that thejudgment (1) by deleting and tort substituting provisions thereof and punitive El Jamal; Sammy or costs disbursements, for a new trial on the issues and punitive damages El Jamal, Sammy serves the plaintiff a written stipulation the provisions therefor unless, and files of discretion, prima facie the deleting of process abuse the defendant without County, of process defendant and order, County, of action alleging of $1,500,000 of action cause $1,500,000 in the event Court, of action prosecution malicious alleging service upon him of a copy the Clerk Westchester the Supreme of Court, on the cause of compensatory damages El Jamal from the principal sum Sammy the amount to reduce the amount consenting of process against abuse principal sum of to the the defendant of punitive damages on the the principal sum of as appealed from, Westchester alleging against abuse the of this decision alleging to the principal the plaintiff that insofar as appealed $25,000, malicious prosecution sum of $1,000,000, then so stipulates, from, without to reduce against that from defendant of an appropriate and to the entry as so modified, the judgment, costs or disbursements; and it amended judgment; and amended, reduced, is further, is affirmed defendants'

punitive in favor damages on the of action cause jury sums abuse The for Orser alleging awarded compensatory for malicious of $285,000 of process.

defendants' contention as duplicative appellate for The be dismissed should facie is unpreserved prosecution judgment for they moved 115 AD3d v Golden, law which of "'questions the proper juncture if raised 115 AD3d v Golden, at 912, of law was Such a question recover damages tort at as a matter 912; 911, appear may quoting presented for prima prosecution complete and be dismissed must action Freihofer 539 ; see generally defendants' the remaining not be reached.

269, as a result to the extent 425 ; Nardelli cf McIntyre of an order 147 AD3d He, 1223, Shirley the circumstances of this case, indicated State (see generally 44 NY2d v Stamberg, 500, Lincoln- v Manhattan evidence the of protection 1225; the Ford, El Jamal's to proceed request contention that the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion pro se is without merit.

of the Slipr I APRIL ANNE AGOSTIND, Clerk of the AppeHate Diwsion , do hereby certify that|navecompt ., ludicial Department, Court,Second fHed in my office en

; and upon the limited objection to the to the Application by the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors, dated March 21, 2017 (Dkt.

571); and upon all of the proceedings relating to the Application; and it appearing that Special Counsel does not hold or represent an interest adverse to the Debtor or his estate, that it is disinterested under

that any retainer paid to Special Counsel shall be applied to any amount granted by the Court in respect of Special Counsel's first fee application and, ifnecessary, the next subsequent allowed fees and expenses that the Court orders; and it is further

that the Court shall retain jurisdiction to hear and determine all matters arising from the implementation of this Order; and it is further

that if there is any inconsistency between the terms of this Order, the Application, and the Affirmation of Kenneth Stenger, Esq.

as a result the Appellate subsequently Division the previously-adjudicated economy, are filings for this matter and in Coscia the of underlying v El Jamal, facts 156 A.D.3d and permit Certain decision.

facie must does On a motion for a new trial based establish the newly that discovered not merely impeach the credibility have produced a different result probably Federated Conservationists of Westchester 233 AD2d v Chalpin, Gonzalez 2004]; in failing to disclose the fee arrangement, if the misrepresentation was not material Dept 2016]).

of a jury consider as modified court this counsel presented has a long-standing who had the opportunity at trial in arriving of giving history to hear the its conclusion at great testimony which, deference to the of witnesses in this case, was findings and duly upheld for Orser's As and and Weil contention his withheld lawyer, intentionally fee agreement and to "create Affirmation increase it must (Stenger be noted that ¶ 84), did assess not legal fees In addition, against the Appellate Division found that any damages for malicious in the prosecution amount of $285,000 (as assessed against compensation" not deviate from what 156 AD3d would be reasonable at 865).

prosecution, expenses trial transcript Orser's contention is improperly raised the liability Dept ; Green Point Sav.

trial on the 61 AD3d ; State issue Farm of [2d Fire the court Finally, attorneys' fees, [2d Dept for costs, 128 AD3d in its discretion declines to entertain and in the absence sanctions ofa 2015]).

60236/2011 Brent Coscia Sammy El Jamal Bryan Orser Plaintiff Defendant Defendant Respondent None Appellant 4 of 14 FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 05/14/2018 04:46 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO.

review, Following on February the first the undersigned before Counsel time for appeared to apprise court 25, 2018 this of ofthe time at which status filed counsel this matter, represented that El Jamal for bankruptcy and related to thejudgment against him would any matters be addressed in the context of that bankruptcy is no longer a party to these thus El Jamal post-trial proceedings.

Similarly, under CPLR 5015[a][3] vacatur verdict (see Ryan to the jury's argues claim his Orser d iminishes arrangement material reputation criminal directly i.e. issue, besmirched defense so that testimony "Plaintiff not the disclose failure that fee to plaintiff's to his reputation.

the professional Reputation a jury aside, that s first-hand of plaintiff account the aftermath of the basis to support the award for damages compensatory 156 AD3d at 863).

that that facie tort is dismissed prima branch as moot; of Orser's and it motion is further for a new trial on the issue of damages for

prosecution malicious that that branch and related of Orser's motion relief is denied; and a new trial for it is further on the issue of damages for 3 o

I am over a copy below by mailing in an official action: I served listed paid thereon, of I am not says: deposes

sworn, being duly New York in Kingston, I reside 18 years the age of and old;

the DECISION same same regular mail in a sealed envelope, by mailing by the U.S. Po 1 Service within the State depository and a party on April upon to the 13, 2018, the parties with postage of New York.

Notary Public, State of New York

Buss & Jacobs, Smith, for Defendant Attorney 733 Yonkers Avenue New York Yonkers, LLP Sammy 4200 10704 Eljamal Novick for Ponzini Defendant Gaines Attorneys 11 Martine White Plains, Denise Attn: Avenue, New York M. Cossu, 8th & Venditti, Orser LLP Cossu Bryan FlOOr 10606 Esq.

Orser adopts EI Jamal's abandoned argument that this omission was relevant to the issue of injury to plaintiffs reputation and would have affected the amount of damages had the jury been aware of the arrangement.

Similarly, assuming there was fraud in failing to disclose the fee arrangement, vacatur under CPLR 5015[a][3] would not be warranted if the misrepresentation was not material to the jury's verdict (see Ryan v Zherka, 140 AD3d 500 [I" Dept 2016]).

sunra) this court has a long-standing history of giving great deference to the findings Furthermore, of a jury selected by counsel who had the opportunity to hear the testimony of witnesses and duly consider the cvidence presented at trial in arriving at its conclusion which, in this case, was upheld as modified on appeal.

Orser's contention that the newly discovered evidence warrants a new trial on the issue of liability is improperly raised for the first time in reply (see Conge I v Ma/jilano, 61 AD3d 809 [2d Dcpl 2009J; Green Poinl Say.

request for affirmative relief Finally, the court declines in its discretion to entertain plaintiffs for costs, attorneys' fees, and sanctions in thc absence ofa cross molion (el Smulezeski vSmulezeski, 128 AD3d 671 [2d Dept 2015]).