Preview
LAW OFFICES
KENNETH A. ZITTER
260 MADISON AVENUE
NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10016
(212) 532-8000
March 12, 2019
Honorable Gerald Lebovits
Justice of the Supreme Court
60 Centre Street
New York, New York 10007
Re: Strategic Funding Source, Inc. vs. Theodore Farnsworth
Index No. 652580/2018
Dear Justice Lebovits:
We represent Defendant Ted Farnsworth ("Farnsworth") in the captioned matter. We
write to request an adjournment of the
hearing on Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction
for one week froin March 27, 2019 to April 3, 2019. Farnsworth also requests that the
intermediate dates set by the Court for filing answering and reply
papers also be adjourned for
one week.
By order dated February 26, 2019 (Document No. 31), this Court granted Plaintiff a
temporary restraining
order
prohibiting Farnsworth from transferring or paying any assets in
which he has an interest or any debt owed to him to the extent of $157,330.41 pending hearing
on the
preliminary injunction motion. The Court set the hearing for March 27, 2019 with
responsive papers due March 15, 2019 and reply papers due March 20, 2019.
Mr. Farnsworth's father was very ill and he was administered last rites on March 7. He
passed away on March 8. The funeral was today. Thus I have been unable to communicate with
my client and obtain
any meaningful assistance in preparing responsive papers. Given his
personal circumstances, I will not be able to obtain his assistance until the beginning of next
week.
I contacted Holly Falkowitz, Plaintiff's attorney on March 8 and informed her of the
circumstances. She agreed to the adjournment but only on condition that she have extra time to
submit her reply
papers (see attached emails). Although I believed she was taking
advantage of
Mr. Farnsworth's personal circumstances to obtain extra time which the Court did not grant her
in its original order, I had no issue with agreeing, obviously subject to the Court's approval, to a
few extra days for her to reply
in order to obtain her consent to the adjournment.
I drafted a stipulation setting forth what I believed was our agreement in a stipulation
(included herewith and as reflected in the attached emails) and sent it to Ms. Falkowitz on
Monday morning. I have just received an email from her, more than twenty four hours after
sending the stipulation, stating that itdoes not set forth our agreement, although the stipulation
provides her with a week to reply, instead of the original five days. I checked with Your Honor's
Part Clerk and he said that April 3 would be an acceptable return date, given the circumstances as
I explained them to him. I communicated that fact to Ms. Falkowitz before sending the
stipulation. Thus she was aware at all times that we were proposing to adjourn the hearing until
April 3 and that the Part Clerk indicated that the adjourned date was acceptable.
I respectfully request that the Court order that the briefing schedule on, and the return
date of, Plaintiff's motion be adjourned in accordance with the attached stipulation or on any
other schedule acceptable to the Court.
Respectfully,
Kenneth A. Zitter
KAZ/nr
Enc.
cc: Holly Falkowitz, Esq.
Supreme Court of the State of New York
County of New York
--------------------------------------. -- --- -----X
Strategic Funding Source, Inc.,
Plaintiff, Index No. 652580/2018
-against-
Theodore Farnsworth,
Defendant.
Itis hereby stipulated and agreed between the undersigned counsel for parties that the
return date for Plaintiff's Order to Show Cause (Motion #1) is hereby adjourned from March 27,
2019 at 11 a.m. to April 3, 2019 at 11 a.m. Opposition papers shall be served on all parties with a
workiñg hard copy by hand to the Court by March 22, 2019. Reply papers shall be served upon
allparties with a working hard copy by hand to the Court by March 29, 2019.
Dated: New York, New York
March 11, 2019
Law O es of Kenneth A. Zitter
By:
Holly Falkowitz, Esq. Ke et A. Zitter, Esq.
