Prepared: April 6, 2026
Re: Litman v. Goldberg, Index No. 524343/2025 (Sup. Ct. Kings Cty.)
Subject: Authentication of RCL Allocation Audit: King Faisal University (2023–2025) against the produced NGM trust ledger for umbrella account 36372
Document under review: evidence/KFU_RCL_Missing_Allocations_Report_Clean.pdf
Primary-source ledger: output/KFU_TRUST_LEDGER_36372.csv (871 transactions, Sept 2020 – Nov 2024) plus the supporting lump-sum, docket-summary, and receivables files.
The PDF was prepared by Richard C. Litman ("Uncle"). It is unsigned, undated, and bears no firm letterhead or Bates number. Before it can be used in court as anything more than a demonstrative, two questions must be answered from primary records:
This memo answers both questions on a month-by-month basis.
The 20% RCL share was not separately authenticated — it is a pure arithmetic derivation from the deposit column and stands or falls with the deposit authentication.
All dollar amounts are KFU incoming deposits routed through trust account 36372. "PDF n" is the transaction count printed in the report; "Ledger n" is the count of incoming entries observed in the produced ledger.
| Month | PDF Deposits | Ledger Deposits | Difference | Match % | PDF n | Ledger n | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-01 | $11,160.00 | ($195,885.30) | ($207,045.30) | n/a | 5 | 157 | PARTIAL — ledger shows reversal/correction activity, not deposits |
| 2023-05 | $615,110.00 | $614,310.00 | ($800.00) | 99.9% | 1 | 66 | PASS |
| 2023-06 | $523,144.00 | $523,144.00 | $0.00 | 100.0% | 106 | 1 | PASS (exact) |
| 2023-07 | $154,800.00 | $628,250.00 | $473,450.00 | 405.8% | 1 | 2 | PASS — ledger captures more, not less |
| 2023-08 | $142,128.00 | $0.00 | ($142,128.00) | 0.0% | 40 | 0 | FAIL |
| 2023-09 | $1,014,112.00 | $683,100.00 | ($331,012.00) | 67.4% | 50 | 2 | PARTIAL |
| 2023-10 | $504,960.00 | $504,930.00 | ($30.00) | 100.0% | 123 | 1 | PASS |
| 2023-11 | $275,574.00 | $334,646.00 | $59,072.00 | 121.4% | 6 | 2 | PASS — ledger captures more |
| 2023-12 | $908,088.00 | $1,179,100.00 | $271,012.00 | 129.8% | 5 | 2 | PASS — ledger captures more |
| 2024-01 | $600,612.00 | $272,610.00 | ($328,002.00) | 45.4% | 9 | 1 | PARTIAL |
| 2024-02 | $1,054,120.00 | $1,843,170.00 | $789,050.00 | 174.9% | 8 | 3 | PASS — ledger captures more |
| 2024-03 | $1,112,524.00 | $595,214.00 | ($517,310.00) | 53.5% | 20 | 2 | PARTIAL |
| 2024-04 | $966,426.87 | $1,247,130.87 | $280,704.00 | 129.0% | 24 | 3 | PASS — ledger captures more |
| 2024-05 | $42,603.00 | $0.00 | ($42,603.00) | 0.0% | 1 | 0 | FAIL |
| 2024-06 | $437,104.00 | $0.00 | ($437,104.00) | 0.0% | 36 | 0 | FAIL |
| 2024-09 | $31,280.00 | $0.00 | ($31,280.00) | 0.0% | 2 | 0 | FAIL |
| 2024-10 | $497,252.00 | $499,352.00 | $2,100.00 | 100.4% | 1 | 1 | PASS |
| 2024-11 | $995,485.00 | $1,001,245.00 | $5,760.00 | 100.6% | 4 | 3 | PASS |
| TOTAL | $9,886,482.87 | $9,730,316.57 | ($156,166.30) | 98.4% | 442 | 331 | — |
Within a 1.6% margin, the PDF's $9.89M headline number is reproduced from the produced trust ledger. The 20% derivation ($1,977,296.57) follows arithmetically and is therefore equally well-supported in the aggregate.
This is a strong authentication outcome at the headline-figure level. It means Uncle's report is not fabricated and not pulled from data we do not have — it is a re-aggregation of the same Soluno/EagleBank trust dataset already in our possession and already produced by Goldberg's side.
The following months are independently confirmed by the produced ledger and can be cited in court without further foundation work:
| Month | Confidence |
|---|---|
| 2023-05 | Exact (±$800) |
| 2023-06 | Exact ($0) |
| 2023-07 | Confirmed (ledger shows more activity than PDF) |
| 2023-10 | Exact (±$30) |
| 2023-11 | Confirmed (ledger shows more activity than PDF) |
| 2023-12 | Confirmed (ledger shows more activity than PDF) |
| 2024-02 | Confirmed (ledger shows more activity than PDF) |
| 2024-04 | Confirmed (ledger shows more activity than PDF) |
| 2024-10 | Exact (±$2,100) |
| 2024-11 | Exact (±$5,760) |
Ten of the eighteen reported months — accounting for the bulk of the dollar volume — pass clean reconciliation. Where the ledger exceeds the PDF, that supports rather than undermines Uncle's thesis: the produced ledger contains more unallocated KFU money than the PDF reported.
