No Value: Florimel Lora v. Barker Ave Estates Llc, Allerton Tkt Llc, Ymy Acquisitions, Llc

On June 05, 2020 a No Value was filed involving a dispute between Florimel Lora, and Allerton Tkt Llc, Barker Ave Estates Llc, Ymy Acquisitions, Llc, for Torts - Other Negligence (Premises) in the District Court of Bronx County.

Preview
FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 01/13/2023 03:39 PM INDEX NO. 28505/2020E
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 73 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/13/2023

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF BRONX
------------------------------------------------------------------ X AFFIRMATION IN
FLORIMEL LORA, OPPOSITION TO
PLAINTIFF’S ORDER TO
Plaintiff, SHOW CAUSE AND IN
SUPPORT OF
-against- DEFENDANTS’
CROSS-MOTION FOR
BARKER AVE ESTATES LLC, SANCTIONS
ALLERTON TKT LLC, and YMY
ACQUISITIONS, LLC, Index No.: 28505/2020E
Defendants.
------------------------------------------------------------------ X

BONNIE S. GOLDMAN, an attorney duly admitted to practice law in the Courts of the

State of New York, affirms the truth of the following under the penalties of perjury:

1. I am a partner of the firm of MARKS, O'NEILL, O'BRIEN, DOHERTY &

KELLY, P.C., the attorney for the Defendants, BARKER AVE ESTATES LLC, ALLERTON

TKT LLC and YMY ACQUISITIONS, LLC, and as such I am fully familiar with the facts and

circumstances of this matter as revealed by the file maintained by this office.

2. I respectfully submit this Affirmation in response to Plaintiff FLORIMEL LORA’s,

Order to Show Cause seeking to compel the continued video deposition of Simcha Applegrad.

This Affirmation is also submitted in opposition to Plaintiff’s request for Sanctions, in further

support of Defendant’s Cross-Motion for Sanctions and for all other relief this Court may deem

just and proper.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

3. At the outset, Plaintiff’s Order to Show Cause should be denied outright as Plaintiff

failed to comply with the requirements of 22 NYCRR 202.8(a), which requires that if a document

to be annexed to an affidavit or affirmation is voluminous and only discrete portions are relevant

{M0387438.1}

1 of 15
FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 01/13/2023 03:39 PM INDEX NO. 28505/2020E
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 73 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/13/2023

to the motion, counsel shall attach excerpts and submit the full exhibit separately. Plaintiff attached

excerpts from seven (7) total deposition transcripts but did not submit full copies of these

documents as separate exhibits. Thus, Plaintiff’s application is improper and should be denied in

its entirety.

4. Moreover, Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions must be denied based on Plaintiff’s

deliberate efforts to mislead the Court with claims that Defense counsel unilaterally terminated

Simcha Applegrad’s deposition “for no evident reason” and in violation of CPLR §3122. See

Shukla Memo. Intro.; see also, Shukla Memo. Point 2. Plaintiff further claims that Defense

counsel’s only reason for terminating the deposition was “seemingly tactical” and that counsel has

exhibited “willful and dilatory” efforts to prevent this case from advancing. See Shukla Memo.

Intro. Plaintiff’s claims are only supported by misrepresentations and calculated omissions of the

facts in what ironically appears to be a willful and dilatory effort to misguide this Court. These

claims are unsupported by the transcripts on which Plaintiff’s memorandum relies, and are based

entirely on isolated phrases taken out of context and supplied with an interpretative spin lacking

evidentiary basis.

5. A fair reading of the deposition transcripts to which Plaintiff’s counsel refers

reveals that Simcha Applegrad’s deposition was terminated prematurely only due to Plaintiff

counsel’s inappropriate behavior. The undersigned had numerous off-the-record conversations

with Plaintiff’s counsel, Mr. Kush Shukla, during which he yelled and became so inappropriately

agitated that the undersigned eventually contacted and explained the situation to Mr. Jonathan

Alvarez, another attorney at Mr. Shukla’s firm. As demonstrated below, the deposition was

suspended only after the undersigned spoke with and obtained the consent of Mr. Alvarez, who

understood such measures were taken neither easily nor unilaterally by the undersigned, who tried

{M0387438.1} 2

2 of 15
FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 01/13/2023 03:39 PM INDEX NO. 28505/2020E
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 73 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/13/2023

to allow the deposition to continue in good faith. Thus, the alleged basis for sanctions on this

ground is absolutely unsubstantiated by the facts and should be denied.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

6. On or about June 5, 2020, this action was commenced against Defendants

BARKER AVE ESTATES LLC, ALLERTON TKT LLC, and YMY ACQUISITIONS, LLC

by filing and service of Plaintiff’s Summons and Verified Complaint in the Supreme Court of the

State of New York, Bronx County. A copy of the Plaintiff’s Summons and Verified Complaint is

annexed hereto as Exhibit “A”.

