United States Bankruptcy Court - Southern District of New York - Memorandum Decision and Order Denying Debtor’s Motion for Reconsideration

Sep 19, 2026

Upload by Ezra

Memorandum Decision and Order from the United States Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of New York, denying Sean M. Dunn’s motion for reconsideration. The Court addresses whether LAK3, LLC filed a 2019 Form 1099 to report $322,868 in income to the Debtor, and whether late correction to zero income violates the Settlement Agreement or Settlement Order. Applying a strict reconsideration standard, the decision rejects the Debtor’s arguments, including alleged judicial admission based on later corrected filing.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryLetters

FormatPDF

Pages9

Reading Time3 min

AccessFree to download

Introduction and Background

Dispute and Core Factual Question

Discussion

Legal Standard Governing Reconsideration

Judicial Admission

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------------x In re: Chapter 7 SEAN M. DUNN Case No. 18-36566 (KYP) Debtor. ---------------------------------------------------------------x MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER DENYING DEBTOR’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION APPEARANCES: CARLOS J. CUEVAS, ESQ. Counselfor the Debtor 1250 Central Park Avenue Yonkers, New York 10704 KIRBY AISNER & CURLEY LLPCo-Counsel for LAK3, LLC 700 Post Road Suite 237 Scarsdale, New York 10583 By: Julie Cvek Curley, Esq. Of Counsel AMINI LLC Co-Counsel for LAK3, LLC 131 West 35th Street, 12th Floor New York, New York 10001 By: Avery Samet Of Counsel HONORABLE KYU YOUNG PAEK UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND On August 11, 2025, the Court denied Sean M. Dunn’s (“Debtor”) motion to sanction LAK3, LLC (“LAK3”), and granted LAK3’s motion to exclude testimony of the Debtor’s accounting expert, by entering the Memorandum Decision and Order (1) Excluding Testimony of Brandon Lang, CPA, and (2) Denying Debtor’s Motion to Hold LAK3, LLC in Civil Contempt (“August 11 Decision”) (ECF Doc. \# 138) . 1 The Debtor now moves for reconsideration of the August 11 Decision (“Reconsideration Motion”), and LAK3 objects to the motion. 2 For the reasons stated, the Reconsideration Motion is DENIED. The Court assumes familiarity with the August 11 Decision, that decision is incorporated here by reference, and capitalized terms used herein but not otherwise defined shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the August 11 Decision. The dispute between the parties boils down to the following question of fact: did LAK3 file a 1099 tax form reporting to the IRS that the Debtor made $322,868 in 2019? If the answer to this question is yes, then LAK3’s failure to timely file an amended 2019 1099 to reflect zero income is a violation of the Settlement Agreement and the Settlement Order. If the answer is no, then LAK3 did not violate the provision in the Settlement Agreement requiring LAK3 to file amended 1099s previously issued to reflect 1 “ECF Doc. \#_” refers to documents filed on the electronic docket of this bankruptcy case. The August 11 Decision is also available on the Westlaw database at 2025 WL 2315446. 2 See Debtor’s Memorandum in Support of His [Motion] for Reconsideration of this Court’s Memorandum Decision and Order (1) Excluding [Testimony] of Brandon Lang, CPA and (2) Denying Debtor’s Motion to Hold LAK3, LLC in Civil Contempt, dated Aug. 21, 2025 (“Debtor Brief”) (ECF Doc. \# 139); LAK3 LLC’s Opposition to the Debtor’s Motion for Reconsideration, dated Sept. 4, 2025 (“LAK3 Brief”) (ECF Doc. \# 141); and Debtor’s Reply Memorandum in Support of His Motion for Reconsideration of this Court’s Memorandum Decision and Order (1) Excluding [Testimony] of Brandon Lang, CPA and (2) Denying Debtor’s Motion to Hold LAK3, LLC in Civil Contempt, dated Sept. 9, 2025 (“Debtor Reply”) (ECF Doc. \# 143) . that the Debtor made zero income from LAK3 . In the August 11 Decision, the Court found that the Debtor failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that LAK3 had issued a 2019 1099 to the Debtor and denied the Debtor’s Contempt Motion. In the Reconsideration Motion, the Debtor argues that LAK3’s eventual filing of a corrected 2019 1099 for the Debtor in November 2024 constituted a “judicial admission” that it had previously issued an original 2019 1099. (Debtor Brief ¶¶ 50- 66.) In his reply brief, the Debtor argues that the Court overlooked material evidence showing that LAK3 issued a 2019 1099 for the Debtor. (Debtor Reply ¶¶ 11-59.) The Court took the matter under submission.3 DISCUSSION A. Legal Standard Governing Reconsideration Motions for reargument or reconsideration are subject to a “strict” standard andwill “generally be denied unless the moving party can point to controlling decisions or data that the court overlooked.”

FAQs

What motion was denied in this decision?

The Court denied Sean M. Dunn’s motion for reconsideration of the August 11, 2025 Memorandum Decision and Order.

What factual question does the Court focus on?

Whether LAK3 filed a 2019 IRS Form 1099 reporting $322,868 in income by the Debtor in 2019.

How does the Court treat the reconsideration standard?

Reconsideration is subject to a strict standard and is generally denied unless the moving party identifies controlling decisions or data the Court overlooked.

Sep 19, 2026

Upload by Ezra