Preview
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 08/06/2020 11:24 AM INDEX NO. 511242/2015
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 187 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/06/2020
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF KINGS
--------------------------------------------------------------------X
SANTOS COLINDRES CANALES, Index No.: 511242/2015
Plaintiff REPLY
AFFIRMATION
-against-
1121, LLC, ECHOSTAR CONSTRUCTION INC.,
DIONISOS CONSTRUCTION CORP., GGL
ENTERPRISES, INC., and JRVA MERGERS &
ACQUISITIONS, INC.,
Defendants.
--------------------------------------------------------------------X
1121, LLC,
Third-Party Plaintiff,
-against-
GGL ENTERPRISES, INC.,
Third-Party Defendant.
--------------------------------------------------------------------X
COUNSELORS:
ARTHUR T. MCQUILLAN, an attorney duly admitted to practice law before the Courts
of the State of New York affirms the following to be true under penalties of perjury:
1. I am an associate of the LAW OFFICE OF KEVIN P WESTERMAN, attorneys for
the defendant/third-party defendant, GGL ENTERPRISES, INC., (hereinafter "GGL") and as
such, I am fully familiar with the facts and circumstances herein.
2. I submit this affirmation in reply to the opposition furnished by plaintiff's counsel
and in further support of GGL's motion to vacate the Note of Issue and Certificate of Readiness
and strike the action from the trial calendar, and in support of an order directing additional
discovery including remaining depositions, independent medical examinations, and responses to
D & I demands.
1
1 of 9
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 08/06/2020 11:24 AM INDEX NO. 511242/2015
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 187 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/06/2020
3. Despite plaintiff's counsel's assertions otherwise, plaintiff clearly filed an
erroneous Certificate of Readiness in the face of the clerk's overt rejection of the first filing
wherein plaintiff had at least acknowledged that additional discovery remained.
4. Instead of conceding that discovery is not complete, plaintiff's counsel ignores the
Unified Court Rules and thinks he has some form of entitlement to have his case on a trialcalendar
when he well knows, among other things, depositions of two defendant entities are outstanding.
Plaintiff's position is even more egregious when one considers that immediately after providing
discovery"
an affirmation in opposition that itis only "defendant's that largely remains he then
immediately filed a summary judgment as against ECHOSTAR CONSTRUCTION INC., one of
those parties whose deposition remains.
5. Plaintiff contends that the clerk had only rejected the initial Note of Issue filing
because defaulting parties needed to be served. Plaintiff ignores the exhibits to the within motion
which contain the e-file clerk notices.
"P"
6. Particularly, in Exhibit (affirmation of Arthur T. McQuillan dated July 6,
returning"
2020) in the clerk's initial rejection the very first item under "reason for is "there is
outstanding discovery in this matter". To say that the Note of Issue was rejected merely because
of a failure to serve defaulting parties simply ignores the clerk's notice.
7. In addition, when plaintiff's counsel tried to inappropriately filethe Note of Issue
a second time with discovery remaining, the clerk rejected it again indicating that aside from the
need to serve nonparticipating parties "additionally, ifthe affirmation should be returned to change
the language regarding incomplete discovery, please indicate such in the comments when refiling
the note of issue.". (See affirmation of Arthur T. McQuillan dated July 6, 2020 Exhibit "R")
2
2 of 9
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 08/06/2020 11:24 AM INDEX NO. 511242/2015
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 187 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/06/2020
8. Instead of acceding the directive of the clerk, plaintiff's counsel again ignored the
fact that the affirmation couldn't be changed regarding the language dealing with incomplete
discovery because discovery was not complete. Instead, plaintiff's counsel surreptitiously ignored
the issue concerning the affirmation and chose to file the erroneous certificate of readiness
(wrongfully indicating discovery was complete) without the affirmation which would have had to
have acknowledged discovery remained.
9. How plaintiff could contend in some fashion that some conduct is not nefarious is
beyond reason.
10. The additional discovery which predominately remains including the depositions
of GGL and ECHOSTAR, the IME exams, and the D & I demands as concerns the codefendants,
has already been addressed in the initial affirmation in support of this motion. However, with
regard to the D & I demand which was directed to plaintiff's counsel after plaintiff's deposition,
plaintiff somehow feels he has complied.
11. GGL was brought into the litigation several years after itcommenced and after the
need for motion practice (as plaintiff would not voluntarily submit to discovery while plaintiff's
initial summary judgment motion was brought) GGL was ultimately afforded an opportunity to
depose plaintiff which only occurred in late 2019.
