Preview
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 11/18/2023 07:43 PM INDEX NO. 521498/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 5 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/18/2023
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF KINGS
-----------------------------------------------------------------X
YEVGENY LEVIN, Index No. 521498/2023
Plaintiff, Motion Sequence No. 001
- against - AFFIRMATION OF CORY H.
MORRIS, ESQ. PURSUANT TO
RICHARD W. YOUNG CPLR 2217(B) AND UNIFORM
RULES 202.7(F) AND 130-1.1
Defendant.
------------------------------------------------------------------X
CORY H. MORRIS, an attorney duly admitted to practice in the
Courts of the State of New York, affirms under penalty of perjury and
pursuant to CPLR § 2106 as follows:
1. I am the attorney of record for all Defendants and the managing
attorney of The Law Offices of Cory H. Morris, Cory H. Morris, P.C. I
represent fellow attorney-Defendant Richard W. Young who is sued for filing
an affirmation in the Suffolk County Supreme Court. NYSCEF Doc. No. 2.
2. I submit this Affirmation to explain Defendant’s choice to
proceed by order to show cause, rather than by notice of motion, in their Anti-
SLAPP motion, and to ask the Court to set a relatively short return date that
reflects the “preference” such motions receive under the CPLR.
3. I previously sent an electronic mailing of this application,
inclusive of all attachments, to the Plaintiff prior to filing this proposed
Order to Show Cause for, inter alia, dismissal and attorney’s fees.
1 of 5
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 11/18/2023 07:43 PM INDEX NO. 521498/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 5 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/18/2023
4. This is a SLAPP lawsuit – Plaintiff’s law firm brought an action
against Defendant, who is speaking in his capacity as an attorney, explicitly
to chill future speech and his representation of his client.
5. This defamation lawsuit has no basis in law or extension in law,
see Zeitlin v Cohan, 2023 NY Slip Op 5484 (1st Dep’t. 2023), to except it.
6. As there is no basis in law or fact for this lawsuit, statements
made by an attorney in a litigation (NYSCEF Doc. No. 2) are absolutely
privileged and have been so for over a century, Front, Inc. v Khalil, 24 NY3d
713, 718 (2015) (citing Youmans v Smith, 153 NY 214 (1897)), this
application for relief by Order to Show Cause became necessary:
7. In hearing motions, like this one, made under CPLR §§ 3211(g)
and 3212(h), courts “shall grant preference in the hearing of [the] motion.”
CPLR §§ 3211(g)(1); 3212(h). This is not a Temporary Restraining Order
request pursuant to CPLR §§ 6301, 6312, and 6313.
8. Therefore, I make the following Affirmation: (i) pursuant to
CPLR 2217(b), to confirm that there have been no prior motions or
proceedings in this matter; (ii) pursuant to Uniform Rule 202.7(f) (22
N.Y.C.R.R. § 202-7(f)), to state that Plaintiffs have notice of this and this is
not a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order request; and
(iii) pursuant to Uniform Rule of the Chief Administrator 130-1.1-a (22
N.Y.C.R.R. § 130-1.1 and 130-1.1a), to certify that.
9. I adopt the accompanying memorandum of law fully herein.
2
2 of 5
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 11/18/2023 07:43 PM INDEX NO. 521498/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 5 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/18/2023
10. While this is a level below the super-priority given to election
matters (see 22 NYCRR §202.64 (“preference over all other business of the
part to which it is assigned or before the judge to whom it is assigned”)) —
election matters typically get heard in a matter of days or weeks at the most
— it is still entitled to preference over non- “preference” matters.
11. That is, it still uses the same work (“preference”) and a
mandatory “shall.”
12. After conferring with my colleagues, experience has proven —
perhaps because the Anti-SLAPP law is still relatively new — that
proceeding by notice of motion, even where I have marked the motion as a
“preference” motion, results in return dates often with some significant delay,
such as this instant matter where the Order to Show Cause was rejected.