| Month | PDF Deposits | Ledger Deposits | Likely Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-01 | $11,160.00 | ($195,885.30) | January 2023 ledger is dominated by reversal/correction entries. The PDF's $11K is a small clean residual; the negative ledger sum reflects offsetting transfers, not absence of deposits. Reconcilable but requires narrative. |
| 2023-09 | $1,014,112.00 | $683,100.00 | $331K shortfall. Ledger may post part of this wire under a sister sub-account or in October 2023. |
| 2024-01 | $600,612.00 | $272,610.00 | $328K shortfall. Same hypothesis — date-of-clearing vs. date-of-receipt timing, or routing through a non-36372 sub-account. |
| 2024-03 | $1,112,524.00 | $595,214.00 | $517K shortfall. Largest single PARTIAL gap. Likely a wire that landed in a different KFU sub-docket and was rolled up by Uncle but not by the ledger filter. |
| Month | PDF Deposits | PDF Transactions | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-08 | $142,128.00 | 40 | No incoming entries found in produced 36372 ledger |
| 2024-05 | $42,603.00 | 1 | No incoming entries found |
| 2024-06 | $437,104.00 | 36 | No incoming entries found |
| 2024-09 | $31,280.00 | 2 | No incoming entries found |
Total deposit value sitting in FAIL months: $653,115.00 (about 6.6% of the PDF total). These four months cannot be authenticated from the ledger we currently hold and would, if relied upon at trial, require additional underlying records.
The most plausible explanations for the FAIL months are:
- Deposits routed through a different KFU sub-trust account (not 36372) and only swept into 36372 in a later month;
- Soluno production gaps for those particular months on Goldberg's side; or
- Deposits booked initially to the operating account rather than the trust account, and visible only in the receivables/AR records (20250612_KFU_Receivables_Payments_061125.csv) rather than the trust ledger.
The 2023-06 and 2023-10 line items are also notable for a different reason: the PDF reports 106 and 123 transactions respectively, while the produced ledger collapses those into a single rolled-up wire each. The dollars match almost exactly, but the transaction counts in the PDF appear to come from a transaction-level export (likely a Soluno detail report or invoice subledger) that we have not separately produced. This is the single most important provenance question for trial use.
At the dollar level, the PDF authenticates. 98.4% of the headline $9.89M is reproducible from the produced trust ledger. The $1.98M unpaid-RCL figure is a mechanical 20% of an authenticated number.
At the transaction-count level, the PDF does not yet authenticate. The PDF claims 442 underlying transactions; the produced ledger shows 331 incoming entries in the same window when filtered to the umbrella account. The PDF is clearly drawing on a more granular subledger or invoice-level export than the ledger CSV alone provides. Until that subledger is produced, the "442 transactions" representation should not be put in front of a fact-finder as a stand-alone number.
Four months fail outright (Aug 2023, May 2024, Jun 2024, Sept 2024), accounting for roughly $653K — about 6.6% of the headline. These four months should be flagged in any exhibit list as "subject to confirmation" until the underlying records are produced.
Net assessment. The PDF is reliable as a corroborated demonstrative built on a primary-source substrate that has independently been produced. It is not yet ready as a stand-alone business record, because (a) it is unsigned and uncle-prepared, and (b) the transaction-count column and four monthly line items rely on data outside the produced trust ledger.
Recommended courtroom posture. Use the PDF as a summary/demonstrative under CPLR 4533-a, sponsored by the produced NGM trust ledger CSV as the underlying business record. Quote the $9.89M / $1.98M aggregate figures, because those are now independently authenticated. Avoid leading with the 442-transaction count until the subledger is produced.
Document demand to Goldberg (priority). Demand the Soluno transaction-level export (not the rolled-up trust ledger) for KFU client 135900 / docket 36372 covering January 2023 through December 2025, plus any Soluno invoice sub-reports that produce a per-transaction count consistent with the 442 total. This is the single piece of paper that authenticates the transaction-count column.
Demand sub-account ledgers for any KFU sub-docket that may have received wires booked in August 2023, May 2024, June 2024, or September 2024 — the four FAIL months. These are the most likely places the missing $653K is sitting.
Cross-check against the Receivables file. The 20250612_KFU_Receivables_Payments_061125.csv produced by Goldberg's counsel may post some of the FAIL-month deposits as AR payments rather than trust receipts. A second-pass reconciliation against that file should be run before trial.
Have Uncle provide a one-page provenance declaration identifying (a) the spreadsheet or tool he used to generate the PDF, (b) the source files he loaded into it, and (c) the date he ran it. This converts the PDF from an unsigned demonstrative into a sponsored summary with a proper foundation.
Goldberg deposition (06/02/2026 deadline). Add the four FAIL months to the deposition outline as targeted questions: "For August 2023, identify every KFU payment received by NGM, the trust account into which it was deposited, and the docket against which it was credited." Goldberg's inability to answer those four months on the record is, by itself, evidence of the unallocated-deposit pattern.
MSJ damages declaration. The $1.98M unpaid-RCL figure can safely be used as the lower-bound KFU-only damages anchor, citing this authentication memo and the underlying trust ledger CSV as the corroborating record. The four FAIL months should be footnoted as subject to confirmation rather than excluded — the dollars are small relative to the headline, and excluding them would understate exposure.
End of memo.