FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/28/2022 10:58 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 21
`
`INDEX NO. 158058/2019
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/28/2022
`
`OF THE
`SUPREME
`COURT
`OF NEW YORK
`COUNTY
`---------------------------------------------------------------------------X
`CHRISTOPHER
`C. RICCIARDELLI,
`
`STATE
`
`OF NEW YORK
`
`INDEX
`
`NO.:
`
`158058/2019
`
`-against-
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`AFFIRMATION
`IN
`OF MOTION
`SUPPORT
`
`NAGPAL
`
`RAKESH
`
`and M.P.J.
`
`CAB
`
`CORP.,
`
`---------------------
`
`Defendants.
`-------------------------------X
`
`Daniela
`
`F. Henriques,
`
`Esq.,
`
`an attorney
`
`duly
`
`admitted
`
`to practice
`
`law before
`
`the Courts
`
`of
`
`the
`
`State
`
`of New
`
`York,
`
`hereby
`
`affirms
`
`the
`
`following
`
`under
`
`penalties
`
`of
`
`perjury
`
`pursuant
`
`to CPLR
`
`§ 2106.
`
`1.
`
`I
`
`am
`
`a member
`
`of
`
`LEAV
`
`&
`
`STE1NBERG,
`
`LLP,
`
`attorneys
`
`for
`
`plaintiff
`
`CHRISTOPHER
`
`C. RICCIARDELLI,
`
`and
`
`am fully
`
`familiar
`
`with
`
`all
`
`the
`
`facts,
`
`circumstances,
`
`pleadings
`
`and
`
`proceedings
`
`heretofore
`
`and herein.
`
`2.
`
`This
`
`affirmation
`
`is respectfully
`
`submitted
`
`in support
`
`of Plaintiff's
`
`motion
`
`for
`
`an (1) Order
`
`pursuant
`
`and
`
`§3126
`
`NAGPAL
`
`RAKESH
`
`and M.P.J.
`
`CAB
`
`to CPLR
`
`§3124
`
`precluding
`
`defendants
`
`CORP.
`
`from
`
`offering
`
`testimony
`
`at
`
`trial
`
`and
`
`from
`
`offering
`
`any
`
`affidavits
`
`as
`
`to
`
`the
`
`facts
`
`and
`
`circumstances
`
`of
`
`the
`
`happening
`
`of
`
`this
`
`accident
`
`in a summmy
`
`judgment
`
`motion
`
`due
`
`to their
`
`willful
`
`failure
`
`to appear
`
`for
`
`a multitude
`
`of Court
`
`directed
`
`depositions
`
`or
`
`in turn
`
`schedule
`
`the
`
`same
`
`and
`
`(2)
`
`and
`
`for
`
`such
`
`other,
`
`further
`
`and
`
`different
`
`relief
`
`as the Court
`
`may
`
`deem just
`
`and proper.
`
`PROCEDURAL
`
`POSTURE
`
`3.
`
`Plaintiff
`
`commenced
`
`this
`
`action
`
`by
`
`filing
`
`a summons
`
`and
`
`verified
`
`complaint
`
`as against
`
`defendants
`
`NAGPAL
`
`RAKESH
`
`and M.P.J.
`
`CAB
`
`CORP.
`
`with
`
`this Court
`
`on August
`
`17, 2019
`
`(See
`
`Exhibit
`
`A).
`
`1 of 9
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/28/2022 10:58 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 21
`
`INDEX NO. 158058/2019
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/28/2022
`
`4.
`
`Defendants
`
`NAGPAL
`
`RAKESH
`
`and M.P.J.
`
`CAB
`
`CORP.
`
`joined
`
`by way
`
`if
`
`an
`
`issued
`
`answer
`
`on December
`
`11, 2019
`
`(See, Exhibit
`
`B).
`
`5.