12. As a result of the deposition, GGL served a D & I demand on plaintiff for various
items, two of which are currently in dispute. The post-deposition discovery demand was annexed
to the affirmation in support of this motion as Exhibit "J". The good faith effort to resolve the
"L"
insufficient discovery response was annexed as Exhibit to the initial motion papers.
3
3 of 9
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 08/06/2020 11:24 AM INDEX NO. 511242/2015
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 187 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/06/2020
13. The first request was for clear and legible copies of plaintiff's IRS returns from
2012 through and including 2015. Plaintiff claims in opposition that defendant is not entitled to
same for failing to explain why, when previously provided with authorizations for employment
records they are seeking plaintiff's income tax returns. See Affirmation of Alan M. Shapey at
paragraph 12.
14. First, the only employment record authorization ever furnished to GGL was for his
"Steven"
employment with Ultrax, or as plaintiff testified. Notably, plaintiff testified that the
totality of his work for Steven's company consumed 2 weeks. Plaintiff never furnished
employment authorizations for any other employer. How plaintiff's counsel believes that such an
employment history would be indicative of support of a lost wage claim is counterintuitive.
"A"
Annexed hereto as Exhibit is a copy of plaintiff's deposition transcript of November 22,
2019, particularly pages 14-19, and 62 wherein he acknowledged he only worked for Steven for 2
weeks.
15. His testimony regarding his other employment was almost solely work for places
of which he didn't even know the names of. As part of Exhibit "A", he testified he had jobs as: a
dishwasher, a busboy, with a guy named Tony Minones, with somebody named Freddie, and
cutting trees. The only job he had with any named company that he could recollect was with
Sevirolli Foods. If plaintiff wants to play the game of furnishing a batch of authorizations for
individuals with no company name and no address its going to do nothing more than to further
extend discovery as there will undoubtedly be a subsequent motion for the IRS records.
16. Instead, he testified that between 2012 and 2015 (date of loss of 2015) that he filed
tax returns with the IRS each of those years. (See Exhibit A-page 62). Common sense dictates that
4
4 of 9
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 08/06/2020 11:24 AM INDEX NO. 511242/2015
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 187 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/06/2020
GGL is entitled to those tax returns rather than go through the charade of processing authorizations
to unknown companies without addresses.
17. The second aspect of the D & I demand directed to plaintiff after his November
"J"
2019 deposition (see Exhibit to the initial affirmation) was a request for "the address and
Uniondale'
phone number of plaintiff's 'Dominican co-worker from as testified to at deposition
phone."
as plaintiff having information regarding same in plaintiff's
18. In that regard, plaintiff testified that he was with a coworker at the time of the
accident and that the coworker took photographs which are the very photographs plaintiff has
"B"
annexed as part of summary judgment motion practice. Annexed hereto as Exhibit are pages
33-34 of plaintiff's November 22, 2019 deposition transcript.
19. A review of the testimony is a microcosm illustrative of the discovery struggles
herein. Plaintiff was asked ifhe knew who took the photographs and he identified itas a coworker.
He was asked "Do you know the name of that person?", to which he responded "yes. I do have it
phone."
in my He was then asked to give the questioner (actually your affirmant) the individual's
name.
20. Despite the fact that plaintiff had his phone and took itout and started looking at it,
plaintiff's counsel jumped in volunteering "If he doesn't know now, then all you could do ismake
respond."
a request which will be taken under advisement, and we will As such, your affirmant
indicated on the record that your affirmant would make a demand and did follow up in writing
"J"
with such a demand (See Exhibit to the initial motion papers).
21. Plaintiff himself identified his coworker on the day of the accident who took the
Dominican"
picture as "He is and when asked if he knew where he lives indicated "Over there in
town."
Uniondale where I live; the same
5
5 of 9
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 08/06/2020 11:24 AM INDEX NO. 511242/2015
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 187 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/06/2020
22. After your affirmant served the written demand plaintiff responded "Objection.
Plaintiff objects to this demand as palpably improper, palpably irrelevant, overbroad,
overreaching, beyond the scope of permissible discovery, improperly seeks private information
harassing."
pertaining to persons who are not parties to this action, burdensome to plaintiff and
"A"
(See Exhibit to affirmation of Alan M. Shapey dated July 28, 2020).
