Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/26/2024 10:30 PM INDEX NO. 100148/2014
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 92 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/26/2024
Hon. Dakota D. Ramseur
New York County Supreme Court
VIA NYSCEF
PLAINTIFF’S CROSS MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
&
Opposition to Defendant’s Motion #5 for Summary Judgment
Index Number: 100148/2014
Ashkinazy vs Pillersdorf
Affirmation & Emergency Request for 90 Day Extension
Larry Ashkinazy, affirms that to the best of his information & belief & under
the laws of New York State as follows:
Your Honor, I am Larry Ashkinazy, a 72-year-old disabled Senior,
& Pro-se Plaintiff in this matter.
I discovered yesterday that, the court ordered an “in-person” discovery
conference for April 9th, 2024.
And I also discovered yesterday that Defendant recently submitted motion,
#5, for Summary Judgment instead of allowing discovery negotiations to
continue.
1 of 14
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/26/2024 10:30 PM INDEX NO. 100148/2014
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 92 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/26/2024
Now, due to unforeseen circumstances, Plaintiff is forced to request a 90-day
extension to adequately oppose defendant’s motion for Summary Judgment.
The unforeseen circumstances are that Plaintiff, recently suffered an Acute
Heart Attack & Acute Kidney Failure & was hospitalized in Florida for
almost 2 months; & Plaintiff is still in Florida, struggling to recover.
Consequently, Plaintiff requests a 90-day extension of time until Mid-July to
recover & more fully Oppose Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
Plaintiff also requests all “future” appearances to be Virtual allowing phone
call substitution if computer connection is not available.
No parties will be prejudiced by the extension of time or Virtual Appearance.
Opposition - Best Efforts
This pleading is also a best-efforts Opposition to avoid a default & show good
cause for the time extension, or Opposition, or Dismissal of Motion #5.
History of Related Prior Litigation
The current Litigation of Ashkinazy vs Pillersdorf, is based on a prior
litigation of Ashkinazy vs Con-Edison for Personal Injuries.
In that prior litigation, Pillersdorf, was Ashkinazy’s lawyer.
2 of 14
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/26/2024 10:30 PM INDEX NO. 100148/2014
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 92 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/26/2024
In 2008, a jury verdict awarded Plaintiff past & future monetary damages for
personal injuries.
However, Defendant Pillersdorf, delayed paying Ashkinazy for 3 years.
Then, 3 years later, Defendant-Pillersdorf, filed the “overdue” Closing
Statement filings with the Office of Court Administration.
Apparently, Pillersdorf did not pay Ashkinazy, in full, or according to the
trial Judge’s orders & 50B rules.
Defendant Pillersdorf also did not use an independent annuity broker to
calculate future damages awards as per the 50-B rules.
Consequently, Plaintiff suffered monetary losses due to Defendants improper
post-verdict handling of the Jury Verdicts & Awards due to Plaintiff.
Prior Attorney - Daniel Isaacs
Plaintiff-Ashkinazy, retained an Attorney named Daniel Issacs to handle the
litigation against Defendant Pillersdorf.
Attorney Isaacs composed & filed a complaint with many various causes of
action which included actions pre-dating the Jury Verdict.
Plaintiff asked Isaacs to limit the causes of action to post-verdict.
3 of 14
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/26/2024 10:30 PM INDEX NO. 100148/2014
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 92 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/26/2024
But, Attorney Isaacs said he could always amend the complaint later; &
argued his method would prompt a settlement offer which would eliminate
any extra discovery work.
Attorneys Isaacs vs Lyons & Discovery vs Settlement
Isaacs claimed that defendant’s attorney conceded they could not defend
Pillersdorf for using the prior defendant’s annuity broker instead of an
independent broker.
Isaacs also said that Discovery was not necessary because Defendant’s
Associate Attorney, Mr. Lyons, requested a settlement demand.
Eventually Attorney Issacs, made specific discovery demands which were
ignored. In return, Isaacs also ignored discovery demands.
Attorney Issacs - Withdrawal
Eventually, Defendant tried to enforce their discovery Demands.
Plaintiff’s Attorney Isaacs did not want the extra work to comply with
excessive discovery demands & so made a motion to withdraw.
Judge King allowed Attorney Isaacs to withdraw under certain conditions
including providing “all” pleading documents to Plaintiff by a certain date.
