Preview
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/23/2022 05:16 PM INDEX NO. 515277/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 76 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/23/2022
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF KINGS
---------------------------------------------------------------X
ANTONIO ESPINOSA, Index No.: 515277/2018
Plaintiff, DEFENDANTS/THIRD-PARTY
PLAINTIFFS’ MAC 60 LLC AND
- against - ROYAL HOME IMPROVEMENTS,
INC., SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES
TO PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE FOR
DISCOVERY & INSPECTION AND
FCP ORDER
MAC 60 LLC and ROYAL HOME
IMPROVEMENTS, INC.,
Defendants.
---------------------------------------------------------------X
MAC 60 LLC and ROYAL HOME
IMPROVEMENTS, INC.
Third-Party Plaintiffs
-against-
GILMAR DESGIN CORPORATION,
Third-Party Defendant.
---------------------------------------------------------------X
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that defendants/third-party plaintiffs, MAC 60 LLC and
ROYAL HOME IMPROVEMENTS INC., by and through their attorneys, KIERNAN
TREBACH LLP, sets forth the following as and for their Supplemental Responses to Plaintiff’s
Notice for Discovery and Inspection dated December 28, 2018; May 21, 2021; and the Amended
FCP Order dated November 5, 2021, upon information and belief, as follows:
GENERAL OBJECTIONS
1. The following general objections apply to and are incorporated by reference into
each specific response. The responding defendants/third-party plaintiffs reserve the right to
1
1 of 68
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/23/2022 05:16 PM INDEX NO. 515277/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 76 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/23/2022
assert additional and different objections in any supplemental response and at any other time
hereafter deemed appropriate. Moreover, in each instance in which the responding
defendants/third-party plaintiffs object specifically to a request, such objection is in addition to,
and not in limitation of, the responding defendants/third-party plaintiffs’ general objections.
2. The responding defendants/third-party plaintiffs submit this response without
conceding the relevancy or materiality of the subject matter of any request and without prejudice
to all objections to the use, further production, or admissibility of the documents produced
herein.
3. Documents responsive to more than one request will be made available for
inspection and copying and produced only once.
4. No admissions of any nature are implied or should be inferred from the
defendants/third-party plaintiffs’ responses. The production of documents shall not constitute a
waiver of any applicable objection.
5. Each response and objection to each request is based on the responding
defendants/third-party plaintiffs’ understanding of the request. To the extent that the responding
defendants/third-party plaintiffs’ interpretation that is inconsistent with the responding
defendants/third-party plaintiffs’ understanding, the defendants/third-party plaintiffs reserve the
right to supplement or amend their responses and objections.
6. The responding defendants/third-party plaintiffs objects to the plaintiff’s demands
in their entirety to the extent that they call for: (a) information that embodies or discloses
confidential communications between the responding defendants/third-party plaintiffs and their
attorneys; (b) information that represents the work product of attorneys for the defendants/third-
party plaintiffs or that otherwise reflects the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions or legal
theories of those attorneys or their agents; (c) information that has been compiled in anticipation
2
2 of 68
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/23/2022 05:16 PM INDEX NO. 515277/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 76 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/23/2022
of litigation by or on behalf of the responding defendants/third-party plaintiffs or its attorneys;
and/or (d) information protected from disclosure by any other privilege recognized by law.
7. Any inadvertent production of any privileged document shall not be deemed or
construed to constitute a waiver by the responding defendants/third-party plaintiffs of such
privilege, and the responding defendants/third-party plaintiffs expressly reserves the right to
demand that the plaintiff returns any inadvertently produced document and all copies thereof
and/or to seek a protective order from the Court.
8. The responding defendants/third-party plaintiffs objects to the plaintiff’s requests
in their entirety to the extent that they seek information and/or production of documents not
available to the defendants/third-party plaintiffs and/or otherwise readily available to the
plaintiff.
9. The responding defendants/third-party plaintiffs object to the plaintiff’s requests
in their entirety to the extent that they are vague, ambiguous and/or incomprehensible; otherwise
lack precision; and/or require the defendants/third-party plaintiffs to engage in conjecture as to
its meaning.
10. The responding defendants/third-party plaintiffs objects to the plaintiff’s requests
in their entirety to the extent that they are oppressive, unnecessarily burdensome, and/or overly
broad.
11. The responding defendants/third-party plaintiffs objects to those requests that are
duplicative or cumulative and as to which information may be obtained from another source with
more convenience, less burden and/or less expense.
12. The responding defendants/third-party plaintiffs objects to plaintiff’s requests in
their entirety to the extent that they seek information and/or production of documents not
3
3 of 68
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/23/2022 05:16 PM INDEX NO. 515277/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 76 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/23/2022
relevant to the subject matter of the pending action and/or not reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence.
13. The responding defendants/third-party plaintiffs object to plaintiff’s requests in
their entirety to the extent that they prematurely seek an opinion or contention or the application
of law to fact, and, therefore, need not be answered until discovery has been completed.
14. The responding defendants/third-party plaintiffs object to each definition,
instruction, and specific request to the extent that it seeks to impose an obligation(s) on the
defendants/third-party plaintiffs beyond the scope of, or not contemplated by, applicable law and
rules.
15. The responding defendants/third-party plaintiffs object to plaintiff’s requests in
their entirety to the extent that they call for non-discoverable matters.
16. The responding defendants/third-party plaintiffs reserve the right to supplement
their responses should additional responsive documents be discovered.
17. All parties to this action are hereby advised that the documents produced hereto
shall be used solely in connection with this litigation, may contain confidential and proprietary
information, and are produced on the condition that the parties agree that the documents may not
be disclosed to outside parties without the defendants/third-party plaintiffs’ express written
permission or used for any purpose other than this litigation.
SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES
1. The responding defendants/third-party plaintiffs object to this demand as overly
broad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, irrelevant, not sufficiently limited in scope,
beyond the permissible scope of discovery and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery
of admissible evidence. Subject to, and without waiving any objections, responding
defendants/third-party plaintiffs MAC 60, LLC and ROYAL HOME IMPROVEMENTS, INC.
4
4 of 68
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/23/2022 05:16 PM INDEX NO. 515277/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 76 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/23/2022
previously provided copies of the contract and Consensus Documents between MAC 60, LLC
and ROYAL HOME IMPROVEMENTS, INC. Annexed hereto as Exhibit “A” are copies of
third-party defendant Gilmar Design Corporation’s original one (1) page handwritten bid
proposal/contract for $700,000.00 for labor, materials, and scope of work to be performed by
Gilmar, and its subsequent typed June 29, 2017 addition/modification to its original contract,
consisting of Proposal 062917 for $100,000.00. Annexed hereto as Exhibit “B” is a copy of the
Hold Harmless Agreement between ROYAL HOME IMPROVEMENTS, INC. and Gilmar
Design Corporation.
2. The responding defendants/third-party plaintiffs object to this demand as overly
broad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, irrelevant, not sufficiently limited in scope,
beyond the permissible scope of discovery and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery
of admissible evidence. Subject to, and without waiving any objections, see response to #1.
3. The responding defendants/third-party plaintiffs object to this demand as overly
broad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, irrelevant, not sufficiently limited in scope,
beyond the permissible scope of discovery and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery
of admissible evidence. Subject to, and without waiving any objections, see response #1.
4. The responding defendants/third-party plaintiffs object to this demand as overly
broad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, irrelevant, not sufficiently limited in scope,
beyond the permissible scope of discovery and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery
of admissible evidence. Without prejudice to the foregoing, the responding defendants/third-
party plaintiffs are not in possession of any responsive documents.
5. The responding defendants/third-party plaintiffs object to this demand as overly
broad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, irrelevant, not sufficiently limited in scope,
beyond the permissible scope of discovery and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery
5
5 of 68
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/23/2022 05:16 PM INDEX NO. 515277/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 76 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/23/2022
of admissible evidence. Subject to, and without waiving any objections, the defendant/third-party
plaintiff, ROYAL HOME IMPROVEMENTS’ Site Specific Safety Plan for subcontractors,
which was provided to plaintiff’s employer, third-party defendant Gilmar Design Corporation, is
attached hereto as Exhibit “C.”
6. The responding defendants/third-party plaintiffs object to this demand as overly
broad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, irrelevant, not sufficiently limited in scope,
beyond the permissible scope of discovery and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery
of admissible evidence. Without prejudice to the foregoing, the responding defendants/third-
party plaintiffs are not in possession of any responsive documents. Requests for safety meeting
minutes are more properly directed to third-party defendant Gilmar Design Corporation.
7. The responding defendants/third-party plaintiffs object to this demand as overly
broad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, irrelevant, not sufficiently limited in scope,
beyond the permissible scope of discovery and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery
of admissible evidence. Without prejudice to the foregoing, the responding defendants/third-
party plaintiffs are not in possession of any responsive documents. Requests for accident reports
or investigation records are more properly directed to third-party defendant Gilmar Design
Corporation.
8. The responding defendants/third-party plaintiffs object to this demand as overly
broad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, irrelevant, not sufficiently limited in scope,
beyond the permissible scope of discovery and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery
of admissible evidence. Without prejudice to the foregoing, the responding defendants/third-
party plaintiffs are not in possession of any photographs depicting instruments, machinery or
equipment other than those that may have been provided by plaintiff.
9. The responding defendants/third-party plaintiffs object to this demand as overly
6
6 of 68
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/23/2022 05:16 PM INDEX NO. 515277/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 76 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/23/2022
broad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, irrelevant, not sufficiently limited in scope,
beyond the permissible scope of discovery and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery
of admissible evidence. Without prejudice to the foregoing, the responding defendants/third-
party plaintiffs are not in possession of any photographs depicting the location of the accident,
building or surrounding areas other than those that may have been provided by plaintiff.
10. The responding defendants/third-party plaintiffs object to this demand as overly
broad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, irrelevant, not sufficiently limited in scope,
beyond the permissible scope of discovery and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery
of admissible evidence. Without prejudice to the foregoing, the responding defendants/third-
party plaintiffs are not in possession of any documents responsive to this demand. This demand
is more properly directed to third-party defendant Gilmar Design Corporation.
11. The responding defendants/third-party plaintiffs object to this demand as overly
broad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, irrelevant, not sufficiently limited in scope,
beyond the permissible scope of discovery and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery
of admissible evidence. Notwithstanding these objections, the responding defendants/third-party
plaintiffs are not in possession of any photographs responsive to this demand.
12. The responding defendants/third-party plaintiffs object to this demand as overly
broad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, irrelevant, not sufficiently limited in scope,
beyond the permissible scope of discovery and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery
of admissible evidence. Notwithstanding these objections, the responding defendants/third-party
plaintiffs are not in possession of any daily logs, daily reports, progress records or records
responsive to this demand. This demand is more properly directed to third-party defendant
Gilmar Design Corporation.
13. The responding defendants/third-party plaintiffs object to this demand as overly
7
7 of 68
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/23/2022 05:16 PM INDEX NO. 515277/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 76 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/23/2022
broad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, irrelevant, not sufficiently limited in scope,
beyond the permissible scope of discovery and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery
of admissible evidence. Notwithstanding these objections, the responding defendants/third-party
plaintiffs are not in possession of any complaints pertaining to the work being performed, or the
accident site alleged in plaintiff’s Complaint, or any documents or complaints responsive to this
demand.
