Preview
FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 01/17/2023 01:17 PM INDEX NO. 150116/2012
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 418 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/17/2023
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK ORAL ARGUMENT
COUNTY OF RICHMOND IS REQUESTED
ROBERT VALENTI,
Index No. 150116/2012
Plaintiff,
HON. CHARLES M. TROIA
-against-
Motion Sequence No. 10
JOHN J. GADOMSKI, M.D., SHIMON OAMI, (Cross-Motion Sequence No. 11)
M.D., PATRICIA C. McCORMACK, M.D.,
PATRICIA C. McCORMACK, M.D., PLLC; Returnable: March 10, 2023
and. PATRICIA C. McCORMACK, M.D., P.C.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO THE
McCORMACK DEFENDANTS’ FRIVOLOUS RETALIATORY
CROSS-MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AND IN REPLY
IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PART 130
FRIVOLITY SANCTIONS AND COST INDEMNIFICATION,
AND DISCOVERY RELIEF
THE LAW FIRM OF RAVI BATRA, P.C.
Attorneys for Plaintiff Robert Valenti
Westchester Office - Echo Law
11 Echo Bay Drive
New Rochelle, NY 10805
(212 545-1993
E-Mail: ravi@ravibatralaw.com
1 of 35
FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 01/17/2023 01:17 PM INDEX NO. 150116/2012
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 418 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/17/2023
Table of Contents
Page
Preliminary Statement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Reply Argument and Opposition. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2
Point I: There is No Basis For Costs or Sanctions Against
Robert's Counsel and the Motion Respondents Cannot
Establish Any Basis Why They Should Not Have to Indemnify
Robert and His Counsel. ......................................2
A. McCormack's Cross-Motion is Sanctionably
Frivolous. ......................................6
Point II: Robert's Motion Should be Granted in its Entirety. ..................9
A. Part 130 Sanctions and Cost Indemnification
Are Warranted. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
B. The Additional, Highly Targeted Discovery
Sought, Is Material and Necessary, and Robert
Will Be Prejudiced Without It. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
18
Point III: Given the Repeated Misconduct by McCormack and Their
Counsel, a Judicial Referral to Appropriate Authorities Is
Warranted.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Certification Pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.8-b(c).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
i
2 of 35
FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 01/17/2023 01:17 PM INDEX NO. 150116/2012
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 418 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/17/2023
Table of Authorities
Page(s)
Appellate Decision in Underlying Case
Valenti v Gadomski,
203 AD3d 783 (2d Dept 2022). ........................................ passim
New York State Cases
Alpha/Omega Concrete Corp. v Ovation Risk Planners, Inc.,
197 AD3d 1274 (2d Dept 2021). ........................................... 5
Am. Home Mtge. Servicing, Inc. v Arklis,
189 AD3d 1141 (2d Dept 2020). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Ambac Assur. Corp. v Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.,
31 NY3d 569 (2018). .....................................................5
Amex Dev., LLC v Aljohn Group, Inc.,
134 AD3d 865 (2d Dept 2015). .............................................6
Arpino v F.J.F. & Sons Elec. Co., Inc.,
102 AD3d 201 (2d Dept 2012). ........................................ 21-22
Astrada v Archer,
71 AD3d 803 (2d Dept 2010),
lv. denied, 14 NY3d 922 (2010).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Bhim v Platz,
207 AD3d 511 (2d Dept 2022). ........................................... 11
Brocia v F. Romeo & Co.,
241 NY 505 (1925). ......................................................5
Burrows v City of NY,
127 Misc 2d 344 (Sup Ct Queens Cty 1985). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Candolfi v NY City Tr. Auth.,
156 Misc 2d 964 (Civ Ct Kings Cty 1992). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
ii
3 of 35
FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 01/17/2023 01:17 PM INDEX NO. 150116/2012
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 418 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/17/2023
Citibank, N.A. v Kerszko,
203 AD3d 42 (2d Dept 2022). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4, 18
Cohen v Zarou,
71 AD2d 911 (2d Dept 1979). ............................................ 19
Corr v Corr,
46 AD3d 736 (2d Dept 2007). ..............................................2
CCS Communication Control, Inc. v Kelly Intl. Forwarding Co.,
166 AD2d 173 (1st Dept 1990).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Curcio v J.P. Hogan Coring & Sawing Corp.,
303 AD2d 357 (2d Dept 2003). .............................................3
Curet v DeKalb Realty, LLC,
127 AD3d 914 (2d Dept 2015). .............................................5
Day v NYP Holdings, Inc.,
290 AD2d 342 (1st Dept 2002).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
DiPasquale v Sec. Mut. Life Ins. Co.,
293 AD2d 394 (1st Dept 2002).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Edbauer v Bd. of Educ.,
286 AD2d 999 (4th Dept 2001). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Ernest Wickham Case v Freed,
2022 NY Slip Op 50348[U] (Sup Ct Suffolk Cty 2022). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Everhardt v Klotzbach,
306 AD2d 869 (4th Dept 2003). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Frenk v Frederick,
38 AD3d 593 (2d Dept 2007) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
22
Frink v Gellert & Cutler, P.C.,
209 AD2d 664 (2d Dept 1994). .............................................7
Global Tech., Inc. v Royal Bank of Can.,
2012 NY Slip Op 50023[U] (Sup Ct NY Cty 2012). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
iii
4 of 35
FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 01/17/2023 01:17 PM INDEX NO. 150116/2012
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 418 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/17/2023
Golebiewski v Natl. Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA.,
101 AD3d 1074 (2d Dept 2012). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Gomez v Cabatic,
159 AD3d 62 (2d Dept 2018). ............................................ 21
Gordon v Krellman,
217 AD 477 (1st Dept 1926).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Gordon v Marrone,
202 AD2d 104 (2d Dept 1994),
lv denied 84 NY2d 813 (1995).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9
Gotham Air Conditioning Serv. v Heitner,
144 Misc 2d 430 (Civ Ct Queens Cty 1989). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10
Gottlieb v Colonel,
180 AD3d 877 (2d Dept 2020). .............................................4
Grant v Frank,
150 AD3d 706 (2d Dept 2017). .............................................6
Guggenheim v Guggenheim,
95 Misc 332 (Sup Ct Kings Cty 1916).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Herskowitz v Tompkins,
184 AD2d 402 (1st Dept 1992).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Hooper Assoc., Ltd. v AGS Computers, Inc.,
74 NY2d 487 (1989). .....................................................5
Hosner v Keahon,
63 Misc 253 (App Term 1909). .............................................7
Intercontinental Credit Corp. Div. of Pan Am. Trade Dev. Corp. v Roth,
78 NY2d 306 (1991). .....................................................7
Jermosen v State,
178 AD2d 810 (3d Dept 1991). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Joan 2000, Ltd. v Deco Constr. Corp.,
66 AD3d 841 (2d Dept 2009) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2, 3
iv
5 of 35
FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 01/17/2023 01:17 PM INDEX NO. 150116/2012
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 418 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/17/2023
Kaplon-Belo Assoc., Inc. v D'Angelo,
79 AD3d 931 (2d Dept 2010). ..............................................2
Kamen v Diaz-Kamen,
40 AD3d 937 (2d Dept 2007). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1, 7, 8
Kavanagh v Ogden Allied Maintenance Corp.,
92 NY2d 952 (1998). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Kucker v Kaminsky & Rich,
7 AD3d 491 (2d Dept 2004),
