On September 03, 2021 a
Letter,Correspondence
was filed
involving a dispute between
The Avanza Group, Llc,
and
Ballard Investments Inc. D B A Ballard Investments Inc.,
Investment Management Group, Llc, D B A Investment Management Group, Llc,
Ralph Lewis Ballard Iii,
for Other Matters - Contract - Other
in the District Court of Nassau County.
Preview
February 17, 2022
TO: VIA NYSCEF
Hon. Denise Sher
Supreme Court of the State of New York
County of Nassau
100 Supreme Court Drive
Mineola New York 11501
RE: The Avanza Group LLC v Investment Management Group LLC et al
Index No. 611469/2021
This firm represents The Avanza Group LLC (Avanza) in the aforementioned action. We
respectfully submit this correspondence to inform the court of a recent First Department Appellate Division
Decision and Order in the matter The Avanza Group LLC v Elite Material LLC Case No. 2022-00136, a
copy of which is annexed hereto as Exhibit A.
By way of brief background, counsel for Defendants herein, represents Defendants’ related parties
in Elite Materials and made an identical application to the Supreme Court of New York, New York County
seeking identical relief. After the Supreme Court denied the interim relief sought by the Defendants in Elite
Material the Defendants sought relief pursuant to CPLR 5704 with the Appellate Division First Department.
The First Department, after reviewing the Defendants Application, and the Plaintiff’s opposition
thereto, which is nearly identical to the opposition submitted on the underlying motion, denied the motion
in its entirety.
The Defendants specifically sought the following interim relief: “ORDERED that sufficient cause
appearing therefor, pending a hearing of this application (a) The Judgment is hereby VACATED…” The
Appellative Division specifically denied the application to vacate the Judgment after a review of the
submission on behalf of the Defendants and the Plaintiff’s opposition thereto.
It is therefore respectfully submitted that the Decision by the Appellate Division on a nearly
identical application on identical issues should be binding on this court, or at the very least persuasive in
the court’s deliberation with respect to the Motion.
Accordingly, we request that the court deny the Defendants motion in its entirety, in accordance
with the decision from the Appellate Division First Department.
We thank the court for their time and consideration in this matter. Should you have any comments
or questions please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned.
Sincerely,
Ariel Bouskila, Esq.
212-729-1477x301
ari@bblawpllc.com
Document Filed Date
February 17, 2022
Case Filing Date
September 03, 2021
Category
Other Matters - Contract - Other
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
February 17, 2022 TO: VIA NYSCEF Hon. Denise Sher Supreme Court of the State of New York County of Nassau 100 Supreme Court Drive Mineola New York 11501 RE: The Avanza Group LLC v Investment Management Group LLC et al Index No. 611469/2021 This firm represents The Avanza Group LLC (Avanza) in the aforementioned action. We respectfully submit this correspondence to inform the court of a recent First Department Appellate Division Decision and Order in the matter The Avanza Group LLC v Elite Material LLC Case No. 2022-00136, a copy of which is annexed hereto as Exhibit A. By way of brief background, counsel for Defendants herein, represents Defendants’ related parties in Elite Materials and made an identical application to the Supreme Court of New York, New York County seeking identical relief. After the Supreme Court denied the interim relief sought by the Defendants in Elite Material the Defendants sought relief pursuant to CPLR 5704 with the Appellate Division First Department. The First Department, after reviewing the Defendants Application, and the Plaintiff’s opposition thereto, which is nearly identical to the opposition submitted on the underlying motion, denied the motion in its entirety. The Defendants specifically sought the following interim relief: “ORDERED that sufficient cause appearing therefor, pending a hearing of this application (a) The Judgment is hereby VACATED…” The Appellative Division specifically denied the application to vacate the Judgment after a review of the submission on behalf of the Defendants and the Plaintiff’s opposition thereto. It is therefore respectfully submitted that the Decision by the Appellate Division on a nearly identical application on identical issues should be binding on this court, or at the very least persuasive in the court’s deliberation with respect to the Motion. Accordingly, we request that the court deny the Defendants motion in its entirety, in accordance with the decision from the Appellate Division First Department. We thank the court for their time and consideration in this matter. Should you have any comments or questions please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Sincerely, Ariel Bouskila, Esq. 212-729-1477x301 ari@bblawpllc.com