On March 09, 2010 a
Answer
was filed
involving a dispute between
Kuplesky, Harold, Individually And On Behalf Of Starrett City Preservation Llc, Derivatively,
Rudman, Harvey, Individually And On Behalf Of Starrett City Preservation Llc, Derivatively,
and
Carol Gram Deane,
Dd Shopping Center Llc,
Dd Spring Creek Llc,
Disque D. Deane,
Salt Kettle Llc,
Sk Shopping Center Llc,
Sk Spring Creek Llc,
Spring Creek Plaza Llc,
Starrett City Preservation Llc,
St. Gervais Llc,
for Commercial Division
in the District Court of New York County.
Preview
INDEX NO. 650159/2010
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 0471372011
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 49 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/13/2011
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
pe neeemenne: aan wae. aan: xX
HARVEY RUDMAN and HAROLD KUPLESKY, Index No. 650159/10
on Behalf of Each of Them Individually And
On Behalf Of Starrett City Preservation LLC,
Derivatively,
Plaintiffs,
ANSWER TO
- against - COUNTERCLAIMS OF
ESTATE OF
CAROL GRAM DEANE, THE ESTATE OF DISQUE D. DEANE
DISQUE D. DEANE by CAROL G. DEANE,
as TEMPORARY EXECUTRIX, SALT
KETTLE LLC, ST. GERVAIS LLC,
STARRETT CITY PRESERVATION LLC,
DD SPRING CREEK LLC, SK SPRING
CREEK LLC, SPRING CREEK PLAZA
LLC, DD SHOPPING CENTER LLC and
SK SHOPPING CENTER LLC,
Defendants.
weet nee nn nn een ene eee
Plaintiff-Counterclaim Defendant Harvey Rudman (“Plaintiff” or
“Rudman’”), by his attorneys, Golenbock Eiseman Assor Bell & Peskoe LLP, as and for
his Answer to the Counterclaims of defendant the Estate of Disque D. Deane
(“Counterclaimant”), states as follows:
FIRST COUNTERCLAIM
1 Denies the allegations in paragraph 184, and states that Rudman
was not employed by Disque D. Deane individually and did not owe fiduciary duties to
Deane either individually or in his capacity as MGP.
2 Denies the allegations in paragraph 185, except admits that during
the course of his work, Rudman was given access to certain documents relating to certain
Deane-related entities.
529455.3
3 Denies the allegations in paragraph 186, except admits that certain
words quoted by Counterclaimant in this paragraph appear in paragraph 93 of the Second
Amended Complaint, and admits that he ceased working for all Deane-related entities as
of April 29, 2009 and ceased being a member of Cork Management LLC as of May 31,
2009.
4 Denies the allegations in paragraph 187.
5 Denies the allegations in paragraph 188, and refers to the letter
dated July 8, 2010 from Jacqueline G. Veit to Kenneth E. Warner for a complete and
accurate statement of its contents.
6 Denies the allegations in paragraph 189, except admits that
demand for certain documents was made.
7 In response to the allegations in paragraph 190, states that such
allegations call for a legal conclusion and thus do not require a response. To the extent
that a response is required, Rudman denies the allegations.
8 Denies the allegations in paragraph 191.
9. In response to the allegations in paragraph 192, states that such
allegations call for a legal conclusion and thus do not require a response. To the extent
that a response is required, Rudman denies the allegations.
SECOND COUNTERCLAIM
10. In response to the allegations in paragraph 193, Rudman repeats
paragraphs 1 through 9 hereof as if fully set forth here.
11. Denies the allegations in paragraph 194.
12. Denies the allegations in paragraph 195.
529455.3
13. In response to the allegations in paragraph 196, states that such
allegations call for a legal conclusion and thus do not require a response. To the extent
that a response is required, Rudman denies the allegations.
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
14. The Counterclaims fail to state a cause of action against Rudman.
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
15. The Counterclaims are barred by the doctrines of waiver, estoppel,
laches and/or unclean hands.
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
16. Counterclaimant lacks standing to assert the Counterclaims.
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
17. At no time relevant to the Counterclaims was there an employer-
employee relationship between Deane and Rudman.
18. Accordingly, to the extent that Counterclaimant’s allegations that
Rudman owed fiduciary duties are based upon an alleged employer-employee
relationship between Deane and Rudman, there were no such fiduciary duties.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Harvey Rudman respectfully requests judgment:
A Dismissing the Counterclaims of the Estate of Disque D. Deane in
their entirety;
B Awarding Rudman his costs and expenses, including reasonable
attorneys’ fees;
Cc Awarding Rudman such other and further relief as the Court deems
just and appropriate.
