Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/15/2018 04:20 PM INDEX NO. 160196/2017
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 14 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/15/2018
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
_____________--------------------------------------------------X
MANUEL DEPUMAREJO, : INDEX NO.: 160196/2017
Plaintiff, :
-against- : AFFIRMATION IN SUPPORT
319 SCHERMERHORN PROPERTY OWNER LLC, :
PARK DEVELOPERS & BUILDERS INC. and PARK
PREMIUM ENTERPRISE INC., :
Defendants. :
-------------------------------------------- ---------X
KRISTY D'AMBROSIO, an attomey duly admitted to practice law in the State of New
York, affirms the following to be true pursuant to CPLR Section 2106:
1. I am an associate of the law firm of WEINER, MILLO, MORGAN & BONANNO,
LLC, the attorneys for the defendant 319 SCHERMERHORN PROPERTY OWNER LLC, and as
such am fully familiar with allthe facts and circumstances in this action.
2. I make this Affirmation in Support of the instant Motion for an Order: (1) Pursuant
to CPLR §602, consolidating the action, commenced in Supreme Court, Kings County under Index
No. 511471/2018, into this action commenced under Index No. 160196/2017 in Supreme Court,
New York County, for joint discovery and trial; (2) to deliver to the Clerk of Supreme Court, New
York County, all papers filed in Index No. 511471/2018 and certified copies of all minutes and
entries; and (3) for such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
3. Consolidation and joint discovery is warranted because both actions arise out of the
same alleged incident, involve many of the same parties, and are at similar points in discovery.
Consolidation would promote judicial economy and prevent potentially inconsistent results. There
are common questions of law and fact and plaintiff would face no prejudice as a result of
consolidation.
1 of 7
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/15/2018 04:20 PM INDEX NO. 160196/2017
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 14 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/15/2018
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
4. Plaintiff Manuel Depumarejo alleges that on October 10, 2016 he was injured while
within the scope of his employment at the construction site located at 319 Schermerhorn Street,
Brooklyn, New York (hereinafter "subject premises").
5. On October 25, 2017, plaintiff commenced an action via service of a Summons and
Complaint against 319 Schermerhorn Property Owner LLC, Park Developers & Builders Inc. and
Park Premium Enterprise Inc. in Supreme Court, New York County under Index No. 160196/2017
(hereinafter "First Action"). In the First Action, plaintiff seeks to recover for alleged personal
"A"
injuries arising from an incident on October 10, 2016 at subject premises. Annexed as Exhibit
is a copy of the Summons and Complaint for the First Action.
6. Defendant 319 Schermerhorn Property Owner LLC joined issue in the First Action
"B"
on December 27, 2017 via Service of a Verified Answer. Annexed as Exhibit is a copy of the
Verified Answer. To date, defendants Park Developers & Builders Inc. and Park Premium
Enterprise Inc. have not answered the First Action.
7. On or about June 4, 2018, plaintiff commenced a separate action with the filing of a
Summons and Complaint against Horizon Group LLC, Britt Realty Development Corp., and Britt
Realty LLC in Supreme Court, Kings County under Index No. 511471/2018 (hereinafter "Second
Action"). In the Second Action, plaintiff also seeks to recover for alleged personal injuries arising
from an incident on October 10, 2016 at subject premises. A copy of the Second Action Summons
and Complaint is annexed hereto as Exhibit "C".
8. On August 21, 2018, the parties in the First Action appeared for a preliminary court
"D"
conference at which the Court set a discovery schedule. Annexed as Exhibit is a copy of the
Preliminary Conference Order.
9. On October 15, 2018, Defendant Britt Realty LLC joined issue via Service of a
2 of 7
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/15/2018 04:20 PM INDEX NO. 160196/2017
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 14 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/15/2018
"E"
Verified Answer in the Second Action. Annexed as Exhibit is a copy of Britt Realty LLC's
Verified Answer in the Second Action. To date, defendants Horizon Group LLC and Britt Realty
Development Corp. have not answered in the Second Action.