7. On or about September 24, 2020, issue was joined by Defendants, BARKER AVE

ESTATES LLC, ALLERTON TKT LLC, and YMY ACQUISITIONS, LLC by service of

their Answer to Plaintiff’s Summons and Verified Complaint. A copy of the Answer is annexed

hereto as Exhibit “B”.

8. On October 13, 2021, Plaintiff FLORIMEL LORA appeared for her Court ordered

deposition. A copy of Plaintiff’s two (2) deposition transcripts are annexed hereto as Exhibit “C”.

9. On March 7, 2022, Mr. Sal Berman appeared for his Court ordered deposition on

behalf of Defendant YMY ACQUISITIONS, LLC. A copy of Mr. Berman’s deposition transcript

is annexed hereto as Exhibit “D”.

10. On April 26, 2022 and May 23, 2022, Ms. Rivky Felendler appeared for her Court

ordered deposition on behalf of Defendant YMY ACQUISITIONS, LLC. A copy of Ms.

Felenders’s deposition transcript from April 26, 2022 is annexed hereto as Exhibit “E” and a copy

of her deposition transcript from May 23, 2022 is annexed hereto as Exhibit “F”.

11. On June 14, 2022, Mr. Steven Pinales appeared for his Court ordered deposition,

again on behalf of Defendant YMY ACQUISITIONS, LLC. A copy of Mr. Pinales’s deposition

{M0387438.1} 3

3 of 15
FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 01/13/2023 03:39 PM INDEX NO. 28505/2020E
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 73 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/13/2023

transcript is annexed hereto as Exhibit “G”.

12. On December 7, 2022, Mr. Simcha Applegrad appeared for his Court ordered

deposition on behalf of Defendants BARKER AVENUE LLC and ALLERTON TKT LLC. A

copy of Mr. Applegrad’s deposition transcript is annexed hereto as Exhibit “H”.

ARGUMENT

I. THE INSTANT APPLICATION SHOULD BE DENIED AS (A) PLAINTIFF
FAILED TO FOLLOW PROPER PROCEDURES PURSUANT TO 22 NYCRR
202.8(a); (B) PLAINTIFF’S SELF-SERVING ALLEGATIONS AGAINST
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS ARE MATERIALLY FALSE; and (C)
PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS THAT SIMCHA APPLEGRAD’S VIDEOTAPED
DEPOSITION WAS UNILATERALLY TERMINATED BY THE DEFENSE IN
BAD FAITH AND WITHOUT A LEGAL BASIS IS MATERIALLY FALSE

A. Plaintiff’s Application is Improper as Plaintiff Failed to Attach Full Copies of
the Deposition Transcripts as Separate Exhibits Pursuant to 22 NYCRR
202.8(a)

13. At the outset, plaintiff’s Order to Show Cause should be denied outright as Plaintiff

failed to comply with the requirements of 22 NYCRR 202.8(a), which requires

…Regardless of whether the [movant’s] papers are filed
electronically or in hard copy or as working copies, counsel must
submit as part of the motion papers copies of all pleadings and other
documents as required by the CPLR and as necessary for an
informed decision on the motion…If a document to be annexed to
an affidavit or affirmation is voluminous and only discrete portions
are relevant to the motion, counsel shall attach excerpts and
submit the full exhibit separately (emphasis added).

Annexed to Plaintiff counsel’s affirmation as Exhibits 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 12, and 13 are excerpts from

seven (7) total deposition transcripts. See, Shukla Aff. ¶ 5; 6; 7; 10; 11; 14; 16. Counsel, however,

did not submit copies of the full deposition transcripts and his papers appear to offer no explanation

for why he did not and could not comply with the foregoing Rule, or any recognition that this Rule

exists. It should also be noted that although most of the transcripts were from the depositions of

witnesses produced by the Defense, Mr. Shukla’s office did not promptly send copies of these

{M0387438.1} 4

4 of 15
FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 01/13/2023 03:39 PM INDEX NO. 28505/2020E
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 73 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/13/2023

transcripts to the Defense’s office until our office requested those transcripts. Annexed hereto as

Exhibit “I” is a copy of e-mail correspondence between the undersigned and Plaintiff counsel’s

office. After almost every deposition of a deponent that the Defense produced, this office had to

track down a copy of its client’s own transcripts in order to have the transcripts executed. See id.