Attorneys for Plaintiff Attorneys for Defendant
So Ordered:
Justice of the Supreme Court
Vice President & Deputy General Counsel
120 W. 45th Street, 4th Floor
New York, NY 10036
P.646-475-5972
F.646-607-8414
Kapitus.com
K A P IT U S
StrategicFunding is now KAPITUS
Learn more about our new brand.
From: Ken Zitter
Sent: Friday, March 8, 2019 9:10 AM
To: Holly Falkowitz
Subject: SFI v Farnsworth
I am informed that last riteswere administered yesterday toTed's father. I am not sure, therefore, that a callon Monday will
be productive. I alsomay need a few more days after March 15 to respond to your motion.
'
K A P I T LJ S
Strategic Funding is now KAPITUS
Learn more about our new brand.
From: Ken Zitter
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2019 11:11 AM
To: Holly Falkowitz
Cc: Elizabeth Aniskevich; Nick Athanasopou!os
Subject: Re: SFI v Farnsworth
I propose that we push everything off for one week. I have not yet been in touch with Ted. If you agree, prepare
I will a stip
to submit to the Court
In a message dated 3/10/2019 1:26:25 PM Eastern Standard Time, hfalkowitz@kapitus.com writes:
Ken:
I am sorry to hear about Ted's father. My condoleñces to Ted and his family.
The call on Monday isto schedule the meditation. I believe the court requires us to complete the mediation
prior to the next hearing, which is some time in the first week of April. Ifyou are unable to obtain your client's
availability before the call,then I suggest you reach out to Jennifer Lupo and let her know. Given the time
constraints, we will need to set a quick mediation date and I don't know Jennifer's availability for March.
We are agreeable to extending the response date to our OSC provided the Court authorizes such, we are
provided with an equal extension to fileour reply and the Court is given sufficient time to review all papers
before the hearing. Currently, the Court required Defendants to respond by Friday, March 15 and Plaintiff to
reply by Wednesday, March 20. The hearing is scheduled for Wednesday, March 27. With the intervening
weekends this isa tight deadline and we obviously need to ensure that the Court has sufficient time to review
our papers. What do you propose?
Regards,
Holly
holly s. falkowitz
From: Ken Zitter
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2019 11:49 AM
To: Holly Falkowitz
Cc: Elizabeth Aniskevich; Nick Athanasopoulos
Subject: Re: SFI v Farnsworth
you have a restraining order in place. how are you harmed by the extra few days. My concept was that the court hearing
would also be adjourned for a week.
In a message dated 3/11/2019 11:35:32 AM Eastern Standard Time, hfalkowitz@kapitus.com writes:
Ken, we filed and served our papers on 2/7/19. Although you have had the papers for over a month and still
have until 3/15/19 to respond to them, you initially asked for an extension of a few days and not a week. We
are not agreeable to an extra 7 days for the Defendants to respond (which will have given you over 6 weeks to
respond to the papers from the date of service). Moreover, your suggestion seems to provide Defendants an
extra week to respond to the OSC, yet Plaintiff would stillhave 5 days to provide a reply brief, which is not
acceptable. Also, your suggestion pushes off the hearing date to which we did not agree.
Holly
hollys. falkowitz
Vice President & Deputy General Counsel
120 W. 45th Street, 4th Floor
New York, NY 10036
P.646-475-5972
F.646-607-8414
[Lapitys.cpm
From: Ken Zitter
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2019 11:58 AM
To: Holly Falkowitz
Subject: Re: SFI v Farnsworth
I intend that everyone should have the same amount of time that they now have., except that everything gets pushed off
one week.
In a message dated 3/11/2019 11:55:18 AM Eastern Standard Time, hfalkowitz@kapitus com writes:
What do you propose our reply date to be? The way I read your email isthat you are providing yourself
another 7 days to respond and yet we stillonly get 5 days to file a reply brief. Ifthat iswhat you intended, then
this is not fair or agreeable.
holly s. falkowitz
Vice President & Deputy General Counsel
120 W. 45th Street, 4th Floor
New York, NY 10036
P.646-475-5972
F.646-607-8414
jgtpitus.com
K A P I T U S
Strategic Funding is now KAP1TUS
J.earnmore about our new brand.
