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
(212) 593-8000
TELECOPIER
(212) 593-9058
October 8, 2013
Hon. Shirley Werner Kornreich
Justice
Supreme Court, New York County
60 Centre Street
New York, NY 10007
Re: Rudman et ano. y. Deane et al.; Index No. 650159/10
Dear Justice Kornreich:
Ms. Veit’s insulting and vituperative letter of October 7, 2013, compels a very brief
response only because Ms. Veit has misled the Court by claiming that I “inaccurately typed” and
“misrepresent[ed]” the text of the central contract provision in this case, Section 3.3. In fact, my
letter accurately typed the provisions at issue and accurately reflected their text. I
simultaneously informed the Court in my cover letter, as I had in our opening memorandum of
law (p. 13, fn 8) that, for ease of reading and analysis, I had separated the three sentences of
Section 3.3 into three sequential sentences rather than maintaining them in the Agreement’s
format, i.e., three sentences run together in a single paragraph. The graphics used in my October
4 letter are not “inaccurately typed,” nor do they “misrepresent” the text of Section 3.3.
Moreover, contrary to Ms. Veit’s false accusation, defendants have never “urge[d]” the Court to
ignore the boilerplate principle that contractual provisions are not to be read in isolation. The
entire Preservation Agreement is found as Exhibit 1 to our motion papers.
Ms. Veit’s October 7 letter is a transparent attempt to file an impermissible sur-reply,
which comes on the heels of plaintiffs filing a 24-page attorney’s opposition affirmation to our
summary judgment motion filled with argument, in complete disregard of the Court’s denial of
counsel’s application for permission to file an oversized memorandum of law in opposition.
I believe that the Preservation Agreement excerpts of the provisions at issue on
defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment (attached to my letter of October 4) will be
helpful to the Court in reviewing both parties’ submissions, as they were helpful to us in doing
the same.
Respectfully,
Kenneth E. Warner
KEW:ak
cc: All Counsel of Record (via e-filing)
Document Filed Date
October 08, 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 (212) 593-8000 TELECOPIER (212) 593-9058 October 8, 2013 Hon. Shirley Werner Kornreich Justice Supreme Court, New York County 60 Centre Street New York, NY 10007 Re: Rudman et ano. y. Deane et al.; Index No. 650159/10 Dear Justice Kornreich: Ms. Veit’s insulting and vituperative letter of October 7, 2013, compels a very brief response only because Ms. Veit has misled the Court by claiming that I “inaccurately typed” and “misrepresent[ed]” the text of the central contract provision in this case, Section 3.3. In fact, my letter accurately typed the provisions at issue and accurately reflected their text. I simultaneously informed the Court in my cover letter, as I had in our opening memorandum of law (p. 13, fn 8) that, for ease of reading and analysis, I had separated the three sentences of Section 3.3 into three sequential sentences rather than maintaining them in the Agreement’s format, i.e., three sentences run together in a single paragraph. The graphics used in my October 4 letter are not “inaccurately typed,” nor do they “misrepresent” the text of Section 3.3. Moreover, contrary to Ms. Veit’s false accusation, defendants have never “urge[d]” the Court to ignore the boilerplate principle that contractual provisions are not to be read in isolation. The entire Preservation Agreement is found as Exhibit 1 to our motion papers. Ms. Veit’s October 7 letter is a transparent attempt to file an impermissible sur-reply, which comes on the heels of plaintiffs filing a 24-page attorney’s opposition affirmation to our summary judgment motion filled with argument, in complete disregard of the Court’s denial of counsel’s application for permission to file an oversized memorandum of law in opposition. I believe that the Preservation Agreement excerpts of the provisions at issue on defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment (attached to my letter of October 4) will be helpful to the Court in reviewing both parties’ submissions, as they were helpful to us in doing the same. Respectfully, Kenneth E. Warner KEW:ak cc: All Counsel of Record (via e-filing)