Letter,Correspondence: Rudman, Harvey, Individually And On Behalf Of Starrett City Preservation Llc, Derivatively, Kuplesky, Harold, Individually And On Behalf Of Starrett City Preservation Llc, Derivatively v. Carol Gram Deane, Disque D. Deane, 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, Sk Shopping Center Llc

• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                GOLENBOCK              EISEMAN
                                                                              Attorneys at Law 1 437 Madison Ave., New York, NY 10022-7020
                 ASSOR BELL & PESKOE«P                                        T (212) 907-7300 I F (212) 754-0330 I www.golenbock.com



                 D/RECT D/ALNo.: !2 / 2l 907-739 /
                 DiFZECr Fax No.: (2 / 2) 754-0330
                 EMA/L ADDRESS: ✓VEIT~GDLENHOCK.COM




                                                                                March 4, 2013


                 Efile and Hand Delivery

                 Hon. Shirley Werner Kornreich
                 Supreme Court of the State of New York
                 60 Centre Street, Rm. 418
                 New York, New York 10007


                                            Re:      Rudman, et al., v. Deane, et al.
                                                     (N.Y. Supreme, Index No. 650159_/2010)

                 Dear Justice Kornreich:

                          We are counsel to plaintiffs in the above-referenced action.             We write in response to the
                 letter to the Court from defense counsel Kenneth Warner, efiled on Friday, March 1, 2013.                      Mr.
                 Warner contends that the status of Plaintiff's         pending   motion    to compel   is important    "because   if
                 granted it could affect the summary judgment submission schedule, since post-Note of Issue
                 summary judgment motions are supposed to be filed after discovery is closed."

                          We disagree with Mr. Warner's position that the outcome of the motion to compel may
                 impact the summary judgment motion schedule.                The Court and the parties have moved forward
                 with the required filing of the Note of Issue (NOI) and with the scheduling and preparation of
                 summary judgment motions for months notwithstanding their knowledge of the pendency of the
                 motion.    As an example, although the motion to compel was argued in September 2012 and had
                 not yet been decided, by Order dated November 7, 2012, the Court ordered plaintiffs to file the
                 NOI by November 30, 2012.           Plaintiffs filed the NOI on November 20, and the parties then
                 appeared for a conference on November 29, 2012.                At that conference, the fact that the motion to
                 compel was still     pending   was   expressly   discussed   in the context of when summary judgment
                 motions were due, and the Court Attorney scheduled the summary judgment motion for 60 days
                 after the Note of Issue, which was January 22, 2013.

                           Thereafter, conferences were held and the summary judgment schedule was extended to
                  accommodate Defendants' counsel's travel and other work obligations.                    Following a telephonic
                  conference held on January 8, 2013, the filing of the summary judgment motions was adjourned
                  from January 22 to February 28, the date requested by Defendants.                  Again, although the motion




                  17271711
                 GOLENBOCK EISEMAN
                 ASSOR BELL & PESKOE«P


                 Hon. Shirley Werner Kornreich
                 March 4, 2013
                 Page 2


                 to compel was still pending, there was agreement among the parties and the Court that the
                 summary judgment schedule would proceed.                The schedule was again extended on consent
                 during the most recent telephonic conference, as reflected in the Court's February 25, 2013
                 order.

                          Further, as we have stated to the Court and our adversaries on several occasions, the
                 discovery at issue in the motion to compel is unrelated to the matters that will be at issue in the
                 summary judgment motions.           The pending motion relates to documents concerning, and
                 testimony of, defendants' accountant in and after 2010 which were withheld as privileged on the
                 grounds that defendants also retained such accountants as their litigation consultant.                 The
                 accountant's knowledge and testimony is not relevant to any party's anticipated                  summary
                 judgment motion; Defendants have never disagreed with that statement.

                           This case has been pending since 2010.           We submit that there is no reason to derail the
                  filing of the summary judgment motions, regardless of the outcome of the motion to compel.

                                                                                 Respectfully,          ~~'f     M1     ~``
                                                                                                       ~'~           ~"


                                                                                 Jacqueline G. Veit

                  cc:   Kenneth Warner, Esq.
                        Richard Greenberg, Esq.
                        Peter Wang, Esq.




                  17271711