Fogbow

Lisa Rubin
@lawofruby
And an update: Ivanka has lost her bid for an interim stay of her testimony and remains on the trial schedule for 11/8.

raison de arizona wrote: ↑Thu Nov 02, 2023 8:36 pm She hasn’t lived in NY for seven years, hasn’t been involved with the company in that time, which is why she got dismissed in the first place. What information are they looking to get from her? I assume they aren’t going fishing.

chancery wrote: ↑Thu Nov 02, 2023 8:33 pm https://twitter.com/lawofruby/status/17 ... 3063198111

Lisa Rubin
@lawofruby
And an update: Ivanka has lost her bid for an interim stay of her testimony and remains on the trial schedule for 11/8.

No order that I can find on the docket, but it's not likely to say anything but "denied."

Writing and putting together that motion likely cost her a number of tens of thousands of dollars. Gone with the wind.

raison de arizona wrote: ↑Thu Nov 02, 2023 8:36 pm I dunno if they are making up the legal stuff, but it was persuasive to me
She hasn’t lived in NY for seven years, hasn’t been involved with the company in that time, which is why she got dismissed in the first place. What information are they looking to get from her? I assume they aren’t going fishing.

Second, Ms. Trump owns and uses real property in New York, which is enough to give rise to personal jurisdiction here. See C.P.L.R. 302(a)(4). The unrefuted documentary record demonstrates that Ms. Trump, through various corporate entities, owns an apartment in the Trump Park Avenue building in Manhattan and owns a tenancy interest (through at least 2031) in another apartment in the same building. (See Ex. 1, Trump Park Avenue Unit PH20 Documents; Ex. 2, Trump Park Avenue Unit 6G Emails.) Such real-estate interests in New York are sufficient for personal jurisdiction, particularly given that OAG intends to prove at trial that defendants fraudulently and illegally inflated the value of the very apartment owned by Ms. Trump (see Ex. B, Compl. ¶¶ 107-12). See also Sen v. GR Realty Holdings LLC, 202 A.D.3d 580, 580 (1st Dep’t 2022). Though Ms. Trump’s counsel stated that she “is not a resident of the State of New York and does not maintain a residence there” (Ex. 3, Moskowitz Affirm. ¶ 3), Supreme Court properly did not accept counsel’s representations that were made without personal knowledge and that are refuted by the documentation of her Manhattan real-estate interests.

Third, Ms. Trump still transacts business in the State, which also suffices for personal jurisdiction. See C.P.L.R. 302(a)(1). Aside from the corporate entities relating to her personal real-estate interests and other corporate ownership interests, Ms. Trump is the sole member of Ivanka OPO LLC, which has its principal place of business in the Trump Organization’s headquarters in Trump Tower in Manhattan (Ex. 4, Ivanka OPO LLC Operating Agreement § 1.7), and a member of TTT Consulting LLC, which is undisputedly based in New York (see Memo. of Law in Supp. of NonParty Ivanka Trump’s Mot. to Quash at 4, People v. Trump, No. 452564/2022 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. County Oct. 19, 2023), NYSCEF Doc. No. 1566).2 Those entities’ conduct of business is pertinent to OAG’s claims. Ivanka OPO LLC received the wrongful proceeds of the sale of the Old Post Office building at issue in this matter, and TTT Consulting, LLC received proceeds from real-estate licensing deals that defendants falsely and misleadingly inflated in Donald J. Trump’s statements of financial condition. (Ex. B, Compl. ¶¶ 34, 554.)

Fourth, Supreme Court has general jurisdiction over numerous corporate entities (such as Ivanka OPO LLC) that have listed their principal place of business as New York and that were subpoenaed in New York. See People v. Trump, 217 A.D.3d 609, 612 (1st Dep’t 2023) (holding the same as to other Trump Organization entities). In subpoenaing an entity in New York, OAG may properly “compel the entity to produce a specific individual to testify” by “identify[ing] the individual to be produced” in the subpoena. 4A N.Y. Prac., Com. Litig. in N.Y. State Courts § 46:5 (4th ed. Oct. 2023 update) (Westlaw). As this Court has held, a subpoena may thus properly identify and require “the sole officer” of a corporate entity to testify. B & D Jewelry Corp. v. Schneier, 78 A.D.2d 809, 810 (1st Dep’t 1980). Here, because Ms. Trump is the sole member of certain entities (such as Ivanka OPO LLC), the subpoenas properly identify her as the witness to be produced. (E.g., Ex. G, Ivanka OPO LLC Subpoena.)

