TGT, LLC v Meli 2025 NY Slip Op 32456(U) July 11, 2025 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. INDEX NO. 156744/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 412 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/11/2025
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK: COMMERCIAL DIVISION PART 48 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------X TGT, LLC, INDEX NO. 156744/2020
Plaintiff, MOTION DATE -- -v- MOTION SEQ. NO. 009 RICHARD MELI,
Defendant. DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------X
HON. ANDREA MASLEY:
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 009) 326, 327, 328, 329, 330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 338, 343, 345, 347, 348, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369, 370, 371, 372, 381, 382, 385, 386, 403 were read on this motion to/for CONTEMPT .
Plaintiff TGT LLC (TGT) moves by Order to Show Cause for an order (1) holding
Robert Piliero, Esq. and Robert Ontell, Esq.1 in contempt of this court’s orders dated
February 18, 2022, July 12, 2024 and other intervening and subsequent orders to
comply therewith; (2) directing Piliero to immediately pay the monetary sanction against
respondent, Piliero’s former client Richard Meli, of $349,500 and award of attorneys’
fees set forth in the July 12, 2024 order; (3) directing Ontell and Piliero to immediately
pay the award of attorneys’ fees associated with TGT counsel’s review of the July 2022
production of documents and judgment enforcement subpoena efforts made necessary
by the insufficiency of that production; and (4) directing Ontell and Piliero to pay TGT’s
attorneys’ fees incurred for this application.
1TGT asserts one significant wrongdoing by Ontell. Accordingly, this decision addresses Piliero except with regard to Ontell’s involvement in dismembering documents in a 20,000-page document dump. 156744/2020 TGT, LLC vs. MELI, RICHARD Page 1 of 8 Motion No. 009
1 of 8 [* 1] INDEX NO. 156744/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 412 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/11/2025
TGT holds a $9.8 million judgment entered on October 25, 2019 against Jospeh
Meli and Advance Entertainment (Judgment Debtors) which as of August 2020
increased to $10 million including interest. (Index No. 650633/2017, NYSCEF Doc. No.
[NYSCEF] 462, Judgment.)
On October 1, 2020, TGT served Richard Meli, Joseph Meli’s father, with
subpoenas duces tecum and ad testificandum. On February 18, 2022, Justice Edmead
directed Richard Meli to comply with the subpoena. (NYSCEF 111, Edmead Order.)
On July 12, 2024, the court issued a contempt order against Richard Meli fining
him $349,500 because the 4JS Trust account balance declined by that amount between
February 2022 and October 2022. (NYSCEF 205, Decision and Order at 17-19.)
According to the court’s records, Piliero appeared for Richard Meli on March 8,
2022. The court rejects Piliero’s argument that his representation began in June 2022.
During that time, TGT asserts that $155,000 was dissipated from the judgment debtor’s
assets.2 Piliero’s representation terminated in September 2024. (NYSCEF 262,
September 1, 2024 Decision and Order.)
TGT seeks to hold Piliero responsible for aiding and abetting Richard Meli’s
contempt asserting that Piliero (1) violated the Rules of Professional Conduct by giving
Richard Meli legal advice that the trust documents were not responsive to Justice
Edmead’s order or the subpoena when they were; (2) failed to advise Richard Meli to
stop deletion of emails, WhatsApp messages, and signal messages when Richard Meli
2Piliero counters that the trust records show that as of June 24, 2022, the 4JS Trust only had a balance of $11,728, which declined to $478.99 by October 2022. (See Index No. 153682/2023, NYSCEF 6, 4JS Trust Bank Statements at 101-01, 112.) Since the court finds that Piliero’s representation began in March 2022, the court rejects Piliero’s argument. 156744/2020 TGT, LLC vs. MELI, RICHARD Page 2 of 8 Motion No. 009
2 of 8 [* 2] INDEX NO. 156744/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 412 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/11/2025
informed Piliero that he was deleting his communications or having communications
deleted by automatic evaporation;3 (3) failed to issue a litigation hold; (4) directed the
dismemberment of 198 documents in a 20,000-page document dump, defending it
when the vendor challenged the dismemberment, and then, when asked by the court to
explain the disorganized July 29, 2022 production, referring to technical errors and
blaming the e-discovery vendor. (NYSCEF 190, Piliero May 23, 2023 tr at 12:16-21;
NYSCEF 170, Richard Meli aff ¶12 at 15 [submitting Richard Meli affidavit in which Meli
states “I don’t know how to respond to the claim that the document production may have
been disorganized, other than to point out there were a large volume of documents
produced in a rush”].)
