Scanned Document - Courthouse News Service

INDEX NO. 451130/2018 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/14/2019 03:29 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 126 The duties. that RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/14/2019 undisputed .(See the their of failed failed to ensure ensure its Summary Trump hotels, 2016 These assets things, election. used his for no with not the involving at 3-8, to oversee the and failed Mr. Trump's of entities Trump political used to take steps to (Evidence Mr. to use Trump he had a financial funds for pay no grants, any Foundation to, for advertising to improperly at 14-21; held minutes, Foundation's in which and Memo Opp. no and only breaching interests. donations, Organization, in name permitted they Mr. MTD 11-20; law, fiduciary Foundation, failed oversight, Trump the kept benefit make existed meetings, techñicalities; the of himself; board over applicable mere of the its breached board further and lack that board oversight any procedures, benefit portraits Memo (Mov. were of the lawsuits shows to impermissibly own because pay settle and Foundation's held complied failures for evidence to exercise policies not the Respondents Foundation were that The failed required In particular, other at 11-13.) Individual the assets ¶¶ 5-12.) among the that Foundation's interest. The to adopt that establishes Respondents care. votes, the Memo Mov. Individual duty evidence in intervene Shiffman Aff. ¶¶ to take part 15- 72.) The wrongful directed evidence when Aff. uncontroverted the and these amounts grants board were when it should that: Memo (Op. (i) Mr. distributed no and Mr. Campaign Trump grants at 16-22.) role The Mr. Court Petition's and from whatsoever publicized The the the 4 8 of 19 Foundation Foundation Trump's Campaign of the Summary and are Iowa ¶¶ Mr. bid. the that Petition supported by dictated the with Fundraiser, 19-27); Trump in and presidential recognized at the proceeds Campaign the allegations others (Evidence by the coopted to advance at 14-16.) grants caused Trump Lewandowski Foundation's playing the make Opp. claims. of the in 2016, that, MTD ¶¶ 21-43; evidence Fmmdation's of these to whom and alleged adequately shows transaction related-party (Shiffman timing also (ii) 500,000 personally with a

INDEX NO. 451130/2018 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/14/2019 03:29 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 126 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/14/2019 great fanfare press conferences (id but and also loans. received (Id. The Mr. unrefuted Trump's conduct MTD 18-20; directors Mov. ¶ 34; of charities is absolutely prohibited nevertheless used Summary his of his evidence also Mr. of the may be made. See, e.g., 694, 696 that explanãtion v. Mah, 243 to double Trump were Kreisler was and A.D.2d 121, appropriate the the amount Campaign Florman Borg actual intent was insufficient (1st remedy of any for to Dep't this benefit benefited - from Mr. such his appropriate defraud to create issue made he own his 50 nearly pockets, million charitable in was benefit and aware that but an issue Co. of was fact); at that a Foundation that he (Evidence explaining fact on willful v. Tower assets, Memo Mov. ¶ 35; as an affidavit where of into Campaigñ. defendants' and because Trump conduct Const. only elections, his to create that Gen. judgment - not Foüñdation's in public evidence determination (summary 125 any Foundation Summary to benefit accidental purportedly a summary 2009) Foundation the at 15-16.) a director's to intervene offer not for that reaching the that and ¶¶ 28-31), including (Evidence assets assets to the does of transaction The up there its grants at 11, shows (id Campaign in using that evidence charitable donated law such, Dep't use The the without Memo Opp. caucuses Campaign, intentional." and using Trump As conclusion not from conduct. (2nd "willful grants in the estâblishes for in the such MTD at 16-19.) money ¶ 35.) violations at 17-20; may from Iowa credit interest investments Mem. Memo Opp. a financial large important personal publicity own was of the took had Trump of his eve Trump substantial virtue by Mr. Mr. (iii) on the in Iowa where and ¶ 32); sought at rallies 56, the and willfulness intentional 58 A.D.3d LLC, circumstances why warranted conclusory" "cryptic and see Pell Street Nineteen Corp. 1998). willful and obtained." improperly the intentional highly valuable 5 9 of 19 conduct N-PCL media is damages § 715(f)(4). coverage of "an Here, of the Iowa amount Mr.

