Preview
FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 02/13/2024
02/12/2024 09:49
02:49 AM
PM INDEX NO. 61665/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 232
230 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/13/2024
02/12/2024
This Court does not entertain litigation by letter.
February 12, 2024
Dated: White Plains, NY
February 13, 2024
Via NYSCEF ____________________________
Hon. Robert S. Ondrovic, J.S.C.
The Honorable Robert S. Ondrovic, J.S.C.
Supreme Court, Westchester County
111 Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard
White Plains, NY 10601
Re: Rice v. Einsidler, Index No. 61665/2021
Dear Justice Ondrovic:
We represent defendant Lee R. Einsidler, as administrator of the estate of Aaron M.
Einsidler (“Defendant”), in the above-referenced action. We write to (1) clarify the status of
Defendant’s pending cross-motion for summary judgment and sanctions (Mot. Seq. #9) (the
“Cross-Motion”) following the reassignment of this case from Justice Greenwald to this Court,
and (2) provide additional information compelling the granting of the Cross-Motion based on
procedural developments following the completion of briefing.
As discussed herein, Plaintiff’s sole basis for opposing the Cross-Motion was that
discovery remained ongoing at the time. Now that discovery has concluded and Plaintiff has failed
to offer any evidence in support of his claims, the Cross-Motion should be granted and summary
judgment should be entered for Defendant on all claims, putting an end to this frivolous case.
Background
On August 25, 2021, approximately one year after the tragic deaths of Defendant’s son
Aaron and Aaron’s wife Sara due to a drug overdose, Plaintiff filed the Complaint against
Defendant in his capacity as administrator of Aaron’s estate. The Complaint alleges that Aaron
and Sara subjected Plaintiff to “continuous and ongoing” bullying and harassment, “consisting of
disparaging remarks, phone calls, and texts, culminating during quarantine and just prior to”
Aaron’s and Sara’s deaths in August 2020 (Compl. ¶ 10), and that “[o]n or about November 2019,
Aaron and Sara met Plaintiff near Charles and Darlington Roads,” where they “physically
assaulted” him (id. ¶¶ 23-24). On this basis, Plaintiff asserts claims against Aaron’s estate for (i)
intentional infliction of emotional distress, (ii) negligent infliction of emotional distress, (iii)
assault, (iv) battery, and (v) prima facie tort, claiming a whopping $15 million in damages.
The case proceeded to discovery. For over a year, Plaintiff failed to come forward with a
single piece of evidence to support his claims. Plaintiff also sought to block every attempt by
Defendant to obtain evidence demonstrating that Plaintiff’s case is frivolous, requiring repeated
motion practice and orders directing Plaintiff to produce relevant information. (See, e.g., Dkt. Nos.
66, 143, 202.)
1 of 4
FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 02/13/2024
02/12/2024 09:49
02:49 AM
PM INDEX NO. 61665/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 232
230 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/13/2024
02/12/2024
February 12, 2024
Page 2 of 4
Hon. Robert S. Ondrovic
After numerous significant fact developments during discovery, on May 12, 2023, the
undersigned sent a letter to Plaintiff’s prior counsel apprising them of these revelations,1 which
confirmed that, not only is Plaintiff’s case frivolous, but Plaintiff likely supplied the drugs that led
to Aaron’s and Sara’s deaths: (1) Defendant obtained an affidavit from a witness who averred
that Plaintiff was a drug dealer who sold cocaine to Aaron and Sara on many occasions, and shortly
after their deaths, the witness visited Plaintiff, who was “extremely upset” and “had lost a lot of
weight[,]” and during the visit, Plaintiff searched the witness for a wire and told the witness he
“was very scared that he would be arrested in connection with Aaron and Sara’s deaths” and
“d[id]n’t want to do the forty years”; (2) the iCloud data retrieved from Aaron’s iPhone did not
contain any photos or videos of the alleged assault, as Plaintiff had contended; (3) Plaintiff was
listed as a contact in Aaron’s phone under a code name for a drug dealer; (4) Plaintiff discontinued
service on two of his phone numbers and disposed of his phones one month after Aaron’s and
Sara’s deaths, thereby preventing anyone from obtaining information from the phones; and (5) on
May 8, 2023—while discovery was ongoing—Plaintiff sent a rambling text message to Defendant
appearing to express guilt about his role in the deaths of Aaron and Sara.
