FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/22/2023 07:21 PM INDEX NO.

154637/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/22/2023

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

COUNTY OF NEW YORK
--------------------------------------------------------------- X

In the Matter of the Application of

MADISON SQUARE GARDEN ENTERTAINMENT

CORP., MSG ARENA LLC, MSG BEACON LLC, and
RADIO CITY PRODUCTIONS LLC, Index No.

Petitioners, PETITION

For an Order Pursuant to CPLR 2308(b) Compelling

Compliance with Subpoena Duces Tecum Against:

VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,

Respondent.
---------------------------------------------------------------- X

Petitioners Madison Square Garden Entertainment Corp., MSG Arena LLC, MSG Beacon

LLC, and Radio City Productions LLC (together, “MSG”), by and through their undersigned

counsel, bring this Petition seeking relief against Respondent Verizon Communications, Inc.

(“Verizon”) pursuant to Civil Procedure Law and Rule (“CPLR”) 2308(b), alleges as follows:

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. This motion seeks to compel the production of cellphone records from Charles

Stravalle, a part-time investigator for the New York State Liquor Authority (“SLA”). The records

will show that the SLA is acting outside its statutory authority and, worse, is acting on the direction

of private attorneys with an axe to grind. In short, the records will demonstrate that administrative

charges filed against MSG by the SLA are outside its lawful authority. While the relief sought is

simple, the facts require explication because the evidentiary record against the SLA’s collusion is

already extensive, including that the SLA blocked Respondent Verizon from complying with this

subpoena—as Respondent Verizon repeatedly said it intended to do—to obstruct MSG’s defense.

In short, the SLA does not want these records produced.

1 of 31
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/22/2023 07:21 PM INDEX NO. 154637/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/22/2023

2. The reason is straightforward: the SLA is misusing its enforcement powers at the

behest of politically influential lawyers, who sued MSG (some repeatedly) and have thus been

excluded from MSG’s events while that litigation is pending. Angered and motivated, those

lawyers prevailed on the SLA to conduct an inherently compromised investigation of MSG,

culminating in filing bogus administrative charges. These charges threaten to strip MSG of its

State-issued liquor licenses integral to its business. There is zero legal basis for them. No rule

within the Alcohol Beverage Control Law requires MSG to admit every member of the public, let

alone lawyers in adversarial proceedings against the company.

3. Although MSG has cooperated and produced documents and witnesses in the

SLA’s investigation, it has long argued that this investigation is a sham. Recently produced text

messages between the SLA’s lead investigator, Charles Stravalle, and these connected attorneys

show that the investigation was compromised from the start.

4. This SLA’s “investigation” and the resulting administrative charges relate to an

MSG internal corporate policy that temporarily excludes some lawyers from MSG’s venues while

their law firms are actively pursuing litigation against MSG (the “Venue Policy”).

5. The plaintiffs’ attorneys, affected by the Venue Policy, have sought to weaponize

the SLA to harass MSG and threaten the loss of MSG’s liquor licenses, and the collusion between

the SLA and these attorneys is without question. While MSG has cooperated with the SLA’s

rigged investigation for half a year, the SLA has stone-walled MSG’s attempts to obtain any

documents and information that could prove helpful to MSG. Very recently though, the SLA

produced documents, including text messages, in response to a subpoena served by MSG.

6. While the SLA only produced a small sliver of the documents requested, even that

small production lays bare the collusion between these plaintiffs’ attorneys and the SLA.

2 of 31
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/22/2023 07:21 PM INDEX NO. 154637/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/22/2023

Specifically, these documents show that Stravalle coordinated with these attorneys to build a case

against MSG, colluding to obtain information to challenge the Venue Policy, conspiring to meet

before and after events held at MSG with the intent of orchestrating a scene that could be used in

that challenge, sending Stravalle recorded audio from these scenes, asking Stravalle what he

“need[s] by way of followup?”, and coordinating sting operations at then-MSG affiliated entities.

The nature of Stravalle’s relationship with these attorneys is made all the more apparent by the

personal bent of some of these text messages—including selfies and one of the attorneys sending

Stravalle a shirtless photograph of himself in his “Younger Days,” with Stravalle replying “Nice.”

7. The very fact that Stravalle was communicating with these lawyers at all is highly

suspect. These communications violated the SLA’s own policy that “[c]ommunity members who

make complaints are not entitled to receive updates about their complaint or any information

concerning an ongoing investigation.” 1

8. Worse still, when the plaintiffs’ lawyers informed Stravalle that an MSG affiliate

(the “Affiliate”) was not enforcing the Venue Policy, Stravalle, eager to please these lawyers,

decided to conduct a surprise raid of the Affiliate to try to find other violations to add pressure to

MSG to retract the Venue Policy. To do that, he lied to the New York State Department of Health

to get one of its health inspectors to join the raid party, claiming the inspection was due to an

incident outside the venue when, in fact, Stravalle’s investigation was based on the Venue Policy.

Likewise, DHC lied to the New York Post when confronted with its apparent collusion, stating

that MSG is “delusional” to believe that DHC has “somehow coordinated with the SLA.” DHC

said MSG’s allegation of collusion was “pure fiction.” When asked a similar question by the Post

1
File a Complaint, N.Y. State Liquor Authority, https://sla.ny.gov/file-complaint.

3 of 31
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/22/2023 07:21 PM INDEX NO. 154637/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/22/2023

reporter, DSS evaded the question entirely. 2 These lies were necessary to conceal the simple

reality: the SLA undertook this whole effort as a favor to politically connected lawyers, not

because of any genuine authority.

9. These messages are only a fraction of what MSG requested, but they show that the

SLA’s investigation was tainted from the beginning, throwing into question all actions taken by

the SLA related to MSG and the Venue Policy. But MSG needs the phone records it subpoenaed

from Respondent Verizon to be able to more fully understand how deep this collusion and

corruption goes, and how high the deck was stacked against MSG from the start.

NATURE OF PROCEEDING

10. The SLA has conjured up an arbitrary legal theory that MSG’s implementation of

the Venue Policy violates SLA rules. But the SLA’s theory is without basis, as MSG’s Venue

Policy is based on a longstanding common-law right of private venue operators to impose certain

limits on access to their premises. The SLA claims that MSG’s venues are no longer “bona fide

premises” that are “open to the public,” in violation of undefined and vague SLA rules. This is

ridiculous. The Venue Policy affects less than 0.8% percent of New York lawyers and less than

0.01% of all New Yorkers, and MSG continues to admit more than 5 million patrons a

year. MSG’s venues are obviously “open to the public.”

11. The SLA’s actions are a textbook example of an agency operating outside of its

lawful authority. It is beyond selective enforcement; it is ultra vires. At the behest of the plaintiffs’

lawyers discussed above, the SLA has abandoned its mandate (promoting temperance) to misuse

its authority to pressure a private venue operator into dropping a lawful policy that the lawyers

2
Jon Levin, Brew Hoo! State Moves to Strip Madison Square Garden of Liquor License, N.Y.
Post (Mar. 11, 2023), https://nypost.com/2023/03/11/liquor-authority-moves-to-strip-madison-
square-garden-of-liquor-license/.