14. The responding defendants/third-party plaintiffs object to this demand as overly
broad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, irrelevant, not sufficiently limited in scope,
beyond the permissible scope of discovery and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery
of admissible evidence. Notwithstanding these objections, the responding defendants/third-party
plaintiffs are not in possession of any complaints pertaining to the maintenance and/or conditions
or alleged conditions of the premises or the accident site alleged in plaintiff’s Complaint, either
before or subsequent to the alleged incident, or any documents or complaints responsive to this
demand.
15. The responding defendants/third-party plaintiffs object to this demand as overly
broad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, irrelevant, not sufficiently limited in scope,
beyond the permissible scope of discovery and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery
of admissible evidence. Notwithstanding these objections, the responding defendants/third-party
plaintiffs are not in possession of any work records, repair records, or work order forms
responsive to this demand.
16. The responding defendants/third-party plaintiffs object to this demand as overly
broad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, irrelevant, not sufficiently limited in scope,
beyond the permissible scope of discovery and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery
of admissible evidence. Notwithstanding these objections, the responding defendants/third-party
8
8 of 68
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/23/2022 05:16 PM INDEX NO. 515277/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 76 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/23/2022
plaintiffs are not in possession of any reports of prior similar incidences or any documents
responsive to this demand.
17. The responding defendants/third-party plaintiffs object to this demand as overly
broad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, irrelevant, not sufficiently limited in scope,
beyond the permissible scope of discovery and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery
of admissible evidence. The responding defendants/third-party plaintiffs further object to the
extent this demand calls for the production of documents that are available to the public.
Notwithstanding these objections, the responding defendants/third-party plaintiffs are not in
possession of any summons, summons and complaints or claims letters responsive to this
demand.
18. The responding defendants/third-party plaintiffs object to this demand as overly
broad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, irrelevant, not sufficiently limited in scope,
beyond the permissible scope of discovery and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery
of admissible evidence. Notwithstanding these objections, the responding defendants/third-party
plaintiffs are not in possession of any violations, citations or notifications responsive to this
demand.
19. The responding defendants/third-party plaintiffs object to this demand as overly
broad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, irrelevant, not sufficiently limited in scope,
beyond the permissible scope of discovery and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery
of admissible evidence. Notwithstanding these objections, the responding defendants/third-party
plaintiffs are not in possession of any violations, citations or notifications responsive to this
demand.
20. The responding defendants/third-party plaintiffs object to this demand as overly
9
9 of 68
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/23/2022 05:16 PM INDEX NO. 515277/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 76 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/23/2022
broad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, irrelevant, not sufficiently limited in scope,
beyond the permissible scope of discovery and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery
of admissible evidence. Notwithstanding these objections, the responding defendants/third-party
plaintiffs are not in possession of any OSHA documents or any documents responsive to this
demand.
21. The responding defendants/third-party plaintiffs object to this demand as overly
broad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, irrelevant, not sufficiently limited in scope,
beyond the permissible scope of discovery and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery
of admissible evidence. Upon information and belief, the responding defendants/third-party
plaintiffs are not in possession of any police reports or other writings responsive to this demand.
22. The responding defendants/third-party plaintiffs are not aware of any parties or
entities responsive to this demand, except that defendants/third-party plaintiffs’ entitlement to
contractual indemnification against third-party defendant Gilmar Design Corporation, pursuant
to the allegations and claims averred by defendants/third-party plaintiffs’ Third-Party Complaint,
and the Hold Harmless Agreement between ROYAL HOME IMPROVEMENTS, INC. and
Gilmar Design Corporation
23. The responding defendants/third-party plaintiffs object to this demand as overly
broad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, irrelevant, not sufficiently limited in scope,
beyond the permissible scope of discovery and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery
of admissible evidence. Subject to, and without waiving any objections, see response #1.
24. The responding defendants/third-party plaintiffs object to this demand as overly
broad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, irrelevant, not sufficiently limited in scope,
beyond the permissible scope of discovery and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery
of admissible evidence. Subject to, and without waiving any objections, see response #12.
10
10 of 68
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/23/2022 05:16 PM INDEX NO. 515277/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 76 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/23/2022
25. The responding defendants/third-party plaintiffs object to this demand as overly
broad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, irrelevant, not sufficiently limited in scope,
beyond the permissible scope of discovery and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery
of admissible evidence. Subject to, and without waiving any objections, see responses #7 and
#19.
26. The responding defendants/third-party plaintiffs object to this demand as overly
broad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, irrelevant, not sufficiently limited in scope,
beyond the permissible scope of discovery and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery
of admissible evidence. Notwithstanding these objections, the responding defendants/third-party
plaintiffs are not in possession of any communications or documents responsive to this demand.
27. The responding defendants/third-party plaintiffs object to this demand as overly
broad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, irrelevant, not sufficiently limited in scope,
beyond the permissible scope of discovery and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery
of admissible evidence. Notwithstanding these objections, the responding defendants/third-party
plaintiffs are not in possession of any communications or documents responsive to this demand.
28. The responding defendants/third-party plaintiffs object to this demand as overly
broad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, irrelevant, not sufficiently limited in scope,
beyond the permissible scope of discovery and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery
of admissible evidence. Notwithstanding these objections, the responding defendants/third-party
plaintiffs refer to their response #1, as well as documents annexed hereto as Exhibits “A” and
“B.”
29. The responding defendants/third-party plaintiffs object to this demand as overly
broad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, irrelevant, not sufficiently limited in scope,
beyond the permissible scope of discovery and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery
11
11 of 68
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/23/2022 05:16 PM INDEX NO. 515277/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 76 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/23/2022
of admissible evidence. Notwithstanding these objections, the 2357 60th Street As Built NB
Plans (architectural and engineering blueprints) are annexed hereto as Exhibit “D.” The
Amended Structural Plans dated October 7, 2016 annexed hereto as Exhibit “E.”