13. My Colleague, J. REMY GREEN, ESQ., informs me of
instruction by some Chambers that the only way to make a preference
motion — perhaps drawing by analogy from the fact that most election cases
are special actions initiated by order to show case — is by order to show cause
with a request to set a relatively short hearing date.
14. Given that, I am making this short affirmation and Defendant is
moving by Order to Show Cause, and we ask the Court to set a relatively
short hearing date on Defendant’s motion.
15. Further, I hereby certify that pursuant to 22 N.Y.C.R.R. §§ 130-
1.1 and 130-1.1-a that, to the best of my knowledge, information and belief,
3
3 of 5
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 11/18/2023 07:43 PM INDEX NO. 521498/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 5 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/18/2023
formed after a reasonable inquiry under the circumstances, the following
papers listed below or the contentions therein are not frivolous as defined in
22 N.Y.C.R.R. § 130-1.1(c).
16. Lastly, pursuant to CPLR 2217(b), Defendants have not
previously sought the relief sought by this order to show cause and there
have been no prior motions or proceedings in this matter.
Dated: Suffolk, New York
November 17, 2023
/s/
___________________
CORY H. MORRIS
CORY H. MORRIS, P.C.
Attorneys for Defendant
863 Isip Avenue
Central Islip, New York 11722
VICTOR JOHN YANNACONE, JR.
Of Counsel
4
4 of 5
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 11/18/2023 07:43 PM INDEX NO. 521498/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 5 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/18/2023
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 22 NYCRR § 202.8-b
I, Cory H. Morris, an attorney duly admitted to practice law
before the courts of the State of New York, hereby certifies that this
Affirmation complies with the word count limit set forth in 22 NYCRR § 202.8-
b(c) and contains 728 words, excluding the parts exempted by § 202.8b(b).
Dated: Suffolk, New York
November 17, 2023
/s/
___________________
CORY H. MORRIS
CORY H. MORRIS, P.C.
Attorneys for Defendant
863 Isip Avenue
Central Islip, New York 11722
5
5 of 5
Preview
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 11/18/2023 07:43 PM INDEX NO. 521498/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 5 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/18/2023 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS -----------------------------------------------------------------X YEVGENY LEVIN, Index No. 521498/2023 Plaintiff, Motion Sequence No. 001 - against - AFFIRMATION OF CORY H. MORRIS, ESQ. PURSUANT TO RICHARD W. YOUNG CPLR 2217(B) AND UNIFORM RULES 202.7(F) AND 130-1.1 Defendant. ------------------------------------------------------------------X CORY H. MORRIS, an attorney duly admitted to practice in the Courts of the State of New York, affirms under penalty of perjury and pursuant to CPLR § 2106 as follows: 1. I am the attorney of record for all Defendants and the managing attorney of The Law Offices of Cory H. Morris, Cory H. Morris, P.C. I represent fellow attorney-Defendant Richard W. Young who is sued for filing an affirmation in the Suffolk County Supreme Court. NYSCEF Doc. No. 2. 2. I submit this Affirmation to explain Defendant’s choice to proceed by order to show cause, rather than by notice of motion, in their Anti- SLAPP motion, and to ask the Court to set a relatively short return date that reflects the “preference” such motions receive under the CPLR. 3. I previously sent an electronic mailing of this application, inclusive of all attachments, to the Plaintiff prior to filing this proposed Order to Show Cause for, inter alia, dismissal and attorney’s fees. 1 of 5 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 11/18/2023 07:43 PM INDEX NO. 521498/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 5 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/18/2023 4. This is a SLAPP lawsuit – Plaintiff’s law firm brought an action against Defendant, who is speaking in his capacity as an attorney, explicitly to chill future speech and his representation of his client. 