4 of 31
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/22/2023 07:21 PM INDEX NO. 154637/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/22/2023

dislike. The SLA is on record giving special favors to the very law firm that has complained about

the Venue Policy the loudest, Davidoff Hutcher & Citron (“DHC”). Indeed, DHC is among the

“Top 60 New York State Lobbyists.” 3 DHC has an active SLA practice; in a high-profile matter

involving a large entertainment venue, the Chairman of the SLA was reported saying he was

“putting his neck on the line” to grant DHC’s client a liquor license, even though the Chairman

was not “100% comfortable” doing so, “because of the background that [DHC] ha[s].” 4

12. The SLA has long succumbed to outside influence, dating back to its creation.

Recently, in 2009, a grand jury investigated “[m]oney and bribes” at the SLA that investigators

stated “flowed freely” and reporters described as “rampant.” 5 And in 2020, 25 State Senators

issued an open letter, calling on the SLA to “cut back on the exorbitant fines and create due process

for restaurant owners.” 6 It is no surprise abuses would happen again here.

13. The SLA is now seeking to make MSG answer its manufactured charges in a rigged

administrative law proceeding before the SLA. After the law firms prevailed upon Stravalle and

the SLA to go after MSG’s liquor licenses, the SLA launched its investigation, made serial and

ever-changing document demands, insisted upon deposing MSG’s most senior executive,

3
See Top 60 New York State Lobbyists 2022, City & State (Aug. 22, 2022),
https://www.cityandstateny.com/power-lists/2022/08/top-60-new-york-state-lobbyists-
2022/375969/.
4
Anna Codrea-Rado, The Story of NYC’s Biggest Music Venue That Almost Never
Happened, Vice (Apr. 11, 2017), https://www.vice.com/en/article/jpze4p/cityfox-brooklyn-
mirage-reopening-new-york-nightlife.
5
Kerry Burke, ‘Money and Bribes Flowed Freely,’ Says Prober After State Liquor Office Raid
in Harlem, Daily News (Apr. 9, 2009), https://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/money-bribes-
flowed-freely-prober-state-liquor-office-raid-harlem-article-1.360862.
6
Letter from State Senator Jessica Ramos et al. to New York State Liquor Authority
Commissioners and Chairman, Cloister E., Inc. v. N.Y. State Liquor Authority, No. 20-cv-6545
(S.D.N.Y. Aug. 26, 2020), ECF No. 49-1.

5 of 31
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/22/2023 07:21 PM INDEX NO. 154637/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/22/2023

conducted a pretextual raid on MSG-owned premises, and brought administrative charges

imperiling MSG’s liquor licenses. The SLA did all of this before it had even received all the

information and documents it demanded, further underscoring the pretextual nature of its

“investigation.”

14. While MSG has bent over backwards for the SLA’s morphing discovery demands,

the SLA has sought to strong-arm MSG’s attempt to defend itself. MSG requested tailored

discoverable material from Respondent Verizon (the “Subpoena”), namely, the cellphone records

of the SLA investigator, Charles Stravalle, who played the central role in pursuing the SLA’s ultra

vires agenda. There can be no question that the records are relevant to MSG’s defense of the

charges, as the records are plainly relevant to the potential collusion between the aggrieved lawyers

and the SLA’s lead investigator.

15. The need for these records is even clearer given new evidence that came to light

recently. On May 11, 2023, MSG obtained emails and text messages from the SLA. These

documents cover only a small fraction of the documents and time period MSG requested, and there

are large temporal gaps in the communications that are highly questionable. But, even with these

red flags, these messages are extraordinary—they show a continual stream of communications

between Stravalle and these plaintiffs’ lawyers that confirm not only the suspected collusion

between the SLA and plaintiffs’ firms but that each step of the SLA’s “investigation” was tainted.

These texts were not only highly personal, including shirtless photographs of one of the attorneys

in his “Younger Days” (see below) but they also show that Stravalle and these attorneys actively

conspired to create various scenarios to challenge MSG’s policy.

6 of 31
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/22/2023 07:21 PM INDEX NO. 154637/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/22/2023

16. For example, on December 15, 2022—when the SLA’s investigation was just

beginning—Stravalle texted (including texting selfies) and met with a lawyer from DHC, William

Mack, and with a lawyer, Samuel Davis, from the firm that filed a complaint about the Venue

Policy with the SLA, Davis, Saperstein & Salomon (“DSS”). Stravalle, Mack, and Davis met at

Madison Square Garden to orchestrate and record a confrontation with security personnel if Davis

and Mack were denied entry pursuant to the Venue Policy. One week later, Davis visited one of

the Affiliate’s restaurants (the “Target Restaurant”) at Stravalle’s urging (“I will need the info on

whether attorneys are being denied entry into … [Affiliate] restaurants as well” and “affidavits of

being denied entry into restaurants”, and still to another attorney Stravalle asked “were you able

to . . . think about patronizing [an Affiliate] restaurant to see if the exclusion extends there?”). The

purpose of Davis’s visit was to create and document a scene for Stravalle. Davis texted selfies to

Stravalle, noting that “[t]hey did not stop me” and asking “[w]hat do you need by way of

followup?” And two weeks after that, on January 5, 2023, Stravalle emailed Mack to ask that he

7 of 31
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/22/2023 07:21 PM INDEX NO. 154637/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/22/2023

also “try[] to eat at [the restaurant] or one of the other [Affiliate restaurants] that we discussed” as

part of “part two.” Mack offered to “send someone in to see if they get tossed.”

17. Not only do these text messages show that the root of the SLA’s investigation was

rotten from the word go, compromising the investigation in its entirety, but that also underscore

MSG’s need to obtain Stravalle’s phone logs from Respondent Verizon. These SLA-produced

messages only cover half of the time period MSG requested (from June 2022 to present, but the

documents and messages only begin in December 2022) and were produced in a questionable

manner. For example, rather than producing the documents and messages to MSG with metadata

and in a forensically verifiable format, the SLA produced hand-picked screenshots of text

messages that Stravalle elected to capture and send to the SLA, and even in these screen-shot

messages there were suspicious weeks-long gaps in time between texts. MSG needs additional

discovery—including the discovery sought here—to help uncover the full extent of coordination

between Stravalle and the lawyers and assist in filling in these questionable gaps.

18. Importantly, Respondent Verizon does not object to the content or the burden of

the Subpoena. Respondent Verizon was prepared to produce the relevant records until the SLA

brought an improper motion seeking a protective order before the Administrative Law Judge

(“ALJ”) in the SLA’s administrative proceeding. Respondent Verizon stated that it will not

comply with the Subpoena until a Court orders it to do so.

19. For that reason, MSG now brings this action to ask this Court to compel Respondent

Verizon to produce the subpoenaed call logs. The Subpoena is a legitimate and targeted request

for basic information—phone numbers for incoming and outgoing calls leading up to and during

the SLA’s investigation of MSG—highly relevant to MSG’s defense in the matter before the ALJ.

8 of 31
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/22/2023 07:21 PM INDEX NO. 154637/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/22/2023

PARTIES

20. Petitioner Madison Square Garden Entertainment Corp. is an entertainment

company based in New York City that owns or operates event venues such as Madison Square

Garden, The Theater at Madison Square Garden (formerly the Hulu Theater), Radio City Music

Hall, the Beacon Theater, and the Chicago Theatre (collectively, the “MSG Venues”). Madison

Square Garden is home to the New York Knicks and the New York Rangers.

21. Petitioner MSG Arena LLC is a limited liability company based in New York City

that holds certain on-premises liquor licenses issued by the SLA.