One “who assists another in a violation of judicial mandate can be equally as
guilty of contempt as the primary contemnor.” (McCormick v Axelrod, 59 NY2d 574,
584 [1983] [citations omitted]; see Pala Assets Holdings Ltd. v Rolta, LLC, 205 AD3d
457, 458 [1st Dept 2022] [fining a nonparty $10,000 per day for a four-month period
because the nonparty assisted a debtor in “disobey[ing]” and “evad[ing] compliance
with” a “turnover order”].)
To hold parties or nonparties in contempt, movants must satisfy the requirements
of Judiciary Law § 753: (1) a determination “that a lawful order of the court, clearly
expressing an unequivocal mandate, was in effect”; (2) the “appear[ance], with
reasonable certainty, that the order has been disobeyed”; (3) “knowledge of the court's
order” by “the party to be held in contempt”; and (4) “prejudice to the right of a party to
the litigation.” (El-Dehdan v El-Dehdan, 26 NY3d 19, 29 [2015] [internal quotation
3 See NYSCEF 255, Richard Meli aff; NYSCEF 256, Piliero aff. 156744/2020 TGT, LLC vs. MELI, RICHARD Page 3 of 8 Motion No. 009
3 of 8 [* 3] INDEX NO. 156744/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 412 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/11/2025
marks omitted].) “Although the contempt punishment is not available for the general
enforcement of money judgments[,] it does serve as the sanction to implement several
of the devices that Article 52 of the CPLR offers to aid in the money judgment
enforcement process.” (Home Heating Oil Corp. v Parris, 65 Misc 3d 1216[A], 2019 NY
Slip Op 51663[U], *4 [Civ Ct, Kings County 2019] [emphasis, citation, and internal
quotation marks omitted].) “The power to punish a judgment debtor for civil contempt
resides in” the court issuing the judgment, and “Section 753 et seq. of the Judiciary Law
provide that the punishment may take the forms of fine and commitment.” (Sure Fire
Fuel Corp. v Martinez, 75 Misc 2d 714, 715 [Civ Ct, NY County 1973].) For example,
“[t]he wilful failure to comply with [a] … payment order can render a judgment debtor
liable for punishment for contempt. Without this right there would be no power in the
court to enforce its order.” (Bank of Smithtown v Troy & Troy, P.C., 56 Misc 3d 1220[A],
2017 NY Slip Op 51107[U], *1 [Sup Ct, Suffolk County 2017] [citations omitted].) The
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
TGT, LLC v Meli 2025 NY Slip Op 32456(U) July 11, 2025 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. INDEX NO. 156744/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 412 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/11/2025
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK: COMMERCIAL DIVISION PART 48 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------X TGT, LLC, INDEX NO. 156744/2020
Plaintiff, MOTION DATE -- -v- MOTION SEQ. NO. 009 RICHARD MELI,
Defendant. DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------X
HON. ANDREA MASLEY:
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 009) 326, 327, 328, 329, 330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 338, 343, 345, 347, 348, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369, 370, 371, 372, 381, 382, 385, 386, 403 were read on this motion to/for CONTEMPT .
Plaintiff TGT LLC (TGT) moves by Order to Show Cause for an order (1) holding
Robert Piliero, Esq. and Robert Ontell, Esq.1 in contempt of this court’s orders dated
February 18, 2022, July 12, 2024 and other intervening and subsequent orders to
comply therewith; (2) directing Piliero to immediately pay the monetary sanction against
respondent, Piliero’s former client Richard Meli, of $349,500 and award of attorneys’
fees set forth in the July 12, 2024 order; (3) directing Ontell and Piliero to immediately
pay the award of attorneys’ fees associated with TGT counsel’s review of the July 2022
production of documents and judgment enforcement subpoena efforts made necessary
by the insufficiency of that production; and (4) directing Ontell and Piliero to pay TGT’s
attorneys’ fees incurred for this application.
1TGT asserts one significant wrongdoing by Ontell. Accordingly, this decision addresses Piliero except with regard to Ontell’s involvement in dismembering documents in a 20,000-page document dump. 156744/2020 TGT, LLC vs. MELI, RICHARD Page 1 of 8 Motion No. 009
1 of 8 [* 1] INDEX NO. 156744/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 412 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/11/2025
TGT holds a $9.8 million judgment entered on October 25, 2019 against Jospeh
Meli and Advance Entertainment (Judgment Debtors) which as of August 2020
increased to $10 million including interest. (Index No. 650633/2017, NYSCEF Doc. No.