INDEX NO. 451130/2018 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/14/2019 03:29 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 126 Fundraiser that RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/14/2019 and did they of the political have to pay not rallies in order at which grants to garner that were and disbursed, coverage. (Op. from the MTD at 21; 2.8 million Memo Opp. at 15-16.) The deter of such insiders charitable of and is prevalent, seriously and the statute disbursement timing of the federal campaign rallies a charity. As into a result restitution of B. Respondents' Special 5 The penalty Sections dealing, of his and willful for 4941 rather Have fails governed Karr added than Public Charities: (citing Congressional of the IRS the charities Increasing candidate intentional to to raise the by in 2013 Code, same or their Accountability htended and money the Court issues of fact 86 (1st § 715, were added beneficiaries. Compliance, hearings). 6 10 of 19 but Dep't is similar to punish Robert 36 Cath. its the 5.6 at 14, the type the the amounts ran also public and afoul fundraiser of and had require donated Mr. Trump million Fact of proof as a motion After 2008). the to the penalties the parties that imposed 203, 208-09 for petitioner engaged C. Degaudenzi, Law. or trial. a hearing warranting standard evidentiary 82, of out exhorted over should to up benefit Memo Opp. to the law, out carry the showcases control to party for candidate, recipicnts Issues Any case a campaign into dole This York in an amount to N-PCL which to Raise any 55 A.D.3d New conduct, a penalty Failed v. Black, self-dcaling, and 4958 plus the of the to MTD full Campaign fundraiser funds (See the Trump, identity related an organization N-PCL.)5 violated only a charity for are judgment. not turning million, the choosing opportunities Answer proceedings summary from his the by charitable sector. Mr. Here, of of in the to the gave obtaiñcd misuse ability confidence then arrangement Respondents the beñejil the that to address. and law, 2.8 fact amendments the Foundation finance the public in6nded This on the based compromises donations, grants. campaign to address behind was to his of the a penalty undermines intent the to donate to pay for wrongdoing, ining conduct public provides mission expl n.8, statute by in self- Tax-Exempt (Fall 1995) to

INDEX NO. 451130/2018 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/14/2019 03:29 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 126 provides RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/14/2019 admissible respondents trial action the opposing Place submitting The are v. Bd is necessary hearing fact, does Coop. 2013) Bank that v. Imperato, to defeat [i]t Inc. in lay his sufficient with general Guar. Ins. (1st 444 Dep't upon a defendant bare and reveal are real 546, 547 who his and Department are defeat for a motion in order capable of no an issue of assertions a motion (Sup. Ct. [for Cty. N.Y. see American of a Sav. an issue is explained: judgment summary to show being 22 See Here, such (1978)); has party fact. or conclusory semblance First of of defenses. conclusory 231 223, the to create 210 a v. City 1984). evidence 208, ("shadowy proofs, requiring where Dep't to 39 Misc.3d opposes issue issue allegations 1990) the As and necessary 46 N.Y.2d to Zuckerman a material any "bare Co., so." (2nd denials fact shifts is uññëcessary introduced of issues then a factual to do 893-94 4 proceeding, fide of to raise 893, not judgment"). answer failure hearing have burden existence his A.D.2d the action, the for v. Ceppos, 444, summary is iñcumbent up re Fin. A.D.2d to assemble, set bona Extruders, 159 102 answer genuine, of evidentiary evidence in an Article In Rotuba insufficient submit an unverified to create (citing An (1980). Respondents determination]." summary excuse of Assessors, is clear insufficient not beeâüse only law 560 cause evidence an acceptable 557, motion the admissible by or tender 49 N.Y.2d York, Park to establish to "demonstrate of the New evidence that the matters established upon a trial. Cabrera v. Ferranti, evidence cannot one Shore submitted Univ. May 27, issue of defeat has here, Hosp. to summary no defeat" answer "cannot judgmeñt). Dep't 1982) (cmphasis value 19 Misc.3d summary (1st judgmëñt) evidentiary v. Muller, (unverified 2008) fact 89 A.D.2d (attorney's WL 2008 143(A), be utilized Moreover, 7 11 of 19 in lieu even unsupported An unverified added). is insufficient and affidavit to meet 2285877, of a sworn if it had this *1 standard. Term affidavit been such answer, (App. verified, by See 2nd to raise the as the North Dep't a triable answer

