Motion-Secondary: Trojan Maritime Inc. v. Tpg Sixth Street Partners, Llc, F/K/A Tpg Special Situations Partners, Llc

On November 15, 2016 a Motion-Secondary was filed involving a dispute between Trojan Maritime Inc., and Tpg Sixth Street Partners, Llc, F K A Tpg Special Situations Partners, Llc, for Commercial - Contract in the District Court of New York County.

Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/02/2018 06:48 PM INDEX NO. 655978/2016
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 109 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/02/2018

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
--------------------- ---------------- X

:
TROJAN MARITIME INC., : IndeX No.: 655978/2016
:

Plaintiff, : Motion Seq. No. 005
:
- against - :
:
:
TPG SIXTH STREET PARTNERS, LLC, f/k/a :
TPG SPECIAL SITUATIONS PARTNERS, LLC :
:
Defendant.
- - ------ _ _ ---- - -_ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ ------------ X

DEFENDANT TPG SIXTH STREET PARTNERS, LLC'S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN

OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF TROJAN MARITIME INC.'S CROSS-MOTION

FELICELLO & MELCHIONNA LLP
Rosanne E. Felicello, Esq.
Zofia H. Rubens, Esq.
1330 Avenue of the Americas, 12th Floor
New York, NY 10019
Tel: (212) 400-6920

Attorneys for Defendant TPG Sixth Street Partners, LLC

1 of 14
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/02/2018 06:48 PM INDEX NO. 655978/2016
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 109 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/02/2018

TABLEOFCONTENTS

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES........................................................................... 11

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT......................................................................... 1
........................................

BACKGROUND OF RELEVANT FACTS.......................................................... 2

ARGUMENT.............................................................................................. 3
..............................

I. Further discovery would not give rise to a triable issue of fact, justifying

delaying determination of the TSSP's motion for summary
.44

II. Trojan has failed to demonstrate that ithas made reasonable attempts to

discover facts which itargues may give rise to a triable issue.................... 9

CONCLUSION........................................................................................... 11

2 of 14
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/02/2018 06:48 PM INDEX NO. 655978/2016
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 109 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/02/2018

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Bailey v. New York City Transit Authority, 270 A.D.2d 156, 704 N.Y.S.2d 582, 2000 N.Y. Slip
(1st
Op. 02770 Dept. 2000).................................................................................. .66

(2nd
Cruz v. Otis Elevator Co., 238 A.D.2d 540 Dept. 1997)........................................ 7, 8

(13t
Global Mins. & Metal Corp. v. Holme, 35 A.D.3d 93, 824 N.Y.S. 2d 210 Dept. 2006)....... 8

(3rd
Fairbanks Co. v. Simplex Supply Co., 126 A.D.2d 882, 511 N.Y.S.2d 171 Dept. 1987)...... 4

(3rd
Fleischman v. Peacock Water Co., 51 A.D.3d 1203, 858 N.Y.S.2d 421 Dept. 2008)..........7
..

Fulton v. Allstate Ins. Co., 14 A.D.3d 380, 788 N.Y.S.2d 349, 2005 N.Y. Slip Op. 00203
(1st
Dept. 2005)............................................................................................... 6

Heritage Hills Soc., Ltd. v. Heritage Development Group, Inc. 56 A.D.3d 426,
(2nd
867 N.Y.S.2d 149 Dept. 2008)..........................................................................
.77

(3rd
Ingalsbe v. Chicago Ins. Co., 287 A.D.2d 939, 731 N.Y.S.2d 782 Dept. 2001)............... 10

(2nd
Kennerly v. Campbell Chain Co., 133 A.D.2d 669, 519 N.Y.S.2d 839 Dept. 1987)......... 10

(2nd
Lambert v. Bracco, 18 A.D.3d 619, 795 N.Y.S.2d 662 Dept. 2005)............................ .66

(2nd
Plotkin v. Franklin, 179 A.D.2d 746, 579 N.Y.S.2d 123 Dept. 1992).......................... 10

(4th
Resetarits Const. Corp. v. Olmsted, 118 A.D.3d 1454, 988 N.Y.S.2d 797 Dept. 2014)...... 9