`
`Plaintiff
`
`CHRISTOPHER
`
`C. RICCIARDELLI
`
`served
`
`a Verified
`
`Bill
`
`of Particulars
`
`dated
`
`March
`
`26, 2020
`
`upon
`
`defendants
`
`NAGPAL
`
`RAKESH
`
`and M.P.J.
`
`CAB
`
`CORP.
`
`(SE
`
`Exhibit
`
`C).
`
`6. A Case Scheduling
`
`Order
`
`was
`
`issued
`
`on January
`
`6, 2021
`
`(SA
`
`Exhibit
`
`D), which
`
`ordered
`
`June
`
`2021.
`
`The
`
`parties
`
`were
`
`unable
`
`to
`
`the
`
`depositions
`
`of
`
`all
`
`parties
`
`must
`
`be
`
`completed
`
`by
`
`29,
`
`complete
`
`depositions
`
`by
`
`June
`
`29, 2021.
`
`7. A stipulation
`
`was
`
`so
`
`ordered
`
`by
`
`the
`
`Honorable
`
`Court
`
`on
`
`September
`
`8,
`
`2021
`
`(See,
`
`Exhibit
`
`E),
`
`which
`
`amended
`
`certain
`
`paragraphs
`
`of
`
`the
`
`verified
`
`complaint
`
`(to
`
`correct
`
`the
`
`license
`
`plate
`
`number
`
`of
`
`defendants'
`
`vehicle).
`
`8. A Stipulation
`
`& Order
`
`was
`
`so ordered
`
`by
`
`the Honorable
`
`Court
`
`on August
`
`23,
`
`2021
`
`to be held
`
`(See,
`
`Exhibit
`
`F), which
`
`directed
`
`deposition
`
`of
`
`all
`
`parties
`
`by September
`
`10, 2021.
`
`9.
`
`Plaintiff
`
`CHRISTOPHER
`
`C. RICCIARDELLI
`
`appeared
`
`and
`
`gave
`
`sworn
`
`testimony
`
`at his
`
`examination
`
`before
`
`trial
`
`on September
`
`10,
`
`2021.
`
`Plaintiff
`
`was
`
`prepared
`
`to
`
`go
`
`forward
`
`with
`
`the
`
`deposition
`
`of
`
`all parties
`
`on that
`
`date,
`
`but
`
`defendants
`
`NAGPAL
`
`RAKESH
`
`and M.P.J.
`
`CAB
`
`CORP.
`
`did
`
`not
`
`have
`
`their
`
`witness
`
`ready
`
`to produce
`
`on September
`
`10, 2021.
`
`NAGPAL
`
`RAKESH
`
`and failed
`
`10. Defendants
`
`and M.P.J.
`
`CAB CORP.
`
`again
`
`did
`
`not
`
`appear
`
`to produce
`
`a witness
`
`for
`
`deposition
`
`on December
`
`21,
`
`2021.
`
`11. A Stipulation
`
`& Order
`
`was
`
`so
`
`ordered
`
`by
`
`the Honorable
`
`Court
`
`on
`
`January
`
`4,
`
`2022
`
`(See,
`
`Fshibit
`
`G), which
`
`directed
`
`deposition
`
`of
`
`defendants
`
`PAL RAKESH
`
`and M.P.J.
`
`CAB
`
`CORP.
`
`to be held
`
`by February
`
`23, 2022.
`
`12. Defendants
`
`NAGPAL
`
`RAKESH
`
`and M.P.J.
`
`CAB CORP.
`
`again
`
`did
`
`not
`
`appear
`
`and
`
`failed
`
`to produce
`
`a witness
`
`for
`
`deposition
`
`on February
`
`23, 2022.
`
`2 of 9
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/28/2022 10:58 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 21
`
`INDEX NO. 158058/2019
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/28/2022
`
`13. Defendants
`
`NAGPAL
`
`RAKESH
`
`and M.P.J.
`
`CAB
`
`CORP.
