Preview
7
INDEX NO. 703227/2012
(FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 11/20/2013)
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 9 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/20/2013
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF QUEENS
STEWART THOMAS, NOTICE OF MOTION
TO DISMISS
Plaintiff(s),
Index No.: 703227/12
-against-
NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY, "JOHN
DOE", said name being fictitious and unknown and JOSE
L. MORALES,
Defendant(s),
MOTION MADE BY: RICHARD T, LAU & ASSOCIATES
Attorney(s) for Defendant
Jose L. Morales
P.O. Box 9040
300 Jericho Quadrangle East, Suite 260A
Jericho, New York 11753-9040
(516) 229-6000
RETURN DATE AND TIME December 20, 2013, 11:00 A.M., or as soon
thereafter as counsel can be heard.
PLACE: Supreme Court of the State of New York,
County of Queens, Centralized Motion Part, 88-
11 Sutphin Boulevard, Jamaica, New York
11435.
SUPPORTING PAPERS: Affirmation of Matthew Maloney, Esq., dated
November 19, 2013, and the Exhibits annexed
thereto,
RELIEF REQUESTED: a) An Order pursuant to CPLR § 3126(3)
dismissing the Complaint of the plaintiff,
Stewart Thomas, based on the plaintiff’s failure
and refusal to provide an employment
authorization as well as plaintiffs failure to
comply with defendant’s Notice for Discovery
and Inspection, dated May 21, 2013 in
accordance with the Preliminary Conference
Order dated February 4, 2013 and the
Compliance Conference Order dated August 5,
2013; or alternatively, an order pursuant to
CPLR § 3126(2) precluding the plaintiff,
Stewart Thomas from offering any testimony or
evidence at trial in support of his claims of
liability and damages in this action unless
plaintiff complies with defendant's request for
an employment authorization as well as
responses to defendant’s Notice for Discovery
and Inspection within 30 days of the
determination of this Motion; and
b) such other and further relief that this Court
may deem just and proper.
ANSWERING PAPERS: All answering papers, if any, are to be served
within seven (7) days of the return date or
adjourned date of this motion, pursuant to CPLR
§ 2214(b). A cross-motion served by mail must
be served at least ten (10) days prior to the
return date pursuant to CPLR § 2215(a).
This office does not accept service by fax, email
or other electronic means, except for cases that
have been electronically filed with NYSCEF, in
which case our office will accept service as
directed by 22 NYCRR 202.5-b(f).
Dated: Jericho, New York
November 19, 2013
Respectfully yours,
Wallace D. Gossett, Esq. RICHARD T. LAU & ASSOCIATES
Attorney(s) for Co-Defendant(s), New York we
City Transit Authority
130 Livingston Street, 11th Fl
SRE
MATTHEW MALONEY, ESQ:
Brooklyn, NY 11201 Attorney(s) for Defendant(
(718) 694-1820 Jose L. Morales
P.O. Box 9040
Friedman Sanchez, LLP 300 Jericho Quadrangle East, Suite 260A.
Attomney(s) for Plaintiff(s), Stewart Thomas Jericho, NY 11753-9040
16 Court Street (516) 229-6000
Suite 2600 File Number: 13NEWY02849
Brooklyn, NY 11241 Claim Number: 32-0P79-542
(718) 797-2488
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF QUEENS
STEWART THOMAS, AFFIRMATION OF GOOD
FAITH
Plaintiff(s),
Index Number: 703227/12
-against-
NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY, "JOHN
DOE", said name being fictitious and unknown and JOSE
L. MORALES,
Defendant(s),
eS
Matthew Maloney, Esq., an attomey 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 attorney with the law firm of Richard T. Lau & Associates, attorneys of
record for the defendant, Jose L. Morales, in the above entitled action. I submit this Affirmation
of Good Faith in support of the within Motion for an Order dismissing the Complaint of the
plaintiff, Stewart Thornas, based on the plaintiff's failure and refusal to provide an employment
authorization as well as plaintiff's failure to comply with defendant’s Notice for Discovery and
Inspection, dated May 21, 2013 in accordance with the Preliminary Conference Order dated
February 4, 2013 and the Compliance Conference Order dated August 5, 2013; or alternatively,
an order pursuant to CPLR § 3126(2) precluding the plaintiff, Stewart Thomas from offering any
testimony or evidence at trial in support of his claims of liability and damages in this action
unless plaintiff complies with defendant’s demand for an employment authorization as well as
defendant’s Notice for Discovery and Inspection dated May 21, 2013 within 30 days of the
determination of this Motion.