INDEX NO. 451130/2018 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/14/2019 03:29 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 126 would RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/14/2019 be insufficient allegations. conclusory Const., 229 answer "have Dep't to raise A.D.2d See, (3rd denial" because ("broad 1996) Tucciarone without it consists and Painting Dep't value"); evidentiary ("general 1991) issue Arcadian e.g., 897 896, no a genuine and facts general conclusory" denials 175 Club, insufficient denials v. Helmer Corp. Decorating v. Automobile evidentiary of solely in Cronin a verified A.D.2d to defeat and (45 617 616, summary judgment). judgment Thus, evidence to raise General's is appropriate an issue This Action Is Presented 1. The personal charitable area. assets are to the have prima failed facie to case completely submit admissible any established all its money of Mr. make a 100,000 Trump and disbursemcñt The attorney affirmations personal knowledge and value and that should York with (Ans. ¶¶ not otherwise disregarded" be the subsined the by 1, 4), as when on this a fiñañcial Attorney of their admissible motion. 8 12 of 19 This the of and and the practice in organization the disburscmcñts to caused Mar-a-Lago Motion See Cabrera, for a fundamental on Trump evidence. Facts misuse to address, authority made Mr. used repeatedly because is based the Assets interest. General's to Conduct is intended of his obligation Law York were "uñprecedeñted" in support introduce Illegal assets Feündation such a legal New of Charitable law Attorney is When satisfy the action he controlled, to he had not-for-profit to charities Respondents did charitable in which this wrongdoing. entities 6 entities of Pattern Misused Foundation's consistent argument Application Extensive Repeatedly New what of the debts the and Trump Respondents' mischaracterization a Straightforward Respondents' that is precisely donated probative respect Respondents shows of Mr. sought remedies by The evidence benefit allegedly with Respondents evidence. C. this fact6 of because the club, to Dismiss As such, 89 A.D.2d they satisfy Foundation to the were not are of "no at 547. the made on

INDEX NO. 451130/2018 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/14/2019 03:29 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 126 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/14/2019 disbursements had were a financial assets political the this that In reality, there Foundation of controlled (such as Mar-a-Lago charitable entity to a charity. first were two the 2. charitable Petition corporation the Respondents, at 39.) This General Attorney As here Mem. relief latter is, at 25-29). with In the addition Relief Injunctive on in New MTD relief York and obtains obtained matters Seeks from the Memo, in many cited recent in the 9 13 of 19 (Op. not, at 21.) by.the Mr. Trump that non- cleanse the by does as well not as an impermissible and bar Consistent Obtains in as the serving adeqüãte similar York does Trump. to a charity and on the training. (Verified line The Cases of fiduciary in With Similar remaiñing assertion, cenclüsory in New its 28-29.) a 1-year upon lifted Opposition to the and under distribution Is Appropriate Trump Respondents' to the seeks Mr. Mr. entity waste at 20-21, General bar to being constituted Sought Attorney a 10-year contrary in the Opp. went Trump's organizations a subsequent (ii) distribution Memo subject routinely and he over Mr. a distribution (i) which at 20-21.) to benefit instance: in control further is a gift to a non-charitable money, second to that Op. entities ceded to charitable improperly Campaign); the The went in each MTD operating detailed is consistent transactions funds at 15-16;see used and (See seeks contribution "ultimately and Trump Foundation an in-kind Memo that the distribute were over Mr. Campaign non-charitable Relief The when money funds That The Similarly, Opp. or the was transaction. related-party the distinct which distribution, benefited the MTD or control money, let that received that noted, claim" a at 13.) and at 16-17; Court refute itself, Op. Campaign Memo (Moving As (See Campaign Trump interests, law. by interest. to the transactions self-dealing any Individual Petition with ("Pet.") the relief the cases. injunctive relief settlements MTD Opposition of and fiducimf bars sought cases. (See MTD Memo, the Attorney Opp.

INDEX NO. 451130/2018 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/14/2019 03:29 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 126 General RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/14/2019 settlements. charity's financial of In People which (Id. from Ex. fiduciery founder 6 ¶ 2.) A RAISE legitimate bears the American of Holdings July 30, defense" 2018) and party both to coopt the his father's the bans any because Aff. Ex. his 5 at a settlement on his under son of the detriment 19.) service. fiduciary while wrongdoing, to the obtain (Reply approved recent Foundation, service charity. court decisions, not fiduciary permanent from benefitted stamped from received did other by Research Trump banned the imposed Cancer Mr. Foundation, son his AFFIRMATIVE did not charity. (Id. Respondents the denying law supporting v. Growney, LLC, ("one should 229 60 Misc.3d sentence sought 398, affirmative in the 405 facts Petition. 2018 conclusions It is well Affirmative insufficient 358 WL . Dep't 3765205 are insufficient of which that 1996); (Table) of that law and Haygood at *8 to make respondent v. Pan plead merely are a fatally v. Prince (Sup. out the presents Manion § 3018(b); defenses as a matter (1st one settled CPLR defenses. 356, not defenses, (1982). are A.D.2d 1220(A), legal JUDGMENT. affirmative proving 55 N.Y.2d without ten assert relief and SUMMARY TO FAIL DEFENSES TO DEFEAT Airways, Robbins 2012, a third bars Breast unlike who, Leukemia permancat of the permanently personally of pleading World cõnclusions deficient. for burden to the ¶ 4.) answer, basis was and rubber ISSUES In their member, permitted founder RESPONDENTS' II. board a charity but financially Investigation Children's of attention of the charity, duty The 6 at Annex Court's and the v. National the benefit Ex. founder benefit abdication the settlement In the the Inc., draws respectfully Ct. N.Y. Cty. an affirmative be dismissed). . 10 14 of 19