lv. denied 3 NY3d 607 (2004). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Lewis v City of NY,
206 AD3d 896 (2d Dept 2022). ........................................... 22
Lindbergh v SHLO 54, LLC,
128 AD3d 642 (2d Dept 2015). .............................................2
Lopez v Kelly St. Realty, Inc.,
106 AD3d 534 (1st Dept 2013).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Marx v Rosalind & Joseph Gurwin Jewish Geriatric Ctr. of Long Is., Inc.,
148 AD3d 696 (2d Dept 2017) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10-11
Massey v Anand,
2012 NY Slip Op 31634[U] (Sup Ct Suffolk Cty 2012). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Matter of Fenstermaker v Edgemont Union Free Sch. Dist.,
48 AD3d 564 (2d Dept 2008). ..............................................7
Matter of Part 60 Put-Back Litig.,
36 NY3d 342 (2020). .....................................................5
Matter of Tercjak v Tercjak,
49 AD3d 773 (2d Dept 2008),
lv. denied 10 NY3d 716 (2008). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7
Matter of Winston,
243 AD2d 638 (2d Dept 1997). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Miller v County of Suffolk,
140 AD3d 1034 (2d Dept 2016). ........................................... 5
v
6 of 35
FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 01/17/2023 01:17 PM INDEX NO. 150116/2012
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 418 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/17/2023
Miller v Cruise Fantasies, Ltd.,
74 AD3d 919 (2d Dept 2010). ..............................................7
Minister, Elders & Deacons of Refm. Prots. Dutch Church v 198 Broadway, Inc.,
76 NY2d 411 (1990). .....................................................6
Muhametaj v Town of Orangetown,
195 AD3d 627 (2d Dept 2021). .............................................6
NY Tile Wholesale Corp. v Thomas Fatato Realty Corp.,
205 AD3d 727 (2d Dept 2022) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Panagoulopoulos v Carlos Ortiz Jr. MD, P.C.,
194 AD3d 728 (2d Dept 2021) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Patouhas v Patouhas,
172 AD3d 1221 (2d Dept 2019),
appeal dismissed 35 NY3d 949 (2020). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Patterson v Balaquiot,
188 AD2d 275 (1st Dept 1992).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Price v Price,
16 NYS 359 (1st Dept 1891).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Principe v Assay Partners,
154 Misc 2d 702 (Sup Ct NY Cty 1992). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
11-12
Royal Discount Corp. v Luxor Motor Sales Corp.,
9 Misc 2d 307 (App Term 1st Dept 1957) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Sage Sys., Inc. v Liss,
39 NY3d 27(2022). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4-5
Schwartz v Durning,
104 Misc 2d 1018 (Mamaroneck Town Ct 1977). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Shelley v Shelley,
180 Misc 2d 275 (Sup Ct Westchester Cty 1999). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Singh v N. Shore Univ. Hosp.,
76 AD3d 1004 (2d Dept 2010) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
vi
7 of 35
FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 01/17/2023 01:17 PM INDEX NO. 150116/2012
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 418 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/17/2023
Southern Blvd. Sound v Felix Storch, Inc.,
167 Misc 2d 731 (App Term 1st Dept 1996).. ..................................6
U.S. Bank, N.A. v Rosario,
164 AD3d 1290 (2d Dept 2018). ............................................2
United States Fire Ins. Co. v Raia,
121 AD3d 970 (2d Dept 2014). .............................................2
Wagner v Goldberg,
293 AD2d 527 (2d Dept 2002). ........................................... 2-3
Youcheng Wu v Jian Xu,
137 AD3d 1016 (2d Dept 2016). ............................................2
New York Statutes
CPLR 2214.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
CPLR 2215.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
CPLR 3012-a(a)(1). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
CPLR 3012-a(d).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
CPLR 3101(a)(1). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18, 19
CPLR 3101(h). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
CPLR 3126.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
CPLR 3126(1). ............................................................... 3
CPLR 3126(2). ................................................................3
CPLR 3126(3). ................................................................3
CPLR 8101.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
CPLR 8106.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
CPLR 8107.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
vii
8 of 35
FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 01/17/2023 01:17 PM INDEX NO. 150116/2012
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 418 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/17/2023
CPLR Art 82. .................................................................5
CPLR 8202.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
CPLR Art 83. .................................................................5
CPLR 8301(a). ................................................................5
CPLR 8301(a)(6). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
CPLR 8301(a)(13). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
CPLR 8301(d). ................................................................5
Education Law 6530(32). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Public Health Law 18.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
15
Public Health Law 18(2)(a). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Public Health Law 18(2)(d). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
16
New York Court Rules
22 NYCRR Part 130. ...................................................... passim
22 NYCRR 130-1.1(c). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1, 6, 8, 9, 12
22 NYCRR 130-1.1(c)(1). ............................................. 3, 5, 6, 7, 12
22 NYCRR 130-1.1(c)(2). ................................................ 5, 11, 12
22 NYCRR 130-1.1(c)(3). .............................................. 5, 7, 11-12
22 NYCRR 130-1.1(d).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3, 6
22 NYCRR 202.21(d). ..................................................... 18, 20
viii
9 of 35
FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 01/17/2023 01:17 PM INDEX NO. 150116/2012
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 418 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/17/2023
New York Rules of Professional Conduct
22 NYCRR 1200.0.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Rule 3.3(b). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Rule 3.3(c). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Rule 3.4(a)(1).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Rule 3.4(a)(3).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Rule 3.4(a)(4).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Rule 3.4(a)(5).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Rule 4.1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Rule 8.4(c). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
New York Civil Pattern Jury Instructions
PJI 1:77.1 . ...................................................................3
PJI 1:77.2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
PJI 1:77.3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
PJI 1:77.4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
ix
10 of 35
FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 01/17/2023 01:17 PM INDEX NO. 150116/2012
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 418 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/17/2023
Preliminary Statement
After polluting proceedings with misconduct, impairing the evidence available for trial by
misrepresentations, having a tainted verdict unanimously reversed on appeal (Valenti v Gadomski,
203 AD3d 783 (2d Dept 2022); Ex. 1)), and having their misdeeds highlighted for the Honorable
Court to see, the McCormack defendants, their attorneys, including Shari Steinfeld, Esq. and
Amabile & Erman, PC [“McCormack”], along with Oami’s predecessor counsel Scott Watson, Esq.