10. This office represents Defendant 319 Schermerhorn Property Owner LLC in the
First Action and Defendant Britt LLC in the Second Action, and as such, your affirmant is
Realty
familiar with the status of both action. Depositions have not been held in either action.
personally
11. The proposed caption would appear as follows:
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
_________________________________________________________--------------X
MANUEL DEPUMAREJO, : INDEX NO.: 160196/2017
Plaintiff, :
-against- :
319 SCHERMERHORN PROPERTY OWNER LLC, :
PARK DEVELOPERS & BUILDERS INC. and PARK
PREMIUM ENTERPRISE TNC., HORIZON GROUP :
LLC, BRITT REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORP., and
BRITT REALTY LLC, :
Defendants.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------X
LEGAL ARGUMENT
12. CPLR 602 permits this court to order joint discovery and a joint trial of actions
involving "common questions of law and fact". The Appellate Division has specifically found
consolidation to be appropriate where two actions share common questions of law and fact and an
adverse party cannot demonstrate prejudice resulting from consolidation. Katan Group, LLC v.
(l"
CPC Resources, Inc., 110 A.D.3d 462 Dept. 2013); U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Westwood, LLC, I15
A.D.3d 935 (2d Dept. 2014). The Appellate Division has further noted that "[t]he interests of
justice and judicial economy are better served by consolidation in those cases where the actions
3 of 7
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/15/2018 04:20 PM INDEX NO. 160196/2017
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 14 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/15/2018
fact"
share material questions of law or Hanover Insurance Group v. Mezansky, 105 A.D.3d 1000
(2d Dept. 2013) and that "one hearing allthe evidence can better determine the extent to which
jury
each defendant caused plaintiff's injuries and should eliminate the possibility of inconsistent
trials." (ISt
verdicts which might result from separate Morell y. Bassa, 200 A.D.2d 134 Dept. 2002).
13. The Court of Appeals has explicitly endorsed combined trials to avoid thorny
residual questions concerning the application of collateral estoppel (issue preclusion). Shanley v.
Callanan Industries, Inc., 54 N.Y.2d 52, 57, 444 N.Y.S.2d 585, 588, (1981) ("Where complex
issues are intertwined, albeit in technically different actions, itwould be better ...to facilitate one
complete and comprehensive hearing and determine all the issues involved between the parties at
the same time"). Thus, public policy clearly favors consolidation and joint trials.
14. If the actions are merely at different stages of discovery, it may be possible to
minimize the danger of delay by an order for expedited discovery with respect to the trailing
action. See, e.g., Alsol Enterprises, Ltd. v. Premier Lincoln-Mercury, Inc., 11 A.D.3d 494, 783
N.Y.S.2d 620 (2d Dept. 2004).
15. CPLR § 602(b) permits the Court to consolidate an action in one county into an
action in another county. See, e.g., Bernstein v. Silverman, 228 A.D.2d 325 (1st Dept, 1996).
Therefore, the fact that one action is set in New York County and the other in Kings County is
not a bar to consolidation.
16. "When two [or more] actions are pending in the Supreme Court in different
county"
counties, the motion to consolidate may be made in either (Woods v. County of
Westchester, 112 A.D.2d 1037, 1038, 492 N.Y.S.2d 829; see also, Perinton Assoc. v. Heicklen
Farms, 67 A.D.2d 832, 833, 413 N.Y.S.2d 66; Siegel, NY Prac §§ 128, 245 [2d ed] ); Gomez v.
Jersey Coast Egg Producers, Inc., 588 N.Y.S.2d 589, 591 (2d Dept. 1992); Eber-NDC, LLC v. Star
4 of 7
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/15/2018 04:20 PM INDEX NO. 160196/2017
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 14 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/15/2018
Industries, Inc., 836 N.Y.S.2d 492 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2007). Therefore, this motion made returnable in
New York County is appropriate.
17. In consolidation of two actions into one, the court incidentally and
ordering
must fix the venue of the action. Venue need not be the subject of a separate
necessarily remaining
motion addressed to the court in which the first action was commenced. Perinton Associates v.
