FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/31/ :51 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 62 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/31/2017

Transcription

1 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK Index No.: / X DEAN BAKER, AFFIRMATION IN Plaintiff(s), REPLY -against- JP GLOBAL ASSETS LLC. Defendant(s) X JASON J. REBHUN, an attorney duly admitted to practice law in the courts of the state of New York, hereby affirms the following under penalties of perjury: 1. I am an officer of JASON J. REBHUN, P.C., attorneys for the moving Plaintiff herein, and, as such, am fully familiar with all the facts and circumstances of this action. This case involves unpaid promissory note(s) stemming from loaned money from Plaintiff to Defendant. At all times herein mentioned, including the contact between Plaintiff and Defendant, Defendant acted through its sole member Jeffrey Priebe. Plaintiff is owed $2,593, plus costs and interest and has not been reimbursed, by one dollar. 2. I submit this Affirmation in Reply to Defendant s opposition which was served on the last day that it was due. The timing of Defendant s opposition was no coincidence. Defendant s lack of a substantive response and lack of any document production speaks for itself. As your affiant indicated in his Reply Affirmation to the first Order to Show Cause filed to hold Mr. Priebe in contempt, every step of this case has been met with either intentional ignorance/defiance or an attempt to delay. 3. Only after Plaintiff filed an Order to Show Cause and counsel appeared in Court to hold Mr. Priebe in contempt were some documents produced. What became clear at his deposition (in September 2016) was that the produced documents were insufficient, incomplete, and raised a myriad of questions. Mr. Priebe was deposed on September 19, 1 1 of 5

2 2016, more than four months ago, and he still hasn t produced what was demanded in the underlying subpoena (which was served upon him in May of 2016). His deposition transcript which was annexed to the Order to Show Cause (filed on December 13, 2016) contained a list of documents sought to be produced. Obviously, nothing was produced and Mr. Priebe doesn t even allude to a time frame that they will be produced. 4. Mr. Priebe still needs to sit for a second deposition but only after the documents have been produced so as not to waste further time, although that seems to be his modus operandi. Why would Plaintiff spend the time and money to depose him for a second time without the documents necessary to properly conduct a deposition? See Exhibit 1, chain. Plaintiff should not have to keep seeking Court intervention to resolve the most basic of obligations. Mr. Priebe should be required to reimburse Plaintiff for the costs and legal fees necessitated with these applications. 5. How much time does someone get to evade post-judgment discovery? How much time and money does Plaintiff need to spend and devote to pursuing collecting on his judgment? What will make Mr. Priebe finally do the responsible thing and comply with his most basic obligations? As set forth below, Mr. Priebe accepted Plaintiff s money and within the next three days, transferred out $845,000. There is less than $200 remaining in the Defendant s account and Mr. Priebe is unable to account for it. 6. At his deposition (page 132 of the transcript which was e-filed as Exhibit 2), Mr. Priebe was asked to produce (1) the operating agreement for JP Global, (2) written agreement between JP Global and J. Streicher, (3) documents showing the business that JP Global was involved in prior to taking Plaintiff s money, (4) documents showing Samuel Lieberman s address, (5) documents showing the relinquishment of Gold Horseshoe to 2 2 of 5

3 Rothchild Lieberman, (6) a list of J. Streicher employees, (7) documents showing other investors of JP Global prior to Plaintiff s investment, (8) documents showing the date that Michael Needleman left J. Streicher Asset Management, and (9) documents showing Alternative Strategies lawsuit papers (Priebe testified that he was running various entities at the time which may have had common employees). 7. Most of the foregoing documents are without a doubt in his control because he was the sole person behind Defendant, Gold Horseshoe, and the point of contact between his/those entities and the others (J. Streicher). 8. Notably, even had Priebe produced the foregoing, he would still not have complied with the subpoena which demanded all records of s, bank transfers, accounting records, accounting statements, etc. All that Priebe produced (though not annexed by him to his opposition papers) were bank statements that alluded to more bank statements and other accounts. Nothing was produced for those accounts though the obligation to produce them stems from the subpoena. 9. One simple example can be found in Exhibit 2, a redacted bank statement produced by Defendant (unredacted copies shall be provided to the Court and Defendant s counsel under separate cover) (though having produced the documents, Defendant s counsel is already in possession of same). Notably, the bank statement shows Plaintiff s December 9, 2014 wire to Defendant ($1,500,000) and remarkably, the following day, shows a transfer/withdrawal of $201,000 to an unidentified checking account (ending in 91), $75,000 to the mother of Mr. Priebe s two children and his ex-girlfriend. Also on December 10, 2014, Defendant transferred $220,000 to J. Streicher Asset Management, $200,000 to Gold Horseshoe Holdings LLC (which Priebe started, controlled, and which 3 3 of 5

4 is now defunct see Priebe s deposition transcript, Exhibit 2 to the underlying Order to Show Cause, pages ). On December 11, 2014, Defendant transferred another $30,000 to Gold Horseshoe Holdings LLC and then transferred $1,000 to an unidentified checking account (ending in 57). Also on December 11, 2014, Defendant transferred $43,000 for furnishings JSAM [J. Streicher Asset Management]. The who, what, why, etc. is why the documents and information are absolutely necessary. 10. Putting these pieces together, it cannot be disputed that Mr. Priebe took Plaintiff s $1,500,000 and then immediately distributed it to entities that he controlled. To the extent that Mr. Priebe indeed paid a Capital Contribution to J. Streicher Asset Management using Plaintiff s money, Plaintiff would have a constructive trust over assets belonging to J. Streicher Asset Management, but the information demanded in Plaintiff s subpoena is necessary to investigate that claim further. 11. To the extent that Mr. Priebe used Plaintiff s money to pay back his ex-girlfriend (the line entry of the payment to Melissa Bonilla reads Loan Repayment ), Plaintiff could argue that Defendant was running a scheme by using money that people invested to pay off old debts. 12. Notably, Mr. Priebe makes no attempt or offer at complying with Plaintiff s discovery. Mr. Priebe s lack of response and delay herein continues willfulness and maliciousness. It is a textbook example of contumacious conduct intended to frustrate Plaintiff s ability to recover his money. The documents demanded are within his control as he was the sole individual responsible for operating JP Global. 13. Defendant s willful failure to produce documents and sit for a full deposition is likely to prevent his scheme from being uncovered but that does not obviate him from his 4 4 of 5

5 discovery obligations. 14. Thus, Plaintiff s Order to Show Cause must be granted in its entirety, together with the costs and attorneys fees thereunder. That Plaintiff must keep returning to seek judicial intervention and to get a bald response at the very last second is not anyone s sense of equitable. Mr. Priebe s actions underscore his contempt of this Court and his obligations to Plaintiff. His actions warrant the severest of penalties to send a message that he cannot continue thumbing his nose at the system. Dated: New York, New York January 31, 2017 Jason J. Rebhun THE LAW OFFICES OF JASON J. REBHUN, P.C. Attorneys for Plaintiff 225 Broadway, 38 th Floor New York, NY (646) of 5