`
`were
`
`to appear
`
`for
`
`scheduled
`
`depositions
`
`on September
`
`10, 2021;
`
`however,
`
`they
`
`failed
`
`to appear.
`
`Their
`
`deposition
`
`was
`
`rescheduled
`
`for December
`
`21,
`
`2021;
`
`however,
`
`they
`
`failed
`
`to
`
`appear
`
`for
`
`a second
`
`time.
`
`Their
`
`deposition
`
`was
`
`rescheduled
`
`for
`
`23,
`
`2022;
`
`however,
`
`they
`
`failed
`
`to appear
`
`for
`
`a third
`
`time.
`
`As
`
`of
`
`today,
`
`February
`
`defendants
`
`NAGPAL
`
`RAIMSH
`
`and M.P.J.
`
`CAB CORP.
`
`has never
`
`appeared
`
`and
`
`given
`
`testimony
`
`in
`
`connection
`
`to this
`
`accident.
`
`14. Presently,
`
`defendants
`
`NAGPAL
`
`RAKESH
`
`and
`
`M.P.J.
`
`CAB
`
`CORP.
`
`should
`
`be
`
`immediately
`
`precluded
`
`from testifying
`
`prior
`
`to or at
`
`the trial
`
`of
`
`this matter
`
`based
`
`upon
`
`their
`
`persistent
`
`failure
`
`to appear
`
`for depositions.
`
`In addition,
`
`defendants
`
`NAGPAL
`
`RAKESH
`
`and M.P.J.
`
`CAB CORP
`
`should
`
`be precluded
`
`affidavits
`
`as the facts
`
`and circumstances
`
`from offering
`
`surrounding
`
`the h~ppei~ng
`
`of
`
`the
`
`accident
`
`of August
`
`24,
`
`2016,
`
`in a summary
`
`judgment
`
`motion
`
`due
`
`to their
`
`willful
`
`failure
`
`to
`
`appear
`
`at depositions.
`
`LEGAL
`
`STANDARD
`
`— REQUEST
`
`FOR RELIEF
`
`TO PRECLUDE/STRIKE
`
`PLEADINGS
`
`15. A defendant
`
`cannot
`
`simply
`
`continue
`
`delaying
`
`the
`
`legal
`
`process
`
`by
`
`adjourning
`
`his
`
`deposition
`
`as each
`
`date
`
`nears
`
`in order
`
`to escape
`
`the truth-seebn0
`
`nature
`
`of such
`
`depositions.
`
`The New
`
`dealt
`
`with
`
`this
`
`stating:
`
`York
`
`Court
`
`of Appeals
`
`has
`
`specifically
`
`issue,
`
`"If
`
`including
`requires
`requests
`
`118,
`
`judicial
`of our
`and the integrity
`the Court
`orders
`of
`the credibility
`Indeed
`impunity.
`court
`orders
`with
`ignore
`cannot
`a litigant
`maintained,
`with
`for Courts
`to be able
`to command
`compliance
`the need
`recognizing
`may make
`provided
`that
`a court
`orders...
`such
`has
`directives,
`specifically
`We underscore
`with
`dismissal
`of an action...
`that
`compliance
`one that
`effort
`both
`a timely
`response
`evinces
`a good-faith
`and
`rne~~igfully."
`Kihl
`94 N.Y,2d
`700 N.Y.S.2d
`v. Pfeffer,
`
`system
`the
`Legislature,
`their
`disclosure
`as arejust,
`a disclosure
`to address
`87 (Ct. App.,
`
`are to be
`
`order
`the
`
`1999).
`
`Defendants'
`
`16.
`
`counsel
`
`was
`
`afforded
`
`ample
`
`opportunity
`
`to produce
`
`NAGPAL
`
`RAKESH
`
`and
`
`M.P.J.
`
`CAB
`
`CORP.