Although counsel’s office eventually provided the Defense with copies of the deposition

transcripts, it is important to note that Mr. Shukla then still took no steps to cure the defect in his

motion. It should also be noted that counsel failed to bind the papers when he served same upon

the undersigned in conformance with the conformed Order to Show Cause. For an attorney who

has repeatedly emphasized the importance of complying with the rules of this honorable Court,

Mr. Shukla did not even have the decency to bind the papers.

14. As will be demonstrated below, the deposition excerpts Mr. Shukla included in their

exclusivity are unavailing in providing this Court with a clear and whole narrative integral for

rendering an informed decision as to the matters at issue in this motion sequence. Significantly,

Mr. Shukla claims that the Defense exhibited a “continued and concerted effort to willfully

disregard the rules and procedures of this Court.” See, Shukla Memo. Intro. These injurious claims

are supported only by isolated statements from the excerpted transcripts which Mr. Shukla has

deliberately taken out of context and materially misrepresented before this Court. Thus, absent a

submission of the transcripts in their entirety, this Court cannot conduct a fair and illuminated

evaluation of the complete record. Plaintiff counsel’s failure to submit copies of the full transcripts

pursuant to Rule 202.8(a) constitutes a violation that is neither merely technical nor without

prejudice, and Plaintiff’s motion is procedurally defective on its face.

B. Plaintiff Counsel’s Self-Serving Allegations Against the Defense Are
Inaccurate

15. The partial purpose of this opposition is to clarify certain statements made by Mr.

{M0387438.1} 5

5 of 15
FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 01/13/2023 03:39 PM INDEX NO. 28505/2020E
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 73 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/13/2023

Shukla in his motion regarding exchanges that took place between the representative parties. Mr.

Shukla provides a very disingenuous recounting of the history of this case. Mr. Shukla has been

difficult and hostile since the first deposition.

16. Mr. Shukla states that on April 26, 2022, due to a disagreement between the

representative parties during the deposition of Ms. Rivky Felendler, the parties called Hon.

Kenneth Thompson in an efforts to resolve the matter. See Shukla Memo. ¶ 7. The Defense agrees

with Mr. Shukla’s recounting of these specific facts; however, Mr. Shukla then alleges that “Judge

Thompson admonished [the Defense] for her lack of professionalism during oral argument.” See,

Shukla Memo. ¶ 8. This is categorically untrue as it was Mr. Shukla whom Judge Thompson

admonished for his inappropriate conduct.

17. Mr. Shukla then alleges that the Defense “single-handedly changed the start time”

for the deposition of Simcha Applegrad which was taken on December 7, 2022. See, Shukla Memo.

¶ 15. While true that the parties initially agreed to begin the deposition at 10:00 AM and later

agreed to postpone the start time, Mr. Shukla’s portrayal of the events is inaccurate and is outlined

below.

18. On December 5, 2022, the Defense contacted Mr. Jonathan Alvarez, another

attorney from Mr. Shukla’s law firm and requested a postponement of the deposition start time

from 10:00 AM to 1:00 PM. Annexed hereto as Exhibit “J” is the e-mail correspondence

exchanged with Mr. Alvarez, dated December 5, 2022. The Defense respectfully explained that an

in-person Court Conference pertaining to another matter newly posed a scheduling conflict with

the original deposition times and asked Mr. Alvarez, “do you think we could start the deposition

in this matter at 1:00? I would greatly appreciate the accommodation.” See id. Mr. Alvarez replied,

“yes that’s fine.” See id. Thereafter, Mr. Applegrad informed the Defense that 1:00 PM would not

{M0387438.1} 6

6 of 15
FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 01/13/2023 03:39 PM INDEX NO. 28505/2020E
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 73 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/13/2023

be possible for him due to another conflicting engagement, and the Defense once again e-mailed

Mr. Alvarez: “My apologies for a second email -- can we make start time 1:30? My client has an

issue at 1:00 that I did not know about.” See id. Mr. Alvarez responded, “As long as you are ok

with potential[ly] going past 5 pm, no problem.” See id. The Defense then spoke with Mr. Alvarez

over the phone and asked whether it would be possible to schedule a 5:00 PM end time for the

deposition and instead continue the deposition on another date if necessary. Mr. Alvarez agreed

and the Defense thanked him for his courteous accommodations.