and Keller O’Reilly & Watson, PC [“Watson”], remain unapologetic.1 Instead of expressing a
semblance of remorse for altering plaintiff’s medical chart in an effort to conceal delays in
considering available diagnostic measures, and then offering inconsistent stories in explanation, that
changed at appellate argument, McCormack have “dug in” - compounding their frivolity by making
a frivolous retributive cross-motion for sanctions. Rule 130-1.1(c). Watson likewise disregards the
Appellate Division finding that they engaged in misconduct that “deprived the plaintiff of a fair
trial.” Valenti,786.
Devoid of reason, McCormack frivolously urges that Robert’s motion seeking
indemnification for the harm and prejudice caused largely by herself and her counsel was made out
of “vengeance and retribution for having lost at the initial trial of this matter.” (Steinfeld-Opp ¶26).
This notwithstanding that only those acting with damaging frivolity are targeted for indemnification
of the damage their misconduct caused Robert and his counsel. Beyond denying McCormack’s
frivolous cross-motion, their frivolity in making it is yet another act warranting a grant of plaintiff
Robert Valenti [“Robert”]’s underlying Part 130 motion. Kamen v Diaz-Kamen, 40 AD3d 937 (2d
Dept 2007).
1
Oami has not properly filed an opposition and response to Robert’s motion.
1
11 of 35
FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 01/17/2023 01:17 PM INDEX NO. 150116/2012
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 418 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/17/2023
McCormack and Watson oppose Robert’s well stated motion for indemnification and
discovery based on misstatements of law and fact that ought not be countenanced. This
notwithstanding their engaging in inexcusably frivolous conduct that has severely prejudiced Robert
and his counsel, requiring relief - that despite defendants’ claims to the contrary has never been
previously sought or awarded.
Reply Argument and Opposition
Point I
There is No Basis For Costs or Sanctions Against Robert’s Counsel
and the Motion Respondents Cannot Establish Any Basis Why They
Should Not Have to Indemnify Robert and His Counsel
Robert’s motion should be granted given demonstrated frivolity in the extreme: misconduct
“deprived the plaintiff of a fair trial” pursuant to the Appellate Division. Valenti, 785,786. Moreover,
McCormack’s cross-motion must be denied as plaintiff “did not engage in frivolous conduct within
the meaning of 22 NYCRR 130-1.1” (United States Fire Ins. Co. v Raia, 121 AD3d 970,972 (2d
Dept 2014). See also U.S. Bank, N.A. v Rosario, 164 AD3d 1290,1292 (2d Dept 2018), citing Joan
2000, Ltd. v Deco Constr. Corp., 66 AD3d 841 (2d Dept 2009)), thus McCormack failed to
demonstrate a scintilla of frivolity by plaintiff or counsel. Kaplon-Belo Assoc., Inc. v D'Angelo, 79
AD3d 931,931 (2d Dept 2010).See also Youcheng Wu v Jian Xu, 137 AD3d 1016,1017 (2d Dept
2016); Lindbergh v SHLO 54, LLC, 128 AD3d 642,645 (2d Dept 2015). Indeed, McCormack’s
cross-motion must also be denied as Robert’s underlying motion for sanctions, cost indemnification,
and discovery relief is “meritorious” and “[t]here is no evidence that any of the [plaintiff]'s conduct
was undertaken primarily to harass or maliciously injure the [defendants], or that the [plaintiff]
asserted material factual statements that were false” (Corr v Corr, 46 AD3d 736,739 (2d Dept 2007))
2
12 of 35
FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 01/17/2023 01:17 PM INDEX NO. 150116/2012
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 418 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/17/2023
and none of Robert’s contentions were without merit in law or fact. “Wagner v Goldberg, 293 AD2d
527,528 (2d Dept 2002), quoting Rule 130-1.1(c)(1). See also Joan, 842.
McCormack’s cross-motion argues that plaintiff’s counsel should be sanctioned because
McCormack had “to take the time and expense to oppose plaintiff's underlying motion.” (Steinfeld-
XM.¶3). In a further breach of civility, McCormack refers to Robert’s efforts at seeking
indemnification for their wrongdoing as “antics” (id.) - more “digging in.” McCormack identifies
no act by plaintiff’s counsel that is remotely frivolous. Rather, they fabricate issues by intentionally
disregarding the distinctions between discovery sanctions, costs on appeal, and Part 130 in a
contrived effort to mislead this Court into the false belief that Robert already moved for Part 130
relief. Such misleading statements are themselves sanctionably frivolous. Curcio v J.P. Hogan
Coring & Sawing Corp., 303 AD2d 357,358-359 (2d Dept 2003).
Purporting to cite to nonexistent passages in plaintiff’s appellate brief, which was most
certainly not a motion pursuant to CPLR 2214 or 2215, as required by Rule 130-1.1(d), McCormack
urges that Robert previously sought “sanctions.” (Steinfeld-XM. ¶5, citing Ex 8 pp. 59, 79;Steinfeld-
Opp ¶10). Firstly, plaintiff’s appellate brief does not have a page 79, and is signed on page 64. (Ex.
8). Second, page 59 of that brief does not even contain the word “sanction.” (Id.). Third, to the extent
McCormack is disingenuously referring to sheets of paper, rather than numbered pages (thus
inexplicably commingling the numbered exhibit tab, brief cover, tables of contents and authorities,
and the body of the brief), the reference on the 59th sheet of paper is to an adverse inference and
spoliation sanctions - thus discovery relief and a trial instruction. (Id. Br. p. 43). See e.g. CPLR
3126(1)-(3); PJI 1:77.1-1:77.4. Likewise, the 79th sheet of paper refers to “action” regarding Watson
and mandatory adverse inferences.