30. The responding defendants/third-party plaintiffs object to this demand as overly
broad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, irrelevant, not sufficiently limited in scope,
beyond the permissible scope of discovery and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery
of admissible evidence. Notwithstanding these objections, the responding defendants/third-party
plaintiffs are not in possession of any correspondence, notes, memoranda, memos or other
writings responsive to this demand.
31. The responding defendants/third-party plaintiffs object to this demand as overly
broad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, irrelevant, not sufficiently limited in scope,
beyond the permissible scope of discovery and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery
of admissible evidence. Subject to, and without waiving any objections, see responses #1, #5,
and #29; and Exhibits “A” through “E” annexed hereto. A copy of the New York City
Department of Buildings Work Permit Data was previously provided with defendants/third-party
plaintiffs discovery responses dated September 24, 2019. Annexed hereto as Exhibit “F” is a
copy of defendant/third-party plaintiff ROYAL HOME IMPROVEMENTS’ Bill History,
recording the bill/invoice received from third-party defendant, Gilmar Design Corp. on June 23,
2017, for 2357 60th Street, in the total amount of $774,600.00; and installment payments made
by ROYAL HOME IMPROVEMENTS to Gilmar, starting July 6, 2017 through and including
November 2, 2018, reflecting the dates of payments made, the check numbers, amount paid on
each date, and the remaining balance after each payment.
32. The responding defendants/third-party plaintiffs object to this demand as overly
12
12 of 68
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/23/2022 05:16 PM INDEX NO. 515277/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 76 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/23/2022
broad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, irrelevant, not sufficiently limited in scope,
beyond the permissible scope of discovery and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery
of admissible evidence. Notwithstanding these objections, the responding defendants/third-party
plaintiffs are not in possession of any photographs, color laser photographs, or videos responsive
to this demand.
33. The responding defendants/third-party plaintiffs object to this demand as overly
broad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, irrelevant, not sufficiently limited in scope,
beyond the permissible scope of discovery and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery
of admissible evidence. Notwithstanding these objections, see response #4.
34. The responding defendants/third-party plaintiffs object to this demand as overly
broad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, irrelevant, not sufficiently limited in scope,
beyond the permissible scope of discovery and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery
of admissible evidence. The responding defendants/third-party plaintiffs are not in possession of
any photographs, videotapes, digital recordings, or other depictions responsive to this demand, or
any other photographs, videotapes, digital recordings, or other depictions other than those that
may have been provided by plaintiff.
35. The responding defendants/third-party plaintiffs object to this demand as overly
broad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, irrelevant, not sufficiently limited in scope,
beyond the permissible scope of discovery and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery
of admissible evidence. Notwithstanding these objections, the responding defendants/third-party
plaintiffs are not in possession of any job application, identification, social security card, or other
forms of identification responsive to this demand. Plaintiff was employed by third-party
defendant Gilmar Design Corporation. Therefore, requests for any job application,
identification, social security card, or other forms of identification which may have been
13
13 of 68
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/23/2022 05:16 PM INDEX NO. 515277/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 76 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/23/2022
provided by and/or received from the plaintiff are more properly directed to third-party
defendant Gilmar Design Corporation.
36. The responding defendants/third-party plaintiffs object to this demand as overly
broad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, irrelevant, not sufficiently limited in scope,
beyond the permissible scope of discovery and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery
of admissible evidence. Notwithstanding these objections, the responding defendants/third-party
plaintiffs are not in possession of any work records, payroll records, checks, W-2s or
employment file concerning the plaintiff or responsive to this demand. Plaintiff was employed
by third-party defendant Gilmar Design Corporation. Therefore, requests for any work records,
payroll records, checks, W-2s or employment file concerning the plaintiff are more properly
directed to third-party defendant Gilmar Design Corporation.
PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that responding defendants/third-party plaintiffs,
MAC 60 LLC and ROYAL HOME IMPROVEMENTS, INC., hereby reserve their right to
supplement and/or amend this response as discovery proceeds, up to and including the time of
trial.
Dated: Garden City, New York
February 21, 2022
KIERNAN TREBACH LLP
By: _____________________________________
Afaf “Faye” Sulieman, Esq.
Attorneys for Defendants/Third Party Plaintiffs
MAC 60 LLC and ROYAL HOME
IMPROVEMENTS, INC.
1305 Franklin Avenue, Suite 301
Garden City, New York 11530
Tel: (516) 831-0200
Fax: (516) 831-0201
KT File No.: 1989.0016
14
14 of 68
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/23/2022 05:16 PM INDEX NO. 515277/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 76 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/23/2022
TO: Via E-Mail & NYSCEF E-Filing
John J. Nonnenmacher, Esq. Jnonnenmacher@OreskyLaw.com
Steven Labell, Esq. SLabell@oreskylaw.com
ORESKY & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
Attorneys for Plaintiff
149 East 149th Street
Bronx, NY 10451
(718) 993-9999
File No.: 18-1005
Richard B. Polner, Esq. rpolner@rawle.com
Pauline Ianno, Paralegal pianno@rawle.com
RAWLE & HENDERSON LLP
Attorneys for Third-Party Defendant
GILMAR DESIGN CORPORATION
14 Wall Street, 27th Floor
New York, New York 10005-2101
File No.: 805030
15
15 of 68
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/23/2022 05:16 PM INDEX NO. 515277/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 76 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/23/2022
EXHIBIT A
16 of 68
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/23/2022 05:16 PM INDEX NO. 515277/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 76 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/23/2022
---..
