On January 21, 2016 a
Letter,Correspondence
was filed
involving a dispute between
Xxxxxx Xxxxxx
Aka Xxxxxxxxxx Xxxxxx, Individually And Derivatively On Behalf Of Rockville Corp.,
and
Baharak Amirian
As Co-Trustee Of The Disclaimer Trust Under The Last Will And Testament Of Xxxx Xxxxx,
Xxxxxxx Xxxxx
Individually And As The Executor Of The Estate Of Xxxx Xxxxx, And As Co-Trustee Of The Disclaimer Trust Under Article "Fourth" Of The Last Will And Testament Of Xxxx Xxxxx,
Makan Delrahim
As Former Co-Trustee Of The Disclaimer Trust Under Article "Fourth" Of The Last Will And Testament Of Xxxx Xxxxx,
Rockville Corp.
As Nominal Defendant,
for Commercial Division - Business Entity
in the District Court of Nassau County.
Preview
Writer’s Direct Dial: (516) 663-6530
Writer’s Direct Fax: (516) 663-6730
Writer’s E-Mail: dshapiro@rmfpc.com
February 13, 2023
Via NYSCEF and E-mail
Hon. Sharon M.J. Gianelli
Commercial Division, New York Supreme Court,
County of Nassau
100 Supreme Court Drive
Mineola, New York 11501
Re: xxxxxx, et al. v. xxxxx, et al. (Index No. 607197/2022)
Dear Justice Gianelli:
Our firm represents plaintiff/counterclaim-defendant xxxxxx xxxxxx,
(“xxxxxx”) and counterclaim-defendant 172 Bargain Liquors Inc. (“Bargain Liquors”)
in the above-captioned action. We write to briefly respond to certain
mischaracterizations contained in the Commercial Division Rule 14 letter that
defendants and counterclaim-plaintiffs emailed to Your Honor on Friday, February
10, 2023 (the “Defendants’ Letter”).
Defendants’ Letter requests a conference with the Court to address certain
discovery objections that xxxxxx and Bargain Liquors raised in their responses to
defendants’/counterclaim plaintiffs’ discovery demands and in the meet and confer
they held with counsel. xxxxxx and Bargain Liquors have continuously advised
defendants/counterclaim-plaintiffs that certain categories of their document
demands are objectionable and improper. Specifically, a multitude of demands
propounded by defendant/counterclaim plaintiff xxxxxxx xxxxx (“xxxxxxx”) relate to
allegations she interposed in her Answer regarding a purported verbal agreement
that existed between her deceased husband, xxxx (who died in 2008), and xxxxxx
(xxxx’s brother), that she alleges was breached by xxxxxx in 2013. xxxxxxx has
interposed four counterclaims on the basis of this verbal agreement, to which she is
neither a party nor an intended beneficiary (and thus without standing to sue), and
the alleged breach thereof in 2013. Setting aside the fact that the counterclaims are
defective on their face (e.g. there are no factual allegations regarding when, how or
under what circumstances this verbal agreement was purportedly entered into) or
that xxxxxxx admits she is not in privity of contract with xxxxxx, there is no
RUSKIN MOSCOU FALTISCHEK
1 425 R X R P laz a, U nio nda le, N Y 115 56 -1 425 ▼
516. 663. 6600 ▼
2 12. 6 88. 8 300 ▼
F 5 16. 6 63. 66 01 ▼
w w w . r mf pc . c o m
February 13, 2023
Page 2
legitimate dispute that the claims themselves, each of which accrued in 2013, are
barred by the applicable statute of limitations.
For these reasons, xxxxxx and Bargain Liquors filed a motion for partial
summary judgment dismissing xxxxxxx’s second through fifth counterclaims and for
a protective order quashing certain non-party subpoenas to the extent they seek
information arising out of this verbal agreement that she alleges was breached ten
(10) years prior to the filing of her counterclaims. NYSCEF Dckt. Nos. 85-99. By
employing litigation tactics that serve no purpose beyond overburdening the
discovery process (and now, the Court) with demands that have no nexus to any of
colorable claim for relief, xxxxxxx is engaging in wasteful and inappropriate
gamesmanship that should not be countenanced. Hence, why xxxxxx and Bargain
Liquors’ recently filed motion for partial summary judgment proved itself necessary.
Further, although Defendants’ Letter suggests the opposite is true, xxxxxx
and Bargain Liquors stand willing and eager to enter into a scheduling order
governing the parties’ respective document productions relative to this action’s core
dispute; to wit, whether xxxxxxx or xxxxxx rightfully own the shares of Rockville
Corp. and in what respective interest percentages do they hold their shares. As it
stands, xxxxxx and Bargain Liquors are in the process of searching for responsive
documents that go to this core issue and are more than willing to engage in a further
meet and confer in lieu of a Court conference to formalize dates (within the next 45-
60 days) for the parties to exchange their respective productions. However, if
xxxxxxx’s prerogative is still to pursue documents that arise only from self-serving
hearsay allegations of a verbal agreement that was purportedly entered into by her
deceased husband, xxxx, and his brother, xxxxxx, on some unspecified date prior to
xxxx’s death in 2008, a Court conference will likely be needed to resolve this
discovery dispute.