atte
reer ai tt lit
2. A good faith effort has been made to resolve the issues raised in the Motion.
Specifically, counsel for the moving defendant has made written requests for plaintiff's
compliance with the moving defendant’s demands, in accordance with the Preliminary
Conference Order, dated February 4, 2013 and the Compliance Conference Order dated August
5, 2013.
3 Notwithstanding the above efforts, the discovery problems addressed in the
Motion have not been resolved and accordingly the Court’s intervention in this matter is
required.
Dated: Jericho, NY
ba
November 19, 2013
MATTHEW MALONEY,
a
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF QUEENS
STEWART THOMAS, SUPPORTING
AFFIRMATION
Plaintiffs),
Index No.: 703227/12
-against-
NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY, "JOHN
DOE", said name being fictitious and unknown and JOSE
L. MORALES,
Defendant(s),
Matthew Maloney, Esq., an attorney 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 attomey with the law firm of Richard T. Lau & Associates, attorneys of
record for the defendant, Jose L. Morales, and as such, am fully familiar with the facts and
circumstances surrounding this action, by virtue of a review of the file maintained in this matter
by this office.
2 I submit this Affirmation in support of the instant Motion for an Order dismissing
the Complaint of the plaintiff, Stewart Thomas, based on the plaintiff's failure and refusal to
provide an employment authorization as well as plaintiff's failure to comply with defendant’s
Notice for Discovery and Inspection, dated May 21, 2013 in accordance with the Preliminary
Conference Order dated February 4, 2013 and the Compliance Conference Order dated August 5,
2013; or alternatively, an order pursuant to CPLR § 3126(2) precluding the plaintiff, Stewart
Thomas from offering any testimony or evidence at trial in support of his claims of liability and
damages in this action unless plaintiff complies with defendant’s Notice for Discovery and
‘restart
Inspection and provides an employment authorization within 30 days of the determination of this
Motion.
3 This is an action for personal injuries allegedly sustained by plaintiff, Stewart
Thomas, as a result of a motor vehicle accident that occurred on January 15, 2012.
4 Plaintiff, Stewart Thomas, commenced this action by filing and service of a
Summons and Verified Complaint, dated December 17, 2012, a copy of which is annexed hereto
as Exhibit “A”.
5) Defendant, Jose L. Morales, appeared in this action by service of a Verified
Answer, dated February 5, 2013, a copy of which is annexed hereto as Exhibit “B”.
6 On February 4, 2013, the attorneys for the parties appeared for a Preliminary
Conference, which resulted in the issuance of a Preliminary Conference Order, a copy of which
is annexed hereto as Exhibit “C”. In accordance with the Preliminary Conference Order, the
plaintiff, Stewart Thomas, was required to comply with defendant’s discovery demands. See
Exhibit “C”,
7
On May 21, 2013, defendant served plaintiff with a Notice for Discovery and
Inspection regarding plaintiff's prior 2005 accident, a copy of which is annexed hereto as
Exhibit “D”.
8 After not having received any response from plaintiff regarding its Notice for
Discovery and Inspection dated May 21, 2013, defendant sent plaintiff three (3) follow-up letters
dated July 2, 2013, September 11, 2013 and October 18, 2013 requesting a response to its Notice
for Discovery and Inspection as well as requesting an employment authorization, copies of which
are annexed hereto as Exhibit “E”. However, defendant’s requests were to no avail as plaintiff
failed to provide any of the requested information.