Subject: Re: SFI v Farnsworth
Date: 3/11/2019 12:40:56 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: hfalkowitz@kapitus.com
To: kzitter@aol.com
Cc: eaniskevich@kapitus.com, nathanasopoulos@kapitus.com
No, I don't agree as per my prior emails. To be fair, you need to include the same additional time for us to reply
as you are providing for yourself to respond (i.e.ifyou get 3 additional days to respond, then we get 8 days to
reply instead of the current 5 days). Otherwise, we will not agree to any extension.
holly s. falkowitz
Vice President & Deputy General Counsel
120 W. 45th Street,4th Floor
New York, NY 10036
P. 646-475-5972
F. 646-607-8414
Kaoitus.com
K A P I T U S
Strategic Funding isnow KAPITUS
Learn more about our new brand.
From: Ken Zitter
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2019 12:23 PM
To: Holly Falkowitz
Cc: Elizabeth Aniskevich; Nick Athanasopou!os
Subject: Re: SFI v Farnsworth
just spoke to the part clerk and he said that he would schedule us for April 3. I suggest that we stipulate that alldates are
adjourned for one week. I willput the actual dates in the stipulation.
In a message dated 3/11/2019 12:04:18 PM Eastern Standard Time, hfalkowitz@kapitus.com writes:
How isthat fair? Why should you get over 6 weeks to respond to the OSC, and an extra week since the hearing,
and we are stillin a position of having 5 days for a reply? Ifyou want extra time, then you need to provide for
the same additional time for us to reply in a stipulation. Please propose suggested dates for the response, reply
and hearing. Also, you will need to confer with Lebovits calendar clerk to determine ifLebovits is available the
following week as I know his schedule is packed.
holly s. falkowitz
Vice President & Deputy General Counsel
120 W. 45th Street,4th Floor
New York, NY 10036
P.646-475-5972
F.646-607-8414
Kapitus.com
K A P I T U S
Strategic Funding is now KAPITUS
Learn more about our new brand.
Learn more about our new brand.
From: Ken Zitter [mailto:kzitter@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2019 1:49 PM
To: Holly Falkowitz
Subject: sfiv farnsworth
attached isthe stipulationwith the times you requested. please sign itand returnitto me. Iwill fileitwith the court.
From: 18thfloor@mclaughlinstem.com
To: kzitter@aol.com
Sent: 3/11/2019 1:45:13 PM Eastern Standard Time
Subject: Attached Image
Subject: RE: sfi v farnsworth
Date: 3/12/2019 3:42:14 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: hfalkowitz@kapitus.com
To: kzitter@aol.com
Cc: eaniskevich@kapitus.com, nathanasopoulos@kapitus.com, cbaez@kapitus.com
Ken, the dates that you provided are not consistent with my request as per my prior emails You gave yourself an extra 7
days to respond, and did not provide defendants an additional 7 days (i.e.the 5 days for which the Court previously
provided to plaintifffor a response plus 7 days for a total of 12 days). Moreover, you originally requested a few more days
to respond and somehow that request has now morphed into an extra week. Further, the Court originally required an extra
week to review the papers and you have not provided the same time frame in your proposed stipulation. We need to ensure
that the court has sufficient time to review allpapers including our reply.
Therefore, I am agiêêable to the following extension: Defendant has until March 19 to submit a response, Plaintiff has
until March 28 to submit a reply brief. I only gave plaintiff an extra 2 days to submit a reply even though defendants were
provided an extra 4 days for their response, but I want to ensure thatthe Court has sufficienttime for itsreview.
Ifthis is acceptable, please send me a revised stipulation.
