money is hidden.
The Court finds Richard Meli's arguments to be misplaced. Regardless of the potential level of Richard Meli's involvement in or benefit from his son's fraud, TGT has met its burden of showing that Richard Meli is likely in possession of materials and information relevant to the enforcement of TGT's judgment against Joseph Meli and Advance. As TGT points out, CPLR 5223 compels disclosure of "all matter relevant to the satisfaction of the judgment," and sets forth "a generous standard which permits the creditor a broad range of inquiry through either the judgment debtor or any third person with knowledge of the debtor's property" {See Gryphon Domestic VI, LLC, supra, at 66 [emphasis added]).
As discussed supra, TGT has submitted evidence indicating that (1) Richard Meli received emails from Joseph Meli containing information about the fraud scheme (NYSCEF doc No. 67); (2) that Richard Meli received wire transfers totaling nearly $500,000 from his son (NYSCEF doc No. 63); (3) that a company in which Richard Meli was a principal received a transfer of money from another defrauded investor (NYSCEF doc No. 58); (4) that as much as $2 million from Joseph Meli's second fraud case went to his family members (NYSCEF doc No. 81 at 10); and (5) that Richard Meli continued to support his son's family's expensive lifestyle with funds from unknown sources (NYCEF doc No. 57.) Therefore, it strains credulity for Richard Meli to argue that he does not possess a single document that is potentially relevant to the enforcement of TGT's judgment against Joseph Meli and Advance.
As follows is the Court's explanation and Orders with respect to each of the demands in TGT's October 2020 Subpoena.
While certain individual demands contain an applicable time period, the October 2020 Subpoena does not identify an applicable time period for each and every demand. According to the Securities and Exchange Commission's complaint, Joseph Meli began raising funds for his fraud scheme in January 2015 (See SEC v Meli, 1:17-CIV-632 [LLS], First Amended Complaint.)
Therefore, the Court's revisions and Orders with respect to each demand are limited to documents and communications from January 1, 2015, to the present. Additionally, Richard Meli is directed to produce the documents and communications within 45 days.
Demand 1
• As in the October 2020 Subpoena: Any and all emails and enclosed attachments between or among Joseph Meli and Mr. Law, including but not limited to emails where Joseph Meli or Mr. Law was bcc'd or cc'd as a recipient.
• Richard Meli's Objection: Irrelevant, overly broad, unduly burdensome.
• TGT's Justification: Mr. Law allegedly entered into a commission agreement with Joseph Meli, an agreement which compensated Mr. Law for introducing investors to Joseph Meli. Any communications between Joseph Meli and Mr. Law that may have been provided to Richard Meli are therefore a relevant inquiry.
• Court Revision: None; the Court finds that the request is relevant to a legitimate subject of inquiry given that it seeks communications with Joseph Meli and Mr. Kevin Law, the alleged partner in Joseph's fraud scheme.
• ORDER: It is hereby ordered that Richard Meli is to produce any and all emails and enclosed attachments between or among Joseph Meli and Mr. Law, including but not limited to emails where Joseph Meli or Mr. Law was bcc'd or cc'd as a recipient.
Demand 2
• As in the October 2020 Subpoena: Any and all text messages between Joseph Meli and Mr. Law.
• Richard Meli's Objection: Irrelevant, overly broad, unduly burdensome.
• TGT's Justification: Mr. Law allegedly entered into a commission agreement with Joseph Meli, an agreement which compensated Mr. Law for introducing investors to Joseph Meli. Any communications between Joseph Meli and Mr. Law that may have been provided to Richard Meli are therefore a relevant inquiry.
• Court Revision: None; the Court finds that the request is relevant to a legitimate subject of inquiry.
• ORDER: It is hereby ordered that Richard Meli is to produce any and all text messages between Joseph Meli and Mr. Law.
Demand 3
• As in the October 2020 Subpoena: Any and all documents and communications concerning any entity owned or controlled by Advance Entertainment, Meli and or Meli entity
• Richard Meli's Objection: Irrelevant, overly broad, unduly burdensome.
• TGT's Justification: No specific justification given; see supra for discussion of TGT's argument for broad post-judgment disclosure.
