Preview
Westchester Office:
The Kennedy Building
Duffy & Staab LLC
2 WiRiam Street, Suite 304
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
W
White Plains, NY nodox
WP Tel: (9x4) Gary G. Staab
Fax: (934)220-0232 Admitted in New York and New Jersey
g.stmab@duffystamb.com
New York Office:
Madison Avenue,x8th Hoor Kevin T. Duffy,Jr.
444
New York,NY noo22 Admitted in New York and Connecticut
(By AppointmentOnly) k.ddry@duffystamb.com
NYC Tel: (2:2)222m Of Cad:
Kevin Thomas Duffy
U.S.D.J., Ret.
Connecticut Office:
2R
(a,4
x65 West Putnam Avenue,
Greenwich, CT o683o
CT Tel: (203) 33x-3300
Fax: (203) 813-566x
www.duffystaab.com
Please Respond to Westchester OfHce
VIA NYSCEF AND ELECTRONIC MAIL
September 4, 2020
Justice William J. Giacomo
Supreme Court of New York
111 Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.,Blvd.
White Plains, NY 10601
Dear Justice Giacomo:
This firm represents Defendants Covalent Chemical LLC and Matthew Rowe in the
above.
I write in response to Mr. Katz's email application of yesterday requesting an extension
Defendants'
of Plaintiff Parchem Trading, Ltd.'s recently stipulated time to respond to
motions to dismiss and for sanctions (that deadline had been September 2) as well for an
extension of the recently stipulated return date (September 21). The stipulation setting
those dates was entered into two weeks ago on August 19, and so-ordered by this Court
on August 25.
My clients are aware itis unusual not to consent such a request, but they are constrained
to do so here under the unusual circumstances of this case.
Accordingly my clients wish that I explain to the Court why they feel they cannot consent
to what, in their eyes, is simply more gamesmanship by the Plaintiff. (They do not and
Duffy
& Staab LLC
Justice William J. Giacomo
September 4, 2020
Page 2 of 3
will not oppose Mr. Katz's firm's pending motion by order to show cause to withdraw
from the case.)
The fact is that the timing of the motion to withdraw and instant application fit squarely
within the pattern of Plaintiff Parchem's improper gaming of the system which is
Defendants'
set forth in Mr. Rowe's affidavit supporting motions to dismiss and for
sanctions, which I will not reiterate in alldetails here. Rather I will just mention the
relevant parts that bear on their withholding of consent.
Covalent originally brought an action in North Carolina in November 2017 seeking about
$37,000 owed itby Parchem for several chemical shipments Parchem refused to pay for,
and for a declaration that Covalent did not contract with Parchem for an order of another
"contract"
industrial chemical called butyl acrylate (which Parchem had claimed was
breached and created a convenient offset to that debt). Parchem also brought a counter-
"contract"
claim for the butyl acrylic in North Carolina.
Parchem maintained those positions for about two years in the pre-trial phase of that case.
Ultimately a bench trial was scheduled to begin on Tuesday, January 21, 2020.
On Friday January 17, just 4 days before the trialwas scheduled to begin, Parchem
withdrew itscounterclaim and brought this action in New York on the same disputed
butyl acrylate transaction. (This action was essentially the identical to Parchem's
withdrawn counterclaim except itnamed Mr. Rowe personally as a second defendant.)
Then, at the trialin North Carolina, Parchem stipulated to its debt to Covalent which it
had disputed for over two years. The trial,however, went forward on Covalent's
declaratory judgment claim. As to that, the NC Court found there was no butyl acrylate
contract and awarded Covalent about $38,000 on the now stipulated debt.
Here, after unsuccessfully trying to persuade Plaintiff to voluntarily withdraw this case in
light of the North Carolina decision and judgment, Defendants were forced to move to
dismiss on res judicata and collateral estoppel grounds at significant expense. They also
included a motion for sanctions.
