Letter,Correspondence: Marcus Abrams, Clearwater Ventures, Inc., Lisa Abrams, Lisa Abrams in her capacity as Trustee for the Lisa Marie Abrams Revocable Trust v. Russell Abrams, Russellcar Inversora, S.A., Crosstax, S.A., Taxcorp, S.A., Carcorp, S.A., Russellcar S.R.L., Aracar Group Holdings Corp., Aracar Financiera, S.A., Aracar Servicios, S.A., Aracar Group Spv I Llc, Aracar Group Spv Ii Llc

• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                THE LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL A. SINGER PLLC
                               630 THIRD AVENUE, 18TH FLOOR
                                NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10017
                                     TEL: (212) 569-7853


                                             February 15, 2023
By NYSCEF
Judge Joel M. Cohen
Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York
60 Centre Street
New York, New York

`
                                             Re:      Abrams v. Abrams.
                                                      Index No. 654992/2022

Dear Judge Cohen:

         We are the attorneys for Respondents in the above-referenced matter.

        I am writing to request an extension of time to respond to Petitioners’ petition to confirm
the arbitration award to February 24, 2023. The current deadline is February 17, 2023.
Respondents partially consent to this request for an extension and agree to extend the deadline to
February 21, 2023. As set forth below, it is respectfully submitted that an extension to February
24, 2023 is necessary.

        This s my second request for an extension on behalf of Respondents 1. The reason for the
request is that there have been unanticipated delays in gathering and obtaining the documents
pertaining to the underlying arbitration. Unfortunately, the electronic docket maintained the
American Arbitration Association (“AAA”) is not as well organized and is not as complete as the
docket maintained by the New York State Supreme Court. Since my retention in this matter, I
have been vigorously engaged in organizing and obtaining the underlying documents from the
the arbitration so that Respondents can properly oppose the confirmation of the arbitration
award. Among other things, this has involved extensive communication with the AAA, prior
counsel, and, finally opposing counsel. As of today (02/15), this organization/gathering process
appears to have been finally completed with my receiving what I believe is the final hearing
exhibit from Petitioners this afternoon.

        Given that Respondents have only just now obtained what appear to be a complete set of
the pertinent underlying documents in this matter, it is respectfully submitted that it is not
feasible to oppose confirmation by 02/17/23. While we are appreciative of Petitioners consenting
to extend the deadline to 02/21/23, it is respectfully submitted that such extension is not

1
 It is my understanding that a prior request had been made by Respondents pro se . prior to my retention in his
matter.
sufficient. It s respectfully submitted that Petitioners will not be prejudiced in the least by this 7
day extension (a mere 3 more days than what they have already consented to).

           In previous correspondence, I brought to the Court’s attention that Petitioners never
effectuated service of process on Respondents, the legal prerequisite for the accrual of any
deadline to respond. As previously set forth, an application to confirm an arbitration award
constitutes a special proceeding and service must be effectuated in the same manner as service of
a summons. See CPLR 403 and McKinney’s Commentary to CPLR 7510. As previously set
forth. it is abundantly clear that Petitioners never had any intention of attempting to effectuate
service on Respondents as this action was only commenced on December 23, 2022 with a return
date of January 4, 2023, clearly not providing sufficient time for service on the plethora of
Respondents. As previously indicated, Respondents would prefer to obviate the issue of service.
Respondents are bringing this to the Court’s attention, however, so a to highlight the fact that if
Petitioners had set a return date that would have allotted time for effective service of process on
the multiple Respondents, it is unlikely that Respondents would have had to make multiple
requests for “extensions” 2.

         I thank the Court for its attention to this matter,


                                             Respectfully submitted,


                                             Daniel A. Singer




2
 On February 8, 2023, Petitioners’ Counsel filed a purported affirmation of service (dkt no 12) regarding Petitioner’s
application to confirm the arbitration award. While he purports to have effectuated service on Respondents’ prior
counsel by email same does not constitute proper service under the CPLR (and, moreover, it is my understanding in
speaking to prior counsel that there was never any consent to accept email service on behalf of Respondents).
Petitioners’ counsel also purports to have effectuated service of process on Respondent Russell Abrams during a
court proceeding on February 3, 2023 Even assuming, arguendo, that same constitutes proper service of process on
Respondent Russell Abrams, there is no indication that service of process has ever been made on the other
Respondents and it is my understanding that no such service has been effectuated.