(3rd
Saha v. Record, 307 A.D.2d 550, 762 N.Y.S.2d 693 Dept. 2003)............................... 3

(4th
Wright v. Shapiro, 16 A.D.3d 1042, 791 N.Y.S.2d 799 Dept. 2005)............................ 9

3 of 14
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/02/2018 06:48 PM INDEX NO. 655978/2016
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 109 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/02/2018

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

("Plaintiff" "Trojan"
Under the law of the case, Plaintiff Trojan Maritime Inc.'s or "Trojan")

breach of contract claim is limited to the extent any of the $150,000 transferred by Trojan was

("Defendant"
not used by Defendant TPG Sixth Street Partners, LLC's or "TSSP") for the

intended purpose stated in the Term Sheet, i.e.to cover the costs and fees of legal, tax, technical

and other professional advisers incurred in progressing the transaction. The authenticated

invoices submitted in support of the TSSP's motion for summary judgment prove that the entire

amount of the advanced $150,000 was used to help cover due diligence costs. Even if,arguendo,

the Court did not limit Plaintiff's breach of contract claim, further discovery would not give rise

to any triable issue of fact. Plaintiff argues that itneeds to depose a third-party witness as to the

parties'
intent with regards to the pre-funded deposit and the parties as to their understanding of

parties'
the Term Sheet and itsrevisions. Even assuming, arguendo, that the intent and

understanding of the Term Sheet provisions are at issue, the documents that have been produced

by both parties and which have been provided to the court as evidence in support of TSSP's

motion for summary judgment, show that Trojan was both aware that the $150,000 due diligence

funds were being spent and even approved the expenses. Further discovery, resulting in delay of

determination of the TSSP's summary judgment motion, would not reveal any relevant and

material evidence or raise a triable issue of fact. Moreover, Plaintiff had many opportunities to

conduct discovery, including depositions, and was made aware well in advance that TSSP was

planning to file a motion for summary judgment and waited until almost three weeks after

receiving TSSP's motion for summary judgment to request additional time to take depositions to

respond to the motion. Plaintiff should not be allowed to further delay resolution of the dispute

4 of 14
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/02/2018 06:48 PM INDEX NO. 655978/2016
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 109 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/02/2018

and cause additional unnecessary expenses based solely on a mere hope that further discovery

may reveal the existence of a triable issue of fact.

BACKGROUNDOFRELEVANTFACTS

Plaintiff commenced this action on or about November 15, 2016, alleging breach of

fiduciary duty, constructive trust, unjust enrichment, and breach of contract. On or about March

15, 2017, Defendant moved to dismiss all four causes of action. On April 25, 2017, after an oral

hearing, Honorable Eileen A. Rakower, J.S.C dismissed three out of four causes of action and

granted Plaintiff leave to re-plead itsbreach of contract claim consistent with the decision. See,

Affirmation of Rosanne Felicello, Esq. submitted in opposition to Trojan's cross-motion

("Felicello Aff."), Exhibit A. Additionally, Hon. Rakower so-ordered the stipulation that limited

discovery to the exchange of listed documents. See, Felicello Aff., Exhibit D.

On or about March 30, 2017 Trojan served interrogatories on TSSP which TSSP

responded to on or about April 19, 2017. On or about March 30, 2017 Trojan served document

requests on TSSP to which TSSP responded in May, 2017. Trojan's counsel issued a subpoena

on a third-party witness on or about March 30, 2017 and then on or about August 15, 2017. See,

Felicello Aff., Exhibit C and Exhibit 3 to Trojan's subject cross-motion.

On June 9, 2017, Plaintiff filed its Amended Complaint. On July 10, 2017 Defendant

filed itsAnswer to the Amended Complaint with Counterclaim.

On or about August 23, 2017, Trojan served on TSSP a second set of discovery demands

virtually identical to the initial set of interrogatories and document requests. TSSP objected to

responding to these additional requests and Trojan has not sought further responses from TSSP.