The Motion to Withdraw and the Cross-Motion
Two days after receiving my letter—and apparently recognizing the risk of continuing with
their frivolous case—Plaintiff’s counsel told me that they would be filing a motion to withdraw as
counsel. Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff’s counsel filed an application, by order to show cause (Mot.
Seq. #8) (the “Motion to Withdraw”), seeking the Court’s permission to withdraw. The Motion to
Withdraw all but confirmed that Plaintiff’s claims were frivolous, stating, inter alia, that Plaintiff’s
May 8, 2023 text message to Defendant “seemingly prejudiced Plaintiff’s entire cause of action
against Defendant” and that “[t]he contents of the alleged text message are in direct opposition to
Plaintiff’s theory of the case.” (Dkt. No. 162, ¶¶ 12, 17.)
In response to the Motion to Withdraw, Defendant filed the Cross-Motion, seeking
summary judgment in favor of Defendant on all claims. (See Dkt. Nos. 167-200.) As discussed
in the Cross-Motion, summary judgment is warranted because, even after two years of litigation,
there is no evidence to support Plaintiff’s claims other than his own statements—evidence that is
barred from trial under the Dead Man’s Statute and insufficient to create a genuine issue of material
fact as a matter of law under Second Department precedent. (Dkt. No. 169 at 13 (citing Stathis v.
Estate of Karas, 147 N.Y.S.3d 83, 87 (2d Dep’t 2021), leave to appeal denied, 38 N.Y.3d 903
(2022) (“Where, as here, the sole evidence proffered by the opposing party is barred by the Dead
Man’s Statute, an award of summary judgment is appropriate.” (citing cases)).) The Cross-Motion
also requests that the Court issue an award requiring Plaintiff and his counsel to reimburse
Defendant for his attorney’s fees and costs incurred in defending against this frivolous lawsuit
pursuant to Part 130 and CPLR 8303-a.
On September 25, 2023, Plaintiff filed a reply in further support of the Motion to Withdraw
and in opposition to the Cross-Motion. (Dkt. No. 208.) In opposing summary judgment, Plaintiff
1
The letter is attached as Exhibit A to the Motion to Withdraw filed by Plaintiff’s prior counsel (Dkt. No. 163).
2 of 4
FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 02/13/2024
02/12/2024 09:49
02:49 AM
PM INDEX NO. 61665/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 232
230 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/13/2024
02/12/2024
February 12, 2024
Page 3 of 4
Hon. Robert S. Ondrovic
did not identify any evidence to overcome Defendant’s prima facie entitlement to summary
judgment, nor did he dispute the application of the Dead Man’s Statute. Instead, Plaintiff argued
only that discovery remained ongoing. (Id. at 5.)
On October 6, 2023, Defendant filed his reply in further support of the Cross-Motion,
explaining that Plaintiff’s mere hope of obtaining relevant information did not preclude the entry
of summary judgment. (See Dkt. No. 209 at 4 (citing Morales v. Amar, 145 A.D.3d 1000, 1003
(2d Dep’t 2016) (“mere hope or speculation that evidence sufficient to defeat a motion for
summary judgment may be uncovered during the discovery process is an insufficient basis for
denying the motion”).)
On November 8, 2023, Justice Greenwald held a status conference with the parties. At the
conference, Justice Greenwald granted Plaintiff’s counsel’s Motion to Withdraw, such that
Plaintiff would now be proceeding pro se, but Justice Greenwald stated that he was “not going to
decide [Defendant’s Cross-Motion] as yet” “since Plaintiff doesn’t have counsel.” (See Ex. A
(Nov. 8, 2023 Tr.) at 2:11-23.) Justice Greenwald directed Plaintiff’s outgoing counsel to file a
proposed order incorporating his rulings and directed the parties to appear for a conference on
January 23, 2024, during which time Plaintiff would have the opportunity to obtain new counsel.
(See id. at 2:18-3:3.)