• Court Revision: The Court strikes this demand as impermissibly overbroad and duplicative of Demands 4-8. The Court finds that this demand contains no limiting
principle and could include every conceivable email sent or received by employees of the listed entities.
• ORDER: It is hereby ordered that Demand 3 is quashed.
"Meli" as written in the October 2020 Subpoena refers to Joseph Meli, as Richard Meli is addressed as "You".
Demand 4
• As in the October 2020 Subpoena: Any and all documents concerning Advance Entertainment, Meli and/or Meli entity's interests or investments with another individual or in another entity, business operation and/or deal.
• Richard Meli's Objection: Irrelevant, overly broad, unduly burdensome.
• TGT's Justification: No specific justification given; see supra for discussion of TGT's argument for broad post-judgment disclosure.
• Court Revision: None; the Court finds that the request is relevant to a legitimate subject of inquiry. As compared to Demand 3, the scope is proper given that it specifically seeks documents related to Advance's investments.
• ORDER: It is hereby ordered that Richard Meli is to produce any and all documents concerning Advance Entertainment, Meli and/or Meli entity's interests or investments with another individual or in another entity, business operation and/or deal.
Demand 5
• As in the October 2020 Subpoena: Any and all documents and communications concerning Advance Entertainment, Meli, and/ or Meli entity's assets, income, and/or sources of revenue.
• Richard Meli's Objection: Irrelevant, overly broad, unduly burdensome.
• TGT's Justification: No specific justification given; see supra for discussion of TGT's argument for broad post-judgment disclosure.
• Court Revision: None; the Court finds that the request is relevant to a legitimate subject of inquiry. As compared to Demand 3, the scope is proper given that it specifically seeks documents related to Advance's assets.
• ORDER: It is hereby ordered that Richard Meli is to produce any and all documents and communications concerning Advance Entertainment, Meli, and/ or Meli entity's assets, income, and/or sources of revenue.
Demand 6
• As in the October 2020 Subpoena: Any and all documents and communications concerning Advance Entertainment, Meli and/or a Meli entity's business deals and/or opportunities.
• Richard Meli's Objection: Irrelevant, overly broad, unduly burdensome.
• TGT's Justification: No specific justification given; see supra for discussion of TGT's argument for broad post-judgment disclosure.
• Court Revision: None; the Court finds that the request is relevant to a legitimate subject of inquiry. As compared to Demand 3, the scope is proper given that it specifically seeks documents related to Advance's business deals.
• ORDER: It is hereby ordered that Richard Meli is to produce any and all documents and communications concerning Advance Entertainment, Meli and/or a Meli entity's business deals and/or opportunities.
Demand 7
• As in the October 2020 Subpoena: Any and all documents and communications concerning Advance Entertainment, Meli and/or a Meli entity's potential and actual business and financial interests.
• Richard Meli's Objection: Irrelevant, overly broad, unduly burdensome.
• TGT's Justification: No specific justification given; see supra for discussion of TGT's argument for broad post-judgment disclosure.
• Court Revision: None; the Court finds that the request is relevant to a legitimate subject of inquiry. As compared to Demand 3, the scope is proper given that it specifically seeks documents related to Advance's assets.
• ORDER: It is hereby ordered that Richard Meli is to produce any and all documents and communications concerning Advance Entertainment, Meli and/or a Meli entity's potential and actual business and financial interests.
Demand 8
• As in the October 2020 Subpoena: Any and all documents and communications concerning Advance Entertainment, Meli and/or a Meli entity's current financial status and/or ability to pay the Judgment referenced in this subpoena.
• Richard Meli's Objection: Irrelevant, overly broad, unduly burdensome.
• TGT's Justification: No specific justification given; see supra for discussion of TGT's argument for broad post-judgment disclosure.
• Court Revision: None; the Court finds that the request is relevant to a legitimate subject of inquiry. As compared to Demand 3, the scope is proper given that it specifically seeks documents related to Advance's ability to pay the judgment.
• ORDER: It is hereby ordered that Richard Meli is to produce any and all documents and communications concerning Advance Entertainment, Meli and/or a Meli entity's current financial status and/or ability to pay the Judgment referenced in this subpoena.
