On February 13, 2014 a
Letter,Correspondence
was filed
involving a dispute between
Bryan Kelly,
and
Lettire Construction Corp.,
for Commercial Division
in the District Court of New York County.
Preview
October 17, 2014
BY ECF & HAND DELIVERY
Justice Jeffrey K. Oing
Supreme Court of the State of New York
County of New York, Part 48
60 Centre Street
New York, NY 10007
Re: Bryan Kelly v. Lettire Construction Corp., 650487/2014
Dear Justice Oing:
I am writing on behalf of Plaintiff Bryan Kelly to identify a significant deficiency in
Defendant’s discovery responses in advance of our October 21, 2014 conference.
We only recently received Defendant’s discovery responses, which were supplemented
after we raised a number of issues with Defense counsel. Thus, as we complete our
review of Defendant’s production, additional issues may arise. In the interim, however,
we are aware of one issue upon which the parties cannot agree: the relevance of the U.S.
Department of Labor investigation of multiple violations of wage and hour laws by
Defendant (“Investigation”).
Plaintiff, a former affordable housing development employee of Defendant, sued for
fraud based on Defendant’s failure to disclose the Investigation to Plaintiff prior to his
hiring. Plaintiff only learned of the Investigation after he was hired from, among others,
New York City government officials, who declined to proceed with affordable housing
projects presented by Plaintiff, citing to the Investigation. Ultimately, Plaintiff had to
resign from Defendant because he was unable to continue to develop real estate
development projects while Defendant was under investigation.
To support his fraud claim, Plaintiff asserted discovery demands specific to the nature,
timing and resolution of the Investigation. For example, Plaintiff served the following
interrogatories:
Describe how and when Defendant became aware of the Investigation;
To the extent Defendant contends that Plaintiff was aware of the Investigation
prior to executing his employment agreement, please set forth the basis of such a
contention;
Describe how and when the Investigation was publicly disclosed; and
Please describe the impact of the Investigation on [Plaintiff’s] Projects [that are
the subject of this litigation].
Bryan Kelly v. Lettire Construction Corp. Page 2 of 2
650487/2014
In response to each interrogatory (as well as related document demands), Defendant
objected with the same boilerplate language “vague, overly broad and unduly
burdensome” and “irrelevant to Plaintiff’s claims.” There is nothing vague or
burdensome about the requests as they seek specific information regarding the
Investigation. This information, over which Defendant has exclusive control, will
demonstrate how Plaintiff could not complete his job of developing affordable housing
projects while Defendant was under federal investigation.
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court address the
discoverability of the Investigation at the upcoming hearing.
Respectfully,
/s/ Michael Stolper
Michael Stolper
cc: Neil Connelly, Esq. (counsel for defendant)
Document Filed Date
October 17, 2014
Case Filing Date
February 13, 2014
Category
Commercial Division
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
October 17, 2014 BY ECF & HAND DELIVERY Justice Jeffrey K. Oing Supreme Court of the State of New York County of New York, Part 48 60 Centre Street New York, NY 10007 Re: Bryan Kelly v. Lettire Construction Corp., 650487/2014 Dear Justice Oing: I am writing on behalf of Plaintiff Bryan Kelly to identify a significant deficiency in Defendant’s discovery responses in advance of our October 21, 2014 conference. We only recently received Defendant’s discovery responses, which were supplemented after we raised a number of issues with Defense counsel. Thus, as we complete our review of Defendant’s production, additional issues may arise. In the interim, however, we are aware of one issue upon which the parties cannot agree: the relevance of the U.S. Department of Labor investigation of multiple violations of wage and hour laws by Defendant (“Investigation”). Plaintiff, a former affordable housing development employee of Defendant, sued for fraud based on Defendant’s failure to disclose the Investigation to Plaintiff prior to his hiring. Plaintiff only learned of the Investigation after he was hired from, among others, New York City government officials, who declined to proceed with affordable housing projects presented by Plaintiff, citing to the Investigation. Ultimately, Plaintiff had to resign from Defendant because he was unable to continue to develop real estate development projects while Defendant was under investigation. To support his fraud claim, Plaintiff asserted discovery demands specific to the nature, timing and resolution of the Investigation. For example, Plaintiff served the following interrogatories: Describe how and when Defendant became aware of the Investigation; To the extent Defendant contends that Plaintiff was aware of the Investigation prior to executing his employment agreement, please set forth the basis of such a contention; Describe how and when the Investigation was publicly disclosed; and Please describe the impact of the Investigation on [Plaintiff’s] Projects [that are the subject of this litigation]. Bryan Kelly v. Lettire Construction Corp. Page 2 of 2 650487/2014 In response to each interrogatory (as well as related document demands), Defendant objected with the same boilerplate language “vague, overly broad and unduly burdensome” and “irrelevant to Plaintiff’s claims.” There is nothing vague or burdensome about the requests as they seek specific information regarding the Investigation. This information, over which Defendant has exclusive control, will demonstrate how Plaintiff could not complete his job of developing affordable housing projects while Defendant was under federal investigation. For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court address the discoverability of the Investigation at the upcoming hearing. Respectfully, /s/ Michael Stolper Michael Stolper cc: Neil Connelly, Esq. (counsel for defendant)