TGT, LLC v Avenues World Holdings, LLC

2024 NY Slip Op 32409(U)

July 12, 2024

Supreme Court, New York County

Docket Number: Index No. 156744/2020

Judge: Andrea Masley

Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip

Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York

State and local government sources, including the New

York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service.

This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official

publication.
156744/2020 TGT, LLC vs. MELI, RICHARD

Motion No. 004

Page 1 of 20

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

COUNTY OF NEW YORK: COMMERCIAL DIVISION PART 48

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

DECISION + ORDER ON 

MOTION

INDEX NO. 156744/2020

MOTION DATE

MOTION SEQ. NO. 004

TGT, LLC,

 Plaintiff, 

- v -

AVENUES WORLD HOLDINGS, LLC., AVENUES THE 

WORLD SCHOOL, 95-97 HORATIO LLC., and TF 

CORNERSTONE INC.,

 Defendants. 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

HON. ANDREA MASLEY: 

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 004) 107, 108, 109, 110, 

111, 112, 114, 116, 117, 118, 119, 162, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 177, 178, 179, 

180, 181, 190, 192

were read on this motion to/for CONTEMPT .

Upon the foregoing documents, it is 

In a special proceeding commenced to compel compliance with post-judgment 

subpoenas, petitioner TGT, LLC (TGT) now moves, in motion sequence 004, for an 

order holding respondent Richard Meli (Richard) in contempt of the decision and order 

of this court (J. Carol Edmead), dated February 18, 2022 (2022 Decision), and awarding 

costs and reasonable attorney’s fees.

Facts and Procedural History

The underlying facts were stated in the 2022 Decision, which resolved motion 

sequence 003 by: (1) denying Richard’s motion to quash TGT’s October 1, 2020 

information subpoena and restraining notice (Subpoena) and for a protective order 

against TGT; and (2) granting TGT’s cross-motion to compel Richard’s compliance with 

the Subpoena and to amend the caption to name Richard as the sole respondent.

INDEX NO. 156744/2020

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 205 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/12/2024

1 of 20 [* 1]
156744/2020 TGT, LLC vs. MELI, RICHARD

Motion No. 004

Page 2 of 20

(NYSCEF Doc No. [NYSCEF] 99, 2022 Decision). The court, therefore, presumes the 

parties’ familiarity with the facts and provides only the facts and the procedural history 

relevant to the instant motion. Defined terms not defined herein, shall have the same 

meaning as in the in the 2022 Decision. 

The 2022 Decision ordered Richard to produce “documents and communications 

from January 1, 2015, to the present” (id. at 12) that were responsive to 25 demands,1

seeking information that fell into three broad categories: (1) “Joseph Meli’s email and 

text communications with Kevin Law, an alleged partner in Joseph Meli’s fraud 

schemes”; (2) “all financial documents and communications concerning entities owned 

or controlled by Advance Entertainment, Meli and/or a Meli entity,” including, but not 

limited to, “information regarding investments, assets, income, sources of revenues, 

business deals and/or opportunities, and the entities’ financial status or ability to pay the 

judgment”; and (3) “documentation concerning payments, gifts, distributions, and other 

transfers of assets made by Richard Meli to members of Joseph Meli’s family.” (Id. at 

6).2 In so deciding, the court found that “it strain[ed] credulity for Richard Meli to argue 

that he [did] not possess a single document that [was] potentially relevant to the 

enforcement of TGT’s judgment against Joseph Meli and Advance.” (Id. at 11). The 

court also rejected Richard’s claim that “that the material sought in the subpoenas 

[were] shielded from production by a federal protective order issued by United States 

District Court Judge for the Southern District of New York Ronnie Abrams.” The court 

explained that “the federal protective order clearly state[d] that it cover[ed] only 

1 The Subpoena contained 27 demands. The court struck Demands 3 and 19. (See 

NYSCEF 99, 2022 Decision at 13, 18.)

2

“Meli” refers to Joseph Meli. (Id. at 12 n 8.)

INDEX NO. 156744/2020

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 205 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/12/2024

2 of 20 [* 2]
156744/2020 TGT, LLC vs. MELI, RICHARD

Motion No. 004

Page 3 of 20

confidential material the US Attorney’s Office provided to Joseph Meli and his counsel 

as part of his defense in the criminal matter” and “[did not] include references to any 

documents that Richard Meli or Joseph Meli maintain[ed] as personal or business 

records.” (Id. at 6 n 7, citing NYSCEF 62, Protective Order.)

Richard had 45 days to comply with the 2022 Decision. (See id. at 22). 

According to TGT— “[e]ven with the benefit of excluding the time during which [a] 

motion to stay enforcement [of the Subpoena] was pending” in a related appeal, a 

motion that the Appellate Division, First Department denied on May 12, 2022—

Richard’s “production . . . was due, at the latest, on or before May 22, 2022.” (NYSCEF 

109, Burton affirmation, ¶ 13; see NYSCEF 106, notice of entry of the decision and 

order of Appellate Division, First Department, dated May 12, 2022.)

