Preview
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 07/21/2021 11:44 AM INDEX NO. 522681/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 22 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/21/2021
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF KINGS
__________-..._____________-___________----------------- ------------X
LUIS H. QUISPE, NOTICE OF MOTION
TO CONSOLIDATE
Plaintiff,
Action No. 1
-against-
Index No.: 522681/2018
CONSTANTINOS CHARIDEMOU,
Assigned to: J. Landicino
Defendant.
_______________________ ________ _________-------------------X
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that upon the annexed Affirmation of Ronald W. Ramirez
of the LAW OFFICE OF RONALD W. RAMIREZ, attorneys for Plaintiff, affirmed the 21"day
of July, 2021, and the exhibits annexed thereto, and upon all the pleadings and proceedings
heretofore had herein, the undersigned will move this Court at a Motion Support Part, at the
18th
Courthouse located at 360 Adams Street, Brooklyn, New York, on the
at 9:30 a.m., or as soon thereafter as counsel can be heard, for an order pursuant to CPLR §602
consolidating Actions No. 1 and 2 in the Supreme Court, County of Kings, for the purpose of
discovery and joint trial, and for such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and
proper.
PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE, that pursuant to Rule 2214 (b) of the CPLR,
answering Affirmations, if any, are required to be served upon the undersigned at least seven (7)
days prior to the return date of this motion.
Dated: Forest Hills, New York
July 21, 2021
Yours, .,
Ronal W. R ir
1 of 3
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 07/21/2021 11:44 AM INDEX NO. 522681/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 22 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/21/2021
LAW OFFICE OF RONALD W. RAMIREZ
Attorneys for Plaintiff
71"
107-19 Avenue
Forest Hills, NY 11375
(718) 261-6161
TO: RUBIN, FIORELLA, FRIEDMAN &
MERCANTE LLP
Attorneys for Defendant in Action No. 1
CONSTANTINOS CHARIDEMOU
3'd
630 Third Avenue, Floor
New York, NY 10017
(212) 953-2381
File # 01 16.37958
ROSENBAUM & TAYLOR, P.C.
Attorneys for Defendant in Action No. 2
COLLEGE POINT YACHT CLUB, INC.
7-11 South Broadway, Suite 401
White Plains, NY 10601
2
2 of 3
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 07/21/2021 11:44 AM INDEX NO. 522681/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 22 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/21/2021
Index No. 522681/18 (J. Landicino)
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF KINGS
LUIS H. QUISPE,
Plaintiff,
- against •
CONSTANTINOS CHARIDEMOU,
Defendant.
NOTICE OF MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE and
AFFIRMATION IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE
LAW OFFICE OF RONALD W. RAMIREZ
Attorneys for Plaintiff
107-19 71st Avenue
Forest Hills, New York 11375
Tel. No.: (718) 261-6161
Fax No.: (718) 268-3045
RR @ RWRAMIREZ.COM
CERTIFICATION:
To the best of the undersigned's knowlêdge, infõrmst!:: and belief, formed after an inquiry
reasonable under the ci cumstances, the within decement(s) and csatcanvas cêstsiase
therein are not frivolous as defined in 22 NYCRR §130-1.1-a.
Dated: Forest Hills, New York
July 21, 2021
ONALD W MIR Z
3 of 3
Related Content
in Kings County
Ruling
Tierney, Ainsley vs. Raddigan, Ryann Elizabeth et al
Jul 15, 2024 |
S-CV-0052402
S-CV-0052402 Tierney, Ainsley vs. Raddigan, Ryann Elizabeth et al
No appearance required. CMC is continued to 10/07/24 at 2pm in Dept. 6.
Complaint is not at issue - Need responsive pleading, default or dismissal as to
Defendant(s): Raddigan, Jared; Raddigan Ryann
Additionally, no proof of service has been filed as to Defendant(s): Raddigan,
Jared; Raddigan Ryann
Per Local Rule 20.1.7 D. If a party or attorney has a conflict with future hearing
dates set in the Case Management Conference calendar notes, or opposes the
future dates set in the Case Management Conference calendar notes, the party or
attorney must appear at the Case Management Conference. That attorney or party
must provide at least 7 days’ notice to all other parties in the case of their intent
to appear at the Case Management Conference. [Effective 1/1/19]
07/15/2024 CMC
in Dept. 6 at 3 PM
Calendar Notes
Ruling
YINGNAN LI VS. ROBERT W. OTTINGER ET AL
Jul 10, 2024 |
CGC22603022
Matter on the Law & Motion calendar for Wednesday, July 10, 2024, Line 5. PLAINTIFF YINGNAN LI's MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND 1ST Amended COMPLAINT. Off calendar. Notice of settlement of entire case filed June 18, 2024. =(302/RBU)
Ruling
CHRISTIAN CASTILLO VS DOES 1-25, INCLUSIVE
Jul 10, 2024 |
22STCV18342
Case Number:
22STCV18342
Hearing Date:
July 10, 2024
Dept:
28
Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On June 6, 2022, Plaintiff
Christian Castillo
(Plaintiff) filed this action against Defendants Does 1-25 for negligence (motor vehiclepersonal injuries and property damage).