9. On August 5, 2013, the attorneys for the parties appeared for a Compliance
Conference, which resulted in the issuance of a Compliance Conference Order, a copy of which
is annexed hereto as Exhibit “F”. In accordance with the Compliance Conference Order, the
plaintiff, Stewart Thomas, was required to comply with defendant’s discovery demands. See
Exhibit “F”.
10. To date, the plaintiff, Stewart Thomas, has failed and refused to serve a response
to the Preliminary Conference Order as well as the Compliance Conference Order, specifically a
response to defendant’s Notice for Discovery and Inspection dated May 21, 2013 as well as
providing an employment authorization to defendant. Nor has plaintiff served any objections to
one or more of the items in defendant’s Notice for Discovery and Inspection within thirty (30)
days of receiving same, as required under CPLR § 3042(a). The failure of the plaintiff, Stewart
Thomas, to serve an objection to any of the items demanded in defendant’s Notice for Discovery
and Inspection as well as providing an employment authorization should preclude the plaintiff
from now challenging the validity of the particulars demanded unless plaintiff can show that the
items sought are palpably improper.
ll. CPLR § 3126(3) provides for the sanction of striking out pleadings or dismissing
an action for a party’s failure to obey an Order for disclosure. Here, the plaintiff, Stewart
Thomas, has failed to obey both the Preliminary Conference Order and the Compliance
Conference Order by failing and refusing to comply with defendant’s Notice for Discovery and
Inspection as well as by failing to provide an employment authorization.
12: Plaintiff, Stewart Thomas, bears the burden of proving liability and damages in
this action, and thus, he should be required to comply with defendant’s Notice for Discovery
Inspection as well as provide an employment authorization to defendant or be precluded from
testifying in support of his claims of liability and damages at the trial of this action. Given the
repeated failure and refusal of plaintiff to comply with the Preliminary Conference Order and the
Compliance Conference Order, this Court should dismiss the Complaint, or at the very least,
preclude the plaintiff from offering any testimony at trial in support of his claims of liability and
damages unless plaintiff complies with defendant’s Notice for Discovery Inspection as well as
provide an employment authorization to defendant within thirty (30) days of the date of the
determination of this Motion.
13. No prior application for the relief requested herein has been made.
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully requested that the Court issue an Order granting the
defendant’s Motion for an Order dismissing the Complaint of the plaintiff, Stewart Thomas,
based on the plaintiff's failure and refusal to comply with defendant’s Notice for Discovery
Inspection as well as provide an employment authorization to defendant, in accordance with the
Preliminary Conference Order dated February 4, 2013 and the Compliance Conference Order
dated August $, 2013; or alternatively, an order pursuant to CPLR § 3126(2) precluding the
plaintiff, Stewart Thomas from offering any testimony or evidence at trial in support of his
claims of liability and damages in this action unless plaintiff complies with defendant's Notice
for Discovery Inspection as well as provide an employment authorization to defendant within 30
days of the determination of this Motion; and such other and further relief that this Court may
deem just and proper.
Dated: Jericho, New York
November 19, 2013
nek Fe a
MATTHEW MALO. , ESQ.
Index No: 703227/12 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF QUEENS
STEWART THOMAS,
Plaintiff(s),
-against-
NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY, "JOHN DOE", said name being fictitious and unknown and
JOSE L. MORALES,
Defendani(s),
NOTICE OF MOTION, AFFIRMATION OF GOOD FAITH,
SUPPORTING AFFIRMATION AND EXHIBITS
RICHARD T. LAU & ASSOCIATES
Attorneys for Defendant(s)
Jose L. Morales
P.O. Box 9040
300 Jericho Quadrangle East, Suite 260A
Jericho, NY 11753-9040
(516) 229-6000
Attomey Certification:
The undersigned, an attorney admitted to practice in the Courts of New York State, certifies that, upon
information, belief and reasonable inquiry, the contentions contained in the above referenced document(s) are
we
not frivolous.
aoe
Dated: Jericho, New York
November 19, 2013 C MATTHEW MON ESQ.