Demand 9
• As in the October 2020 Subpoena: Any and all documents concerning or reflecting payments, gifts, distributions, revenues, or wire transfers to Jessica Meli, Anna Meli, Jackson Meli, Julian Meli, Jude Meli, Joah Meli and/or any other Meli family member by You.
• Richard Meli's Objection: Irrelevant, overly broad, unduly burdensome. In particular, this demand is so broad that it could include gifts and birthday cards given to the Meli grandchildren.
• TGT's Justification: TGT's counsel attempted to meet and confer with Richard Meli's counsel to have a good faith discussion and potentially narrow the scope of this Demand in particular. Instead, Richard Meli chose to file the instant motion and argues that the Court cannot modify the demand.
• Court Revision: The Court recognizes how broad the inclusion of gifts is in the demand. However, as discussed, TGT has identified evidence suggesting that funds from Joseph Meli's scheme were transferred among Meli family members. Accordingly, the Court upholds this demand but modifies it to include only gifts above $100. The branch of the
demand for payments, distributions, revenues, and wire transfers is not subject to the $100 threshold and remains unchanged.
• ORDERED: It is hereby ordered that Demand 9 is modified and that Richard Meli is to produce any and all documents concerning or reflecting payments, distributions, revenues, or wire transfers to Jessica Meli, Anna Meli, Jackson Meli, Julian Meli, Jude Meli, Joah Meli and/or any other Meli family member Richard Meli and it is further ordered that Richard Meli is to produce any and all documents concerning or reflecting gifts over $100 to Jessica Meli, Anna Meli, Jackson Meli, Julian Meli, Jude Meli, Joah Meli and/or any other Meli family member by Richard Meli.
Demand 10
• As in the October 2020 Subpoena: Any and all documents concerning or reflecting any source of income or revenues or any type of financial benefit from Meli and/or any Meli entity given to you or held by Jessica Meli, Anna Meli, Jackson Meli, Julian Meli, Jude Meli, Joah Meli and/or any other Meli family member.
• Richard Meli's Objection: Irrelevant, overly broad, unduly burdensome.
• TGT's Justification: No specific justification given; see supra for discussion of TGT's argument for broad post-judgment disclosure.
• Court Revision: None; the Court finds that the request is relevant to a legitimate subject of inquiry. See Demand 9.
• ORDER: It is hereby ordered that Richard Meli is to produce any and all documents concerning or reflecting any source of income or revenues or any type of financial benefit from Meli and/or any Meli entity given to Richard Meli or held by Jessica Meli, Anna Meli, Jackson Meli, Julian Meli, Jude Meli, Joah Meli and/or any other Meli family member.
Demand 11
• As in the October 2020 Subpoena: Any and all documents concerning any financial, business or investment interest owned or controlled by You, Jessica Meli, Anna Meli, Jackson Meli, Julian Meli, Jude Meli, Joah Meli and/or any other Meli family member.
• Richard Meli's Objection: Irrelevant, overly broad, unduly burdensome.
• TGT's Justification: No specific justification given; see supra for discussion of TGT's argument for broad post-judgment disclosure.
• Court Revision: None; the Court finds that the request is relevant to a legitimate subject of inquiry. See Demand 9.
• ORDER: It is hereby ordered that Richard Meli is to produce any and all documents concerning any financial, business or investment interest owned or controlled by Richard Meli, Jessica Meli, Anna Meli, Jackson Meli, Julian Meli, Jude Meli, Joah Meli and/or any other Meli family member.
Demand 12
• As in the October 2020 Subpoena: Any and all documents regarding payments, distributions or wire transfers between You and Advance Entertainment, Meli, and/or a Meli Entity, including but not limited to account statements, cancelled checks, wire transfer documents, bank deposit documentation, and online documentation from January 1, 2015, to the present.
• Richard Meli's Objection: Irrelevant, overly broad, unduly burdensome.
• TGT's Justification: No specific justification given; see supra for discussion of TGT's argument for broad post-judgment disclosure.