On November 10, 2023, in accordance with Justice Greenwald’s directives, Plaintiff’s prior
counsel filed a proposed order incorporating the Court’s rulings. (See Dkt. Nos. 216, 217.)
On December 27, 2023, this Court issued a Court Notice advising that the case had been
reassigned to it from Justice Greenwald and directing the parties to appear for a conference on
January 4, 2024. (Dkt. No. 218.) The same day, Plaintiff’s outgoing counsel submitted a letter to
the Court noting that their proposed order granting their withdrawal had not yet been entered and
requesting that the Court approve the proposed order. (Dkt. No. 219.) Later that day, the Court
so-ordered the proposed order. (Dkt. No. 220 (the “Withdrawal Order”).) The Withdrawal Order
states that “decision on Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment and dismissal (Motion
Seq. #9) is reserved as Plaintiff remains without counsel at this time.” (Id.)
The January 4, 2024 Conference and the Note of Issue
On January 4, 2024, the Court held a status conference with the parties. Notwithstanding
that Plaintiff’s prior counsel had filed the Motion to Withdraw more than seven months earlier,
Plaintiff still had not secured replacement counsel. Instead, Mr. Robert Corini appeared for
Plaintiff but indicated that he was “appearing for the purpose of today only” and would not be
representing Plaintiff going forward. (Dkt. No. 229 at 2:4-5, 3:4-9.)
The Court observed that this was the “oldest case in the county” at 795 days, with the note
of issue having been due on October 29, 2022. (Id. at 2:12-18.) The Court directed Plaintiff to
file a notice of issue by January 10, 2024, or the case would be dismissed. (Id. at 3:15-16.)
The Court stated that no additional time would be provided for discovery. (Id. at 3:17-20.) The
3 of 4
FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 02/13/2024
02/12/2024 09:49
02:49 AM
PM INDEX NO. 61665/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 232
230 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/13/2024
02/12/2024
February 12, 2024
Page 4 of 4
Hon. Robert S. Ondrovic
undersigned advised the Court regarding the pendency of the Cross-Motion (id. at 4:5-18), and the
Court indicated the Cross-Motion would be addressed following the filing of the note of issue. (Id.
at 5:2-9, 6:16-18.)
On January 5, 2024, Plaintiff filed the note of issue. (See Dkt. No. 226.) On January 18,
2024, the Court so-ordered the transcript from the January 4, 2024 conference. (See Dkt. No. 229.)
The Closing of Discovery Confirms That the Cross-Motion Should Be Granted
Now that discovery has closed, Defendant respectfully requests that the Court address and
grant the Cross-Motion, which, as discussed above, remains ripe for decision.2
Plaintiff’s sole basis for opposing summary judgment in his opposition to the Cross-Motion
was that discovery was, at that point, “incomplete.” (Dkt. No. 208 at 5.) Plaintiff’s position was
meritless because, as discussed in Defendant’s reply brief, the mere fact that discovery remained
ongoing did not prevent entry of summary judgment. (See Dkt. No. 209 at 4 (citing Morales, 145
A.D.3d at 1003).)
With discovery now closed, however, Plaintiff’s sole basis for opposing summary
judgment (deficient as it was then) has vanished. Plaintiff failed then—and has failed now—to
offer a single piece of evidence to overcome Defendant’s prima facie showing of entitlement to
summary judgment. Instead, Plaintiff relies on nothing more than his own self-serving
statements—statements that are barred under the Dead Man’s Statute and insufficient to overcome
summary judgment. (Dkt. No. 169 at 13 (citing Stathis, 147 N.Y.S.3d at 87).)
Accordingly, Defendant respectfully requests that the Court grant the Cross-Motion, enter
summary judgment in favor of Defendant on all claims, and enter an award, pursuant to Part 130
and CPLR 8303-a, requiring Plaintiff to reimburse Defendant for the attorney’s fees and costs he
has incurred in defending against this frivolous lawsuit.