By letter dated May 24, 2022, TGT notified Richard that his production was late, 

and that he was “now in defiance of the Court’s Order and subject to contempt 

proceedings.” TGT gave Richard seven days to comply with the 2022 Decision and 

warned that it would “take all remedies available to it under the law, including seeking to 

hold Richard Meli in contempt.” (NYSCEF 167, May 24, 2022 letter.) 

Richard does not deny the receipt of this letter, he merely points out that, at the 

time, another TGT lawyer was actively negotiating a possible judgment satisfaction 

agreement with his son, judgment debtor Joseph Meli, which would have resulted in “a 

total discontinuance of an obligations on [his] part to produce documents.” (NYSCEF 

170, Richard aff in opposition to TGT’s affirmation of deficiency [Richard aff], response 

INDEX NO. 156744/2020

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 205 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/12/2024

3 of 20 [* 3]
156744/2020 TGT, LLC vs. MELI, RICHARD

Motion No. 004

Page 4 of 20

to ¶ 10 [emphasis omitted].)

3

 Richard points to an email from a TGT attorney, dated 

July 19, 2022, inquiring as to the progress “in trying to get an Effective Agreement in 

place.” (NYESCEF 117, July 19, 2022 email.) He claims that “it is impossible reconcile 

the statements of one of TGT's lawyers expressing a continuing interest in pursuing a 

settlement agreement that would [have] relieve[d] [him] of all document production 

obligations, with the letter of another TGT lawyer—two months earlier—claiming that 

[Richard’s] non-production of documents was ‘in defiance’ of [his] legal obligations.” 

(NYSCEF 170, Richard aff, response to ¶ 10.) 

TGT acknowledges that it engaged in settlement discussion with Joseph and 

that, “[a]s part of the proposed settlement agreement, TGT agreed to permanently stay 

all judgment enforcement efforts with respect to [Richard], so long as Joseph Meli 

adhered to the agreed upon payment schedule.” (NYSCEF 109, Burton affirmation, ¶ 

19.) However, as “Joseph Meli . . . failed to comply with the payment schedule,” this 

“extinguishe[d] TGT’s promise to stay its enforcement efforts against [Richard].” (Id.) 

On June 23, 2022, Richard “produced selected account statements for only one 

AMEX credit card account from 2017 through mid-2018.” (NYSCEF 166, TGT’s 

affirmation of deficiency, ¶ 38.) TGT notes that “[t]hese statements conveniently did not 

cover any period of time post-Judgment or during the effectiveness of the Restraining 

Notice upon [Richard].” (Id.) 

3 Richard’s affidavit in response to TGT’s affirmation of deficiency contains a 

background section that describes the events that led to this motion and a section that 

responds to the allegations in TGT’s affirmation of deficiency. Citation to the former will 

appear as “Richard aff, ¶ _.” Citation to the latter will appear as “Richard aff, response 

to ¶ _.” 

INDEX NO. 156744/2020

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 205 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/12/2024

4 of 20 [* 4]
156744/2020 TGT, LLC vs. MELI, RICHARD

Motion No. 004

Page 5 of 20

On June 24, 2022, TGT moved to hold Richard in contempt and to compel 

compliance with the 2022 Decision. (See NYSCEF 107-112.) In response, Richard’s 

attorney, Robert Piliero (Piliero), represented that “discovery consultants ha[d] been 

engaged . . . to assemble responsive documents” and that Richard was “reviewing . . . 

20,000 pages of documents,” which would be produced by the return date on the 

motion, July 29, 2022. (NYSCEF 116, Piliero affirmation, ¶ 4.)

On July 29, 2022, Richard produced the 20,000 pages, which, according to TGT, 

consisted of “disorganized and ‘dismembered’ documents (i.e., pages of a singular 

document were randomly spread throughout the production).” (NYSCEF 166, TGT’s 

affirmation of deficiency, ¶ 12.) More importantly, TGT alleges that the production did 

not include: (1) any documents or communication concerning the trusts created for the 

benefit of Joseph’s children and funded with Joseph’s assets (including his interests in 

Tuatara Capital LLP, Jefferson AG Sustainable Holdings I LLC, Compound II LLC, 

Orkila Growth Fund I LP, BCN Properties & Community Ventures LLC and Rumble 

Fitness LLC) (see id., ¶¶ 16-32); (2) communications and documents involving the 

transfers of other judgment debtor assets (some, allegedly, directly into Richard’s own 

bank account), including judgment debtors’ interests in “companies called Piearcings 

and Pig Beach LLC” (id., ¶¶ 33-34); (3) “any documents or communications concerning 

judgment debtor Advance Entertainment, despite the fact that [Richard] holds or 

previous held sole ownership and control of that entity” (id., ¶ 36); and (4) Richard’s 