19. It is important to clarify for the Court that these time changes were not made single-

handedly by the Defense, as Mr. Shukla alleges. Further, while the parties corresponded numerous

times to finalize scheduling, the time changes were not made in a commanding, unprofessional, or

entitled manner, as Mr. Shukla implies. See, Shukla Memo. ¶ 15. Plaintiff counsel stated that they

understood the time constraints and would try to finish by 5:00 PM but that the parties would

reconvene for a continuation of the deposition on a later date. Plaintiff counsel never expressed

any issues with the agreed upon scheduling. Mr. Shukla cannot continue to agree to our

conversations and then now try to use them against me. This is very disingenuous behavior, which

the undersigned asks the Court to not take lightly.

20. Unfortunately, as will be further discussed below, Simcha Applegrad’s deposition

was eventually suspended early due to Mr. Shukla’s conduct. Yet, Mr. Shukla once again

mischaracterizes the final interactions held on the record between the representative parties. See,

Shukla Memo. ¶ 22. Mr. Shukla states that

“when [he] advised that he needed to put an additional statement on
the record, [the Defense] interrupted and would not let [him] finish
his statement for the record (citations omitted). Moreover, in a very
condescending manner, after asked by Plaintiff’s counsel if he could
please finish his statement, [the Defense] responded and
commanded counsel to ‘Keep speaking.’”

{M0387438.1} 7

7 of 15
FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 01/13/2023 03:39 PM INDEX NO. 28505/2020E
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 73 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/13/2023

See, id. This exchange took place after the parties had already made their statements on the record

and after Mr. Shukla continued to speak abusively towards the Defense. Following a lengthy

exchange, as the videographer was about to close the record, Mr. Shukla stated, “I have one last

thing to say.” See, Exhibit H at p. 69: 25; 70: 1. When the Defense reminded Mr. Shukla that he

had already made his statement, Mr. Shukla stated that he had not, and asked that he be allowed to

finish. The Defense then replied “keep speaking.” See id. at p. 70: 8. This statement was not a

command, as Mr. Shukla claims -- it was spoken with the intent to give Mr. Shukla the floor and

to notify that he would not be interrupted. However, Mr. Shukla then inappropriately replied, “you

don’t need to command me to keep speaking like I am your slave or something.” See id. at p. 70:

9-11. It should not have to be iterated in a motion sequence that such language would be

inappropriate in any professional environment, but most especially on the record in the midst of

judicial proceedings. The undersigned will say nothing more of the word, other than to state that

it is interesting Mr. Shukla failed to include that portion of the deposition testimony in his excerpts.

C. Simcha Applegrad’s Videotaped Deposition Taken on December 7, 2022 Was
Terminated Due to the Egregious Conduct of Mr. Kush Shukla Who Should
Not be Permitted to Continue as a Counsel of Record In This Matter

21. It is first important to state that the undersigned maintains the utmost respect for

the rules of this honorable Court and holds such in the highest regard as a place of law and order.

22. Mr. Shukla repeatedly claims that Defense counsel displayed a “willful failure” to

follow the CPLR, specifically alleging that the eventual termination of Simcha Applegrad’s

deposition was in violation of §3122. See, Shukla Memo. Point 2. Mr. Shukla cites to §3122 and

extensively discusses the Court’s strong presumption for favoring discovery. The undersigned

does not dispute Mr. Shukla’s interpretation of the established laws; however, they are immaterial

in this matter. The undersigned never objected to producing Simcha Applegrad as a witness and

{M0387438.1} 8

8 of 15
FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 01/13/2023 03:39 PM INDEX NO. 28505/2020E
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 73 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/13/2023

did not move for a protective order because there was never any intention to limit the scope of the

witness’s deposition.

