Motion-Secondary: Minel Johnson, Ansel Johnson v. Bernard Rimpel, Umesh Mishra, Joseph Dergan, Sarina Cranage, Stacey Martindale, Amer Homsi, David Schaner, The Brooklyn Hospital Center

• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                FILED:         KINGS       COUNTY         CLERK        01/18/2023             01:16       PM                        INDEX    NO.   523101/2016
   NYSCEF     DOC.   NO.   124                                                                                RECEIVED      NYSCEF:     01/18/2023




                  SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                  COUNTY OF KINGS
                  -----------------------------------------------------------------------------x
                  MINEL JOHNSON and KIRK JOHNSON, Administrator of the
                  Estate of ANSEL JOHNSON, deceased,

                                                               Plaintiffs,                                  ATTORNEY’S
                                                                                                            AFFIRMATION
                           -    Against –

                  BERNARD RIMPEL, UMESH MISHRA, JOSEPH DERGAN,                                              Index No.:
                  SARINA CRANAGE, STACEY MARTINDALE, AMER                                                   523101/2016
                  HOMSI, DAVID SCHANER, and THE BROOKLYN HOSPITAL
                  CENTER,

                                                               Defendants.
                  -------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
                  (action discontinued against BERNARD RIMPEL)

                           PRESTON J. DOUGLAS, an attorney duly admitted to practice law before the courts of

                  the State of New York, affirms the following under penalties of perjury pursuant to Section 2106

                  of New York’s Civil Practice Law and Rules.

                           I am a partner in GURFEIN DOUGLAS LLP, counsel for plaintiff in the above-captioned

                  matter, and in that capacity, I have personal knowledge of the facts and circumstances set forth

                  herein.

                           The within Motion is brought for the purpose of extending plaintiffs’ time to file a Note of

                  Issue.

                           The   within  action   arises  of an  injury  which    left the plaintiff,  MINEL     JOHNSON,        brain

                  damaged, and wheelchair bound.            Plaintiff previously moved (EX. A – Motion #4, NYSEF Doc

                  No.: 110, Received NYSEF 2/4/22), to extend time to file a Note of Issue and other relief.                    While

                  the other relief was granted in part, an extension of time to file a Note of Issue received no decision.

                  (EX B. – Motion #4 Order, NYSEF Doc No.: 113, filed 5/12/22).




                                                                        1  of   2
   FILED:         KINGS       COUNTY         CLERK        01/18/2023             01:16       PM                        INDEX    NO.   523101/2016
   NYSCEF     DOC.   NO.   124                                                                                RECEIVED      NYSCEF:     01/18/2023




                           Plaintiff  has,  in  the  meantime,     provided   multiple    items   of discovery    requested    by  the

                  defense.   The delay in filing a Note of Issue was explained previously in the annexed Affirmation

                  of  Compliance     (EX.   C  –  NYSEF     Doc.   No.:   116,  Received    9/8/22).    In  short, the  delay   was   a

                  combination     of  the  Covid-caused      Court   closures,   and  the  death   of  plaintiff’s  husband,    Ansel

                  Johnson.    Substitution of the estate of the deceased plaintiff was accomplished and minor items of

                  discovery have been provided thereafter.

                           The Clerk rejected the Note of Issue with the following reason: “NOI DUE DATE WAS

                  3/29/20.   AN ORDER TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE IS REQUIRED”.

                           Plaintiff has never delayed this case, and she deserves her day in Court.

                           WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that the within motion be granted in its entirety.

                  Dated:   New York NY
                           January 18, 2023

                                                                        (electronically signed)
                                                                        PRESTON J. DOUGLAS




                                                                        2  of   2