Heicklen Farms, Inc., 413 N.Y.S.2d 66, 67 (4th Dept. 1979). In fact, "the court has the power, in
an appropriate case, to order a consolidation or a joint trial of actions pending in two counties
and to direct the trial to be held in one of the counties, thus incidentally changing the venue of
the actions pending in the other county without necessarily requiring a showing of circumstances
venue."
which would have independently justified the change of Smith v. Witteman Co., 197
N.Y.S.2d 877, 879 (4th Dept. 1960). A motion to change venue is not necessary and the
circumstances that independently justify a change of venue are also not required to be shown. In
this case, it is sufficient that these two cases arise out of the same accident, have the same
parties, and are at similar stages of discovery.
18. "The order consolidating the two actions, the court must necessarily fix the venue of
the consolidated action. In deciding the venue issue, the court, in itssound discretion, must consider
a number of factors, including the county where the cause of action arose and where the parties and
located."
witnesses are Woods v. County of Westchester, 492 N.Y.S.2d 829, 831 (2d Dept. 1985).
19. "Where common questions of law or fact exist, a motion to consolidate pursuant to
CPLR § 602(a) should be granted absent a showing of prejudice to a substantial right by the party
opposing the motion (see Perini Corp. v. WDF, Inc., 33 A.D.3d 605, 606, 822 N.Y.S.2d 295;
Gadelov v. Shure, 274 A.D.2d 375, 711 N.Y.S.2d 896). In addition, where actions commenced in
different counties are consolidated pursuant to CPLR § 602, the venue should be placed in the
exist."
county where the first action was commenced, unless special circumstances Moor v. Moor,
5 of 7
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/15/2018 04:20 PM INDEX NO. 160196/2017
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 14 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/15/2018
835 N.Y.S.2d 593, 594 (2d Dept. 2007); see also Maccabee v. Nangle, 33 A.D.2d 918, 307
N.Y.S.2d 509, 510 (2d Dept. 1970). In this case, plaintiff initially commenced the action in New
York County and based venue on his county of residence.
20. It isthe general rule that "[m]otions to consolidate pursuant to CPLR § 602(a) are
addressed to the sound discretion of the court, subject to the general rule that, in the absence of
special circumstances, where the actions have been commenced in different counties venue
commenced"
should be placed in the county having jurisdiction over the action first (TT Enters.
v. Gralnick, 127 A.D.2d 651, 652, 511 N.Y.S.2d 878); see also Brooks v. Lefrak, 591 N.Y.S.2d
772, 773 (1st Dept. 1992). Pursuant to the general rule, this case should be consolidated in New
York County.
21. It is respectfully submitted that in view of this legal standard, consolidation is
warranted. Both actions arise out of the same alleged incident which occurred on October 10, 2016
at subject premises. Both actions will plainly involve common, ifnot identical, questions of law and
fact. Indeed, liability in both actions is likely to turn upon who, if anyone, was responsible for
plaintiff's alleged incident. Moreover, the discovery in both cases is at a similar point as no
depositions have taken place in either case. Therefore, there is no reasonable argument that
consolidation would prejudice the rights of any party or unduly delay resolution of this matter.
Consolidation would promote judicial economy by eliminating duplicative discovery and trial
practice and would eliminate the specter of inconsistent rulings on the many questions of law and
fact common to both actions.
22. Defendant Britt Realty LLC has not previously requested this relief.
WHEREFORE, it isrespectfully requested that the Court issue an Order (1) Pursuant to
CPLR §602, consolidating the action, commenced in Supreme Court, Kings County under Index
No. 511471/2018, into this action commenced under Index No. 160196/2017 in Supreme Court,
6 of 7
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/15/2018 04:20 PM INDEX NO. 160196/2017
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 14 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/15/2018
New York County, for joint discovery and trial;(2) to deliver to the Clerk of Supreme Court, New
York County, all papers filed in Index No. 511471/2018 and certified copies of all minutes and
entries; and (3) for such other and further relief as thisCourt deems just and proper.