22. Petitioner MSG Beacon LLC is a limited liability company based in New York City

that holds certain on-premises liquor licenses issued by the SLA.

23. Petitioner Radio City Productions LLC is a limited liability company based in New

York City that holds certain on-premises liquor licenses issued by the SLA.
24. Respondent Verizon Communications, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its

principal place of business in New York City.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

25. The Court has jurisdiction over this proceeding pursuant to CPLR 2308(b).

26. Venue is proper in New York County, pursuant to CPLR 503(c), because

Respondent Verizon is authorized to transact business in the State and has its principal office in

New York County.

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

27. In June 2022, MSG adopted the Venue Policy, which temporarily excludes some

lawyers from its venues while their firms are actively pursuing litigation against MSG. The Venue

Policy was adopted pursuant to longstanding New York law, which provides that tickets to attend

events at venues are merely licenses revocable at will, and MSG therefore has discretion to exclude

9 of 31
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/22/2023 07:21 PM INDEX NO. 154637/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/22/2023

individuals from its premises “for any reason or no reason at all.” Oakley v. MSG Networks, No.

17-CV-6903 (RJS), 2021 WL 5180229, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 8, 2021).

28. After MSG implemented the Venue Policy, two plaintiffs’ law firms, DHC and

DSS, coordinated to weaponize a state agency, the SLA, to “investigate” and file baseless charges

against MSG. DSS submitted a complaint to the SLA, and DHC used its substantial political

influence with the SLA to spur an investigation that was contaminated by corruption at inception.

29. What ensued was a bizarre, multi-pronged, and rushed “investigation,” with the

SLA filing a set of four charges before even receiving the documents it had requested from MSG.

As a result of the SLA’s overreach, MSG was compelled to seek relief from the Supreme Court of

the State of New York pursuant to CPLR Article 78. Ex. A (Amended Verified Petition). 7 Below,

we provide a summary of the SLA’s farce “investigation,” including the highly incriminating

evidence that MSG has that private lawyers coopted the SLA to do their bidding. (For additional

details of the SLA’s misconduct, see the allegations in Exhibit A.)

I. The SLA Charged MSG Under Extremely Suspicious Circumstances.

30. Three plaintiffs’ law firms filed suits against MSG challenging the Venue Policy.

When they were unsuccessful in immediately getting the Venue Policy overturned by the courts,

one of the firms, DSS, filed a complaint with the SLA. DSS coordinated with DHC to weaponize

the SLA through their political and social relationships with various SLA employees (described in

detail in Exhibit A) and push the SLA to conduct dirty investigation with a predetermined outcome.

31. This investigation was led by Charles Stravalle, who sent capricious document

demands, repeatedly moving the goal posts on the types of documents he wanted, their format, and

7
Exhibits referenced herein refer to Exhibits attached to the accompanying Affirmation of Jim
Walden in Support of MSG’s Petition to Compel.

10

10 of 31
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/22/2023 07:21 PM INDEX NO. 154637/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/22/2023

when he needed them by. Aside from demanding scores of documents, the SLA also demanded

an interview with MSG’s Chairman and CEO, James Dolan. While MSG explained that other

persons were better suited to answer the SLA’s questions about the implementation of the Venue

Policy than MSG’s highest executive, the SLA refused to consider these alternatives, steadfastly

insisting on Mr. Dolan. MSG cooperated fully with the SLA, producing documents, logs,

spreadsheets, and both Mr. Dolan and a senior MSG executive for an interview. But, despite this,

the SLA elected to file charges against MSG before it had even been provided with the documents

it purported to need.

32. The SLA did this because the outcome of its “investigation” was predetermined, as

the investigation was compromised from the second Stravalle began his coordination with the

plaintiffs’ attorney—that is, from the very beginning. Stravalle pursued the firms’ agenda by

levying invasive documents requests and insisting on interviewing MSG’s Chairman in an effort

to get MSG to discontinue the Venue Policy—a feather in the SLA’s cap—while the plaintiffs’

firms would gain press coverage and notoriety.

33. The SLA’s efforts to harass were not directed at MSG alone. As mentioned above,

Stravalle coordinated with the law firms to target restaurants affiliated with and partially owned,

at the time, by MSG. Stravalle and the plaintiffs’ attorneys coordinated beginning at least on

December 20, 2022, to target “affiliated [] restaurants” with Stravalle explicitly telling these

attorneys that he preferred to “witness the turn away” at the Target Restaurant, in order to

maximize the case to be made against MSG. Two days later, on December 22, 2022, Davis

executed on the plan, going to the Target Restaurant to see if he would be excluded from the

property, interrogating the restaurant’s staff members about the Venue Policy, texting Stravalle

selfies while at dinner, and asking Stravalle “[w]hat do you need by way of followup?”

11

11 of 31
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/22/2023 07:21 PM INDEX NO. 154637/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/22/2023

34. On February 15, 2023, no doubt displeased that the plan with the plaintiffs’

attorneys did not result in a “turn away” from the Target Restaurant, Stravalle decided to show up

at the Target Restaurant himself, wearing a body camera, along with an N.Y.P.D. officer in the

Vice Unit and a public health inspector. The reason Stravalle gave for his and the officer’s

appearance was clearly pretextual—to investigate a fight that had occurred outside the restaurant

four days earlier—as that reason has nothing to do with the mandate of a public health inspector.

Stravalle thereby lied to the State Department of Health (“DOH”) when he asked for someone to

“assist” him with “an inspection” of the Target Restaurant because “[t]here was” an incident there

“over the weekend.” Ex. B (Stravalle Email Dated February 15, 2023). In fact, Stravalle had a

different agenda: to stage a “turn away.” Clearly, Stravalle was searching for an incident to occur

at the Target Restaurant so he could gain access, albeit with flimsy authority at best.

35. While at the Target Restaurant, Stravalle harassed the staff, threatened the Target

Restaurant’s senior representative that the representative was “attempting to impede [Stravalle’s]

investigation,” and proceeding to write up 33 petty violations and threatened the restaurant with

license revocation. The SLA filed charges against the restaurant two days later.

36. On February 21, 2023, the SLA sent Notices of Pleading to three MSG entities

detailing charges. As noted above, the SLA issued these charges before it had even received

responses to all its discovery demands. The SLA’s irrational and harassing approach betrays not

only its real motives but the overall rotten nature of the investigation.

II. In Defense of the SLA Charges, MSG Intends to Assert that the SLA Acted
Outside Its Statutory Authority.

37. As a result of its collusion with the plaintiffs’ law firms, the SLA found itself

operating well outside of its statutory mandate in bringing charges against MSG. The premise of

SLA’s charges—that the MSG venues are no longer “open to the public” under SLA Rule

12

12 of 31
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/22/2023 07:21 PM INDEX NO. 154637/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/22/2023

53.1(d)—cannot withstand even cursory scrutiny. The legislature created the SLA to promote

temperance and protect the public from the dangers of alcohol. The SLA cannot conceivably

explain how its attack on the Venue Policy accomplishes this overarching goal.