`
`for
`
`deposition
`
`as evidenced
`
`from
`
`the
`
`fact
`
`defendants'
`
`depositions
`
`remain
`
`outstanding
`
`since
`
`September
`
`10, 2021.
`
`To
`
`date,
`
`defendants'
`
`counsel
`
`has
`
`failed
`
`to comply
`
`with
`
`this
`
`3 of 9
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/28/2022 10:58 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 21
`
`INDEX NO. 158058/2019
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/28/2022
`
`Honorable
`
`Court's
`
`Orders
`
`dated
`
`January
`
`6,
`
`2021,
`
`August
`
`23,
`
`2021
`
`and
`
`December
`
`30,
`
`2021
`
`(See
`
`Exhibit
`
`D, Exhibit
`
`F, Exhibit
`
`G),
`
`If
`
`the Court
`
`were
`
`to permit
`
`def~»ants
`
`NAGPAL
`
`RAKESH
`
`and M.P.J.
`
`CAB
`
`CORP.
`
`to
`
`continue
`
`avoiding
`
`the Orders,
`
`then
`
`they
`
`will
`
`have
`
`usurped
`
`both
`
`the
`
`credibility
`
`of
`
`the Court
`
`and
`
`the
`
`integrity
`
`of
`
`the judicial
`
`system
`
`by
`
`placing
`
`themselves
`
`above
`
`the
`
`demands
`
`of
`
`the law.
`
`17. Willful
`
`and
`
`contumacious
`
`be
`
`inferred
`
`with
`
`court-ordered
`
`comply
`
`h'6-dddl
`
`conduct
`
`may
`
`from
`
`a party's
`
`repeated
`
`failure
`
`to
`
`discovery,
`
`coupled
`
`with
`
`inadequate
`
`explanations
`
`for
`
`the failures
`
`to comply
`
`dd'dfl
`
`.If
`
`149 A.D.3d
`
`823,
`
`52 N.Y.S.3d
`
`124
`
`(2"
`
`Dept.,
`
`2017)
`
`("
`
`The
`
`nature
`
`and
`
`degree
`
`of
`
`the
`
`sanction
`
`to be
`
`imposed
`
`on a motion
`
`pursuant
`
`to CPLR 3126
`
`is within
`
`the broad
`
`discretion
`
`of
`
`the motion
`
`court.
`
`The
`
`striking
`
`of a pleading
`
`may
`
`be appropriate
`
`where
`
`there
`
`is a clear
`
`showing
`
`that
`
`the
`
`failure
`
`to comply
`
`'
`
`lllf
`
`d
`
`"I
`
`.
`
`'hdl
`
`d
`
`d
`
`d
`
`dl
`
`."9:~hh
`
`I
`
`f
`
`New York,
`
`107 A.D.3d
`
`877,
`
`968 N.Y.S.2d
`
`(2"~
`
`540
`
`Dept.,
`
`2013);
`
`Sado
`
`an v. Castro,
`
`102 A.D.3d
`
`666,
`
`957 N.Y.S.2d
`
`735
`
`(2"
`
`Dept.,
`
`2013);
`
`Garcia
`
`v. La Fortuna
`
`Rest.
`
`Inc.,
`
`102 A.D.3d
`
`638,
`
`958
`
`N.Y.S.2d
`
`594
`
`(1" Dept.
`
`("
`
`2013)
`
`Plaintiff
`
`established
`
`that
`
`defendant
`
`Portoreal's
`
`repeated
`
`failure
`
`to
`
`comply
`
`with
`
`court
`
`directives
`
`to
`
`appear
`
`for
`
`the
`
`completion
`
`of
`
`his
`
`deposition
`
`was
`
`willful
`
`and
`
`defendants
`
`failed
`
`to meet
`
`their
`
`burden
`
`contumacious
`
`and,
`
`in opposition,
`
`of demonstrating
`
`a reasonable
`
`f
`
`I'
`
`-
`
`."9
`
`4
`
`lh
`
`.Ihl
`
`..