529455.3
Dated: New York, New York GOLENBOCK EISEMAN ASSOR
April 13, 2011 BELL &PESKOE LLP
By
(\
avid JJ Eiseman
Jacqueline G. Veit
David Shamshovich
437 Madison Avenue, 35th Floor
New York, New York 10022
(212) 907-7300
Attorneys for Plaintiff-Counterclaim
Defendant Harvey Rudman
529455.3
Document Filed Date
April 13, 2011
Case Filing Date
March 09, 2010
Category
Commercial Division
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
INDEX NO. 650159/2010 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 0471372011 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 49 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/13/2011 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK pe neeemenne: aan wae. aan: xX HARVEY RUDMAN and HAROLD KUPLESKY, Index No. 650159/10 on Behalf of Each of Them Individually And On Behalf Of Starrett City Preservation LLC, Derivatively, Plaintiffs, ANSWER TO - against - COUNTERCLAIMS OF ESTATE OF CAROL GRAM DEANE, THE ESTATE OF DISQUE D. DEANE DISQUE D. DEANE by CAROL G. DEANE, as TEMPORARY EXECUTRIX, SALT KETTLE LLC, ST. GERVAIS LLC, STARRETT CITY PRESERVATION LLC, DD SPRING CREEK LLC, SK SPRING CREEK LLC, SPRING CREEK PLAZA LLC, DD SHOPPING CENTER LLC and SK SHOPPING CENTER LLC, Defendants. weet nee nn nn een ene eee Plaintiff-Counterclaim Defendant Harvey Rudman (“Plaintiff” or “Rudman’”), by his attorneys, Golenbock Eiseman Assor Bell & Peskoe LLP, as and for his Answer to the Counterclaims of defendant the Estate of Disque D. Deane (“Counterclaimant”), states as follows: FIRST COUNTERCLAIM 1 Denies the allegations in paragraph 184, and states that Rudman was not employed by Disque D. Deane individually and did not owe fiduciary duties to Deane either individually or in his capacity as MGP. 2 Denies the allegations in paragraph 185, except admits that during the course of his work, Rudman was given access to certain documents relating to certain Deane-related entities. 529455.3 3 Denies the allegations in paragraph 186, except admits that certain words quoted by Counterclaimant in this paragraph appear in paragraph 93 of the Second Amended Complaint, and admits that he ceased working for all Deane-related entities as of April 29, 2009 and ceased being a member of Cork Management LLC as of May 31, 2009. 4 Denies the allegations in paragraph 187. 5 Denies the allegations in paragraph 188, and refers to the letter dated July 8, 2010 from Jacqueline G. Veit to Kenneth E. Warner for a complete and accurate statement of its contents. 6 Denies the allegations in paragraph 189, except admits that demand for certain documents was made. 7 In response to the allegations in paragraph 190, states that such allegations call for a legal conclusion and thus do not require a response. To the extent that a response is required, Rudman denies the allegations. 8 Denies the allegations in paragraph 191. 9. In response to the allegations in paragraph 192, states that such allegations call for a legal conclusion and thus do not require a response. To the extent that a response is required, Rudman denies the allegations. SECOND COUNTERCLAIM 10. In response to the allegations in paragraph 193, Rudman repeats paragraphs 1 through 9 hereof as if fully set forth here. 11. Denies the allegations in paragraph 194. 12. Denies the allegations in paragraph 195. 529455.3 13. In response to the allegations in paragraph 196, states that such allegations call for a legal conclusion and thus do not require a response. To the extent that a response is required, Rudman denies the allegations. FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 14. The Counterclaims fail to state a cause of action against Rudman. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 15. The Counterclaims are barred by the doctrines of waiver, estoppel, laches and/or unclean hands. THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 16. Counterclaimant lacks standing to assert the Counterclaims. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 17. At no time relevant to the Counterclaims was there an employer- employee relationship between Deane and Rudman. 18. Accordingly, to the extent that Counterclaimant’s allegations that Rudman owed fiduciary duties are based upon an alleged employer-employee relationship between Deane and Rudman, there were no such fiduciary duties. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Harvey Rudman respectfully requests judgment: A Dismissing the Counterclaims of the Estate of Disque D. Deane in their entirety; B Awarding Rudman his costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys’ fees; Cc Awarding Rudman such other and further relief as the Court deems just and appropriate. 529455.3 Dated: New York, New York GOLENBOCK EISEMAN ASSOR April 13, 2011 BELL &PESKOE LLP By (\ avid JJ Eiseman Jacqueline G. Veit David Shamshovich 437 Madison Avenue, 35th Floor New York, New York 10022 (212) 907-7300 Attorneys for Plaintiff-Counterclaim Defendant Harvey Rudman 529455.3