38. Thus, in asserting a defense to the SLA’s bogus charges, MSG intends to show how

the influence of the plaintiffs’ law firms has compromised and contaminated the SLA’s

investigative and charging procedures. To that end, MSG hired a private investigator (a common

and lawful practice). When the SLA learned of this, it immediately mobilized a licensing arm of

State government (in record time) to threaten this private investigator. Specifically, the

Department of State’s Division of Licensing Services (“DLS”) demanded that MSG’s private

investigator disclose confidential information about his client, details about the work he had done,

and the reasons for his investigation. If he refused, DLS threatened to revoke his license. DLS

admitted it was demanding this information at the behest of the SLA. And when the private

investigator informed the State’s licensing arm that the information it was seeking was subject to

a non-disclosure agreement, DLS demanded he provide the information anyway, again invoking

threats, and once again evidencing the government’s abuse of power here.

39. In addition, to gather evidence of the apparent collusion, MSG issued the Subpoena

for the SLA investigator’s phone records, which would reveal his coordination with the law firms.

The SLA has likewise tried to thwart this valid and legitimate avenue of discovery for MSG. These

phone logs will help fill the glaring holes in the SLA’s production, as it is apparent from the texts

and emails MSG obtained that these parties had spoken before the texts or emails were first sent,

and that they spoke frequently over the course of the investigation.

13

13 of 31
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/22/2023 07:21 PM INDEX NO. 154637/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/22/2023

III. MSG Serves a Subpoena on Respondent Verizon for Stravalle’s Call Logs to
Gather Additional Evidence of Collusion with the Law Firms.

40. To substantiate that the SLA is operating outside of its mandate, MSG has sought

additional evidence of the collusion between the SLA and the plaintiffs’ law firms who appear to

be driving this compromised investigation. On February 28, 2023, MSG served a subpoena duces

tecum on Respondent Verizon demanding the call logs for Stravalle’s personal phone: “any and

all records relating to [Stravalle’s phone number] for the period September 1, 2022, though the

present, including the time, date, duration, and destination/origin phone number for all

incoming/outgoing calls.” Ex. C (Subpoena Duces Tecum with Proof of Service).

41. MSG notified the SLA of the Subpoena the same day.

42. On March 2, 2023, the SLA’s counsel emailed MSG’s counsel, Jim Walden, that

the SLA objects to the Subpoena and requested that MSG withdraw the Subpoena. Ex. D (Frering

Email Dated March 2, 2023). Walden responded that MSG would not. Ex. D.

43. On March 3, 2023, Respondent Verizon sent a letter to Walden that Respondent

Verizon was in receipt of the Subpoena and would produce the requested records in approximately

10 business days from the date of the letter if it did not receive a motion relating to the Subpoena.

Ex. E (Verizon Letter Dated March 3, 2023).

44. On March 8, 2023, the SLA faxed a motion for a protective order dated March 6,

2023, directed to the “Hearing Bureau”—namely, the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) in the

SLA proceeding where charges had been filed against MSG. Ex. F (SLA’s Motion for a Protective

Order”). The SLA’s motion contained no return date; it set the return date as “a time to be

determined by the Hearing Bureau.” On the date MSG received the SLA’s motion, MSG was not

aware whether an ALJ had yet been assigned to the administrative proceeding.

14

14 of 31
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/22/2023 07:21 PM INDEX NO. 154637/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/22/2023

45. A cover letter to Respondent Verizon was attached to the SLA’s motion. The cover

letter stated (incorrectly) that the motion “automatically suspends any disclosure to the Subpoena

in the [administrative proceedings], pending application for a protective order, pursuant to NYS

CPLR 3103(a) and (b).” Ex. F.

46. In response to this letter, on March 13, 2023, Walden sent a letter to Respondent

Verizon explaining that the SLA’s motion did not automatically stay Respondent Verizon’s

obligation to comply with the Subpoena. Ex. G (Walden Letter Dated March 13, 2023). The letter

explained that the SLA’s motion was filed in the wrong forum, and the SLA lacked standing to

challenge the motion. The SLA’s motion is effectively a motion to quash the subpoena under the

guise of a motion for a protective order, which has now, according to the SLA and Respondent

Verizon, purportedly stayed the Subpoena for an indefinite period.

47. On March 17, 2023, Walden called counsel for Respondent Verizon regarding

Respondent Verizon’s letter of March 13, 2023. On the call, and in a follow-up email, counsel for

Respondent Verizon confirmed that Respondent Verizon did not intend to comply with the

Subpoena until there had been a ruling on the SLA’s motion for a protective order. Ex. H (Verizon

Email Dated March 17, 2023).

48. On March 17, 2023, MSG learned that an ALJ had been assigned to the proceeding.

Counsel for the SLA emailed the SLA’s motion for a protective order to the ALJ, requesting a

briefing schedule. Ex. I (Ammirato Email Dated March 17, 2023). Walden responded that the

motion was submitted to the wrong forum and notified the ALJ that MSG had a forthcoming

hearing on its Article 78 petition seeking to enjoin and void the SLA’s charges. 8

8
On March 30, 2023, the Court denied MSG’s petition and granted the SLA’s cross-motion to
dismiss. Decision & Order, Madison Square Garden Ent’t Corp et al. v. N.Y. State Liquor Auth.

15

15 of 31
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/22/2023 07:21 PM INDEX NO. 154637/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/22/2023

49. Because this Court is the proper venue to compel or modify a Subpoena, MSG now

seeks an order from this Court compelling Respondent Verizon to comply with its obligations to

produce the limited phone records demanded in the Subpoena.

IV. After Serving Respondent Verizon, MSG Obtains Explosive Evidence of Collusion.

50. On April 28 and May 1, 2023, MSG served subpoenas on Stravalle and the SLA,

respectively. In response, on May 11, 2023, the SLA produced text messages and emails, though

only for half the time period requested, and only a small fraction of the requested documents. Even

the little information the SLA elected to produce revealed what MSG had long suspected: that

Stravalle and the lawyers from DHC and DSS were colluding to take down the Venue Policy,

compromising the SLA’s “investigation” from the very start. In addition to the undue collusion

(in violation of the SLA’s own policy), the messages and emails further show that Stravalle lied to

the State Department of Health (“DOH”), and that DHC lied to the New York Post. The SLA’s

investigation and charges against MSG are rotten at their core.

51. Texts between Stravalle and DHC lawyer, William Mack, and between Stravalle

and DSS lawyer, Samuel Davis, show how they prearranged a meeting at Madison Square Garden

to devise a confrontation with security where Davis and Mack would be denied entry. Stravalle

advised Davis specifically to ask security to be served liquor during the recorded confrontation so

that the SLA would have a hook to challenge the Venue Policy. Specifically:

a. December 15, 2022: About two weeks after MSG received the SLA’s “Letter
of Advice” from the SLA, Stravalle met with Mack and Davis at or near
Madison Square Garden. Mack and Davis had tickets for a Rangers game and
planned to instigate and record encounters with the venue’s security if they were
denied entry pursuant to the Venue Policy. See Ex. J (Texts with Davis); Ex. K
(Texts with Mack); Ex. L (Stravalle, DHC, and DSS Emails).

et al., Index No. 152318/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Mar. 30, 2023), NYSCEF No. 49. MSG filed an
application for an expedited appeal of this decision on May 1, 2023, which is pending.

16

16 of 31
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/22/2023 07:21 PM INDEX NO. 154637/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/22/2023

At 4:21 PM, Stravalle texted Davis “I’m heading to Manhattan now” and a
selfie, and Davis replied with Mack’s contact information and a time and
location: “Corner of 29 and 7th at 6:30.” At 6:11 PM, Mack separately texted
Stravalle a picture of a Rangers ticket and the message, “Hey Charlie it’s [B]ill
Mack. I’m almost there.”