AMEX card and bank statements. (Id., ¶¶ 38-42.) TGT also points out that Richard’s 

production did not include documents and communications: (1) “[i]n the form of text 

messages or other electronic messaging services”; (2) “[c]omprising emails or text 

INDEX NO. 156744/2020

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 205 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/12/2024

5 of 20 [* 5]
156744/2020 TGT, LLC vs. MELI, RICHARD

Motion No. 004

Page 6 of 20

messages between Joseph Meli and Kevin Law,” despite “the fact that counsel for 

[Richard] transferred files received from Kasowitz Benson LLP (former counsel to 

judgment debtor Joseph Meli) which contained the complete hard drive culled of Joseph 

Meli’s email and iPhone download collected after his arrest in early 2017”; (3) 

concerning “the profits, revenues, distributions or any other financial benefit received by 

him from Judgment Debtors or a Joseph Meli entity related to ticket deals”; (4) 

“[r]eceived from investors in any deal involving Judgment Debtors or a Joseph Meli 

entity”; and (5) “[r]elated to TF Cornerstone or James Siniscalchi.” (Id., ¶ 44).

Richard admits that he is the trustee for two irrevocable trusts set up by him and 

Joseph for the benefit of Joseph’s children. (See NYSCEF 170, Richard aff, ¶¶ 18, 19.) 

The first, the J4 Trust, was established on June 22, 2020. (Id.) The second, the 4JS 

Trust (together with the J4 Trust, the Trusts), was created in March 2021. (Id.) The 4JS 

Trust purportedly had additional features that the J4 Trust lacked “and the assets in the 

J4 Trust were decanted to the 4JS Trust.” (Id., ¶ 20.) Richard admits he funded these 

trusts with Joseph’s assets that “the federal authorities chose not to confiscate,” 

including: 

“(a) . . . a publicly traded company called Chicken Soup for 

the Soul Entertainment; (b) ownership units in Stadium 

Goods, a ‘streetwear’ company, selling high-value sneakers 

and accessories; (c) ownership in Compound Fund II 

(formerly Metamorphic Fund), a tech start-up incubator; and 

(d) an interest in Tuatara Capital, a cannabis investment 

fund.” (Id., ¶ 16).

According to Richard, he “took steps necessary to sell the publicly traded shares, and to 

have the illiquid assets granted to . . . the J4 Trust and subsequently the 4JS Trust” 

INDEX NO. 156744/2020

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 205 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/12/2024

6 of 20 [* 6]
156744/2020 TGT, LLC vs. MELI, RICHARD

Motion No. 004

Page 7 of 20

(id.). However, Richard denies any wrongdoing in withholding documents and 

communications related to the Trusts. 

First, Richard states that he ensured that these transfers did not violate the 

federal forfeiture and restitution orders against Joseph. To that end, he engaged Hecht 

Partner LLP (Hecht). (Id., ¶ 17.) Hecht provided him “with individual letters covering 

transactions involving Stadium Goods, Compound II Fund, Tuatara Capital, Piearcing, 

and the other assets transferred to the J4 and 4JS Trusts. The legal opinion letters, 

unfortunately, did not address the issue of voidable transfers.” (Id.)

Second, he alleges that he was unaware of TGT’s default judgment against 

Joseph and Advance Entertainment until he received the Subpoena in early October 

2020. (Id., ¶ 12.) Upon receiving the Subpoena, Richard states that he consulted an 

attorney, Howard Leader. (Id., ¶ 13.) Leader allegedly advised him that the language 

of the restraining notice did not cover trust assets. (Id., ¶ 14.) In his affirmation, Leader 

states that he informed Richard that the notice “restrained the use of assets within 

[Richard’s] ‘possession or custody,’” whereas the “[t]rust funds were in fact beneficially 

owned by his grandchildren, and were in the ‘possession,’ and ‘custody’ of the 

custodian bank.” (NYSCEF 171, Leader affirmation, ¶ 3.) Leader allegedly advised 

Richard that, while Richard might have been said “to have ‘control’ over the Trust 

money, the restraining notice [did] not purport to impose any restraint on funds over 

which he ha[d] ‘control.’” (Id.)

Finally, Richard states that, while he wished to “fully complying with the 

Subpoena and Justice Edmead’s Order,” he was “unsure whether the requests for 

documents relating to any ‘Meli Entity’ include Trust-related documents.” (NYSCEF 

INDEX NO. 156744/2020

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 205 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/12/2024

7 of 20 [* 7]
156744/2020 TGT, LLC vs. MELI, RICHARD

Motion No. 004

Page 8 of 20

170, Richard aff, ¶ 21). He allegedly consulted with an attorney who specializes in trust 

law, Elizabeth Morgan, who advised him that “requests asking for documents relating to 

any ‘Meli Entity’ would not extend to documents relating to the irrevocable Trusts that 

had been set up for [his] grandsons,” because, “under the law of most states, including 

New York, a trust is not considered to be an ‘entity,’ but rather is a fiduciary 

‘relationship.’” (Id., ¶ 22.) She also allegedly advised Richard that the “Subpoena was 

written with no contemplation of a trust structure because, . . . if it had contemplated a 

trust, it could clearly have so specified.” (Id., ¶ 23.) Richard claims that, “[i]n not 

producing trust documents in response to TGT's Subpoena, [he] relied on Ms. Morgan’s 

legal advice, while also taking into consideration [his] legal and fiduciary obligations of 

confidentiality as Trustee.” (Id., ¶ 23.)