Three days before Parchem's response to the motion was due, Parchem amended its
complaint slightly, but enough to moot some of the motion by adding a new fictitious
"facts"
defendant, XYZ Corp., and some other alleged that needed to be addressed, with
the result that Defendants had to file an amended motion at significant additional
expense.
Now, just as Parchem's response to the amended motion was finally due (after asking for
another extension lastmonth to which Defendants consented) we learn Parchem has not
paid its lawyers so they need to withdraw and that Parchem wants a continuance.
Duffy
& Staab LLC
Justice William J. Giacomo
September 4, 2020
Page 3 of 3
My clients have spent over $50,000 in North Carolina and here in New York litigating
over a debt Parchem belatedly admitted itowed to them and defending against Parchem's
fabricated butyl acrylate contract claim, which the NC Court specifically found after trial
not to have not existed in the firstplace.
Further, my clients know Parchem remains active in the market, and they know the
principal of Parchem. They know he is a wealthy individual who could easily have paid
Parchem's lawyers if he wished to. (As noted in our memo of law, he was also
behavior"
sanctioned in Federal Court earlier this year for "disruptive in discovery.) But
he has chosen not to pay his lawyers, they suspect, to drag out this case, delay a ruling on
their motions to dismiss and for sanctions, and to run up more expenses.
Finally, if Parchem's principal told its lawyers he wasn't going to pay them, why request
an extension in late stipulate to a September 2 then reveal the attorney-
August, response,
client dispute a few days before the response is due, manufacturing a basis for further
delay? Why not hire another law firm well in advance of the motion response date if that
was their intention?
In any event, Defendants wish to explain that they have a reasoned basis for not
consenting to Mr. Katz's request on behalf of his soon-to-be-former client for
"situation"
an extension of itsexpired deadline. Parchem's current is part of a pattern of
harassing Defendants and of its own creation.
Should the Court grant an extension itshould be on reasonable but strict conditions that
do not permit further delays.
clients'
We thank the Court for its time in hearing my perspective on this very frustrating
(for them) matter.
Very truly yours,
DUFFY & STAAB LLC
By: 6. 5taal
dary
Gary G. Staab, Esq.
cc: Adam Katz, Esq. (via email and NYSCEF)
Preview
Westchester Office: The Kennedy Building Duffy & Staab LLC 2 WiRiam Street, Suite 304 ATTORNEYS AT LAW W White Plains, NY nodox WP Tel: (9x4) Gary G. Staab Fax: (934)220-0232 Admitted in New York and New Jersey g.stmab@duffystamb.com New York Office: Madison Avenue,x8th Hoor Kevin T. Duffy,Jr. 444 New York,NY noo22 Admitted in New York and Connecticut (By AppointmentOnly) k.ddry@duffystamb.com NYC Tel: (2:2)222m Of Cad: Kevin Thomas Duffy U.S.D.J., Ret. Connecticut Office: 2R (a,4 x65 West Putnam Avenue, Greenwich, CT o683o CT Tel: (203) 33x-3300 Fax: (203) 813-566x www.duffystaab.com Please Respond to Westchester OfHce VIA NYSCEF AND ELECTRONIC MAIL September 4, 2020 Justice William J. Giacomo Supreme Court of New York 111 Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.,Blvd. White Plains, NY 10601 Dear Justice Giacomo: This firm represents Defendants Covalent Chemical LLC and Matthew Rowe in the above. I write in response to Mr. Katz's email application of yesterday requesting an extension Defendants' of Plaintiff Parchem Trading, Ltd.'s recently stipulated time to respond to motions to dismiss and for sanctions (that deadline had been September 2) as well for an extension of the recently stipulated return date (September 21). The stipulation setting those dates was entered into two weeks ago on August 19, and so-ordered by this Court on August 25. My clients are aware itis unusual not to consent such a request, but they are constrained to do so here under the unusual circumstances of this case. Accordingly my clients wish that I explain to the Court why they feel they cannot consent to what, in their eyes, is simply more gamesmanship by the Plaintiff. (They do not and Duffy & Staab LLC Justice William J. Giacomo September 4, 2020 Page 2 of 3 will not oppose Mr. Katz's firm's pending motion by order to show cause to withdraw from the case.) The fact is that the timing of the motion to withdraw and instant