`
`dhl
`
`.
`
`6 ~...
`
`dl
`
`(2"
`
`Dept.,
`
`2012).
`
`18. The
`
`drastic
`
`remedy
`
`of striking
`
`an answer
`
`is providently
`
`within
`
`the sound
`
`discretion
`
`of
`
`this
`
`Honorable
`
`Court
`
`and can be duly
`
`considered
`
`where
`
`'
`
`ld
`
`d
`
`d
`
`hlhl
`
`there
`
`is a clear
`
`«% hl
`
`showing
`
`that
`
`the
`
`defendants'
`
`failure
`
`.L
`
`.
`
`6'hh
`
`'IIL
`
`and
`
`contumacious
`
`character
`
`of a party's
`
`conduct
`
`can
`
`be inferred
`
`from the party's
`
`repeated
`
`failure
`
`to
`
`4 of 9
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/28/2022 10:58 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 21
`
`INDEX NO. 158058/2019
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/28/2022
`
`comply
`
`with
`
`discovery
`
`demands
`
`or orders
`
`without
`
`a reasonable
`
`excuse.
`
`Here,
`
`the
`
`defendants'
`
`willful
`
`and
`
`contumacious
`
`conduct
`
`can be inferred
`
`from their
`
`repeated
`
`failures,
`
`without
`
`an adequate
`
`excuse,
`
`to comply
`
`with
`
`discovery
`
`demands
`
`and the Supreme
`
`Court's
`
`discovery
`
`orders.
`
`Accordingly,
`
`the court
`
`providently
`
`exercised
`
`its discretion
`
`in granting
`
`the
`
`plaintiffs'
`
`motion
`
`pursuant
`
`to CPLR 3126
`
`to strike
`
`defendants'
`
`the
`
`supra.
`
`answer
`
`and for
`
`leave
`
`to enter
`
`a default
`
`against
`
`the defendants.")
`
`and Estaba
`
`v. Quow,
`
`scheduled
`
`and
`
`19. For
`
`example,
`
`a defendant
`
`who
`
`fails
`
`to appear
`
`for
`
`repeatedly
`
`depositions;
`
`further,
`
`fails
`
`to comply
`
`with
`
`Court
`
`Orders,
`
`has been
`
`sufficient
`
`to constitute
`
`a showing
`
`of willful
`
`and
`
`contumacious
`
`actions
`
`to warrant
`
`striking
`
`the defendant's
`
`answer.
`
`Estaba
`
`v. Quow,
`
`supra.
`
`20. See
`
`also,
`
`Sadovan
`
`v. Castro,
`
`supra
`
`("Castro,
`
`however,
`
`repeatedly
`
`failed
`
`to appear
`
`for
`
`a
`
`deposition,
`
`despite
`
`numerous
`
`orders
`
`of
`
`the Supreme
`
`Court
`
`directing
`
`him to
`
`appear.
`
`The
`
`plaintiff
`
`Castro's
`
`answer
`
`in the
`
`preclude
`
`him from
`
`moved
`
`pursuant
`
`to CPLR
`
`3126
`
`to
`
`strike
`
`or,
`
`alternative,
`
`testifying
`
`at
`
`trial.
`
`The
`
`defendants
`
`opposed
`
`the motion.
`
`The Supreme
`
`Court
`
`conditionally
`
`granted
`
`that
`
`branch
`
`of
`
`the motion
`
`which
`
`was
`
`to strike
`
`Castro's
`
`answer
`
`unless
`
`he appeared
`
`for
`
`a deposition
`
`on a
`
`date
`
`certain.
`
`The
`
`defendants
`
`appeal...Here,
`
`Castro
`
`failed
`
`to appear
`
`for
`
`a court-ordered
`
`deposition
`
`on
`
`three
`
`separate
`
`dates
`
`over
`
`a nine-month
`
`period.
