arrow left
arrow right
  • Ehrlich Gayner, Llp v. Matthew GatesCommercial - Contract document preview
  • Ehrlich Gayner, Llp v. Matthew GatesCommercial - Contract document preview
  • Ehrlich Gayner, Llp v. Matthew GatesCommercial - Contract document preview
  • Ehrlich Gayner, Llp v. Matthew GatesCommercial - Contract document preview
						
                                

Preview

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/29/2024 04:02 PM INDEX NO. 652966/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 48 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/29/2024 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK ----------------------------------------------------------------------x EHRLICH GAYNER, LLP, Plaintiff, Index No. 652966/23 - against - MATTHEW GATES, Defendant. ----------------------------------------------------------------------x DEFENDANT’S SUR-REPLY IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A DEFAULT JUDGMENT AND IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S CROSS MOTION FOR SANCTIONS Defendant Matthew Gates (“Gates” or “Defendant”), by and through his attorneys, The Roth Law Firm, PLLC, hereby submits this Sur-Reply Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Plaintiff Ehrlich Gayner’s (“Plaintiff) Motion for a Default Judgment (Dkt. No. 20-25) and in support of Gates’s cross-motion for sanctions pursuant to 22 N.Y.C.R.R. § 130-1.1(a) as follows: ARGUMENT A party cannot meet its prima facie burden on a motion by submitting evidence for the first time in reply, and “generally, evidence submitted for the first time in reply papers should be disregarded by the court. Henriquez v. Grant, 186 A.D.3d 577 (2nd Dept. 2020)(affirming Supreme Court’s declining to consider report submitted for the first time in reply papers). Here, Plaintiff’s reply papers should be disregarded by the Court because they exclusively consist of an affidavit and documents that were not submitted in their original motion for default judgment (Dkt. No. 20) or their first motion for default judgment (Dkt. No. 3) that was denied by the Court (Dkt. Nos. 19). Henriquez at 577. Moreover, Defendant requested these documents in discovery (Dkt. No. 28) but Plaintiff failed to respond to the requests and never 1 1 of 2 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/29/2024 04:02 PM INDEX NO. 652966/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 48 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/29/2024 produced documents. Further, Plaintiff continues to participate in discovery notwithstanding its claim of default. Dkt. Nos. 32 at ¶ 8-9, 36, 47 (responses to Defendant’s Notice to Admit). Plaintiff’s gamesmanship must be denied. CONCLUSION For all of the reasons stated above, Gates respectfully requests that Court deny Plaintiff’s motion and grant his cross motion for sanctions. DATED: New York, New York January 29, 2024 THE ROTH LAW FIRM, PLLC By:________________________ Richard A. Roth 295 Madison Avenue, Floor 22 New York, NY 10017 (212) 542-8882 Attorneys for Defendant 2 2 of 2