23. Even at this juncture, the Defense is not in opposition to a continued videotaped

deposition of Simcha Applegrad; however, continuation of the deposition with Mr. Shukla and/or

without a judicial supervisor would create an inevitable risk of duplicative and unnecessarily

delayed litigation. As demonstrated, Mr. Shukla’s conduct was outrageous, disruptive,

unprofessional and insulting to where the videotaped deposition of Simcha Applegrad, taken on

December 7, 2022, had to be suspended. Substitution of counsel or judicial supervision is not only

advisable but necessary and unavoidable, at Plaintiff’s and her counsel’s expense due to such

conduct and behavior. CPLR §3104 specifically allows this Court to appoint a judicial hearing

officer as a referee to “supervise all or part of any disclosure procedure.”

24. Mr. Shukla further fails to mention the numerous conversations held between the

representative parties off-the-record, wherein he stated that he would try to proceed with more

civility. Mr. Shukla’s behavior, however, ultimately did not improve and his conduct toward the

undersigned reached such abusive and malicious degrees to where Simcha Applegrad’s testimony

could not be continued that day; Mr. Shukla’s behavior was rude, threatening, and cannot go

unnoticed. The representative parties are professional, experienced attorneys who should not be

subjected to such abuse. The undersigned has never had an issue with an adversary; however, Mr.

Shukla’s behavior can only be categorized as racist and sexist, and the undersigned should not be

forced to engage with him again on this case. It is, therefore, inconceivable that Mr. Shukla would

then seek to impose sanctions against the undersigned despite his behavior warranting a report to

the grievance committee. Thus, the need for a substitution of counsel or judicial supervision is

obvious as none of counsel’s abusive conduct had any legal basis and displayed a startling lack of

{M0387438.1} 9

9 of 15
FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 01/13/2023 03:39 PM INDEX NO. 28505/2020E
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 73 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/13/2023

basic decency toward the Defense.

II. PLAINTIFF COUNSEL’S CONDUCT WARRANTS SANCTIONS PER 22
N.Y.C.R.R. 130-1.1(a),

25. Plaintiff counsel has engaged in frivolous conduct that could only be undertaken

for the purpose of harassing and maliciously injuring the undersigned. Under 22 N.Y.C.R.R. 130-

1.1(a), “the court may, in its discretion…impose financial sanctions upon any party or attorney in

a civil action or proceeding who engages in frivolous conduct as defined in this Part.” Under the

foregoing rule,

“conduct is frivolous if: (1) it is completely without merit in law and
cannot be supported by a reasonable argument for an extension,
modification or reversal of existing law; (2) it is undertaken
primarily to delay or prolong the resolution of the litigation, or to
harass or maliciously injure another; or (3) it asserts material factual
statements that are false…in determining whether the conduct
undertaken was frivolous, the court shall consider, among other
issues the (1) circumstances under which the conduct took place,
including the time available for investigating the legal or factual
basis of the conduct; and (2) whether or not the conduct was
continued when its lack of legal or factual basis was apparent,
should have been apparent, or was brought to the attention of
counsel or the part.”

22 N.Y.C.R.R. 130-1.1. The appropriate standard for reviewing counsel’s conduct is the

reasonable attorney standard. Wells Fargo Bank, NA. v. Reyes, 20 Misc. 3d 1104(A), 867 N.Y.S.2d

21 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2008), citing Principe v. Assay Partners, 154 Misc. 2d 702, 586 N.Y.S.2d 182

(N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1992). In Principe v. Assay Partners, an attorney was sanctioned for making

abusive, sexist and insulting remarks to a party during depositions. The court therein held that “an

attorney who exhibits a lack of civility, good manners and common courtesy tarnishes the image

of the legal profession, and an attorney’s conduct that projects offensive and invidious

discriminatory distinctions based on race or gender is especially offensive.” Id. Furthermore, that

such condemnation is rooted in “a growing recognition of the seriousness of gender bias and that

{M0387438.1} 10

10 of 15
FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 01/13/2023 03:39 PM INDEX NO. 28505/2020E
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 73 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/13/2023

bias of any kind cannot be permitted to find a safe haven in the practice of law or in the workings

of the courts and the judiciary.” Id.

26. Ironically, Plaintiff counsel also cites to Part 130 in their claims that the

undersigned had no legal basis whatsoever for terminating Simcha Applegrad’s deposition, despite

being well-aware of the circumstances that preceded same. See Shukla Memo. Point 2; see also,

Exhibit H at p. 66: 7-25; 69: 11-21; 70: 9-11; 72: 1-5. Plaintiff’s Motion is riddled with claims

based wholly on isolated phrases taken out of context and supplanted with an interpretative spin

unsubstantiated by the complete record before this Court.

