On August 22, 2019 a
Motion-Secondary
was filed
involving a dispute between
Ines Gonzalez-Crispin,
Inez Gonzalez Crispin,
and
Carl J. Ponticello
As The Executor Of The Estate Of Santo C. Ponticello, Deceased,
Jel-Wb Food Corp,
Jel-Wb Food Corp.,
Laurino Enterprises,
Mcdonald'S Corporation,
Mcdonald'S Restaurants Of New York, Inc.,
Ra-Line Foods, Inc.,
Santo C. Ponticello,
for Torts - Other Negligence (Premises & Motor Vehicle)
in the District Court of New York County.
Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/29/2021 01:09 PM INDEX NO. 158224/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 37 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/29/2021
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------------------------------------X
INEZ GONZALES CRISPIN, Index No.: 158224/2019
Plaintiff,
RESPONSE TO CASE
-against- SCHEDULING ORDER
MCDONALD’S CORPORATION, MCDONALD’S
RESTAURANTS OF NEW YORK, INC., LAURINO
ENTERPRISES, JEL-WB FOOD CORP, RA-LINE
FOODS, INC. and SANTO C. PONTICELLO,
Defendants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------X
Defendants, LAURINO ENTERPRISES and JEL-WB FOOD CORP (hereinafter
“defendants”), through its attorneys, Stonberg Moran, LLP, as and for its response to the Case
Scheduling Order states as follows:
GENERAL OBJECTIONS
Defendant submits the following general objections, which apply to each and every
request from plaintiff. Defendant’s general objections are set forth below and are not necessarily
repeated after each request. The assertion of the same, similar or additional answers or
responses in specific answers to these requests does not waive any of defendant’s general
objections set forth below:
1. Defendant objects to plaintiff’s requests insofar as they seek to impose obligations
greater than those required by the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules.
2. Defendant reserves the right to challenge the competency, relevance and
admissibility, at trial or any subsequent proceeding, in this or any other action, of any
admission made or information produced in response to plaintiff’s requests.
3. Defendant objects to plaintiff’s requests insofar as they seek protected documents
1
1 of 4
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/29/2021 01:09 PM INDEX NO. 158224/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 37 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/29/2021
or information subject to the attorney/client privilege; the work product doctrine; the
confidentiality of documents concerning the impressions, conclusions, opinions, legal
research or theories of defendant or their attorneys; or seek materials prepared in
anticipation of litigation. Defendant asserts each of the foregoing privileges and
protections applicable to the information sought to the fullest extent.
4. Defendant objects to plaintiff’s requests to the extent that they seek documents or
information not within defendant’s possession, custody or control.
5. Defendant objects to plaintiff’s requests to the extent that they seek discovery that
is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative; or has been obtained by plaintiff or is obtainable
from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome or less expensive; or
that has been exchanged in the course of this litigation in pleadings, motion practices,
briefs, affidavits and other discovery responses.
6. Defendant objects to plaintiff’s requests insofar as they seek documents or
information that are within plaintiff’s knowledge and possession or to which plaintiff has
equal access.
7. Defendant objects to plaintiff’s requests insofar as they are vague and ambiguous,
overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seek documents and information outside the scope
of permissible discovery pursuant to the applicable discovery rules.
8. Defendant objects to plaintiff’s requests insofar as they seek discovery of
information or documents not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant or
admissible evidence.
9. Defendant bases its objections and responses on information currently available
2
2 of 4
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/29/2021 01:09 PM INDEX NO. 158224/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 37 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/29/2021
and reserves the right to amend these objections and responses to conform to information
and documents that may be obtained through ongoing discovery and investigation.
10. Defendant reserves the right to supplement, amend, or correct its responses in the
event of the development or availability of additional responses or non-privileged
information, which warrant such supplementation, correction or amendment.
DEFENDANTS RESPONSES
1. INSURANCE INFORMARTION:
RESPONSE: Responding defendants are insured by Berkshire Hathaway Guard
Insurance Company, Policy No. LABP077579, for the policy period March 1, 2019 to
March 1, 2020, with limits of liability of $1,000,000, per occurrence. Responding
defendants have excess insurance issued by RSUI in the amount of $25M
2. WITNESS INFORMATION:
RESPONSE: Sherrick Harris, the store manager at the time of the accident is a
potential witness.
3. STATEMENTS:
RESPONSE: Responding defendants are not in possession of any statements.
4. ACCIDENT REPORTS:
RESPONSE: Responding defendants are not in possession of an accident report.
5. PHOTOGRAPHS, FILMS AND VIDEOTAPES:
RESPONSE: Responding defendants are not in possession of any photographs other
than those previously exchanged by the Plaintiff. Responding defendants are in
possession of a surveillance video. The video was previously exchanged.
6. EXPERT WITNESSES:
3
3 of 4
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/29/2021 01:09 PM INDEX NO. 158224/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 37 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/29/2021
RESPONSE: Defendant has yet to retain the services of expert witnesses. Upon such
retention of said expert, notice will be provided to all counsel.
Defendants reserves the right to amend and/or supplement this response up to and
including the time of trial.
Dated: New York, New York
July 20, 2021
STONBERG MORAN, LLP
Attorneys for Defendant
LAURINO ENTERPRISES
and JEL-WB FOOD CORP
By: __________Rebecca Miller_________________________
Rebecca Miller, Esq.