`
`Moreover,
`
`the
`
`defendants
`
`failed
`
`to substantiate
`
`a
`
`Court
`
`not
`
`reasonable
`
`excuse
`
`for
`
`those
`
`failures.
`
`Under
`
`these
`
`circumstances,
`
`the
`
`Supreme
`
`did
`
`improvidently
`
`exercise
`
`its discretion
`
`in conditionally
`
`striking
`
`Castro's
`
`answer.").
`
`21. The
`
`fact
`
`that
`
`defendants
`
`have
`
`disappeared
`
`or made
`
`themselves
`
`unavailable
`
`provides
`
`no
`
`basis
`
`for
`
`denying
`
`a motion
`
`to strike
`
`their
`
`Answer,
`
`particularly
`
`in the
`
`face
`
`of
`
`continued
`
`defaults
`
`in
`
`appearance
`
`for
`
`examination
`
`before
`
`trial.
`
`Silverio
`
`v. Arvelo,
`
`103 A.D.3d
`
`401,
`
`959 N.Y.S.2d
`
`175
`
`(1st
`
`Dept.,
`
`2013)
`
`5 of 9
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/28/2022 10:58 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 21
`
`INDEX NO. 158058/2019
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/28/2022
`
`22. The Court
`
`has complete
`
`discretion
`
`in imposing
`
`the nature
`
`and degree
`
`of penalty
`
`for
`
`failure
`
`to
`
`comply
`
`with
`
`discovery
`
`demands
`
`pursuant
`
`to CPLR
`
`§3126.
`
`See
`
`generally,
`
`Briano
`
`v. LKT
`
`Transport,
`
`et al.
`
`23 A.D.3d
`
`421,
`
`805 N.Y.S.2d
`
`584
`
`(2nd
`
`Dept.,
`
`2005).
`
`This
`
`acknowledgement
`
`of
`
`discretion
`
`is also
`
`supported
`
`by Greaves
`
`v. Burlingame,
`
`12 A.D.
`
`3d
`
`730, N.Y.S.2d
`
`(3rd
`
`720
`
`2004)
`
`whereby
`
`'there
`
`can
`
`be
`
`no
`
`dispute
`
`that
`
`a trial
`
`court
`
`has
`
`authority
`
`to fashion
`
`an appropriate
`
`an
`
`order
`
`disclosure
`
`or
`
`fails
`
`disclose
`
`remedy
`
`when
`
`a
`
`party
`
`refuses
`
`to
`
`obey
`
`of
`
`willfully
`
`to
`
`information...The
`
`type
`
`and
`
`degree
`
`of
`
`the
`
`sanction
`
`imposed
`
`by
`
`the
`
`trial
`
`court
`
`will
`
`not
`
`be disturbed
`
`absent
`
`a clear
`
`abuse
`
`of
`
`the court's
`
`discretion."
`
`In that
`
`case,
`
`the Court
`
`noted
`
`that
`
`defendant
`
`had
`
`ample
`
`notice
`
`of
`
`plaintiff's
`
`discovery
`
`requests
`
`but
`
`failed
`
`to
`
`comply
`
`with
`
`all
`
`deadlines
`
`including
`
`a court-
`
`ordered
`
`disclosure
`
`schedule
`
`and
`
`a conditional
`
`court
`
`order.
`
`There
`
`were
`
`"many
`
`opportunities
`
`afforded
`
`to comply".
`
`to defendant
`
`23. Furthermore,
`
`the Court
`
`noted,
`
`"in
`
`light
`
`of
`
`the
`
`absence
`
`of
`
`competent
`
`proof
`
`sufficient
`
`to
`
`raise
`
`a question
`
`of
`
`fact
`
`to oppose
`
`evidence
`
`offered
`
`subsequent
`
`grant
`
`of
`
`summary
`
`judgment
`
`in
`
`plaintiff's
`
`by plaintiff,
`
`favor."