As concerns the nonproduction of documents and communications regarding 

companies called Piearcings and Pig Beach LLC, Richard responds that “Piearcings 

was . . . another asset granted to the J4 Trust long before either Joseph Meli or 

[Richard] were made aware of the TGT default judgment.” (Id.) Richard states that he 

“ha[s] no recollection of any company called Pig Beach LLC” and “ha[s] no information 

on any such company.” (Id.) He also denies that he ever had Piearcings, or “any of the 

Trust assets, transferred to [his] own bank accounts.” (Id., response to ¶¶ 33-35.)

Richard claims that “[his] tenure as Manager of Advance Entertainment was for 

the sole and single purpose of liquidating the Chicken Soup shares, which was 

accomplished before [he] learned about the default judgment in TGT’s favor.” (Id.) He 

maintains that this was his only involvement with Advance Entertainment and that he 

“[has] produced all documents related thereto.” (Id., response to ¶¶ 36-37.)

INDEX NO. 156744/2020

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 205 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/12/2024

8 of 20 [* 8]
156744/2020 TGT, LLC vs. MELI, RICHARD

Motion No. 004

Page 9 of 20

Richard admits that he omitted AMEX card statements from his production. (See 

NYSCEF 170, Richard aff, response to ¶¶ 38-40.) TGT contends that such statements 

were responsive to the Subpoena and points to evidence that “assets transferred into 

the 4JS account were used to pay Meli family expenses via payment of Richard Meli’s 

AMEX card.” (NYSCEF 166, TGT’s affirmation of deficiency, ¶ 40, citing index No. 

153682/2023, NYSCEF 6 [4JS Trust bank account statements, reflecting payments to 

AMEX]).4 Richard admits that he permitted the “use [his] American Express credit card 

for [Meli] family expenditures.” (Id.) However, he argues that, because the “payment of 

Meli family living expenses is an authorized use of 4JS Trust assets, [he does not] see

that whether or not [his] American Express card may or may not have been used as a 

conduit for such a payment, makes any difference.” (Id.) He states that the AMEX 

statements were “documents pertaining to Trust related transactions” and, as such, 

“were not required to be produced.” (NYSCEF 170, Richard aff, response to ¶¶ 38-40.)

In response to TGT’s final allegations of noncompliance with the 2022 Decision, 

Richard states that he: (1) “[does not] have any relevant text messages”; (2) “[does not] 

have anything regarding Kevin Law” and does not “have the Kasowitz hard drives” or 

any knowledge of their current location, explaining that he had them “for a day or two,” 

“some years ago . . . and turned them over to an attorney named Cesar de Castro, who 

was [Joseph’s] court appointed defense lawyer at the time”; (3) “had no involvement in 

ticket deals and know[s] nothing about them”; (4) has no communications or documents 

from investors in any deal involving the judgment debtors or a Meli Entity, “to [his] 

4 TGT cites to index No. 153682/2023, NYSCEF 5, which contains bank statements for 

the J4 Trust. The referenced 4JS Trust account statements are part of NYSCEF 6, 

under the same index number.

INDEX NO. 156744/2020

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 205 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/12/2024

9 of 20 [* 9]
156744/2020 TGT, LLC vs. MELI, RICHARD

Motion No. 004

Page 10 of 20

knowledge”; and (5) has provided all documents related to TF Cornerstone or James 

Siniscalchi, which were limited to “documents representing the proceeds from the sales 

of the Chicken Soup shares, most of which [he] used to enable Jessica Meli to pay TF 

Cornerstone.” (Id., response to ¶ 44).

During oral argument on the motion, the court informed Richard’s attorney that it 

was not impressed with respondent’s “surgical,” 20,000-page response to a Justice 

Edmead’s thorough, 23-page decision. (See NYSCEF 190, tr at 26:2-10). As the court 

“believe[d] that this order from Justice Edmead was not complied with,” it “order[ed] the 

imaging of phones, laptops, desktops, any computer equipment which includes phones 

of Richard Meli.” (Id. at 23:10-16.) At a later argument on the motion, the court directed 

the parties to work together to ensure that all of Richard’s AMEX and Chase statements 

were also sent to the imager, at which point Richard’s attorney could work with the 

imager to redact those statements. (Id.) Richard was directed to sign the necessary 

consents and send them to AMEX and Chase by June 16, 2023. (See NYSCEF 184, 

June 14, 2023 tr at 11:7-15:15; 16:24-17:15.) The court also advised Richard’s attorney 

that it found the argument, that trusts were not contemplated by the 2022 

Decision/Subpoena, unconvincing. (See id. at 41:15-42:17) and to “anticipate a 

decision that you’re not going to like.” (Id. at 67:15-16.)