On May 20, 2024, Plaintiffs counsel Glotzer & Leib, LLP filed a motion to be relieved as counsel, to be heard on July 10, 2024.
No trial date is currently scheduled.
COUNSELS REQUEST
Plaintiffs counsel Glotzer & Leib, LLP
, asks to be relieved as counsel.
LEGAL STANDARD
California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362, provides:
(a) Notice
A notice of motion and motion to be relieved as counsel under Code of Civil Procedure section 284(2) must be directed to the client and must be made on the Notice of Motion and Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil (form MC-051).
(b) Memorandum
Notwithstanding any other rule of court, no memorandum is required to be filed or served with a motion to be relieved as counsel.
(c) Declaration
The motion to be relieved as counsel must be accompanied by a declaration on the Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil (form MC-052). The declaration must state in general terms and without compromising the confidentiality of the attorney-client relationship why a motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 284(2) is brought instead of filing a consent under Code of Civil Procedure section 284(1).
(d) Service
The notice of motion and motion, the declaration, and the proposed order must be served on the client and on all other parties who have appeared in the case. The notice may be by personal service, electronic service, or mail.
(1) If the notice is served on the client by mail under Code of Civil Procedure section 1013, it must be accompanied by a declaration stating facts showing that either:
(A) The service address is the current residence or business address of the client; or
(B) The service address is the last known residence or business address of the client and the attorney has been unable to locate a more current address after making reasonable efforts to do so within 30 days before the filing of the motion to be relieved.
(2) If the notice is served on the client by electronic service under Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6 and rule 2.251, it must be accompanied by a declaration stating that the electronic service address is the client's current electronic service address.
As used in this rule, current means that the address was confirmed within 30 days before the filing of the motion to be relieved. Merely demonstrating that the notice was sent to the client's last known address and was not returned or no electronic delivery failure message was received is not, by itself, sufficient to demonstrate that the address is current. If the service is by mail, Code of Civil Procedure section 1011(b) applies.
(e) Order
The proposed order relieving counsel must be prepared on the Order Granting Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil (form MC-053) and must be lodged with the court with the moving papers. The order must specify all hearing dates scheduled in the action or proceeding, including the date of trial, if known. If no hearing date is presently scheduled, the court may set one and specify the date in the order. After the order is signed, a copy of the signed order must be served on the client and on all parties that have appeared in the case. The court may delay the effective date of the order relieving counsel until proof of service of a copy of the signed order on the client has been filed with the court.
(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362.)
DISCUSSION
Counsel has completed, filed, and served the paperwork required to support the request to be relieved as counsel.
The Court grants the motion.
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS Glotzer & Leib, LLPs motion to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff
Christian Castillo.
Counsel will be relieved upon filing proof of service on Plaintiff
Christian Castillo of the Order Granting Attorneys Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel--Civil (Judicial Council form MC-053).
Counsel is ordered to give notice of this ruling.
Counsel is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.
Ruling
JOHN DOE VS SOUTHEASTERN CALIFORNIA CONFERENCE OF SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISTS, A CALIFORNIA NONPROFIT CORPORATION, ET AL.
Jul 09, 2024 |
22STCV28389
Case Number:
22STCV28389
Hearing Date:
July 9, 2024
Dept:
55
NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS
: Motion Of Defendant Southern California Conference Of Seventh-Day Adventists For Order Compelling Plaintiff John Doe To Comply With Demand For Physical Examination, And Imposing Monetary Sanctions. Motion Thereof For Mental Examination (C.C.P. §§2032.310-2032.320).
The Court had continued these matters from 4/25/24 after instructing the parties to meet and confer on the issues raised in the motion and, if necessary, holding an IDC with the Court.
