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 AVENUE
NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10022
TELEPHONE KENNETH E. WARNER
(212) 593-8000, RITA WASSERSTEIN WARNER,
Gin) 55-3085"
-S OF COUNSEL
en) September 11, 2013
JOHN R, CUTI
LEWIS S. FISCHBEIN
ERIC HECKER
Hon. Shirley Werner Kornreich
Justice
Supreme Court, New York County
60 Centre Street
New York, NY 10007
Re: Rudman et ano. v. Deane et al.; Index No. 650159/10
Dear Justice Kornreich:
I am the attorney for all but two of the defendants and write on behalf of all
defendants and, in part, on behalf of plaintiffs.' This letter has been approved in advance
by David Eiseman, Esq., attorney for plaintiffs. I am writing to request a two week
extension of the date by which all parties must file reply papers on their respective
motions for summary judgment (i.e., from the current due date of September 16 to
September 30).” Plaintiffs join in this request to the extent of requesting a one week
extension, but ask that if the Court grants defendants a two-week extension, it should
apply to plaintiffs as well. This is the first and only request for a change in the summary
judgment briefing schedule by either side.
Moving and opposition papers were timely filed and served by both sides.
However, both sides underestimated the disruptive impact of summer vacation schedules,
professional commitments and the High Holy Days (observed by all lawyers on both
sides) on the timely completion of reply papers when they proposed the briefing schedule
now in place.
The reason we are requesting an additional week for both sides is that the
disruption at our end has been particularly (and unforeseeably) problematic. For
example, as lead counsel for defendants I anticipated being fully available to work on
reply papers during virtually all the time allotted, but instead I am actually engaged on
trial (before Justice Kapnick in the Matter of Application of Bank of New York Mellon)
this week and for the next two weeks (with only Wednesdays off). Moreover, my
' The other defendants are represented by Newman & Greenberg (Carol Gram Deane,
individually) and by Foley & Lardner (Spring Creek Plaza LLC). Those counsel have
asked me to write on behalf of all defendants.
? Plaintiffs have moved for summary judgment dismissing the counterclaims of defendant
Disque Deane and defendants have moved for partial summary judgment with respect to
several major claims in plaintiffs’ complaint.vacation schedule, initially set for the time before reply papers were due, had to be
moved later because of personal family issues. In addition, Mr. Yurowitz of the
Newman & Greenberg firm, who has been intimately involved in all aspects of this case
from the very beginning, is orthodox, so in addition to the High Holy Days he will be out
of the office during all ten days of Succot (i.e., beginning the afternoon of September 18
and ending September 27), restricting his ability to work during the extension period
requested. As noted, my ability to make full use of a one week extension is also
restricted by my actual engagement on trial.
We respectfully submit that the extension requested will not cause prejudice to
either side or delay the progress of this matter. At this point all pre-trial proceedings are
complete.
Thank you for your continuing attention to this matter.
Respectfully,
5. Uw
Kenneth E. Warner
KEW:ak
ce: All Counsel of Record
Document Filed Date
September 11, 2013
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 AVENUE NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10022 TELEPHONE KENNETH E. WARNER (212) 593-8000, RITA WASSERSTEIN WARNER, Gin) 55-3085" -S OF COUNSEL en) September 11, 2013 JOHN R, CUTI LEWIS S. FISCHBEIN ERIC HECKER Hon. Shirley Werner Kornreich Justice Supreme Court, New York County 60 Centre Street New York, NY 10007 Re: Rudman et ano. v. Deane et al.; Index No. 650159/10 Dear Justice Kornreich: I am the attorney for all but two of the defendants and write on behalf of all defendants and, in part, on behalf of plaintiffs.' This letter has been approved in advance by David Eiseman, Esq., attorney for plaintiffs. I am writing to request a two week extension of the date by which all parties must file reply papers on their respective motions for summary judgment (i.e., from the current due date of September 16 to September 30).” Plaintiffs join in this request to the extent of requesting a one week extension, but ask that if the Court grants defendants a two-week extension, it should apply to plaintiffs as well. This is the first and only request for a change in the summary judgment briefing schedule by either side. Moving and opposition papers were timely filed and served by both sides. However, both sides underestimated the disruptive impact of summer vacation schedules, professional commitments and the High Holy Days (observed by all lawyers on both sides) on the timely completion of reply papers when they proposed the briefing schedule now in place. The reason we are requesting an additional week for both sides is that the disruption at our end has been particularly (and unforeseeably) problematic. For example, as lead counsel for defendants I anticipated being fully available to work on reply papers during virtually all the time allotted, but instead I am actually engaged on trial (before Justice Kapnick in the Matter of Application of Bank of New York Mellon) this week and for the next two weeks (with only Wednesdays off). Moreover, my ' The other defendants are represented by Newman & Greenberg (Carol Gram Deane, individually) and by Foley & Lardner (Spring Creek Plaza LLC). Those counsel have asked me to write on behalf of all defendants. ? Plaintiffs have moved for summary judgment dismissing the counterclaims of defendant Disque Deane and defendants have moved for partial summary judgment with respect to several major claims in plaintiffs’ complaint.vacation schedule, initially set for the time before reply papers were due, had to be moved later because of personal family issues. In addition, Mr. Yurowitz of the Newman & Greenberg firm, who has been intimately involved in all aspects of this case from the very beginning, is orthodox, so in addition to the High Holy Days he will be out of the office during all ten days of Succot (i.e., beginning the afternoon of September 18 and ending September 27), restricting his ability to work during the extension period requested. As noted, my ability to make full use of a one week extension is also restricted by my actual engagement on trial. We respectfully submit that the extension requested will not cause prejudice to either side or delay the progress of this matter. At this point all pre-trial proceedings are complete. Thank you for your continuing attention to this matter. Respectfully, 5. Uw Kenneth E. Warner KEW:ak ce: All Counsel of Record