4 of 14
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/26/2024 10:30 PM INDEX NO. 100148/2014
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 92 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/26/2024
Attorney Isaacs did not turn over the ordered documents per the Judge’s
conditions or timetable.
Attorney Proscia - Settlement & Discovery Abuses
Eventually, Attorney Lyons left the firm & was substituted by Mr. Proscia as
Defendant’s attorney.
Defendant’s Attorney Proscia, refused to discuss Settlement, & instead
demanded excessive & frivolous discovery.
All or almost all of Defendants arguments in his pleadings are mostly
allegations which are defendant’s legal conclusions to which no response
should be required as they are not facts.
And, To the extent a response is required, PLAINTIFF denies the allegations
contained & put forth more than ample opposition in all the documents
Plaintiff filed before & to date.
Plaintiff’s Pro Se Offer
Upon Attorney Isaacs withdrawal, Plaintiff was now reluctantly forced to
represent himself Pro Se.
So, Plaintiff wrote Proscia to negotiate a fair discovery offer;.
5 of 14
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/26/2024 10:30 PM INDEX NO. 100148/2014
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 92 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/26/2024
“Dear Anthony Proscia,
My goal is to start fresh with you & provide the court with a mutually fair
stipulation for discovery.
It seems my former attorney, Mr. Isaacs, made things much more complicated &
hostile than necessary.
In summary, my litigation damages are for what happened from the date of Jury
Verdict.
Whereas my former attorney &/or you seem to be arguing about pre-verdict
discovery.
Also, I provided my former attorney with almost all documents I had.
So, it would help to know what Mr. Isaacs provided you with?
My understanding is that you provided boxes to my former attorney, Mr. Isaacs.
But there was no way of knowing what was provided.
And many items we or I requested in discovery were missing or unable to be
accounted for.
Also, I did not receive any of the documents you provided Mr. Isaacs with yet.
As, Mr. Isaacs, did not provide them to me on time as per court order.
He may or may not have provided them afterwards, but I would not know what
was provided As I am temporarily in Florida due to Covid & health problems.
6 of 14
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/26/2024 10:30 PM INDEX NO. 100148/2014
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 92 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/26/2024
So, I would appreciate an itemized list of what was provided to Mr. Isaacs.
before burdening you with copies to me.
Also, I have been counseled that almost all your discovery requests are for pre-
verdict documentation.
Whereas my litigation & damages complaints are for post-verdict damages.
All post-verdict documentation & records are in your possession, not mine.
If I stipulate to limit my litigation complaints to the damages I suffered from date
of Verdict.
Would you be willing to stipulate to limit discovery as follows?
1. All records & Exhibits from the trial & appellate record.
2. All communications between the Pillersdorf & firm & me.
3. All communications between the Pillersdorf & firm & all parties to the trial &
appeal.
4. All internal communications within the Pillersdorf firm.
5. All communications between your firm & Mr. Isaacs.
Please advise asap today so that we can try to provide the court with stipulated
discovery requests.
Thank you. Larry Ashkinazy
7 of 14
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/26/2024 10:30 PM INDEX NO. 100148/2014
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 92 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/26/2024
Attorney Proscia Refuses Good Faith Negotiations
Defendant’s Attorney-Proscia refused all attempts at good faith negotiation
maintaining that he believed he would eventually win a motion for dismissal.
To date, Attorney-Proscia has not provided any of the discovery as specified
by Plaintiff’s Discovery Pleadings, or Judge’s orders.
Instead, Attorney Proscia claims he provided discovery which Plaintiff never
received & would not comply with orders or demands.
Defendant’s Attorney Proscia Repeatedly Makes the Same Motions
Defendant’s most recent motion # 5 for summary judgment is very similar in
facts & arguments to all his prior motions to dismiss & strike, e.g. 2, 3 & 4.
Defense Motion #4
Defense motion #4 is very similar to Motion #5 & motion #2 which was
decided & dismissed by Judge King.
NYSCEF Doc # 19, is that signed decision & order by Judge King.
In document # 19 Judge King decided that:
“ ... the Court finds that the Moving Defendants have not established a basis for
an order of preclusion or an order compelling production of documents.
8 of 14
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/26/2024 10:30 PM INDEX NO. 100148/2014
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 92 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/26/2024
Judge King’s decision went on to say:
“... Contrary to the contentions of the Moving Defendants, plaintiff in
opposition, established that responses were served pursuant to
court orders dated June 13, 2019, November 21, 2019, February 27, 2020, and
July 20, 2020, respectively...”
