On July 20, 2017 a
Letter,Correspondence
was filed
involving a dispute between
Ronnie Dorrity,
and
Terry James Dorrity,
for Commercial - Contract
in the District Court of Lewis County.
Preview
LAW OFFICES OF
Esq.*
Stuart E. Finer, FINER & FANELLI
Telephone
(315) 724-78oo
Matthew J. Fanelli, Esq. ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Fax (315) 733-6591
510 Bleecker Street SERVICE BY FAX NOT ACCEPTED
Utica, New York 13501
Jacqueline L. Snyder stuart@stuartfineresq.com
Legal Assistant matthew@stuartfineresq.com
jackie@stuartfineresq.com
Chandell.Carter@stuartfineresq.com
Chandell M. Carter
Legal Assistant
*Also admitted in Arizona
March 17 2023
Hon James P. McClusky
State Office Building
317 Washington St
Watertown, NY 13601
Re: Dorrity v Dorrity
Dear Judge McClusky:
At 2:00 in the afternoon on a Friday I received a correspondence from Mr. Carroll
requesting that the Court consider unverified information as part of his opposition to the
Motions pending before the Court, after the Motion return date was closed.
I request that the Court totally disregard the submission by Mr. Carroll. The case was
closed for submissions as of the Motion argument date.
Previously, Mr.Caroll attempted to forward tax returns but I notified him by email that Ï
was unable to open the tax returns and that the password I was given would not work.
The conclusory information in Mr. Carroll's letter referencing tax returns without the
statements, the separate schedules, and the statements of income and losses that are referenced
in the tax returns, cannot be accepted on their face.
I am not rejecting off hand that I would depose Terry Dorrity as soon as I have the
sufficient information with regard to tax related matters, but I am concerned about my client
incurring additional costs.
However, this is irrelevant to the pending Motion before the Court where the Defendant
did not provide all the information requested in the information subpoena that was contained in
the itemized email I sent to Mr. Carroll and provided to the Court. I have requested costs and
reasonable attorney's fees per the statute.
The details of the summaries on income and losses is totally irrelevant without the
backup detail on what those summary statements are related to, what properties they are related
to, and what is the actual income and loss statements. Moreover, I would need the opportunity
to have the tax returns evaluated by my tax expert.
In addition, Terry Dorrity is still misrepresenting facts to the Court. He owns property
in TI Park on Wellesley Island. Based upon the tax bill its value is at least $500,000.00. Total
taxes on that property based upon the tax bill that was provided for the county tax would
indicate approximately $12,000.00 per year in total taxes, and the monthly payments on the
$350,000 mortgage will be close to at least $3,000 per month. Defendant on the one hand
claims he has no assets but somehow, he is paying between $45,000-$50,000 to carry the
property on Wellesley Island each year.
In addition, upon information and belief, Mr. Dorrity has a boat, Jet Skis and other
recreational water craft. I would request that the court totally disregard Mr. Carroll's letter
17th
dated March 2023. There is no affirmation from Defendant to support the facts, and his
allegations as they are pulled out of portions of a tax return are insufficient to support the
claims by Terry Dorrity. All of the aforementioned should be considered on top of the fact that
the submittal is untimely.
bono"
In addition, I do not believe that Mr. Carroll has taken this case on a "pro basis.
The Defendant paid Mr. Carroll for defense of the original action for the conduct of a trial, for
an expert to sit for the entire case and for the cost of printing briefs and records on appeal and
the cost of the appeal. In my opinion Terry Dorrity continues to be the same fraud that he was
related to his uncle's investments and now misrepresents the facts to the Court. I trust the
findings by the futures regulatory agency, that the Defendant made millions while his clients
lost money is accurate and as a result of their findings Defendant was suspended. ‰e did not
appeal.
Respectfully Submitted
Stuart E. Finer, Esq.
SEF/cms
Document Filed Date
March 17, 2023
Case Filing Date
July 20, 2017
Category
Commercial - Contract
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
LAW OFFICES OF Esq.* Stuart E. Finer, FINER & FANELLI Telephone (315) 724-78oo Matthew J. Fanelli, Esq. ATTORNEYS AT LAW Fax (315) 733-6591 510 Bleecker Street SERVICE BY FAX NOT ACCEPTED Utica, New York 13501 Jacqueline L. Snyder stuart@stuartfineresq.com Legal Assistant matthew@stuartfineresq.com jackie@stuartfineresq.com Chandell.Carter@stuartfineresq.com Chandell M. Carter Legal Assistant *Also admitted in Arizona March 17 2023 Hon James P. McClusky State Office Building 317 Washington St Watertown, NY 13601 Re: Dorrity v Dorrity Dear Judge McClusky: At 2:00 in the afternoon on a Friday I received a correspondence from Mr. Carroll requesting that the Court consider unverified information as part of his opposition to the Motions pending before the Court, after the Motion return date was closed. I request that the Court totally disregard the submission by Mr. Carroll. The case was closed for submissions as of the Motion argument date. Previously, Mr.Caroll attempted to forward tax returns but I notified him by email that Ï was unable to open the tax returns and that the password I was given would not work. The conclusory information in Mr. Carroll's letter referencing tax returns without the statements, the separate schedules, and the statements of income and losses that are referenced in the tax returns, cannot be accepted on their face. I am not rejecting off hand that I would depose Terry Dorrity as soon as I have the sufficient information with regard to tax related matters, but I am concerned about my client incurring additional costs. However, this is irrelevant to the pending Motion before the Court where the Defendant did not provide all the information requested in the information subpoena that was contained in the itemized email I sent to Mr. Carroll and provided to the Court. I have requested costs and reasonable attorney's fees per the statute. The details of the summaries on income and losses is totally irrelevant without the backup detail on what those summary statements are related to, what properties they are related to, and what is the actual income and loss statements. Moreover, I would need the opportunity to have the tax returns evaluated by my tax expert. In addition, Terry Dorrity is still misrepresenting facts to the Court. He owns property in TI Park on Wellesley Island. Based upon the tax bill its value is at least $500,000.00. Total taxes on that property based upon the tax bill that was provided for the county tax would indicate approximately $12,000.00 per year in total taxes, and the monthly payments on the $350,000 mortgage will be close to at least $3,000 per month. Defendant on the one hand claims he has no assets but somehow, he is paying between $45,000-$50,000 to carry the property on Wellesley Island each year. In addition, upon information and belief, Mr. Dorrity has a boat, Jet Skis and other recreational water craft. I would request that the court totally disregard Mr. Carroll's letter 17th dated March 2023. There is no affirmation from Defendant to support the facts, and his allegations as they are pulled out of portions of a tax return are insufficient to support the claims by Terry Dorrity. All of the aforementioned should be considered on top of the fact that the submittal is untimely. bono" In addition, I do not believe that Mr. Carroll has taken this case on a "pro basis. The Defendant paid Mr. Carroll for defense of the original action for the conduct of a trial, for an expert to sit for the entire case and for the cost of printing briefs and records on appeal and the cost of the appeal. In my opinion Terry Dorrity continues to be the same fraud that he was related to his uncle's investments and now misrepresents the facts to the Court. I trust the findings by the futures regulatory agency, that the Defendant made millions while his clients lost money is accurate and as a result of their findings Defendant was suspended. ‰e did not appeal. Respectfully Submitted Stuart E. Finer, Esq. SEF/cms