Motion-Secondary: Daniel Collin, Thomas J. Craren, Christin Kohls, Joseph Kolhs, Greg Merchant, Matthew Mcgowan, Adam Leo Stone, Jacqueline Rosanna Stone v. Park Right Corporation, 415 Pr Llc

• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                FILED:         NEW     YORK       COUNTY        CLERK        11/03/2015             04:59        PM                INDEX    NO.   158134/2015
   NYSCEF     DOC.   NO.   22                                                                                RECEIVED      NYSCEF:     11/03/2015




                 SUPREME COURT            OF THE      STATE OF NEW          YORK
                 COUNTY       OF   NEW    YORK

                 DANIEL      COLLIN,     THOMAS        J. CRAREN,       CHRISTIAN                 Index   No.:   158134/15
                 KOHLS,     JOSEPH      KOHLS,      GREG     MERCHANT,
                 MATTHEW MCGOWAN,                   ADAM LEO STONE,             and
                 JACQUELINE ROSANNA                 STONE,

                                            P1aintiff,                                             AFFIRMATION            IN
                                                                                                   OPPOSITION TO
                                   - against   -                                                   MOTION        TO COMPEL

                 PARK RIGHT         CORPORATION           and 415 PR LLC,

                                            Defendants.



                          MATTHEW          HEARLE,        an attofney    duly  admitted    to practice before the     courts   of  the


                  State of New    York, hereby     affirms   the following   under penalties     of perjury:

                           1.      I  am a partner     of  the  law   firm  of  Goldberg    weprin Finkel Goldstein         LLP, the

                  attomeys    of  record for     defendant     415   PR   LLC    ("Defendant").        I respectfully    submit   this

                  affirmation   in opposition     to the motion     of plaintifÏs  seeking    an order   compelling     Defendant    to

                  produce documents.

                           2.       Plaintiff  s motion     should   be  denied    for two   reasons:    (i) it is moot given that

                  Defendant    is serving   the requested documents;       and (ii) it is extraordinarily    premature.    Indeed,   in

                  its haste to bring the motion,     Plaintiff  has failed to appreciate     that there is in fact  no dispute. As I

                  told  plaintiffs'  counsel,   I requested    the documents      from my     client  and  would    produce    what   it

                  had. While it is true that    the production     is now   slightly untimely,   in light  of the fact that this  case


                  is just  two   and one-half     months     old  and there has not even         been   a preliminary     conference


                  scheduled    (much   less held)  , the delay   is de minimus'
                          3.       Indeed,   as   I explained    to  counsel,   I  have just    retumed    from   vacation and am

                 prepared to    deliver  the documents.      I requested   that this  motion be adjoumed for a short time           to

                 allow   the  documents     to be served    and   the  costs, as well   as the burden on the Court,         could   be

                 avoided. Counsel refused to         adjourn   the  motion. Accordingly,       this  opposition,   and the    Cou¡t's

                 consideration    of this motion is now required.

                          4.       The   motion     should    be  denied    because    this   case   is  in  its  infancy.     It was

                 commenced      just over two months       ago.  No preliminary     conference has been held        in this case.


                           5.      Defendant     is complying with      Plaintiff  s discovery and     it is doing   so after only a

                  minimal delay.     There   has not been    any willful   or contumacious      effort to deny Plaintiff anything.

                 Nothing    warrants    imposition of     any   sanction   whatsoever      much less the ultimate        sanction of

                  dismissing    Defendant's    answer.    A.F.C.   Enterprises.    Inc. v. New York City       School Consüuction

                  Authoritv, 33 A.D.3d       737,  622 N.Y.S.    775 (2"d Dept.    2006).

                           6.       Finally,  Plaintiff did   not comply    with   New York County        Uniform    Rule 10, which

                  advises   that a party seeking     disclosure   should contact     "the Pa¡t   Clerk  promptly,    and  within any

                  applicable    deadline,   for  the purpose     of  arranging a     conference"     before   making     a  discovery

                  motion. Plaintiff     smotion   is therefore   invalid and should be denied.

                           7.       Based    upon the    foregoing, Defendant        respectfully   requests   that the   Court deny

                  Plaintiffls  motion   as well   as award    to Defendant    such  other  and further   relief as the Court   deems

                  just and appropriate.

                  Dated:            New York, New        York
                                    November      3,2015



                                                                                           MATTHEWHEARLE




                                                                            2