Judge King’s decision continued to say:
“ ... It is well settled that CPLR 2004 gives courts discretion to "extend the time
fixed by any statute, rule, or order for doing any act, upon such terms as may be
just, upon good cause shown" (Grant v City of New York, 17
AD3d 215, 217 [1st Dept 2005]) ... This statute permits an extension of a
plaintiff’s time to serve and file...”
Judge King’s decision continued to say.
“ ... there is outstanding discovery including, but not limited to, depositions of
both the plaintiff and institutional witness of the Moving Defendants ... “
Judge King’s also went on to “order” as follows:
... it is hereby, ORDERED that the branch of the Moving Defendants' motion to
preclude plaintiffs’ testimony is denied; and it is further, ORDERED that the
branch of the Moving Defendants' motion to compel is denied...”.
9 of 14
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/26/2024 10:30 PM INDEX NO. 100148/2014
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 92 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/26/2024
Plaintiff’s Prior Filings, Oppositions & Discovery Compliances
On 6/6/2023, Plaintiff, Filed Nyscef Docs # 73, 74, 76, 77, 78 & 79.
Nyscef Docs 73 & 76 included Plaintiff’s Various Medical documents &
Medical Authorizations under seal.
Nyscef Doc 74 was Proof of Plaintiff’s Discovery Demands.
Nyscef Doc 77 was Plaintiff’s compliant responses to Defendant’s Initial
Interrogatories.
Nyscef Doc 78 was Plaintiff’s compliant supplemental responses to
Defendant’s Interrogatories.
Nyscef Doc 79 was Plaintiff’s Compliant Responses & Objections to
Defendants Discovery Demands & interrogatories.
Plaintiff’s Additional Filings, Responses & Oppositions
On 12/13/21, Nyscef Doc # 12, was a 97-page document, Labeled Pro Se
Plaintiff’s Reply & Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Compel/Dismiss.
Then, on 12/14/21, Nyscef Doc # 13, was a 127-page document, labeled
Plaintiffs Supplemental Response to Defendants Demand & to Dismiss.
10 of 14
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/26/2024 10:30 PM INDEX NO. 100148/2014
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 92 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/26/2024
Then, again on 12/14/21, Nyscef Doc #14 was labeled Plaintiff’s Discovery
Demand.
Then, on 12/7/22, Nyscef Doc # 42, was labeled as, Memorandum in
Opposition to Motion & in Support of Cross Motion #4
Then, again on 12/7/22, Nyscef Doc #43, was labeled as Memorandum in
Opposition & in Support of Cross Motion to Motion #4.
Plaintiff’s Legal Right to Discovery
Plaintiff is a pro se disabled senior & does not have a law firm or paralegal or
even the ability to research & argue law except for google searches.
Google states the discovery process is governed by Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 26–37, 45, and the court’s Local Civil Rules.
Google also states that Under Local Civil Rule 33.3, at the beginning of
discovery, interrogatories may only be used to find out the names of witnesses
who may have information about the case; the value of damages alleged.
Defendant should need to ask the judge’s permission: to ask a party to answer
more than 25 interrogatories which the defendant did not do & abused as
stated in Plaintiff’s interrogatory responses & objections.
It should be obvious to the court, that based on the representations Plaintiff’s
counsel made trying to withdraw as counsel, that the Court should have
11 of 14
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/26/2024 10:30 PM INDEX NO. 100148/2014
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 92 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/26/2024
serious doubts that EX-Attorney Isaacs could ever adequately represent
Plaintiff’s interests in opposition to Defendant’s motion.
Pro Se Plaintiff should have the time & opportunity to make his best pro se
effort to retrieve the money the jury awarded him, but defendant did not
provide to Plaintiff.
In summary, Plaintiff’s causes of action are simply the damage suffered post-
verdict by not getting the monies awarded to him.
Request Permission & Order to Amend Complaint & Limit Discovery
To date, Defendant would not cooperate in Plaintiff’s attempts to simplify this
litigation by allowing Plaintiff to amend his complaint to limit Plaintiff’s
causes of action & discovery to post verdict dates instead of Pre-Verdict dates.
Instead, Defendant would make frivolous pleadings & discovery demands
which took Plaintiff & the court on a wild goose chase with red herring legal
maneuvers that were frivolous.