After motion sequence 004 was fully submitted, TGT came into possession of 

additional evidence of Richard’s noncompliance. Specifically, in response to a 

judgment enforcement subpoena served upon Hecht in a parallel turnover proceeding 

(under index No. 153682/2023), Hecht provided: (1) an affirmation of one of its partners, 

indicating that Richard is in possession of a disclosure statement (Disclosure 

INDEX NO. 156744/2020

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 205 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/12/2024

10 of 20 [* 10]
156744/2020 TGT, LLC vs. MELI, RICHARD

Motion No. 004

Page 11 of 20

Statement) that lists Joseph’s assets; and (2) a privilege log (Hecht Privilege Log), 

which reveals that Richard sent the Disclosure Statement to Hecht on November 20, 

2020, approximately seven weeks after receiving the Subpoena, and “contains 

unprivileged communications between Richard Meli and other attorneys besides Hecht 

related to Judgment Debtor Joseph Meli’s assets.” (NYSCEF 195, Burton affirmation in 

support of motion seq 006, ¶¶ 9, 14, 16; see NYSCEF 196, Hecht partner’s affirmation, 

¶¶ 7-8; NYSCEF 197, Hecht Privilege Log, Entry No. 134.) Accordingly, TGT moved to

supplement the record. (Motion seq 006.) This court granted the motion, by decision 

and order dated April 12, 2024. (NYSCEF 203.) 

Discussion

TGT contends that ample evidence demonstrates that Richard has failed to 

comply with 2022 Decision and that, as a result, TGT’s rights to enforce its judgment 

through subpoenas has been impeded, impaired, prejudiced and defeated. Richard 

responds that he made a good faith effort to comply with the 2022 Decision. He argues 

that, in not producing documents and communications relating to the Trusts, he relied 

on the advice of counsel that such were not called for by the language of the 2022 

Decision/Subpoena. As concerns all other allegations of noncompliance, he claims to 

have provided everything in his possession. In response to TGT’s newest evidence of 

noncompliance, the Disclosure Statement and the Hecht Privilege Log, Richard 

contends that “production was either prohibited by a previously issued Federal Court 

Order . . . or by application of the attorney-client privilege.” (NYSCEF 199, Richard aff 

in opposition to motion seq 006, ¶ 2.) 

INDEX NO. 156744/2020

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 205 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/12/2024

11 of 20 [* 11]
156744/2020 TGT, LLC vs. MELI, RICHARD

Motion No. 004

Page 12 of 20

CPLR 5251 provides contempt as a remedy for disobedience of “a subpoena or 

restraining notice issued, or order granted, pursuant to [Article 52]” (CPLR 5251), 

whereas Judiciary Law § 753 supplies “the procedure for the contempt punishment.” 

(Matter of Wimbledon Fin. Master Fund, Ltd. v Bergstein, 173 AD3d 401, 402 [1st Dept 

2019] [internal citation omitted].) To establish civil contempt, petitioner must 

demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence, that: (1) a lawful court order clearly 

expressing an unequivocal mandate was in effect; (2) the order has been disobeyed; (3) 

the party to be held in contempt had actual knowledge of the order; and (4) 

disobedience of the court’s order has prejudiced a right of a party. (El-Dehdan v ElDehdan, 26 NY3d 19, 29 [2015].) “[W]ilfulness is not an element of civil contempt. . . . 

[C]ontempt is established, regardless of the contemnor’s motive, when disobedience of 

the court’s order defeats, impairs, impedes, or prejudices the rights or remedies of a 

party.” (Id. at 35 [internal quotation marks and citation omitted].)

Here, TGT demonstrates, by clear and convincing evidence, that Richard did not 

comply with the 2022 Decision, a lawful court order clearly expressing an unequivocal 

mandate of which Richard was aware, and that this impeded and prejudiced TGT’s 

judgment enforcement efforts. 

Even without examining every alleged deficiency of the July 29, 2022 production, 

the evidence of Richard’s noncompliance is abundant. Richard readily admits that he 

did not produce any documents or communications in any way connected with the 

Trusts. (See NYSCEF 170, Richard aff, ¶ 23.) Contrary to the opinion of Richard’s 

attorneys, such documents and communications should have been produced pursuant 

the 2022 Decision. Considering the broad, all-encompassing language of 2022 

INDEX NO. 156744/2020

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 205 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/12/2024

12 of 20 [* 12]
156744/2020 TGT, LLC vs. MELI, RICHARD

Motion No. 004

Page 13 of 20

Decision, the claim that Trust documents were not called for, because a trust is a 

fiduciary relationship and, as such, is not a “Meli Entity” (see id, ¶ 22), is a flimsy excuse 

for noncompliance. In other words, the court rejects Richard’s argument that the 2022 

Decision “was written with no contemplation of a trust structure” (NYSCEF 170, ¶ 23), 

when the Decision is intended to capture all financial arrangements, regardless of form. 