f 3 57 &c S&ee
foY'AL,
E‰× (see
L=¼'+no' '+eshes'=4ce'
du eas')
e
' 200 - c£eoli opemps :
k= g"+fc'4''= i7
- = 3Ý°°
{PC STO ToL ele
ofem'Q
est.v.i,s.t-es'reo
Coa.uires.s.>rm.+
=Ifo'
=TD't80'+f0 if=3 6 3
2FL. feet l¼Aped
6f+g')
2FL÷3Fl÷4FL+Parefraor f&ftf") L=3o+Yo+Ao†35†f3 =300
3'C"=its's"
li=/dle'tl
-(opean 2÷ -st,rt : socs fs
12 /r0
ac eed
R+8 20 2 C-f fo-tto =&t
/5"
2D
2 2dc+«dc+2s'+2s'=e o
, S/te'')
e'C"
H=io'
(8 L=
eg 1) ")
L=it'stit'tes'es'=4
ELSt.e:4) u+s)
= /
(a // / o
ve)
=30 + /4o'+20+80'+25'+23 92
fl4(L,,e.rs)
P.s -CEveer+ c-s
A-offheod/ersis/j
e210 2 . a(roflow
8"cuu)
Preview
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/23/2022 05:16 PM INDEX NO. 515277/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 76 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/23/2022 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS ---------------------------------------------------------------X ANTONIO ESPINOSA, Index No.: 515277/2018 Plaintiff, DEFENDANTS/THIRD-PARTY PLAINTIFFS’ MAC 60 LLC AND - against - ROYAL HOME IMPROVEMENTS, INC., SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE FOR DISCOVERY & INSPECTION AND FCP ORDER MAC 60 LLC and ROYAL HOME IMPROVEMENTS, INC., Defendants. ---------------------------------------------------------------X MAC 60 LLC and ROYAL HOME IMPROVEMENTS, INC. Third-Party Plaintiffs -against- GILMAR DESGIN CORPORATION, Third-Party Defendant. ---------------------------------------------------------------X PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that defendants/third-party plaintiffs, MAC 60 LLC and ROYAL HOME IMPROVEMENTS INC., by and through their attorneys, KIERNAN TREBACH LLP, sets forth the following as and for their Supplemental Responses to Plaintiff’s Notice for Discovery and Inspection dated December 28, 2018; May 21, 2021; and the Amended FCP Order dated November 5, 2021, upon information and belief, as follows: GENERAL OBJECTIONS 1. The following general objections apply to and are incorporated by reference into each specific response. The responding defendants/third-party plaintiffs reserve the right to 1 1 of 68 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/23/2022 05:16 PM INDEX NO. 515277/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 76 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/23/2022 assert additional and different objections in any supplemental response and at any other time hereafter deemed appropriate. Moreover, in each instance in which the responding defendants/third-party plaintiffs object specifically to a request, such objection is in addition to, and not in limitation of, the responding defendants/third-party plaintiffs’ general objections. 2. The responding defendants/third-party plaintiffs submit this response without conceding the relevancy or materiality of the subject matter of any request and without prejudice to all objections to the use, further production, or admissibility of the documents produced herein. 3. Documents responsive to more than one request will be made available for inspection and copying and produced only once. 4. No admissions of any nature are implied or should be inferred from the defendants/third-party plaintiffs’ responses. The production of documents shall not constitute a waiver of any applicable objection. 5. Each response and objection to each request is based on the responding defendants/third-party plaintiffs’ understanding of the request. To the extent that the responding defendants/third-party plaintiffs’ interpretation that is inconsistent with the responding defendants/third-party plaintiffs’ understanding, the defendants/third-party plaintiffs reserve the right to supplement or amend their responses and objections. 6. The responding defendants/third-party plaintiffs objects to the plaintiff’s demands in their entirety to the extent that they call for: (a) information that embodies or discloses confidential communications between the responding defendants/third-party plaintiffs and their attorneys; (b) information that represents the work product of attorneys for the defendants/third- party plaintiffs or that otherwise reflects the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions or legal theories of those attorneys or their agents; (c) information that has been compiled in anticipation 2 2 of 68 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/23/2022 05:16 PM INDEX NO. 515277/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 76 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/23/2022 of litigation by or on behalf of the responding defendants/third-party plaintiffs or its attorneys; and/or (d) information protected from disclosure by any other privilege recognized by law. 7. Any inadvertent production of any privileged document shall not be deemed or construed to constitute a waiver by the responding defendants/third-party plaintiffs of such privilege, and the responding defendants/third-party plaintiffs expressly reserves the right to demand that the plaintiff returns any inadvertently produced document and all copies thereof and/or to seek a protective order from the Court. 8. The responding defendants/third-party plaintiffs objects to the plaintiff’s requests in their entirety to the extent that they seek information and/or production of documents not available to the defendants/third-party plaintiffs and/or otherwise readily available to the plaintiff. 9. The responding defendants/third-party plaintiffs object to the plaintiff’s requests in their entirety to the extent that they are vague, ambiguous and/or incomprehensible; otherwise lack precision; and/or require the defendants/third-party plaintiffs to engage in conjecture as to its meaning. 10. The responding defendants/third-party plaintiffs objects to the plaintiff’s requests in their entirety to the extent that they are oppressive, unnecessarily burdensome, and/or overly broad. 11. The responding defendants/third-party plaintiffs objects to those requests that are duplicative or cumulative and as to which information may be obtained from another source with more convenience, less burden and/or less expense. 12. The responding defendants/third-party plaintiffs objects to plaintiff’s requests in their entirety to the extent that they seek information and/or production of documents not 3 3 of 68 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/23/2022 05:16 PM INDEX NO. 515277/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 76 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/23/2022 relevant to the subject matter of the pending action and/or not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 13. The responding defendants/third-party plaintiffs object to plaintiff’s requests in their entirety to the extent that they prematurely seek an opinion or contention or the application of law to fact, and, therefore, need not be answered until discovery has been completed. 14. The responding defendants/third-party plaintiffs object to each definition, instruction, and specific request to the extent that it seeks to impose an obligation(s) on the defendants/third-party plaintiffs beyond the scope of, or not contemplated by, applicable law and rules. 15. The responding defendants/third-party plaintiffs object to plaintiff’s requests in their entirety to the extent that they call for non-discoverable matters. 16. The responding defendants/third-party plaintiffs reserve the right to supplement their responses should additional responsive documents be discovered. 