Respectfully submitted,
____________________________
Jonathan Ohring, Esq.
cc: Neil B. Rice (by email and regular mail)
2
The eCourts docket for this case is unclear in describing the status of the Cross-Motion, as it has two separate
notations for Mot. Seq. #9: one indicating that the Cross-Motion was decided on December 27, 2023, with “Decision
Reserved” by Justice Greenwald, and another indicating that the Cross-Motion was granted by this Court on January 3,
2024. By this letter, the undersigned has sought to clarify the status of the Cross-Motion.
4 of 4
Preview
FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 02/13/2024 02/12/2024 09:49 02:49 AM PM INDEX NO. 61665/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 232 230 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/13/2024 02/12/2024 This Court does not entertain litigation by letter. February 12, 2024 Dated: White Plains, NY February 13, 2024 Via NYSCEF ____________________________ Hon. Robert S. Ondrovic, J.S.C. The Honorable Robert S. Ondrovic, J.S.C. Supreme Court, Westchester County 111 Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard White Plains, NY 10601 Re: Rice v. Einsidler, Index No. 61665/2021 Dear Justice Ondrovic: We represent defendant Lee R. Einsidler, as administrator of the estate of Aaron M. Einsidler (“Defendant”), in the above-referenced action. We write to (1) clarify the status of Defendant’s pending cross-motion for summary judgment and sanctions (Mot. Seq. #9) (the “Cross-Motion”) following the reassignment of this case from Justice Greenwald to this Court, and (2) provide additional information compelling the granting of the Cross-Motion based on procedural developments following the completion of briefing. As discussed herein, Plaintiff’s sole basis for opposing the Cross-Motion was that discovery remained ongoing at the time. Now that discovery has concluded and Plaintiff has failed to offer any evidence in support of his claims, the Cross-Motion should be granted and summary judgment should be entered for Defendant on all claims, putting an end to this frivolous case. Background On August 25, 2021, approximately one year after the tragic deaths of Defendant’s son Aaron and Aaron’s wife Sara due to a drug overdose, Plaintiff filed the Complaint against Defendant in his capacity as administrator of Aaron’s estate. The Complaint alleges that Aaron and Sara subjected Plaintiff to “continuous and ongoing” bullying and harassment, “consisting of disparaging remarks, phone calls, and texts, culminating during quarantine and just prior to” Aaron’s and Sara’s deaths in August 2020 (Compl. ¶ 10), and that “[o]n or about November 2019, Aaron and Sara met Plaintiff near Charles and Darlington Roads,” where they “physically assaulted” him (id. ¶¶ 23-24). On this basis, Plaintiff asserts claims against Aaron’s estate for (i) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (ii) negligent infliction of emotional distress, (iii) assault, (iv) battery, and (v) prima facie tort, claiming a whopping $15 million in damages. The case proceeded to discovery. For over a year, Plaintiff failed to come forward with a single piece of evidence to support his claims. Plaintiff also sought to block every attempt by Defendant to obtain evidence demonstrating that Plaintiff’s case is frivolous, requiring repeated motion practice and orders directing Plaintiff to produce relevant information. (See, e.g., Dkt. Nos. 66, 143, 202.) 1 of 4 FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 02/13/2024 02/12/2024 09:49 02:49 AM PM INDEX NO. 61665/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 232 230 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/13/2024 02/12/2024 February 12, 2024 Page 2 of 4 Hon. Robert S. Ondrovic After numerous significant fact developments during discovery, on May 12, 2023, the undersigned sent a letter to Plaintiff’s prior counsel apprising them of these revelations,1 which confirmed that, not only is Plaintiff’s case frivolous, but Plaintiff likely supplied the drugs that led to Aaron’s and Sara’s deaths: (1) Defendant obtained an affidavit from a witness who averred that Plaintiff was a drug dealer who sold cocaine to Aaron and Sara on many occasions, and shortly after their deaths, the witness visited Plaintiff, who was “extremely upset” and “had lost a lot of weight[,]” and during the visit, Plaintiff searched the witness for a wire and told the witness he “was very scared that he would be arrested in connection with Aaron and Sara’s deaths” and “d[id]n’t want to do