Case 2:14-cv-01044-JS-SIL Document 69-2 Filed 10/13/17 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 584

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
--------------------------------------------------------------------X
ANDREW GREENE,
Docket No.: 14 CV 1044(JS)(SIL)
Plaintiff,
PLAINTIFF’S STATEMENT
PURSUANT TO
LOCAL CIVIL RULE 56.1

-against-

PARAMOUNT PICTURES CORPORATION, a Delaware
corporation, RED GRANITE PICTURES, INC., a California
corporation, APPIAN WAY, LLC., a California limited
liability company, SIKELIA PRODUCTIONS, INC., a
Delaware corporation, and JOHN AND JANE DOES 1
THROUGH 10,
Defendant(s),
---------------------------------------------------------------------X
PURSUANT TO LOCAL CIVIL RULE 56.1, Plaintiff ANDREW GREENE, in Opposition
to Defendants’ anticipated Motion for Summary Judgment and without prejudice to his right to
dispute their truthfulness at trial, submits the following facts as to which there is no genuine issue to
be tried:
1.

Plaintiff filed a Complaint in the instant matter on February 18, 2014. The Summons

was issued on February 24, 2014, and the Defendants timely served. (Documents number 1, 2 and
5.)
2.

Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss for all causes of action on April 7, 2014. The

Court granted in part, and denied in part, that Motion by Decision/Order dated September 30, 2015
(Documents number 12, 19 and 25.) Plaintiff’s cause of action sounding in Libel Per Se has been
litigated by the parties to date.
3.

Defendant SIKELIA filed a motion to dismiss for lack of diversity jurisdiction on

September 13, 2016. Plaintiff Opposed on September 28, 2016 and the motion was granted by

 Case 2:14-cv-01044-JS-SIL Document 69-2 Filed 10/13/17 Page 2 of 10 PageID #: 585

Decision, dated September 11, 2017. (Documents 56, 57 and 66.)
4.

At the Conference held on May 23, 2017, Plaintiff conceded he would not seek to

introduce expert witness testimony. Defendants withdrew their motion to preclude. (Document 59)
Defendants have not provided any expert disclosure or notice thereof.
5.

Under the surviving claim of the Complaint, Plaintiff accuses Defendants of

libelously including the following erroneous portrayals:
(a)

His knowledge, involvement and aid in orchestrating a money laundering
scheme with JORDAN BELFORT;

(b)

His participation in the shaving of a female co-worker’s head, amongst other
misogynistic behavior at Stratton Oakmont;

(c)

His use of illicit narcotics while working, specifically in the board room at
Stratton Oakmont;

(d)

His participation in the regular engagement of prostitutes at Stratton
Oakmonnt;

(e)

His complacency with the improper and illegal actions of management and
sales personnel at Stratton Oakmont; and

(f)
6.

His arrest for activity related to Stratton Oakmont.

Plaintiff grew up in Bayside, Queens and was a childhood friend of JORDAN

BELFORT, DANNY PORUSH and others.
7.

JORDAN BELFORT opened and operated a financial advisory/investment banking

firm known as “Stratton Oakmont.”
8.

JORDAN BELFORT wrote an autobiographical novel entitled “The Wolf of Wall

Street,” that was published in 2007. (Def. Exhibit to their Motion to Dismiss)

 Case 2:14-cv-01044-JS-SIL Document 69-2 Filed 10/13/17 Page 3 of 10 PageID #: 586

9.

A film version of “The Wolf of Wall Street” (hereinafter referred to as “the Film”)

was released in December, 2013. (Def. Exhibit to their 56.1 Statement)
10.

Defendant APPIAN WAY is a corporation owned, by Leonardo DiCaprio. (DiCaprio

EBT, pg 8, lines 9-16; Davison EBT, pg 11, lines 11-15) Defendant APPIAN WAY is listed as
having “Producer” credits for the film. Mr. DiCaprio’s company, working with Warner Brothers
Pictures, purchased the rights to Mr. Belfort’s book “The Wolf of Wall Street,” hired the
screenwriter TERENCE WINTER for the project, and later helped to secure financial backing to
make the film. (DiCaprio EBT, pg 29, lines 13-19; Davison EBT, pg13, lines 21-25; 15, lines 9-12;
28, lines 3-6). Mr. DiCaprio also participated in creative development meetings with the Director
and the Screenwriter. (DiCaprio EBT, pg 15, line 18 to pg. 16, line 21; pg 22, line 20 – pg. 26, line
20; Scorsese EBT, pg 10, line 20 to pg 12, line 4) and Winter EBT, pg 37, line 7 to pg. 42, line 16).
11.