• Court Revision: None; the Court finds that the request is relevant to a legitimate subject of inquiry, given that it seeks financial documentation pertaining to transfers with Advance.
• ORDER: It is hereby ordered that Richard Meli is to produce any and all documents regarding payments, distributions or wire transfers between Richard Meli and Advance Entertainment, Meli, and/or a Meli Entity, including but not limited to account statements, cancelled checks, wire transfer documents, bank deposit documentation, and online documentation.
As noted supra, all Orders herein pertain to the time frame from January 1, 2015 to present.
Demand 13
• As in the October 2020 Subpoena: Any and all documents concerning payments, distributions or wire transfers where You served as an intermediary between Advance Entertainment, Meli, and/or a Meli Entity, and a third-party, including but not limited to account statements, cancelled checks, wire transfer documents, bank deposit documentation, and online documentation from January 1, 2015, to the present.
• Richard Meli's Objection: Irrelevant, overly broad, unduly burdensome.
• TGT's Justification: No specific justification given; see supra for discussion of TGT's argument for broad post-judgment disclosure.
• Court Revision: None; the Court finds that the request is relevant to a legitimate subject of inquiry. As discussed, evidence indicates that Richard Meli may have served as an intermediary for transfers.
• ORDER: It is hereby ordered that Richard Meli is to produce any and all documents concerning payments, distributions or wire transfers where Richard Meli served as an intermediary between Advance Entertainment, Meli, and/or a Meli Entity, and a third-party, including but not limited to account statements, cancelled checks, wire transfer documents, bank deposit documentation, and online documentation.
Demand 14
• As in the October 2020 Subpoena: Any and all documents concerning any instance in which a third party served as an intermediary to provide payments, distributions, or wire transfers from Advance Entertainment, Meli, and/or a Meli entity
• Richard Meli's Objection: Irrelevant, overly broad, unduly burdensome.
• TGT's Justification: No specific justification given; see supra for discussion of TGT's argument for broad post-judgment disclosure.
• Court Revision: None; the Court finds that the request is relevant to a legitimate subject of inquiry. As discussed, TGT has introduced evidence suggesting Richard Meli may possess information pertaining to transfers involving third parties.
• ORDER: It is hereby ordered that Richard Meli is to produce any and all documents concerning any instance in which a third party served as an intermediary to provide payments, distributions, or wire transfers from Advance Entertainment, Meli, and/or a Meli entity
Demand 15
• As in the October 2020 Subpoena: Any and all documents concerning any instance in which a third party served as an intermediary to receive from you payments, distributions or wire transfers intended for Advance Entertainment, Meli, and/or a Meli entity, Jessica Meli, Anna Meli, Jackson Meli, Julian Meli, Jude Meli, Joah Meli and/or any other Meli family member.
• Richard Meli's Objection: Irrelevant, overly broad, unduly burdensome.
• TGT's Justification: No specific justification given; see supra for discussion of TGT's argument for broad post-judgment disclosure.
• Court Revision: None; the Court finds that the request is relevant to a legitimate subject of inquiry. See Demand 14.
• ORDER: It is hereby ordered that Richard Meli is to produce any and all documents concerning any instance in which a third party served as an intermediary to receive from Richard Meli payments, distributions or wire transfers intended for Advance Entertainment, Meli, and/or a Meli entity, Jessica Meli, Anna Meli, Jackson Meli, Julian Meli, Jude Meli, Joah Meli and/or any other Meli family member.
Demand 16
• As in the October 2020 Subpoena: Any and all documents regarding cash received by You and or/being held by You that is from and/or connected to Meli, and/or a Meli entity, Jessica Meli, Anna Meli, Jackson Meli, Julian Meli, Jude Meli, Joah Meli and/or any other Meli family member.
• Richard Meli's Objection: Irrelevant, overly broad, unduly burdensome.
• TGT's Justification: No specific justification given; see supra for discussion of TGT's argument for broad post-judgment disclosure.
• Court Revision: None; the Court finds that the request is relevant to a legitimate subject of inquiry. As discussed, some of the third parties involved in asset transfers may be family members.