Holly
holly s. falkowitz
Vice President & Deputy General Counsel
120 W. 45th
street, 4th Floor
New York, NY 10036
P. 646-475-5972
E 646-607-8414
Epitus.com
KAPITUS
Strategic Funding isnow KAPITUS
Preview
LAW OFFICES KENNETH A. ZITTER 260 MADISON AVENUE NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10016 (212) 532-8000 March 12, 2019 Honorable Gerald Lebovits Justice of the Supreme Court 60 Centre Street New York, New York 10007 Re: Strategic Funding Source, Inc. vs. Theodore Farnsworth Index No. 652580/2018 Dear Justice Lebovits: We represent Defendant Ted Farnsworth ("Farnsworth") in the captioned matter. We write to request an adjournment of the hearing on Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction for one week froin March 27, 2019 to April 3, 2019. Farnsworth also requests that the intermediate dates set by the Court for filing answering and reply papers also be adjourned for one week. By order dated February 26, 2019 (Document No. 31), this Court granted Plaintiff a temporary restraining order prohibiting Farnsworth from transferring or paying any assets in which he has an interest or any debt owed to him to the extent of $157,330.41 pending hearing on the preliminary injunction motion. The Court set the hearing for March 27, 2019 with responsive papers due March 15, 2019 and reply papers due March 20, 2019. Mr. Farnsworth's father was very ill and he was administered last rites on March 7. He passed away on March 8. The funeral was today. Thus I have been unable to communicate with my client and obtain any meaningful assistance in preparing responsive papers. Given his personal circumstances, I will not be able to obtain his assistance until the beginning of next week. I contacted Holly Falkowitz, Plaintiff's attorney on March 8 and informed her of the circumstances. She agreed to the adjournment but only on condition that she have extra time to submit her reply papers (see attached emails). Although I believed she was taking advantage of Mr. Farnsworth's personal circumstances to obtain extra time which the Court did not grant her in its original order, I had no issue with agreeing, obviously subject to the Court's approval, to a few extra days for her to reply in order to obtain her consent to the adjournment. I drafted a stipulation setting forth what I believed was our agreement in a stipulation (included herewith and as reflected in the attached emails) and sent it to Ms. Falkowitz on Monday morning. I have just received an email from her, more than twenty four hours after sending the stipulation, stating that itdoes not set forth our agreement, although the stipulation provides her with a week to reply, instead of the original five days. I checked with Your Honor's Part Clerk and he said that April 3 would be an acceptable return date, given the circumstances as I explained them to him. I communicated that fact to Ms. Falkowitz before sending the stipulation. Thus she was aware at all times that we were proposing to adjourn the hearing until April 3 and that the Part Clerk indicated that the adjourned date was acceptable. I respectfully request that the Court order that the briefing schedule on, and the return date of, Plaintiff's motion be adjourned in accordance with the attached stipulation or on any other schedule acceptable to the Court. Respectfully, Kenneth A. Zitter KAZ/nr Enc. cc: Holly Falkowitz, Esq. Supreme Court of the State of New York County of New York --------------------------------------. -- --- -----X Strategic Funding Source, Inc., Plaintiff, Index No. 652580/2018 -against- Theodore Farnsworth, Defendant. Itis hereby stipulated and agreed between the undersigned counsel for parties that the return date for Plaintiff's Order to Show Cause (Motion #1) is hereby adjourned from March 27, 2019 at 11 a.m. to April 3, 2019 at 11 a.m. Opposition papers shall be served on all parties with a workiñg hard copy by hand to the Court by March 22, 2019. Reply papers shall be served upon allparties with a working hard copy by hand to the Court by March 29, 