the forty years”; (2) the iCloud data retrieved from Aaron’s iPhone did not contain any photos or videos of the alleged assault, as Plaintiff had contended; (3) Plaintiff was listed as a contact in Aaron’s phone under a code name for a drug dealer; (4) Plaintiff discontinued service on two of his phone numbers and disposed of his phones one month after Aaron’s and Sara’s deaths, thereby preventing anyone from obtaining information from the phones; and (5) on May 8, 2023—while discovery was ongoing—Plaintiff sent a rambling text message to Defendant appearing to express guilt about his role in the deaths of Aaron and Sara. The Motion to Withdraw and the Cross-Motion Two days after receiving my letter—and apparently recognizing the risk of continuing with their frivolous case—Plaintiff’s counsel told me that they would be filing a motion to withdraw as counsel. Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff’s counsel filed an application, by order to show cause (Mot. Seq. #8) (the “Motion to Withdraw”), seeking the Court’s permission to withdraw. The Motion to Withdraw all but confirmed that Plaintiff’s claims were frivolous, stating, inter alia, that Plaintiff’s May 8, 2023 text message to Defendant “seemingly prejudiced Plaintiff’s entire cause of action against Defendant” and that “[t]he contents of the alleged text message are in direct opposition to Plaintiff’s theory of the case.” (Dkt. No. 162, ¶¶ 12, 17.) In response to the Motion to Withdraw, Defendant filed the Cross-Motion, seeking summary judgment in favor of Defendant on all claims. (See Dkt. Nos. 167-200.) As discussed in the Cross-Motion, summary judgment is warranted because, even after two years of litigation, there is no evidence to support Plaintiff’s claims other than his own statements—evidence that is barred from trial under the Dead Man’s Statute and insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact as a matter of law under Second Department precedent. (Dkt. No. 169 at 13 (citing Stathis v. Estate of Karas, 147 N.Y.S.3d 83, 87 (2d Dep’t 2021), leave to appeal denied, 38 N.Y.3d 903 (2022) (“Where, as here, the sole evidence proffered by the opposing party is barred by the Dead Man’s Statute, an award of summary judgment is appropriate.” (citing cases)).) The Cross-Motion also requests that the Court issue an award requiring Plaintiff and his counsel to reimburse Defendant for his attorney’s fees and costs incurred in defending against this frivolous lawsuit pursuant to Part 130 and CPLR 8303-a. On September 25, 2023, Plaintiff filed a reply in further support of the Motion to Withdraw and in opposition to the Cross-Motion. (Dkt. No. 208.) In opposing summary judgment, Plaintiff 1 The letter is attached as Exhibit A to the Motion to Withdraw filed by Plaintiff’s prior counsel (Dkt. No. 163). 2 of 4 FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 02/13/2024 02/12/2024 09:49 02:49 AM PM INDEX NO. 61665/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 232 230 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/13/2024 02/12/2024 February 12, 2024 Page 3 of 4 Hon. Robert S. Ondrovic did not identify any evidence to overcome Defendant’s prima facie entitlement to summary judgment, nor did he dispute the application of the Dead Man’s Statute. Instead, Plaintiff argued only that discovery remained ongoing. (Id. at 5.) On October 6, 2023, Defendant filed his reply in further support of the Cross-Motion, explaining that Plaintiff’s mere hope of obtaining relevant information did not preclude the entry of summary judgment. (See Dkt. No. 209 at 4 (citing Morales v. Amar, 145 A.D.3d 1000, 1003 (2d Dep’t 2016) (“mere hope or speculation that evidence sufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment may be uncovered during the discovery process is an insufficient basis for denying the motion”).) On November 8, 2023, Justice Greenwald held a status conference with the parties. At the conference, Justice Greenwald granted Plaintiff’s counsel’s Motion to Withdraw, such that Plaintiff would now be proceeding pro se, but Justice Greenwald stated that he was “not going to decide [Defendant’s Cross-Motion] as yet” “since Plaintiff doesn’t have counsel.” (See Ex. A (Nov. 8, 2023 Tr.) at 2:11-23.) Justice Greenwald directed Plaintiff’s outgoing counsel to file a proposed order incorporating his rulings and directed the parties to appear for a conference on January 23, 2024, during which time Plaintiff would have the opportunity to obtain new counsel. (See id. at 2:18-3:3.) On November 10, 2023, in