It seems common sense that that all litigation parties should conduct litigation
& discovery in good faith.
However, Defendant refuses to do that; & instead wants to re-try the entire
Prior Personal Injury trial which was already tried to verdict & appeal &
which should not be allowed to be relitigated.
Plaintiff, forced to take over his own case Pro Se, wants a court order allowing
permission plaintiff to amend the original complaint to limit his cause of
action & Discovery to all matters post-verdict.
12 of 14
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/26/2024 10:30 PM INDEX NO. 100148/2014
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 92 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/26/2024
To date, Defendant’s lack of compliance & frivolous legal maneuvers goes
unnoticed by the court to the disadvantage of Plaintiff & justice.
Defendant’s omissions included the Annuity Contract ordered by Judge
Ramseur, & other requests per Plaintiff’s Discovery Pleadings.
Per Fed. R. Civ. P. 34 Plaintiff should be allowed to request & the court
should order Defendant to Provide Plaintiff with the requested discovery as
per Plaintiff’s Prior Discovery Pleadings.
Plaintiff Asks for the following Court Orders:
Plaintiff asks the courts help to control Defendant’s frivolous litigation by
granting orders as follows:
- Plaintiff is allowed to amend his complaint to post verdict causes of action
from year 2008.
- Plaintiff’s future appearances shall all be Virtual with Phone-in allowed if
computer access is not available.
- Defendant’s motion #5 is dismissed.
- Defendant’s discovery demands shall be limited to 2008 & post-verdict
matters.
13 of 14
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/26/2024 10:30 PM INDEX NO. 100148/2014
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 92 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/26/2024
- Defendant is ordered to provide discovery to Plaintiff as per Plaintiff’s Prior
Discovery Pleadings & Prior orders including:
- - Plaintiff’s Annuity Records, contract, worksheets, communications.
- - All printed & electronic communications between Pillersdorf, Plaintiff &
all parties which communicated on related post-verdict maters.
ALTERNATIVE ORDERS
In the Alternative, Plaintiff asks for a 90-day Extension of time to respond &
Oppose Defendant’s Motion #5 for Summary Judgment; and to be allowed a
Virtual Appearance after July 15, 2024.
OR,
For such other different & further relief as the Court deems Just & Proper.
Respectfully yours,
Dated: 03/26/24
Larry Ashkinazy, Plaintiff, Pro Se
Index Number: 100148/2014
Case Name: Larry Ashkinazy vs Gary Pillersdorf, et al
TO: Defendant via NYSCEF
14 of 14
Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/26/2024 10:30 PM INDEX NO. 100148/2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 92 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/26/2024 Hon. Dakota D. Ramseur New York County Supreme Court VIA NYSCEF PLAINTIFF’S CROSS MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME & Opposition to Defendant’s Motion #5 for Summary Judgment Index Number: 100148/2014 Ashkinazy vs Pillersdorf Affirmation & Emergency Request for 90 Day Extension Larry Ashkinazy, affirms that to the best of his information & belief & under the laws of New York State as follows: Your Honor, I am Larry Ashkinazy, a 72-year-old disabled Senior, & Pro-se Plaintiff in this matter. I discovered yesterday that, the court ordered an “in-person” discovery conference for April 9th, 2024. And I also discovered yesterday that Defendant recently submitted motion, #5, for Summary Judgment instead of allowing discovery negotiations to continue. 1 of 14 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/26/2024 10:30 PM INDEX NO. 100148/2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 92 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/26/2024 Now, due to unforeseen circumstances, Plaintiff is forced to request a 90-day extension to adequately oppose defendant’s motion for Summary Judgment. The unforeseen circumstances are that Plaintiff, recently suffered an Acute Heart Attack & Acute Kidney Failure & was hospitalized in Florida for almost 2 months; & Plaintiff is still in Florida, struggling to recover. Consequently, Plaintiff requests a 90-day extension of time until Mid-July to recover & more fully Oppose Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff also requests all “future” appearances to be Virtual allowing phone call substitution if computer connection is not available. No parties will be prejudiced by the extension of time or Virtual Appearance. Opposition - Best Efforts This pleading is also a best-efforts Opposition to avoid a default & show good cause for the time extension, or Opposition, or Dismissal of Motion #5. History of Related Prior Litigation The current Litigation of Ashkinazy vs Pillersdorf, is based on a prior litigation of Ashkinazy vs Con-Edison for Personal Injuries. In that prior litigation, Pillersdorf, was Ashkinazy’s lawyer. 