application fit squarely within the pattern of Plaintiff Parchem's improper gaming of the system which is Defendants' set forth in Mr. Rowe's affidavit supporting motions to dismiss and for sanctions, which I will not reiterate in alldetails here. Rather I will just mention the relevant parts that bear on their withholding of consent. Covalent originally brought an action in North Carolina in November 2017 seeking about $37,000 owed itby Parchem for several chemical shipments Parchem refused to pay for, and for a declaration that Covalent did not contract with Parchem for an order of another "contract" industrial chemical called butyl acrylate (which Parchem had claimed was breached and created a convenient offset to that debt). Parchem also brought a counter- "contract" claim for the butyl acrylic in North Carolina. Parchem maintained those positions for about two years in the pre-trial phase of that case. Ultimately a bench trial was scheduled to begin on Tuesday, January 21, 2020. On Friday January 17, just 4 days before the trialwas scheduled to begin, Parchem withdrew itscounterclaim and brought this action in New York on the same disputed butyl acrylate transaction. (This action was essentially the identical to Parchem's withdrawn counterclaim except itnamed Mr. Rowe personally as a second defendant.) Then, at the trialin North Carolina, Parchem stipulated to its debt to Covalent which it had disputed for over two years. The trial,however, went forward on Covalent's declaratory judgment claim. As to that, the NC Court found there was no butyl acrylate contract and awarded Covalent about $38,000 on the now stipulated debt. Here, after unsuccessfully trying to persuade Plaintiff to voluntarily withdraw this case in light of the North Carolina decision and judgment, Defendants were forced to move to dismiss on res judicata and collateral estoppel grounds at significant expense. They also included a motion for sanctions. Three days before Parchem's response to the motion was due, Parchem amended its complaint slightly, but enough to moot some of the motion by adding a new fictitious "facts" defendant, XYZ Corp., and some other alleged that needed to be addressed, with the result that Defendants had to file an amended motion at significant additional expense. Now, just as Parchem's response to the amended motion was finally due (after asking for another extension lastmonth to which Defendants consented) we learn Parchem has not paid its lawyers so they need to withdraw and that Parchem wants a continuance. Duffy & Staab LLC Justice William J. Giacomo September 4, 2020 Page 3 of 3 My clients have spent over $50,000 in North Carolina and here in New York litigating over a debt Parchem belatedly admitted itowed to them and defending against Parchem's fabricated butyl acrylate contract claim, which the NC Court specifically found after trial not to have not existed in the firstplace. Further, my clients know Parchem remains active in the market, and they know the principal of Parchem. They know he is a wealthy individual who could easily have paid Parchem's lawyers if he wished to. (As noted in our memo of law, he was also behavior" sanctioned in Federal Court earlier this year for "disruptive in discovery.) But he has chosen not to pay his lawyers, they suspect, to drag out this case, delay a ruling on their motions to dismiss and for sanctions, and to run up more expenses. Finally, if Parchem's principal told its lawyers he wasn't going to pay them, why request an extension in late stipulate to a September 2 then reveal the attorney- August, response, client dispute a few days before the response is due, manufacturing a basis for further delay? Why not hire another law firm well in advance of the motion response date if that was their intention? In any event, Defendants wish to explain that they have a reasoned basis for not consenting to Mr. Katz's request on behalf of his soon-to-be-former client for "situation" an extension of itsexpired deadline. Parchem's current is part of a pattern of harassing Defendants and of its own creation. Should the Court grant an extension itshould be on reasonable but strict conditions that do not permit further delays. clients' We thank the Court for its time in hearing my perspective on this very frustrating (for them) matter. Very truly yours, DUFFY & STAAB LLC By: 6. 5taal dary Gary G. Staab, Esq. cc: Adam Katz, Esq. (via email and NYSCEF)