High Quality
Open the downloaded document, and select print from the file menu (PDF reader required).
lNED
ON
111912009
+
I
Notice
of
Motion/
Order to
Show
Cause
-
Affldavlta
-
Exhibits
...
Answering
Affidavlta
-
Erhlblts
Replying
Aff
ldavits
SUPREME
COURT
OF
THE
STATE
OP
NEW
YORK
-
NEW
YORK
COUNTY
'PART,
3
Justice
,!y?RFRS
ppl!EeFP
I"
MOTIONDATEMOTION
$EO.
O.
0
,v,
-v-
MOTION
GAL.
NO.
I
The
following
papers.
numbmd
1
to
,,
, ,
,
were
rgad
on
thin
motlon
to/for
CrOqG-Motion:
Yes
No
Upon
the
foregoing
papera, It
Is
ordered
that thla motlor!
//
I
i
Check
one:
u
FINALDI$POSITION
'&
NON-FINAL QlSPOSlTlON
I
Check if
approprlate:
DONOTPQST
-+-
.
-
--
L
REFERENCE^
SUPREME COURT
OF
THE
STATE
OF
NEW YORK
COUNTY
OF NEW Y0RK:COMMERCIAL DIVISION
HAROLD
EINSTEIN
and
JENNIFER
BOYD,-X
------------------I_____________I_____
Plaintiffs,
-againatINDEX NO.
604199/07
FINDINGS
OF
FACT
AND
CONCLUSIONS
OF
LAW
357
LLC, A
New
York Limited Liability
Company,
ULTIMATE REALTY, ISAAC MISHAN,JEANETTE SABBAGH, JOSEPH SABBAGH,THE
CORCORAN
GROUP, ADAM PACELLI,CHRISTINA COATS,
ANNE
MARIE
GATZ,DANIEL ALTER ARCHITECT, PPL,
ARCHITECTS,
PLLC,
DANIEL
BERNSTEIN,
ANDREW
KATZ,
PETER MICELI,PETER MICELT
PLUMBING,
JOHN
DOES
"l",
"2",
AND
"3",
DANIEL ALTER,
KUTNICKI-BERNSTEINDefendants,and
THE
357
FOURTH STREET
CONDOMINIUM,
Charles
Edward
Ramos,
J.S.C.:
seek to
strike the pleadings of
The
Corcoran Group ("Corcoran"),Adam Pacelli ("PacelliN), hristina Coats
("Coats")
,
and
AnneMarie Gatz
("Gatz")
(collectively, the
\\Corcoran
Defendants")
or
alternatively, to compel the Corcoran
Defendants'
compliance withits discovery obligations.FINDINGS
OF
FACT
This
action arises
out
of
the allegedly defective design,construction,
development,
and deceptive marketing
of
a
condominium
unit
in
Brooklyn,
New
York.
As
against
the Corcoran Defendants, the
sponsor's
brokers
.
. .
involved with the sale of the
allegedly
defective condominiumunit, the Plaintiffs have stated claims
of
fraudulent inducement,fraudulent concealment, and negligent misrepresentation,
as
wellas violations
of
New
York's Consumer Protection Act,
N.Y.
Gen.Bus.
L.
55
349-350
(McKinney's 2009), arising from statements
and
correspondence, including emails, sent by the brokers and relayed
to
the Plaintiffs
by
co-defendants.The communications alleged by plaintiff
as
the
basis
fortheir suit against
the
Corcoran Defendants occurred between
March
18,
2007 and
June
8,
2007. (Paragraphs
4
and
30
of
thecomplaint.
On
or
about
June
6, 2008,
Plaintiffs
served the CorcoranDefendants with
a
Notice
of
Discovery and Inspection (the"Document Demand").
(A
copy
of
the Document Demand
was
enteredinto evidence as Plaintiff's Exhibit
"3"
on June
2,
2009.)
On
or
about October
10, 2008,
the Corcoran Defendantsresponded to the Document Demand
(the
"Document
Response"
.
On October
15,
2008, Plaintiffs moved seeking to strike thepleadings
of
the Corcoran Defendants or alternatively to compelfull responses to Plaintiffs' discovery
demands,
"including butnot limited to producing an image
of
the Corcoran Defendants'computer hard drives and emails to a third-party technologyvendor for forensic data recovery."
(Plaintiff's
October
15,
2008
Order to
Show
Cause,
at
p.
2).
In their moving papers, the Plaintiffs indicated that theDocument Response failed to produce certain emails,
which
2
Add a Comment