Defendant SIKELIA is a corporation owned, by Martin Scorsese. Defendant

SIKELIA is listed as having “Producer” credits for the film. Mr. Scorsese also Directed the film and
participated in creative development meetings. (Scorsese EBT, pg 10, line 20 to pg. 12, line 4).
12.

Defendant RED GRANITE is a corporation that provided most of the financial

backing to make the film and is listed as having “Producer” credits. (DiCaprio EBT, pg 29, lines 1319; Davison EBT, pg 28, lines 3-6).
13.

Defendant PARAMOUNT is a corporation that is listed as having “Producer” credits

and is also responsible for distribution of the film in all forms including and after its release.
(Decl.Cox as part of Def. 56.1 Statement)
14.

Stratton Oakmont was notorious in the financial industry for the unscrupulous

behavior of Mr. Belfort, Mr. Porush and many of its agents/brokers and employees. Both Mr. Belfort
and Mr. Porush, among others, were indicted for their actions related to projects at Stratton

 Case 2:14-cv-01044-JS-SIL Document 69-2 Filed 10/13/17 Page 4 of 10 PageID #: 587

Oakmont.
15.

Plaintiff graduated Law School from California Western School of Law in Los

Angeles, CA in January, 1990. (Plaintiff EBT, attached hereto and made a part hereof in its entirety.)
16.

Plaintiff worked part-time at the brokerage firm operated by his brother CARY

GREENE, known as “Fortress Securities,” and later “Columbus Securities” for approximately
eighteen (18) to twenty-four (24) months. Plaintiff worked in sales while studying for the bar exam.
He was paid on commission and eventually given a title of “Vice President” in what he perceived to
be an effort from his brother to keep him from moving back to New York. (Plaintiff EBT)
17.

Plaintiff resigned from working at “Columbus Securities” after being recruited to

work in investment banking and compliance for “Stratton Oakmont.” After resigning from
“Columbus Securities,” and moving back to New York, Plaintiff learned of illegal activity that his
brother had participated in and conducted. Plaintiff was not investigated nor prosecuted for any
wrongdoing while working for “Fortress/Columbus Securities.”

In fact, Plaintiff described

contacting two (2) former Assistant United States Attorneys immediately upon his brother CARY
flying to New York to meet with him, seeking legal advice about the operations of
“Fortress/Columbus Securities.” (Plaintiff EBT).
18.

Plaintiff stated clearly that he had no knowledge, nor was there any indicia that he

should have known that any activity performed by others at “Fortress/Columbus Securities” was
improper, during his time working there.
19.

Plaintiff worked at “Stratton Oakmont,” from 1993 through 1996. (Plaintiff EBT).

20.

Plaintiff worked in the Corporate Finance department of Stratton Oakmont, and was

also responsible for acting as a liaison between Stratton Oakmont and SEC regulators in the wake of
a settlement between the SEC and firm. The wrong-doings that were litigated in the settlement pre-

 Case 2:14-cv-01044-JS-SIL Document 69-2 Filed 10/13/17 Page 5 of 10 PageID #: 588

dated Plaintiff’s employment with the firm. The SEC settlement was largely negotiated prior to
Plaintiff’s employment, and finalized by outside counsel, after he started. (Plaintiff EBT; Arnoff
EBT: pgs 20-21).
21.

According to the book, “The Wolf of Wall Street,” Mr. Belfort and others working at

Stratton Oakmont referred to Plaintiff as “Wigwam,” as a result of his wearing a toupee. (The Wolf
of Wall Street; Bantam Books, 2007; pg. 65-69). Plaintiff was also specifically identified in the
book and articulated as not having been indicted for any wrong-doing. (The Wolf of Wall Street,
Bantam Books, 2007; pgs. 65-69, 519).
22.

The film adaptation includes a character named “Nicky Koskoff.” The Koskoff

character is referred to being a childhood friend of Mr. Belfort; worked in investment banking and
compliance for Stratton Oakmont; has a nickname “Rugrat” referring to his toupee; and has a
description of being overweight and wearing glasses. (Plaintiff EBT).
23.

