Case: Litman v. Goldberg, Index No. 524343/2025 (NY Sup. Ct., Kings County, Hon. Brian L. Gotlieb, J.S.C.) Prepared: April 28, 2026
CORRECTION NOTE — 2026-05-01 (Re-Tag of "Litman 4/11/2026" Citation)
Scope: The "per Litman 4/11/2026" citation in § I (line 23, "Cadence character" row).
What changed: The earlier draft cited Litman's 4/11/2026 communication as if it were a discrete written email artifact ("per Litman 4/11/2026"). It is not an email. It is a verbal/oral clarification from Mr. Litman dated 4/11/2026, contemporaneously memorialized in
output/MEMO_FOR_UNCLE_2026-04-11.md(lines 101, 107, 136, 170). No email, letter, or text dated 4/11/2026 exists in the corpus.Corrected framing: "per RCL oral clarification 4/11/2026 (memorialized in
MEMO_FOR_UNCLE_2026-04-11.md)."Why this matters: Counsel using this memo for deposition prep, settlement, or court filings should not represent the cadence-change reframing as Litman-authored email impeachment material. It is an oral statement memorialized in a same-day Claude memo. The substance of the clarification is unaffected; only the source-tagging is corrected.
Cite for verification:
output/VERIFY_CADENCE_CHANGE_2026-05-01.md§ III, § VII finding 1; this re-tagging logged inoutput/RETAGGED_4-11-2026_CITES_2026-05-01.md.
Subject: Identifying the trigger for Open Gap #25 — Finding #104's $135,947.69 deposit
Disposition: Open Gap #25 closed in part. Most-likely trigger identified with MEDIUM-HIGH confidence; one disambiguating discovery demand recommended.
Authoring sources: Findings #50, #66, #95, #100, #104, #117, #119; output/LITMAN_FIDELITY_PAYMENT_TIMELINE.md; output/JUL_SEP_2025_PAYMENT_GAP_MEMO.md; evidence/litman_fidelity_645375268_payments/Q4_2025_payments_645375268.jpg; evidence/gould_hurley_emails/ (29 native .eml files); output/EXHIBIT_GOULD_20250903_ADMISSIONS.md; court_filings/ NYSCEF stamp metadata; Concordance email production discovery_production/DATA/LITMAN_EMAIL_PRODUCTION.dat (276,899 records).
| Field | Value | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Wire date (posting) | October 8, 2025 | Fidelity native mobile-app activity screen |
| Amount | $135,947.69 | Same |
| Beneficiary account | Fidelity Brokerage 645375268 ("RICHARD LITM…") | Same |
| Inbound label (Fidelity) | "WIRE TRANSFER FROM BANK (Cash)" | Same |
| Sender bank | Inferred: Bank of America operating account 003926278751 (NGM's primary disbursement account per Finding #57). Not visible on the Fidelity activity tile; fully confirmed only by subpoena to BoA's wire register. | Finding #57; output/LITMAN_FIDELITY_PAYMENT_TIMELINE.md § IX |
| Sender memo | Unknown (Fidelity activity tile does not display the sender memo) | — |
| Authorizer | Unknown — to be confirmed at Goldberg's deposition (06/02/2026 calendar) | — |
| Position in payment series | 15th distinct inbound wire on the account; 1st post-litigation wire after May 21, 2025 | evidence/litman_fidelity_645375268_payments/Q4_2025_payments_645375268.jpg |
| Cadence character | First quarterly payment under a unilateral monthly→quarterly cadence change (per RCL oral clarification 4/11/2026 (memorialized in MEMO_FOR_UNCLE_2026-04-11.md)); the change itself a unilateral modification of the March 2021 Exhibit L "$25,000/month W-2 advance" commitment[^1] |
Finding #104 reframed; LITMAN_FIDELITY_PAYMENT_TIMELINE.md § III.G; Exhibit L |
[^1]: Original framing (corrected 2026-05-01): "per Litman 4/11/2026" — implied a written 4/11/2026 email that does not exist. Re-tagged to oral clarification per output/VERIFY_CADENCE_CHANGE_2026-05-01.md § III. Audit trail preserved. The Exhibit L "$25K/month" framing is also subject to a separate correction in LITMAN_FIDELITY_PAYMENT_TIMELINE.md Correction Note 2026-05-01 (the language is from Litman's own 3/9/2021 email, not a Goldberg commitment); see that memo for the corrected breach framing (course-of-dealing + 140-day gap).
