LLC v. LLC BENJAMIN FARZAM (2026)

In this action on a commercial loan and guarantee, this court granted summary judgment to plaintiff against defendants in January 2024. (See NYSCEF No. 80.) In August 2024, the County Clerk entered judgment on this court's order against defendants, jointly and severally, for $1,903,366.57.¹ (See NYSCEF No. 84.) Plaintiff now moves to hold defendants, and non-party Julia Marques-Farzam (the wife of defendant Benjamin Farzam), in contempt for failing to respond (or respond adequately) to plaintiff's judgment-enforcement subpoenas. The motion is granted.

Neither Callvox nor Marques-Farzam responded to the subpoenas directed to them until after plaintiff brought this motion. Marques-Farzam states in opposing contempt that this delay "was not due to willful disobedience, but rather due to my not having counsel and me not knowing that my own individual responses were necessar[ily] separate from those of my spouse, Defendant Benjamin Farzam." (NYSCEF No. 106 at ¶ 3.) This explanation is unconvincing, in light of the fact that Marques-Farzam is not only a sophisticated businessperson, but also a licensed New York attorney.

Be that as it may, though, Farzam, Marques-Farzam, and Callvox have now responded to plaintiff's subpoenas, albeit belatedly. Those responses, however, do not render this motion academic. This court agrees with plaintiff that it is, at a minimum, deeply unlikely that the subpoena responses are accurate and complete.

Among other things, Farzam's response states that he and Marques-Farzam own a condominium apartment in Brooklyn Heights and hold membership interests in two other LLCs (see NYSCEF No. 109 at 6, Item No. 13; 7-8, Item No. 17);² and plaintiff has submitted copies of mortgages reflecting that those two LLCs themselves each own real property in Brooklyn (see NYSCEF No. 108). Yet Farzam also states that he currently has no bank accounts, no statements from now-closed accounts, no cash, no credit or debit cards, no securities, and no income of any kind. (See NYSCEF No. 109 at 2, Item No. 3; 2-3, Item No. 4; 4, Item Nos. 6, 8, 9; 5, Item No. 10; 8, Item No. 24.) And Marques-Farzam represents that she has no knowledge of any such assets or income held by Farzam, either. (See id. at 14, Item No. 3; 14-15, Item Nos. 6, 8, 9, 10; 18, Item No. 24.)

Additionally, Farzam, although producing redacted versions of the first page from federal tax return Forms 1040 for the 2021, 2022, and 2023 tax years (see NYSCEF No. 94 at 34-36), did not produce the supporting schedules or the accompanying Forms K-1 relating to the LLCs in which he holds ownership interests. And Callvox's subpoena responses (prepared by Farzam) represent that it has no corporate-bank-account statements (see NYSCEF No. 109 at 22, Item No. 4); and that as a result of its dissolution, it has no records of past contracts, invoices, and the like (see id. at 24-25, Item No. 11).

Given these obvious discrepancies and shortcomings, this court has little difficulty concluding that Farzam, Marques-Farzam, and Callvox all must supplement their subpoena responses. Farzam, Marques-Farzam, and Callvox must provide complete and accurate responses to all items in plaintiff's respective informational subpoenas directed to them; and must provide a detailed Jackson affidavit with respect to any subpoena item seeking records of which they say they lack possession (such as bank statements and corporate records). Farzam must also provide full tax returns for tax years 2021, 2022, and 2023, including supporting schedules and Forms K-1, with any redactions limited to non-financial personal information. These supplemented responses must be provided within 30 days of entry of this order.

Plaintiff also seeks damages for contempt. The court agrees that plaintiff is entitled to damages from defendants and from Marques-Farzam, in the amount of its reasonable attorney fees incurred in connection with seeking in this action to enforce the three subpoenas, from March 3, 2025, through June 24, 2025. The amount of those fees shall be determined by motion made on notice.

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to hold Callvox, Farzam, and Marques-Farzam in contempt is granted; and it is further

ORDERED that Callvox, Farzam, and Marques-Farzam must supplement their responses to plaintiff's post-judgment subpoenas to the extent indicated above; and it is further

ORDERED that plaintiff's request for damages suffered due to Callvox, Farzam, and Marques-Farzam's contempt is granted to the extent that plaintiff may recover its reasonable attorney fees incurred due to that contempt to the extent set forth above, with the amount of those fees to be determined by motion made on notice within 30 days of entry of this order, supported by appropriate documentation.

Dated: 4/9/2026

FOOTNOTES

1.   The Secretary of State's corporate records for defendant Callvox, of which this court may take judicial notice, reflect that it was dissolved in September 2024—within a month after entry of judgment in this action (see NYSCEF No. 84).

2.   As plaintiff points out, Farzam's initial subpoena response stated that he had no ownership interest in any other items or entities at all. (See NYSCEF No. 94 at 21.) Farzam does not explain the discrepancy between these two responses.

Gerald Lebovits, J.