the position notices and maybe other discussing schools that compel people to do things are a process that could be abused could you make you know you're full clean just based on that conduct on the abused you know have you i'm just asking if you think you have enough allegations in the complaint that from subpoenas and from deposition notices you've suffered sufficient harm that it w only it's just a minute more but i want to ask so in producing your i guess your driver's license and tax form you say that those were requested to cast you as a villain and to harass you through prolonged discovery and to limit your business but i don't really see a direct damage to you in any way by complying with the discovery that was well and he misused giggles ids and he doesn't think people and there are many people that's why i was very vigilant about giving my id because in fact that there might be some damage i never even though because it just makes no sense know as lawsuit typically go on one has a right to appeal and so on how that becomes or when that becomes a campaign you know it still looked to me as though the law was pretty well established to new york that filing a lawsuit doesn't direct a person to pre print or require a person to refrain from doing a particular act so you know if you have one lawsuit you have two lawsuits you have three being a campaign and certainly it sounds like this it's been unfortunate and costly litigation over the course of seven years where both parties have filed pursued litigation including this piece  don't really see and i believe you can see from your brief that there's really no precedent for treating filings of lawsuits and proceed with peels as the basis for abuse of process complain i right that you agree that there really is no precedent in new york for holding that the initiation a lawsuit to be the predicate property predicate for abuse of process suit i agree with that initiation of the law not prophesy both of us what we are putting forth in this case is that it's the continuation the act the continuation after the filing of the lawsuit whether that be through  a bad purpose which is a sort of malicious prosecution so why do you why are you bringing let's use a process claim as opposed to a malicious prosecution one for filing the improper lawsuits i believe that the difference is given the size of the campaign as we've highlighted in our brief we i think you run it the issue of when can you bring the malicious prosecution clean do we have to bring excessive claims when every one of the underlying lawsuit is res terminates so if we entertain the idea that an abuse of process claim can be premised on the filing of an improper lawsuit isn't that a way to bring a malicious prosecution claim while getting around to the requirements of bringing a malicious prosecution claim i mean i believe i don't believe it creates a loophole in the malicious prosecution lot i believe it creates a very unique context which is this context when you're dealing with this intense amount of personal animosity intense amount that is what they might do but what have they done that's just there anything that has happened that has happened as a result of the drivers like yes what damages have you alleged to have occurred as a result of the misuse of this process  as if she would hiding something through the tax through tax records when in fact she was not they could have a table just regardless of the driver's license there are allegations about the subpoenas that are directed to employ use of the business and the allegation is that you're intending you're subpoenaing them for purposes of intimidation to replace economic harm through the cost of defending as well as undermining the businesses that were in this correct and there are there's also trademark pending in india that involves mr meisner and a rd party over licensing rights and the other allegation is that he wanted to expand the proceedings over who is the owner of the manhattan review mark in order to gain an advantage in the trademark dispute that would be another collateral job so you just explain to me i saw the allegation look and you explain to me what you increase discovery by example for fighting over a driver's license if you filed a repetitive action in the southern district of new york that you know just is going to take time to get to smith but it should have been filed directly in delaware that buys you more time before the trademark issue india litigation excuse me the advantage from the us that geisha in india is that if there was a favorable outcome for mr meisner in the us late edition that would destroy his rights in the india litigation and by keeping the u s litigation going it keeps the india litigation going to try to obtain a more favorable resolution but it could be an abuse of process to try to stretch out litigation can then i think i potentially intimidate people affiliated with this young business drive up her cost business and tended to pursue a collateral objective as opposed to kind of  directly to admissible evidence in that the court action there was no allegation at the time in front of the judge overseeing discovery that it was abusive or any element of the questioning that went on it was it was a one day probably for self when she made her own some rejection motion so both of those depositions which were done by the way well in advance of the one year final period of this lawsuit were were were being overseen by the commercial division in new york were forty witnesses he wasn't named and it would be the former employee who also again didn't file this lawsuit as young did so she's relying on non forty depositions that were taken again overseen by commercial division in new york his position was but he created the l l c which dr murray well he was he was a he was involved in her business in some way and her counsel that's defending her company and to defend that deposition right  see but but what i'm looking at with address the driver's license issue again driver's license was needed because when you request tax returns of an entity from the state of new york you must fill out a form and submit a tax  ordered ms young to give us a copy of her driver's license purely so that we can get independently of what you produce to us copies of tacky terms that were filed that's the only time her driver's license was used and it was completely within the context of that supreme court case and that the idea of trying to claim that that because she knows dr miser and because of a romantic relationship with them and the fact is that people that he did know the guy that that somehow that  becomes a process like i just don't see how that how that works let me let me ask let me ask this question what what what is the end game here there are i mean i can't recall seeing such a proliferation of law journal lawsuits in many different courts in indeed indeed i don't see a separate attorney in india whether he has actions where he's trying he is he has been trying to protect the name of the company he created and the allegations against him as you know are serious ones that she took the company even though she's a minority a place in the one year period for this intentional tort under new york law just do not qualify as process because they were simply the filing of a lawsuit for filing of a notice of appeal in one case and the judge below didn't examine the other two prongs there was no need for him to do so we do address you know our papers those prongs art similarly not met they fail to show that there was some collateral purpose here that's a phrase that mr dean used but  with prejudice against each other without cost or attorney fees that there is a lawsuit in delaware that was filed by dr miser and his company which is where the courts in new york you directed directed him to go had to go down to delaware because there was an issue about whether this young did or did not properly or improperly or timely or untimely and the status of the elysee so there was a standing issue that was problematic for doctor my rd up here in new york because the courts ultimately found uniformly that you had to go to delaware to solve that problem so that case in delaware i not counsel the case and i do not know what its status is but i do know that the claims that were being brought down there by that that included appeals to the appellate division and to various and the courts of new york court of appeals so that there was i should only select separate lawsuits necessarily but reflected continuing proceedings in those lawsuits a new york court of appeals case the party was standing to a certain abuse of process claim is there only the party that received the process the party that was intended harmed by the process which we claim which we obviously allege was  case which said that the abuse to process clean began to accrue at the middle of the prior action and that's a very similar case involving sort of a litigation history not just sort of a one off do you think even though the process is being  used at one point in the middle of the lawsuit the claim doesn't actually crew until the whole lawsuit is terminated i think that is for me as well you think that they could not have sued over all of those  when the subpoenas we should say we had to wait for the terminations of the overall litigation i think there's no clear answer to this question under law and i think it comes down to you have to look at the situation when you have a case such as here which is mean i guess you could have a circumstance where they don't do anything with the information to later and maybe didn't the planes in the crew until later but if if the argument is that it's economic harm in taking up the person's time or something like because you you you can't see the full scope of the damages or what or if you did occur until you know the outcome of the litigation would be i mean you would be hard to start a collateral lawsuit overdub used to process filing of the delaware lawsuit which we elected was a continuation of the campaign i'd also like to point out that you know there's also the continuing harm doctrine which we believe this is the basis for what we are saying sort of and the roman logic of why in the context of a broader litigation you don't necessarily have to immediately assert the claims and you have to get the dismissal of the prior action or favorable result