2 of 14 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/26/2024 10:30 PM INDEX NO. 100148/2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 92 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/26/2024 In 2008, a jury verdict awarded Plaintiff past & future monetary damages for personal injuries. However, Defendant Pillersdorf, delayed paying Ashkinazy for 3 years. Then, 3 years later, Defendant-Pillersdorf, filed the “overdue” Closing Statement filings with the Office of Court Administration. Apparently, Pillersdorf did not pay Ashkinazy, in full, or according to the trial Judge’s orders & 50B rules. Defendant Pillersdorf also did not use an independent annuity broker to calculate future damages awards as per the 50-B rules. Consequently, Plaintiff suffered monetary losses due to Defendants improper post-verdict handling of the Jury Verdicts & Awards due to Plaintiff. Prior Attorney - Daniel Isaacs Plaintiff-Ashkinazy, retained an Attorney named Daniel Issacs to handle the litigation against Defendant Pillersdorf. Attorney Isaacs composed & filed a complaint with many various causes of action which included actions pre-dating the Jury Verdict. Plaintiff asked Isaacs to limit the causes of action to post-verdict. 3 of 14 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/26/2024 10:30 PM INDEX NO. 100148/2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 92 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/26/2024 But, Attorney Isaacs said he could always amend the complaint later; & argued his method would prompt a settlement offer which would eliminate any extra discovery work. Attorneys Isaacs vs Lyons & Discovery vs Settlement Isaacs claimed that defendant’s attorney conceded they could not defend Pillersdorf for using the prior defendant’s annuity broker instead of an independent broker. Isaacs also said that Discovery was not necessary because Defendant’s Associate Attorney, Mr. Lyons, requested a settlement demand. Eventually Attorney Issacs, made specific discovery demands which were ignored. In return, Isaacs also ignored discovery demands. Attorney Issacs - Withdrawal Eventually, Defendant tried to enforce their discovery Demands. Plaintiff’s Attorney Isaacs did not want the extra work to comply with excessive discovery demands & so made a motion to withdraw. Judge King allowed Attorney Isaacs to withdraw under certain conditions including providing “all” pleading documents to Plaintiff by a certain date. 4 of 14 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/26/2024 10:30 PM INDEX NO. 100148/2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 92 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/26/2024 Attorney Isaacs did not turn over the ordered documents per the Judge’s conditions or timetable. Attorney Proscia - Settlement & Discovery Abuses Eventually, Attorney Lyons left the firm & was substituted by Mr. Proscia as Defendant’s attorney. Defendant’s Attorney Proscia, refused to discuss Settlement, & instead demanded excessive & frivolous discovery. All or almost all of Defendants arguments in his pleadings are mostly allegations which are defendant’s legal conclusions to which no response should be required as they are not facts. And, To the extent a response is required, PLAINTIFF denies the allegations contained & put forth more than ample opposition in all the documents Plaintiff filed before & to date. Plaintiff’s Pro Se Offer Upon Attorney Isaacs withdrawal, Plaintiff was now reluctantly forced to represent himself Pro Se. So, Plaintiff wrote Proscia to negotiate a fair discovery offer;. 5 of 14 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/26/2024 10:30 PM INDEX NO. 100148/2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 92 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/26/2024 “Dear Anthony Proscia, My goal is to start fresh with you & provide the court with a mutually fair stipulation for discovery. It seems my former attorney, Mr. Isaacs, made things much more complicated & hostile than necessary. In summary, my litigation damages are for what happened from the date of Jury Verdict. Whereas my former attorney &/or you seem to be arguing about pre-verdict discovery. Also, I provided my former attorney with almost all documents I had. So, it would help to know what Mr. Isaacs provided you with? My understanding is that you provided boxes to my former attorney, Mr. Isaacs. But there was no way of knowing what was provided. And many items we or I requested in discovery were missing or unable to be accounted for. Also, I did not receive any of the documents you provided Mr. Isaacs with yet. As, Mr. Isaacs, did not provide them to me on time as per court order. He may or may not have provided them afterwards, but I would not know what was provided As I am temporarily in Florida due to Covid & health problems. 