Preview
HUD-L-001625-22 09/02/2022 11:07:47 AM Pg 1 of 3 Trans ID: LCV20223165529
THE WEISS GROUP, LLC
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
LEONARD D. WEISS* 344 MAIN STREET, 1ST FLOOR THAILARY ZOMMER
MEMBER NJ, NY & DC BARS METUCHEN, N.J. 08840 MEMBER NJ & NY BARS
*CERTIFIED BY THE SUPREME _________
COURT OF NEW JERSEY AS VERONICA R. MEDINA
A CIVIL TRIAL ATTORNEY
(732) 549-2515 MEMBER OF THE NJ BAR
FAX: (732) 549-9520
September 2, 2022
Via eCourts
Honorable Judge Anthony V. D’Elia, J.S.C.
Hudson County Superior Court
595 Newark Ave
Jersey City, NJ 07306
RE: GRIGORYEVA, VALENTINA VS FANTICY ACRES, ET AL
DOCKET NUMBER: HUD-L-1625-22
Dear Judge D’Elia;
This law firm represents Plaintiff Valentina Grigoryeva in this matter. Please accept the
following letter brief as Plaintiff’s reply on Plaintiff’s motion to permit Plaintiff to serve more than
10 supplemental Interrogatories pursuant to R. 4:17-7(b)(1).
Defendant’s statement that this matter is a “straightforward case” is baseless, and an
attempt to downplay the myriad of issues involved in this case. This matter involves multiple issues
under the Equine Activities statute, including: the selection of a horse for a beginner rider; the tack
used on said horse; signage/warnings required by the Equine Activities statute; the credentials of
the people providing the horseback riding lesson, and their authority to use the horse chosen for
the lesson. Clearly the issues in this case are beyond what could be considered a “straightforward
case”, and Plaintiff should be permitted to conduct discovery regarding these issues.
HUD-L-001625-22 09/02/2022 11:07:47 AM Pg 2 of 3 Trans ID: LCV20223165529
R. 4:17-7(b)(1) acknowledges that there are cases for which the standard discovery
demands are insufficient, and provides a remedy – allowing for additional interrogatories at the
discretion of the court. This case is an unusual injury claim in that it does not involve a car crash,
slip and fall, trip and fall, work site accident, elevator or escalator mishap, or other “common”
mechanism of injury that may lead to a lawsuit. Instead, this case involves equine activities – which
the legislature passed a law specifically for, providing immunity to equine activity operators under
specific conditions. If Plaintiff is denied the opportunity to submit special Interrogatories regarding
the requirements set forth by the Equine Activities statute and other issues, Plaintiff’s ability to
properly prepare her case will be significantly hampered, delayed, and subjected to further time
consuming and expensive motion practice.
The questions propounded by Plaintiff in this matter were formed with guidance from an
equine activities expert, who is expected to provide a narrative report in connection with this case.
The questions are specifically tailored to obtain relevant information that is material to the issues
in this matter.
The scope of the information required about the specific horse involved in the incident
cannot be condensed into “one or two supplemental questions” as Defendant claims. Regarding
the specific horse involved, there are specific questions about its history, training, medical
condition, veterinary records, shoe condition, temperament, how often it was ridden, whether it
had been used in lessons before, and who the owner of the horse was. Each of these are factors
that affect whether that specific horse was suitable for a beginner-level horseback riding lesson.
(See Exhibit 1 to Plaintiff’s motion, questions #8-20, 26-30, & 42-44).
There are several questions regarding the relationships between the Defendants – this is
particularly important, as it also informs the relationship between Defendant Fanticy Acres and
HUD-L-001625-22 09/02/2022 11:07:47 AM Pg 3 of 3 Trans ID: LCV20223165529
the specific horse involved in the incident. Defendant Victor Popovkin (f/p/a “Victor”) was
identified by the liability adjuster for Fanticy Acres as the owner of the horse involved in the
subject incident. There are various questions regarding the ownership and boarding of the horse,
and there are specific questions regarding whether Fanticy Acres accepted a reduced fee for
boarding the horse in exchange for the facility being permitted to use the horse for lessons, or
whether the horse was leased to Fanticy Acres for any reason. (See Exhibit 1 to Plaintiff’s motion,
questions #21-23, 30, 50, & 52-61). There are also various questions regarding the relationship
between Fanticy Acres and Defendant Katrina Drazdova, including whether she was employed by
Fanticy Acres as a horse riding instructor. (See Exhibit 1 to Plaintiff’s motion, questions #50, 51,
63, 65-69, 81, & 84-88).
There are also several questions dealing with the Equine Activities statute, including
regarding the tack used, whether specific signage required under the Equine Activities statute was
properly posted, whether Defendant properly matched the horse with Plaintiff, and where exactly
on Fanticy Acres’ property the incident occurred. (See Exhibit 1 to Plaintiff’s motion, questions
# 47-49, 89, 90, 100-113, & 118).
Clearly, the issues in this case exceed the discovery provided for by Form Interrogatories.
The discovery sought is not just relevant, but essential in properly preparing this case. It is for the
foregoing reasons and the reasons set forth in Plaintiff’s motion papers that Plaintiff’s motion to
serve more than 10 supplemental Interrogatories pursuant to R. 4:17-7(b)(1) should be granted in
full.