5. This defamation lawsuit has no basis in law or extension in law, see Zeitlin v Cohan, 2023 NY Slip Op 5484 (1st Dep’t. 2023), to except it. 6. As there is no basis in law or fact for this lawsuit, statements made by an attorney in a litigation (NYSCEF Doc. No. 2) are absolutely privileged and have been so for over a century, Front, Inc. v Khalil, 24 NY3d 713, 718 (2015) (citing Youmans v Smith, 153 NY 214 (1897)), this application for relief by Order to Show Cause became necessary: 7. In hearing motions, like this one, made under CPLR §§ 3211(g) and 3212(h), courts “shall grant preference in the hearing of [the] motion.” CPLR §§ 3211(g)(1); 3212(h). This is not a Temporary Restraining Order request pursuant to CPLR §§ 6301, 6312, and 6313. 8. Therefore, I make the following Affirmation: (i) pursuant to CPLR 2217(b), to confirm that there have been no prior motions or proceedings in this matter; (ii) pursuant to Uniform Rule 202.7(f) (22 N.Y.C.R.R. § 202-7(f)), to state that Plaintiffs have notice of this and this is not a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order request; and (iii) pursuant to Uniform Rule of the Chief Administrator 130-1.1-a (22 N.Y.C.R.R. § 130-1.1 and 130-1.1a), to certify that. 9. I adopt the accompanying memorandum of law fully herein. 2 2 of 5 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 11/18/2023 07:43 PM INDEX NO. 521498/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 5 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/18/2023 10. While this is a level below the super-priority given to election matters (see 22 NYCRR §202.64 (“preference over all other business of the part to which it is assigned or before the judge to whom it is assigned”)) — election matters typically get heard in a matter of days or weeks at the most — it is still entitled to preference over non- “preference” matters. 11. That is, it still uses the same work (“preference”) and a mandatory “shall.” 12. After conferring with my colleagues, experience has proven — perhaps because the Anti-SLAPP law is still relatively new — that proceeding by notice of motion, even where I have marked the motion as a “preference” motion, results in return dates often with some significant delay, such as this instant matter where the Order to Show Cause was rejected. 13. My Colleague, J. REMY GREEN, ESQ., informs me of instruction by some Chambers that the only way to make a preference motion — perhaps drawing by analogy from the fact that most election cases are special actions initiated by order to show case — is by order to show cause with a request to set a relatively short hearing date. 14. Given that, I am making this short affirmation and Defendant is moving by Order to Show Cause, and we ask the Court to set a relatively short hearing date on Defendant’s motion. 15. Further, I hereby certify that pursuant to 22 N.Y.C.R.R. §§ 130- 1.1 and 130-1.1-a that, to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, 3 3 of 5 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 11/18/2023 07:43 PM INDEX NO. 521498/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 5 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/18/2023 formed after a reasonable inquiry under the circumstances, the following papers listed below or the contentions therein are not frivolous as defined in 22 N.Y.C.R.R. § 130-1.1(c). 16. Lastly, pursuant to CPLR 2217(b), Defendants have not previously sought the relief sought by this order to show cause and there have been no prior motions or proceedings in this matter. Dated: Suffolk, New York November 17, 2023 /s/ ___________________ CORY H. MORRIS CORY H. MORRIS, P.C. Attorneys for Defendant 863 Isip Avenue Central Islip, New York 11722 VICTOR JOHN YANNACONE, JR. Of Counsel 4 4 of 5 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 11/18/2023 07:43 PM INDEX NO. 521498/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 5 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/18/2023 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 22 NYCRR § 202.8-b I, Cory H. Morris, an attorney duly admitted to practice law before the courts of the State of New York, hereby certifies that this Affirmation complies with the word count limit set forth in 22 NYCRR § 202.8- b(c) and contains 728 words, excluding the parts exempted by § 202.8b(b). Dated: Suffolk, New York November 17, 2023 /s/ ___________________ CORY H. MORRIS CORY H. MORRIS, P.C. Attorneys for Defendant 863 Isip Avenue Central Islip, New York 11722 5 5 of 5