[NYSCEF] 462, Judgment.)
On October 1, 2020, TGT served Richard Meli, Joseph Meli’s father, with
subpoenas duces tecum and ad testificandum. On February 18, 2022, Justice Edmead
directed Richard Meli to comply with the subpoena. (NYSCEF 111, Edmead Order.)
On July 12, 2024, the court issued a contempt order against Richard Meli fining
him $349,500 because the 4JS Trust account balance declined by that amount between
February 2022 and October 2022. (NYSCEF 205, Decision and Order at 17-19.)
According to the court’s records, Piliero appeared for Richard Meli on March 8,
2022. The court rejects Piliero’s argument that his representation began in June 2022.
During that time, TGT asserts that $155,000 was dissipated from the judgment debtor’s
assets.2 Piliero’s representation terminated in September 2024. (NYSCEF 262,
September 1, 2024 Decision and Order.)
TGT seeks to hold Piliero responsible for aiding and abetting Richard Meli’s
contempt asserting that Piliero (1) violated the Rules of Professional Conduct by giving
Richard Meli legal advice that the trust documents were not responsive to Justice
Edmead’s order or the subpoena when they were; (2) failed to advise Richard Meli to
stop deletion of emails, WhatsApp messages, and signal messages when Richard Meli
2Piliero counters that the trust records show that as of June 24, 2022, the 4JS Trust only had a balance of $11,728, which declined to $478.99 by October 2022. (See Index No. 153682/2023, NYSCEF 6, 4JS Trust Bank Statements at 101-01, 112.) Since the court finds that Piliero’s representation began in March 2022, the court rejects Piliero’s argument. 156744/2020 TGT, LLC vs. MELI, RICHARD Page 2 of 8 Motion No. 009
2 of 8 [* 2] INDEX NO. 156744/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 412 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/11/2025
informed Piliero that he was deleting his communications or having communications
deleted by automatic evaporation;3 (3) failed to issue a litigation hold; (4) directed the
dismemberment of 198 documents in a 20,000-page document dump, defending it
when the vendor challenged the dismemberment, and then, when asked by the court to
explain the disorganized July 29, 2022 production, referring to technical errors and
blaming the e-discovery vendor. (NYSCEF 190, Piliero May 23, 2023 tr at 12:16-21;
NYSCEF 170, Richard Meli aff ¶12 at 15 [submitting Richard Meli affidavit in which Meli
states “I don’t know how to respond to the claim that the document production may have
been disorganized, other than to point out there were a large volume of documents
produced in a rush”].)
One “who assists another in a violation of judicial mandate can be equally as
guilty of contempt as the primary contemnor.” (McCormick v Axelrod, 59 NY2d 574,
584 [1983] [citations omitted]; see Pala Assets Holdings Ltd. v Rolta, LLC, 205 AD3d
457, 458 [1st Dept 2022] [fining a nonparty $10,000 per day for a four-month period
because the nonparty assisted a debtor in “disobey[ing]” and “evad[ing] compliance
with” a “turnover order”].)
To hold parties or nonparties in contempt, movants must satisfy the requirements
of Judiciary Law § 753: (1) a determination “that a lawful order of the court, clearly
expressing an unequivocal mandate, was in effect”; (2) the “appear[ance], with
reasonable certainty, that the order has been disobeyed”; (3) “knowledge of the court's
order” by “the party to be held in contempt”; and (4) “prejudice to the right of a party to
the litigation.” (El-Dehdan v El-Dehdan, 26 NY3d 19, 29 [2015] [internal quotation
3 See NYSCEF 255, Richard Meli aff; NYSCEF 256, Piliero aff. 156744/2020 TGT, LLC vs. MELI, RICHARD Page 3 of 8 Motion No. 009
3 of 8 [* 3] INDEX NO. 156744/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 412 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/11/2025
marks omitted].) “Although the contempt punishment is not available for the general
enforcement of money judgments[,] it does serve as the sanction to implement several
of the devices that Article 52 of the CPLR offers to aid in the money judgment
enforcement process.” (Home Heating Oil Corp. v Parris, 65 Misc 3d 1216[A], 2019 NY
Slip Op 51663[U], *4 [Civ Ct, Kings County 2019] [emphasis, citation, and internal
quotation marks omitted].) “The power to punish a judgment debtor for civil contempt
resides in” the court issuing the judgment, and “Section 753 et seq. of the Judiciary Law
provide that the punishment may take the forms of fine and commitment.” (Sure Fire
Fuel Corp. v Martinez, 75 Misc 2d 714, 715 [Civ Ct, NY County 1973].) For example,
“[t]he wilful failure to comply with [a] … payment order can render a judgment debtor
liable for punishment for contempt. Without this right there would be no power in the
court to enforce its order.” (Bank of Smithtown v Troy & Troy, P.C., 56 Misc 3d 1220[A],
2017 NY Slip Op 51107[U], *1 [Sup Ct, Suffolk County 2017] [citations omitted].) The
power to hold a debtor and those who assist the debtor liable is essential to the integrity
of the judicial system and the Rule of Law.