Dated: New York, New York
October 15, 2018
Yours etc.,
.
KRISTŸ D'AMBROSIO, ESQ.
7 of 7
Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/15/2018 04:20 PM INDEX NO. 160196/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 14 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/15/2018 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK _____________--------------------------------------------------X MANUEL DEPUMAREJO, : INDEX NO.: 160196/2017 Plaintiff, : -against- : AFFIRMATION IN SUPPORT 319 SCHERMERHORN PROPERTY OWNER LLC, : PARK DEVELOPERS & BUILDERS INC. and PARK PREMIUM ENTERPRISE INC., : Defendants. : -------------------------------------------- ---------X KRISTY D'AMBROSIO, an attomey duly admitted to practice law in the State of New York, affirms the following to be true pursuant to CPLR Section 2106: 1. I am an associate of the law firm of WEINER, MILLO, MORGAN & BONANNO, LLC, the attorneys for the defendant 319 SCHERMERHORN PROPERTY OWNER LLC, and as such am fully familiar with allthe facts and circumstances in this action. 2. I make this Affirmation in Support of the instant Motion for an Order: (1) Pursuant to CPLR §602, consolidating the action, commenced in Supreme Court, Kings County under Index No. 511471/2018, into this action commenced under Index No. 160196/2017 in Supreme Court, New York County, for joint discovery and trial; (2) to deliver to the Clerk of Supreme Court, New York County, all papers filed in Index No. 511471/2018 and certified copies of all minutes and entries; and (3) for such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper. 3. Consolidation and joint discovery is warranted because both actions arise out of the same alleged incident, involve many of the same parties, and are at similar points in discovery. Consolidation would promote judicial economy and prevent potentially inconsistent results. There are common questions of law and fact and plaintiff would face no prejudice as a result of consolidation. 1 of 7 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/15/2018 04:20 PM INDEX NO. 160196/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 14 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/15/2018 PROCEDURAL HISTORY 4. Plaintiff Manuel Depumarejo alleges that on October 10, 2016 he was injured while within the scope of his employment at the construction site located at 319 Schermerhorn Street, Brooklyn, New York (hereinafter "subject premises"). 5. On October 25, 2017, plaintiff commenced an action via service of a Summons and Complaint against 319 Schermerhorn Property Owner LLC, Park Developers & Builders Inc. and Park Premium Enterprise Inc. in Supreme Court, New York County under Index No. 160196/2017 (hereinafter "First Action"). In the First Action, plaintiff seeks to recover for alleged personal "A" injuries arising from an incident on October 10, 2016 at subject premises. Annexed as Exhibit is a copy of the Summons and Complaint for the First Action. 6. Defendant 319 Schermerhorn Property Owner LLC joined issue in the First Action "B" on December 27, 2017 via Service of a Verified Answer. Annexed as Exhibit is a copy of the Verified Answer. To date, defendants Park Developers & Builders Inc. and Park Premium Enterprise Inc. have not answered the First Action. 7. On or about June 4, 2018, plaintiff commenced a separate action with the filing of a Summons and Complaint against Horizon Group LLC, Britt Realty Development Corp., and Britt Realty LLC in Supreme Court, Kings County under Index No. 511471/2018 (hereinafter "Second Action"). In the Second Action, plaintiff also seeks to recover for alleged personal injuries arising from an incident on October 10, 2016 at subject premises. A copy of the Second Action Summons and Complaint is annexed hereto as Exhibit "C". 8. On August 21, 2018, the parties in the First Action appeared for a preliminary court "D" conference at which the Court set a discovery schedule. Annexed as Exhibit is a copy of the Preliminary Conference Order. 9. On October 15, 2018, Defendant Britt Realty LLC joined issue via Service of a 2 of 7 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/15/2018 04:20 PM INDEX NO. 160196/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 14 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/15/2018 "E" Verified Answer in the Second Action. Annexed as Exhibit is a copy of Britt Realty LLC's Verified Answer in the Second Action. To date, defendants Horizon Group LLC and Britt Realty Development Corp. have not answered in the Second Action. 