The Court requests an update on any progress made towards resolving the motions.
Ruling
ARCEL D. ESCALANTE VS BURRELL CONSTRUCTION, INC., ET AL.
Jul 09, 2024 |
23STCV10500
Case Number:
23STCV10500
Hearing Date:
July 9, 2024
Dept:
32
PLEASE NOTE
:
Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.
If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at
sscdept32@lacourt.org
indicating that partys intention to submit.
The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsels contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.
If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.
If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely.
Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court
.
TENTATIVE RULING
DEPT
:
32
HEARING DATE
:
July 9, 2024
CASE NUMBER
:
23STCV10500
MOTIONS
:
Motion for Leave to File First Amended Cross-Complaint
MOVING PARTY:
Cross-Complainant Burrell Builders, Inc.
OPPOSING PARTY:
None
BACKGROUND
This case stems from an alleged construction site injury. On May 10, 2023, Plaintiff Arcel D. Escalante filed a complaint against Defendants Burrell Construction, Inc., Foundational Builders Corporation, BA Crete Corp., Lanai Properties, and Does 1 to 20.
On November 8, 2023
Cross-Complainant Burrell Builders, Inc. (Burrell) filed a cross-complaint against Foundational Builders Corporation and Moes 1 to 20 for equitable indemnity and apportionment, and declaratory relief. On December 12, 2023, Foundational Builders Corporation (Foundational Builders) filed an answer to the cross-complaint.
Burrell now moves for leave to amend its cross complaint to include causes of action for breach of contract and express indemnity. No opposition has been filed.
LEGAL STANDARD
Under Code of Civil Procedure section 576, [a]ny judge, at any time before or after commencement of trial, in the furtherance of justice, and upon such terms as may be proper, may allow the amendment of any pleading or pretrial conference order.
A party who fails to plead a cause of action subject to the requirements of this article, whether through oversight, inadvertence, mistake, neglect, or other cause, may apply to the court for leave to amend his pleading, or to file a cross-complaint, to assert such cause at any time
during the course of
the action. The court, after notice to the adverse party, shall
grant, upon such terms as may be just to the parties, leave to amend the pleading, or to file the cross-complaint, to assert such cause if the party who failed to plead the cause acted in good faith.¿ This subdivision shall be liberally construed to avoid forfeiture of causes of action.¿ (
Code Civ. Proc., § 426.50.) (Emphasis added.)¿
¿
The Court of Appeals has explained: The legislative mandate is clear. A policy of liberal construction of section 426.50 to avoid forfeiture of causes of action is imposed on the trial¿court. A motion to file a cross-complaint at any time
during the course of
the action must be granted unless bad faith of the moving party is demonstrated where forfeiture would otherwise result. Factors such as oversight, inadvertence, neglect, mistake or other cause, are insufficient grounds to deny the motion unless accompanied by bad faith.
(
Silver Organizations Ltd. v. Frank¿
(1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 94, 9899.)
Bad faith, is defined as [t]he opposite of good faith, generally implying or involving actual or constructive fraud, or a design to mislead or deceive another, or a neglect or refusal to fulfill some duty or some contractual obligation, not prompted by an honest mistake . . ., but by some interested or sinister motive[,] . . . not simply bad judgment or negligence, but rather . . . the conscious doing of a wrong because of dishonest purpose or moral obliquity; . . . it contemplates a state of mind affirmatively operating with furtive design or ill will. (
Id
. at 100.)
¿
California Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (a)(1) provides, in relevant part: [t]he court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading or proceeding by adding or striking out the name of any party, or by correcting a mistake in the name of a party, or a mistake in any other respect; and may, upon like terms, enlarge the time for answer or demurrer.¿ The court may likewise, in its discretion, after notice to the adverse party, allow, upon any terms as may be just, an amendment to any pleading or proceeding in other particulars; and may upon like terms allow an answer to be made after the time limited by this code.¿
This discretion should be exercised liberally in favor of amendments, for judicial policy favors resolution of all disputed matters in the same lawsuit.¿(
Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court
¿(1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1047.)¿Ordinarily, the court will not consider the validity of the proposed amended pleading in ruling on a motion for leave since grounds for a demurrer or motion to strike are premature.¿The court, however, does have discretion to deny leave to amend where a proposed amendment fails to state a valid cause of action as a matter of law and the defect cannot be cured by further amendment. (
See
¿
California Casualty General Ins. Co. v. Superior Court¿
(1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 274, 281¿[overruled on other grounds by¿
Kransco¿v. American Empire Surplus Lines Ins. Co.