• ORDER: It is hereby ordered that Richard Meli is to produce any and all documents regarding cash received by Richard Meli and or/being held by Richard Meli that is from and/or connected to Meli, and/or a Meli entity, Jessica Meli, Anna Meli, Jackson Meli, Julian Meli, Jude Meli, Joah Meli and/or any other Meli family member.
Demand 17
• As in the October 2020 Subpoena: All communications and documents concerning any transfer of money from You to Advance Entertainment, Meli, and/or a Meli entity, Jessica Meli, Anna Meli, Jackson Meli, Julian Meli, Jude Meli, Joah Meli and/or any other Meli family member.
• Richard Meli's Objection: Irrelevant, overly broad, unduly burdensome.
• TGT's Justification: No specific justification given; see supra for discussion of TGT's argument for broad post-judgment disclosure.
• Court Revision: None; the Court finds that the request is relevant to a legitimate subject of inquiry. See Demand 16.
• ORDER: It is hereby ordered that Richard Meli is to produce all communications and documents concerning any transfer of money from Richard Meli to Advance Entertainment, Meli, and/or a Meli entity, Jessica Meli, Anna Meli, Jackson Meli, Julian Meli, Jude Meli, Joah Meli and/or any other Meli family member.
Demand 18
• As in the October 2020 Subpoena: Any and all documents concerning or reflecting any profits, revenues, distributions, or any other financial benefit received by You as part of any ticket deal organized, coordinated, directed, owned and/or controlled by Advance Entertainment, Meli, and/or a Meli entity.
• Richard Meli's Objection: Irrelevant, overly broad, unduly burdensome.
• TGT's Justification: No specific justification given; see supra for discussion of TGT's argument for broad post-judgment disclosure.
• Court Revision: None; the Court finds that the request is relevant to a legitimate subject of inquiry and is properly tailored to the ticket deals in Joseph Meli's fraud scheme.
• ORDER: It is hereby ordered that Richard Meli is to produce any and all documents concerning or reflecting any profits, revenues, distributions, or any other financial benefit received by Richard Meli as part of any ticket deal organized, coordinated, directed, owned and/or controlled by Advance Entertainment, Meli, and/or a Meli entity.
Demand 19
• As in the October 2020 Subpoena: Any and all communications with Advance Entertainment, Meli, and/or a Meli entity and/or others acting on their behalf, including but not limited to letters, emails, text, messages, and other electronic communications from January 1, 2015 to the present.
• Richard Meli's Objection: Irrelevant, overly broad, unduly burdensome. This demand could include every conceivable document produced by Advance Entertainment, Meli and/ or a Meli Entity.
• TGT's Justification: No specific justification given; see supra for discussion of TGT's argument for broad post-judgment disclosure.
• Court Revision: The Court agrees with Richard Meli and strikes this demand as impermissibly overbroad and duplicative of numerous other demands.
• ORDER: It is hereby ordered that Demand 19 is quashed.
Demand 20
• As in the October 2020 Subpoena: Any and all communications received by You from investors in any deal or transaction organized, coordinated, owned and/or controlled by Advance Entertainment, Meli, and/or a Meli entity, including but not limited to letters, emails, text messages and other electronic communications from January 1, 2015 to the present.
• Richard Meli's Objection: Irrelevant, overly broad, unduly burdensome.
• TGT's Justification: No specific justification given; see supra for discussion of TGT's argument for broad post-judgment disclosure.
• Court Revision: None; the Court finds that the request is relevant to a legitimate subject of inquiry. As compared to Demand 19, the scope is proper given that it pertains to investment deals.
• ORDER: It is hereby ordered that Richard Meli is to produce any and all communications received by Richard Meli from investors in any deal or transaction organized, coordinated, owned and/or controlled by Advance Entertainment, Meli, and/or a Meli entity, including but not limited to letters, emails, text messages and other electronic communications.
Demand 21
• As in the October 2020 Subpoena: Any and all agreements, or drafts thereof, between You and Advance Entertainment, Meli, and/or a Meli Entity.
• Richard Meli's Objection: Irrelevant, overly broad, unduly burdensome.