Respectfully Submitted,
RUSKIN MOSCOU FALTISCHEK, P.C.
Daniel E. Shapiro
Daniel E. Shapiro
For the Firm
cc: All Counsel (ECF)
2
Document Filed Date
February 13, 2023
Case Filing Date
January 21, 2016
Category
Commercial Division - Business Entity
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
Writer’s Direct Dial: (516) 663-6530 Writer’s Direct Fax: (516) 663-6730 Writer’s E-Mail: dshapiro@rmfpc.com February 13, 2023 Via NYSCEF and E-mail Hon. Sharon M.J. Gianelli Commercial Division, New York Supreme Court, County of Nassau 100 Supreme Court Drive Mineola, New York 11501 Re: xxxxxx, et al. v. xxxxx, et al. (Index No. 607197/2022) Dear Justice Gianelli: Our firm represents plaintiff/counterclaim-defendant xxxxxx xxxxxx, (“xxxxxx”) and counterclaim-defendant 172 Bargain Liquors Inc. (“Bargain Liquors”) in the above-captioned action. We write to briefly respond to certain mischaracterizations contained in the Commercial Division Rule 14 letter that defendants and counterclaim-plaintiffs emailed to Your Honor on Friday, February 10, 2023 (the “Defendants’ Letter”). Defendants’ Letter requests a conference with the Court to address certain discovery objections that xxxxxx and Bargain Liquors raised in their responses to defendants’/counterclaim plaintiffs’ discovery demands and in the meet and confer they held with counsel. xxxxxx and Bargain Liquors have continuously advised defendants/counterclaim-plaintiffs that certain categories of their document demands are objectionable and improper. Specifically, a multitude of demands propounded by defendant/counterclaim plaintiff xxxxxxx xxxxx (“xxxxxxx”) relate to allegations she interposed in her Answer regarding a purported verbal agreement that existed between her deceased husband, xxxx (who died in 2008), and xxxxxx (xxxx’s brother), that she alleges was breached by xxxxxx in 2013. xxxxxxx has interposed four counterclaims on the basis of this verbal agreement, to which she is neither a party nor an intended beneficiary (and thus without standing to sue), and the alleged breach thereof in 2013. Setting aside the fact that the counterclaims are defective on their face (e.g. there are no factual allegations regarding when, how or under what circumstances this verbal agreement was purportedly entered into) or that xxxxxxx admits she is not in privity of contract with xxxxxx, there is no RUSKIN MOSCOU FALTISCHEK 1 425 R X R P laz a, U nio nda le, N Y 115 56 -1 425 ▼ 516. 663. 6600 ▼ 2 12. 6 88. 8 300 ▼ F 5 16. 6 63. 66 01 ▼ w w w . r mf pc . c o m February 13, 2023 Page 2 legitimate dispute that the claims themselves, each of which accrued in 2013, are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. For these reasons, xxxxxx and Bargain Liquors filed a motion for partial summary judgment dismissing xxxxxxx’s second through fifth counterclaims and for a protective order quashing certain non-party subpoenas to the extent they seek information arising out of this verbal agreement that she alleges was breached ten (10) years prior to the filing of her counterclaims. NYSCEF Dckt. Nos. 85-99. By employing litigation tactics that serve no purpose beyond overburdening the discovery process (and now, the Court) with demands that have no nexus to any of colorable claim for relief, xxxxxxx is engaging in wasteful and inappropriate gamesmanship that should not be countenanced. Hence, why xxxxxx and Bargain Liquors’ recently filed motion for partial summary judgment proved itself necessary. Further, although Defendants’ Letter suggests the opposite is true, xxxxxx and Bargain Liquors stand willing and eager to enter into a scheduling order governing the parties’ respective document productions relative to this action’s core dispute; to wit, whether xxxxxxx or xxxxxx rightfully own the shares of Rockville Corp. and in what respective interest percentages do they hold their shares. As it stands, xxxxxx and Bargain Liquors are in the process of searching for responsive documents that go to this core issue and are more than willing to engage in a further meet and confer in lieu of a Court conference to formalize dates (within the next 45- 60 days) for the parties to exchange their respective productions. However, if xxxxxxx’s prerogative is still to pursue documents that arise only from self-serving hearsay allegations of a verbal agreement that was purportedly entered into by her deceased husband, xxxx, and his brother, xxxxxx, on some unspecified date prior to xxxx’s death in 2008, a Court conference will likely be needed to resolve this discovery dispute. Respectfully Submitted, RUSKIN MOSCOU FALTISCHEK, P.C. Daniel E. Shapiro Daniel E. Shapiro For the Firm cc: All Counsel (ECF) 2