Preview
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 10/06/2023 11:54 AM INDEX NO. 532721/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 96 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/06/2023
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF KINGS
-------------------------------------------------------------- X
CAROLINE RULLAN,
RESPONSE TO
Plaintiff, COMPLIANCE
CONERENCE ORDER
-against-
Index No.: 532721/2021
ITA SHIMON AND JACOB SHIMON,
Defendants.
-------------------------------------------------------------- X
ITA SHIMON AND JACOB SHIMON,
Third-Party Plaintiffs,
-against-
CITYSCAPE BUILDERS, LLC
Third-Party Defendant.
------------------------------------------------------------- -- X
ITA SHIMON AND JACOB SHIMON
Second Third-Party Plaintiffs,
-against-
MEYER FRANK and ESTHER FEIGA FRANK
Second Third-Party Defendants.
---------------------------------------------------------------X
The Defendants/ Third-Party Plaintiffs/ Second Third-Party Plaintiffs, ITA SHIMON and
JACOB SHIMON (“Answering Defendants”), as and for their response to the Compliance Conference
Order dated September 28, 2023, sets forth upon information and belief, as follows:
1 of 5
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 10/06/2023 11:54 AM INDEX NO. 532721/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 96 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/06/2023
GENERAL OBJECTIONS
Answering Defendants object to Plaintiff’s demands for the production of documents on the
following general grounds. All applicable general objections are also included among Answering
Defendants’ specific objections to each of Plaintiff’s demands for the production of documents as is
fully set forth therein.
A. The demand seeks information that is irrelevant, immaterial, and not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
B. The demand is overly broad and unduly burdensome.
C. The demand is vague, ambiguous, and/or lacking sufficient particularity to the extent
that the Answering Defendants cannot understand what information and/or materials Plaintiff are
seeking and are unable to formulate a responsive answer.
D. The demand is not reasonably limited in time or seeks the disclosure of information
outside the time period relevant to the present litigation.
E. The demand seeks the disclosure of information or materials that concern individuals
who are not parties to this action. Disclosure of this information or materials violates the privacy
interests of, or prejudices, those individuals unless an appropriate Order of the Court protecting the
confidentiality of said information is in place.
F. The demand seeks the disclosure of information that is protected from disclosure under
the attorney-client privilege, the work-product doctrine, and/or any other applicable privilege or
protection. Inadvertent identification or production of any such information shall not constitute a
waiver of any privilege with respect to the subject matter thereof and shall not waive the right of the
Answering Defendants to object to the use of any such information during any subsequent proceeding.
2
2 of 5
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 10/06/2023 11:54 AM INDEX NO. 532721/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 96 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/06/2023
G. The demand seeks the disclosure of information already known or available to Plaintiff
or information more readily obtainable by Plaintiff without subjecting Plaintiff to unreasonable burden
and expense.
H. The demand is duplicative and cumulative of other demands or interrogatories.
I. The demand exceeds the permissible scope of demand requests as set forth by the CPLR.
RESPONSES
1. Demand for information regarding the construction done at Plaintiff’s residence,
including on the stairs and entrance way to Plaintiff’s apartment, including all construction
contracts, names and addresses of contractor, receipts, invoices, photographs, drawings, and
including the name and contact information for the contractor.
RESPONSE: Answering Defendants object to this demand on the grounds that it is vague,
overly broad, unduly burdensome, and to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary, and privileged
information, as well as information that is outside the scope of Article 31 and not reasonably calculated
to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving the aforementioned objections,
Answering Defendants are not in possession of any construction contracts, names, addresses, invoices,
photographs, drawings, or contact information responsive to this demand.
2. Demand for a response to Plaintiff’s Combined Demands dated March 3, 2022,
January 5, 2023, and February 9, 2023.
RESPONSE: Answering Defendants object to this demand to the extent that responses to
Plaintiff’s discovery demands dated March 3, 2022 were previously served on or about September
16, 2022. Notwithstanding the aforementioned objections, a courtesy copy of the Answering
Defendants’ responses to Plaintiff’s discovery demands dated March 3, 2022 are enclosed herein
as Exhibit A.
3
3 of 5
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 10/06/2023 11:54 AM INDEX NO. 532721/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 96 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/06/2023
Answering Defendants further object to this demand, as Defendants are not in receipt of any
Combined Demands dated January 5, 2023.
