On March 09, 2010 a
Letter,Correspondence
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
WARNER PARTNERS, P.C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
950 THIRD A VENUE
NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10022
TELEPHONE
(212) 593-8000
TELECOPIER
(212) 593-9058
August 21, 2014
Hon. Shirley Werner Kornreich
Justice
Supreme Court, New York County
60 Centre Street
New York, New York 10007
Re: Rudman et ano. v. Deane et al.; Index No. 650159/10
Dear Justice Kornreich:
We write in response to Mr. Eiseman's letter oflast night (Doc. #359), which after
conceding what should have been conceded two days ago, seeks to inject language which is
sheer surplusage and repetition and therefore useless at best, confusing at worst.
The language counsel seeks to insert- "if a jury finds that discussions which 'resulted in'
the refinancing did not begin before his termination" - repeats precisely what the Court said in
its Decision earlier (i.e., "Assuming as all parties do (for purposes of this motion only) that
Kuplesky was fired in December 2008 his Sharing Ratio could not have been reduced unless the
discussions that 'resulted in' the refinancing had not begun before his termination," at 28,
emphasis in original). That point was then discussed over the next two pages of the Decision.
Thus, no reader (or juror) could possibly be confused by simply deleting the language which
counsel now finally concedes was incorrect, a fact Your Honor recognized virtually immediately
in court on Tuesday.
Nor can Mr. Eiseman take credit for noting the error in two places, since that was done in
court as well. In short, the delay and correspondence counsel occasioned to correct a clear and
obviously inadvertent error in the Decision warrants the sanctions Your Honor referenced on
Tuesday (conferring with co-counsel and preparing this response took another one-half hour of
my time, not to mention co-counsel's time).
Respectfu~.
~/.W~
Kenneth E. Wamer
cc: All Counsel ofRecord
Document Filed Date
August 21, 2014
Case Filing Date
March 09, 2010
Category
Commercial Division
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
WARNER PARTNERS, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 950 THIRD A VENUE NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10022 TELEPHONE (212) 593-8000 TELECOPIER (212) 593-9058 August 21, 2014 Hon. Shirley Werner Kornreich Justice Supreme Court, New York County 60 Centre Street New York, New York 10007 Re: Rudman et ano. v. Deane et al.; Index No. 650159/10 Dear Justice Kornreich: We write in response to Mr. Eiseman's letter oflast night (Doc. #359), which after conceding what should have been conceded two days ago, seeks to inject language which is sheer surplusage and repetition and therefore useless at best, confusing at worst. The language counsel seeks to insert- "if a jury finds that discussions which 'resulted in' the refinancing did not begin before his termination" - repeats precisely what the Court said in its Decision earlier (i.e., "Assuming as all parties do (for purposes of this motion only) that Kuplesky was fired in December 2008 his Sharing Ratio could not have been reduced unless the discussions that 'resulted in' the refinancing had not begun before his termination," at 28, emphasis in original). That point was then discussed over the next two pages of the Decision. Thus, no reader (or juror) could possibly be confused by simply deleting the language which counsel now finally concedes was incorrect, a fact Your Honor recognized virtually immediately in court on Tuesday. Nor can Mr. Eiseman take credit for noting the error in two places, since that was done in court as well. In short, the delay and correspondence counsel occasioned to correct a clear and obviously inadvertent error in the Decision warrants the sanctions Your Honor referenced on Tuesday (conferring with co-counsel and preparing this response took another one-half hour of my time, not to mention co-counsel's time). Respectfu~. ~/.W~ Kenneth E. Wamer cc: All Counsel ofRecord