Stravalle first met with Mack, replying “I am at the front door,” then provided
Mack with instructions: “[s]end me the audio file from the conversation with
security too.” Mack responded with the voice recording and that he had
“written out [his] recollection of everything that happened and will put it all in
the affidavit.” Stravalle then met with Davis, who asked around 6:11 PM “[a]re
you good with Bill Mack? I will be there at 7:30 [PM] to make my entrance,”
and Stravalle replied “[w]ith him now” then “Ok, finished with Mack.”
Stravalle instructed Davis to “[m]eet me in Penn 7th and 32 downstairs so we
can talk.”

Davis likewise recorded his encounter with venue security. Davis’s recording
(which MSG has obtained, but not yet Mack’s recording) shows Davis asking
security to have a “drink” at “one of the NYS license beverage dispensers,” per
Stravalle’s instruction. Ex. M (Davis Recording).

52. The trio’s next target was the Target Restaurant. Stravalle asked Davis and Mack

multiple times to visit the Target Restaurant to set up a confrontation. After Davis visited, and

nothing happened, Stravalle then asked Mack to go. At the same time, MSG itself represented to

Stravalle multiple times that the Venue Policy did not extend to the Affiliate’s restaurants, and

ultimately represented to Stravalle that the Venue Policy was withdrawn entirely for firms with

lawsuits against the Affiliate. None of that was enough for Stravalle. He eventually orchestrated

his own raid, as explained supra ¶¶ 33-35. Specifically:

a. December 20, 2022: Five days later, Stravalle texted Mack about “patronizing
[an Affiliate] restaurant to see if the exclusion extends there?” Mack responded
that he was away but go sometime “between Christmas and New Year’s.”
Stravalle advised that he preferred to “witness the turn away” and suggested to
Mack that “you probably would have to show the letter and get turned away,”
referring to the letter that MSG sent to law firms notifying them of the Venue
Policy. The same day, Stravalle also updated Davis that “no one is available to
visit a restaurant” because Mack “is out of Town until next week,” and Stravalle
further asked if “there [is] anyone else?”

17

17 of 31
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/22/2023 07:21 PM INDEX NO. 154637/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/22/2023

b. December 23, 2022: Three days later, Davis visited the Target Restaurant and
texted photos to Stravalle—including more selfies—noting that “[t]hey did not
stop me” and further coordinating with Stravalle, asking “[w]hat do you need
by way of followup?”

c. January 5, 2023: Stravalle again asks Mack to “try[] to eat at [the Target
Restaurant] or one of the other [Affiliate restaurants] that we discussed.”
Stravalle referred to eating at the Target Restaurant as “part two.” In response,
Mack offered to “send someone in to see if they get tossed.” As explained in
the previous section, Stravalle himself eventually visited the Target Restaurant
and issued frivolous health code citations.

d. January 13, 2023: MSG represented to Stravalle that the Venue Policy is not
enforced at the Affiliate (which owns the Target Restaurant).

e. January 25, 2023: MSG repeated this representation at Stravalle’s insistence,

making it abundantly clear that the Venue Policy does not prohibit attorneys
from dining at the Affiliate’s restaurants.

f. February 6, 2023: MSG withdrew the Venue Policy as applied to law firms in
litigation against the MSG then-affiliate.

g. February 15, 2023: Stravalle lies to the DOH to deputize one of its inspectors
in a pretextual raid of the Target Restaurant, stating that there was an incident
there “over the weekend,” to make his “inspection” appear legitimate.

53. Stravalle and the lawyers’ collusion is also apparent in more subtle ways from these

messages and emails. Davis and Stravalle apparently have a cozy relationship predating their

recent collusion against MSG. Stravalle emailed Davis on February 1, 2023, to request the

complaint from a “dram shop case”—which Davis’s firm specializes in—that “settled in 2010”

while asking Davis what prompted the Venue Policy in the first place, to which Davis replied: “He

is a control/power freak who needs to crush dissent,” apparently referring to Mr. Dolan. There

were also selfies and other photos exchanged between Stravalle and these plaintiffs’ attorneys as

well as other photos—including the shirtless photo of Davis from his “Younger Days” captured

above. The nature of these communications, their familiarity, and the collusion between Stravalle

and the plaintiffs’ attorneys show that the SLA’s investigation was anything but honest.

18

18 of 31
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/22/2023 07:21 PM INDEX NO. 154637/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/22/2023

54. Further, Davis, Mack, and other lawyers from their firms regularly sent information

to Stravalle. Joseph Polito, a lawyer at DHC, email Stravalle on January 26, 2023, a link to Mr.

Dolan’s interview on Fox5: “Thought you might be interested,” Polito wrote, “in the fox news

piece this morning with Jim Dolan, particularly his attack on the SLA at the 9 minute mark.” In

this same thread, Davis asked Polito to email Stravalle pleadings from DHC’s lawsuit against

MSG, which Stravalle had requested. On February 24, 2023, Davis emailed Stravalle a link to

Davis’s City Council testimony about facial recognition. (Facial recognition was one of the

topics—irrelevant to the SLA’s purported concerns about the Venue Policy—that Stravalle had

questioned Mr. Dolan about earlier that month.) For months, from December through March 2023,

Davis or representatives from his firm emailed or referred Stravalle to complaints, articles,

affidavits, pleadings, and Davis’s recording from the Garden, often on email threads copying or

communicating with lawyers from DHC.

55. There is no doubt that Stravalle and the plaintiffs’ firms coordinated to undermine

the Venue Policy—the question now is only, to what extent. It is to answer this question that MSG

now seeks to compel production from Respondent Verizon of Stravalle’s call logs.

ARGUMENT

56. Respondent Verizon has acknowledged receipt of the Subpoena and indicated no

intent to move to quash. In fact, Respondent Verizon stated that it will “comply with any valid

court order enforcing” the Subpoena, understanding MSG may seek to “enforc[e] the subpoena in

a court of appropriate jurisdiction.”

57. But Respondent Verizon refused to comply with the Subpoena for one reason: that

the SLA moved for a protective order in the ALJ proceeding. Respondent Verizon indicated that

it will “await a decision from the adjudicator in the matter (or an agreement by the parties) before

producing any records.”

19

19 of 31
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/22/2023 07:21 PM INDEX NO. 154637/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/22/2023

58. There is no basis for Respondent Verizon’s refusal to comply. The SLA’s motion

did not automatically stay Respondent Verizon’s obligations, as it was filed in the wrong forum.

Indeed, the SLA’s own motion “recognize[s] that it is unusual to present such a motion in this

[administrative] tribunal.” The Subpoena was lawfully issued and seeks targeted records

unquestionably relevant to MSG’s defenses against the SLA’s farce of a prosecution. Respondent

Verizon must comply.

I. The Subpoena Is Valid and Authorized.

59. The Subpoena is a valid non-judicial subpoena authorized by statute, the applicable

rules and regulations, and the CPLR. Having been properly served, Respondent Verizon is now

obligated to comply with the Subpoena’s demands.

60. New York allows parties in an administrative proceeding to issue authorized non-

judicial subpoenas, which can be enforced by the Supreme Court in cases of non-compliance.

CPLR 2308(b) provides, in relevant part, that “[u]nless otherwise provided, if a person fails to

comply with a subpoena which is not returnable in a court, the issuer or the person on whose behalf

the subpoena was issued may move in the supreme court to compel compliance. If the court finds

that the subpoena was authorized, it shall order compliance.”