`
`we
`
`also
`
`fmd
`
`no
`
`error
`
`in the
`
`court's
`
`Id.
`
`at
`
`732.
`
`Defeñdets
`
`NAGPAL
`
`RAKESH
`
`and M.P.J.
`
`CAB
`
`CORP.
`
`exhibit
`
`these
`
`same
`
`patterns
`
`of
`
`noncompliance,
`
`even
`
`though
`
`Plaintiff
`
`has
`
`afforded
`
`them
`
`several
`
`opportunities
`
`to
`
`comply
`
`with
`
`the Court's
`
`Order
`
`(depositions
`
`scheduled
`
`for
`
`9-10-2021;
`
`scheduled
`
`a second
`
`time
`
`for
`
`12-21-2021;
`
`scheduled
`
`a third
`
`time
`
`for
`
`2-23-2022;
`
`as of
`
`today,
`
`the
`
`deposition
`
`of defendants
`
`was
`
`adjoumed
`
`without
`
`date).
`
`24.
`
`In this
`
`case,
`
`the
`
`defendants
`
`have
`
`failed
`
`to appear
`
`for
`
`deposition
`
`where
`
`dates
`
`certain
`
`were
`
`scheduled
`
`for
`
`completion
`
`of
`
`the depositions.
`
`This
`
`is the similar
`
`behavior
`
`the Courts
`
`in Mears
`
`v. Long,
`
`supra,
`
`Estaba
`
`v. Quow,supra
`
`and Sadoyan
`
`v. Castro,supra
`
`found
`
`sufficient
`
`to constitute
`
`a showing
`
`of willful
`
`and
`
`contumacious
`
`actions
`
`to warrant
`
`striking
`
`the defendant's
`
`answer.
`
`6 of 9
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/28/2022 10:58 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 21
`
`INDEX NO. 158058/2019
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/28/2022
`
`Defendants'
`
`25.
`
`NAGPAL
`
`RAKESH
`
`and M.P.J.
`
`CAB CORP.
`
`failure
`
`to appear
`
`for deposition
`
`or
`
`scheduled
`
`the
`
`same
`
`are
`
`inexcusable.
`
`Defendants'
`
`failure
`
`to
`
`respond
`
`and
`
`to appear
`
`for Court-
`
`Ordered
`
`deposition
`
`is
`
`unfair
`
`and
`
`prejudicial
`
`to Plaintiff;
`
`therefore,
`
`Plaintiff
`
`is
`
`forced
`
`to
`
`seek
`
`relief/intervention
`
`from the Court.
`
`WHEREFORE,
`
`based
`
`upon
`
`the
`
`foregoing,
`
`it
`
`is
`
`respectfully
`
`requested
`
`that
`
`plaintiff's
`
`CHRISTOPHER
`
`C. RICCIARDELLI
`
`motion
`
`for
`
`an (1) Order
`
`pursuant
`
`to CPLR
`
`§3124
`
`and
`
`§3126
`
`CAB
`
`precluding
`
`defendants
`
`NAGPAL
`
`RAKESH
`
`and M.P.J.
`
`CORP.
`
`from offering
`
`testimony
`
`at
`
`trial
`
`and
`
`from
`
`offering
`
`any
`
`affidavits
`
`as to the facts
`
`and circumstances
`
`of
`
`the happening
`
`of
`
`this
`
`accident
`
`in
`
`a summary
`
`judgment
`
`motion
`
`due
`
`to their
`
`willful
`
`failure
`
`to appear
`
`for
`
`a multitude
`
`of Court
`
`directed
`
`depositions
`
`or
`
`in turn
`
`schedule
`
`the same
`
`be in all
`
`respects
`
`granted,
`
`together
`
`with
`
`such
`
`other
`
`and further
`
`relief
`
`as this Court
`
`seems
`
`just
`
`and proper.
`
`Dated:
`
`New York,
`February
`
`New York
`28, 2022
`
`NIELA
`EAV
`
`F.