On November 28, 2017, counsel for the parties attended a compliance conference. At the

conference the parties confirmed that all document discovery has been completed. See, Felicello

5 of 14
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/02/2018 06:48 PM INDEX NO. 655978/2016
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 109 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/02/2018

Aff., Exhibit E. Counsel for Defendant informed both the Court and counsel for Plaintiff that

Defendant was planning to file a motion for summary judgment imminently. In response to this

information, Justice Crane remarked that she would set depositions to be due in April, so that the

Court would have the opportunity to decide the summary judgment motion before depositions

were noticed. An additional compliance conference was set for February 15, 2018.

On December 1, 2017, Defendant filed its Motion for Summary Judgment. On December

19, 2017, almost three weeks after TSSP's motion for summary judgment was filed and served,

Trojan's counsel requested extension of time to oppose the TSSP's motion for summary

judgment as Trojan's counsel urges that depositions need to be conducted. Counsel for

Defendant responded that at the compliance conference she informed both Trojan's counsel and

the Court that Defendant intended to file a motion for summary judgment imminently and that

the Honorable Melissa Crane specifically set the deposition deadline in April, 2018 so that she

would have time to decide the motion before the parties take any depositions. Defendant's

counsel also said that Trojan's counsel did not state at that time that she intended to take

depositions in order to respond to the summary judgment motion. See, Felicello Aff., Exhibit B.

ARGUMENT

Court has discretion to grant an extension of time "upon such terms as may be just and

shown."
upon good cause CPLR 2004. Granting extension under CPLR 2004 in the context of

summary judgment motion was either dictated by extraordinary circumstances or required

establishing merits that would justify granting an extension. See, Saha v. Record, 307 A.D.2d

(3rd
550, 762 N.Y.S.2d 693 Dept. 2003) (holding that trial court abused itsdiscretion in denying

defendant's request for extension of time to respond to motion for summary judgment which

request was based on disruptions to counsel's law practice caused by September 11, 2001

6 of 14
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/02/2018 06:48 PM INDEX NO. 655978/2016
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 109 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/02/2018

plaintiffs'
terrorist attacks and the lead counsel being displaced from his residence in Battery

(3rd
Park). See, Fairbanks Co. v. Simplex Supply Co., 126 A.D.2d 882, 511 N.Y.S.2d 171, 172

Dept. 1987) (holding that the trial court did not abuse itsdiscretion in denying a continuance to

afford defendant an opportunity to prepare for motion for summary judgment when defendant

failed to set forth the merits of its defense which would have justified granting an extension of

time). Trojan failed to show good cause that would justify delaying determination of the TSSP's

motion for summary judgment.

I. Further discovery would not give rise to a triable issue of fact, justifying

delaying determination of the TSSP's motion for summary judgment.

At the April 25, 2017 oral hearing on the TSSP's motion to dismiss the Court held "[a]nd

they [Trojan] might have a cause of action for breach of contract if it'sshown that there were

insufficient legal expenses, tax, technical and other expenses to use up the 150, in which

case, according to what the complaint says, they would have been entitled to a refund of some if

150."
not all of the See, Felicello Aff., Exhibit A, at p. 6 (emphasis added). The Court also stated

"[a]nd I believe they have a cause of action for breach of contract. ...To the extent that the funds

contract."
were not depleted as per the See, Felicello Aff., Exhibit A, at p. 8. Therefore, under the

law of the case, the only potential breach of contract that can be stated is limited to any balance

remaining from the funds advanced for due diligence. Trojan is unable to establish that incurred

expenses were less than $150,000. The authenticated invoices submitted in support of the

TSSP's motion for summary judgment prove that the entire amount of $150,000, and in fact

more, was used for the intended purpose, as stated in the Term Sheet, i.e.to cover the costs and

fees of legal, tax, technical and other professional advisers incurred in progressing the

7 of 14
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/02/2018 06:48 PM INDEX NO. 655978/2016
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 109 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/02/2018

transaction. There is no issue of fact that TSSP used the whole amount of transferred $150,000 to

cover the costs and fees of legal, tax, technical and other professional advisers incurred in

progressing the transaction.

