Matter of Redacted v Redacted

Supreme Court, Kings County

Decided on May 26, 2026

Index No. [redacted]

Aaron D. Maslow, J.

The within two special proceedings concerned a rabbinical arbitration award of the Beth Din of America dated November 22, 2023, which construed a comprehensive postnuptial agreement dated September 5, 2022, entered into between [Redacted] and [Redacted]. The arbitration award confirmed the validity of the postnuptial agreement, declaring that it should serve as the basis for the distribution of the parties' marital property and the dissolution of their marriage. The husband was ordered to give the wife a get (Jewish divorce document) within 10 days of the award and to pay the wife $250 per day until the get was given.

On December 19, 2023, the husband commenced one of the within special proceedings, seeking to vacate the beth din's award, alleging misconduct on the part of the beth din in that it issued an irrational decision and refused to permit the husband to present evidence surrounding the circumstances under which the postnuptial agreement was entered into.

On March 8, 2024, the wife commenced the other special proceeding, seeking to confirm the aforesaid beth din arbitration award.

Over the course of over 30 days during the period of March 18, 2024 to August 11, 2025, the Court conducted an evidentiary hearing with respect to the September 5, 2022 postnuptial agreement, more specifically the circumstances under which it was entered into. The husband's position was that he was pressured into signing it under threats, and the wife's position being that it was voluntarily entered into following many years of her being the victim of spousal abuse. Besides hearing testimony from both the husband and wife, the husband called several witnesses, including some of their children, to testify on his behalf.

In or around October 2025, the Court was informed that the special proceedings had been settled and stipulations of discontinuance were entered into.

One final matter remains, however. During the course of his testimony, the husband testified that he had surreptitiously recorded his wife, using a voice-actuated device placed in their car. By attaching the device to his computer, he was able to listen to recordings of her phone calls with others, including with [*2]another man whom he accused of intruding into their marriage.^FN1

It turned out that when together with a friend in the car the wife became aware that what she thought was merely a cell phone charger actually doubled as a recording device. The wife was outraged and it was a concern of hers that conversations she had with one or more attorneys might have been recorded along with all the other conversations she had over her phone while driving in the car.

On one of the earlier days of the Court hearing, June 14, 2024, during cross-examination of the husband, the wife's first attorney, Daniel Nottes, Esq., attempted to place into evidence what he claimed was the recording device. The device appeared to be a cell phone charger and imprinted on it was "POWER BATTERY PACK MADE IN KOREA." The object was marked as Respondent's Exhibit D for Identification. Questioned about the device by Mr. Nottes in an attempt to lay a foundation for its admission into evidence as an exhibit, the husband declined to attest that the subject device was the actual one he had planted in the car; he stated that it looked like the device but he was not certain. Therefore, the device was not admitted into evidence at that point in the hearing.

On days when hearings in these proceedings were conducted, it was in the courtroom. Otherwise, it was vouchered with the Operations Unit in the courthouse for safekeeping. However, after June 14, 2024, at no point in the hearing, which continued on different dates through 2024 and into 2025, did the wife's attorneys — neither the original one, Mr. Nottes, nor her second one, Elliot J. Rosner, Esq., of the firm of Offit Kurman — lay a foundation for its admission into evidence, even through the wife's own testimony. The device remained marked for identification only.

On a date subsequent to June 14, 2024, the Court evinced a concern that the device might have recorded in-court proceedings or conversations between the Court and staff. The wife's then attorney, Daniel Nottes, Esq., likewise evinced concern that the device had recorded conversations of his also inasmuch as the device had been in his possession prior to it being introduced in court during cross-examination of the husband.

With the conclusion of the two special proceedings through a stipulation of discontinuance having been filed in October 2025, the recording device marked as Respondent's Exhibit D for Identification remained in the possession of the Operations Unit.^FN2

Earlier this year, the Court felt it was time to dispose of the numerous papers in the case, packed into about eight boxes, including the exhibits, documents marked for identification, and other written submissions, inasmuch as they were taking up a lot of space. The Court retrieved the recording device from the Operations Unit. The attorneys for the parties were sent an inquiry concerning the disposition of everything — whether they wanted the return of their respective exhibits, other documents marked for identification, and written submissions.