3
13 of 35
FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 01/17/2023 01:17 PM INDEX NO. 150116/2012
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 418 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/17/2023
Robert didn’t move under Part 130 in the Appellate Division. Why? Because absent the
predicate of the Appellate Division order vacating the judgment and remanding for a new trial
(Valenti, supra), the plaintiff had not won yet. Moreover, the Appellate Division would be limited
to awarding sanctions and cost indemnification for frivolity on appeal. Gottlieb v Colonel, 180 AD3d
877,881 (2d Dept 2020); Patouhas v Patouhas, 172 AD3d 1221,1222 (2d Dept 2019), appeal
dismissed 35 NY3d 949 (2020). Without the reversal, including the representations Ms. Steinfeld
made at appellate argument - which ran contrary to the pre-trial representations and testimony of
McCormack - Robert’s motion would have been premature and certainly less impactful. Moreover,
the relief sought and available in the Appellate Division was limited to the trial record. “Citibank,
N.A. v Kerszko, 203 AD3d 42,53 (2d Dept 2022). While defendants misleadingly suggest the Second
Department held that plaintiff was not entitled to Part 130 relief, that is simply not so. Such relief
was not sought and this isn’t a case where the Appellate Division held that any of Robert’s grounds
for appeal or relief were “without merit” or “rejected.” Rather, given vacatur of the judgment, the
Second Department held that “[i]n light of our determination, we need not reach the plaintiff's
remaining contentions.” Valenti,786.
Defendants disingenuously ignore differences between a Part 130 award from costs on appeal
- wrongly urging they are synonymous, while falsely claiming Robert sought identical relief from
the Appellate Division.(Steinfeld-XM ¶¶7,9; Glenn-MOL pp, 2,8-9). Compounding their disregard
for the distinction between “costs on appeal” and Part 130 relief, McCormack falsely contends that
Robert’s Part 130 motion is a “second bite of the apple.” (Steinfeld-XM ¶9).
Defendants disregard the settled principle that attorney’s fees may not be awarded in New
York state litigation absent a contractual agreement or pursuant to a statute or rule. Sage Sys., Inc.
4
14 of 35
FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 01/17/2023 01:17 PM INDEX NO. 150116/2012
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 418 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/17/2023
v Liss, 39 NY3d 27 (2022); Ambac Assur. Corp. v Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 31 NY3d 569,584
(2018); Alpha/Omega Concrete Corp. v Ovation Risk Planners, Inc., 197 AD3d 1274,1282 (2d Dept
2021), quoting Matter of Part 60 Put-Back Litig., 36 NY3d 342,361 (2020) (quoting Hooper Assoc.,
Ltd. v AGS Computers, Inc., 74 NY2d 487,491 (1989)). Unlike Part 130, the cost statutes do not
allow for indemnification. Curet v DeKalb Realty, LLC, 127 AD3d 914,916 (2d Dept 2015); Royal
Discount Corp. v Luxor Motor Sales Corp., 9 Misc 2d 307,308 (App Term 1st Dept 1957); Global
Tech., Inc. v Royal Bank of Can., 2012 NY Slip Op 50023[U],*16 (Sup Ct NY Cty 2012), quoting
Schwartz v Durning, 104 Misc 2d 1018,1019 (Mamaroneck Town Ct 1977) (citing CPLR arts
82,83).
“A party to whom costs are awarded in an action or on appeal is entitled to tax his necessary
disbursements for” expenses enumerated by statute (CPLR 8301(a)), as well as certain denominated
fees for related services. CPLR 8301(d). An award of “costs on appeal” permits collection of specific
designated disbursements associated with the appeal - most significantly the cost to reproduce the
record or appendix CPLR 8301(a)(6),(13). When an appellate court enters a decision “with costs,”
that determination applies solely to the appellate proceeding. Brocia v F. Romeo & Co., 241 NY
505,506 (1925); Miller v County of Suffolk, 140 AD3d 1034,1036 (2d Dept 2016); Gordon v
Krellman, 217 AD 477,478 (1st Dept 1926). Indeed, “[t]he party in whose favor an appeal is decided
in whole or in part is entitled to costs upon the appeal, whether or not he is entitled to costs in the
action. . .” CPLR 8107. Thus, “costs on appeal” are distinguishable from “costs in the action” Miller,
supra. Compare CPLR 8107 with CPLR 8101. Likewise, so too is Part 130 relief distinguishable
from statutory costs on appeal. Compare Rule 130-1.1(c)(1)-(3) with CPLR 8107.
5
15 of 35
FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 01/17/2023 01:17 PM INDEX NO. 150116/2012
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 418 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/17/2023
Defendants falsely urge that the plaintiff sought Part 130 sanctions in the Appellate Division
and that they were denied. On the law, Part 130 sanctions may only be sought and awarded after a
formal motion is made by, or on behalf of a party, or by the Court, affording notice and an
opportunity to be heard. 22 NYCRR 130-1.1(d). See Muhametaj v Town of Orangetown, 195 AD3d
627,628 (2d Dept 2021); Grant v Frank, 150 AD3d 706,707 (2d Dept 2017); Amex Dev., LLC v
Aljohn Group, Inc., 134 AD3d 865,867 (2d Dept 2015); Singh v N. Shore Univ. Hosp., 76 AD3d
1004,1006 (2d Dept 2010). No such prior motion was ever made.
A. McCormack’s Cross-Motion is Sanctionably Frivolous
“Frivolous conduct shall include the making of a frivolous motion for costs or sanctions
under this section.”Rule 130-1.1(c). See Ernest Wickham Case v Freed, 2022 NY Slip Op
50348[U],*4 (Sup Ct Suffolk Cty 2022). “The practice of opposing motions with a ‘knee-jerk’
response including a cross motion for the imposition of sanctions against the moving party or
counsel without any basis in law or fact has become an increasingly disturbing aspect of civil
litigation. It has been recognized that a motion for sanctions in such circumstances is itself a form
of frivolous conduct warranting the imposition of sanctions.” Shelley v Shelley, 180 Misc 2d
275,276-277 (Sup Ct Westchester Cty 1999), citing Patterson v Balaquiot, 188 AD2d 275 (1st Dept
1992); Southern Blvd. Sound v Felix Storch, Inc., 167 Misc 2d 731,732 (App Term 1st Dept 1996).
