" Yes " No Where appropriate, indicate whether there is any related action or proceeding now in any court of this or any other jurisdiction, and if so, the status of the case: None Original Proceeding Commenced by: " Order to Show Cause ...

------------------------------------------------------------------------x JOSEPH B. SHUMOFSKY, an attorney duly admitted to practice before the Courts of this state, affirms the following to be true under penalty of perjury.

I am a member of the law firm of Sills Cummis & Gross P.C., attorneys for Defendant Oxford Finance LLC.

I am fully familiar with the facts and circumstances set forth herein.

On November 18, 2022, I served true and accurate copies of the foregoing Notice of Appeal, Information Statement, and Notice of Entry dated October 21, 2022, with accompanying Decision and Order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Justice Reginald A. Boddie), dated October 20, 2022, and entered in the Office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Kings, on October 21, 2022, on all counsel of record for the parties to this action by e-filing same in the above-captioned action on NYSCEF.

Dated: New York, New York November 18, 2022 Respectfully submitted,

Response: Oxford denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 3 of the Complaint, except admits that the Auction was held on August 28, 2018, the conditions and terms of which were outlined in the Order Approving Bid Procedures, a document that speaks for itself.

Response: Oxford denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 6 of the Complaint, except admits that an auction was held on August 28, 2018, the conditions and terms of which were outlined in the Order Approving Bid Procedures, a document which speaks for itself.

At the Auction, Oxford ultimately exercised its credit bid rights and became the high bidder for the Facilities subject to payment of Brach’s Break-up Fee and reimbursement for all of his advances to fund operating shortfalls.

Due to a number of issues, these mortgages fell into default, ultimately leading to the commencement of foreclosure proceedings, the appointment of the Receiver, and the Chapter 11 filing by 90 West in Brooklyn on January 30, 2018.

Brach has suffered damages as a direct result of Oxford's breach of its agreement to fully reimburse him for the funding of operating shortfalls in the sum of $401,616.68, plus all accrued interest thereon.

... ability to pay at that time; or F E Special instructions regarding the payment of criminal monetary penalties: IRS confirmed that Defendant does not owe restitution, and that any interest owed is either de minimis or nonexistent.

The Government’s motion for reconsideration, (Doc. 991), of the Court’s decision of March 15, 2021, (Doc. 989), granting compassionate release in light of the COVID-19 pandemic is DENIED for the case-specific reasons set forth at the conference held on March 17, 2021, including that Defendant was previously informed that his motions for compassionate release and reconsideration were already granted.

The parties had previously agreed that the stay should be vacated on the business day following Defendant receiving his second shot of the Moderna vaccine or on March 29, 2021, whichever date is earlier.

On March 23, 2021, defense counsel informed the Government and me 3/23/2021 that Defendant had received his second dose of the Moderna vaccine earlier that day.

As such, the stay is VACATED and the Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) shall deem the sentence of Defendant amended to time served, with all other conditions set forth in the judgment of conviction unchanged, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582 and the Court’s decision of March 15, 2021.

ICE shall take all reasonable steps to effect such removal safely (for both Defendant and those with whom he may come in contact) in light of the COVID-19 pandemic and consistent with applicable regulations and procedures.

I am in receipt of defense counsel’s March 16, 2021 letter in opposition to the Government’s motion for reconsideration.

Accordingly, it is hereby: ORDERED that the parties are directed to appear for a telephonic conference on March 17, 2021 at 4:00 p.m.

The parties should be prepared to discuss how, if I deny the Government’s motion for reconsideration, the Government, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or Chinese officials can ensure that Defendant receives his second Moderna vaccine dose in a timely and safe manner.

Dated: March 17, 2021 New York, New York

The Government respectfully writes in the above-captioned matter to request: (1) an emergency stay of the Court’s order of yesterday (Dkt. No. 989 (the “Order”)), granting reconsideration of the Court’s denial of the defendant’s prior motion for compassionate release (Dkt. No. 974), published at United States v. Ng Lap Seng, 459 F. Supp.

116 (JBA), 2021 WL 917067, at *1 (D. Conn. Mar. 10, 2021) (“The opportunity for individually-identifiable inmates to opt to receive the COVID-19 vaccine represents a sea change from their previous COVID-19 infection vulnerability and inability to protect themselves against the virus, even with comorbidities.

Evidence that a defendant has been offered the vaccine, whether he accepts it or not, demonstrates that he had the ability and opportunity to take measures to markedly reduce his risk of severe illness or death from COVID-19 while incarcerated.”); United States v. Harris, No. 18 Cr.

628 (JMA), 2021 WL 848865, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 5, 2021) (denying motion for compassionate release in part due to defendant’s receipt of first dose of Moderna vaccine); United States v. Mason, No. 96 Cr.

Even if the Court is not inclined to grant reconsideration on the merits, in the interest of public health and safety, both of the defendant and the number of individuals with whom he will come in contact while being transferred to and in ICE custody—and while taking a long flight or flights back to Macau, China—the Court should stay its decision for a sufficient period such that the defendant is not released to ICE custody prior to two weeks after receiving his second shot, which is only days away.

As of this writing, the facility has three reported active COVID-19 cases among its incarcerated population and none among staff.

I respectfully submit this letter motion for leave to file under seal, which is being made, in accordance with Rule 7.C.i of Your Honor’s Individual Practices, at the request of plaintiff New York Wheel Owner LLC (“NYW”).