23. It isinteresting that plaintiff's coworker who plaintiff identifies as a witness to the
occurrence or at least the aftermath of the occurrence by taking photographs is an irrelevant person,
despite the fact that plaintiff seeks to utilize those very same photographs as evidence in support
of a summary judgment motion.
24. Even more striking, in the affirmation in opposition (see affirmation of Alan M.
Shapey dated July 28, 2020 at paragraph 13) the opposition to providing this information has now
information."
changed to "Plaintiff does not possess any of this
25. Plaintiff testified that he had the information in the phone that his attorney
representing him in the deposition refused to allow him to look at, and now suddenly plaintiff does
not possess the information. Such a response is beyond disingenuous.
26. As such, GGL is certainly entitled to the tax returns and entitled to the name and
the address of the individual that plaintiff clearly knows.
WHEREFORE, it isrespectfully requested that this Court grant the instant motion in all
respects and strike/vacate the note of issue, or deem the filing of the Note of Issue a nullity, or
alternatively set forth a discovery schedule and extend the time to move for summary judgment
until at least 60 days after completion of the last item of discovery in any resulting order, along
with such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper.
6
6 of 9
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 08/06/2020 11:24 AM INDEX NO. 511242/2015
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 187 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/06/2020
Dated: Garden City, New York
August 6, 2020
Yours, etc.,
LAW OFFICES OF KEVIN P. WESTERMAN
BY:
ARTHUR T. McQUILLAN, ESQ.
Attorneys for Third-Party Defendant
GGL ENTERPRISES, INC.,
990 Stewart Avenue, Suite 400
Garden City, New York 11530
(516) 493-4501
File No.: 17-013254
TO: RUSSO & TONER, LLP
Attorneys for Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff
1121, LLC
166
33 Whitchall Street, Floor
New York, New York 10016
(212) 472-7270
LIPSIG, SHAPEY, MANUS & MOVERMAN, P.C.
Attorneys for Plaintiff
256
40 Fulton Street, Floor
New York, New York 10038
(212) 285-3300
THE LAW OFFICES OF HARRY C. DEMIRIS, JR., P.C.
Attorneys for Defendant
ECHOSTAR CONSTRUCTION, INC.
400 Post Avenue, Suite LL1
Westbury, New York 11590
(516) 997-9354
7
7 of 9
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 08/06/2020 11:24 AM INDEX NO. 511242/2015
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 187 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/06/2020
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NASSAU ss:
Lillian Rivera being duly sworn, deposes and says:
deponent is not a party to the action, is over 18 years of age and resides in Queens County, New
York.
On August 6, 2020 depenent served the within REPLY AFFIRMATION upon:
RUSSO & TONER, LLP
Attorneys for Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff
1121, LLC
166
33 Whitehall Street, Floor
New York, New York 10016
LIPSIG, SHAPEY, MANUS & MOVERMAN, P.C.
256
40 Fulton Street, Floor
New York, New York 10038
THE LAW OFFICES OF HARRY C. DEMIRIS, JR., P.C.
400 Post Avenue, Suite LL1
Westbury, New York 11590
attorney in this action, at the address desigñatcd by said attorney(s) for that purpose via Electronic
Filing on the New York State Unified Court System.
Sworn to before me this
5 Rivera
66
ay of August 2020
Notary Public
Cara R. DeMarco
Notary Public,State of New York
No. 01DE6210721
Qualified inNassau County
Comm'esion Expires August 31, 2021
8
8 of 9
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 08/06/2020 11:24 AM INDEX NO. 511242/2015
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 187 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/06/2020
SUPREME COURT: KINGS COUNTY Index No.: 511242/2016
SANTOS COLINDRES CANALES,
Plaintiff
-against-
1121, LLC, ECHOSTAR CONSTRUCTION INC.,
DIONISOS CONSTRUCTION CORP., GGL
ENTERPRISES, INC., and JRVA MERGERS &
ACQUISITIONS, INC.,
Defendants.
And Third-party Action
AFFIRMATION IN REPLY
THE LAW OFFICES OF KEVIN P. WESTERMAN
Attorney for Named Defendant(s)
990 Stewart Avenue, Suite 400
Garden City, New York 11530
(516) 493-4501
NOTICE OF ENTRY
Sir: Please take notice that the within is a (certified) true copy of a duly
entered in the office of the Clerk of the within named Court on 2020
Dated: Garden City, New York
Sir: Please take notice that an order of which the within is a true copy will be
presented for settlement to the Hon. one of the judges of the
within named Court, at on the day of
19 at .M.