parties'
Plaintiff argues that itneeds to depose a third-party witness as to the intent with

regards to the pre-funded deposit and the parties as to their understanding of the Term Sheet and

parties'
its revisions. Even assuming, arguendo, that the intent and understanding of the Term

Sheet provisions are at issue, the documents that have been produced by both parties and which

have been provided to the court as evidence in support of TSSP's motion for summary judgment,

show that Trojan was both aware that the $150,000 due diligence funds were being spent and

even approved the expenses. As shown in the TSSP's motion for summary judgment, Trojan

decided to transfer $150,000 before a settlement agreement with a third-party was executed,

Trojan was on notice of the due diligence expenses, approved the expenses and was aware that

the $150,000 was being spent.

Trojan argues that "Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment argues, inter alia, that

Plaintiff has presented 'no evidence to support the interpretation (of the Term Sheet) urged by

Plaintiff that once Plaintiff transferred the funds to TSSP they were to be held in escrow until

signed.'"
and unless the Settlement Agreement was However, TSSP did not state that Trojan

presented no evidence, but rather that there is no evidence to support such Plaintiff's

interpretation. The language of the Term Sheet does not set a condition precedent to when the

funds could be used and does not impose an obligation on TSSP to hold the funds in escrow.

Even assuming, arguendo, a condition could be read into the Term Sheet, contrary to established

law that terms of an agreement should not be interpreted to impose a condition absent clear and

unambiguous language that a condition was intended, Trojan waived the condition by

8 of 14
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/02/2018 06:48 PM INDEX NO. 655978/2016
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 109 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/02/2018

transferring the funds before the settlement agreement was signed. See, Defendant's

Memorandum of Law in Support of itsMotion for Summary Judgment, NYSCEF Doc. No. 86,

at p. 2. Moreover, as indicated above and as shown by the authenticated emails submitted in

support of the TSSP's motion for summary judgment, Trojan was aware the funds ittransferred

were being used to fund costs incurred in advancing the transaction and itapproved the expenses

as they were incurred.

Trojan has also failed to provide any evidentiary basis indicating that further discovery

may reveal material and relevant evidence justifying delaying determination of the TSSP's motion

for summary judgment. "Although determination of a summary judgment motion may be delayed

to allow for further discovery where evidence necessary to oppose the motion is unavailable to the

opponent (see CPLR 3212[fj), a determination of summary judgment cannot be avoided by a

claimed need for discovery unless some evidentiary basis is offered to suggest that discovery may

evidence." (2nd
lead to relevant Lambert v. Bracco, 18 A.D.3d 619, 620, 795 N.Y.S.2d 662, 663

Dept. 2005) (internal quotations omitted) (holding that defendant did not establish that the motion

for summary judgment should have been denied pending discovery when defendant failed to

provide evidentiary basis to suggest that further discovery may lead to relevant evidence. The court

noted that defendant was present during the relevant events and could have submitted his own

affidavit); see also,Bailey v. New York City Transit Authority, 270 A.D.2d 156, 157, 704 N.Y.S.2d

(1"
582, 583, 2000 N.Y. Slip Op. 02770 Dept. 2000). "A party's mere hope that further discovery

will reveal the existence of triable issues of fact is insufficient to delay determination on the issue

judgment." (2nd
of summary Lambert v. Bracco, 18 A.D.3d 619, 620, 795 N.Y.S.2d 662, 663 Dept.

2005) (internal quotations omitted); see also, Fulton v. Allstate Ins. Co., 14 A.D.3d 380, 381, 788

N.Y.S.2d 349, 350, 2005 N.Y. Slip Op. 00203 (1st Dept. 2005). "[W]hile summary judgment may

9 of 14
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/02/2018 06:48 PM INDEX NO. 655978/2016
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 109 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/02/2018

be denied when discovery has not been completed (see CPLR 3212[fj), the nonmoving party must

evidence."
produce some evidence indicating that further discovery will yield material and relevant

(3rd
Fleischman v. Peacock Water Co., 51 A.D.3d 1203, 1205, 858 N.Y.S.2d 421, 423 Dept. 2008)