17. All parties to this action are hereby advised that the documents produced hereto shall be used solely in connection with this litigation, may contain confidential and proprietary information, and are produced on the condition that the parties agree that the documents may not be disclosed to outside parties without the defendants/third-party plaintiffs’ express written permission or used for any purpose other than this litigation. SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES 1. The responding defendants/third-party plaintiffs object to this demand as overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, irrelevant, not sufficiently limited in scope, beyond the permissible scope of discovery and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to, and without waiving any objections, responding defendants/third-party plaintiffs MAC 60, LLC and ROYAL HOME IMPROVEMENTS, INC. 4 4 of 68 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/23/2022 05:16 PM INDEX NO. 515277/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 76 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/23/2022 previously provided copies of the contract and Consensus Documents between MAC 60, LLC and ROYAL HOME IMPROVEMENTS, INC. Annexed hereto as Exhibit “A” are copies of third-party defendant Gilmar Design Corporation’s original one (1) page handwritten bid proposal/contract for $700,000.00 for labor, materials, and scope of work to be performed by Gilmar, and its subsequent typed June 29, 2017 addition/modification to its original contract, consisting of Proposal 062917 for $100,000.00. Annexed hereto as Exhibit “B” is a copy of the Hold Harmless Agreement between ROYAL HOME IMPROVEMENTS, INC. and Gilmar Design Corporation. 2. The responding defendants/third-party plaintiffs object to this demand as overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, irrelevant, not sufficiently limited in scope, beyond the permissible scope of discovery and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to, and without waiving any objections, see response to #1. 3. The responding defendants/third-party plaintiffs object to this demand as overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, irrelevant, not sufficiently limited in scope, beyond the permissible scope of discovery and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to, and without waiving any objections, see response #1. 4. The responding defendants/third-party plaintiffs object to this demand as overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, irrelevant, not sufficiently limited in scope, beyond the permissible scope of discovery and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without prejudice to the foregoing, the responding defendants/third- party plaintiffs are not in possession of any responsive documents. 5. The responding defendants/third-party plaintiffs object to this demand as overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, irrelevant, not sufficiently limited in scope, beyond the permissible scope of discovery and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery 5 5 of 68 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/23/2022 05:16 PM INDEX NO. 515277/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 76 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/23/2022 of admissible evidence. Subject to, and without waiving any objections, the defendant/third-party plaintiff, ROYAL HOME IMPROVEMENTS’ Site Specific Safety Plan for subcontractors, which was provided to plaintiff’s employer, third-party defendant Gilmar Design Corporation, is attached hereto as Exhibit “C.” 6. The responding defendants/third-party plaintiffs object to this demand as overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, irrelevant, not sufficiently limited in scope, beyond the permissible scope of discovery and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without prejudice to the foregoing, the responding defendants/third- party plaintiffs are not in possession of any responsive documents. Requests for safety meeting minutes are more properly directed to third-party defendant Gilmar Design Corporation. 7. The responding defendants/third-party plaintiffs object to this demand as overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, irrelevant, not sufficiently limited in scope, beyond the permissible scope of discovery and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without prejudice to the foregoing, the responding defendants/third- party plaintiffs are not in possession of any responsive documents. Requests for accident reports or investigation records are more properly directed to third-party defendant Gilmar Design Corporation. 8. The responding defendants/third-party plaintiffs object to this demand as overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, irrelevant, not sufficiently limited in scope, beyond the permissible scope of discovery and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without prejudice to the foregoing, the responding defendants/third- party plaintiffs are not in possession of any photographs depicting instruments, machinery or equipment other than those that may have been provided by plaintiff. 9. The responding defendants/third-party plaintiffs object to this demand as overly 6 6 of 68 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/23/2022 05:16 PM INDEX NO. 515277/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 76 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/23/2022 broad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, irrelevant, not sufficiently limited in scope, beyond the permissible scope of discovery and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without prejudice to the foregoing, the responding defendants/third- party plaintiffs are not in possession of any photographs depicting the location of the accident, building or surrounding areas other than those that may have been provided by plaintiff. 10. The responding defendants/third-party plaintiffs object to this demand as overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, irrelevant, not sufficiently limited in scope, beyond the permissible scope of discovery and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without prejudice to the foregoing, the responding defendants/third- party plaintiffs are not in possession of any documents responsive to this demand. This demand is more properly directed to third-party defendant Gilmar Design Corporation. 11. The responding defendants/third-party plaintiffs object to this demand as overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, irrelevant, not sufficiently limited in scope, beyond the permissible scope of discovery and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Notwithstanding these objections, the responding defendants/third-party plaintiffs are not in possession of any photographs responsive to this demand. 12. The responding defendants/third-party plaintiffs object to this demand as overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, irrelevant, not sufficiently limited in scope, beyond the permissible scope of discovery and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Notwithstanding these objections, the responding defendants/third-party plaintiffs are not in possession of any daily logs, daily reports, progress records or records responsive to this demand. This demand is more properly directed to third-party defendant Gilmar Design Corporation. 13. The responding defendants/third-party plaintiffs object to this demand as overly 7 7 of 68 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/23/2022 05:16 PM INDEX NO. 515277/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 76 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/23/2022 broad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, irrelevant, not sufficiently limited in scope, beyond the permissible scope of discovery and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Notwithstanding these objections, the responding defendants/third-party plaintiffs are not in possession of any complaints pertaining to the work being performed, or the accident site alleged in plaintiff’s Complaint, or any documents or complaints responsive to this demand. 