Please take
(Notice of Entry
That the within is a (certified) true copy of a(n) duly entered in the
office of the clerk of the within named Court on
[Notice of Settlement
That a(n) __, of which the within is a true copy, will be presented for
settlement to the Honorable , one of the judges of the within named
Court at , New York on
Dated: Jericho, New York
November 19, 2013
Sincerelv
Preview
7 INDEX NO. 703227/2012 (FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 11/20/2013) NYSCEF DOC. NO. 9 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/20/2013 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF QUEENS STEWART THOMAS, NOTICE OF MOTION TO DISMISS Plaintiff(s), Index No.: 703227/12 -against- NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY, "JOHN DOE", said name being fictitious and unknown and JOSE L. MORALES, Defendant(s), MOTION MADE BY: RICHARD T, LAU & ASSOCIATES Attorney(s) for Defendant Jose L. Morales P.O. Box 9040 300 Jericho Quadrangle East, Suite 260A Jericho, New York 11753-9040 (516) 229-6000 RETURN DATE AND TIME December 20, 2013, 11:00 A.M., or as soon thereafter as counsel can be heard. PLACE: Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Queens, Centralized Motion Part, 88- 11 Sutphin Boulevard, Jamaica, New York 11435. SUPPORTING PAPERS: Affirmation of Matthew Maloney, Esq., dated November 19, 2013, and the Exhibits annexed thereto, RELIEF REQUESTED: a) An Order pursuant to CPLR § 3126(3) dismissing the Complaint of the plaintiff, Stewart Thomas, based on the plaintiff’s failure and refusal to provide an employment authorization as well as plaintiffs failure to comply with defendant’s Notice for Discovery and Inspection, dated May 21, 2013 in accordance with the Preliminary Conference Order dated February 4, 2013 and the Compliance Conference Order dated August 5, 2013; or alternatively, an order pursuant to CPLR § 3126(2) precluding the plaintiff, Stewart Thomas from offering any testimony or evidence at trial in support of his claims of liability and damages in this action unless plaintiff complies with defendant's request for an employment authorization as well as responses to defendant’s Notice for Discovery and Inspection within 30 days of the determination of this Motion; and b) such other and further relief that this Court may deem just and proper. ANSWERING PAPERS: All answering papers, if any, are to be served within seven (7) days of the return date or adjourned date of this motion, pursuant to CPLR § 2214(b). A cross-motion served by mail must be served at least ten (10) days prior to the return date pursuant to CPLR § 2215(a). This office does not accept service by fax, email or other electronic means, except for cases that have been electronically filed with NYSCEF, in which case our office will accept service as directed by 22 NYCRR 202.5-b(f). Dated: Jericho, New York November 19, 2013 Respectfully yours, Wallace D. Gossett, Esq. RICHARD T. LAU & ASSOCIATES Attorney(s) for Co-Defendant(s), New York we City Transit Authority 130 Livingston Street, 11th Fl SRE MATTHEW MALONEY, ESQ: Brooklyn, NY 11201 Attorney(s) for Defendant( (718) 694-1820 Jose L. Morales P.O. Box 9040 Friedman Sanchez, LLP 300 Jericho Quadrangle East, Suite 260A. Attomney(s) for Plaintiff(s), Stewart Thomas Jericho, NY 11753-9040 16 Court Street (516) 229-6000 Suite 2600 File Number: 13NEWY02849 Brooklyn, NY 11241 Claim Number: 32-0P79-542 (718) 797-2488 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF QUEENS STEWART THOMAS, AFFIRMATION OF GOOD FAITH Plaintiff(s), Index Number: 703227/12 -against- NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY, "JOHN DOE", said name being fictitious and unknown and JOSE L. MORALES, Defendant(s), eS Matthew Maloney, Esq., an attomey 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 attorney with the law firm of Richard T. Lau & Associates, attorneys of record for the defendant, Jose L. Morales, in the above entitled action. I submit this Affirmation of Good Faith in support of the within Motion for an Order dismissing the Complaint of the plaintiff, Stewart Thornas, based on the plaintiff's failure and refusal to provide an employment authorization as well as plaintiff's failure to comply with defendant’s Notice for Discovery and Inspection, dated May 21, 2013 in accordance with the Preliminary Conference Order dated February 4, 2013 and the Compliance Conference Order dated August 5, 2013; or alternatively, an