2019. Dated: New York, New York March 11, 2019 Law O es of Kenneth A. Zitter By: Holly Falkowitz, Esq. Ke et A. Zitter, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiff Attorneys for Defendant So Ordered: Justice of the Supreme Court Vice President & Deputy General Counsel 120 W. 45th Street, 4th Floor New York, NY 10036 P.646-475-5972 F.646-607-8414 Kapitus.com K A P IT U S StrategicFunding is now KAPITUS Learn more about our new brand. From: Ken Zitter Sent: Friday, March 8, 2019 9:10 AM To: Holly Falkowitz Subject: SFI v Farnsworth I am informed that last riteswere administered yesterday toTed's father. I am not sure, therefore, that a callon Monday will be productive. I alsomay need a few more days after March 15 to respond to your motion. ' K A P I T LJ S Strategic Funding is now KAPITUS Learn more about our new brand. From: Ken Zitter Sent: Monday, March 11, 2019 11:11 AM To: Holly Falkowitz Cc: Elizabeth Aniskevich; Nick Athanasopou!os Subject: Re: SFI v Farnsworth I propose that we push everything off for one week. I have not yet been in touch with Ted. If you agree, prepare I will a stip to submit to the Court In a message dated 3/10/2019 1:26:25 PM Eastern Standard Time, hfalkowitz@kapitus.com writes: Ken: I am sorry to hear about Ted's father. My condoleñces to Ted and his family. The call on Monday isto schedule the meditation. I believe the court requires us to complete the mediation prior to the next hearing, which is some time in the first week of April. Ifyou are unable to obtain your client's availability before the call,then I suggest you reach out to Jennifer Lupo and let her know. Given the time constraints, we will need to set a quick mediation date and I don't know Jennifer's availability for March. We are agreeable to extending the response date to our OSC provided the Court authorizes such, we are provided with an equal extension to fileour reply and the Court is given sufficient time to review all papers before the hearing. Currently, the Court required Defendants to respond by Friday, March 15 and Plaintiff to reply by Wednesday, March 20. The hearing is scheduled for Wednesday, March 27. With the intervening weekends this isa tight deadline and we obviously need to ensure that the Court has sufficient time to review our papers. What do you propose? Regards, Holly holly s. falkowitz From: Ken Zitter Sent: Monday, March 11, 2019 11:49 AM To: Holly Falkowitz Cc: Elizabeth Aniskevich; Nick Athanasopoulos Subject: Re: SFI v Farnsworth you have a restraining order in place. how are you harmed by the extra few days. My concept was that the court hearing would also be adjourned for a week. In a message dated 3/11/2019 11:35:32 AM Eastern Standard Time, hfalkowitz@kapitus.com writes: Ken, we filed and served our papers on 2/7/19. Although you have had the papers for over a month and still have until 3/15/19 to respond to them, you initially asked for an extension of a few days and not a week. We are not agreeable to an extra 7 days for the Defendants to respond (which will have given you over 6 weeks to respond to the papers from the date of service). Moreover, your suggestion seems to provide Defendants an extra week to respond to the OSC, yet Plaintiff would stillhave 5 days to provide a reply brief, which is not acceptable. Also, your suggestion pushes off the hearing date to which we did not agree. Holly hollys. falkowitz Vice President & Deputy General Counsel 120 W. 45th Street, 4th Floor New York, NY 10036 P.646-475-5972 F.646-607-8414 [Lapitys.cpm From: Ken Zitter Sent: Monday, March 11, 2019 11:58 AM To: Holly Falkowitz Subject: Re: SFI v Farnsworth I intend that everyone should have the same amount of time that they now have., except that everything gets pushed off one week. In a message dated 3/11/2019 11:55:18 AM Eastern Standard Time, hfalkowitz@kapitus com writes: What do you propose our reply date to be? The way I read your email isthat you are providing yourself another 7 days to respond and yet we stillonly get 5 days to file a reply brief. Ifthat iswhat