14. The responding defendants/third-party plaintiffs object to this demand as overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, irrelevant, not sufficiently limited in scope, beyond the permissible scope of discovery and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Notwithstanding these objections, the responding defendants/third-party plaintiffs are not in possession of any complaints pertaining to the maintenance and/or conditions or alleged conditions of the premises or the accident site alleged in plaintiff’s Complaint, either before or subsequent to the alleged incident, or any documents or complaints responsive to this demand. 15. The responding defendants/third-party plaintiffs object to this demand as overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, irrelevant, not sufficiently limited in scope, beyond the permissible scope of discovery and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Notwithstanding these objections, the responding defendants/third-party plaintiffs are not in possession of any work records, repair records, or work order forms responsive to this demand. 16. The responding defendants/third-party plaintiffs object to this demand as overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, irrelevant, not sufficiently limited in scope, beyond the permissible scope of discovery and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Notwithstanding these objections, the responding defendants/third-party 8 8 of 68 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/23/2022 05:16 PM INDEX NO. 515277/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 76 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/23/2022 plaintiffs are not in possession of any reports of prior similar incidences or any documents responsive to this demand. 17. The responding defendants/third-party plaintiffs object to this demand as overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, irrelevant, not sufficiently limited in scope, beyond the permissible scope of discovery and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The responding defendants/third-party plaintiffs further object to the extent this demand calls for the production of documents that are available to the public. Notwithstanding these objections, the responding defendants/third-party plaintiffs are not in possession of any summons, summons and complaints or claims letters responsive to this demand. 18. The responding defendants/third-party plaintiffs object to this demand as overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, irrelevant, not sufficiently limited in scope, beyond the permissible scope of discovery and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Notwithstanding these objections, the responding defendants/third-party plaintiffs are not in possession of any violations, citations or notifications responsive to this demand. 19. The responding defendants/third-party plaintiffs object to this demand as overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, irrelevant, not sufficiently limited in scope, beyond the permissible scope of discovery and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Notwithstanding these objections, the responding defendants/third-party plaintiffs are not in possession of any violations, citations or notifications responsive to this demand. 20. The responding defendants/third-party plaintiffs object to this demand as overly 9 9 of 68 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/23/2022 05:16 PM INDEX NO. 515277/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 76 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/23/2022 broad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, irrelevant, not sufficiently limited in scope, beyond the permissible scope of discovery and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Notwithstanding these objections, the responding defendants/third-party plaintiffs are not in possession of any OSHA documents or any documents responsive to this demand. 21. The responding defendants/third-party plaintiffs object to this demand as overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, irrelevant, not sufficiently limited in scope, beyond the permissible scope of discovery and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Upon information and belief, the responding defendants/third-party plaintiffs are not in possession of any police reports or other writings responsive to this demand. 22. The responding defendants/third-party plaintiffs are not aware of any parties or entities responsive to this demand, except that defendants/third-party plaintiffs’ entitlement to contractual indemnification against third-party defendant Gilmar Design Corporation, pursuant to the allegations and claims averred by defendants/third-party plaintiffs’ Third-Party Complaint, and the Hold Harmless Agreement between ROYAL HOME IMPROVEMENTS, INC. and Gilmar Design Corporation 23. The responding defendants/third-party plaintiffs object to this demand as overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, irrelevant, not sufficiently limited in scope, beyond the permissible scope of discovery and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to, and without waiving any objections, see response #1. 24. The responding defendants/third-party plaintiffs object to this demand as overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, irrelevant, not sufficiently limited in scope, beyond the permissible scope of discovery and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to, and without waiving any objections, see response #12. 10 10 of 68 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/23/2022 05:16 PM INDEX NO. 515277/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 76 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/23/2022 25. The responding defendants/third-party plaintiffs object to this demand as overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, irrelevant, not sufficiently limited in scope, beyond the permissible scope of discovery and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to, and without waiving any objections, see responses #7 and #19. 26. The responding defendants/third-party plaintiffs object to this demand as overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, irrelevant, not sufficiently limited in scope, beyond the permissible scope of discovery and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Notwithstanding these objections, the responding defendants/third-party plaintiffs are not in possession of any communications or documents responsive to this demand. 27. The responding defendants/third-party plaintiffs object to this demand as overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, irrelevant, not sufficiently limited in scope, beyond the permissible scope of discovery and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Notwithstanding these objections, the responding defendants/third-party plaintiffs are not in possession of any communications or documents responsive to this demand. 