Answering Defendants further object to this demand to the extent that responses to
Plaintiff’s discovery demands dated February 9, 2023 were previously served on or about July 19,
2023. Notwithstanding the aforementioned objections, a courtesy copy of the Answering
Defendants’ responses to Plaintiff’s discovery demands dated February 9, 2023 are annexed hereto
as Exhibit B.
Dated: Harrison, New York
October 6, 2023
/ sGabriellaM anganiello
GABRIELLA MANGANIELLO
GORDON & REES, LLP
Attorneys for Defendants/ Third-Party Plaintiffs/Second-
Third-Party Plaintiffs
ITA SHIMON and JACOB SHIMON
500 Mamaroneck Avenue, Suite 503
Harrison, NY 10528
Email: gmanganiello@grsm.com
4
4 of 5
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 10/06/2023 11:54 AM INDEX NO. 532721/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 96 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/06/2023
AFFIRMATION OF SERVICE
GABRIELLA MANGANIELLO, an attorney duly admitted to practice law before the Courts
of the State of New York, affirms the truth of the following, under the penalties of perjury: I am not a
party to this action, am over 18 years of age and reside in Westchester County, in the State of New
York.
On October 6, 2023, I had a member of my firm’s administrative staff serve the within
RESPONSE TO COMPLIANCE CONFERENCE ORDER, upon the parties herein stated below,
by uploading a copy to the NYSCEF system:
TO:
MICHAEL M. GOLDBERG
Attorneys for Plaintiff
CAROLINE RULLAN
265 Sunrise Highway, Suite 32
Rockville Centre, New York 11570
(212) 481-0011
HANNUM FERETIC PRENDERGAST & MERLINO, LLC
Attorney for Defendant/ Third-Party Defendant
CITYSCAPE BUILDERS, LLC
55 Broadway, Suite 202
New York, NY 10006
(212) 530-3900
HARRIS BEACH PLLC
Attorney for Defendants/Second Third-Party Defendants
MEYER FRANK and ESTHER FEIGA FRANK
100 Wall Street, 23rd Floor
New York, NY 10005
(212) 687-0100
/ sGabriellaM anganiello
GABRIELLA MANGANIELLO
5 of 5
Preview
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 10/06/2023 11:54 AM INDEX NO. 532721/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 96 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/06/2023 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS -------------------------------------------------------------- X CAROLINE RULLAN, RESPONSE TO Plaintiff, COMPLIANCE CONERENCE ORDER -against- Index No.: 532721/2021 ITA SHIMON AND JACOB SHIMON, Defendants. -------------------------------------------------------------- X ITA SHIMON AND JACOB SHIMON, Third-Party Plaintiffs, -against- CITYSCAPE BUILDERS, LLC Third-Party Defendant. ------------------------------------------------------------- -- X ITA SHIMON AND JACOB SHIMON Second Third-Party Plaintiffs, -against- MEYER FRANK and ESTHER FEIGA FRANK Second Third-Party Defendants. ---------------------------------------------------------------X The Defendants/ Third-Party Plaintiffs/ Second Third-Party Plaintiffs, ITA SHIMON and JACOB SHIMON (“Answering Defendants”), as and for their response to the Compliance Conference Order dated September 28, 2023, sets forth upon information and belief, as follows: 1 of 5 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 10/06/2023 11:54 AM INDEX NO. 532721/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 96 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/06/2023 GENERAL OBJECTIONS Answering Defendants object to Plaintiff’s demands for the production of documents on the following general grounds. All applicable general objections are also included among Answering Defendants’ specific objections to each of Plaintiff’s demands for the production of documents as is fully set forth therein. A. The demand seeks information that is irrelevant, immaterial, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. B. The demand is overly broad and unduly burdensome. C. The demand is vague, ambiguous, and/or lacking sufficient particularity to the extent that the Answering Defendants cannot understand what information and/or materials Plaintiff are seeking and are unable to formulate a responsive answer. D. The demand is not reasonably limited in time or seeks the disclosure of information outside the time period relevant to the present litigation. E. The demand seeks the disclosure of information or materials that concern individuals who are not parties to this action. Disclosure of this information or materials violates the privacy interests of, or prejudices, those individuals unless an appropriate Order of the Court protecting the confidentiality of said information is in place. F. The demand seeks the disclosure of information that is protected from disclosure under the attorney-client privilege, the work-product doctrine, and/or any other applicable privilege or protection. Inadvertent identification or production of any such information shall not constitute a waiver of any privilege with respect to the subject matter thereof and shall not waive the right of the Answering Defendants to object to the use of any such information during any subsequent proceeding. 