10. This office represents Defendant 319 Schermerhorn Property Owner LLC in the First Action and Defendant Britt LLC in the Second Action, and as such, your affirmant is Realty familiar with the status of both action. Depositions have not been held in either action. personally 11. The proposed caption would appear as follows: SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK _________________________________________________________--------------X MANUEL DEPUMAREJO, : INDEX NO.: 160196/2017 Plaintiff, : -against- : 319 SCHERMERHORN PROPERTY OWNER LLC, : PARK DEVELOPERS & BUILDERS INC. and PARK PREMIUM ENTERPRISE TNC., HORIZON GROUP : LLC, BRITT REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORP., and BRITT REALTY LLC, : Defendants. -----------------------------------------------------------------------X LEGAL ARGUMENT 12. CPLR 602 permits this court to order joint discovery and a joint trial of actions involving "common questions of law and fact". The Appellate Division has specifically found consolidation to be appropriate where two actions share common questions of law and fact and an adverse party cannot demonstrate prejudice resulting from consolidation. Katan Group, LLC v. (l" CPC Resources, Inc., 110 A.D.3d 462 Dept. 2013); U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Westwood, LLC, I15 A.D.3d 935 (2d Dept. 2014). The Appellate Division has further noted that "[t]he interests of justice and judicial economy are better served by consolidation in those cases where the actions 3 of 7 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/15/2018 04:20 PM INDEX NO. 160196/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 14 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/15/2018 fact" share material questions of law or Hanover Insurance Group v. Mezansky, 105 A.D.3d 1000 (2d Dept. 2013) and that "one hearing allthe evidence can better determine the extent to which jury each defendant caused plaintiff's injuries and should eliminate the possibility of inconsistent trials." (ISt verdicts which might result from separate Morell y. Bassa, 200 A.D.2d 134 Dept. 2002). 13. The Court of Appeals has explicitly endorsed combined trials to avoid thorny residual questions concerning the application of collateral estoppel (issue preclusion). Shanley v. Callanan Industries, Inc., 54 N.Y.2d 52, 57, 444 N.Y.S.2d 585, 588, (1981) ("Where complex issues are intertwined, albeit in technically different actions, itwould be better ...to facilitate one complete and comprehensive hearing and determine all the issues involved between the parties at the same time"). Thus, public policy clearly favors consolidation and joint trials. 14. If the actions are merely at different stages of discovery, it may be possible to minimize the danger of delay by an order for expedited discovery with respect to the trailing action. See, e.g., Alsol Enterprises, Ltd. v. Premier Lincoln-Mercury, Inc., 11 A.D.3d 494, 783 N.Y.S.2d 620 (2d Dept. 2004). 15. CPLR § 602(b) permits the Court to consolidate an action in one county into an action in another county. See, e.g., Bernstein v. Silverman, 228 A.D.2d 325 (1st Dept, 1996). Therefore, the fact that one action is set in New York County and the other in Kings County is not a bar to consolidation. 16. "When two [or more] actions are pending in the Supreme Court in different county" counties, the motion to consolidate may be made in either (Woods v. County of Westchester, 112 A.D.2d 1037, 1038, 492 N.Y.S.2d 829; see also, Perinton Assoc. v. Heicklen Farms, 67 A.D.2d 832, 833, 413 N.Y.S.2d 66; Siegel, NY Prac §§ 128, 245 [2d ed] ); Gomez v. Jersey Coast Egg Producers, Inc., 588 N.Y.S.2d 589, 591 (2d Dept. 1992); Eber-NDC, LLC v. Star 4 of 7 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/15/2018 04:20 PM INDEX NO. 160196/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 14 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/15/2018 Industries, Inc., 836 N.Y.S.2d 492 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2007). Therefore, this motion made returnable in New York County is appropriate. 