• TGT's Justification: No specific justification given; see supra for discussion of TGT's argument for broad post-judgment disclosure.
• Court Revision: None; the Court finds that the request is relevant to a legitimate subject of inquiry, given that Advance is the entity through which Joseph Meli conducted his fraud scheme.
• ORDER: It is hereby ordered that Richard Meli is to produce any and all agreements, or drafts thereof, between Richard Meli and Advance Entertainment, Meli, and/or a Meli Entity.
Demand 22
• As in the October 2020 Subpoena: Any and all communications concerning agreements, or drafts thereof, between You and Advance Entertainment, Meli, and/or a Meli Entity.
• Richard Meli's Objection: Irrelevant, overly broad, unduly burdensome.
• TGT's Justification: No specific justification given; see supra for discussion of TGT's argument for broad post-judgment disclosure.
• Court Revision: None; the Court finds that the request is relevant to a legitimate subject of inquiry. See Demand 21.
• ORDER: It is hereby ordered that Richard Meli is to produce any and all communications concerning agreements, or drafts thereof, between You and Advance Entertainment, Meli, and/or a Meli Entity.
Demand 23
• As in the October 2020 Subpoena: Any and all documents concerning payments and/or other funds received from Advance Entertainment, Meli, and/or a Meli Entity to RJM Ventures, LLC.
• Richard Meli's Objection: Irrelevant, overly broad, unduly burdensome.
• TGT's Justification: No specific justification given; see supra for discussion of TGT's argument for broad post-judgment disclosure.
• Court Revision: None; the Court finds that the request is relevant to a legitimate subject of inquiry. As discussed, TGT has introduced evidence indicating that money from defrauded investors was sent to RJM Ventures.
• ORDER: It is hereby ordered that Richard Meli is to produce any and all documents concerning payments and/or other funds received from Advance Entertainment, Meli, and/or a Meli Entity to RJM Ventures, LLC.
Demand 24
• As in the October 2020 Subpoena: Any and all documents concerning payments made by You and/or RJM Ventures, LLC to TF Cornerstone.
• Richard Meli's Objection: Irrelevant, overly broad, unduly burdensome.
• TGT's Justification: No specific justification given; see supra for discussion of TGT's argument for broad post-judgment disclosure.
• Court Revision: None; the Court finds that the request is relevant to a legitimate subject of inquiry. See Demand 23.
• ORDER: It is hereby ordered that Richard Meli is to produce any and all documents concerning payments made by Richard Meli and/or RJM Ventures, LLC to TF Cornerstone.
Demand 25
• As in the October 2020 Subpoena: Any and all communications between You and Marvin Ingber regarding payments being made on behalf of and/or for the benefit of Jessica Meli, Anna Meli, Jackson Meli, Julian Meli, Jude Meli, Joah Meli and/or any other Meli family member.
• Richard Meli's Objection: Irrelevant, overly broad, unduly burdensome.
• TGT's Justification: No specific justification given; see supra for discussion of TGT's argument for broad post-judgment disclosure.
• Court Revision: None; the Court finds that the request is relevant to a legitimate subject of inquiry. See Demands 15-17.
• ORDER: It is hereby ordered that Richard Meli is to produce any and all communications between Richard Meli and Marvin Ingber regarding payments being made on behalf of and/or for the benefit of Jessica Meli, Anna Meli, Jackson Meli, Julian Meli, Jude Meli, Joah Meli and/or any other Meli family member.
Demand 26
• As in the October 2020 Subpoena: Any and all documents concerning payments made to You from James Siniscalchi.
• Richard Meli's Objection: Irrelevant, overly broad, unduly burdensome.
• TGT's Justification: According to U.S. Attorney's Office, James Siniscalchi helped Joseph Meli conceal his involvement in the second fraud scheme by operating as a principal of a new shell company named. As such, documents and communications related to Richard Meli and James Siniscalchi are relevant to TGT's enforcement of its judgment.
• Court Revision: None; the Court finds that this request is relevant to a legitimate subject of inquiry, given the allegations regarding James Sinisalchi.
• ORDER: It is hereby ordered that Richard Meli is to produce any and all documents concerning payments made to Richard Meli from James Siniscalchi.