2 2 of 5 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 10/06/2023 11:54 AM INDEX NO. 532721/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 96 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/06/2023 G. The demand seeks the disclosure of information already known or available to Plaintiff or information more readily obtainable by Plaintiff without subjecting Plaintiff to unreasonable burden and expense. H. The demand is duplicative and cumulative of other demands or interrogatories. I. The demand exceeds the permissible scope of demand requests as set forth by the CPLR. RESPONSES 1. Demand for information regarding the construction done at Plaintiff’s residence, including on the stairs and entrance way to Plaintiff’s apartment, including all construction contracts, names and addresses of contractor, receipts, invoices, photographs, drawings, and including the name and contact information for the contractor. RESPONSE: Answering Defendants object to this demand on the grounds that it is vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome, and to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary, and privileged information, as well as information that is outside the scope of Article 31 and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving the aforementioned objections, Answering Defendants are not in possession of any construction contracts, names, addresses, invoices, photographs, drawings, or contact information responsive to this demand. 2. Demand for a response to Plaintiff’s Combined Demands dated March 3, 2022, January 5, 2023, and February 9, 2023. RESPONSE: Answering Defendants object to this demand to the extent that responses to Plaintiff’s discovery demands dated March 3, 2022 were previously served on or about September 16, 2022. Notwithstanding the aforementioned objections, a courtesy copy of the Answering Defendants’ responses to Plaintiff’s discovery demands dated March 3, 2022 are enclosed herein as Exhibit A. 3 3 of 5 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 10/06/2023 11:54 AM INDEX NO. 532721/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 96 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/06/2023 Answering Defendants further object to this demand, as Defendants are not in receipt of any Combined Demands dated January 5, 2023. Answering Defendants further object to this demand to the extent that responses to Plaintiff’s discovery demands dated February 9, 2023 were previously served on or about July 19, 2023. Notwithstanding the aforementioned objections, a courtesy copy of the Answering Defendants’ responses to Plaintiff’s discovery demands dated February 9, 2023 are annexed hereto as Exhibit B. Dated: Harrison, New York October 6, 2023 / sGabriellaM anganiello GABRIELLA MANGANIELLO GORDON & REES, LLP Attorneys for Defendants/ Third-Party Plaintiffs/Second- Third-Party Plaintiffs ITA SHIMON and JACOB SHIMON 500 Mamaroneck Avenue, Suite 503 Harrison, NY 10528 Email: gmanganiello@grsm.com 4 4 of 5 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 10/06/2023 11:54 AM INDEX NO. 532721/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 96 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/06/2023 AFFIRMATION OF SERVICE GABRIELLA MANGANIELLO, an attorney duly admitted to practice law before the Courts of the State of New York, affirms the truth of the following, under the penalties of perjury: I am not a party to this action, am over 18 years of age and reside in Westchester County, in the State of New York. On October 6, 2023, I had a member of my firm’s administrative staff serve the within RESPONSE TO COMPLIANCE CONFERENCE ORDER, upon the parties herein stated below, by uploading a copy to the NYSCEF system: TO: MICHAEL M. GOLDBERG Attorneys for Plaintiff CAROLINE RULLAN 265 Sunrise Highway, Suite 32 Rockville Centre, New York 11570 (212) 481-0011 HANNUM FERETIC PRENDERGAST & MERLINO, LLC Attorney for Defendant/ Third-Party Defendant CITYSCAPE BUILDERS, LLC 55 Broadway, Suite 202 New York, NY 10006 (212) 530-3900 HARRIS BEACH PLLC Attorney for Defendants/Second Third-Party Defendants MEYER FRANK and ESTHER FEIGA FRANK 100 Wall Street, 23rd Floor New York, NY 10005 (212) 687-0100 / sGabriellaM anganiello GABRIELLA MANGANIELLO 5 of 5