17. In consolidation of two actions into one, the court incidentally and ordering must fix the venue of the action. Venue need not be the subject of a separate necessarily remaining motion addressed to the court in which the first action was commenced. Perinton Associates v. Heicklen Farms, Inc., 413 N.Y.S.2d 66, 67 (4th Dept. 1979). In fact, "the court has the power, in an appropriate case, to order a consolidation or a joint trial of actions pending in two counties and to direct the trial to be held in one of the counties, thus incidentally changing the venue of the actions pending in the other county without necessarily requiring a showing of circumstances venue." which would have independently justified the change of Smith v. Witteman Co., 197 N.Y.S.2d 877, 879 (4th Dept. 1960). A motion to change venue is not necessary and the circumstances that independently justify a change of venue are also not required to be shown. In this case, it is sufficient that these two cases arise out of the same accident, have the same parties, and are at similar stages of discovery. 18. "The order consolidating the two actions, the court must necessarily fix the venue of the consolidated action. In deciding the venue issue, the court, in itssound discretion, must consider a number of factors, including the county where the cause of action arose and where the parties and located." witnesses are Woods v. County of Westchester, 492 N.Y.S.2d 829, 831 (2d Dept. 1985). 19. "Where common questions of law or fact exist, a motion to consolidate pursuant to CPLR § 602(a) should be granted absent a showing of prejudice to a substantial right by the party opposing the motion (see Perini Corp. v. WDF, Inc., 33 A.D.3d 605, 606, 822 N.Y.S.2d 295; Gadelov v. Shure, 274 A.D.2d 375, 711 N.Y.S.2d 896). In addition, where actions commenced in different counties are consolidated pursuant to CPLR § 602, the venue should be placed in the exist." county where the first action was commenced, unless special circumstances Moor v. Moor, 5 of 7 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/15/2018 04:20 PM INDEX NO. 160196/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 14 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/15/2018 835 N.Y.S.2d 593, 594 (2d Dept. 2007); see also Maccabee v. Nangle, 33 A.D.2d 918, 307 N.Y.S.2d 509, 510 (2d Dept. 1970). In this case, plaintiff initially commenced the action in New York County and based venue on his county of residence. 20. It isthe general rule that "[m]otions to consolidate pursuant to CPLR § 602(a) are addressed to the sound discretion of the court, subject to the general rule that, in the absence of special circumstances, where the actions have been commenced in different counties venue commenced" should be placed in the county having jurisdiction over the action first (TT Enters. v. Gralnick, 127 A.D.2d 651, 652, 511 N.Y.S.2d 878); see also Brooks v. Lefrak, 591 N.Y.S.2d 772, 773 (1st Dept. 1992). Pursuant to the general rule, this case should be consolidated in New York County. 21. It is respectfully submitted that in view of this legal standard, consolidation is warranted. Both actions arise out of the same alleged incident which occurred on October 10, 2016 at subject premises. Both actions will plainly involve common, ifnot identical, questions of law and fact. Indeed, liability in both actions is likely to turn upon who, if anyone, was responsible for plaintiff's alleged incident. Moreover, the discovery in both cases is at a similar point as no depositions have taken place in either case. Therefore, there is no reasonable argument that consolidation would prejudice the rights of any party or unduly delay resolution of this matter. Consolidation would promote judicial economy by eliminating duplicative discovery and trial practice and would eliminate the specter of inconsistent rulings on the many questions of law and fact common to both actions. 22. Defendant Britt Realty LLC has not previously requested this relief. WHEREFORE, it isrespectfully requested that the Court issue an Order (1) Pursuant to CPLR §602, consolidating the action, commenced in Supreme Court, Kings County under Index No. 511471/2018, into this action commenced under Index No. 160196/2017 in Supreme Court, 6 of 7 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/15/2018 04:20 PM INDEX NO. 160196/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 14 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/15/2018 New York County, for joint discovery and trial;(2) to deliver to the Clerk of Supreme Court, New York County, all papers filed in Index No. 511471/2018 and certified copies of all minutes and entries; and (3) for such other and further relief as thisCourt deems just and proper. Dated: New York, New York October 15, 2018 Yours etc., . KRISTŸ D'AMBROSIO, ESQ. 7 of 7