On August 06, 2015 a
Motion,Ex Parte
was filed
involving a dispute between
Luxury Mortgage Corp.,
and
Stephen J. Beninati,
for Commercial (General)
in the District Court of New York County.
Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/09/2016 04:37 PM INDEX NO. 652746/2015
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 27 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/09/2016
100 Park Avenue, Suite 1500
New York, NY 10017
Tel 212.878.7900 Fax 212.692.0940
www.foxrothschild.com
CAROLINE A. MORGAN
Direct Dial: 646-601-7613
Email Address: CMorgan@FoxRothschild.com
May 9, 2016
VIA ECF AND FAX (212) 520-1095
The Honorable Eileen A. Rakower
New York Supreme Court
IAS Part 15
71 Thomas Street
New York, NY 10013
Re: Luxury Mortgage Corp. v. Stephen J. Beninati – Index No. 652746/2015
Dear Judge Rakower:
This firm represents Defendant Stephen J. Beninati in the above-referenced matter. We write to
respectfully request an adjournment of the hearing on Plaintiff Luxury Mortgage Corporation’s
(“Plaintiff”) Order to Show Cause scheduled for May 17, 2016 to June 2, 2016, 9:30 A.M.
Plaintiff’s motion concerns Mr. Beninati and non-party client Ms. Beninati’s compliance with
Subpoenas Ad Testificandum and Duces Tecum. Since the filing of the motion, both parties
have coordinated with Plaintiff to produce documents on May 11, 2016, and to appear for
depositions on May 16, 2016, a date requested by Plaintiff itself. Given that there came to be an
agreement for compliance by all the parties that are the subject of the motion, on May 6, 2016,
Plaintiff requested that we consent to the above adjournment. In good faith we participated in a
joint call with your Clerk whereupon Plaintiff’s counsel, when asked the grounds for the
adjournment, stated that compliance prior to the May 17th hearing may negate any need for the
Court’s intervention. Despite this representation to your Clerk and the exchange between
counsel of a draft stipulation and letter to the Court, Plaintiff reneged on the adjournment and a
stipulation was never sent.
We continue to find that an adjournment is practicable under the circumstances where
compliance shall occur prior to the currently scheduled hearing. We respectfully request that the
hearing be adjourned until June 2, 2016 or such other date that is convenient for the Court.
1 of 2
The Honorable Eileen A. Rakower
May 9, 2016
Page 2
We appreciate the Court’s time and consideration of this request.
Respectfully Submitted,
/s/ Caroline A. Morgan
Caroline A. Morgan
CAM
cc: Pamela L. Kleinberg, Esq.
2 of 2
Document Filed Date
May 09, 2016
Case Filing Date
August 06, 2015
Category
Commercial (General)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/09/2016 04:37 PM INDEX NO. 652746/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 27 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/09/2016 100 Park Avenue, Suite 1500 New York, NY 10017 Tel 212.878.7900 Fax 212.692.0940 www.foxrothschild.com CAROLINE A. MORGAN Direct Dial: 646-601-7613 Email Address: CMorgan@FoxRothschild.com May 9, 2016 VIA ECF AND FAX (212) 520-1095 The Honorable Eileen A. Rakower New York Supreme Court IAS Part 15 71 Thomas Street New York, NY 10013 Re: Luxury Mortgage Corp. v. Stephen J. Beninati – Index No. 652746/2015 Dear Judge Rakower: This firm represents Defendant Stephen J. Beninati in the above-referenced matter. We write to respectfully request an adjournment of the hearing on Plaintiff Luxury Mortgage Corporation’s (“Plaintiff”) Order to Show Cause scheduled for May 17, 2016 to June 2, 2016, 9:30 A.M. Plaintiff’s motion concerns Mr. Beninati and non-party client Ms. Beninati’s compliance with Subpoenas Ad Testificandum and Duces Tecum. Since the filing of the motion, both parties have coordinated with Plaintiff to produce documents on May 11, 2016, and to appear for depositions on May 16, 2016, a date requested by Plaintiff itself. Given that there came to be an agreement for compliance by all the parties that are the subject of the motion, on May 6, 2016, Plaintiff requested that we consent to the above adjournment. In good faith we participated in a joint call with your Clerk whereupon Plaintiff’s counsel, when asked the grounds for the adjournment, stated that compliance prior to the May 17th hearing may negate any need for the Court’s intervention. Despite this representation to your Clerk and the exchange between counsel of a draft stipulation and letter to the Court, Plaintiff reneged on the adjournment and a stipulation was never sent. We continue to find that an adjournment is practicable under the circumstances where compliance shall occur prior to the currently scheduled hearing. We respectfully request that the hearing be adjourned until June 2, 2016 or such other date that is convenient for the Court. 1 of 2 The Honorable Eileen A. Rakower May 9, 2016 Page 2 We appreciate the Court’s time and consideration of this request. Respectfully Submitted, /s/ Caroline A. Morgan Caroline A. Morgan CAM cc: Pamela L. Kleinberg, Esq. 2 of 2