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
GOLENBOCK EISEMAN
Attorneys at Law 1 437 Madison Ave., New York, NY 10022-7020
ASSOR BELL & PESKOEILP T (212) 907-7300 I F (212) 754-0330 I www.golenbock.com
DIRECT D/AL NO.: C2 / 2J 907'739
DiRECr Fnx Nq.: (2 / 21 754~U330
EMAIL ADORES$: ✓VE/T~OOLENBOCK. COM
March 5, 2013
Efile and Hand Delivery
Hon. Shirley Werner Kornreich
Supreme Court of the State of New York
60 Centre Street, Rm. 41$
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
second letter to the Court, this time from defense counsel Steven Y. Yurowitz dated March 5,
2013, on the issue initially raised by defense counsel Kenneth Warner in his letter dated Friday,
March 1, 2013.
In a zush to call my March ~ letter "misleading," Mr. Yurowitz himself mischaracterizes
what occurred, and distorts the call that he and Mr. Warner placed with us yesterday in an
obvious attempt to set us up fox a letter they intended to write to the Court.
At none of the conferences or teleconferences did the Court or its attorneys ever state that
"if it [the motion to compel] were granted the schedule [for summary judgment] would have to
be changed" as Mr. Yurowitz contends. Rather, at the November 29, 2012 conference and,I
believe, during the January 8 call (whichIdid participate in, contrary to Mr. Yurowitz's claim),
the Court kept the summary judgment schedule on track, never once mentioned any need to
withdraw the NOI, and said that after the motion to compel was decided, then if necessary there
could be a call to discuss whether it impacted the suriunary judgment schedule. We stated to the
Court, as reiterated in our letter of yesterday's date, that it was not anticipated that the testimony
at issue in the motion to compel would relate to the issues in the summary judgment motions,
and the Court acknowledged that that issue could be addressed after the motion to compel was
decided.
GOLENBOCK EISEMAN
ASSOR BELL & PESKOE~
Hon. Shirley Werner Kornreich
March 5, 2413
Page 2
Npticeably, Mr. Yurawitz never states that the discovery in the motion to compel is
relevant to the anticipated summary judgment motions. The summary judgment motions were
due on February 28, and the date was only extended to March 14 on February 25. Presumably
defendants are far along in preparing their motion, and they know its subject matter. If the
accountant's testimony were relevant to the motion, they would be making that argument.
In short, our letter accurately set forth the procedural history, after the filing of the
pending motion to compel, of the direction to file the Note of Issue and the repeated scheduling
of the summary judgment motion. The parties have had nearly 4 months to prepare their motions
and are on the verge of filing them. Nothing in Mr. Yurowitz's letter changes pur view that there
is no reason to derail the filing of the summary judgment motions, regardless of the outcome of
the motion to compel.
Veit
ec: Kenneth Warner, Esq.
Richard Greenberg, Esq.
Peter Wang, Esq.
Document Filed Date
March 05, 2013
Case Filing Date
March 09, 2010
Category
Commercial Division
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
GOLENBOCK EISEMAN Attorneys at Law 1 437 Madison Ave., New York, NY 10022-7020 ASSOR BELL & PESKOEILP T (212) 907-7300 I F (212) 754-0330 I www.golenbock.com DIRECT D/AL NO.: C2 / 2J 907'739 DiRECr Fnx Nq.: (2 / 21 754~U330 EMAIL ADORES$: ✓VE/T~OOLENBOCK. COM March 5, 2013 Efile and Hand Delivery Hon. Shirley Werner Kornreich Supreme Court of the State of New York 60 Centre Street, Rm. 41$ 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 second letter to the Court, this time from defense counsel Steven Y. Yurowitz dated March 5, 2013, on the issue initially raised by defense counsel Kenneth Warner in his letter dated Friday, March 1, 2013. In a zush to call my March ~ letter "misleading," Mr. Yurowitz himself mischaracterizes what occurred, and distorts the call that he and Mr. Warner placed with us yesterday in an obvious attempt to set us up fox a letter they intended to write to the Court. At none of the conferences or teleconferences did the Court or its attorneys ever state that "if it [the motion to compel] were granted the schedule [for summary judgment] would have to be changed" as Mr. Yurowitz contends. Rather, at the November 29, 2012 conference and,I believe, during the January 8 call (whichIdid participate in, contrary to Mr. Yurowitz's claim), the Court kept the summary judgment schedule on track, never once mentioned any need to withdraw the NOI, and said that after the motion to compel was decided, then if necessary there could be a call to discuss whether it impacted the suriunary judgment schedule. We stated to the Court, as reiterated in our letter of yesterday's date, that it was not anticipated that the testimony at issue in the motion to compel would relate to the issues in the summary judgment motions, and the Court acknowledged that that issue could be addressed after the motion to compel was decided. GOLENBOCK EISEMAN ASSOR BELL & PESKOE~ Hon. Shirley Werner Kornreich March 5, 2413 Page 2 Npticeably, Mr. Yurawitz never states that the discovery in the motion to compel is relevant to the anticipated summary judgment motions. The summary judgment motions were due on February 28, and the date was only extended to March 14 on February 25. Presumably defendants are far along in preparing their motion, and they know its subject matter. If the accountant's testimony were relevant to the motion, they would be making that argument. In short, our letter accurately set forth the procedural history, after the filing of the pending motion to compel, of the direction to file the Note of Issue and the repeated scheduling of the summary judgment motion. The parties have had nearly 4 months to prepare their motions and are on the verge of filing them. Nothing in Mr. Yurowitz's letter changes pur view that there is no reason to derail the filing of the summary judgment motions, regardless of the outcome of the motion to compel. Veit ec: Kenneth Warner, Esq. Richard Greenberg, Esq. Peter Wang, Esq.