28. The responding defendants/third-party plaintiffs object to this demand as overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, irrelevant, not sufficiently limited in scope, beyond the permissible scope of discovery and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Notwithstanding these objections, the responding defendants/third-party plaintiffs refer to their response #1, as well as documents annexed hereto as Exhibits “A” and “B.” 29. The responding defendants/third-party plaintiffs object to this demand as overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, irrelevant, not sufficiently limited in scope, beyond the permissible scope of discovery and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery 11 11 of 68 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/23/2022 05:16 PM INDEX NO. 515277/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 76 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/23/2022 of admissible evidence. Notwithstanding these objections, the 2357 60th Street As Built NB Plans (architectural and engineering blueprints) are annexed hereto as Exhibit “D.” The Amended Structural Plans dated October 7, 2016 annexed hereto as Exhibit “E.” 30. The responding defendants/third-party plaintiffs object to this demand as overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, irrelevant, not sufficiently limited in scope, beyond the permissible scope of discovery and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Notwithstanding these objections, the responding defendants/third-party plaintiffs are not in possession of any correspondence, notes, memoranda, memos or other writings responsive to this demand. 31. The responding defendants/third-party plaintiffs object to this demand as overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, irrelevant, not sufficiently limited in scope, beyond the permissible scope of discovery and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to, and without waiving any objections, see responses #1, #5, and #29; and Exhibits “A” through “E” annexed hereto. A copy of the New York City Department of Buildings Work Permit Data was previously provided with defendants/third-party plaintiffs discovery responses dated September 24, 2019. Annexed hereto as Exhibit “F” is a copy of defendant/third-party plaintiff ROYAL HOME IMPROVEMENTS’ Bill History, recording the bill/invoice received from third-party defendant, Gilmar Design Corp. on June 23, 2017, for 2357 60th Street, in the total amount of $774,600.00; and installment payments made by ROYAL HOME IMPROVEMENTS to Gilmar, starting July 6, 2017 through and including November 2, 2018, reflecting the dates of payments made, the check numbers, amount paid on each date, and the remaining balance after each payment. 32. The responding defendants/third-party plaintiffs object to this demand as overly 12 12 of 68 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/23/2022 05:16 PM INDEX NO. 515277/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 76 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/23/2022 broad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, irrelevant, not sufficiently limited in scope, beyond the permissible scope of discovery and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Notwithstanding these objections, the responding defendants/third-party plaintiffs are not in possession of any photographs, color laser photographs, or videos responsive to this demand. 33. The responding defendants/third-party plaintiffs object to this demand as overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, irrelevant, not sufficiently limited in scope, beyond the permissible scope of discovery and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Notwithstanding these objections, see response #4. 34. The responding defendants/third-party plaintiffs object to this demand as overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, irrelevant, not sufficiently limited in scope, beyond the permissible scope of discovery and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The responding defendants/third-party plaintiffs are not in possession of any photographs, videotapes, digital recordings, or other depictions responsive to this demand, or any other photographs, videotapes, digital recordings, or other depictions other than those that may have been provided by plaintiff. 35. The responding defendants/third-party plaintiffs object to this demand as overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, irrelevant, not sufficiently limited in scope, beyond the permissible scope of discovery and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Notwithstanding these objections, the responding defendants/third-party plaintiffs are not in possession of any job application, identification, social security card, or other forms of identification responsive to this demand. Plaintiff was employed by third-party defendant Gilmar Design Corporation. Therefore, requests for any job application, identification, social security card, or other forms of identification which may have been 13 13 of 68 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/23/2022 05:16 PM INDEX NO. 515277/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 76 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/23/2022 provided by and/or received from the plaintiff are more properly directed to third-party defendant Gilmar Design Corporation. 36. The responding defendants/third-party plaintiffs object to this demand as overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, irrelevant, not sufficiently limited in scope, beyond the permissible scope of discovery and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Notwithstanding these objections, the responding defendants/third-party plaintiffs are not in possession of any work records, payroll records, checks, W-2s or employment file concerning the plaintiff or responsive to this demand. Plaintiff was employed by third-party defendant Gilmar Design Corporation. Therefore, requests for any work records, payroll records, checks, W-2s or employment file concerning the plaintiff are more properly directed to third-party defendant Gilmar Design Corporation. PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that responding defendants/third-party plaintiffs, MAC 60 LLC and ROYAL HOME IMPROVEMENTS, INC., hereby reserve their right to supplement and/or amend this response as discovery proceeds, up to and including the time of trial. Dated: Garden City, New York February 21, 2022 KIERNAN TREBACH LLP By: _____________________________________ Afaf “Faye” Sulieman, Esq. Attorneys for Defendants/Third Party Plaintiffs MAC 60 LLC and ROYAL HOME IMPROVEMENTS, INC. 1305 Franklin Avenue, Suite 301 Garden City, New York 11530 Tel: (516) 831-0200 Fax: (516) 831-0201 KT File No.: 1989.0016 14 14 of 68 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/23/2022 05:16 PM INDEX NO. 515277/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 76 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/23/2022 TO: Via E-Mail & NYSCEF E-Filing John J. Nonnenmacher, Esq. Jnonnenmacher@OreskyLaw.com Steven Labell, Esq. SLabell@oreskylaw.com ORESKY & ASSOCIATES, PLLC Attorneys for Plaintiff 149 East 149th Street Bronx, NY 10451 (718) 993-9999 File No.: 18-1005 Richard B. Polner, Esq. rpolner@rawle.com Pauline Ianno, Paralegal pianno@rawle.com RAWLE & HENDERSON LLP Attorneys for Third-Party Defendant GILMAR DESIGN CORPORATION 14 Wall Street, 27th Floor New York, New York 10005-2101 File No.: 805030 15 15 of 68 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/23/2022 05:16 PM INDEX NO. 515277/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 76 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/23/2022 EXHIBIT A 16 of 68 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/23/2022 05:16 PM INDEX NO. 515277/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 76 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/23/2022 ---.. f 3 57 &c S&ee foY'AL, E‰× (see L=¼'+no' '+eshes'=4ce' du eas') e ' 200 - c£eoli opemps : k= g"+fc'4''= i7 - = 3Ý°° {PC STO ToL ele ofem'Q est.v.i,s.t-es'reo Coa.uires.s.>rm.+ =Ifo' =TD't80'+f0 if=3 6 3 2FL. feet l¼Aped 6f+g') 2FL÷3Fl÷4FL+Parefraor f&ftf") L=3o+Yo+Ao†35†f3 =300 3'C"=its's" li=/dle'tl -(opean 2÷ -st,rt : socs fs 12 /r0 ac eed R+8 20 2 C-f fo-tto =&t /5" 2D 2 2dc+«dc+2s'+2s'=e o , S/te'') e'C" H=io' (8 L= eg 1) ") L=it'stit'tes'es'=4 ELSt.e:4) u+s) = / (a // / o ve) =30 + /4o'+20+80'+25'+23 92 fl4(L,,e.rs) P.s -CEveer+ c-s A-offheod/ersis/j e210 2 . a(roflow 8"cuu)