McCormack’s retaliatory cross-motion is frivolous “since it is ‘completely without merit in
law or fact’ and ‘cannot be supported by a[ny] reasonable argument for an extension, modification
or reversal of existing law.’” Minister, Elders & Deacons of Refm. Prots. Dutch Church v 198
Broadway, Inc., 76 NY2d 411,414 (1990), quoting Rule 130-1.1(c)(1). Likewise, the cross-motion
“is also ‘frivolous’ in that it was evidently ‘undertaken primarily to delay or prolong the resolution
6
16 of 35
FILED:
Preview
FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 01/17/2023 01:17 PM INDEX NO. 150116/2012 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 418 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/17/2023 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK ORAL ARGUMENT COUNTY OF RICHMOND IS REQUESTED ROBERT VALENTI, Index No. 150116/2012 Plaintiff, HON. CHARLES M. TROIA -against- Motion Sequence No. 10 JOHN J. GADOMSKI, M.D., SHIMON OAMI, (Cross-Motion Sequence No. 11) M.D., PATRICIA C. McCORMACK, M.D., PATRICIA C. McCORMACK, M.D., PLLC; Returnable: March 10, 2023 and. PATRICIA C. McCORMACK, M.D., P.C., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO THE McCORMACK DEFENDANTS’ FRIVOLOUS RETALIATORY CROSS-MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AND IN REPLY IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PART 130 FRIVOLITY SANCTIONS AND COST INDEMNIFICATION, AND DISCOVERY RELIEF THE LAW FIRM OF RAVI BATRA, P.C. Attorneys for Plaintiff Robert Valenti Westchester Office - Echo Law 11 Echo Bay Drive New Rochelle, NY 10805 (212 545-1993 E-Mail: ravi@ravibatralaw.com 1 of 35 FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 01/17/2023 01:17 PM INDEX NO. 150116/2012 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 418 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/17/2023 Table of Contents Page Preliminary Statement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Reply Argument and Opposition. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Point I: There is No Basis For Costs or Sanctions Against Robert's Counsel and the Motion Respondents Cannot Establish Any Basis Why They Should Not Have to Indemnify Robert and His Counsel. ......................................2 A. McCormack's Cross-Motion is Sanctionably Frivolous. ......................................6 Point II: Robert's Motion Should be Granted in its Entirety. ..................9 A. Part 130 Sanctions and Cost Indemnification Are Warranted. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 B. The Additional, Highly Targeted Discovery Sought, Is Material and Necessary, and Robert Will Be Prejudiced Without It. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Point III: Given the Repeated Misconduct by McCormack and Their Counsel, a Judicial Referral to Appropriate Authorities Is Warranted.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Certification Pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.8-b(c).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 i 2 of 35 FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 01/17/2023 01:17 PM INDEX NO. 150116/2012 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 418 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/17/2023 Table of Authorities Page(s) Appellate Decision in Underlying Case Valenti v Gadomski, 203 AD3d 783 (2d Dept 2022). ........................................ passim New York State Cases Alpha/Omega Concrete Corp. v Ovation Risk Planners, Inc., 197 AD3d 1274 (2d Dept 2021). ........................................... 5 Am. Home Mtge. Servicing, Inc. v Arklis, 189 AD3d 1141 (2d Dept 2020). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Ambac Assur. Corp. v Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 31 NY3d 569 (2018). .....................................................5 Amex Dev., LLC v Aljohn Group, Inc., 134 AD3d 865 (2d Dept 2015). .............................................6 Arpino v F.J.F. & Sons Elec. Co., Inc., 102 AD3d 201 (2d Dept 2012). ........................................ 21-22 Astrada v Archer, 71 AD3d 803 (2d Dept 2010), lv. denied, 14 NY3d 922 (2010).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Bhim v Platz, 207 AD3d 511 (2d Dept 2022). ........................................... 11 Brocia v F. Romeo & Co., 241 NY 505 (1925). ......................................................5 Burrows v City of NY, 127 Misc 2d 344 (Sup Ct Queens Cty 1985). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Candolfi v NY City Tr. Auth., 156 Misc 2d 964 (Civ Ct Kings Cty 1992). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 ii 3 of 35 FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 01/17/2023 01:17 PM INDEX NO. 150116/2012 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 418 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/17/2023 Citibank, N.A. v Kerszko, 203 AD3d 42 (2d Dept 2022). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4, 18 Cohen v Zarou, 71 AD2d 911 (2d Dept 1979). ............................................ 19 Corr v Corr, 46 AD3d 736 (2d Dept 2007). ..............................................2 CCS Communication Control, Inc. v Kelly Intl. Forwarding Co., 166 AD2d 173 (1st Dept 1990).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Curcio v J.P. Hogan Coring & Sawing Corp., 303 AD2d 357 (2d Dept 2003). .............................................3 Curet v DeKalb Realty, LLC, 127 AD3d 914 (2d Dept 2015). .............................................5 Day v NYP Holdings, Inc., 290 AD2d 342 (1st Dept 2002).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 DiPasquale v Sec. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 293 AD2d 394 (1st Dept 2002).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Edbauer v Bd. of Educ., 286 AD2d 999 (4th Dept 2001). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Ernest Wickham Case v Freed, 2022 NY Slip Op 50348[U] (Sup Ct Suffolk Cty 2022). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Everhardt v Klotzbach, 306 AD2d 869 (4th Dept 2003). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Frenk v Frederick, 38 AD3d 593 (2d Dept 2007) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Frink v Gellert & Cutler, P.C., 209 AD2d 664 (2d Dept 1994). .............................................7 Global Tech., Inc. v Royal Bank of Can., 2012 NY Slip Op 50023[U] (Sup Ct NY Cty 2012). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 iii 4 of 35 FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 01/17/2023 01:17 PM INDEX NO. 150116/2012 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 418 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/17/2023 Golebiewski v Natl. Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA., 101 AD3d 1074 (2d Dept 2012). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Gomez v Cabatic, 159 AD3d 62 (2d Dept 2018). ............................................ 21 Gordon v Krellman, 217 AD 477 (1st Dept 1926).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Gordon v Marrone, 202 AD2d 104 (2d Dept 1994), lv denied 84 NY2d 813 (1995).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Gotham Air Conditioning Serv. v Heitner, 144 Misc 2d 430 (Civ Ct Queens Cty 1989). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Gottlieb v Colonel, 180 AD3d 877 (2d Dept 2020). .............................................4 Grant v Frank, 150 AD3d 706 (2d Dept 2017). .............................................6 Guggenheim v Guggenheim, 95 Misc 332 (Sup Ct Kings Cty 1916).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Herskowitz v Tompkins, 184 AD2d 402 (1st Dept 1992).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Hooper Assoc., Ltd. v AGS Computers, Inc., 74 NY2d 487 (1989). .....................................................5 Hosner v Keahon, 63 Misc 253 (App Term 1909). .............................................7 Intercontinental Credit Corp. Div. of Pan Am. Trade Dev. Corp. v Roth, 78 NY2d 306 (1991). .....................................................7 Jermosen v State, 178 AD2d 810 (3d Dept 1991). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Joan 2000, Ltd. v Deco Constr. Corp., 66 AD3d 841 (2d Dept 2009) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2, 3 iv 5 of 35 FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 01/17/2023 01:17 PM INDEX NO. 150116/2012 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 418 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/17/2023 Kaplon-Belo Assoc., Inc. v D'Angelo, 79 AD3d 931 (2d Dept 2010). ..............................................2 Kamen v Diaz-Kamen, 40 AD3d 937 (2d Dept 2007). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1, 7, 8 Kavanagh v Ogden Allied Maintenance Corp., 92 NY2d 952 (1998). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Kucker v Kaminsky & Rich, 7 AD3d 491 (2d Dept 2004), lv. denied 3 NY3d 607 (2004). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Lewis v City of NY, 206 AD3d 896 (2d Dept 2022). ........................................... 22 Lindbergh v SHLO 54, LLC, 128 AD3d 642 (2d Dept 2015). .............................................2 Lopez v Kelly St. Realty, Inc., 106 AD3d 534 (1st Dept 2013).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Marx v Rosalind & Joseph Gurwin Jewish Geriatric Ctr. of Long Is., Inc., 148 AD3d 696 (2d Dept 2017) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-11 Massey v Anand, 2012 NY Slip Op 31634[U] (Sup Ct Suffolk Cty 2012). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Matter of Fenstermaker v Edgemont Union Free Sch. Dist., 48 AD3d 564 (2d Dept 2008). ..............................................7 Matter of Part 60 Put-Back Litig., 36 NY3d 342 (2020). .....................................................5 Matter of Tercjak v Tercjak, 49 AD3d 773 (2d Dept 2008), lv. denied 10 NY3d 716 (2008). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Matter of Winston, 243 AD2d 638 (2d Dept 1997). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Miller v County of Suffolk, 140 AD3d 1034 (2d Dept 2016). ........................................... 5 v 6 of 35 FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 01/17/2023 01:17 PM INDEX NO. 150116/2012 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 418 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/17/2023 Miller v Cruise Fantasies, Ltd., 74 AD3d 919 (2d Dept 2010). ..............................................7 Minister, Elders & Deacons of Refm. Prots. Dutch Church v 198 Broadway, Inc., 76 NY2d 411 (1990). .....................................................6 Muhametaj v Town of Orangetown, 195 AD3d 627 (2d Dept 2021). .............................................6 NY Tile Wholesale Corp. v Thomas Fatato Realty Corp., 205 AD3d 727 (2d Dept 2022) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Panagoulopoulos v Carlos Ortiz Jr. MD, P.C., 194 AD3d 728 (2d Dept 2021) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Patouhas v Patouhas, 172 AD3d 1221 (2d Dept 2019), appeal dismissed 35 NY3d 949 (2020). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Patterson v Balaquiot, 188 AD2d 275 (1st Dept 1992).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Price v Price, 16 NYS 359 (1st Dept 1891).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Principe v Assay Partners, 154 Misc 2d 702 (Sup Ct NY Cty 1992). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-12 Royal Discount Corp. v Luxor Motor Sales Corp., 9 Misc 2d 307 (App Term 1st Dept 1957) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Sage Sys., Inc. v Liss, 39 NY3d 27(2022). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-5 Schwartz v Durning, 104 Misc 2d 1018 (Mamaroneck Town Ct 1977). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Shelley v Shelley, 180 Misc 2d 275 (Sup Ct Westchester Cty 1999). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Singh v N. Shore Univ. Hosp., 76 AD3d 1004 (2d Dept 2010) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 vi 7 of 35 FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 01/17/2023 01:17 PM INDEX NO. 150116/2012 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 418 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/17/2023 Southern Blvd. Sound v Felix Storch, Inc., 167 Misc 2d 731 (App Term 1st Dept 1996).. ..................................6 U.S. Bank, N.A. v Rosario, 164 AD3d 1290 (2d Dept 2018). ............................................2 United States Fire Ins. Co. v Raia, 121 AD3d 970 (2d Dept 2014). .............................................2 Wagner v Goldberg, 293 AD2d 527 (2d Dept 2002). ........................................... 2-3 Youcheng Wu v Jian Xu, 137 AD3d 1016 (2d Dept 2016). ............................................2 New York Statutes CPLR 2214.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 CPLR 2215.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 CPLR 3012-a(a)(1). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 CPLR 3012-a(d).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 CPLR 3101(a)(1). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18, 19 CPLR 3101(h). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 CPLR 3126.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 CPLR 3126(1). ............................................................... 3 CPLR 3126(2). ................................................................3 CPLR 3126(3). ................................................................3 CPLR 8101.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 CPLR 8106.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 CPLR 8107.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 vii 8 of 35 FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 01/17/2023 01:17 PM INDEX NO. 150116/2012 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 418 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/17/2023 CPLR Art 82. .................................................................5 CPLR 8202.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 CPLR Art 83. .................................................................5 CPLR 8301(a). ................................................................5 CPLR 8301(a)(6). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 CPLR 8301(a)(13). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 CPLR 8301(d). ................................................................5 Education Law 6530(32). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Public Health Law 18.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Public Health Law 18(2)(a). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Public Health Law 18(2)(d). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 New York Court Rules 22 NYCRR Part 130. ...................................................... passim 22 NYCRR 130-1.1(c). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1, 6, 8, 9, 12 22 NYCRR 130-1.1(c)(1). ............................................. 3, 5, 6, 7, 12 22 NYCRR 130-1.1(c)(2). ................................................ 5, 11, 12 22 NYCRR 130-1.1(c)(3). .............................................. 5, 7, 11-12 22 NYCRR 130-1.1(d).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3, 6 22 NYCRR 202.21(d). ..................................................... 18, 20 viii 9 of 35 FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 01/17/2023 01:17 PM INDEX NO. 150116/2012 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 418 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/17/2023 New York Rules of Professional Conduct 22 NYCRR 1200.0.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Rule 3.3(b). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Rule 3.3(c). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Rule 3.4(a)(1).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Rule 3.4(a)(3).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Rule 3.4(a)(4).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Rule 3.4(a)(5).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Rule 4.1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Rule 8.4(c). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 New York Civil Pattern Jury Instructions PJI 1:77.1 . ...................................................................3 PJI 1:77.2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 PJI 1:77.3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 PJI 1:77.4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 ix 10 of 35 FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 01/17/2023 01:17 PM INDEX NO. 150116/2012 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 418 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/17/2023 Preliminary Statement After polluting proceedings with misconduct, impairing the evidence available for trial by misrepresentations, having a tainted verdict unanimously reversed on appeal (Valenti v Gadomski, 203 AD3d 783 (2d Dept 2022); Ex. 1)), and having their misdeeds highlighted for the Honorable Court to see, the McCormack defendants, their attorneys, including Shari Steinfeld, Esq. and Amabile & Erman, PC [“McCormack”], along with Oami’s predecessor counsel Scott Watson, Esq. and Keller O’Reilly & Watson, PC [“Watson”], remain unapologetic.1 Instead of expressing a semblance of remorse for altering plaintiff’s medical chart in an effort to conceal delays in considering available diagnostic measures, and then offering inconsistent stories in explanation, that changed at appellate argument, McCormack have “dug in” - compounding their frivolity by making a frivolous retributive cross-motion for sanctions. Rule 130-1.1(c). Watson likewise disregards the Appellate Division finding that they engaged in misconduct that “deprived the plaintiff of a fair trial.” Valenti,786. Devoid of reason, McCormack frivolously urges that Robert’s motion seeking indemnification for the harm and prejudice caused largely by herself and her counsel was made out of “vengeance and retribution for having lost at the initial trial of this matter.” (Steinfeld-Opp ¶26). This notwithstanding that only those acting with damaging frivolity are targeted for indemnification of the damage their misconduct caused Robert and his counsel. Beyond denying McCormack’s frivolous cross-motion, their frivolity in making it is yet another act warranting a grant of plaintiff Robert Valenti [“Robert”]’s underlying Part 130 motion. Kamen v Diaz-Kamen, 40 AD3d 937 (2d Dept 2007). 1 Oami has not properly filed an opposition and response to Robert’s motion. 1 11 of 35 FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 01/17/2023 01:17 PM INDEX NO. 150116/2012 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 418 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/17/2023 McCormack and Watson oppose Robert’s well stated motion for indemnification and discovery based on misstatements of law and fact that ought not be countenanced. This notwithstanding their engaging in inexcusably frivolous conduct that has severely prejudiced Robert and his counsel, requiring relief - that despite defendants’ claims to the contrary has never been previously sought or awarded. Reply Argument and Opposition Point I There is No Basis For Costs or Sanctions Against Robert’s Counsel and the Motion Respondents Cannot Establish Any Basis Why They Should Not Have to Indemnify Robert and His Counsel Robert’s motion should be granted given demonstrated frivolity in the extreme: misconduct “deprived the plaintiff of a fair trial” pursuant to the Appellate Division. Valenti, 785,786. Moreover, McCormack’s cross-motion must be denied as plaintiff “did not engage in frivolous conduct within the meaning of 22 NYCRR 130-1.1” (United States Fire Ins. Co. v Raia, 121 AD3d 970,972 (2d Dept 2014). See also U.S. Bank, N.A. v Rosario, 164 AD3d 1290,1292 (2d Dept 2018), citing Joan 2000, Ltd. v Deco Constr. Corp., 66 AD3d 841 (2d Dept 2009)), thus McCormack failed to demonstrate a scintilla of frivolity by plaintiff or counsel. Kaplon-Belo Assoc., Inc. v D'Angelo, 79 AD3d 931,931 (2d Dept 2010).See also Youcheng Wu v Jian Xu, 137 AD3d 1016,1017 (2d Dept 2016); Lindbergh v SHLO 54, LLC, 128 AD3d 642,645 (2d Dept 2015). Indeed, McCormack’s cross-motion must also be denied as Robert’s underlying motion for sanctions, cost indemnification, and discovery relief is “meritorious” and “[t]here is no evidence that any of the [plaintiff]'s conduct was undertaken primarily to harass or maliciously injure the [defendants], or that the [plaintiff] asserted material factual statements that were false” (Corr v Corr, 46 AD3d 736,739 (2d Dept 2007)) 2 12 of 35 FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 01/17/2023 01:17 PM INDEX NO. 150116/2012 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 418 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/17/2023 and none of Robert’s contentions were without merit in law or fact. “Wagner v Goldberg, 293 AD2d 527,528 (2d Dept 2002), quoting Rule 130-1.1(c)(1). See also Joan, 842. McCormack’s cross-motion argues that plaintiff’s counsel should be sanctioned because McCormack had “to take the time and expense to oppose plaintiff's underlying motion.” (Steinfeld- XM.¶3). In a further breach of civility, McCormack refers to Robert’s efforts at seeking indemnification for their wrongdoing as “antics” (id.) - more “digging in.” McCormack identifies no act by plaintiff’s counsel that is remotely frivolous. Rather, they fabricate issues by intentionally disregarding the distinctions between discovery sanctions, costs on appeal, and Part 130 in a contrived effort to mislead this Court into the false belief that Robert already moved for Part 130 relief. Such misleading statements are themselves sanctionably frivolous. Curcio v J.P. Hogan Coring & Sawing Corp., 303 AD2d 357,358-359 (2d Dept 2003). Purporting to cite to nonexistent passages in plaintiff’s appellate brief, which was most certainly not a motion pursuant to CPLR 2214 or 2215, as required by Rule 130-1.1(d), McCormack urges that Robert previously sought “sanctions.” (Steinfeld-XM. ¶5, citing Ex 8 pp. 59, 79;Steinfeld- Opp ¶10). Firstly, plaintiff’s appellate brief does not have a page 79, and is signed on page 64. (Ex. 8). Second, page 59 of that brief does not even contain the word “sanction.” (Id.). Third, to the extent McCormack is disingenuously referring to sheets of paper, rather than numbered pages (thus inexplicably commingling the numbered exhibit tab, brief cover, tables of contents and authorities, and the body of the brief), the reference on the 59th sheet of paper is to an adverse inference and spoliation sanctions - thus discovery relief and a trial instruction. (Id. Br. p. 43). See e.g. CPLR 3126(1)-(3); PJI 1:77.1-1:77.4. Likewise, the 79th sheet of paper refers to “action” regarding Watson and mandatory adverse inferences. 