¿(2000) 23 Cal.4th 390].)¿
California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324:
Procedural Requirements
Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(a), a motion to amend a pleading before trial must:
(1) Include a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleadings, which must be serially numbered to differentiate it from previous pleadings or amendments;
(2) state what allegations in the previous pleading are proposed to be deleted, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the deleted allegations are located; and
(3) State what allegations are proposed to be added to the previous pleading, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the additional allegations are located.
In addition, under Rule 3.1324(b), a motion to amend a pleading before trial must be accompanied by a separate declaration that specifies the following:
(1) the effect of the amendment;
(2) why the amendment is necessary and proper;
(3) when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered; and
(4) the reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier.
DISCUSSION
As an initial matter, the procedural requirements have not been met since the declaration in support of this motion does not state when the subcontract was discovered or why the amendment was not made earlier. The motion also does not identify by page, paragraph, or line number, where the proposed additions are found. Nevertheless, Burrell has provided a copy of the proposed amended cross-complaint. (Stroup Decl. ¶ 3, Exh. A.)
Burrell was the general contractor for the construction site, and it subcontracted with Foundational Builders, which employed Plaintiff. Burrell argues that the proposed causes of action are based on an agreement between it and Foundational Builders, related to the subcontract. No opposition has been filed for this motion. Therefore, because there is no opposition, and applying the liberal policy in favor of amendments, the motion for leave is granted.
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
Cross-Complainant Burrell Builders, Inc.s motion for leave to file an amended cross-complaint is GRANTED. Burrell shall file and serve its first amended cross-complaint within 10 days.
Burrell shall provide notice of the Courts order and shall file a proof of service of such.
Ruling
FARIBA NOURIAN, AN INDIVIDUAL VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, A PUBLIC ENTITY, ET AL.
Jul 09, 2024 |
21STCV37420
Case Number:
21STCV37420
Hearing Date:
July 9, 2024
Dept:
B
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - NORTHWEST DISTRICT
FARIBA NOURIAN,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO:
21STCV37420
[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
Dept. B
1:30 p.m.
July 9, 2024
I.
BACKGROUND
On October 8, 2021, Plaintiff Fariba Nourian filed a complaint against Defendants City of Los Angeles, The Gary Michael Glushon and Kristan Ann Glushon Family Trust (the Trust), Gary Michael Glushon, Kristin Ann Glushon, and Gary Michael Glushon and Kristan Ann Glushon as Trustees of the Gary Michael Glushon and Kristin Ann Glushon Family Trust, alleging causes of action for negligence and premises liability, arising out of an alleged trip and fall on an uneven and/or raised and/or deteriorating sidewalk.
On May 3, 2024, Defendant the Trust filed this motion for judgment on the pleadings. No opposition has been filed.
II.
LEGAL STANDARD
A defendant may move for judgment on the pleadings where
the court has no jurisdiction of the subject of the cause of action alleged in the complaint or
the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against that defendant. (Code Civ. Proc., § 438 subd. (c)(1)(B).) A non-statutory motion for judgment on the pleadings may be made any time before or during trial. (
Stoops v.
Abbassi
(2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 644, 650.) Such motion may be made on the same ground as those supporting a general demurrer,
i.e
., that the pleading at issue fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a legally cognizable claim or defense. (
Ibid.
)
In the construction of a pleading, for the purpose of determining its effect, its allegations must be liberally construed, with a view to substantial justice between the parties. (Code Civ. Proc., § 452; see also
Stevens v. Superior
Court (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 594, 601.) When a court evaluates a complaint, the plaintiff is entitled to reasonable inferences from the facts pled. (
Duval v. Board of Tr.
(2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 902, 906.)
In deciding or reviewing a judgment on the pleadings, all properly pleaded material facts are deemed to be true, as well as all facts that may be implied or inferred from those expressly alleged. (
Fire Ins. Exch. v. Superior Court
(2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 446, 452.)
The grounds for a motion for judgment on the pleadings must appear on the face of the challenged complaint or be based on facts which the court may judicially notice. (§ 438(d);
Tiffany v. Sierra Sands Unified School Dist.
(1980) 103 Cal.App.3d 218, 225.) A motion for judgment on the pleadings normally does not lie as to a portion of a cause of action. (
Ibid.