(internal quotations omitted). "When the nonmoving party opposing a motion for summary

judgment argues that additional discovery is needed ... such an argument is unavailing where the

nonmoving party has failed to produce some evidence indicating that further discovery will yield

evidence."
material and relevant Heritage Hills Soc., Ltd. v. Heritage Development Group, Inc. 56

(2nd
A.D.3d 426, 427, 867 N.Y.S.2d 149, 150 Dept. 2008) (internal quotations omitted).

parties'
Trojan states that testimony of the third-party witness concerning the intent with

regards to the pre-funded deposit will likely give rise to a triable issue of fact but fails to provide

any basis for such belief or hope. Indeed, itis hard to imagine how a third party's view of an

agreement could have any bearing on whether the contract has been breached. Nor could a

parties'
witness's testimony be better evidence than the own emails that have been submitted in

support of TSSP's motion. Trojan further states that itintends to depose the parties as to their

understanding of the Term Sheet but fails to offer any evidentiary basis suggesting this testimony

may reveal relevant and material evidence giving rise to triable issue of fact.

In support of its cross-motion for extension, Trojan relies on Cruz v. Otis Elevator Co.,

(2nd
238 A.D.2d 540 Dept. 1997). In Cruz the Appellate Division reversed the trial court's denial

of defendant's motion for summary judgment when defendant submitted sufficient evidence to

demonstrate that itdid not have control over the elevator which failure caused plaintiff to trip

and fall and when affidavit of plaintiff's expert merely contained speculative conclusions that

upon future examination of elevator and relevant records, he should be able to determine that

defendant contributed to elevator's defect, which the Appellate Division held to be insufficient to

10 of 14
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/02/2018 06:48 PM INDEX NO. 655978/2016
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 109 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/02/2018

defeat motion for summary judgment. Id at 540. The Appellate Division also rejected the

argument that summary judgment was premature because discovery had not occurred. Id. at 540.

"A party who claims ignorance of critical facts to defeat a motion for summary judgment (see,

CPLR 3212 [fj)must firstdemonstrate that the ignorance is unavoidable and that reasonable

issue."
attempts were made to discover the facts which would give rise to a triable Id. at 540. The

Appellate Division held that plaintiff failed to offer any evidence why she did not examine

elevator in question or any pertinent records and did not indicate what efforts were made to

conduct that discovery before defendant's motion. Id. at 540-541. Here Trojan fails to offer any

evidence as to why itdid not depose the third party witness or seek to compel the subpoena that

itissued to the third party. Indeed, Trojan has stillnot issued any notices to depose TSSP.

Trojan also cites to Global Mins. & Metal Corp. v. Holme, 35 A.D.3d 93, 824 N.Y.S. 2d

(1st
210 Dept. 2006). In Global, plaintiff argued that the summary judgment motion should not

have been granted because questions of fact exist as to whether defendant misrepresented

material facts. Id. at *99. The Appellate Division held that even though plaintiff may be correct

that questions of fact exist as to alleged misrepresentations, the summary judgment motion was

properly granted as the evidence establishes that plaintiff's reliance on the alleged

misrepresentations was unreasonable, and itfailed to fulfill itsduty to investigate. Id. at *99.

Even though plaintiff argued that itmade several unsuccessful attempts to depose defendants, the

Appellate Division held that the trial court properly denied plaintiff's CPLR 3212(f) request as

plaintiff failed to an essential fact which is unavailable to plaintiff. Id. at 102-
identify presently

103. Similarly, even if the parties had different understandings of the Term Sheet, the material

fact that Trojan approved the due diligence expenses, as evidenced by the documents in support

of TSSP's motion for summary judgment, is not in dispute and is dispositive: Trojan was aware

11 of 14
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/02/2018 06:48 PM INDEX NO. 655978/2016
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 109 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/02/2018

that the funds were being used for due diligence expenses and cannot now demand that the funds

be returned.