Ms. Trump’s arguments are based on the false premise that witnesses with relevant, firsthand knowledge may be called to testify only if they are “a primary actor” in the case. (See Mot. at 10 (quotation marks omitted).) In fact, OAG is generally entitled to call any “competent witness who possesses information relevant to such action.” See Kajoshaj v Greenspan, 88 A.D.2d 538, 539 (1st Dept 1982). Ms. Trump errs in arguing that specific jurisdiction applies only to “the defendant” (Mot. at 9 (emphasis in original) (quotation marks omitted)), when in fact the governing statute provides for “personal jurisdiction over any non-domiciliary,” C.P.L.R. 302 (emphasis added). Contrary to Ms. Trump’s argument based on citations to trial-court decisions (Mot. at 14), this Court has applied such specific jurisdiction to out-of-state nonparty witnesses. See American Dental Co-op., Inc. v. Attorney Gen. of State of N.Y., 127 A.D.2d 274, 280 (1st Dep’t 1987); see also La Belle Creole Intl. v. Attorney-Gen., 10 N.Y.2d 192, 197-98 (1961). Ms. Trump cites Judiciary Law § 2-b as a statutory limit on Supreme Court’s subpoena power (Mot. at 14), but that statute pertains to out-of-state “service of a subpoena” and not to personal jurisdiction. See DuPont v. Bronston, 46 A.D.2d 369, 371 (1st Dep’t 1974); Peterson v. Spartan Indus., Inc., 40 A.D.2d 807, 807 (1st Dep’t 1972).

chancery wrote: ↑Thu Nov 02, 2023 8:33 pm https://twitter.com/lawofruby/status/17 ... 3063198111

Lisa Rubin
@lawofruby
And an update: Ivanka has lost her bid for an interim stay of her testimony and remains on the trial schedule for 11/8.

No order that I can find on the docket, but it's not likely to say anything but "denied."

Writing and putting together that motion likely cost her a number of tens of thousands of dollars. Gone with the wind.

pipistrelle wrote: ↑Thu Nov 02, 2023 8:49 pm You mean her White House travel and activities didn't make for hardship mid-school week? I'm shocked.

chancery wrote: ↑Thu Nov 02, 2023 9:17 pmOf course, it's possible virtually certain that she couldn't honestly provide an affidavit that would support her position.

erica orden @eorden wrote: Kise is continuing to complain about the clerk, saying she is passing notes to the judge.

Judge Engoron pounded on the bench: "That's right!" he shouted. "Confidential communications for my record. Absolute right to it. You don’t have any right to see it"

erica orden @eorden wrote: After Trump lawyer Chris Kise made a reference to Judge Engoron's law clerk, the judge said: "If there is any further reference to anyone on my staff, I would consider expanding the gag order to include the attorneys."

Friday’s court session in Donald Trump’s New York civil fraud trial began with another extended debate about the role of Judge Arthur Engoron’s principal law clerk.

On Thursday, Engoron and Trump attorney Chris Kise had a tense argument about his clerk in response to criticism of her, prompting Engoron to threaten to extend his gag order barring public commentary on members of his court staff.

Kise picked up the debate Friday morning with a lengthy speech complaining about the clerk, raising an allegation from a right-wing website and claiming that the political bias could be cause for a mistrial.

“The entire country if not the world is watching this proceeding,” Kise said, arguing he had a right to put allegations of bias and the perception of bias in the court record. “The rulings are frequently, if not inordinately against us on almost every major issue,” Kise complained.
Engoron defended his rulings and his clerk’s role in the trial, sitting alongside him, saying he believes he is deciding issues in the trial “right down the middle.”

Assistant Attorney General Andrew Amer said if Trump's team has evidence of extrajudicial conduct that suggests the law clerk is biased then they should go ahead and make a motion. "Making speeches," he said, was "wasting a lot of time."

The judge overseeing Donald Trump’s civil fraud trial has expanded a gag order in the trial to extend to Trump’s attorneys after continued lengthy discussions about the judge’s communications with his law clerk during court this week.

In a written order Friday, Judge Arthur Engoron prohibited Trump’s attorneys from making any further comments about confidential communications between the judge and his staff inside or outside of the courtroom.

“Since the commencement of this bench trial, my chambers have been inundated with hundreds of harassing and threatening phone calls, voicemails, emails, letters and packages. The First Amendment right of defendants and their attorneys to comment on my staff is far and away outweighed by the need to protect them from threats and physical harm,” the judge wrote.

bob wrote: ↑Fri Nov 03, 2023 4:11 pm It is difficult for me to fathom how dumb all of this is.

bob: Judges routinely pass notes to clerks. Anything from, "get me a copy of [relevant authority]" to "draft a written order memorializing what I just said" to "half-caf, no sugar, almond milk."