On June 21, 2023 a
Motion,Ex Parte
was filed
involving a dispute between
Ehrlich Gayner, Llp,
and
Matthew Gates,
for Commercial - Contract
in the District Court of New York County.
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
Document Filed Date
January 29, 2024
Case Filing Date
June 21, 2023
Category
Commercial - Contract
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.