| Implied collections base | $135,947.69 ÷ 0.20 = $679,738.45 in NGM-collected Litman-originated revenue for Q3 2025 | Same |
| Reconciliation status | NOT reconcilable to any single PAR; covers Q3 2025 (Jul/Aug/Sep) — the same three months whose monthly PARs were suppressed (Findings #50, #117) | output/JUL_SEP_2025_PAYMENT_GAP_MEMO.md |
One important framing note (per feedback_validate_every_number and feedback_deferred_payment_not_back_pay): the $135,947.69 wire is not a "back-pay" or "wage" payment; it is a partial deferred payment for Litman's 20% royalty share (the arbitrator's characterization — see feedback_royalty_not_commission) for the Practice. Per Finding #117, NGM made zero actual 20%-formula partner disbursements between September 27, 2020 and this October 8, 2025 wire; if Finding #117's framing holds, the Oct 8 wire is NGM's first real cash disbursement to Litman in 5 years and 11 days — a fact that magnifies (not diminishes) its evidentiary value.
Numbered chronology of every documented court event and counsel communication touching the trigger window. NYSCEF dates are taken from filing-stamp text on each PDF (FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK …); email dates are the Date: header on native .eml files in evidence/gould_hurley_emails/.
evidence/gould_hurley_emails/Litman v Goldberg - prospective Kuwait opportunity.eml.eml.output/JUL_SEP_2025_PAYMENT_GAP_MEMO.md § II.output/EXHIBIT_GOULD_20250903_ADMISSIONS.md. The "2024 accounting" line is itself an admission that NGM owed Litman a year-end true-up that had not been delivered.evidence/gould_hurley_emails/ — this gap is itself material (cross-ref Finding #50 active-concealment pattern; the production corpus contains zero agould@connellfoley.com items and zero jgoldberg@nathlaw.com items between 8/26/2025 and 11/28/2025 in any custodian's Sent/Inbox).Litman v Goldberg Stipulation 2025 (1).pdf). This is the last court action immediately preceding the wire.Litman v Goldberg Amended Complaint 2025 (2).pdf — FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 10/09/2025; NYSCEF DOC. NO. 15.)Litman v Goldberg Notice of Motion 2025 (2).pdf, etc. — all stamped FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 10/23/2025.) The Oct 8 wire pre-dates the MTD by 15 days.Litman v Goldberg Stipulation 2025 (1).pdf) shows "FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 10/27/2025 / RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/29/2025" — the so-ordered stipulation was administratively re-filed on 10/27 and entered on the docket on 10/29; the so-ordering itself by Maslow was 10/03/2025 (per NYSCEF index entry "STIPULATION - SO ORDERED dtd 10_03_2025").Other relevant flanking events outside the strict window (anchors only — not in the Sep 15 – Oct 15 chronology):
- 05/21/2025 — Last regular monthly wire ($25,542.74). Spigot closed.
- 06/26/2025 — Litigation trigger; Heba Carter formal-affiliation-termination notice; Demand Letter 7 issued.
- 07/18/2025 — Email-account elimination (rlitman@nathlaw.com / litman@4patent.com).
- 07/21/2025 — State complaint filed (Index No. 524343/2025); also federal complaint in EDNY (1:25-cv-04048, later voluntarily dismissed).
- 07/22/2025 — Freedom Bank "Close Account" wire (Finding #99); 7/28/2025 actual closure.
- 08/11/2025 — July 2025 PAR generated internally by NGM, withheld until April 2026 (Finding #50).
- 01/15/2026 — Gould → Litman (Re- Litman v Goldberg - quarterly report and payments.eml.eml): "The payments are quarterly per the agreement. We had that discussion already and I do not want to rehash it." Establishes that the cadence change had already been "discussed" and Connell Foley took the position it was settled — but no written notice of the change appears anywhere in the corpus.
Hypothesis: A regularly-scheduled-but-late Q3 2025 quarterly true-up payment, accelerated to land before Goldberg's October 23, 2025 Motion to Dismiss in order to (a) take the unpaid-royalty narrative off the table at the dismissal stage and (b) preempt any contemporaneous "Defendant has paid nothing post-litigation" argument in Plaintiff's opposition papers.