Respectfully Submitted,
/s/Leonard D. Weiss
LEONARD D. WEISS
LDW/ag
Preview
HUD-L-001625-22 09/02/2022 11:07:47 AM Pg 1 of 3 Trans ID: LCV20223165529 THE WEISS GROUP, LLC ATTORNEYS AT LAW LEONARD D. WEISS* 344 MAIN STREET, 1ST FLOOR THAILARY ZOMMER MEMBER NJ, NY & DC BARS METUCHEN, N.J. 08840 MEMBER NJ & NY BARS *CERTIFIED BY THE SUPREME _________ COURT OF NEW JERSEY AS VERONICA R. MEDINA A CIVIL TRIAL ATTORNEY (732) 549-2515 MEMBER OF THE NJ BAR FAX: (732) 549-9520 September 2, 2022 Via eCourts Honorable Judge Anthony V. D’Elia, J.S.C. Hudson County Superior Court 595 Newark Ave Jersey City, NJ 07306 RE: GRIGORYEVA, VALENTINA VS FANTICY ACRES, ET AL DOCKET NUMBER: HUD-L-1625-22 Dear Judge D’Elia; This law firm represents Plaintiff Valentina Grigoryeva in this matter. Please accept the following letter brief as Plaintiff’s reply on Plaintiff’s motion to permit Plaintiff to serve more than 10 supplemental Interrogatories pursuant to R. 4:17-7(b)(1). Defendant’s statement that this matter is a “straightforward case” is baseless, and an attempt to downplay the myriad of issues involved in this case. This matter involves multiple issues under the Equine Activities statute, including: the selection of a horse for a beginner rider; the tack used on said horse; signage/warnings required by the Equine Activities statute; the credentials of the people providing the horseback riding lesson, and their authority to use the horse chosen for the lesson. Clearly the issues in this case are beyond what could be considered a “straightforward case”, and Plaintiff should be permitted to conduct discovery regarding these issues. HUD-L-001625-22 09/02/2022 11:07:47 AM Pg 2 of 3 Trans ID: LCV20223165529 R. 4:17-7(b)(1) acknowledges that there are cases for which the standard discovery demands are insufficient, and provides a remedy – allowing for additional interrogatories at the discretion of the court. This case is an unusual injury claim in that it does not involve a car crash, slip and fall, trip and fall, work site accident, elevator or escalator mishap, or other “common” mechanism of injury that may lead to a lawsuit. Instead, this case involves equine activities – which the legislature passed a law specifically for, providing immunity to equine activity operators under specific conditions. If Plaintiff is denied the opportunity to submit special Interrogatories regarding the requirements set forth by the Equine Activities statute and other issues, Plaintiff’s ability to properly prepare her case will be significantly hampered, delayed, and subjected to further time consuming and expensive motion practice. The questions propounded by Plaintiff in this matter were formed with guidance from an equine activities expert, who is expected to provide a narrative report in connection with this case. The questions are specifically tailored to obtain relevant information that is material to the issues in this matter. The scope of the information required about the specific horse involved in the incident cannot be condensed into “one or two supplemental questions” as Defendant claims. Regarding the specific horse involved, there are specific questions about its history, training, medical condition, veterinary records, shoe condition, temperament, how often it was ridden, whether it had been used in lessons before, and who the owner of the horse was. Each of these are factors that affect whether that specific horse was suitable for a beginner-level horseback riding lesson. (See Exhibit 1 to Plaintiff’s motion, questions #8-20, 26-30, & 42-44). There are several questions regarding the relationships between the Defendants – this is particularly important, as it also informs the relationship between Defendant Fanticy Acres and HUD-L-001625-22 09/02/2022 11:07:47 AM Pg 3 of 3 Trans ID: LCV20223165529 the specific horse involved in the incident. Defendant Victor Popovkin (f/p/a “Victor”) was identified by the liability adjuster for Fanticy Acres as the owner of the horse involved in the subject incident. There are various questions regarding the ownership and boarding of the horse, and there are specific questions regarding whether Fanticy Acres accepted a reduced fee for boarding the horse in exchange for the facility being permitted to use the horse for lessons, or whether the horse was leased to Fanticy Acres for any reason. (See Exhibit 1 to Plaintiff’s motion, questions #21-23, 30, 50, & 52-61). There are also various questions regarding the relationship between Fanticy Acres and Defendant Katrina Drazdova, including whether she was employed by Fanticy Acres as a horse riding instructor. (See Exhibit 1 to Plaintiff’s motion, questions #50, 51, 63, 65-69, 81, & 84-88). There are also several questions dealing with the Equine Activities statute, including regarding the tack used, whether specific signage required under the Equine Activities statute was properly posted, whether Defendant properly matched the horse with Plaintiff, and where exactly on Fanticy Acres’ property the incident occurred. (See Exhibit 1 to Plaintiff’s motion, questions # 47-49, 89, 90, 100-113, & 118). Clearly, the issues in this case exceed the discovery provided for by Form Interrogatories. The discovery sought is not just relevant, but essential in properly preparing this case. It is for the foregoing reasons and the reasons set forth in Plaintiff’s motion papers that Plaintiff’s motion to serve more than 10 supplemental Interrogatories pursuant to R. 4:17-7(b)(1) should be granted in full. Respectfully Submitted, /s/Leonard D. Weiss LEONARD D. WEISS LDW/ag