Dated: Woodbury, New York
Service of a Copy of the within is hereby admitted.
Dated:
Attorneys for Plaintiff
9
9 of 9
Preview
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 08/06/2020 11:24 AM INDEX NO. 511242/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 187 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/06/2020 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS --------------------------------------------------------------------X SANTOS COLINDRES CANALES, Index No.: 511242/2015 Plaintiff REPLY AFFIRMATION -against- 1121, LLC, ECHOSTAR CONSTRUCTION INC., DIONISOS CONSTRUCTION CORP., GGL ENTERPRISES, INC., and JRVA MERGERS & ACQUISITIONS, INC., Defendants. --------------------------------------------------------------------X 1121, LLC, Third-Party Plaintiff, -against- GGL ENTERPRISES, INC., Third-Party Defendant. --------------------------------------------------------------------X COUNSELORS: ARTHUR T. MCQUILLAN, an attorney duly admitted to practice law before the Courts of the State of New York affirms the following to be true under penalties of perjury: 1. I am an associate of the LAW OFFICE OF KEVIN P WESTERMAN, attorneys for the defendant/third-party defendant, GGL ENTERPRISES, INC., (hereinafter "GGL") and as such, I am fully familiar with the facts and circumstances herein. 2. I submit this affirmation in reply to the opposition furnished by plaintiff's counsel and in further support of GGL's motion to vacate the Note of Issue and Certificate of Readiness and strike the action from the trial calendar, and in support of an order directing additional discovery including remaining depositions, independent medical examinations, and responses to D & I demands. 1 1 of 9 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 08/06/2020 11:24 AM INDEX NO. 511242/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 187 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/06/2020 3. Despite plaintiff's counsel's assertions otherwise, plaintiff clearly filed an erroneous Certificate of Readiness in the face of the clerk's overt rejection of the first filing wherein plaintiff had at least acknowledged that additional discovery remained. 4. Instead of conceding that discovery is not complete, plaintiff's counsel ignores the Unified Court Rules and thinks he has some form of entitlement to have his case on a trialcalendar when he well knows, among other things, depositions of two defendant entities are outstanding. Plaintiff's position is even more egregious when one considers that immediately after providing discovery" an affirmation in opposition that itis only "defendant's that largely remains he then immediately filed a summary judgment as against ECHOSTAR CONSTRUCTION INC., one of those parties whose deposition remains. 5. Plaintiff contends that the clerk had only rejected the initial Note of Issue filing because defaulting parties needed to be served. Plaintiff ignores the exhibits to the within motion which contain the e-file clerk notices. "P" 6. Particularly, in Exhibit (affirmation of Arthur T. McQuillan dated July 6, returning" 2020) in the clerk's initial rejection the very first item under "reason for is "there is outstanding discovery in this matter". To say that the Note of Issue was rejected merely because of a failure to serve defaulting parties simply ignores the clerk's notice. 7. In addition, when plaintiff's counsel tried to inappropriately filethe Note of Issue a second time with discovery remaining, the clerk rejected it again indicating that aside from the need to serve nonparticipating parties "additionally, ifthe affirmation should be returned to change the language regarding incomplete discovery, please indicate such in the comments when refiling the note of issue.". (See affirmation of Arthur T. McQuillan dated July 6, 2020 Exhibit "R") 2 2 of 9 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 08/06/2020 11:24 AM INDEX NO. 511242/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 187 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/06/2020 8. Instead of acceding the directive of the clerk, plaintiff's counsel again ignored the fact that the affirmation couldn't be changed regarding the language dealing with incomplete discovery because discovery was not complete. Instead, plaintiff's counsel surreptitiously ignored the issue concerning the affirmation and chose to file the erroneous certificate of readiness (wrongfully indicating discovery was complete) without the affirmation which would have had to have acknowledged discovery remained. 9. How plaintiff could contend in some fashion that some conduct is not nefarious is beyond reason. 10. The additional discovery which predominately remains including the depositions of GGL and ECHOSTAR, the IME exams, and the D & I demands as concerns the codefendants, has already been addressed in the initial affirmation in support of this motion. However, with regard to the D & I demand which was directed to plaintiff's counsel after plaintiff's deposition, plaintiff somehow feels he has complied. 