INDEX NO. 451130/2018 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/14/2019 03:29 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 126 The single the RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/14/2019 First señteñce General The because defense has stated Respondents do not set forth at 358, Haygood, defenses are A.D.2d not available to enforce public Matter (1983); of Jamestown See of Hamptoñs Lodge 1681 of - nor WL Order can a cause has - to at *8. v. City & Ctr. v. Moore, (Op. Civ. support be rejected these defenses. these equitable 31 A.D.2d (Catherwood), is 60 N.Y.2d 93 88, See entity Comm'n, 52 N.Y.2d that 22.) governmental Serv. This determined should the action. at 15-16, Moreover, as here, York of already estoppel they 3765205 of Moose Court and could where, Med. state be granted. of New City to the waiver government Hosp. Loyal since laches, 2018 fails relief facts any the rights. Petition on which Defense against the be rejected claims Affirmative 229 is that must Second Robbins, acting Defense conclüsery Attorney 449 Affirmative 981, 436, (1981); Matter 982 Dep't (3rd 1969). The should third be rejected See, e.g., here because where the rule LLC v. Simpson, 2007) (business The v. the Fourth rule only letter applies alone act Inc., 781 F.2d in breach 3086028, that to being unsupported giving the the prudently Attorney by Attorney 11 15 of 19 274 264, fiduciary *10-*12 decisiens to the of factual General judgment factual any rule and Cir. duties); Ct (Sup lacks it. conflicts, See, e.g., (business 1986) Macnish-Lenox, Kings Cty. Oct. 23, directors). standing support standing for is inapplicable or independently. (2nd rule, support without independent General any business judgmcñt prudently of the provide business let WL by not, its judgment Defeñse, law could the made 2007 1118(A), In addition black act, Acquisition, Affirmative with not is barred and not, addition, to decisions 17 Misc.3d Petition exercise did ML SCM judgment In board board the do at 358. is inapplicable is frivolous. it is inconsistent that Foundation PLC Respondents A.D.2d it requires Trust judgmcñt 229 that defense, because Robbins, here Hanson action, affirmative to bring or other to bring this explanation, these claims.

INDEX NO. 451130/2018 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/14/2019 03:29 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 126 N-PCL RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/14/2019 § 112 proceediñgs to enforce 39 James, Misc.3d The Motion in the prior Sixth Affirmative be dismissed The decision defense is no on because basis for investigation The been ignores made, the cannot logically the that that pursuing this Affirmative should be dismissed for additional support Apr. was for the on within" to create same the by are evideñee be rejected decision tolled allegations any v. 3, 2013). in the limitations of the People e.g., addressed submitted e.g., of bias (Op. the and very bias proceeding." equitable allegations Respendents' not the an issue reasons set becãüse relief. claim has In serious were the admissible any the by evidence or Geñeral Attorney at 358. A.D.2d merit and its decision, was rejected the set forth allegations sole evidence, documentary submitted no at 9-10.) the Petition it is a bare See, of bias introduced by Court the in Court rejected this in the petition, . for initiating the factors motivating by there (Id.7) that Defense, is barred 229 Robbins, Defense "given Petition evidence documentary See, añimus the have to Dismiss. Eighth claims 7 Respondents' Motion it found and not Cty. was of to bring See, N.Y. "many it should that Respondents Affirmative findiñg Ct. statute event, have accordingly, defenses. the (Sup. the in any Respondents organizations. limitations, that that, Defense, of how Seventh held of General Attorney decision. Respondents' supports statute and and, because an explanation offered the defense *5 1390877, Court at 6-9.) Court's The should this this the to charitable WL conduct (Op. support applicable 2013 in which statute. to laws authorize expressly Defense, continuing applicable forth the Affirmative to Dismiss, fact § 8-1.4(m) 1206(A), Fifth Respõñdents' of EP

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, by LETITIA JAMES, Attorney General of the State of New York, Index No. 451130/2018 Petitioner, REPLY MEMORANDUM OF-against-LAW IN FURTHERSUPPORT OF THE DONALD J. TRUMP, DONALD J. TRUMP JR., VERIFIED PETITION IVANKA TRUMP, ERIC F. TRUMP, and THE DONALD J. TRUMP FOUNDATION, Motion Sequence No. 1