order pursuant to CPLR § 3126(2) precluding the plaintiff, Stewart Thomas from offering any testimony or evidence at trial in support of his claims of liability and damages in this action unless plaintiff complies with defendant’s demand for an employment authorization as well as defendant’s Notice for Discovery and Inspection dated May 21, 2013 within 30 days of the determination of this Motion. atte reer ai tt lit 2. A good faith effort has been made to resolve the issues raised in the Motion. Specifically, counsel for the moving defendant has made written requests for plaintiff's compliance with the moving defendant’s demands, in accordance with the Preliminary Conference Order, dated February 4, 2013 and the Compliance Conference Order dated August 5, 2013. 3 Notwithstanding the above efforts, the discovery problems addressed in the Motion have not been resolved and accordingly the Court’s intervention in this matter is required. Dated: Jericho, NY ba November 19, 2013 MATTHEW MALONEY, a SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF QUEENS STEWART THOMAS, SUPPORTING AFFIRMATION Plaintiffs), Index No.: 703227/12 -against- NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY, "JOHN DOE", said name being fictitious and unknown and JOSE L. MORALES, Defendant(s), Matthew Maloney, Esq., an attorney 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 attomey with the law firm of Richard T. Lau & Associates, attorneys of record for the defendant, Jose L. Morales, and as such, am fully familiar with the facts and circumstances surrounding this action, by virtue of a review of the file maintained in this matter by this office. 2 I submit this Affirmation in support of the instant Motion for an Order dismissing the Complaint of the plaintiff, Stewart Thomas, based on the plaintiff's failure and refusal to provide an employment authorization as well as plaintiff's failure to comply with defendant’s Notice for Discovery and Inspection, dated May 21, 2013 in accordance with the Preliminary Conference Order dated February 4, 2013 and the Compliance Conference Order dated August 5, 2013; or alternatively, an order pursuant to CPLR § 3126(2) precluding the plaintiff, Stewart Thomas from offering any testimony or evidence at trial in support of his claims of liability and damages in this action unless plaintiff complies with defendant’s Notice for Discovery and ‘restart Inspection and provides an employment authorization within 30 days of the determination of this Motion. 3 This is an action for personal injuries allegedly sustained by plaintiff, Stewart Thomas, as a result of a motor vehicle accident that occurred on January 15, 2012. 4 Plaintiff, Stewart Thomas, commenced this action by filing and service of a Summons and Verified Complaint, dated December 17, 2012, a copy of which is annexed hereto as Exhibit “A”. 5) Defendant, Jose L. Morales, appeared in this action by service of a Verified Answer, dated February 5, 2013, a copy of which is annexed hereto as Exhibit “B”. 6 On February 4, 2013, the attorneys for the parties appeared for a Preliminary Conference, which resulted in the issuance of a Preliminary Conference Order, a copy of which is annexed hereto as Exhibit “C”. In accordance with the Preliminary Conference Order, the plaintiff, Stewart Thomas, was required to comply with defendant’s discovery demands. See Exhibit “C”, 7 On May 21, 2013, defendant served plaintiff with a Notice for Discovery and Inspection regarding plaintiff's prior 2005 accident, a copy of which is annexed hereto as Exhibit “D”. 8 After not having received any response from plaintiff regarding its Notice for Discovery and Inspection dated May 21, 2013, defendant sent plaintiff three (3) follow-up letters dated July 2, 2013, September 11, 2013 and October 18, 2013 requesting a response to its Notice for Discovery and Inspection as well as requesting an employment authorization, copies of which are annexed hereto as Exhibit “E”. However, defendant’s requests were to no avail as plaintiff failed to provide any of the requested information. 9. On August 5, 2013, the attorneys for the parties appeared for a Compliance Conference, which resulted in the issuance of a Compliance Conference Order, a copy of which is annexed hereto as Exhibit “F”. In accordance with the Compliance Conference Order, the plaintiff, Stewart Thomas, was required to comply with defendant’s discovery demands. See Exhibit “F”. 