11. GGL was brought into the litigation several years after itcommenced and after the need for motion practice (as plaintiff would not voluntarily submit to discovery while plaintiff's initial summary judgment motion was brought) GGL was ultimately afforded an opportunity to depose plaintiff which only occurred in late 2019. 12. As a result of the deposition, GGL served a D & I demand on plaintiff for various items, two of which are currently in dispute. The post-deposition discovery demand was annexed to the affirmation in support of this motion as Exhibit "J". The good faith effort to resolve the "L" insufficient discovery response was annexed as Exhibit to the initial motion papers. 3 3 of 9 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 08/06/2020 11:24 AM INDEX NO. 511242/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 187 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/06/2020 13. The first request was for clear and legible copies of plaintiff's IRS returns from 2012 through and including 2015. Plaintiff claims in opposition that defendant is not entitled to same for failing to explain why, when previously provided with authorizations for employment records they are seeking plaintiff's income tax returns. See Affirmation of Alan M. Shapey at paragraph 12. 14. First, the only employment record authorization ever furnished to GGL was for his "Steven" employment with Ultrax, or as plaintiff testified. Notably, plaintiff testified that the totality of his work for Steven's company consumed 2 weeks. Plaintiff never furnished employment authorizations for any other employer. How plaintiff's counsel believes that such an employment history would be indicative of support of a lost wage claim is counterintuitive. "A" Annexed hereto as Exhibit is a copy of plaintiff's deposition transcript of November 22, 2019, particularly pages 14-19, and 62 wherein he acknowledged he only worked for Steven for 2 weeks. 15. His testimony regarding his other employment was almost solely work for places of which he didn't even know the names of. As part of Exhibit "A", he testified he had jobs as: a dishwasher, a busboy, with a guy named Tony Minones, with somebody named Freddie, and cutting trees. The only job he had with any named company that he could recollect was with Sevirolli Foods. If plaintiff wants to play the game of furnishing a batch of authorizations for individuals with no company name and no address its going to do nothing more than to further extend discovery as there will undoubtedly be a subsequent motion for the IRS records. 16. Instead, he testified that between 2012 and 2015 (date of loss of 2015) that he filed tax returns with the IRS each of those years. (See Exhibit A-page 62). Common sense dictates that 4 4 of 9 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 08/06/2020 11:24 AM INDEX NO. 511242/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 187 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/06/2020 GGL is entitled to those tax returns rather than go through the charade of processing authorizations to unknown companies without addresses. 17. The second aspect of the D & I demand directed to plaintiff after his November "J" 2019 deposition (see Exhibit to the initial affirmation) was a request for "the address and Uniondale' phone number of plaintiff's 'Dominican co-worker from as testified to at deposition phone." as plaintiff having information regarding same in plaintiff's 18. In that regard, plaintiff testified that he was with a coworker at the time of the accident and that the coworker took photographs which are the very photographs plaintiff has "B" annexed as part of summary judgment motion practice. Annexed hereto as Exhibit are pages 33-34 of plaintiff's November 22, 2019 deposition transcript. 19. A review of the testimony is a microcosm illustrative of the discovery struggles herein. Plaintiff was asked ifhe knew who took the photographs and he identified itas a coworker. He was asked "Do you know the name of that person?", to which he responded "yes. I do have it phone." in my He was then asked to give the questioner (actually your affirmant) the individual's name. 20. Despite the fact that plaintiff had his phone and took itout and started looking at it, plaintiff's counsel jumped in volunteering "If he doesn't know now, then all you could do ismake respond." a request which will be taken under advisement, and we will As such, your affirmant indicated on the record that your affirmant would make a demand and did follow up in writing "J" with such a demand (See Exhibit to the initial motion papers). 21. Plaintiff himself identified his coworker on the day of the accident who took the Dominican" picture as "He is and when asked if he knew where he lives indicated "Over there in town." Uniondale where I live; the same 5 5 of 9 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 08/06/2020 11:24 AM INDEX NO. 511242/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 187 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/06/2020 22. After your affirmant served the written demand plaintiff responded "Objection. Plaintiff objects to this demand as palpably improper, palpably irrelevant, overbroad, overreaching, beyond the scope of permissible discovery, improperly seeks private information harassing." pertaining to persons who are not parties to this action, burdensome to plaintiff and "A" (See Exhibit to affirmation of Alan M. Shapey dated July 28, 2020). 