Trojan also refers to CPLR 3212(f). However, "[m]ere hope that somehow the plaintiff

will uncover evidence that will prove a case provides no basis pursuant to CPLR 3212(f) for

motion."
postponing a determination of a summary judgment Wright v. Shapiro, 16 A.D.3d

(4th
1042, 1043, 791 N.Y.S.2d 799, 800 Dept. 2005) (quoting Plotkin v. Franklin, 179 A.D.2d

(2nd
746, 746, 579 N.Y.S.2d 123 Dept., 1992)). "The opposing party must show that the

discovery sought would produce evidence sufficient to defeat the motion, and that facts essential

to oppose the motion were in the movant's exclusive knowledge and possession and could be

discovery."
obtained by Resetarits Const. Corp. v. Olmsted, 118 A.D.3d 1454, 1456, 988

â€” (4th
N.Y.S.2d 797, 798-99 Dept. 2014) (internal quotations omitted). As explained above, Trojan

fails to show that the additional evidence could be sufficient to defeat TSSP's motion for

summary judgment.

II. Trojan has failed to demonstrate that it has made reasonable attempts to

discover facts which it argues may give rise to a triable issue.

Trojan argues that Defendant's motion for summary judgment is premature because the

necessary discovery has not yet been conducted. Plaintiff has had many opportunities and.time to

conduct discovery, including depositions, and in fact did conduct discovery before the filing of the

TSSP's motion for summary judgment. As indicated above, Plaintiff served interrogatories and

document requests on Defendant to which Defendant responded. A few months later Plaintiff

served a second set of virtually identical interrogatories and document requests. It has been nine

months since Trojan's counsel first issued a subpoena to conduct a deposition of the third-party

12 of 14
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/02/2018 06:48 PM INDEX NO. 655978/2016
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 109 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/02/2018

witness that, Trojan now urges, it needs to defend against Defendant's motion for summary

judgment.

Trojan states that "reasonable attempts have been made, and are being made, to conduct

parties."
depositions of the This is not true. Trojan waited almost three weeks after being served

with TSSP's motion for summary judgment to indicate that depositions and an attendant

adjournment were necessary. And, to date, Trojan has not served any notices of deposition or taken

any steps to compel its third party deposition. See, Ingalsbe v. Chicago Ins. Co., 287 A.D.2d 939,

(3rd
940, 731 N.Y.S.2d 782, 784 Dept. 2001) (holding that the motion for summary judgment was

not premature due to the lack of discovery when plaintiff failed to avail himself of a time interval

of several months between court's first decision and defendant's motion for summary judgment

during which discovery could have been conducted and when plaintiff has failed to demonstrate

that discovery was necessary to obtain facts in the sole possession of the defendant).

The fact that Trojan did not depose defendant's representatives is not dispositive. See,

(2nd
Plotkin v. Franklin, 179 A.D.2d 746, 746, 579 N.Y.S.2d 123, 123 Dept. 1992) (rejecting

plaintiff's argument that motion for summary judgment should have been denied because

plaintiff did not depose defendant when defendant met her burden of proof on her motion for

summary judgment dismissing the action); Kennerly v. Campbell Chain Co., 133 A.D.2d 669,

(2nd
670, 519 N.Y.S.2d 839, 840 Dept. 1987) (rejecting plaintiffs argument that motion for

judgment should have been denied until plaintiff had an to conduct court-
summary opportunity

ordered depositions when defendant met itsburden of proof on her motion for summary

judgment dismissing the complaint).

13 of 14
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/02/2018 06:48 PM INDEX NO. 655978/2016
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 109 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/02/2018

CONCLUSION

For all the foregoing reasons Trojan has failed to demonstrate that good cause exists to

grant it extension pursuant to CPLR 2004. Therefore, Trojan's cross-motion should be dismissed

in itsentirety.

Dated: New York, New York

January 2, 2018

Respectfully submitted,

FELIC LO & MELCHIO A LLP

By:
Rosanne E. Felicello, Esq.
Zofia H. Rubens. Esq.
1330 Avenue of the Americas, 12th Floor
New York, NY 10019
Tel: (212) 400-6920
Attorneys for Defendant
TPG Sixth Street Partners, LLC

14 of 14

Case Info

Judge

CRANE, MELISSA Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

January 02, 2018

Case Filing Date

November 15, 2016

County

Parties

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.