The “Rugrat” character was derived from and intended to represent Plaintiff. (Winter

EBT, pg 26, line 15 to pg 27, line 8; pg 30, lines 5-22; pg 33, line 5 to pg 34, line 3; DiCaprio EBT,
pg 35, lines 11-22; pg 38, line 21 to pg 39, line 2). In fact, early drafts of the screenplay not only
refer to the character as “Andy Cohen” but directly by Plaintiff’s nickname “Wigwam.” (Winter
EBT, pg 30, lines 5-22) Additionally, a copy of Plaintiff’s Exhibit 2 to Mr. Winter’s deposition, is
annexed hereto.
24.

When watching the film, individuals who knew Plaintiff during the times he worked

at Stratton Oakmont recognized the “Rugrat” character as representing Plaintiff. (Plaintiff EBT;
HOWARD GELFAND EBT, pg 37, lines 10-20; ; ROSS PORTENOY EBT, pg 44, lines 8-24; pg
45, line 5 to pg 52, line 21; pg 89, line 25 to pg 90, line 17; NEIL KAUFMAN EBT, pg 7, line 18 to
pg 8, line 19; pg 14, line 9 to pg 15, line 11; pg 32, line 20 to pg 33, line 15, pg 41, line 25 to pg 43,

 Case 2:14-cv-01044-JS-SIL Document 69-2 Filed 10/13/17 Page 6 of 10 PageID #: 589

line 13; pf 44, line 13 to pg 45, line 4; pg 49, line 15 to pg 51, line 20; NORMAN ARNOFF EBT, pg
49, line 23 to pg 50, line 10; pg 51, lines 13 -21; pg 58, lines 6-15; pg 61, line 3 to pg 62, line 11; pg
68, lines 3-13).
25.

In fact, certain individuals who were familiar with Plaintiff from Stratton Oakmont

considered the representation to be grossly unfair. ((Plaintiff EBT; HOWARD GELFAND EBT, pg
37, lines 10-20;pg 34, line 18 to pg 36, line 6; pg 40, lines 4-13; pg 64, line 16 to pg 68, line 2; pg
64, lines 3-8 ; ROSS PORTENOY EBT, pg 44, lines 8-24; pg 45, line 5 to pg 52, line 21; pg 89, line
25 to pg 90, line 17; NEIL KAUFMAN EBT, pg 7, line 18 to pg 8, line 19; pg 14, line 9 to pg 15,
line 11; pg 32, line 20 to pg 33, line 15, pg 41, line 25 to pg 43, line 13; pf 44, line 13 to pg 45, line
4; pg 49, line 15 to pg 51, line 20; NORMAN ARNOFF EBT, pg 49, line 23 to pg 50, line 10; pg 51,
lines 13 -21; pg 58, lines 6-15; pg 61, line 3 to pg 62, line 11; pg 68, lines 3-13).
26.

The “Rugrat” character engaged in sexist and misogynistic behavior; unprofessional

behavior in the infamous “midget tossing” scene; engaged in sexual acts with female co-workers and
prostitutes at the Stratton Oakmont offices; as well as engaged in drug use at the Stratton Oakmont
offices. (See Complaint; Plaintiff’s Responses to Interrogatories)
27.

Plaintiff did not engage in any “midget tossing” events; did not engage in any sexual

acts with female co-workers and did not engage in any drug use while working at the Stratton
Oakmont offices. (Plaintiff EBT; Gelfand EBT, pg 64, line 16 to pg 68, line 2) It is important to
note that Plaintiff conceded he did use marijuana and quaaludes during the time he worked at
Stratton Oakmont, but never during work hours nor in the Stratton Oakmont offices. (Plaintiff EBT
and Plaintiff’s Responses to Interrogatories)
28.

While Plaintiff maintains that he did not engage in any sexual acts with prostitutes at

the Stratton Oakmont offices, (Plaintiff EBT), witness BUD CLARKE testified during his

 Case 2:14-cv-01044-JS-SIL Document 69-2 Filed 10/13/17 Page 7 of 10 PageID #: 590

deposition that he believed he recalled he could see Plaintiff engaged in activity with a prostitute in
his office, on a single occasion. (CLARKE EBT, pg).
29.

Plaintiff did not start working for Stratton Oakmont until 1993. This was after Mr.

Belfort had already been the subject of several SEC investigations and been forced to withdraw from
day-to-day management activities associated with the firm.
30.

The film also has the “Rugrat” character orchestrate and prominently act in Mr.