61. MSG is authorized to issue the Subpoena pursuant to SLA Rule 54.3, New York

Compilation of Codes Rules & Regulations of the State of New York (“NYCRR”), Title 9, § 54.3.

Rule 54.3 establishes the rules of disciplinary proceedings under the SLA and provides authority

to a licensee to issue subpoenas under the SLA Chairman’s authority:

[a]ny licensee desiring to subpoena a witness may do so in the name of the

Chairman of the State Liquor Authority and in the manner provided for subpoenas
in the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules. If evidence other than oral
testimony is required, such as documents or written data, the subpoena shall set
forth the specific to be produced.
9 NYCRR 54.3(h).

20

20 of 31
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/22/2023 07:21 PM INDEX NO. 154637/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/22/2023

62. The SLA’s authority to issue subpoenas is established under the Alcoholic

Beverage Control Law (“ABC Law”), which sets forth the SLA’s power to “hold hearings,

subpoena witnesses, compel their attendance, administer oaths, to examine any person under oath

and in connection therewith to require the production of any books or papers relative to the

inquiry.” ABC Law § 17. CPLR 2302 provides that “[s]ubpoenas may be issued without a court

order by . . . an attorney of record for a party to an . . . administrative proceeding.” CPLR 2302(a).

63. The SLA’s rules and related statutes thus permit a party in an administrative

proceeding currently pending before the SLA, such as MSG, to issue subpoenas to parties and non-

parties alike in accordance with the CPLR. See Empire Wine & Spirits LLC v. Colon, 145 A.D.3d

1157, 1158 (3d Dep’t 2016) (“[I]t is undisputed that petitioner was authorized by SLA’s

regulations to issue the subpoenas” (citing 9 NYCRR 54.3(h) and CPLR 2302(a)). For example,

in Broadalbin Cent. Sch. Dist. v. Cerrone, 92 A.D.2d 1058 (3d Dep’t 1983), the court found that

where relevant agency rules and statutes authorize parties to subpoena witnesses, that power also

extends to the issuance of subpoenas duces tecum in an administrative proceeding. Id. at 1059.

Moreover, that power extends even where a rule is silent with respect to document subpoenas. Id.

64. Those principles are on all fours here. A fair administrative hearing requires giving

MSG an opportunity to gather information for its defense—an opportunity required by the ABC

Law and SLA rules. As it stands, however, MSG’s administrative hearing could not be more

lopsided. MSG spent months in a back-and-forth on shifting document demands with Stravalle

and the SLA. MSG voluntarily produced hundreds of documents, made its CEO available to

interview, and assembled detailed spreadsheets for the SLA compiling information from business

records—solely for the purpose of producing to the SLA. When MSG made a single, targeted

request to Respondent Verizon, the SLA balked.

21

21 of 31
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/22/2023 07:21 PM INDEX NO. 154637/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/22/2023

65. MSG has properly issued the Subpoena to Respondent Verizon. But Respondent

Verizon has refused to comply. As the allotted time of twenty days to respond has elapsed, see

CPLR 3120(2), MSG’s motion to compel is ripe for consideration by this Court.

II. The Subpoena Seeks Discovery Relevant and Material to MSG’s Defenses.

66. The Subpoena seeks permissible discovery relevant to MSG’s defenses that the

SLA’s charges against MSG exceed the SLA’s authority. This discovery will help MSG defend

itself in an ultra vires proceeding that a cadre of law firms with a grudge against the Venue Policy

have unduly influenced. The stakes here are high. New York courts have recognized the gravity

of such harms—the time, distraction, cost, and other tolls of defending oneself in a futile ultra

vires proceeding. Att’y Gen. of State v. Simon, 27 Misc. 3d 546, 548 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2010). 9 And

the SLA has tried to cripple MSG’s ability to seek discovery by (i) coordinating with the DLS to

threaten and interrogate MSG’s investigator and (ii) producing documents in “screenshotted” form

without metadata or in a forensically verifiable format.

67. The validity of the Subpoena here turns on whether the requested records are

relevant to MSG’s defenses under New York’s liberal standard of relevance. See, e.g., N.Y. State

Senate Republican Campaign Comm. v. Sugarman, 165 A.D.3d 1536, 1539 (3d Dept. 2018)

9
The Supreme Court of the United States recently reaffirmed these principals in holding that a
district court has jurisdiction to hear challenges to an agency’s constitutional authority to move
forward with certain enforcement proceedings: “[w]hat makes the difference,” the Court
explained, “is the nature of the claims and accompanying harms that the parties are asserting . . .
the ‘here-and-now’ injury of subjection to an unconstitutionally structured decision making
process.” Axon Enter., Inc. v. Fed. Trade Comm’n, 143 S. Ct. 890, 904 (2023); see also Duka v.
S.E.C., 124 F. Supp. 3d 287, 288 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (being “forced into an unconstitutional
proceeding” and unable to recover damages from the agency is irreparable harm), vacated and
remanded on other grounds, 15-2732 (June 13, 2016). The harm of the SLA’s ultra vires
proceeding is of the same gravity and consequence.

22

22 of 31
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/22/2023 07:21 PM INDEX NO. 154637/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/22/2023

(finding the Court need not determine the merits of the case, only whether respondent provided an

adequate factual basis for issuance of the subject subpoenas).

68. The standards for discovery in New York are liberal and broad, permitting

discovery of “all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action.”

Montalvo v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., 81 A.D.3d 611, 612 (3d Dep’t 2011) (quotation omitted). A

party seeking discovery must establish only that the request is reasonably calculated to yield

information that is “material and necessary.” Forman v. Henkin, 30 N.Y.3d 656, 661 (2018).

69. Those words, “material and necessary,” are, according to the N.Y. Court of

Appeals, “to be interpreted liberally to require disclosure, upon request, of any facts bearing on

the controversy which will assist preparation for trial by sharpening the issues and reducing delay

and prolixity. The test is one of usefulness and reason.” Allen v. Crowell-Collier Pub. Co., 21

N.Y.2d 403, 406 (1968); see Kapon v. Koch, 23 N.Y.3d 32, 38 (2014) (“[s]o long as the disclosure

sought is relevant to the prosecution or defense of an action, it must be provided by the nonparty.”).

70. In addition, “New York discovery rules do not condition a party’s receipt of

disclosure on a showing that the items the party seeks actually exist; rather, the request need only

be appropriately tailored and reasonably calculated to yield relevant information. Indeed, as the

name suggests, the purpose of discovery is to determine if material relevant to a claim or defense

exists.” Forman, 30 N.Y.3d at 656 (emphasis added). As such, discovery requests “must be

evaluated on a case-by-case basis with due regard for the strong policy supporting open disclosure

. . . .” Id. at 662 (quotation omitted). A mere “good faith showing of some factual predicate

suggesting that the documents that have been requested are reasonably likely to contain the

information being sought” is sufficient to establish relevancy. Matter of Niagara Mohawk Power

Corp. v. Town of Moreau Assessor, 8 A.D.3d 935, 937 (3d Dept. 2004) (quotation omitted).