This is a combined trigger — partly the firm's pre-existing quarterly true-up cadence (which Litman had asked about for years; see ND0000263413 dated 10/11/2023, "September reports, quarterly reconciliation and payment") and partly a litigation-strategic timing decision by NGM/Connell Foley to push the wire across the finish line in advance of the MTD.
court_filings/ for any pre-10/8/2025 court order requiring payment yields nothing. Maslow's 10/03/2025 so-ordered stipulation is purely procedural — it permits Litman to file the SAC; it does not award any monetary relief. The 12/05/2025 Decision and Order on the MTD is the next substantive court action and post-dates the wire by two months. Court order is therefore not the trigger.The weight of the evidence points to a regularly-scheduled-but-late Q3 2025 quarterly true-up, paid out under NGM's unilaterally-imposed monthly→quarterly cadence change, and timed to land before the 10/23 MTD filing.
| Rank | Hypothesis | Plausibility | Evidence For | Evidence Against |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Regularly-scheduled-but-late Q3 2025 quarterly true-up, MTD-timed (the lead hypothesis above). | HIGH | Formula-derived amount; Gould 9/3 admission re "2024 accounting"; Litman's historical Oct-demand pattern; 1/15/2026 Gould reference to "discussion already had"; pre-MTD timing fits litigation-strategic optics; no court order; no settlement agreement. | The cadence change is undocumented in any pre-10/8/2025 writing produced to Plaintiff. The "discussion" Gould refers to may have been one-sided. |
| 2 | Direct response to Litman's 9/3/2025 Gould-thread demand or a separate late-Sep 2025 email demanding the Q3 true-up (not yet recovered). | MEDIUM-HIGH | Litman's longstanding October-demand template (2023 example bates-stamped ND0000263413); the production corpus contains no Aug 26 – Nov 28, 2025 Litman→Gould or Litman→Goldberg payment-demand correspondence, which is consistent with selective scrubbing of an existing demand thread. | The specific late-September 2025 demand email has not been located in either Plaintiff's Gmail (rclitman@gmail.com) or NGM's production. Could be confirmed by Gmail subpoena. |
| 3 | Settlement gesture / pre-MTD goodwill payment. | LOW-MEDIUM | Pre-MTD timing is consistent; Connell Foley's reputational interest in not having a "stiffed-the-plaintiff" optic during dismissal briefing. | Amount is formula-clean (not round-numbered); no Rule 408 / CPLR 4547 cover correspondence; no without-prejudice language; no executed settlement agreement; Goldberg's MTD does not reference a payment-in-good-faith. This hypothesis would require a release or ledger-entry treating the wire as something other than a 20%-formula partial payment — none has been produced. |
| 4 | Court-order-driven payment. | LOW | None: no order between 9/22 and 10/8 awards money; only Maslow's 10/03 so-ordered stipulation, which is procedural. | No order; no judgment; no contempt motion; no money-judgment language. |
| 5 | Panic / litigation-induced unilateral catch-up. | LOW | Possible — Goldberg / NGM may have gotten advice that being radio-silent on payment for 5 months would aggravate the case. | Same evidence-against as #1 (formula-clean amount; no escrow / without-prejudice cover) plus the absence of any "we are paying this in good faith / we're catching up" written communication. |
| 6 | Disability-insurance-stream resumption (Finding #117 carryover bucket). | VERY LOW | The Apr 2024 – May 2025 stream came from a separate disability-carryover bucket per the Finding #104 reframing; it could in principle have resumed. | The Apr 2024 – May 2025 stream was monthly at $16K–$257K with the volatility profile of the 20% formula on Litman-originated collections; the disability-insurance benefits Litman receives are paid by the private insurer directly to him (per project_disability_insurance.md) and do not flow through NGM. The $135,947.69 amount also exceeds any plausible disability-stream monthly figure by a factor of 5–10×. |
| 7 | Royalty true-up triggered by Goldberg's KFU 6/11/2025 admission ("you should clearly receive your percentage of any non-USPTO fees we received"). | LOW | Goldberg made the admission in writing; ordinarily a written admission of an underpayment leads to a true-up wire. | A KFU-driven true-up would be tied to a specific KFU collections period and would more plausibly be a one-time lump sum, not a clean 20% of a quarter's total collections. Fits #1 better. |
Confidence in the lead hypothesis (a regularly-scheduled-but-late Q3 2025 quarterly true-up, MTD-timed): MEDIUM-HIGH.