Judiciary Law § 773 provides for a fine calculated on the “actual loss or injury …
caused to a party” by the violation of the order by “the offender” while at the same time
requiring a fine “sufficient to indemnify the aggrieved party.” (Judiciary Law § 773.)
In addition to contempt, plaintiff asserts fraud on the court. (See CDR Créances
S.A.S. v Cohen, 23 NY3d 307, 323-24 [2014] [defendants “intended to undermine the
New York actions in which plaintiff sought to discover and procure the concealed
proceeds of the loan agreement” and thereby “prejudiced the plaintiff by impeding its
ability to obtain true discovery and forcing plaintiff to spend enormous amounts of
156744/2020 TGT, LLC vs. MELI, RICHARD Page 4 of 8 Motion No. 009
4 of 8 [* 4] INDEX NO. 156744/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 412 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/11/2025
money and time to prove its case”].) Fraud on the court involves persistent
misrepresentations that go to the heart of the dispute before the court. (Id. 319 [lying at
a deposition, destroying potentially critical evidence, and misleading the defendant to
prevent the deposition of a material witness]; see also e.g. Williams v Scafidi, 205 AD3d
1175, 1177-79 [3d Dept 2022] [presenting forged document regarding sale in property
dispute and lying about it], lv denied 39 NY3d 902 [2022]; Jingyi Ni v Shenlaw, LLC, 83
Misc 3d 1283[A], 2024 NY Slip Op 51148[U], *3 [Sup Ct, NY County 2024] [presenting
fabricated exhibits]; Midland Funding LLC v Austinnam, 46 Misc 3d 1207[A], 2015 NY
Slip Op 50010[U], *7-8 [Mount Vernon City Ct, 2015] [finding attorneys engaged in
conduct “tantamount . . . to perpetrat[ing] a fraud upon the Court” by bringing a meritless
case, obtaining a baseless default judgment, and repeatedly making false statements];
Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp. v Raia, 29 Misc 3d 1226[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 52003[U],
*4 [Nassau Dist Ct, 1st Dist 2010] [fining attorney sanctionable for fraud on the court].)
It is undisputed that the court’s orders were valid and that Piliero was aware of
them; the evidence is overwhelming. The question is whether his advocacy violated
those orders. This motion raises the question of when a lawyer crosses the line from
giving advice to aiding and abetting a client’s contemptuous conduct.
The court found that Piliero’s advice concerning trust documents was wrong,4 but
that is not enough, alone, to support contempt. Moreover, Piliero’s violation of
professional or ethical rules alone would not suffice to hold him in contempt. (See New
York State Off. of Victim Servs. v Robinson, 151 AD3d 1515, 1516 [3d Dept 2017]5; see
4NYSCEF 205, July 12, 2024 Decision and Order. 5When in Part 48, counsel for Piliero and Ontell is directed to follow the custom and practice of citing cases by plaintiff’s name. 156744/2020 TGT, LLC vs. MELI, RICHARD Page 5 of 8 Motion No. 009
5 of 8 [* 5] INDEX NO. 156744/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 412 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/11/2025
also Tel Oil Co. Inc. v City of Schenectady, 292 AD2d 725, 726 [3d Dept 2002].) As to
Piliero’s failures regarding Richard Meli’s deletion of communications, again the court
finds that Piliero was wrong, but such negligence, alone, is not contempt. Finally, as to
the document dump with dismembered documents, Piliero’s overt actions (directing the
dismemberment and saying otherwise to this court) crossed the line from attorney to
participant. This was not a failure in how the documents were originally kept. (See
H.P.S. Mgmt. Co. v St. Paul Surplus Lines Ins. Co., 127 AD3d 1018, 1019 [2d Dept
2015].) The court cannot find that Piliero’s conduct was a “careless” statement, but a
calculated strategy. Taken together, the court finds that overall Piliero’s conduct is
unprofessional and will be punished.