The documents that NYW has requested be filed under seal, and so are the subject of this motion, are: Declaration of Anthony B. Ullman, dated February 26, 2021 and its single

exhibit, relevant portions of the Limited Liability Agreement for New York Wheel Owner LLC that has been designated by NYW as “Confidential” pursuant to the terms of the Confidentiality and Protective Order entered in this action (Dkt. 122).

Counsel for NYW has advised us that it wishes to have these documents filed under seal because they contain or refer to information that has been appropriately designated as Durham Jones & Pinegar ► LEAD Advogados ► Rattagan Macchiavello Arocena ► Jiménez de Aréchaga, Viana & Brause ► Lee International ► Kensington Swan ► Bingham Greenebaum ► Cohen & Grigsby ► Sayarh & Menjra ► Larraín Rencoret ► For more information on the firms that have come together to form Dentons, go to dentons.com/legacyfirms The Honorable Jesse M. Furman February 26, 2020 Page 2 dentons.com “Confidential” or “Highly Confidential” and, in particular, refer to or contain non-public information about certain of its investor-members.

We have advised counsel for NYW that, under Your Honor’s Rules, they must, within three days of the date hereof, file a letter explaining why they believe sealing is appropriate.

Plaintiff now concedes this point, admitting none of those facts constitute the agreement.

2 Plaintiff waffles between (i) admitting none of these facts constitute the agreement itself and merely indicate one existed, and (ii) still contending these facts are the agreement.

532863/2021 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/22/2022 Excluding the facts relating to the Weiss Email, the Bid Procedure, and Weiss’s Auction statements (considering Plaintiff concedes none constitute the agreement), Plaintiff is left with only ...

The Honorable Vernon S. Broderick United States District Judge 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 Re: U.S.A. v. Lorenzo, Francis, et al. Case No.: 15-Cr-00706 (VSB) Honorable Judge Broderick: The Government (through AUSA Douglas Zolkind) and Probation (through USPO Zondra Jackson) have no objection to the following request.

Defendant, Francis Lorenzo, requests this Court grant him early termination of supervised release.

Additionally, prior to sentencing, Mr. Lorenzo spent approximately four (4) years under strict supervision pursuant to his pre-trial/sentence bail conditions.

During that time, Mr. Lorenzo also dutifully abided by all of his pre-trial/sentence bail conditions without any incident whatsoever.

Based on the foregoing, we respectfully request that Your Honor enter an Order granting Mr. Lorenzo’s motion for early termination of supervised release, and for such other and further relief as may be just and proper.

JESSE M. FURMAN, United States District Judge:

As discussed, and for the reasons stated, on the record during today’s telephone conference: 1.

No later than January 12, 2021, Defendants shall advise Plaintiffs if they intend to bring a motion for sanctions.

If Defendants intend to bring a motion for sanctions, the parties must confer and file a joint letter no later than January 15, 2021, proposing a briefing schedule that would include a deadline by which Plaintiffs must elect whether to invoke an advice-of-counsel defense and — if appropriate — a deadline by which additional discovery would be produced.

If Defendants do not intend to bring a motion for sanctions, they must promptly file a letter on ECF so advising the Court.

Sahni further acknowledges that one or more of the conditions set forth in 21 U.S.C. § 853(p) exists; and that the United States is therefore entitled to forfeit substitute assets equal to but not greater thanthe value of the proceeds obtained by the defendant(the “Money Judgment”).

The defendant further agrees that upon entry of the Order, the United States Attorney’s Office is authorized to conduct any discovery needed to identify, locate, or dispose of property stuifficient to pay the Money Judgmentin full or in connection with any petitions filed with regard to proceeds or substitute assets, including depositions, interrogatories, and requests for production of documents, and the issuance of subpoenas.

Medical License Surrender Sahni agrees as a part of her acceptance of responsibility, and in exchange for the concessions the United States made in entering into this plea agreement, that in the event that the Court determines that the enhancement contemplated by U.S.S.G.

The IRS Restitution Figure will be based on the total amount of loss associated with Sahni’s personal tax returns for calendar years 2013 through 2019 and shall be paid according to a paymentplan established by the Court.

Desiree L. Grace Deputy Chief, Criminal Division United States Attorney’s Office I have received this letter from my attorneys, Mary E. Toscano, Esq. and Richard Sapinski, Esq.

JESSE M. FURMAN, United States District Judge:

The Court has reviewed the parties’ papers with respect to Defendants’ motion to compel New York Wheel Owner LLC (“NY Wheel”) to produce certain sanctions-related discovery.

The parties are hereby ORDERED to appear for a conference on January 6, 2021, at 2:00 p.m. to discuss the motion.

2) If NY Wheel has not yet placed its communications with counsel “at issue,” whether the Court should consider either of the following approaches moving forward: a. Setting a deadline by which NY Wheel would have to elect to either assert a reliance-on-counsel defense to any sanctions motion — in which case Defendants would be entitled to obtain otherwise privileged materials — or forego that defense.

Allowing NY Wheel to proceed at its own peril, with the understanding that if it continues to withhold discovery of privileged materials regarding its reliance on counsel’s advice, it will be deemed to have waived any reliance-on—counsel defense to any future sanctions motion.