Why HIGH: - The amount derives cleanly from the 20% formula × the implied $679,738 Q3 2025 collections — i.e., the wire is formula output, not a negotiated number. - Counsel has admitted (1/15/2026 Gould email) that the post-cutoff payments are "quarterly per the agreement," which only makes sense if the 10/8/2025 wire is the first quarterly payment under that cadence. - Counsel has admitted (9/3/2025 Gould email) that the 2024 accounting was outstanding as of 9/3 — placing year-end and quarter-end true-ups inside Connell Foley's active workflow during the same six weeks that produced the 10/8 wire. - The pre-MTD timing fits an obvious litigation-strategic motive. - No competing evidence (no court order, no settlement, no Rule 408 letter) supports any of the alternatives.
Why not full HIGH:
- The corpus has been scrubbed of all agould@connellfoley.com and (for the relevant window) jgoldberg@nathlaw.com correspondence, meaning the internal trigger correspondence at NGM is not directly visible. We are inferring the trigger from the surrounding pattern, not reading it on the page.
- The cadence-change "discussion" Gould refers to in 1/15/2026 has not been located in any pre-10/8/2025 writing. If the "discussion" was a phone call with no follow-up email, that's a separate evidentiary problem.
- The implied $679,738 Q3 2025 collections figure has not been corroborated against any Q3 2025 PAR or Receivables-by-Client report — both of which remain suppressed (Finding #50 pattern).
- Litman has not yet been asked, on the record, whether he sent a late-September 2025 demand email; the assumption that he did is based on the 8-year pattern of his October-demand template.
If counsel wants to remove the residual ambiguity, two parallel discovery vectors will close it:
Subpoena under CPLR § 3119 to Bank of America, N.A., custodian of records, for the wire-transfer register for account 003926278751 (and any successor or sweep account) for the period September 1, 2025 through October 31, 2025, requesting:
Why this matters: the memo / reference line will state in the firm's own contemporaneous words what the wire was. If the field reads "Q3 2025 quarterly settlement" or "Litman 20% draw" or anything formula-adjacent, the lead hypothesis is confirmed. If it reads "settlement payment" or "good-faith payment," Hypothesis #3 (settlement gesture) is corroborated and the MSJ Damages briefing posture changes.
At Goldberg's 06/02/2026 deposition, mark the Fidelity Q4 2025 screenshot and ask:
Demand all non-privileged Connell Foley correspondence in the firm's Litman v. Goldberg matter file between 8/15/2025 and 10/15/2025 referencing or relating to:
The existence and date of the documents is not privileged; the substantive client-side communications may be — privilege log required.
Regardless of which alternate is ultimately substantiated, the 10/8/2025 wire produces the same operative MSJ argument:
If Hypothesis #3 (settlement gesture) is corroborated by discovery, NGM will face a separate problem: paying a "settlement" without a written release does not give them a defense — it gives Plaintiff free credit on the ledger. Either way, Plaintiff retains the wire as evidence and the case-strategy consequences stack additively.
output/LITMAN_FIDELITY_PAYMENT_TIMELINE.md, output/JUL_SEP_2025_PAYMENT_GAP_MEMO.md, output/EXHIBIT_GOULD_20250903_ADMISSIONS.md, output/EXHIBIT_GOULD_20250903_AUTHENTICATION_PLAN.md, output/OPPOSING_COUNSEL_TIMELINE.md.project_payment_history_evolution.md, project_q1_2026_reconciliation.md, project_court_status.md, feedback_validate_every_number.md, feedback_deferred_payment_not_back_pay.md, feedback_royalty_not_commission.md.evidence/litman_fidelity_645375268_payments/Q4_2025_payments_645375268.jpg; evidence/gould_hurley_emails/Litman v Goldberg - quarterly report.eml.eml; evidence/gould_hurley_emails/Re- Litman v Goldberg - quarterly report and payments.eml.eml; evidence/gould_hurley_emails/Re- Follow up - quarterly reconciliations.eml.eml; ND0000263413/263415 (the 10/2023 historical-template demand emails).court_filings/Litman v Goldberg Stipulation 2025 (1).pdf (NYSCEF Doc 38, so-ordered 10/03/2025); court_filings/Litman v Goldberg Amended Complaint 2025 (2).pdf (NYSCEF Doc 15, filed 10/09/2025); court_filings/Litman v Goldberg Notice of Motion 2025 (2).pdf, Litman vs Goldberg Memorandum of Law 2025 (1).pdf, Litman Goldberg Affidavit 2025 (2).pdf (NYSCEF Docs 17/18/19, all filed 10/23/2025).Prepared April 28, 2026 for use in Litman v. Goldberg, Index No. 524343/2025. Filing-grade once Demands 1–3 above are returned; pre-discovery, cite as a working investigative memo.