For example, Justice Edmead ordered Richard to produce:

“any and all documents concerning or reflecting payments, 

distributions, revenues, or wire transfers to Jessica Meli, 

Anna Meli, Jackson Meli, Julian Meli, Jude Meli, Joah Meli 

and/or any other Meli family member [by] Richard Meli . . .

“any and all documents concerning or reflecting any source 

of income or revenues or any type of financial benefit from 

Meli and/or any Meli entity given to Richard Meli or held by 

Jessica Meli, Anna Meli, Jackson Meli, Julian Meli, Jude 

Meli, Joah Meli and/or any other Meli family member . . .

“any and all documents concerning any financial, business 

or investment interest owned or controlled by Richard Meli, 

Jessica Meli, Anna Meli, Jackson Meli, Julian Meli, Jude 

Meli, Joah Meli and/or any other Meli family member” 

(NYSCEF 99, 2022 Decision, Demands 9, 10, 11 [emphasis 

added]). 

Under the plain language of these demands, documents concerning trusts that were 

created for the benefit of Joesph’s children, funded with Joseph’s assets, and controlled 

by Richard, as well as records of Richard’s payments, in his capacity as trustee, to Meli 

family members, should have been produced. The decision to withhold trust documents 

is inexplicable in light of Richard’s acknowledgment that, as trustee, he controlled the 

trust assets. (See NYSCEF 171, Leader affirmation, ¶ 3 [explaining that the restraining 

notice did not apply to trust assets, as those assets were under Richard’s “control” 

rather than in his “possession or custody”]; see also NYSCEF 184, June 14, 2023 tr at 

INDEX NO. 156744/2020

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 205 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/12/2024

13 of 20 [* 13]
156744/2020 TGT, LLC vs. MELI, RICHARD

Motion No. 004

Page 14 of 20

38:18-23 [Piliero explaining that, while Richard “had control” over trust assets, he “didn’t 

have custody”].) 

Even accepting Richard’s excuse, that “[he] was advised by counsel . . . that 

production of documents relating to assets owned by the Trust was not required under 

the [2022 Decision]” (NYSCEF 170, Richard aff, response to ¶ 16), this does not explain 

his failure to produce the agreements forming the Trusts. The agreements were 

between Joseph, as grantor, and Richard, as trustee, and assigned to the trusts 

Joseph’s interest in various assets. (See index No. 153682/2023, NYSCEF 5 [the J4 

Trust Agreement, executed on June 22, 2020]; index No. 153682/2023, NYSCEF 6 [the 

4JS Trust Agreement, executed on February 23, 2021].) The 2022 Decision 

unequivocally requires their production under the demand for “any and all agreements, 

or drafts thereof, between Richard Meli and Advance Entertainment, Meli, and/or a Meli 

Entity.” (NYSCEF 99, 2022 Decision, Demand 21.)

In any event, Richard does not provide any legal authority for the proposition that 

he may escape being held in contempt by demonstrating reliance on the advice of 

counsel. This may be because “there is no rule or practice which absolutely protects a 

party in a contempt proceeding from an untenable position taken under advice of 

counsel.” (Matter of Howard, 201 App Div 123, 124 [1st Dept 1922].) Nor is the court 

inclined to exercise its discretion to relieve respondent of responsibility, as the effect of 

counsel’s mistake is not jail time for Richard and, moreover, as will be discussed in 

more detail, his noncompliance is calculated. (See contra id. at 125-126 [finding that 

“substantial justice and a wise exercise of the discretion vested in the court require[d] [it] 

INDEX NO. 156744/2020

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 205 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/12/2024

14 of 20 [* 14]
156744/2020 TGT, LLC vs. MELI, RICHARD

Motion No. 004

Page 15 of 20

to relieve the client, where the effect of the counsel’s mistake may [have] be[en] to keep 

her in jail indefinitely by reason of her inability to comply with the order”].)

The willfulness of Richard’s noncompliance is on display when he criticizes TGT 

for failing to offer “any factual basis for its assumption that [his] son Joseph and/or 

Advance had or have any interest in [the Orkila Growth Fund I LP, BCN Properties & 

Community Ventures LLC, and Rumble Fitness LLC] investments held by the Trust.” 

(NYSCEF 170, Richard aff, ¶ 32.) As Richard is in the position to know the provenance 

of these investments, he should be the one to determine whether documents 

concerning them should be produced pursuant to the 2022 Decision. His continued 

refusal to do so in a forthright manner is why he is currently facing a finding of contempt. 