6 of 14 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/26/2024 10:30 PM INDEX NO. 100148/2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 92 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/26/2024 So, I would appreciate an itemized list of what was provided to Mr. Isaacs. before burdening you with copies to me. Also, I have been counseled that almost all your discovery requests are for pre- verdict documentation. Whereas my litigation & damages complaints are for post-verdict damages. All post-verdict documentation & records are in your possession, not mine. If I stipulate to limit my litigation complaints to the damages I suffered from date of Verdict. Would you be willing to stipulate to limit discovery as follows? 1. All records & Exhibits from the trial & appellate record. 2. All communications between the Pillersdorf & firm & me. 3. All communications between the Pillersdorf & firm & all parties to the trial & appeal. 4. All internal communications within the Pillersdorf firm. 5. All communications between your firm & Mr. Isaacs. Please advise asap today so that we can try to provide the court with stipulated discovery requests. Thank you. Larry Ashkinazy 7 of 14 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/26/2024 10:30 PM INDEX NO. 100148/2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 92 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/26/2024 Attorney Proscia Refuses Good Faith Negotiations Defendant’s Attorney-Proscia refused all attempts at good faith negotiation maintaining that he believed he would eventually win a motion for dismissal. To date, Attorney-Proscia has not provided any of the discovery as specified by Plaintiff’s Discovery Pleadings, or Judge’s orders. Instead, Attorney Proscia claims he provided discovery which Plaintiff never received & would not comply with orders or demands. Defendant’s Attorney Proscia Repeatedly Makes the Same Motions Defendant’s most recent motion # 5 for summary judgment is very similar in facts & arguments to all his prior motions to dismiss & strike, e.g. 2, 3 & 4. Defense Motion #4 Defense motion #4 is very similar to Motion #5 & motion #2 which was decided & dismissed by Judge King. NYSCEF Doc # 19, is that signed decision & order by Judge King. In document # 19 Judge King decided that: “ ... the Court finds that the Moving Defendants have not established a basis for an order of preclusion or an order compelling production of documents. 8 of 14 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/26/2024 10:30 PM INDEX NO. 100148/2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 92 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/26/2024 Judge King’s decision went on to say: “... Contrary to the contentions of the Moving Defendants, plaintiff in opposition, established that responses were served pursuant to court orders dated June 13, 2019, November 21, 2019, February 27, 2020, and July 20, 2020, respectively...” Judge King’s decision continued to say: “ ... It is well settled that CPLR 2004 gives courts discretion to "extend the time fixed by any statute, rule, or order for doing any act, upon such terms as may be just, upon good cause shown" (Grant v City of New York, 17 AD3d 215, 217 [1st Dept 2005]) ... This statute permits an extension of a plaintiff’s time to serve and file...” Judge King’s decision continued to say. “ ... there is outstanding discovery including, but not limited to, depositions of both the plaintiff and institutional witness of the Moving Defendants ... “ Judge King’s also went on to “order” as follows: ... it is hereby, ORDERED that the branch of the Moving Defendants' motion to preclude plaintiffs’ testimony is denied; and it is further, ORDERED that the branch of the Moving Defendants' motion to compel is denied...”. 9 of 14 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/26/2024 10:30 PM INDEX NO. 100148/2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 92 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/26/2024 Plaintiff’s Prior Filings, Oppositions & Discovery Compliances On 6/6/2023, Plaintiff, Filed Nyscef Docs # 73, 74, 76, 77, 78 & 79. Nyscef Docs 73 & 76 included Plaintiff’s Various Medical documents & Medical Authorizations under seal. Nyscef Doc 74 was Proof of Plaintiff’s Discovery Demands. Nyscef Doc 77 was Plaintiff’s compliant responses to Defendant’s Initial Interrogatories. Nyscef Doc 78 was Plaintiff’s compliant supplemental responses to Defendant’s Interrogatories. Nyscef Doc 79 was Plaintiff’s Compliant Responses & Objections to Defendants Discovery Demands & interrogatories. Plaintiff’s Additional Filings, Responses & Oppositions On 12/13/21, Nyscef Doc # 12, was a 97-page document, Labeled Pro Se Plaintiff’s Reply & Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Compel/Dismiss. Then, on 12/14/21, Nyscef Doc # 13, was a 127-page document, labeled Plaintiffs Supplemental Response to Defendants Demand & to Dismiss. 