you intended, then this is not fair or agreeable. holly s. falkowitz Vice President & Deputy General Counsel 120 W. 45th Street, 4th Floor New York, NY 10036 P.646-475-5972 F.646-607-8414 jgtpitus.com K A P I T U S Strategic Funding is now KAP1TUS J.earnmore about our new brand. Subject: Re: SFI v Farnsworth Date: 3/11/2019 12:40:56 PM Eastern Standard Time From: hfalkowitz@kapitus.com To: kzitter@aol.com Cc: eaniskevich@kapitus.com, nathanasopoulos@kapitus.com No, I don't agree as per my prior emails. To be fair, you need to include the same additional time for us to reply as you are providing for yourself to respond (i.e.ifyou get 3 additional days to respond, then we get 8 days to reply instead of the current 5 days). Otherwise, we will not agree to any extension. holly s. falkowitz Vice President & Deputy General Counsel 120 W. 45th Street,4th Floor New York, NY 10036 P. 646-475-5972 F. 646-607-8414 Kaoitus.com K A P I T U S Strategic Funding isnow KAPITUS Learn more about our new brand. From: Ken Zitter Sent: Monday, March 11, 2019 12:23 PM To: Holly Falkowitz Cc: Elizabeth Aniskevich; Nick Athanasopou!os Subject: Re: SFI v Farnsworth just spoke to the part clerk and he said that he would schedule us for April 3. I suggest that we stipulate that alldates are adjourned for one week. I willput the actual dates in the stipulation. In a message dated 3/11/2019 12:04:18 PM Eastern Standard Time, hfalkowitz@kapitus.com writes: How isthat fair? Why should you get over 6 weeks to respond to the OSC, and an extra week since the hearing, and we are stillin a position of having 5 days for a reply? Ifyou want extra time, then you need to provide for the same additional time for us to reply in a stipulation. Please propose suggested dates for the response, reply and hearing. Also, you will need to confer with Lebovits calendar clerk to determine ifLebovits is available the following week as I know his schedule is packed. holly s. falkowitz Vice President & Deputy General Counsel 120 W. 45th Street,4th Floor New York, NY 10036 P.646-475-5972 F.646-607-8414 Kapitus.com K A P I T U S Strategic Funding is now KAPITUS Learn more about our new brand. Learn more about our new brand. From: Ken Zitter [mailto:kzitter@aol.com] Sent: Monday, March 11, 2019 1:49 PM To: Holly Falkowitz Subject: sfiv farnsworth attached isthe stipulationwith the times you requested. please sign itand returnitto me. Iwill fileitwith the court. From: 18thfloor@mclaughlinstem.com To: kzitter@aol.com Sent: 3/11/2019 1:45:13 PM Eastern Standard Time Subject: Attached Image Subject: RE: sfi v farnsworth Date: 3/12/2019 3:42:14 PM Eastern Standard Time From: hfalkowitz@kapitus.com To: kzitter@aol.com Cc: eaniskevich@kapitus.com, nathanasopoulos@kapitus.com, cbaez@kapitus.com Ken, the dates that you provided are not consistent with my request as per my prior emails You gave yourself an extra 7 days to respond, and did not provide defendants an additional 7 days (i.e.the 5 days for which the Court previously provided to plaintifffor a response plus 7 days for a total of 12 days). Moreover, you originally requested a few more days to respond and somehow that request has now morphed into an extra week. Further, the Court originally required an extra week to review the papers and you have not provided the same time frame in your proposed stipulation. We need to ensure that the court has sufficient time to review allpapers including our reply. Therefore, I am agiêêable to the following extension: Defendant has until March 19 to submit a response, Plaintiff has until March 28 to submit a reply brief. I only gave plaintiff an extra 2 days to submit a reply even though defendants were provided an extra 4 days for their response, but I want to ensure thatthe Court has sufficienttime for itsreview. Ifthis is acceptable, please send me a revised stipulation. Holly holly s. falkowitz Vice President & Deputy General Counsel 120 W. 45th street, 4th Floor New York, NY 10036 P. 646-475-5972 E 646-607-8414 Epitus.com KAPITUS Strategic Funding isnow KAPITUS