On July 14, 2018 a
Letter,Correspondence
was filed
involving a dispute between
Ellyn Berk,
Pamela Goldstein,
Paul Benjamin,
Tony Berk,
and
Houlihan Lawrence Inc.,
for Commercial Division
in the District Court of Westchester County.
Preview
COLLIER HALPERN & NEWBERG, LLP
ONE NORTH LEXINGTON AVENUE
WHITE PLAINs, NEW YORK 10601
(914) 684-6800
FAX (914)684-6986
http://www.chnnb.com
PHILIP M. HALPERN (ALSO CT) NEW YORK OFFICE:
DAVID A. NEWBERG 630THIRD AVENUE - 7m FLOOR
HARRY J. NICOLAY, JR. (ALSO NJ) NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10017
SCOTT M. SALANT (ALSO MA) (212)481-1300
September 5, 2018 FAX: (212)696-4064
KAREN R. CROSS CONNECTICUT OFFICE:
SHARI B. HOCHBERG (ALSO NJ) 1111SUMMER STREET
LORENZO VENDITTI STAMFORD, CT 06905
(203)348-5255
JAY C. CARLISLE II
SENIOR COUNSEL
WILLIAM J. COLLIER, JR. (ALSO CT) PAUL J. MONSELL (1948-1993)
HON. PETER P. ROSATO (ret.) DONALD L. WALLACE (1925-2002)
LEWIS W. SIEGEL
COUNSEL
VIA NYSCEF
Hon. Linda S. Jamieson
Supreme Court of the State of New York
Westchester County
111 Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd.
White Plains, NY 10601
Re: Goldstein v. Houlihan/Lawrence Inc.;
Westchester County Sur,reme Court Index No. 60767/2018
Dear Justice Jamieson:
We represent defendant Houlihan/Lawrence Inc. ("Defendant") in the referenced action.
We write in response to plaintiff Pamela Goldstein's ("Plaintiff") counsel's letter, filed today
(NYSCEF Doc No. 131).
As an initial matter, we are compelled to correct Mr. Vest's characterization of
Defendant's request for an extension of the deadlines to respond to certain discovery demands as
"pending."
This Court sent an email to counsel on August 30, 2018, extending Defendant's time
to respond to Plaintiff's discovery demands to September 17, 2018. Accordingly, there is no
need to discuss discovery deadlines at the pre-motion conference requested by Defendant in
connection with its proposed motion to dismiss.
With respect to Mr. Vest's position concerning the briefing schedule for Defendant's
proposed motion to dismiss, we respectfully disagree. Commercial Division Rule 24
contemplates a process in order "to permit the court the opportunity to resolve issues before
calendar."
motion practice ensues, and to control its 22 NYCRR § 202.70(g)-24(a). This process
letter"
begins with the filing of a "motion notice and, upon review by the court, a conference is
scheduled with counsel. 22 NYCRR § 202.70(g)-24(d). A briefing schedule is then entered only
Hon. Linda S. Jamieson
September 5, 2018
Page 2
ifthe matter cannot be resolved during the conference. 22 NYCRR § 202.70(g)-24(f). In order to
permit this Court the opportunity to resolve issues before the filing of itsmotion, and to control
its calendar, Defendant submits that the Court should enter a briefing schedule, including the
time to filethe motion to dismiss, after this Court has held the pre-motion conference and the
matter is not resolved, as contemplated by Rule 24. The rule also states that the filing of the
motion notice letter is to be deemed the timely making of the motion, and Defendant respectfully
submits that its September 4, 2018 letter (NYSCEF Doc No. 130) should be treated as such.
IfYour Honor has any questions or if I can be of any assistance, please do not hesitate to
contact me.
Very tr yours,
Philip M. Halpern
PMH/sbh
cc: All Counsel of Record
Document Filed Date
September 05, 2018
Case Filing Date
July 14, 2018
Category
Commercial Division
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
COLLIER HALPERN & NEWBERG, LLP ONE NORTH LEXINGTON AVENUE WHITE PLAINs, NEW YORK 10601 (914) 684-6800 FAX (914)684-6986 http://www.chnnb.com PHILIP M. HALPERN (ALSO CT) NEW YORK OFFICE: DAVID A. NEWBERG 630THIRD AVENUE - 7m FLOOR HARRY J. NICOLAY, JR. (ALSO NJ) NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10017 SCOTT M. SALANT (ALSO MA) (212)481-1300 September 5, 2018 FAX: (212)696-4064 KAREN R. CROSS CONNECTICUT OFFICE: SHARI B. HOCHBERG (ALSO NJ) 1111SUMMER STREET LORENZO VENDITTI STAMFORD, CT 06905 (203)348-5255 JAY C. CARLISLE II SENIOR COUNSEL WILLIAM J. COLLIER, JR. (ALSO CT) PAUL J. MONSELL (1948-1993) HON. PETER P. ROSATO (ret.) DONALD L. WALLACE (1925-2002) LEWIS W. SIEGEL COUNSEL VIA NYSCEF Hon. Linda S. Jamieson Supreme Court of the State of New York Westchester County 111 Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd. White Plains, NY 10601 Re: Goldstein v. Houlihan/Lawrence Inc.; Westchester County Sur,reme Court Index No. 60767/2018 Dear Justice Jamieson: We represent defendant Houlihan/Lawrence Inc. ("Defendant") in the referenced action. We write in response to plaintiff Pamela Goldstein's ("Plaintiff") counsel's letter, filed today (NYSCEF Doc No. 131). As an initial matter, we are compelled to correct Mr. Vest's characterization of Defendant's request for an extension of the deadlines to respond to certain discovery demands as "pending." This Court sent an email to counsel on August 30, 2018, extending Defendant's time to respond to Plaintiff's discovery demands to September 17, 2018. Accordingly, there is no need to discuss discovery deadlines at the pre-motion conference requested by Defendant in connection with its proposed motion to dismiss. With respect to Mr. Vest's position concerning the briefing schedule for Defendant's proposed motion to dismiss, we respectfully disagree. Commercial Division Rule 24 contemplates a process in order "to permit the court the opportunity to resolve issues before calendar." motion practice ensues, and to control its 22 NYCRR § 202.70(g)-24(a). This process letter" begins with the filing of a "motion notice and, upon review by the court, a conference is scheduled with counsel. 22 NYCRR § 202.70(g)-24(d). A briefing schedule is then entered only Hon. Linda S. Jamieson September 5, 2018 Page 2 ifthe matter cannot be resolved during the conference. 22 NYCRR § 202.70(g)-24(f). In order to permit this Court the opportunity to resolve issues before the filing of itsmotion, and to control its calendar, Defendant submits that the Court should enter a briefing schedule, including the time to filethe motion to dismiss, after this Court has held the pre-motion conference and the matter is not resolved, as contemplated by Rule 24. The rule also states that the filing of the motion notice letter is to be deemed the timely making of the motion, and Defendant respectfully submits that its September 4, 2018 letter (NYSCEF Doc No. 130) should be treated as such. IfYour Honor has any questions or if I can be of any assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very tr yours, Philip M. Halpern PMH/sbh cc: All Counsel of Record