Moreover, TGT submits copies of Richard’s communications with BCN Properties & 

Community Ventures LLC, “regarding Joe’s investment in BCN” (NYSCEF 168 at 27), 

as well as a copy the J4 Trust Agreement, in which Joseph assigns to the trust his 

ownership interest in Stadium Enterprises LLC, Tuatara Capital Fund I, LP, Compound 

II, LP, Orkila Growth Fund I, LP, BCN Properties & Community Ventures LLC, and 

Rumble Fitness LLC. (Index No. 153682/2023, NYSCEF 5.) 

Many of Richard’s justifications for failing to produce documents demonstrate a 

deliberate ignorance of the plain language of the 2022 Decision. He repeatedly 

emphasizes that: (1) the assets used to fund the Trusts came from Joseph’s 

investments that predated, and were unrelated to, the fraudulent scheme that led to 

Joseph’s convictions and TGT’s judgment; and (2) various transfers occurred before he 

was served with the Subpoena, at a time when he and Joseph were allegedly unaware 

of TGT’s judgment. (See NYSCEF 170, Richard aff, ¶¶ 19, 25-31.) However, nothing in 

INDEX NO. 156744/2020

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 205 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/12/2024

15 of 20 [* 15]
156744/2020 TGT, LLC vs. MELI, RICHARD

Motion No. 004

Page 16 of 20

the 2022 Decision limits Richard’s production obligations in relation to these facts. By 

Richard’s own admission, he used Joseph’s assets to fund the Trusts and all the 

necessary steps were taken after January 1, 2015. (See id.) Therefore, documents 

and communications related to the funding of the Trusts should have been produced 

under the plain language of the 2022 Decision. (See NYSCEF 99, 2022 Decision.) 

Finally, Richard’s response to TGT’s discovery of the Disclosure Statement and 

the Hecht Privilege Log demonstrates the brazenness of his noncompliance. 

Richard claims that “[he] excluded production of the Disclosure Statement 

because [he] believed it to be covered by the SDNY Protective Order. ” (NYSCEF 199, 

Richard aff in opposition to motion seq 006, ¶ 4.) However, the 2022 Decision explicitly 

rejects this argument, explaining that “the federal protective order clearly states that it 

covers only confidential material the US Attorney’s Office provided to Joseph Meli and 

his counsel as part of his defense in the criminal matter.” (NYSCEF 99, 2022 Decision 

at 6 n 7, citing NYSCEF 62, Protective Order.) The Disclosure Statement was not 

provided to Joseph by federal prosecutors, rather, it was “shared with law enforcement.” 

(NYSCEF 196, Hecht partner’s affirmation, ¶ 7.) Moreover, the version of the 

Disclosure Statement in Hecht’s possession “is materially different from the one that 

was apparently shared with law enforcement” (id., ¶ 8) and “appears to have been 

created . . . for the purposes of obtaining legal advice.” (Id., ¶9.) As such, Richard’s 

assertion of a previously rejected argument, to justify the nonproduction of a document 

that purportedly lists Joseph’s assets, is nothing short of outrageous. 

Richard also claims that Hecht documents and communications, discussing the 

transfer of Joseph’s assets to the Trusts, are protected from disclosure by attorneyINDEX NO. 156744/2020

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 205 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/12/2024

16 of 20 [* 16]
156744/2020 TGT, LLC vs. MELI, RICHARD

Motion No. 004

Page 17 of 20

client privilege. (NYSCEF 199, Richard aff in opposition to motion seq 006, ¶ 5.) 

However, Richard never provided a privilege log, as required when one “withholds one 

or more documents that appear to be within the category of the documents required by 

the notice, subpoena duces tecum or order to be produced.” (CPLR 3122 [b].)

5

 

Instead, he opted to conceal the existence of such responsive documents. In short, 

Richard fails to offer any reasonable explanation for his noncompliance. 

As TGT demonstrates, by clear and convincing evidence, that Richard disobeyed 

the 2022 Decision and that this has impeded, impaired, prejudiced and defeated TGT’s 

right to enforce its judgment through subpoenas, TGT’s motion to hold Richard in 

contempt is granted. (See El-Dehdan, 26 NY3d at 29.) Notably, the bank statements 

for the Trusts demonstrate that, during the time TGT sought compliance with the 

Subpoena, trust assets were steadily depleted. Account statements for the J4 Trust 

show that, a month after Richard was served with the Subpoena, the trust had 

approximately $3,000,000. (See index No. 153682/2023, NYSCEF 5.) Account 

statements for the 4JS Trust reveal that, around the time of the 2022 Decision, the trust 

had approximately $350,000. By October 2022, there was less than $500 in the 

account. (See index No. 153682/2023, NYSCEF 6.) Clearly, TGT has been impeded in

collecting information about the whereabouts of funds to satisfy its judgment and

impaired because funds were dissipated while it was searching and waiting for

Richard’s compliance.