3 13 of 35 FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 01/17/2023 01:17 PM INDEX NO. 150116/2012 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 418 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/17/2023 Robert didn’t move under Part 130 in the Appellate Division. Why? Because absent the predicate of the Appellate Division order vacating the judgment and remanding for a new trial (Valenti, supra), the plaintiff had not won yet. Moreover, the Appellate Division would be limited to awarding sanctions and cost indemnification for frivolity on appeal. Gottlieb v Colonel, 180 AD3d 877,881 (2d Dept 2020); Patouhas v Patouhas, 172 AD3d 1221,1222 (2d Dept 2019), appeal dismissed 35 NY3d 949 (2020). Without the reversal, including the representations Ms. Steinfeld made at appellate argument - which ran contrary to the pre-trial representations and testimony of McCormack - Robert’s motion would have been premature and certainly less impactful. Moreover, the relief sought and available in the Appellate Division was limited to the trial record. “Citibank, N.A. v Kerszko, 203 AD3d 42,53 (2d Dept 2022). While defendants misleadingly suggest the Second Department held that plaintiff was not entitled to Part 130 relief, that is simply not so. Such relief was not sought and this isn’t a case where the Appellate Division held that any of Robert’s grounds for appeal or relief were “without merit” or “rejected.” Rather, given vacatur of the judgment, the Second Department held that “[i]n light of our determination, we need not reach the plaintiff's remaining contentions.” Valenti,786. Defendants disingenuously ignore differences between a Part 130 award from costs on appeal - wrongly urging they are synonymous, while falsely claiming Robert sought identical relief from the Appellate Division.(Steinfeld-XM ¶¶7,9; Glenn-MOL pp, 2,8-9). Compounding their disregard for the distinction between “costs on appeal” and Part 130 relief, McCormack falsely contends that Robert’s Part 130 motion is a “second bite of the apple.” (Steinfeld-XM ¶9). Defendants disregard the settled principle that attorney’s fees may not be awarded in New York state litigation absent a contractual agreement or pursuant to a statute or rule. Sage Sys., Inc. 4 14 of 35 FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 01/17/2023 01:17 PM INDEX NO. 150116/2012 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 418 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/17/2023 v Liss, 39 NY3d 27 (2022); Ambac Assur. Corp. v Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 31 NY3d 569,584 (2018); Alpha/Omega Concrete Corp. v Ovation Risk Planners, Inc., 197 AD3d 1274,1282 (2d Dept 2021), quoting Matter of Part 60 Put-Back Litig., 36 NY3d 342,361 (2020) (quoting Hooper Assoc., Ltd. v AGS Computers, Inc., 74 NY2d 487,491 (1989)). Unlike Part 130, the cost statutes do not allow for indemnification. Curet v DeKalb Realty, LLC, 127 AD3d 914,916 (2d Dept 2015); Royal Discount Corp. v Luxor Motor Sales Corp., 9 Misc 2d 307,308 (App Term 1st Dept 1957); Global Tech., Inc. v Royal Bank of Can., 2012 NY Slip Op 50023[U],*16 (Sup Ct NY Cty 2012), quoting Schwartz v Durning, 104 Misc 2d 1018,1019 (Mamaroneck Town Ct 1977) (citing CPLR arts 82,83). “A party to whom costs are awarded in an action or on appeal is entitled to tax his necessary disbursements for” expenses enumerated by statute (CPLR 8301(a)), as well as certain denominated fees for related services. CPLR 8301(d). An award of “costs on appeal” permits collection of specific designated disbursements associated with the appeal - most significantly the cost to reproduce the record or appendix CPLR 8301(a)(6),(13). When an appellate court enters a decision “with costs,” that determination applies solely to the appellate proceeding. Brocia v F. Romeo & Co., 241 NY 505,506 (1925); Miller v County of Suffolk, 140 AD3d 1034,1036 (2d Dept 2016); Gordon v Krellman, 217 AD 477,478 (1st Dept 1926). Indeed, “[t]he party in whose favor an appeal is decided in whole or in part is entitled to costs upon the appeal, whether or not he is entitled to costs in the action. . .” CPLR 8107. Thus, “costs on appeal” are distinguishable from “costs in the action” Miller, supra. Compare CPLR 8107 with CPLR 8101. Likewise, so too is Part 130 relief distinguishable from statutory costs on appeal. Compare Rule 130-1.1(c)(1)-(3) with CPLR 8107. 5 15 of 35 FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 01/17/2023 01:17 PM INDEX NO. 150116/2012 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 418 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/17/2023 Defendants falsely urge that the plaintiff sought Part 130 sanctions in the Appellate Division and that they were denied. On the law, Part 130 sanctions may only be sought and awarded after a formal motion is made by, or on behalf of a party, or by the Court, affording notice and an opportunity to be heard. 22 NYCRR 130-1.1(d). See Muhametaj v Town of Orangetown, 195 AD3d 627,628 (2d Dept 2021); Grant v Frank, 150 AD3d 706,707 (2d Dept 2017); Amex Dev., LLC v Aljohn Group, Inc., 134 AD3d 865,867 (2d Dept 2015); Singh v N. Shore Univ. Hosp., 76 AD3d 1004,1006 (2d Dept 2010). No such prior motion was ever made. A. McCormack’s Cross-Motion is Sanctionably Frivolous “Frivolous conduct shall include the making of a frivolous motion for costs or sanctions under this section.”Rule 130-1.1(c). See Ernest Wickham Case v Freed, 2022 NY Slip Op 50348[U],*4 (Sup Ct Suffolk Cty 2022). “The practice of opposing motions with a ‘knee-jerk’ response including a cross motion for the imposition of sanctions against the moving party or counsel without any basis in law or fact has become an increasingly disturbing aspect of civil litigation. It has been recognized that a motion for sanctions in such circumstances is itself a form of frivolous conduct warranting the imposition of sanctions.” Shelley v Shelley, 180 Misc 2d 275,276-277 (Sup Ct Westchester Cty 1999), citing Patterson v Balaquiot, 188 AD2d 275 (1st Dept 1992); Southern Blvd. Sound v Felix Storch, Inc., 167 Misc 2d 731,732 (App Term 1st Dept 1996). McCormack’s retaliatory cross-motion is frivolous “since it is ‘completely without merit in law or fact’ and ‘cannot be supported by a[ny] reasonable argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law.’” Minister, Elders & Deacons of Refm. Prots. Dutch Church v 198 Broadway, Inc., 76 NY2d 411,414 (1990), quoting Rule 130-1.1(c)(1). Likewise, the cross-motion “is also ‘frivolous’ in that it was evidently ‘undertaken primarily to delay or prolong the resolution 6 16 of 35 FILED: