On January 04, 2017 a
Letter,Correspondence
was filed
involving a dispute between
Board Of Managers Of Van Wyck Glen Condominium,
The Board Of Managers Of Van Wyck Meadows Condominium, A Condominium Created Pursuant To Article 9-B Of The Real Property Law, On Behalf Of Its Unit Owners,
and
Anthony Costa,
Dick Hack,
Van Wyck At Merritt Park Homeowners Association, Inc.,
for Commercial - Contract
in the District Court of Dutchess County.
Preview
BRAVERMAN| GREENSPUN
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
August 8, 2019
VIA NYSCEF
Hon. Christi J. Acker, J.S.C.
Dutchess County Supreme Courthouse
2nd
10 Market Street, Floor, Courtroom 207
Poughkeepsie, New York 12601
Re: Board of Managers of the Van Wyck Glen Condominium, et
Wyck At Merritt Park Homeowners Association, Inc., et al.
Index No.: 2017-50017
Dear Judge Acker:
This office represents the defendants, Van Wyck at Merrit Park D
Homeowners Association ("HOA"), Dick Hack and Tony Costa (collectively
"Defendants"), and the non-party Associa in the above referenced action.
submitted in response to that of counsel for the plaintiffs dated August 7,
regarding the scheduling of depositions.
Certain representations in plaintiff's counsel letter are inaccurate.
First, the nonparty Associa, which is the HOA's current managing
fail to comply with a subpoena. Rather a timely objection to the subpoena
by our office pursuant to CPLR 3122. That objection placed the burden
the plaintiffs to file a motion to demonstrate the validity
of the subpoena,
office claims was defective on substantive and procedural grounds. No
has been filed. Nor has any informal offer been made to demonstrate tha
or testimony from the HOA's current managing agent could have any bea
The deposition of Ms. Theret was not completed in one day because her
answers were nonresponsive, misleading, confrontational and evasive. I did not delay.
In fact, the breaks were at the request of the stenographer who stated that her hands
hurt because we were going so fast. Moreover, there was not a single objection to any
of my questions as being redundant or duplicative (i.e.,'asked and answered').
As a result of the manner in which Ms. Theret conducted herself at the
deposition, itwas necessary to take additional time to parse out the truth and nail down
accurate responses. That is the purpose of a deposition. Ifthis type of questioning
does not take place at the deposition, then the time of the court and parties will be
wasted (1) when incomplete transcripts are presented in connection with dispositive
motions, and (2) when there is a need to revisit the issues at trial and nail down
accurate responses, ifthe case is not resolved prior to that time.
Third, I advised all parties that I could not continue past 5:00 p.m. with the
questioning of Ms. Theret due to a personal matter. I did not simply state that I needed
several more hours to complete Ms. Theret's deposition. At 5:00 p.m., I had yet to
complete my questioning, and two other attorneys had yet to begin to question the
witness.
Fourth, I advised counsel for the plaintiff that I was prepared to go forward with
the deposition of Lydia Parziale as scheduled on August 12, 2019, notwithstanding
plaintiff's refusal to schedule the completion of Ms. Theret's deposition.
We welcome a conversation to address the scheduling of the depositions which
were previously set by the Court. We believe that the information contained in this letter
will facilitate the discussion.
We do not consent to the resolution of the objection to the Associa subpoena at
the time of the conference, since the plaintiffs did not raise the issue at the prior
discovery conference, did not respond informally to our proper objection, and have not
filed the motion to compel compliance as provided for in CPLR 3122.
R pe ull yours,
on of .er
cc: Anthony Carlini, Esq.
Stacey L Pitcher, Esq.
Terry Forman, Esq.
Vincent Camacho, Esq.
Richard Sklarin, Esq.
(via NYSCEF)
2
Document Filed Date
August 08, 2019
Case Filing Date
January 04, 2017
Category
Commercial - Contract
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
BRAVERMAN| GREENSPUN A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION August 8, 2019 VIA NYSCEF Hon. Christi J. Acker, J.S.C. Dutchess County Supreme Courthouse 2nd 10 Market Street, Floor, Courtroom 207 Poughkeepsie, New York 12601 Re: Board of Managers of the Van Wyck Glen Condominium, et Wyck At Merritt Park Homeowners Association, Inc., et al. Index No.: 2017-50017 Dear Judge Acker: This office represents the defendants, Van Wyck at Merrit Park D Homeowners Association ("HOA"), Dick Hack and Tony Costa (collectively "Defendants"), and the non-party Associa in the above referenced action. submitted in response to that of counsel for the plaintiffs dated August 7, regarding the scheduling of depositions. Certain representations in plaintiff's counsel letter are inaccurate. First, the nonparty Associa, which is the HOA's current managing fail to comply with a subpoena. Rather a timely objection to the subpoena by our office pursuant to CPLR 3122. That objection placed the burden the plaintiffs to file a motion to demonstrate the validity of the subpoena, office claims was defective on substantive and procedural grounds. No has been filed. Nor has any informal offer been made to demonstrate tha or testimony from the HOA's current managing agent could have any bea The deposition of Ms. Theret was not completed in one day because her answers were nonresponsive, misleading, confrontational and evasive. I did not delay. In fact, the breaks were at the request of the stenographer who stated that her hands hurt because we were going so fast. Moreover, there was not a single objection to any of my questions as being redundant or duplicative (i.e.,'asked and answered'). As a result of the manner in which Ms. Theret conducted herself at the deposition, itwas necessary to take additional time to parse out the truth and nail down accurate responses. That is the purpose of a deposition. Ifthis type of questioning does not take place at the deposition, then the time of the court and parties will be wasted (1) when incomplete transcripts are presented in connection with dispositive motions, and (2) when there is a need to revisit the issues at trial and nail down accurate responses, ifthe case is not resolved prior to that time. Third, I advised all parties that I could not continue past 5:00 p.m. with the questioning of Ms. Theret due to a personal matter. I did not simply state that I needed several more hours to complete Ms. Theret's deposition. At 5:00 p.m., I had yet to complete my questioning, and two other attorneys had yet to begin to question the witness. Fourth, I advised counsel for the plaintiff that I was prepared to go forward with the deposition of Lydia Parziale as scheduled on August 12, 2019, notwithstanding plaintiff's refusal to schedule the completion of Ms. Theret's deposition. We welcome a conversation to address the scheduling of the depositions which were previously set by the Court. We believe that the information contained in this letter will facilitate the discussion. We do not consent to the resolution of the objection to the Associa subpoena at the time of the conference, since the plaintiffs did not raise the issue at the prior discovery conference, did not respond informally to our proper objection, and have not filed the motion to compel compliance as provided for in CPLR 3122. R pe ull yours, on of .er cc: Anthony Carlini, Esq. Stacey L Pitcher, Esq. Terry Forman, Esq. Vincent Camacho, Esq. Richard Sklarin, Esq. (via NYSCEF) 2