23. It isinteresting that plaintiff's coworker who plaintiff identifies as a witness to the occurrence or at least the aftermath of the occurrence by taking photographs is an irrelevant person, despite the fact that plaintiff seeks to utilize those very same photographs as evidence in support of a summary judgment motion. 24. Even more striking, in the affirmation in opposition (see affirmation of Alan M. Shapey dated July 28, 2020 at paragraph 13) the opposition to providing this information has now information." changed to "Plaintiff does not possess any of this 25. Plaintiff testified that he had the information in the phone that his attorney representing him in the deposition refused to allow him to look at, and now suddenly plaintiff does not possess the information. Such a response is beyond disingenuous. 26. As such, GGL is certainly entitled to the tax returns and entitled to the name and the address of the individual that plaintiff clearly knows. WHEREFORE, it isrespectfully requested that this Court grant the instant motion in all respects and strike/vacate the note of issue, or deem the filing of the Note of Issue a nullity, or alternatively set forth a discovery schedule and extend the time to move for summary judgment until at least 60 days after completion of the last item of discovery in any resulting order, along with such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper. 6 6 of 9 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 08/06/2020 11:24 AM INDEX NO. 511242/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 187 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/06/2020 Dated: Garden City, New York August 6, 2020 Yours, etc., LAW OFFICES OF KEVIN P. WESTERMAN BY: ARTHUR T. McQUILLAN, ESQ. Attorneys for Third-Party Defendant GGL ENTERPRISES, INC., 990 Stewart Avenue, Suite 400 Garden City, New York 11530 (516) 493-4501 File No.: 17-013254 TO: RUSSO & TONER, LLP Attorneys for Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff 1121, LLC 166 33 Whitchall Street, Floor New York, New York 10016 (212) 472-7270 LIPSIG, SHAPEY, MANUS & MOVERMAN, P.C. Attorneys for Plaintiff 256 40 Fulton Street, Floor New York, New York 10038 (212) 285-3300 THE LAW OFFICES OF HARRY C. DEMIRIS, JR., P.C. Attorneys for Defendant ECHOSTAR CONSTRUCTION, INC. 400 Post Avenue, Suite LL1 Westbury, New York 11590 (516) 997-9354 7 7 of 9 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 08/06/2020 11:24 AM INDEX NO. 511242/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 187 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/06/2020 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NASSAU ss: Lillian Rivera being duly sworn, deposes and says: deponent is not a party to the action, is over 18 years of age and resides in Queens County, New York. On August 6, 2020 depenent served the within REPLY AFFIRMATION upon: RUSSO & TONER, LLP Attorneys for Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff 1121, LLC 166 33 Whitehall Street, Floor New York, New York 10016 LIPSIG, SHAPEY, MANUS & MOVERMAN, P.C. 256 40 Fulton Street, Floor New York, New York 10038 THE LAW OFFICES OF HARRY C. DEMIRIS, JR., P.C. 400 Post Avenue, Suite LL1 Westbury, New York 11590 attorney in this action, at the address desigñatcd by said attorney(s) for that purpose via Electronic Filing on the New York State Unified Court System. Sworn to before me this 5 Rivera 66 ay of August 2020 Notary Public Cara R. DeMarco Notary Public,State of New York No. 01DE6210721 Qualified inNassau County Comm'esion Expires August 31, 2021 8 8 of 9 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 08/06/2020 11:24 AM INDEX NO. 511242/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 187 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/06/2020 SUPREME COURT: KINGS COUNTY Index No.: 511242/2016 SANTOS COLINDRES CANALES, Plaintiff -against- 1121, LLC, ECHOSTAR CONSTRUCTION INC., DIONISOS CONSTRUCTION CORP., GGL ENTERPRISES, INC., and JRVA MERGERS & ACQUISITIONS, INC., Defendants. And Third-party Action AFFIRMATION IN REPLY THE LAW OFFICES OF KEVIN P. WESTERMAN Attorney for Named Defendant(s) 990 Stewart Avenue, Suite 400 Garden City, New York 11530 (516) 493-4501 NOTICE OF ENTRY Sir: Please take notice that the within is a (certified) true copy of a duly entered in the office of the Clerk of the within named Court on 2020 Dated: Garden City, New York Sir: Please take notice that an order of which the within is a true copy will be presented for settlement to the Hon. one of the judges of the within named Court, at on the day of 19 at .M. Dated: Woodbury, New York Service of a Copy of the within is hereby admitted. Dated: Attorneys for Plaintiff 9 9 of 9