Finally, the court finds that TGT was harmed by the amount of legal fees incurred
in organizing the document dump and chasing Richard Meli to comply with court orders.
TGT shall submit an affirmation of services targeted at Piliero’s conduct and for which
TGT has not already been reimbursed by Richard Me
Obviously, the court rejects Pilliero’s excuses. (NYSCEF 348, Piliero aff;
NYSCEF 372, Piliero aff correcting misstatement in NYSCEF 348.) Piliero’s argument
blaming TGT for Piliero’s sharp practice is particularly objectionable. (NYSCEF 347,
Piliero’s MOL at 20/21.) This is a variation of victim blaming, pure and simple. It
normalizes bad behavior and undermines justice. It will not be countenanced by this
court.
While contempt could certainly be found here, the court finds that the appropriate
remedy is to sanction Piliero for his overall improper litigation conduct under Rules of
the Chief Administrator of the Courts (22 NYCRR) Part 130 which limits the sanction to
156744/2020 TGT, LLC vs. MELI, RICHARD Page 6 of 8 Motion No. 009
6 of 8 [* 6] INDEX NO. 156744/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 412 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/11/2025
$10,000 against an attorney for any single occurrence of frivolous conduct. (See Rules
of Chief Admr of Cts [22 NYCRR] §§ 130-1.1, 130-1.2.) In addition, Piliero shall pay
TGT’s legal fees caused by such conduct. (Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp., 29 Misc 3d
1226[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 52003[U], *4 [Nassau Dist Ct, 1st Dist 2010] [finding fraud on
the court and imposing attorneys’ fees and a sanction under Part 130].) While TGT
relies on different authority for the penalty sought, the court finds that Rule 130 is the
appropriate legal basis. (Cf. Yemini v Sharpe, 128 AD3d 687, 688 [1st Dept 2015]
[rejecting a claim of fraud on the court, and finding that any sanctions to be made on
counsel for “discourteous” behavior should have been made through a motion in
compliance with CPLR §§ 2214 or 2215].) Ontell’s participation in the dismemberment
is also sanctionable; he should have advocated against it and refused. The court finds
that a Rule 130 fine and reimbursement of legal fees is proportionate.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED, that TGT’s motion is granted, in part, to the extent that Piliero and
Ontel are found to have engaged in frivolous conduct; and it is further
ORDERED that Piliero, without any charge to his client, is hereby sanctioned in
the amount of $10,000, payable to the Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection, 119
Washington Avenue, Albany, New York 12210, info@nylawfund.org, (800) 442-3863,
within 30 days of service of a copy of this order with notice of entry; and it is further
ORDERED that Ontell, without any charge to his client, is hereby sanctioned in
the amount of $500, payable to the Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection, 119
Washington Avenue, Albany, New York 12210, info@nylawfund.org, (800) 442-3863,
within 30 days of service of a copy of this order with notice of entry; and it is further
156744/2020 TGT, LLC vs. MELI, RICHARD Page 7 of 8 Motion No. 009
7 of 8 [* 7] INDEX NO. 156744/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 412 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/11/2025
ORDERED that written proof of the payment of these sanctions be provided to
the Clerk of Part 48 and opposing counsel within 35 days after service of a copy of this
order with notice of entry; and it is further
ORDERED that, in the event that such proof of payment is not provided in a
timely manner, the Clerk of the Court, upon service upon him of a copy of this order with
notice of entry and the Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection’s affirmation or affidavit
reciting the fact of such non-payment, shall enter judgments in favor of the Lawyers’
Fund for Client Protection and against Piliero and Ontell in the aforesaid sums; and it is
further
ORDERED that such service upon the Clerk of the Court and the Clerk of the
Part be made in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Protocol on Courthouse
and County Clerk Procedures for Electronically Filed Cases (accessible at the “E-Filing”
page on the court’s website); and it is further
ORDERED that Piliero and Ontell shall forward a copy of this order to the
Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection; and it is further
ORDERED that within 30 days, TGT shall submit an affirmation of services
targeted at the increased costs that it incurred as a result of Piliero’s unprofessional
conduct. Piliero may submit opposition within 14 days thereafter.
7/11/2025 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
156744/2020 TGT, LLC vs. MELI, RICHARD Page 8 of 8 Motion No. 009
8 of 8 [* 8]