23

23 of 31
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/22/2023 07:21 PM INDEX NO. 154637/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/22/2023

71. Here, the Subpoena requests records that may reasonably lead to evidence that is

relevant to the SLA’s defense that the SLA’s proceeding against MSG is an ultra vires action. The

requested records are relevant to proving that the SLA’s charges come not from a concern to

enforce the ABC Law, but rather result from a common scheme involving the SLA and outside

law firms to pressure MSG into revoking its adverse attorney policy. There is no question undue

coordination happened, as the communications between law firm and SLA representative show

trying to “set up” MSG at its various venues demonstrates. The question—for which the phone

logs sought here are highly probative—is how deep did that collusion go.

72. Two plaintiffs’ firms stand out: DHC and DSS. DHC filed the first lawsuit against

MSG challenging its Venue Policy and, ever since, has been leading the charge to pressure MSG

to end this policy through the SLA’s compromised investigation. 10 Then, DSS, apparently in

communication with DHC, submitted a complaint to the SLA that ultimately led to the charges

against MSG over its Venue Policy. And DHC apparently knew from DSS what was going on

because, within days of the SLA’s “Letter of Advice” to a private party (MSG) launching its

investigation of the Venue Policy, DHC got ahold of that letter and publicly disclosed it in court

filings. Indeed, DHC’s influence over the SLA is well-documented. 11

10
See Kris Rhim, Suing Madison Square Garden? Forget About Your Knicks Tickets, N.Y.
Times (Oct. 13, 2022), https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/13/sports/lawsuit-msg-lawyers-
banned-knicks-rangers.html.
11
For example, Alexander Victor, DHC’s partner in its Restaurant and Hospitality Practice
Group, regularly appears before the SLA and comments in articles on agency developments. And
Steve Malito, the head of DHC’s Government Relations Practice Group, represents the liquor
retailer interest group, Metropolitan Package Store Association (“Metro”), as its chief lobbyist.
On its homepage, Metro states that it “provides a strong voice for independent liquor retailers
through our lobbyist, Steve Malito,” and “a member-funded Political Action Fund.” Metro’s
homepage also boasts of its “long-standing relationship[]” with “the NYS Liquor Authority.”
Metropolitan Package Store Association - The Power of Membership: Together We Will Succeed!,
Metropolitan Package Store Association, https://www.metropsa.org/ (last visited May 22 2023);

24

24 of 31
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/22/2023 07:21 PM INDEX NO. 154637/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/22/2023

73. These lawyers then prevailed upon the SLA and Stravalle to go after MSG’s liquor

licenses. The texts and emails that the SLA produced show Stravalle coordinating with two

lawyers from DHC and DSS from the start of the “investigation,” setting up confrontations at the

Garden and MSG (then) affiliate restaurants with security. These lawyers recorded their

encounters at Stravalle’s request and offered ongoing “help” through the SLA’s purportedly

independent investigation of MSG. They executed this apparent sting in multiple parts—part one

being the Garden and “part two” being the Target Restaurant, which Stravalle himself visited again

with a Vice officer and public health inspector. Stravalle and Davis in particular appear to have a

long relationship, asking about details on cases from 2010, and Davis sharing highly personal

photos from his “Younger Days.” The law firms’ fingerprints are all over the SLA’s investigation.

The lawyers have either outright lied about their involvement (as in DHC’s statement to the New

York Post) or evaded answering the obvious questions about their collusion (as in DSS’s statement

in the same article). MSG is entitled to discovery probing how far it all goes.

74. Stravalle’s demands on MSG betrayed the illegitimate ends of the investigation.

He gave MSG impossible moving targets, subjected MSG’s most senior executive to a harassing

interview, and staged a pretextual raid on the Target Restaurant. Stravalle violated the SLA’s own

internal policy about communicating with customers. And, even worse, Stravalle lied about the

reason for his “inspection” of the Target Restaurant to the DOH. Fixated on trying to rope in the

Affiliate, and having no luck with the plaintiffs’ lawyers’ efforts, Stravalle concocted a plan to

stage a phony raid and provide an excuse to the DOH to lend his “inspection” a veil of credibility.

see also Meet Metro’s Lobbyist Steve Malito, Metro Package Store Association,
https://www.metropsa.org/page/MetrosLobbyist (last visited May 22, 2023); see also supra ¶ 11
(describing special favor by the SLA Chairman in obtaining venue license).

25

25 of 31
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/22/2023 07:21 PM INDEX NO. 154637/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/22/2023

75. The SLA ultimately front ran its own tainted investigation, rushing to file charges

while still pursuing and awaiting responses to pending requests, including a third-party subpoena

seeking confidential information in an unrelated Delaware litigation that MSG moved to quash as

defective. These facts serve as a foundational predicate for MSG’s Subpoena to Respondent

Verizon. The SLA’s rushed and ultra vires investigation, combined with the SLA’s known

contacts and relationships with the law firms make the lead SLA investigator’s phone records

highly relevant to discoverable and admissible evidence on MSG’s ultra vires defense.

III. The SLA’s Motion in the Administrative Proceeding Did Not Stay
Respondent Verizon’s Obligation to Comply with the Subpoena.

76. Respondent Verizon has refused to comply with the Subpoena, citing the SLA’s

motion for a protective order filed in the administrative proceeding against MSG. The SLA’s

motion, however, did not stay Respondent Verizon’s obligations, for three independent reasons:

(1) the SLA’s motion was not filed in the proper judicial forum; (2) the SLA lacks standing to

challenge the Subpoena, and (3) the SLA’s motion, in any event, has no merit. The SLA cannot

use a motion for a protective order to effectively quash the Subpoena in a forum that has no

jurisdiction to grant such relief.

1. The SLA Filed Its Motion in the Wrong Forum.

77. The SLA could have filed this motion in N.Y. Supreme Court, as required, but it

did not. The SLA rules clearly establish that subpoenas must be issued “in the manner provided

for subpoenas in the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules.” 9 NYCRR 54.3(h). Similarly,

ABC Law provides that “[a] subpoena issued under this section shall be regulated by the civil

practice law and rules.” ABC Law § 17(10).

78. The SLA brings its motion for a protective order under CPLR 3103. CPLR 3103

by its plain terms applies to the courts of the State of New York, not an administrative proceeding.

26

26 of 31
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/22/2023 07:21 PM INDEX NO. 154637/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/22/2023

See, e.g., CPLR 101 (“The civil practice law and rules shall govern the procedure in civil judicial

proceedings in all courts of the state and before all judges . . . .”). Yet, the SLA filed its motion in

an administrative proceeding instead. This distinction is important, as MSG is aware of no

authority to apply the automatic stay provisions of CPLR 3103 in the context of an administrative

action. In its motion, the SLA cites no such authority—not a single court.

79. The proper venue to adjudicate the Subpoena is N.Y. Supreme Court. In this

regard, the caselaw is quite clear. Where an agency’s statutes and rules establish that subpoenas

are “regulated” by the CPLR, New York courts have found that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction

to entertain a motion for relief. Derle Farms, Inc. v. Barber, 79 A.D.2d 1050, 1051 (3d Dept.

1981) (where statutory provisions stated that subpoenas issued thereunder should be “regulated”

by the CPLR, proper mechanism for testing subpoena was a motion to quash for a court to decide

upon); see also Matter of New York State Supreme Ct. Officers Assn. (SCOA) v. New York State

Unified Ct. Sys., 2 Misc. 3d 960 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2004); Silverman v. State Liquor Authority, 47

A.D.2d 226, 229 (2d Dept. 1975); In the Matter of Ruling on Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces

Tecum, 2006 WL 2446539, at *3 (N.Y. Dept. Environ. Cons. Aug. 17, 2006).

80. Here, the proper mechanism for testing the propriety of the Subpoena is by a motion

to quash pursuant to CPLR 2304, or alternatively, a motion to enforce compliance, pursuant to

CPLR 2308(b), which provides that, “[u]nless otherwise provided, if a person fails to comply with

a [non-judicial] subpoena which is not returnable in a court, the issuer or the person on whose

behalf the subpoena was issued may move in the supreme court to compel compliance.” CPLR

27

27 of 31
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/22/2023 07:21 PM INDEX NO. 154637/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/22/2023

2308(b); see also Empire Wine, 145 A.D.3d at 1157; Marius v. Leonard La Monica, Inc., 115

Misc. 2d 12, 12, 453 N.Y.S.2d 301, 301–02 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1982). 12

81. The Third Department has previously upheld an Albany County court order

compelling compliance with a wine retailer’s subpoena under CPLR 2308(b) pursuant to the same

provision of the SLA rules at issue here. Empire Wine, 145 A.D.3d at 1157. The Second

Department has similarly found that the relevant provision under ABC Law grants jurisdiction

over enforcement proceedings to the Supreme Court in accordance with the CPLR, which includes

mechanisms under CPLR 2308(b). See Silverman, 47 A.D.2d at 229 (“The statutes appear to be

quite clear. Subdivision 10 of section 17 of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law provides that

subpoenas issued under its provisions shall be regulated by the CPLR. The CPLR provides for a

specific manner of testing the validity and propriety of a subpoena. . . . If the party against whom

such a subpoena is issued fails to comply therewith, the issuing agency may seek to enforce it in

the Supreme Court and may, upon a finding that the subpoena is proper, seek to have the

subpoenaed party punished for contempt” (citing CPLR 2308(b)).

82. The First Department has also upheld an order directing compliance of a subpoena

issued in conjunction with administrative proceeding. In Dias v. Consol. Edison Co. of New York,

116 A.D.2d 453, 454 (1st Dept. 1986), movant served a subpoena duces tecum on his former

employer, Con Edison, seeking the production of personnel records in connection with his

administrative proceeding in the New York Division of Human Rights. When Con Edison refused

to comply, movant sought enforcement of the subpoena in Supreme Court. In rendering its

decision, the Court noted that movant had been “forced to make [the] motion in Supreme Court

12
The Court in Leonard La Monica quashed the licensee’s subpoenas for testimony because
licensee had failed to “come forward with some proof that the proffered object of the Authority’s
investigation [was] merely a sham.” 115 Misc. 2d at 15. Here, MSG has proffered abundant proof.

28

28 of 31
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/22/2023 07:21 PM INDEX NO. 154637/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/22/2023

seeking to compel compliance.” Dias, 116 A.D.2d at 454. This is because “upon a party’s failure

to comply with a non-judicial subpoena, CPLR 2308(b) permits that a motion be made in Supreme

Court to compel compliance.” Id. The Court made no mention of the possibility that the

documents could be obtained through the hearing officer in the proceeding.

83. For these reasons, the SLA’s motion for a protective order does not trigger the

automatic stay provisions of CPLR 3103. MSG is now seeking to enforce the Subpoena in N.Y.

Supreme Court, because that is the only method by which it can obtain relief.

2. The SLA’s Motion Has No Merit.

84. Even assuming the SLA had brought its challenge to this Court, the SLA has still

failed to show that Subpoena seeks records that are utterly irrelevant or futile to MSG’s defenses,

as the SLA must. SLA bears the burden of showing the discovery is not necessary, being the party

bringing the motion for a protective order. Vivitorian Corp. v. First Cent. Ins. Co., 203 A.D.2d

452, 453 (2d Dep’t 1994). The SLA cannot meet its burden.

85. A subpoena will be quashed “only where the futility of the process to uncover

anything legitimate is inevitable or obvious or where the information sought is utterly irrelevant

to any proper inquiry.” Empire Wine, 145 A.D.3d at 1159 (quotation omitted); see also Wells

Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Confino, 175 A.D.3d 533, 534–35 (2d Dep’t 2019); Richard R. v. State, 59

Misc. 3d 941, 950–51, 74 N.Y.S.3d 453, 460 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2018). Should the SLA alternatively

seek a protective order, the SLA must show how the subpoena is an unreasonable annoyance,

expense, embarrassment, disadvantage or other prejudice to Respondent Verizon, Stravalle, the

29

29 of 31
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/22/2023 07:21 PM INDEX NO. 154637/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/22/2023

SLA, or any other person. 13 CPLR 3103(a). For the reasons explained in Part II supra, the

Subpoena reasonably seeks records both material and relevant to MSG’s defenses.

CLAIM FOR RELIEF

86. MSG repeats and realleges each and every allegation in Paragraphs 1 through

Paragraph 85 as if set forth in full herein.

87. MSG was authorized to issue the Subpoena through its counsel, pursuant to SLA

Rule 54 and CPLR 2302. MSG properly effectuated service of the Subpoena on Respondent on

February 28, 2023. The Subpoena is lawful and valid.

88. The Subpoena demands records relevant to MSG’s defense in the administrative

proceeding that the SLA is acting outside its authority. Responsive records will potentially reveal

evidence of collusion between Investigator Stravalle and the plaintiffs’ law firms with a vendetta

against MSG because of the Venue Policy. Failure to obtain these records will deprive MSG of

its ability to meaningfully defend itself against the SLA’s improper administrative proceeding.

89. Respondent has refused to comply with the Subpoena, objecting that it will not

produce the demanded records until the SLA’s motion for a protective order is adjudicated by a

proper tribunal. The SLA improperly filed its motion for a protective order in the SLA’s

administrative proceeding against MSG. Because it was filed in the wrong forum, the SLA’s

13
To the extent Stravalle raises privacy objections relating to his phone records, such objections
are not proper grounds to prevent disclosure. See, e.g., AQ Asset Mgt. LLC v. Levine, 111 A.D.3d
245 (1st Dep’t 2013) (holding that a depositor has no interest in a bank’s records of his accounts
and thus no standing to challenge related subpoena); Royal Bank of Canada v. Solny, 2020 WL
922954, *1 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Feb. 26, 2020) (noting substantial body of New York law saying that a
depositor has no interest in a bank’s records of his accounts); Beckwith v. Erie Cnty. Water Auth.,
413 F. Supp. 2d 214, 224 (W.D.N.Y. 2006) (finding no privacy interest in cellphone records). The
parties further can easily mitigate any such privacy objections by, for example, limiting review of
the phone records to MSG’s attorneys.

30

30 of 31
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/22/2023 07:21 PM INDEX NO. 154637/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/22/2023

motion did not automatically stay the Subpoena under CPLR 3103, and no person, including

Respondent, has moved to quash the Subpoena in the proper forum.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, MSG respectfully requests that this Court issue an order, pursuant to

CPLR 2308(b):

A. Directing Respondent Verizon to produce to MSG all records responsive to the

Subpoena served on February 28, 2023, within three days of the Court’s Order;

B. Together with such and other relief as this Court deems just and proper.

Dated: New York, New York

May 22, 2023

WALDEN MACHT & HARAN LLP

By: ______________________
Jim Walden
Daniel Chirlin
Peter A. Devlin
250 Vesey Street, 27th Floor
New York, NY 10281
(212) 335-2030

Attorneys for Petitioners

31

31 of 31