27. Throughout Simcha Applegrad’s deposition, Mr. Shukla asked the witness to testify

as to hypothetical scenarios and repeatedly asked the same questions despite the witness testifying

numerous times that he did not know the answers to Mr. Shukla’s questions. See Exhibit H at p.

33: 21-25; 34: 14-25; 49: 1-9; 30: 22-25; 31: 1-25; 32: 1-25; 51: 17-25. The Defense objected to

the manner of Mr. Shukla’s questioning, some of which went to privileged communications, while

still allowing the witness to answer the majority of the time and otherwise marking the objection

on the record for the Court’s ruling. See id., at p. 43: 4-16; 48: 12-21; 35: 1-3. Mr. Shukla became

visibly frustrated and disagreed with the Defense through each objection but the parties agreed to

mark such objections for ruling. See id. Now, Mr. Shukla refers to the objections as a substantiating

basis for seeking sanctions. See Shukla Memo. Point 2.

28. Moreover, throughout numerous off-the-record conversations held during the

course of Simcha Applegrad’s deposition, the Defense repeatedly requested Mr. Shukla maintain

a level of professionalism in a good faith attempt to continue the deposition. Mr. Shukla not only

failed to do so but his offensive demeanor and language towards the Defense during these

conversations increased to where the deposition had to be suspended. Defense eventually contacted

{M0387438.1} 11

11 of 15
FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 01/13/2023 03:39 PM INDEX NO. 28505/2020E
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 73 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/13/2023

Mr. Alvarez, who advised “do what you need to do.” Only after this telephone call with Mr.

Alvarez did the Defense proceed to notify Mr. Shukla that the deposition would not be continuing

given his conduct. Yet, immediately upon resuming the record, Mr. Shukla continued to speak

down to the Defense, emphasizing a still inappropriately condescending tone as he asked

insincerely, “you want to make your statement?” See id. at p. 66: 1-3. The Defense then stated for

the record that the parties were unable to continue in that moment, due to the parties’ off-the-record

conversation. See id. at p. 66: 7-25.

29. The Defense did not wish to divulge the specifics as to why the deposition could

not be continued in front of Simcha Applegrad, the Defense’s own client -- before whom the

Defense already felt utterly embarrassed over the lack of professionalism displayed throughout the

deposition. See id. at p. 69: 14-21. Further, it was evident that going into the details in that exact

moment would only exacerbate the situation given the circumstances and Mr. Shukla’s already

irate temperament. Instead, the Defense stated that the parties were unable to continue given the

lack of professional behavior and that it was not appropriate to disclose any further details in front

of the client. See id. at p. 69: 11-15. Further, the Defense clearly and unequivocally stated the intent

to discuss the matter with a judge at a conference on a later date. See id. at p. 69: 15-17. Thereafter,

Mr. Shukla alleged that the Defense was treating him as though he were a “slave,” expressed his

frustration on the record and closed down his video before the videographer closed the record. See

id. at p. 70: 2-25; 71: 1-25; 72: 1-24.

30. Throughout the undersigned’s 12-years of practicing law, there has never before

been an instance in which a deposition had to be suspended because a party behaved with such a

lack of decorum. Nevertheless, the Defense has made numerous good faith attempts to advance

the litigation of this matter and avoid imposing undue delay that would waste judicial resources.

{M0387438.1} 12

12 of 15
FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 01/13/2023 03:39 PM INDEX NO. 28505/2020E
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 73 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/13/2023

This effort has continued in the weeks following Simcha Applegrad’s deposition and still after

Plaintiff counsel baselessly moved for sanctions. The Defense spoke with Mr. Alvarez and

expressed the intent to reproduce Simcha Applegrad for a continued deposition without limitation

as a good faith showing. During this conversation, the Defense requested in return that Plaintiff

counsel withdraw their Motion for Sanctions and have another attorney from counsel’s office

handle this matter in continuing the depositions but counsel refused. Annexed hereto as Exhibit

“I” is the follow-up correspondence exchanged via e-mail which summarize these conversations.

Thereafter, the Defense expressed concerns to Mr. Alvarez that Mr. Shukla’s conduct had no

rational explanation and appeared to be motivated by the fact that his adversary was female. Mr.

Alvarez did not comment as to this concern but instead advised that the undersigned withdraw

from handling this matter and instead produce a male attorney from the Defense’s office. Mr.