Nobody sought return of papers. However, Mr. Nottes, the wife's original attorney, emailed the Court, indicating that he wanted to retrieve the device.^FN3 This was opposed by Mr. Rosner, her second attorney. In an effort to resolve the matter, the Court scheduled a hearing to consider how to dispose of the device so that it would no longer be in the Court's possession. The hearing was conducted on May 20, 2026. The husband was represented by Keith A. Lazere, Esq., of the firm of Anderson Kill P.C., which had represented the husband throughout the pendency of the special proceedings. The wife was represented by Mr. Rosner. Mr. Nottes did not attend.

At the hearing, the Court connected the device to a computer. Present on the device were numerous audio files with dates ranging from May 26, 2022 to July 13, 2022. This time period preceded commencement of the within special proceedings, the first of which was filed on December 19, 2023. The audio files themselves were not played. Not knowing when Mr. Nottes had come into possession of the recording device from his client, the wife — who had discovered it in the car — the Court does not know if the audio files date back to when Mr. Nottes was retained. Therefore, the Court is unable to confirm whether or not Mr. Nottes was recorded.

In any event, it is time for the recording device marked as Respondent's Exhibit D for Identification to leave the custody of the Court and for the boxes of materials submitted to the Court to be shredded. The two sides do not want their exhibits, documents marked for identification, and written submissions returned. Messrs. Lazere and Rosner informed the Court that the settlement of the special proceedings included destruction of the recording device but nothing in writing to that effect has been [*3]presented to the Court.

In the normal course of events, parties are charged with retrieving their exhibits from the court and the failure to do so will result in their being discarded (e.g. City of New York v Elizabeth St., Inc., 82 Misc 3d 1246[A], 2024 NY Slip Op. 50548[U] [Civ Ct, NY County 2024]; White Mgt. Corp. v Aley, 77 Misc 3d 1235[A], 2023 NY Slip Op 50100[U] [Sup Ct, Albany County 2023]; Vicari v 36 Avenue Realty LLC, 2013 NY Slip Op 32848[U] [Sup Ct, Queens County 2013]). The recording device was never admitted into evidence but remained an object marked for identification. Even so, the Court is of the view that the device should not be disposed of in the usual manner of placing it in the trash for pick-up and transmittal to a shredding company. The device presumably contains audio files of conversations of the wife which of course she does not want anyone to hear.

In resolving the dispute over who is entitled to receipt of the recording device, the Court turns to the law governing personal property.

When the recording device was left in the car by the husband, it was subject to being found by the wife. As such the Court deems it to have presumptively been "lost property" "unless is established in an action or proceeding commenced within six months after the date of the finding that the property is not lost property" (Personal Property Law § 251 [3]). It could be argued that when originally found, the wife should have deposited it with the police (see id. § 252 [1]^FN4). However, since the husband did not claim ownership of the property through an action or proceeding within six months after it was found, it is presumed that the husband waived any right to claim it as his (see id.; Simmons v Safir, 276 AD2d 544 [2d Dept 2000]). While the recording device presumably was the husband's, his failure to acknowledge it on cross-examination as the device he placed in the car confirms to the Court that he disclaimed any right to ownership.

The recording device being neither lost property nor abandoned property presently, the Court relies on the common law rule that "the owner of a thing may abandon it, and he who gains possession thereof may thereupon become the owner of it" (Graham v Purcell, 126 AD 407 [2d Dept 1908]; see Foulke v New York Consol. R.R. Co., 228 NY 269 [1920]). The wife gained possession of the recording device, so it [*4]is hers.

Under such circumstances, the Court finds that the subject recording device belongs to the wife, especially since it is her conversations which presumably form the majority if not all of the recordings contained on it. Certainly her right is superior to that of her first attorney in these special proceedings, Mr. Nottes.

Accordingly, the Court affords the wife the opportunity to retrieve the recording device marked as Exhibit D for Identification. Either she or someone authorized by her shall contact the Court to make arrangements to retrieve it.

The foregoing constitutes the decision and order of the Court.