Demand 27
• As in the October 2020 Subpoena: Any and all communications between You and James Siniscalchi regarding payments for Jessica Meli, Anna Meli, Jackson Meli, Julian Meli, Jude Meli, Joah Meli and/or any other Meli family member's living expenses.
• Richard Meli's Objection: Irrelevant, overly broad, unduly burdensome.
• TGT's Justification: According to U.S. Attorney's Office, James Siniscalchi helped Joseph Meli conceal his involvement in the second fraud scheme by operating as a principal of a new shell company named Indio Entertainment LLC. As such, documents and communications related to Richard Meli and James Siniscalchi are relevant to TGT's enforcement of its judgment.
• Court Revision: None; the Court finds that the request is relevant to a legitimate subject of inquiry, given the allegations regarding James Sinisalchi and the allegations that money was transferred to Richard Meli's family members.
• ORDER: It is hereby ordered that Richard Meli is to produce any and all communications between Richard Meli and James Siniscalchi regarding payments for Jessica Meli, Anna Meli, Jackson Meli, Julian Meli, Jude Meli, Joah Meli and/or any other Meli family member's living expenses.TGT's Cross-Motion for Leave to Amend the Caption Adding Richard Meli as a Respondent
The Court last writes to address the branch of TGT's cross-motion seeking leave to add Richard Meli as a Respondent. The Court of Appeals has held that "absent prejudice of surprise", motions to amend pleadings shall be granted. (McCaskey, Davies and Assoc, Inc. v New York City Health & Hospitals Corp., 59 N.Y.2d 755, 757 [1983].) TGT argues that Richard Meli would not suffer prejudice or any surprise as TGT worked diligently to resolve the discovery dispute with Richard Meli's counsel over the course of a year. The Court also notes that Richard Meli has not opposed this branch of TGT's cross-motion and does not raise any potential sources of prejudice or surprise, nor could he, given that he has appeared in this proceeding.
As the Court has granted TGT the relief sought against Richard Meli, and TGT has resolved its disputes among the named Respondents, the instant proceeding is now disposed, rendering TGT's application to add Richard Meli ostensibly moot. However, out of an abundance of caution with respect to any future disputes that may arise between TGT and Richard Meli regarding compliance with this Decision, the Court will nonetheless grant TGT's application and issue an order amending the caption of this proceeding to name Richard Meli as the sole Respondent.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, it is hereby
ORDERED that the application of Petitioner TGT LLC ("TGT") for an order pursuant to CPLR 5223 and 5251 compelling Respondents to produce all documents demanded in compliance with the Subpoenas Duces Tecum and Ad Testificandum dated November 20, 2019 and December 2, 2019 (Motion Seq. 001) is deemed moot; and it is further
ORDERED that the proceeding is dismissed as against Respondents 95-97 Horatio LLC and TF Cornerstone, Inc.; and it is further
This proceeding was dismissed as against Respondents Avenues World Holdings, LLC and Avenues The World School by Decision and Order dated January 21, 2021 (NYSCEF doc No. 37).
ORDERED that non-party witness Richard Meli's motion for an order quashing the Restraining Notice and Information Subpoena served by TGT on October 1, 2020 (the "October 2020 Subpoena"), pursuant to CPLR 2304, as well as a protective order denying TGT the information sought in the October 2020 Subpoena pursuant to CPLR 3103, and TGT's cross-motion for an order pursuant to CPLR 2308 compelling Richard Meli's compliance with the October 2020 Subpoena (Motion Seq. 003) are both resolved in accordance with the Orders delineated herein; and it is further
ORDERED that Richard Meli shall produce the materials sought in the October 2020 Subpoena within 45 days; and it is further
ORDERED that TGT's cross-motion for an order pursuant to CPLR 305(c) granting leave to amend the caption of this proceeding to add Richard Meli as the sole Respondent to this matter (Motion Seq. 003) is granted, and an Order amending the caption shall be issued simultaneously with the instant Decision and Order; and it is further
ORDERED that counsel for TGT shall serve a copy of this order with notice of entry on all parties within 10 days of entry.