Belfort’s international money laundering scheme, for which Mr. Belfort eventually pled guilty to and
went to jail for.
31.

The film shows the “Rugrat” character getting arrested for his activities at Stratton

Oakmont. (The Film is included as an Exhibit to Defendants’ 56.1 Statement). In real life, an
individual known as GARY KAMINSKI was arrested for participating in Mr. Belfort’s money
laundering scheme.
32.

Plaintiff had no knowledge of, or involvement in, Mr. Belfort’s money laundering

activities at the time. Plaintiff had no knowledge or involvement in Mr. Belfort’s illegal activities
while working for Stratton Oakmont. (Plaintiff EBT)
33.

Despite Defendants’ proffer of civil litigation documents, and their assertions that

Plaintiff improperly acted as the escrow agent between Mr. Belfort and STEVE MADDEN for the
control of stock certificates associated with the STEVE MADDEN corporate IPO, Plaintiff was
never questioned by law enforcement authorities nor arrested for any actions related to the STEVE
MADDEN IPO. No evidence exists to contradict Plaintiff’s testimony of same. (Plaintiff EBT)
34.

Plaintiff has never been arrested for his association with Mr. Belfort and/or Stratton

Oakmont. (Plaintiff EBT)

 Case 2:14-cv-01044-JS-SIL Document 69-2 Filed 10/13/17 Page 8 of 10 PageID #: 591

35.

Plaintiff has never signed a “cooperation agreement” with any law enforcement

agency, nor received any beneficial action such as a “deferred prosecution” or “nolle prosequi.” In
short, despite the Defendants’ devotion of a substantial portion of their 56.1Statement to the
wrongdoing of JORDAN BELFORT, DANNY PORUSH and Stratton Oakmont in general, there is
no evidence to controvert Plaintiff’s testimony that he never engaged in illegal behavior.
36.

No witnesses were presented nor identified in Defendants’ Rule 26 disclosures or

during depositions that could testify to Plaintiff’s use of illicit drugs during work hours and/or at the
offices of Stratton Oakmont.
37.

No witnesses were presented nor identified in Defendants’ Rule 26 disclosures or

during depositions that could testify to any illegal act performed by Plaintiff during his time
employed with and/or in association with activity at Stratton Oakmont.
Dated: October 4, 2017
New York, New York
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Law Office of AARON M. GOLDSMITH, PC
Attorneys for Plaintiff

__________/s/_________________________
By: Aaron M. Goldsmith, Esq.
225 Broadway, Suite 715
New York, NY 10007
(914) 588-2679
aarongoldsmithlaw@gmail.com
ALEXANDER M. DUDELSON, ESQ.
Attorney for Plaintiff
26 Court St., Suite 2306
Brooklyn, NY 11242
(718) 855-5100
adesq@aol.com

 Case 2:14-cv-01044-JS-SIL Document 69-2 Filed 10/13/17 Page 9 of 10 PageID #: 592

TO:
DAVIS, WRIGHT TREMAINE, LLP
Katherine M. Bolger, Esq.
Rachel F. Strom, Esq.
1251 Avenue of the Americas, 21st FL
New York, NY 10020-1104
rachelstrom@dwt.com
katebolger@dwt.com
LEOPOLD, PETRICH & SMITH, PC
Louis P. Petrich, Esq. (admitted Pro Hac Vice)
Vincent Cox, Esq.
2049 Century Park East, Suite 3110
Los Angeles, CA 90067-3274
lpetrich@lpsla.com

 Case 2:14-cv-01044-JS-SIL Document 69-2 Filed 10/13/17 Page 10 of 10 PageID #: 593

DECLARATION OF SERVICE
I certify that, on this date of October 4, 2017, a copy of Plaintiff’s Statement Pursuant to Rule
56.1 was served upon Defendants by email and mail to her counsel at the following address:
DAVIS, WRIGHT TREMAINE, LLP
Katherine M. Bolger, Esq.
Rachel F. Strom, Esq.
1251 Avenue of the Americas, 21st FL
New York, NY 10020-1104
rachelstrom@dwt.com
katebolger@dwt.com
LEOPOLD, PETRICH & SMITH, PC
Louis P. Petrich, Esq. (admitted Pro Hac Vice)
Vincent Cox, Esq.
2049 Century Park East, Suite 3110
Los Angeles, CA 90067-3274
lpetrich@lpsla.com

___________/s/______________________
AARON M. GOLDSMITH, ESQ