5 Before asserting privilege, the court cautions Richard to consult its recent decision in a 

related proceeding, rejecting Hechts’ assertion of the attorney-client privilege and the 

common interest exception. (See index No. 153682-2023, NYSCEF 175.)

INDEX NO. 156744/2020

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 205 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/12/2024

17 of 20 [* 17]
156744/2020 TGT, LLC vs. MELI, RICHARD

Motion No. 004

Page 18 of 20

The court admonishes Richard to promptly and fully comply with his production

obligations under the 2022 Decision. He has had a year to prepare for this outcome. 

(See NYSCEF 184, June 14, 2023 tr at 67:15-16 [advising Piliero to “anticipate a 

decision that you’re not going to like”].) 

Further delay will not be tolerated and will result in an order granting TGT access 

to Richard’s imaged devices.6 

“If an actual loss or injury has been caused to a party to an action or special 

proceeding, by reason of the misconduct proved against the offender, and the case is 

not one where it is specially prescribed by law, that an action may be maintained to 

recover damages for the loss or injury, a fine, sufficient to indemnify the aggrieved 

party, must be imposed upon the offender, and collected, and paid over to the 

aggrieved party, under the direction of the court.“ (Judiciary Law § 773.) “Unlike 

criminal contempt sanctions which are intended to punish, civil contempt fines are 

intended to compensate victims for their actual losses” (Matter of Barclays Bank v

Hughes, 306 AD2d 406, 407 [2d Dept 2003].) Civil contempt fines are mandatory when

proven. (Nickolopulos v Janoff, 268 AD 829 [2d Dept 1944].) “Penalties for civil 

contempt should be assessed with an eye towards their ‘remedial nature and effect.’” 

(People v L.G., 208 NYS3d 469, 478 [Sup Ct, NY County 2024].) The penalty for each

contempt is to be considered separately. (Jos. Riedel Glass Works v Francis W. Kurtz

& Co., 260 AD 163 [1st Dept 1940], order affd, appeal dismissed, 287 NY 636 [1941].)

TGT has offered incontestable evidence of actual loss and thus is entitled to be

6 Richard shall provide TGT with information as to the circumstances of the imaging of

his electronic equipment, who, what, when and how, who has the disk with the images

and the size of the image files.

INDEX NO. 156744/2020

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 205 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/12/2024

18 of 20 [* 18]
156744/2020 TGT, LLC vs. MELI, RICHARD

Motion No. 004

Page 19 of 20

compensated by Richard for $349,500 ($350,000-$500), the amount that was in the

bank account of the 4JS trust which was dissipated while Richard was refusing to

produce responsive documents. In addition, TGT is awarded reasonable costs and 

attorney’s fees incurred by petitioner in making this motion. (See Judiciary Law § 753; 

Matter of Wimbledon Fin. Master Fund, Ltd., 173 AD3d at 402 [finding that the motion 

court “appropriately limited the contempt sanction to petitioner’s attorneys’ fees”]). 

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that respondent Richard Meli is in contempt of this court’s February 

18, 2022 decision and order directing compliance with the judgment enforcement 

subpoena dated October 1, 2020; and it is further 

ORDERED that Richard Meli shall fully comply with the decision and order dated 

February 18, 2022 within 10 days from service of a copy of this order with notice of 

entry. Otherwise, Richard Meli will be directed to turnover to TGT the images of all his

electronics. Richard Meli has had more than enough time to take the steps necessary

to protect any attorney client communications in those images; and it is further 

ORDERED that within 10 days of a subsequent order of this court Richard Meli 

shall pay the reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees incurred by petitioner in making this

motion; and it is further

ORDERED that within 10 days of the date of this order, petitioner shall submit an 

affidavit of services, including resumes or firm bios of attorneys and staff involved in the 

case. Otherwise waived; and it is further

ORDERED that within 10 days of this order with notice of entry, Richard shall

provide TGT with information as to whom imaged the electronic equipment, when, what

INDEX NO. 156744/2020

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 205 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/12/2024

19 of 20 [* 19]
156744/2020 TGT, LLC vs. MELI, RICHARD

Motion No. 004

Page 20 of 20

devices, who has the disk(s)/thumb drive(s) or cloud access with the images, and the

size of the images saved on the disk(s)/thumb drive(s) or cloud access; and it is further

ORDERED that within 10 days of this order, Richard shall pay TGT $349,500 to

indemnify TGT for its actual loss incurred because of Richard’s contempt.

7/12/2024

DATE ANDREA MASLEY, J.S.C.

CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED X NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

X GRANTED DENIED GRANTED IN PART OTHER

APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER

CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT REFERENCE

INDEX NO. 156744/2020

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 205 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/12/2024

20 of 20 [* 20]