10 of 14 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/26/2024 10:30 PM INDEX NO. 100148/2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 92 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/26/2024 Then, again on 12/14/21, Nyscef Doc #14 was labeled Plaintiff’s Discovery Demand. Then, on 12/7/22, Nyscef Doc # 42, was labeled as, Memorandum in Opposition to Motion & in Support of Cross Motion #4 Then, again on 12/7/22, Nyscef Doc #43, was labeled as Memorandum in Opposition & in Support of Cross Motion to Motion #4. Plaintiff’s Legal Right to Discovery Plaintiff is a pro se disabled senior & does not have a law firm or paralegal or even the ability to research & argue law except for google searches. Google states the discovery process is governed by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26–37, 45, and the court’s Local Civil Rules. Google also states that Under Local Civil Rule 33.3, at the beginning of discovery, interrogatories may only be used to find out the names of witnesses who may have information about the case; the value of damages alleged. Defendant should need to ask the judge’s permission: to ask a party to answer more than 25 interrogatories which the defendant did not do & abused as stated in Plaintiff’s interrogatory responses & objections. It should be obvious to the court, that based on the representations Plaintiff’s counsel made trying to withdraw as counsel, that the Court should have 11 of 14 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/26/2024 10:30 PM INDEX NO. 100148/2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 92 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/26/2024 serious doubts that EX-Attorney Isaacs could ever adequately represent Plaintiff’s interests in opposition to Defendant’s motion. Pro Se Plaintiff should have the time & opportunity to make his best pro se effort to retrieve the money the jury awarded him, but defendant did not provide to Plaintiff. In summary, Plaintiff’s causes of action are simply the damage suffered post- verdict by not getting the monies awarded to him. Request Permission & Order to Amend Complaint & Limit Discovery To date, Defendant would not cooperate in Plaintiff’s attempts to simplify this litigation by allowing Plaintiff to amend his complaint to limit Plaintiff’s causes of action & discovery to post verdict dates instead of Pre-Verdict dates. Instead, Defendant would make frivolous pleadings & discovery demands which took Plaintiff & the court on a wild goose chase with red herring legal maneuvers that were frivolous. It seems common sense that that all litigation parties should conduct litigation & discovery in good faith. However, Defendant refuses to do that; & instead wants to re-try the entire Prior Personal Injury trial which was already tried to verdict & appeal & which should not be allowed to be relitigated. Plaintiff, forced to take over his own case Pro Se, wants a court order allowing permission plaintiff to amend the original complaint to limit his cause of action & Discovery to all matters post-verdict. 12 of 14 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/26/2024 10:30 PM INDEX NO. 100148/2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 92 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/26/2024 To date, Defendant’s lack of compliance & frivolous legal maneuvers goes unnoticed by the court to the disadvantage of Plaintiff & justice. Defendant’s omissions included the Annuity Contract ordered by Judge Ramseur, & other requests per Plaintiff’s Discovery Pleadings. Per Fed. R. Civ. P. 34 Plaintiff should be allowed to request & the court should order Defendant to Provide Plaintiff with the requested discovery as per Plaintiff’s Prior Discovery Pleadings. Plaintiff Asks for the following Court Orders: Plaintiff asks the courts help to control Defendant’s frivolous litigation by granting orders as follows: - Plaintiff is allowed to amend his complaint to post verdict causes of action from year 2008. - Plaintiff’s future appearances shall all be Virtual with Phone-in allowed if computer access is not available. - Defendant’s motion #5 is dismissed. - Defendant’s discovery demands shall be limited to 2008 & post-verdict matters. 13 of 14 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/26/2024 10:30 PM INDEX NO. 100148/2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 92 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/26/2024 - Defendant is ordered to provide discovery to Plaintiff as per Plaintiff’s Prior Discovery Pleadings & Prior orders including: - - Plaintiff’s Annuity Records, contract, worksheets, communications. - - All printed & electronic communications between Pillersdorf, Plaintiff & all parties which communicated on related post-verdict maters. ALTERNATIVE ORDERS In the Alternative, Plaintiff asks for a 90-day Extension of time to respond & Oppose Defendant’s Motion #5 for Summary Judgment; and to be allowed a Virtual Appearance after July 15, 2024. OR, For such other different & further relief as the Court deems Just & Proper. Respectfully yours, Dated: 03/26/24 Larry Ashkinazy, Plaintiff, Pro Se Index Number: 100148/2014 Case Name: Larry Ashkinazy vs Gary Pillersdorf, et al TO: Defendant via NYSCEF 14 of 14