accordance with Justice Greenwald’s directives, Plaintiff’s prior counsel filed a proposed order incorporating the Court’s rulings. (See Dkt. Nos. 216, 217.) On December 27, 2023, this Court issued a Court Notice advising that the case had been reassigned to it from Justice Greenwald and directing the parties to appear for a conference on January 4, 2024. (Dkt. No. 218.) The same day, Plaintiff’s outgoing counsel submitted a letter to the Court noting that their proposed order granting their withdrawal had not yet been entered and requesting that the Court approve the proposed order. (Dkt. No. 219.) Later that day, the Court so-ordered the proposed order. (Dkt. No. 220 (the “Withdrawal Order”).) The Withdrawal Order states that “decision on Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment and dismissal (Motion Seq. #9) is reserved as Plaintiff remains without counsel at this time.” (Id.) The January 4, 2024 Conference and the Note of Issue On January 4, 2024, the Court held a status conference with the parties. Notwithstanding that Plaintiff’s prior counsel had filed the Motion to Withdraw more than seven months earlier, Plaintiff still had not secured replacement counsel. Instead, Mr. Robert Corini appeared for Plaintiff but indicated that he was “appearing for the purpose of today only” and would not be representing Plaintiff going forward. (Dkt. No. 229 at 2:4-5, 3:4-9.) The Court observed that this was the “oldest case in the county” at 795 days, with the note of issue having been due on October 29, 2022. (Id. at 2:12-18.) The Court directed Plaintiff to file a notice of issue by January 10, 2024, or the case would be dismissed. (Id. at 3:15-16.) The Court stated that no additional time would be provided for discovery. (Id. at 3:17-20.) The 3 of 4 FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 02/13/2024 02/12/2024 09:49 02:49 AM PM INDEX NO. 61665/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 232 230 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/13/2024 02/12/2024 February 12, 2024 Page 4 of 4 Hon. Robert S. Ondrovic undersigned advised the Court regarding the pendency of the Cross-Motion (id. at 4:5-18), and the Court indicated the Cross-Motion would be addressed following the filing of the note of issue. (Id. at 5:2-9, 6:16-18.) On January 5, 2024, Plaintiff filed the note of issue. (See Dkt. No. 226.) On January 18, 2024, the Court so-ordered the transcript from the January 4, 2024 conference. (See Dkt. No. 229.) The Closing of Discovery Confirms That the Cross-Motion Should Be Granted Now that discovery has closed, Defendant respectfully requests that the Court address and grant the Cross-Motion, which, as discussed above, remains ripe for decision.2 Plaintiff’s sole basis for opposing summary judgment in his opposition to the Cross-Motion was that discovery was, at that point, “incomplete.” (Dkt. No. 208 at 5.) Plaintiff’s position was meritless because, as discussed in Defendant’s reply brief, the mere fact that discovery remained ongoing did not prevent entry of summary judgment. (See Dkt. No. 209 at 4 (citing Morales, 145 A.D.3d at 1003).) With discovery now closed, however, Plaintiff’s sole basis for opposing summary judgment (deficient as it was then) has vanished. Plaintiff failed then—and has failed now—to offer a single piece of evidence to overcome Defendant’s prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment. Instead, Plaintiff relies on nothing more than his own self-serving statements—statements that are barred under the Dead Man’s Statute and insufficient to overcome summary judgment. (Dkt. No. 169 at 13 (citing Stathis, 147 N.Y.S.3d at 87).) Accordingly, Defendant respectfully requests that the Court grant the Cross-Motion, enter summary judgment in favor of Defendant on all claims, and enter an award, pursuant to Part 130 and CPLR 8303-a, requiring Plaintiff to reimburse Defendant for the attorney’s fees and costs he has incurred in defending against this frivolous lawsuit. Respectfully submitted, ____________________________ Jonathan Ohring, Esq. cc: Neil B. Rice (by email and regular mail) 2 The eCourts docket for this case is unclear in describing the status of the Cross-Motion, as it has two separate notations for Mot. Seq. #9: one indicating that the Cross-Motion was decided on December 27, 2023, with “Decision Reserved” by Justice Greenwald, and another indicating that the Cross-Motion was granted by this Court on January 3, 2024. By this letter, the undersigned has sought to clarify the status of the Cross-Motion. 4 of 4