10. To date, the plaintiff, Stewart Thomas, has failed and refused to serve a response to the Preliminary Conference Order as well as the Compliance Conference Order, specifically a response to defendant’s Notice for Discovery and Inspection dated May 21, 2013 as well as providing an employment authorization to defendant. Nor has plaintiff served any objections to one or more of the items in defendant’s Notice for Discovery and Inspection within thirty (30) days of receiving same, as required under CPLR § 3042(a). The failure of the plaintiff, Stewart Thomas, to serve an objection to any of the items demanded in defendant’s Notice for Discovery and Inspection as well as providing an employment authorization should preclude the plaintiff from now challenging the validity of the particulars demanded unless plaintiff can show that the items sought are palpably improper. ll. CPLR § 3126(3) provides for the sanction of striking out pleadings or dismissing an action for a party’s failure to obey an Order for disclosure. Here, the plaintiff, Stewart Thomas, has failed to obey both the Preliminary Conference Order and the Compliance Conference Order by failing and refusing to comply with defendant’s Notice for Discovery and Inspection as well as by failing to provide an employment authorization. 12: Plaintiff, Stewart Thomas, bears the burden of proving liability and damages in this action, and thus, he should be required to comply with defendant’s Notice for Discovery Inspection as well as provide an employment authorization to defendant or be precluded from testifying in support of his claims of liability and damages at the trial of this action. Given the repeated failure and refusal of plaintiff to comply with the Preliminary Conference Order and the Compliance Conference Order, this Court should dismiss the Complaint, or at the very least, preclude the plaintiff from offering any testimony at trial in support of his claims of liability and damages unless plaintiff complies with defendant’s Notice for Discovery Inspection as well as provide an employment authorization to defendant within thirty (30) days of the date of the determination of this Motion. 13. No prior application for the relief requested herein has been made. WHEREFORE, it is respectfully requested that the Court issue an Order granting the defendant’s Motion for an Order dismissing the Complaint of the plaintiff, Stewart Thomas, based on the plaintiff's failure and refusal to comply with defendant’s Notice for Discovery Inspection as well as provide an employment authorization to defendant, in accordance with the Preliminary Conference Order dated February 4, 2013 and the Compliance Conference Order dated August $, 2013; or alternatively, an order pursuant to CPLR § 3126(2) precluding the plaintiff, Stewart Thomas from offering any testimony or evidence at trial in support of his claims of liability and damages in this action unless plaintiff complies with defendant's Notice for Discovery Inspection as well as provide an employment authorization to defendant within 30 days of the determination of this Motion; and such other and further relief that this Court may deem just and proper. Dated: Jericho, New York November 19, 2013 nek Fe a MATTHEW MALO. , ESQ. Index No: 703227/12 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF QUEENS STEWART THOMAS, Plaintiff(s), -against- NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY, "JOHN DOE", said name being fictitious and unknown and JOSE L. MORALES, Defendani(s), NOTICE OF MOTION, AFFIRMATION OF GOOD FAITH, SUPPORTING AFFIRMATION AND EXHIBITS RICHARD T. LAU & ASSOCIATES Attorneys for Defendant(s) Jose L. Morales P.O. Box 9040 300 Jericho Quadrangle East, Suite 260A Jericho, NY 11753-9040 (516) 229-6000 Attomey Certification: The undersigned, an attorney admitted to practice in the Courts of New York State, certifies that, upon information, belief and reasonable inquiry, the contentions contained in the above referenced document(s) are we not frivolous. aoe Dated: Jericho, New York November 19, 2013 C MATTHEW MON ESQ. Please take (Notice of Entry That the within is a (certified) true copy of a(n) duly entered in the office of the clerk of the within named Court on [Notice of Settlement That a(n) __, of which the within is a true copy, will be presented for settlement to the Honorable , one of the judges of the within named Court at , New York on Dated: Jericho, New York November 19, 2013 Sincerelv