`
`NRIQUES,
`INBERG,
`
`LLP
`
`ESQ.
`
`7 of 9
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/28/2022 10:58 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 21
`
`INDEX NO. 158058/2019
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/28/2022
`
`SUPREME
`COUNTY
`
`OF THE STATE
`COURT
`OF NEW YORK
`-------------------------------------------------
`
`OF NEW YORK
`
`X
`
`CHRISTOPHER
`
`C. RICCIARDELLI,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`-against-
`
`NAGPAL
`
`RAKESH
`
`and M.P.J.
`
`CAB
`
`CORP.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`PRINTING
`SPECIFICATIONS
`STATEMENT
`SECTION
`
`AS PER
`202.8-b
`
`Index
`
`No.:
`
`158058/2019
`
`-------
`
`-------
`
`--
`
`--
`
`------X
`
`Pursuant
`prepared
`was
`
`to the Uniform
`on a computer.
`
`brief
`
`Civil
`
`Rules
`
`of
`
`the Supreme
`
`Court,
`
`Section
`
`202.8-b
`
`the
`
`foregoing
`
`Type: A proportionally
`Name
`of
`typeface:
`12
`size:
`Point
`Line
`spacing:
`
`Double
`
`spaced
`Times
`
`was
`typeface
`New Roman
`
`used
`
`as follows:
`
`Count:
`Word
`of heading(s)
`
`The
`and
`
`total
`
`number
`
`footnote(s)
`
`of words
`is 2,788.
`
`in the Plaintiff's
`
`Affirmation
`
`in Support,
`
`inclusive
`
`DANIEL\
`I EAV & SII
`
`HENR1QUES,
`llP
`INBhRR
`
`USQ.
`
`8 of 9
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/28/2022 10:58 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 21
`
`INDEX NO. 158058/2019
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/28/2022
`
`No.
`Index
`SUPREME
`COUNTY
`
`158058
`OF THE
`COURT
`OF NEW YORK
`
`STATE
`
`OF NEW YORK
`
`Year:2019
`
`CHRISTOPHER
`
`C. RICCIARDELLI,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`- against
`
`-
`
`NAGPAL
`
`RAKESH
`
`and M.P.J.
`
`CAB
`
`CORP.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`NOTICE
`
`OF MOTION,
`
`AFFIRMATION
`SUPPORTING
`
`IN SUPPORT
`EXHIBITS
`
`OF MOTION
`
`and
`
`__
`
`__
`
`LLP
`
`Leav & Stêiri,êrg,
`Attorneyfor
`Plaintry
`& Post Address,
`Telephone
`Office
`1601
`75 Broad
`Street, Suite
`New York, NY 10004
`Telephone
`No.:
`(212) 766-5222
`
`DANIELA
`to 22 N.Y.C.R.R.
`
`CERTIFICATION
`F. HENRIQUES
`hereby
`the foregoing
`§ 130.1-la,
`
`TO 22 N.Y.C.R.R.
`PURSUANT
`certifies
`that, upon information,
`affirmation
`is not
`frivolous
`nor
`
`6 130.1-la
`belief
`and reasonable
`lo
`1
`
`inquiry,
`
`pursuant
`
`Dated:
`
`New York, New York
`28, 2022
`February
`
`notice
`take
`Please
`NOTICE OF ENTRY
`that the within is a (certified) true copy of a
`duly entered in the office of the clerk of the within named court on
`
`le a
`
`. H
`
`i
`
`2022
`
`NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT
`that an order
`to the HON.
`of the within named court, at
`on
`Dated,
`
`of which the within is a true copy will be presented for settlement
`one of the judges
`
`20
`
`at
`
`M.
`
`LLP
`
`Yours, etc.
`LEAV & STEINBERG,
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`Office and Post Office Address
`75 Broad Street, Suite 1601
`New York, New York 10004
`
`9 of 9
`
`