)
In the case of either a demurrer or a motion for judgment on the pleadings, leave to amend should be granted if there is any reasonable possibility that the plaintiff can state a good cause of action. (
Gami
v.
Mullikin
Medical Ctr.
(1993) 18 Cal.App.4th 870, 876.)
III.
DISCUSSION
Defendant the Trust argues that the complaint does not state sufficient facts against Defendant as it is not a legal entity and cannot be sued.
A trust estate is not a legal entity; it is simply a collection of assets and liabilities. As such, it has no capacity to sue, be sued or defend an action. Any litigation must be maintained by, or against, the executor, administrator or trustee of the estate. (
Galdjie v. Darwish
(2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 1331, 1344.)
Here, the complaint names
The Gary Michael Glushon and Kristan Ann Glushon Family Trust
as a defendant. However, a trust is not a proper defendant. Accordingly, the motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted without leave to amend.
IV.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, Defendants motion for judgment on the pleadings is
GRANTED without leave to amend. The complaint against the Trust is DISMISSED.
Defendant is
ORDERED
to give notice.
DATED: July 9, 2024
_____________________
Karen Moskowitz
Judge of the Superior Court
Ruling
AARON BIRT VS JOHN W. ENNIS
Jul 10, 2024 |
21STCV21202
Case Number:
21STCV21202
Hearing Date:
July 10, 2024
Dept:
T Motion:
Motion to be Relieved as Counsel
Moving Party:
Plaintiffs Counsel, Shaun J. Bauman, Esq.
Responding Party:
None
Tentative Ruling:
Grant
On June 7, 2021, Plaintiff Aaron Birt filed a Complaint against Defendant John W. Ennis for an action arising out of a motor vehicle collision resulting in personal injury and property damage. On June 11, 2024, Plaintiffs Counsel, Shaun J. Bauman filed the instant motion to be Relieved as Counsel (MC-051), along with a supporting Declaration (MC-052), and Proposed Order (MC-053). There is no opposition on file.
The Court may issue an order allowing an attorney to withdraw from representation, after notice to the client. (CCP § 284.) The attorney may withdraw from representation as long as the withdrawal would not result in undue prejudice to the clients interesti.e., counsel cannot withdraw at a critical point in the litigation. (Ramirez v. Sturdevant (1994) 21 Cal. App. 4th 904, 915; see California Rule of Professional Conduct 3-700.)
Attorney Shaun J. Bauman, counsel of record for Plaintiff Aaron Birt, seeks to withdraw from representation of Plaintiff. Counsel states that there has been irreconcilable differences between this office and the Plaintiffs. (MC-052.) Counsel further states that such irreconcilable differences have given rise to a significant breakdown in the communication and direction of the case, rendering it impossible for Counsel to continue to represent Plaintiff. (MC-052.) Trial has not been set and thus no prejudice will result from Counsels withdrawal.
Based on the foregoing, Counsel has complied with CRC 3.1362 and the Court finds there is good cause for Counsels withdrawal. Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED.
Ruling
Eric Amadei vs Timothy Morgan, ESQ, et al
Jul 10, 2024 |
23CV00719
23CV00719
AMADEI v. MORGAN
(UNOPPOSED) MOTION TO DEEM THE TRUTH OF MATTERS SPECIFIED
IN PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE AND FOR
MONETARY SANCTIONS
The unopposed motion is granted.
Plaintiff seeks an order deeming the truth of all matters specified in his requests for
admissions, set one, propounded on defendant Morgan. Plaintiff also seeks monetary sanctions in
the amount of $2,145.00.
I. Legal Authority
Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, subdivision (b), if a party fails to
serve a timely response to requests for admission, the requesting party may move for an order
that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matter specified in the request be
deemed admitted, as well as for monetary sanctions.
Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, subdivision (c) requires the court to make this
order “unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has
served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that
is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220. It is mandatory that the court impose a
monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) on the party or
attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated
this motion.”
II. Discussion
Page 2 of 3
Pursuant to the Discovery Act, the court shall order the requests for admission as
admitted unless code-compliant responses are served before the hearing. (Code of Civ. Proc. §
2033.280, subd. (c).)
Plaintiff served requests for admissions, set one on April 5, 2024, via electronic service,
on defendant. (Ex. 2 to Dec. of U. Singh.) Defendant failed to respond to the requests and has not
communicated with plaintiff’s counsel regarding the requests. (Dec. of U. Singh at ¶ 8.)
The court deems admitted all matters specified in requests for admissions, set one,
attached to the Declaration of Mr. Singh as Ex. 2. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280, subd. (b).) This
will be the order of the court unless defendant serves, before the hearing on the motion, a
proposed response to the requests for admissions that is in substantial compliance with Code of
Civil Procedure section 2033.220.
The court imposes monetary sanctions against defendant Morgan in the amount of
$1,195.00, payable no later than July 31, 2024.
Notice to prevailing parties: Local Rule 2.10.01 requires you to submit a proposed formal order
incorporating, verbatim, the language of any tentative ruling – or attaching and incorporating the
tentative by reference - or an order consistent with the announced ruling of the Court, in
accordance with California Rule of Court 3.1312. Such proposed order is required even if the
prevailing party submitted a proposed order prior to the hearing (unless the tentative is
simply to “grant”). Failure to comply with Local Rule 2.10.01 may result in the imposition of
sanctions following an order to show cause hearing, if a proposed order is not timely filed.
Document
Ashlyn Lynch v. Collins Building Services, Inc., Madison International Realty, Llc, Atlantic Center Fort Greene Associates, L.P., Atlantic Terminal Mall, First New York Partners Management, Llc, Forest City Ratner Companies, Llc
Jul 09, 2024 |
Torts - Other (Premises) |
Torts - Other (Premises) |
518493/2024
Preview
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 07/21/2021 11:44 AM INDEX NO. 522681/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 22 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/21/2021 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS __________-..._____________-___________----------------- ------------X LUIS H. QUISPE, NOTICE OF MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE Plaintiff, Action No. 1 -against- Index No.: 522681/2018 CONSTANTINOS CHARIDEMOU, Assigned to: J. Landicino Defendant. _______________________ ________ _________-------------------X PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that upon the annexed Affirmation of Ronald W. Ramirez of the LAW OFFICE OF RONALD W. RAMIREZ, attorneys for Plaintiff, affirmed the 21"day of July, 2021, and the exhibits annexed thereto, and upon all the pleadings and proceedings heretofore had herein, the undersigned will move this Court at a Motion Support Part, at the 18th Courthouse located at 360 Adams Street, Brooklyn, New York, on the at 9:30 a.m., or as soon thereafter as counsel can be heard, for an order pursuant to CPLR §602 consolidating Actions No. 1 and 2 in the Supreme Court, County of Kings, for the purpose of discovery and joint trial, and for such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper. PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE, that pursuant to Rule 2214 (b) of the CPLR, answering Affirmations, if any, are required to be served upon the undersigned at least seven (7) days prior to the return date of this motion. Dated: Forest Hills, New York July 21, 2021 Yours, ., Ronal W. R ir 1 of 3 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 07/21/2021 11:44 AM INDEX NO. 522681/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 22 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/21/2021 LAW OFFICE OF RONALD W. RAMIREZ Attorneys for Plaintiff 71" 107-19 Avenue Forest Hills, NY 11375 (718) 261-6161 TO: RUBIN, FIORELLA, FRIEDMAN & MERCANTE LLP Attorneys for Defendant in Action No. 1 CONSTANTINOS CHARIDEMOU 3'd 630 Third Avenue, Floor New York, NY 10017 (212) 953-2381 File # 01 16.37958 ROSENBAUM & TAYLOR, P.C. Attorneys for Defendant in Action No. 2 COLLEGE POINT YACHT CLUB, INC. 7-11 South Broadway, Suite 401 White Plains, NY 10601 2 2 of 3 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 07/21/2021 11:44 AM INDEX NO. 522681/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 22 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/21/2021 Index No. 522681/18 (J. Landicino) SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS LUIS H. QUISPE, Plaintiff, - against • CONSTANTINOS CHARIDEMOU, Defendant. NOTICE OF MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE and AFFIRMATION IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE LAW OFFICE OF RONALD W. RAMIREZ Attorneys for Plaintiff 107-19 71st Avenue Forest Hills, New York 11375 Tel. No.: (718) 261-6161 Fax No.: (718) 268-3045 RR @ RWRAMIREZ.COM CERTIFICATION: To the best of the undersigned's knowlêdge, infõrmst!:: and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the ci cumstances, the within decement(s) and csatcanvas cêstsiase therein are not frivolous as defined in 22 NYCRR §130-1.1-a. Dated: Forest Hills, New York July 21, 2021 ONALD W MIR Z 3 of 3