505 Eighth Avenue, Suite 2302
New York, New York 10018
(212) 231-2220
Our File No.: BER 30647
TO:
SULLIVAN PAPAIN BLOCK McGRATH & CANNAVO P.C.
Attorneys for Plaintiff
1140 Franklin Ave, St 200
Garden City, NY 11530
ZACHARY & ZACHARY
Attorneys for Defendant Ponticello
75 Little Clove Road
Staten Island, NY 10301
4
4 of 4
Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/29/2021 01:09 PM INDEX NO. 158224/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 37 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/29/2021 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------------------X INEZ GONZALES CRISPIN, Index No.: 158224/2019 Plaintiff, RESPONSE TO CASE -against- SCHEDULING ORDER MCDONALD’S CORPORATION, MCDONALD’S RESTAURANTS OF NEW YORK, INC., LAURINO ENTERPRISES, JEL-WB FOOD CORP, RA-LINE FOODS, INC. and SANTO C. PONTICELLO, Defendants. ---------------------------------------------------------------------X Defendants, LAURINO ENTERPRISES and JEL-WB FOOD CORP (hereinafter “defendants”), through its attorneys, Stonberg Moran, LLP, as and for its response to the Case Scheduling Order states as follows: GENERAL OBJECTIONS Defendant submits the following general objections, which apply to each and every request from plaintiff. Defendant’s general objections are set forth below and are not necessarily repeated after each request. The assertion of the same, similar or additional answers or responses in specific answers to these requests does not waive any of defendant’s general objections set forth below: 1. Defendant objects to plaintiff’s requests insofar as they seek to impose obligations greater than those required by the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules. 2. Defendant reserves the right to challenge the competency, relevance and admissibility, at trial or any subsequent proceeding, in this or any other action, of any admission made or information produced in response to plaintiff’s requests. 3. Defendant objects to plaintiff’s requests insofar as they seek protected documents 1 1 of 4 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/29/2021 01:09 PM INDEX NO. 158224/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 37 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/29/2021 or information subject to the attorney/client privilege; the work product doctrine; the confidentiality of documents concerning the impressions, conclusions, opinions, legal research or theories of defendant or their attorneys; or seek materials prepared in anticipation of litigation. Defendant asserts each of the foregoing privileges and protections applicable to the information sought to the fullest extent. 4. Defendant objects to plaintiff’s requests to the extent that they seek documents or information not within defendant’s possession, custody or control. 5. Defendant objects to plaintiff’s requests to the extent that they seek discovery that is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative; or has been obtained by plaintiff or is obtainable from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome or less expensive; or that has been exchanged in the course of this litigation in pleadings, motion practices, briefs, affidavits and other discovery responses. 6. Defendant objects to plaintiff’s requests insofar as they seek documents or information that are within plaintiff’s knowledge and possession or to which plaintiff has equal access. 7. Defendant objects to plaintiff’s requests insofar as they are vague and ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seek documents and information outside the scope of permissible discovery pursuant to the applicable discovery rules. 8. Defendant objects to plaintiff’s requests insofar as they seek discovery of information or documents not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant or admissible evidence. 9. Defendant bases its objections and responses on information currently available 2 2 of 4 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/29/2021 01:09 PM INDEX NO. 158224/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 37 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/29/2021 and reserves the right to amend these objections and responses to conform to information and documents that may be obtained through ongoing discovery and investigation. 10. Defendant reserves the right to supplement, amend, or correct its responses in the event of the development or availability of additional responses or non-privileged information, which warrant such supplementation, correction or amendment. DEFENDANTS RESPONSES 1. INSURANCE INFORMARTION: RESPONSE: Responding defendants are insured by Berkshire Hathaway Guard Insurance Company, Policy No. LABP077579, for the policy period March 1, 2019 to March 1, 2020, with limits of liability of $1,000,000, per occurrence. Responding defendants have excess insurance issued by RSUI in the amount of $25M 2. WITNESS INFORMATION: RESPONSE: Sherrick Harris, the store manager at the time of the accident is a potential witness. 3. STATEMENTS: RESPONSE: Responding defendants are not in possession of any statements. 4. ACCIDENT REPORTS: RESPONSE: Responding defendants are not in possession of an accident report. 5. PHOTOGRAPHS, FILMS AND VIDEOTAPES: RESPONSE: Responding defendants are not in possession of any photographs other than those previously exchanged by the Plaintiff. Responding defendants are in possession of a surveillance video. The video was previously exchanged. 6. EXPERT WITNESSES: 3 3 of 4 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/29/2021 01:09 PM INDEX NO. 158224/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 37 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/29/2021 RESPONSE: Defendant has yet to retain the services of expert witnesses. Upon such retention of said expert, notice will be provided to all counsel. Defendants reserves the right to amend and/or supplement this response up to and including the time of trial. Dated: New York, New York July 20, 2021 STONBERG MORAN, LLP Attorneys for Defendant LAURINO ENTERPRISES and JEL-WB FOOD CORP By: __________Rebecca Miller_________________________ Rebecca Miller, Esq. 505 Eighth Avenue, Suite 2302 New York, New York 10018 (212) 231-2220 Our File No.: BER 30647 TO: SULLIVAN PAPAIN BLOCK McGRATH & CANNAVO P.C. Attorneys for Plaintiff 1140 Franklin Ave, St 200 Garden City, NY 11530 ZACHARY & ZACHARY Attorneys for Defendant Ponticello 75 Little Clove Road Staten Island, NY 10301 4 4 of 4