Alvarez specifically stated, “have a man do it.” It therefore appears that perhaps more than one

attorney at Plaintiff counsel’s firm may be sexist. Mr. Alvarez did not suggest that just any other

attorney from the undersigned’s firm handle this matter as a substitute -- he explicitly specified

that Mr. Shukla’s adversary should be male.

CONCLUSION

31. The conduct/behavior of Plaintiff counsel, Mr. Shukla, prevented the parties from

conducting a proper and complete deposition of Simcha Applegrad so as to mandate substitution

of counsel or judicial supervision of the continued deposition and that of all other parties for this

action to proceed. Movants are entitled to costs (including attorneys’ fees) for this motion, the

Court reporter appearance fees for Mr. Applegrad’s continued deposition, and all costs and

expenses for the judicial supervision requested herein. Moreover, sanctions are warranted against

Mr. Shukla for frivolous conduct undertaken solely for the purpose of harassing and maliciously

{M0387438.1} 13

13 of 15
FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 01/13/2023 03:39 PM INDEX NO. 28505/2020E
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 73 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/13/2023

injuring the undersigned pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1. For these reasons, Mr. Shukla should

not be permitted to handle any further depositions in this matter, or at the minimum, a judicial

referee is necessary for the continuation of depositions. Plaintiff’s argument that the undersigned

lacked an evidentiary basis for terminating the December 7, 2022 deposition of Simcha Applegrad

is without merit, and the undersigned respectfully asks this Court to impose sanctions for Plaintiff

counsel’s frivolous and harassing conduct.

32. Based on the foregoing, the Defense respectfully requests that this Court issue an

order against Plaintiff counsel for sanctions in the form of:

a) $885 (the Court Reporter bill for the first day of Simcha Applegrad’s deposition);

b) $20,000 in attorneys’ fees;

c) Filings fees in the amount of $90; and

d) Any and all costs, including attorneys’ and judicial supervision fees, associated

with the continuation of Simcha Applegrad’s deposition.

WHEREFORE, Defendants, BARKER AVE ESTATES LLC, ALLERTON TKT

LLC and YMY ACQUISITIONS, LLC, respectfully request that Plaintiff’s Order to Show

Cause be denied, sanctions be granted against Mr. Shukla, and for such other and further relief as

this Court deems just and proper.

Dated: New York, New York
January 13, 2023

BONNIE S. GOLDMAN

{M0387438.1} 14

14 of 15
FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 01/13/2023 03:39 PM INDEX NO. 28505/2020E
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 73 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/13/2023

ATTORNEY WORD COUNT CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to the Uniform Civil Rules for the Supreme Court, Rule 202.8-b, Length of

Papers, the undersigned, an attorney admitted to practice in the Courts of New York State,

certifies that, upon information and belief, reasonable inquiry, and the word count of the word-

processing system used to prepare the within document AFFIRMATION IN OPPOSITION

TO PLAINTIFF'S ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS

CROSS-MOTION FOR SANCTIONS, the within document contains 4,316 words. The

undersigned attorney further certifies that the foregoing document AFFIRMATION IN

OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND IN SUPPORT OF

DEFENDANTS CROSS-MOTION FOR SANCTION complies with the word count limit of

Rule 202.8-b.

Dated: New York, New York
January 13, 2023

BONNIE S. GOLDMAN

{M0387438.1} 15

15 of 15

Case Info

Judge

Paul Alpert Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

January 13, 2023

Case Filing Date

June 05, 2020

County

Parties

ALLERTON TKT LLC Defendant
BARKER AVE ESTATES LLC Defendant
FERMOSO, ALEX Attorney for the Defendant
Florimel Lora Plaintiff
Goldman, Bonnie Sue Attorney for the Defendant
MAXWELL, JOEL MICHAEL Attorney for the Defendant
MEIROWITZ, SAMUEL MILES Attorney for the Plaintiff
SHUKLA, KUSH Attorney for the Plaintiff
YMY ACQUISITIONS, LLC Defendant
JENNIFER AMORE Attorney
JONATHAN ALVAREZ Attorneys for Plaintiffs
MONTGOMERY EFFINGER Attorneys for Plaintiffs
PAUL MIRMAN Attorney
GREGORY MENILLO Attorneys for Plaintiffs

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

No Value: Florimel Lora v. Barker Ave Estates Llc, Allerton Tkt Llc, Ymy Acquisitions, Llc

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties