FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 02/13/2019 08:59 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 342
`
`INDEX NO. 034071/2011
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/13/2019
`
`SUPREME
`COUNTY
`
`COURT
`OF THE
`OF ROCKLAND
`
`STATE
`
`OF NEW YORK
`
`---------------..---__.----------________-_______------------------------X
`GOLDEN
`MOUNTAIN
`INCOME,
`
`LLC,
`
`-against-
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`SPENCER
`DNP
`SALES
`MARKETING
`ARYEH
`WEISZ,
`
`LLC,
`GIFTS,
`& MARKETING,
`MENDEL
`CORP.,
`
`SPENCER
`
`GIFTS,
`FORSHAY
`INC.,
`POMERANTZ,
`
`Index
`
`No.
`
`034071/2011
`
`INC.
`
`REPLY/OPPOSITION
`AFFIRMATION
`
`__________--______________________-----__--------___--------------------X
`
`Defendants.
`
`Jeremy
`
`Rosenberg,
`
`an
`
`attorney
`
`duly
`
`admitted
`
`to
`
`practice
`
`law
`
`before
`
`the
`
`Courts
`
`of
`
`the
`
`State
`
`of New York,
`
`affirms
`
`pursuant
`
`to CPLR
`
`§2106
`
`as
`
`follows:
`
`1.
`
`I am a member
`
`of
`
`the
`
`Bar
`
`of
`
`this
`
`Court
`
`and
`
`counsel
`
`to
`
`Defendants
`
`Forshay
`
`Marketing
`
`Corp.
`
`("Forshay"),
`
`and
`
`Mendel
`
`Pomerantz
`
`("Pomerantz"),
`
`(collectively
`
`Defendants").
`
`As
`
`such,
`
`I am fully
`
`familiar
`
`with
`
`the
`
`facts
`
`and
`
`circumstances
`
`set
`
`forth
`
`herein.
`
`I submit
`
`this
`
`reply
`
`affirmation
`
`in
`
`further
`
`support
`
`of
`
`Defendants'
`
`instant
`
`application
`
`pursuant
`
`to CPLR
`
`§5015(a),
`
`that
`
`seeks
`
`an Order
`
`(Golden
`
`vacating
`
`a judgment
`
`entered
`
`by
`
`plaintiff
`
`Golden
`
`Mountain
`
`Income,
`
`LLC
`
`Mountain")
`
`on
`
`July
`
`1,
`
`2015
`
`against
`
`Defendants
`
`upon
`
`Defendants'
`
`purported
`
`default
`
`in
`
`this
`
`action,
`
`said
`
`judgment
`
`in
`
`the
`
`sum of
`
`$347,524.95,
`
`and
`
`permitting
`
`Defendants
`
`to
`
`defend
`
`the
`
`instant
`
`action
`
`at
`
`a new
`
`trial
`
`to
`
`be
`
`conducted
`
`in
`
`this
`
`action,
`
`and
`
`in
`
`opposition
`
`to
`
`plaintiff's
`
`cross-motion
`
`that
`
`seeks
`
`the
`
`imposition
`
`of
`
`an
`
`award
`
`of
`
`reasonable
`
`attorneys'
`
`fees
`
`and
`
`expenses
`
`incurred.
`
`2.
`
`As
`
`Defendants'
`
`moving
`
`application
`
`readily
`
`demonstrated,
`
`notwithstanding
`
`the
`
`aforementioned
`
`judgment
`
`entered
`
`against
`
`Defendants
`
`upon
`
`their
`
`purported
`
`default
`
`in
`
`this
`
`action,
`
`the
`
`aforementioned
`
`judgment
`
`should
`
`be
`
`vacated
`
`{00032036.DOCX}
`
`1 of 14
`
`

`

`FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 02/13/2019 08:59 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 342
`
`INDEX NO. 034071/2011
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/13/2019
`
`because
`
`unique
`
`circumstances
`
`in
`
`this
`
`action
`
`warrant
`
`vacatuer
`
`of
`
`Defendants'
`
`default
`
`in
`
`this
`
`action,
`
`and
`
`Defendants
`
`should
`
`be
`
`permitted
`
`to
`
`defend
`
`this
`
`action
`
`on
`
`its
`
`merits
`
`at
`
`a
`
`new trial
`
`to
`
`be
`
`conducted
`
`in
`
`this
`
`action.
`
`Indeed,
`
`Defendants'
`
`as
`
`moving
`
`application
`
`readily
`
`demonstrated,
`
`because
`
`this
`
`Court
`
`previously
`
`determined
`
`at
`
`trial
`
`that
`
`Forshay
`
`was
`
`not
`
`a
`
`successor
`
`in
`
`interest
`
`to
`
`defendant
`
`DNP,
`
`it
`
`is
`
`patently
`
`evident
`
`that
`
`there
`
`is
`
`clear
`
`merit
`
`Defendants
`
`in
`
`the
`
`event
`
`are
`
`to
`
`the
`
`defenses
`
`that
`
`are
`
`available
`
`to
`
`Defendants
`
`permitted
`
`to
`
`defend
`
`the
`
`instant
`
`action
`
`at
`
`trial.
`
`Indeed,
`
`it
`
`is
`
`highly
`
`likely
`
`that
`
`at
`
`a new
`
`trial,
`
`a jury
`
`will
`
`also
`
`very
`
`well
`
`determine
`
`that
`
`Forshay
`
`was
`
`not
`
`a successor
`
`in
`
`interest
`
`to
`
`defendant
`
`DNP.
`
`Thus,
`
`in
`
`the
`
`event
`
`the
`
`Court
`
`does
`
`not
`
`vacate
`
`the
`
`aforementioned
`
`judgment
`
`rendered
`
`against
`
`Defendants
`
`upon
`
`their
`
`purported
`
`default
`
`in
`
`this
`
`action,
`
`a
`
`jury's
`
`that
`
`was
`
`no_t
`
`a successor
`
`in
`
`interest
`
`to
`
`defendant
`
`DNP
`
`would
`
`yield
`
`finding
`
`Forshay
`
`a contradictory
`
`and
`
`inconsistent
`
`result
`
`whereby
`
`there
`
`would
`
`be
`
`a jury
`
`determination
`
`that
`
`no
`
`successor
`
`liability
`
`inured
`
`to
`
`Defendants,
`
`yet
`
`a judgment
`
`will
`
`have
`
`been
`
`entered
`
`against
`
`Defendants
`
`upon
`
`the
`
`same
`
`set
`
`of
`
`facts
`
`and
`
`circumstances
`
`upon
`
`which
`
`a jury
`
`has
`
`determined
`
`that
`
`no
`
`liability
`
`exists.
`
`Most
`
`obviously,
`
`such
`
`a scenario
`
`would
`
`only
`
`serve
`
`to
`
`undermine
`
`public
`
`confidence
`
`in
`
`the
`
`judicial
`
`process
`
`and
`
`cause
`
`the
`
`parties
`
`to
`
`incur
`
`additional
`
`expense
`
`with
`
`needless
`
`and
`
`repetitive
`
`appellate
`
`litigation
`
`before
`
`the
`
`Appellate
`
`as
`
`Division
`
`which,
`
`is
`
`also
`
`demonstrated
`
`below,
`
`is
`
`a scenario
`
`that
`
`the
`
`Appellate
`
`Division
`
`would
`
`reverse.
`
`As
`
`further
`
`demonstrated,
`
`in
`
`the
`
`event
`
`the
`
`Court
`
`vacates
`
`the
`
`default
`
`judgment
`
`against
`
`Defendants
`
`and
`
`permits
`
`Defendants
`
`to
`
`defend
`
`this
`
`action
`
`at
`
`trial,
`
`no
`
`prejudice
`
`can
`
`accrue
`
`to
`
`plaintiff.
`
`The
`
`case
`
`is
`
`again
`
`proceeding
`
`to
`
`trial.
`
`alleged
`
`liability
`
`in
`
`this
`
`action
`
`is
`
`not
`
`independent
`
`and
`
`apart
`
`from
`
`the
`
`alleged
`
`liability.
`
`Rather,
`
`plaintiff's
`
`theory
`
`of
`
`the
`
`Spencer
`
`Indeed,
`
`Spencer
`
`Defendants'
`
`Defendants'
`
`{00032036.DOCX}
`
`2 of 14
`
`

`

`FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 02/13/2019 08:59 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 342
`
`INDEX NO. 034071/2011
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/13/2019
`
`Defendants'
`
`alleged
`
`liability
`
`flows
`
`from
`
`Defendants'
`
`alleged
`
`liability.
`
`Thus,
`
`at
`
`the
`
`new
`
`trial
`
`to
`
`be
`
`conducted
`
`by
`
`the
`
`Court,
`
`plaintiff
`
`has
`
`to
`
`necessarily
`
`prove
`
`that
`
`Forshay
`
`is
`
`a
`
`successor
`
`in
`
`interest
`
`to
`
`defendant
`
`DNP
`
`in
`
`order
`
`to
`
`obtain
`
`liability
`
`against
`
`the
`
`Spencer
`
`Defendants-something
`
`which
`
`plaintiff
`
`failed
`
`to
`
`do
`
`at
`
`the
`
`first
`
`trial.
`
`Thus,
`
`plaintiff's
`
`burden
`
`the
`
`new
`
`trial
`
`no
`
`greater
`
`than
`
`burden
`
`the
`
`first
`
`trial-a
`
`burden
`
`to
`
`carry
`
`at
`
`is
`
`plaintiff's
`
`at
`
`which
`
`plaintiff
`
`failed
`
`to
`
`carry.
`
`As
`
`such,
`
`in
`
`the
`
`event
`
`the
`
`Court
`
`vacates
`
`the
`
`default
`
`judgment
`
`against
`
`Defendants
`
`and
`
`permits
`
`Defendants
`
`to
`
`defend
`
`this
`
`action
`
`at
`
`trial,
`
`no
`
`prejudice
`
`can
`
`accrue
`
`to
`
`plaintiff.
`
`As
`
`such,
`
`there
`
`can
`
`be
`
`no
`
`doubt
`
`that,
`
`because
`
`of
`
`the
`
`aforementioned
`
`unique
`
`circumstances
`
`in
`
`this
`
`action,
`
`i.e.
`
`the
`
`probability
`
`of
`
`inconsistent
`
`judgments
`
`Defendants'
`
`is
`
`together
`
`with
`
`the
`
`absence
`
`if
`
`default
`
`not
`
`vacated,
`
`of
`
`any
`
`prejudice
`
`whatsoever
`
`inuring
`
`to
`
`plaintiff,
`
`in
`
`the
`
`exercise
`
`of
`
`the
`
`Court's
`
`discretion
`
`and
`
`in
`
`the
`
`interests
`
`of
`
`substantial
`
`justice,
`
`the
`
`Court
`
`should
`
`vacate
`
`the
`
`judgment
`
`entered
`
`against
`
`Defendants
`
`upon
`
`default,
`
`and
`
`permit
`
`Defendants
`
`to
`
`defend
`
`this
`
`action
`
`on
`
`its
`
`merits
`
`at
`
`trial.
`
`A.
`
`Opposition
`Plaintiff's
`Mischaracterizations
`
`With
`Is Replete
`And
`Misstatements
`
`3.
`
`Notwithstanding
`
`Defendants'
`
`aforementioned
`
`steadfast
`
`contentions,
`
`plaintiff's
`
`opposition
`
`weaves
`
`many
`
`mischaracterizations
`
`and
`
`other
`
`misstatements
`
`an
`
`Defendants'
`
`To
`
`be
`
`in
`
`effort
`
`to
`
`rebut
`
`steadfast
`
`claims.
`
`sure,
`
`plaintiff
`
`makes
`
`no
`
`attempt
`
`to
`
`claim
`
`that
`
`it would
`
`be
`
`prejudiced
`
`in
`
`the
`
`event
`
`the
`
`Court
`
`vacates
`
`Defendants'
`
`default
`
`and
`
`allows
`
`Defendants
`
`to
`
`defend
`
`the
`
`action
`
`at
`
`trial.
`
`Indeed,
`
`no
`
`prejudice
`
`would
`
`inure
`
`to
`
`plaintiff.
`
`Rather,
`
`plaintiff
`
`chooses
`
`to mischaracterize
`
`contentions
`
`and
`
`otherwise
`
`misstates
`
`facts
`
`in
`
`its
`
`effort
`
`to
`
`rebut,
`
`albeit
`
`Defendants'
`
`well-grounded
`
`contentions.
`
`By way
`
`of
`
`example,
`
`contrary
`
`to
`
`Defendants'
`
`ineffectually,
`
`{00032036.DOCX}
`
`3 of 14
`
`

`

`FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 02/13/2019 08:59 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 342
`
`INDEX NO. 034071/2011
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/13/2019
`
`plaintiff's
`
`mischaracterization
`
`that
`
`"Defendants
`
`bring
`
`the
`
`instant
`
`Order
`
`to Show
`
`Cause
`
`without
`
`even
`
`mentioning
`
`that
`
`the
`
`Appellate
`
`Division
`
`affirmed
`
`this
`
`Court's
`
`April
`
`2017
`
`3,
`
`Order"
`
`that
`
`previously
`
`denied
`
`Defendants'
`
`Order
`
`to Show
`
`Cause
`
`to
`
`vacate
`
`their
`
`purported
`
`default,
`
`even
`
`a cursery
`
`review
`
`of
`
`Defendants'
`
`moving
`
`application
`
`readily
`
`reveals
`
`that
`
`Defendants
`
`expressly
`
`and
`
`readily
`
`set
`
`forth
`
`that
`
`Defendants'
`
`appeal
`
`was
`
`effectively
`
`rendered
`
`moot
`
`when
`
`the
`
`Appellate
`
`Division
`
`issued
`
`its
`
`Decision
`
`and
`
`Order
`
`Defendants'
`
`that
`
`reversed
`
`the
`
`directed
`
`verdict
`
`underlying
`
`appeal,
`
`and
`
`remanded
`
`the
`
`instant
`
`action
`
`for
`
`a new
`
`trial,
`
`To
`
`be
`
`sure,
`
`Defendants
`
`appealed
`
`the
`
`this
`
`Court's
`
`denial
`
`of
`
`their
`
`prior
`
`Order
`
`to
`
`Show
`
`Cause
`
`upon
`
`the
`
`basis
`
`that,
`
`irrespective
`
`of whether
`
`there
`
`was
`
`a
`
`reasonable
`
`excuse
`
`for
`
`their
`
`purported
`
`default,
`
`no
`
`judgment
`
`could
`
`lie
`
`against
`
`Defendants
`
`as
`
`a
`
`result
`
`of
`
`the
`
`directed
`
`verdict
`
`previously
`
`rendered
`
`by
`
`the
`
`Court
`
`in
`
`this
`
`When
`
`directed
`
`verdict
`
`rendered
`
`in
`
`this
`
`action.
`
`action,
`
`Defendants'
`
`the
`
`Appellate
`
`Division
`
`reversed
`
`the
`
`appeal
`
`was
`
`rendered
`
`moot.
`
`Thus,
`
`there
`
`was
`
`no
`
`need
`
`for
`
`Defendants
`
`to
`
`annex
`
`a copy
`
`of
`
`the
`
`Decision
`
`and
`
`Order
`
`of
`
`the
`
`Appellate
`
`Division
`
`that
`
`denied
`
`Defendants'
`
`appeal-the
`
`Appellate
`
`Division's
`
`denial
`
`was
`
`only
`
`based
`
`upon
`
`Defendants'
`
`failure
`
`to
`
`show
`
`excusable
`
`and
`
`is
`
`otherwise
`
`irrelevant
`
`to
`
`appeal,
`
`most
`
`default,
`
`Defendants'
`
`did
`
`no_t
`
`address
`
`the
`
`crux
`
`of
`
`Defendants'
`
`instant
`
`Order
`
`to Show
`
`Cause.
`
`To
`
`be
`
`"hiding"
`
`from
`
`Court.
`
`certain,
`
`Defendants
`
`were
`
`not
`
`anything
`
`this
`
`4.
`
`Most
`
`specifically,
`
`Defendants'
`
`as
`
`moving
`
`application
`
`made
`
`plain,
`
`in
`
`December
`
`2016,
`
`in
`
`the
`
`interim
`
`period
`
`when
`
`Defendants
`
`brought
`
`their
`
`prior
`
`Order
`
`to
`
`Show
`
`Cause
`
`to
`
`vacate
`
`their
`
`default,
`
`plaintiff
`
`had
`
`appealed
`
`this
`
`Court's
`
`directed
`
`verdict.
`
`In
`
`a Decision
`
`and
`
`Order
`
`dated
`
`August
`
`1,
`
`2018,
`
`the
`
`Appellate
`
`Division
`
`vacated
`
`this
`
`Court's
`
`directed
`
`verdict
`
`and
`
`remitted
`
`the
`
`instant
`
`action
`
`to
`
`this
`
`Court
`
`for
`
`a new
`
`trial.
`
`A
`
`{00032036.DOCX}
`
`4 of 14
`
`

`

`FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 02/13/2019 08:59 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 342
`
`INDEX NO. 034071/2011
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/13/2019
`
`copy
`
`of
`
`the
`
`Appellate
`
`Division's
`
`Decision
`
`and
`
`Order
`
`is
`
`annexed
`
`to
`
`Defendants'
`
`moving
`
`application
`
`as
`
`Exhibit
`
`"E".
`
`Thus,
`
`the
`
`crux
`
`of
`
`Defendants'
`
`appeal
`
`was
`
`mooted.
`
`To
`
`be
`
`sure,
`
`contrary
`
`to
`
`plaintiff's
`
`assertion
`
`however,
`
`the
`
`Appellate
`
`Division's
`
`Decision
`
`and
`
`Order
`
`did
`
`n_ot
`
`decide
`
`Defendants'
`
`aforementioned
`
`mooted
`
`appeal
`
`on
`
`its
`
`merits.
`
`Even
`
`a
`
`review
`
`of
`
`the
`
`Decision
`
`and
`
`Order,
`
`a copy
`
`of which
`
`is
`
`annexed
`
`hereto
`
`as
`
`Exhibit
`
`cursory
`
`"A",
`
`readily
`
`reveals
`
`that
`
`the
`
`Decision
`
`and
`
`Order
`
`states,
`
`"Since
`
`the
`
`defendants
`
`failed
`
`to
`
`demonstrate
`
`a reasonable
`
`excuse
`
`for
`
`their
`
`default,
`
`we need
`
`not
`
`address
`
`whether
`
`they
`
`established
`
`the
`
`existence
`
`of
`
`a potentially
`
`meritorious
`
`defense".
`
`To
`
`reiterate,
`
`because
`
`the
`
`Appellate
`
`Division
`
`had
`
`already
`
`reversed
`
`this
`
`Court's
`
`directed
`
`verdict
`
`when
`
`it decided
`
`Defendants'
`
`aforementioned
`
`appeal,
`
`Defendants'
`
`then
`
`"remaining
`
`contentions"
`
`were
`
`"without
`
`merit".
`
`The
`
`crux
`
`of
`
`Defendants'
`
`to
`
`wit,
`
`the
`
`directed
`
`necessarily
`
`was
`
`already
`
`reversed
`
`by
`
`the
`
`Appellate
`
`Division,
`
`thus
`
`mooting
`
`Defendants'
`
`appeal.
`
`As
`
`appeal,
`
`verdict,
`
`such,
`
`necessarily,
`
`Defendants'
`
`contentions"
`
`"remaining
`
`were
`
`"without
`
`merit".
`
`Thus
`
`further,
`
`denying
`
`there
`
`was
`
`no
`
`need
`
`to
`
`annex
`
`the
`
`Appellate
`
`Division's
`
`Decision
`
`and
`
`Order
`
`Defendants'
`
`appeal-such
`
`Decision
`
`and
`
`Order
`
`has
`
`no
`
`bearing
`
`on
`
`how
`
`this
`
`Court
`
`should
`
`view
`
`Defendants'
`
`instant
`
`Order
`
`to Show
`
`Cause.
`
`5.
`
`Moreover,
`
`while
`
`plaintiff
`
`portrays
`
`Defendants'
`
`prior
`
`arguments
`
`to
`
`this
`
`Court
`
`and
`
`to
`
`the
`
`Appellate
`
`Division
`
`as
`
`one
`
`of
`
`"inconsistent
`
`judgments",
`
`thus
`
`claiming
`
`that
`
`Defendants
`
`instantly
`
`raise
`
`the
`
`same
`
`arguments
`
`previously
`
`raised
`
`and
`
`denied,
`
`plaintiff
`
`either
`
`misapprehends
`
`disingenuously
`
`misrepresents
`
`Defendants'
`
`Defendants'
`
`well-grounded
`
`contentions
`
`or
`
`otherwise
`
`contentions
`
`to
`
`this
`
`Court.
`
`To
`
`be most
`
`certain,
`
`Defendants
`
`had
`
`previously
`
`and
`
`steadfastly
`
`contended
`
`that
`
`the
`
`judgment
`
`should
`
`have
`
`been
`
`vacated,
`
`and
`
`the
`
`action
`
`against
`
`Defendants
`
`should
`
`have
`
`been
`
`dismissed
`
`{00032036.DOCX}
`
`5 of 14
`
`

`

`FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 02/13/2019 08:59 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 342
`
`INDEX NO. 034071/2011
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/13/2019
`
`with
`
`prejudice,
`
`because
`
`at
`
`the
`
`trial
`
`conducted
`
`in
`
`this
`
`action
`
`the
`
`Court
`
`rendered
`
`a
`
`directed
`
`verdict
`
`in
`
`favor
`
`of
`
`defendants
`
`Spencer
`
`Gifts,
`
`LLC
`
`and
`
`Spencer
`
`Gifts,
`
`Inc.
`
`("Spencer
`
`Defendants"),
`
`dismissing
`
`the
`
`action
`
`as
`
`against
`
`Spencer
`
`Defendants,
`
`by
`
`finding
`
`purported
`
`that
`
`the
`
`Spencer
`
`Defendants
`
`were
`
`not
`
`liable
`
`to Golden
`
`Mountain
`
`because
`
`any
`
`liability
`
`inuring
`
`to
`
`the
`
`Spencer
`
`Defendants
`
`would
`
`have
`
`necessarily
`
`flowed
`
`from
`
`Defendant
`
`Forshay
`
`being
`
`a successor
`
`in
`
`interest
`
`to
`
`defendant
`
`DNP
`
`Sales
`
`&
`
`Marketing,
`
`Inc.
`
`("DNP"),
`
`and
`
`that
`
`in
`
`fact
`
`Defendant
`
`Forshay
`
`was
`
`not
`
`a successor
`
`in
`
`interest
`
`to
`
`defendant
`
`DNP,
`
`and
`
`that
`
`Forshay
`
`did
`
`n_ot
`
`assume
`
`DNP's
`
`liabilities.
`
`As
`
`such,
`
`Defendants
`
`had
`
`contended
`
`that,
`
`because
`
`the
`
`Court
`
`determined
`
`at
`
`trial
`
`that
`
`Forshay
`
`was
`
`n_ot
`
`a successor
`
`in
`
`interest
`
`to
`
`defendant
`
`DNP,
`
`and
`
`did
`
`not
`
`assume
`
`DNP's
`
`liabilities,
`
`the
`
`law
`
`of
`
`the
`
`case
`
`mandated
`
`that
`
`plaintiff's
`
`complaint
`
`against
`
`Defendants,
`
`the
`
`causes
`
`of
`
`action
`
`of which
`
`flow
`
`from
`
`was
`
`a successor
`
`in
`
`only
`
`plaintiffs
`
`sole
`
`allegation
`
`that
`
`Forshay
`
`interest
`
`to
`
`defendant
`
`DNP,
`
`be
`
`dismissed
`
`with
`
`prejudice,
`
`irrespective
`
`of whether
`
`Defendants
`
`were
`
`in
`
`default.
`
`Ergo,
`
`because
`
`the
`
`law
`
`of
`
`the
`
`case
`
`as
`
`determined
`
`Court
`
`has
`
`established
`
`that
`
`Forshay
`
`was
`
`not
`
`a successor
`
`in
`
`interest
`
`to
`
`defendant
`
`by
`
`the
`
`DNP,
`
`and
`
`did
`
`nJ2t
`
`assume
`
`DNP's
`
`liabilities,
`
`no
`
`judgment
`
`could
`
`lie
`
`against
`
`Defendants
`
`in
`
`this
`
`action.
`
`Indeed,
`
`as
`
`Defendants
`
`had
`
`previously
`
`contended,
`
`because
`
`the
`
`foundation
`
`complaint
`
`and
`
`the
`
`judgment
`
`obtained
`
`Mountain
`
`underlying
`
`plaintiff's
`
`resulting
`
`by Golden
`
`against
`
`Defendants
`
`has
`
`been
`
`utterly
`
`destroyed
`
`by
`
`the
`
`aforementioned
`
`directed
`
`verdict
`
`rendered
`
`by
`
`the
`
`Court
`
`and
`
`the
`
`findings
`
`upon
`
`which
`
`the
`
`Court
`
`based
`
`its
`
`aforementioned
`
`verdict,
`
`no
`
`judgment
`
`could
`
`lie
`
`against
`
`Defendants.
`
`In
`
`fact,
`
`this
`
`is well
`
`settled
`
`law
`
`in
`
`the
`
`Second
`
`Department.
`
`In
`
`a case
`
`directly
`
`on
`
`point,
`
`Fappiano
`
`v.
`
`City
`
`of New York,
`
`5 A.D.
`
`3d
`
`627,
`
`774
`
`N.Y.S.2d
`
`773
`
`(2d
`
`Dept.
`
`2004),
`
`the
`
`Court
`
`held
`
`that,
`
`while
`
`entry
`
`of
`
`an Order
`
`{00032036.DOCX}
`
`6 of 14
`
`

`

`FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 02/13/2019 08:59 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 342
`
`INDEX NO. 034071/2011
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/13/2019
`
`striking
`
`upon
`
`an
`
`answer
`
`is
`
`the
`
`equivalent
`
`of
`
`a default
`
`in
`
`answering,
`
`a plaintiff's
`
`right
`
`to
`
`recover
`
`said
`
`default
`
`required
`
`that
`
`plaintiff
`
`state
`
`a
`
`viable
`
`cause
`
`of
`
`action.
`
`Indeed,
`
`in
`
`Fappiano,
`
`because
`
`the
`
`plaintiff
`
`ultimately
`
`failed
`
`to
`
`satisfy
`
`its
`
`burden
`
`of
`
`establishing
`
`the
`
`existence
`
`of
`
`a
`
`viable
`
`cause
`
`of
`
`action,
`
`the
`
`defaulting
`
`defendants'
`
`subsequent
`
`motion
`
`to
`
`dismiss
`
`the
`
`complaint
`
`as
`
`asserted
`
`against
`
`them
`
`was
`
`qranted,
`
`with
`
`said
`
`dismissai
`
`being
`
`Division.
`
`other
`
`although
`
`the
`
`effect
`
`of
`
`a
`
`affirmed
`
`by The
`
`Appellate
`
`In
`
`words,
`
`evidentiary
`
`default
`
`is
`
`that
`
`a defendant
`
`is deemed
`
`to
`
`"admit
`
`the
`
`traversable
`
`allegations
`
`in
`
`the
`
`complaint",
`
`the
`
`movant
`
`for
`
`the
`
`default
`
`judgment
`
`must
`
`satisfy
`
`its
`
`burden
`
`to
`
`establish
`
`the
`
`existence
`
`of
`
`a viable
`
`claim
`
`or
`
`the
`
`claim
`
`will
`
`not
`
`be
`
`sustained
`
`against
`
`the
`
`defaulting
`
`party.
`
`To
`
`be
`
`sure,
`
`in
`
`the
`
`instant
`
`action,
`
`Defendants'
`
`prior
`
`Order
`
`to Show
`
`Cause
`
`that
`
`sought
`
`vacatuer
`
`of
`
`their
`
`default
`
`and
`
`the
`
`dismissal
`
`of
`
`the
`
`complaint
`
`was
`
`predicated
`
`upon
`
`the
`
`Department
`
`exact
`
`same
`
`well
`
`settled
`
`law
`
`espoused
`
`by
`
`the
`
`Second
`
`in
`
`Fappiano
`
`v.
`
`City
`
`of
`
`New York,
`
`supra.
`
`However,
`
`Defendants'
`
`instant
`
`Order
`
`to Show
`
`Cause
`
`seeks
`
`to
`
`avoid
`
`the
`
`aforementioned
`
`potential
`
`of
`
`inconsistent
`
`judgments
`
`that
`
`could
`
`very
`
`well
`
`be
`
`rendered
`
`in
`
`this
`
`action,
`
`a scenario
`
`that
`
`would
`
`only
`
`serve
`
`to
`
`undermine
`
`public
`
`confidence
`
`in
`
`the
`
`judicial
`
`process
`
`and
`
`cause
`
`the
`
`parties
`
`to
`
`incur
`
`additional
`
`expense
`
`with
`
`needless
`
`and
`
`repetitive
`
`appellate
`
`litigation
`
`before
`
`the
`
`Appellate
`
`Division
`
`which
`
`as
`
`just
`
`demonstrated,
`
`be
`
`would
`
`not
`
`sustained
`
`by
`
`the
`
`Appellate
`
`Division.
`
`6.
`
`Further,
`
`plaintiff's
`
`contention
`
`that
`
`Defendants
`
`are
`
`barred
`
`from
`
`making
`
`successive
`
`motions
`
`to
`
`vacate
`
`their
`
`purported
`
`default
`
`is
`
`also
`
`without
`
`merit.
`
`First,
`
`it
`
`is well
`
`settled
`
`that,
`
`while
`
`a party
`
`may
`
`be
`
`ordinarily
`
`precluded
`
`from
`
`making
`
`a second
`
`motion
`
`to
`
`vacate
`
`a default
`
`on
`
`the
`
`same
`
`ground
`
`raised
`
`in
`
`a prior
`
`motion
`
`to
`
`vacate,
`
`where
`
`the
`
`Court
`
`denies
`
`the
`
`first
`
`motion
`
`to
`
`vacate
`
`without
`
`prejudice,
`
`such
`
`as
`
`in
`
`the
`
`case
`
`at
`
`bar,
`
`(o0032036.DOCX}
`
`7 of 14
`
`

`

`FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 02/13/2019 08:59 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 342
`
`INDEX NO. 034071/2011
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/13/2019
`
`a movant
`
`is
`
`not
`
`precluded
`
`from
`
`making
`
`a second
`
`motion
`
`to
`
`vacate
`
`its
`
`default
`
`on
`
`the
`
`same
`
`grounds
`
`raised
`
`in
`
`his
`
`prior
`
`motion.
`
`World
`
`O World
`
`Corp.
`
`v.
`
`Anoufrieva,
`
`2018
`
`NY
`
`Slip
`
`Op
`
`05075
`
`(2018).
`
`In
`
`the
`
`first
`
`instance,
`
`Defendants'
`
`instant
`
`Order
`
`to
`
`Show
`
`Cause
`
`is
`
`predicated
`
`upon
`
`different
`
`grounds
`
`from
`
`its
`
`initial
`
`motion.
`
`Again,
`
`Defendants'
`
`prior
`
`Order
`
`to Show
`
`Cause
`
`was
`
`based
`
`upon
`
`"the
`
`law
`
`of
`
`the
`
`case"
`
`and
`
`"res
`
`judicata",
`
`mandating
`
`that
`
`because
`
`law
`
`of
`
`case
`
`found
`
`plaintiff's
`
`complaint
`
`be
`
`dismissed
`
`against
`
`Defendants
`
`the
`
`the
`
`that
`
`no
`
`successor
`
`liability
`
`inured
`
`to
`
`Defendants,
`
`Fappiano
`
`v.
`
`City
`
`of New York,
`
`5 A.D.
`
`3d
`
`627,
`
`774
`
`N.Y.S.2d
`
`773
`
`(2d
`
`Dept.
`
`2004),
`
`while
`
`Defendants'
`
`instant
`
`application
`
`is
`
`predicated
`
`upon
`
`different
`
`grounds,
`
`to
`
`wit,
`
`the
`
`potential
`
`of
`
`inconsistent
`
`judgments
`
`that
`
`could
`
`very
`
`well
`
`be
`
`rendered
`
`in
`
`this
`
`action,
`
`a
`
`scenario
`
`that
`
`would
`
`only
`
`serve
`
`to
`
`undermine
`
`public
`
`confidence
`
`in
`
`the
`
`judicial
`
`process
`
`and
`
`cause
`
`the
`
`parties
`
`to
`
`incur
`
`needless
`
`and
`
`the
`
`Appellate
`
`additional
`
`expense
`
`with
`
`repetitive
`
`appellate
`
`litigation
`
`before
`
`Division,
`
`which
`
`as
`
`just
`
`demonstrated,
`
`would
`
`not
`
`be
`
`sustained
`
`by
`
`the
`
`Appellate
`
`Division.
`
`In
`
`any
`
`event,
`
`the
`
`Court's
`
`prior
`
`denial
`
`of
`
`Defendants'
`
`application
`
`to
`
`vacate
`
`their
`
`default
`
`was
`
`n_ot
`
`"with
`
`prejudice".
`
`Thus,
`
`Defendants
`
`were
`
`11qt
`
`precluded
`
`in
`
`bringing
`
`this
`
`instant
`
`application.
`
`Moreover
`
`however,
`
`in
`
`an
`
`appearance
`
`before
`
`the
`
`Court
`
`in November
`
`2018,
`
`Defendants
`
`made
`
`an
`
`oral
`
`application
`
`for
`
`leave
`
`to
`
`bring
`
`their
`
`instant
`
`Order
`
`to
`
`Show
`
`in
`
`open
`
`Court
`
`of
`
`the
`
`basis
`
`Cause,
`
`setting
`
`forth
`
`a brief
`
`synopsis
`
`of
`
`their
`
`intended
`
`application,
`
`with
`
`leave
`
`being
`
`qranted
`
`by
`
`the
`
`Court.
`
`Thus,
`
`there
`
`can
`
`be
`
`no
`
`doubt
`
`that
`
`Defendants
`
`are
`
`not,
`
`and
`
`cannot
`
`be
`
`precluded
`
`from
`
`bringing
`
`the
`
`instant
`
`application.
`
`7.
`
`Plaintiff's
`
`citation
`
`to Chambers
`
`v.
`
`City
`
`of New York,
`
`309
`
`A.D.2d
`
`764
`
`N.Y.S.2d
`
`708
`
`(2d
`
`Dept.
`
`2003),
`
`and
`
`Holt
`
`v.
`
`Holt,
`
`262
`
`A.D.2d
`
`530,
`
`692
`
`N.Y.S.2d
`
`452
`
`(2d
`
`Dept.
`
`1999)
`
`for
`
`its
`
`contention
`
`that
`
`"whether
`
`or
`
`not
`
`the
`
`Spencer
`
`Defendants
`
`81,
`
`451,
`
`{00032036.DOCX}
`
`8 of 14
`
`

`

`FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 02/13/2019 08:59 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 342
`
`INDEX NO. 034071/2011
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/13/2019
`
`prevail
`
`has
`
`no
`
`effect
`
`upon
`
`the
`
`Defendants",
`
`is wholly
`
`erroneous
`
`and
`
`otherwise
`
`misplaced.
`
`Most
`
`specifically,
`
`notwithstanding
`
`the
`
`well
`
`settled
`
`law
`
`espoused
`
`in
`
`Fappiano
`
`v.
`
`City
`
`of New York,
`
`5 A.D.
`
`3d
`
`627,
`
`774
`
`N.Y.S.2d
`
`773
`
`(2d
`
`Dept.
`
`2004),
`
`supra,
`
`plaintiff's
`
`foregoing
`
`citations
`
`are
`
`inapposite
`
`to
`
`the
`
`case
`
`at
`
`bar
`
`in
`
`that,
`
`in Chambers
`
`and
`
`jjolt,
`
`the
`
`Court
`
`in
`
`those
`
`actions
`
`only
`
`found
`
`that
`
`a default
`
`judgment
`
`rendered
`
`against
`
`a defaulting
`
`defendant
`
`in
`
`an
`
`an
`
`of
`
`traversable
`
`allegations
`
`the
`
`action,
`
`thus
`
`causing
`
`"admission
`
`the
`
`in
`
`complaint",
`
`has
`
`no
`
`collateral
`
`effect
`
`against
`
`the
`
`non-defaulting
`
`party,
`
`and
`
`as
`
`such,
`
`the
`
`plaintiff
`
`must
`
`still
`
`prove
`
`a viable
`
`cause
`
`of
`
`action
`
`against
`
`the
`
`non-defaulting
`
`party.
`
`It does
`
`not
`
`stand
`
`for
`
`the
`
`proposition,
`
`as
`
`plaintiff
`
`mischaracterizes,
`
`that
`
`the
`
`result
`
`of
`
`a trial
`
`against
`
`the
`
`Spencer
`
`Defendants
`
`has
`
`"no
`
`bearing
`
`whatsoever
`
`on
`
`Defendants".
`
`Indeed,
`
`in
`
`the
`
`instant
`
`action
`
`it most
`
`certainly
`
`does.
`
`As
`
`demonstrated,
`
`any
`
`purported
`
`liability
`
`the
`
`Spencer
`
`Defendants
`
`would
`
`flow
`
`from
`
`inuring
`
`to
`
`necessarily
`
`Defendant
`
`Forshay
`
`being
`
`thus,
`
`a successor
`
`in
`
`interest
`
`to
`
`defendant
`
`DNP
`
`Sales
`
`& Marketing,
`
`Inc.
`
`("DNP"),
`
`and
`
`the
`
`Spencer
`
`Defendants
`
`can
`
`only
`
`be
`
`liable
`
`if Defendant
`
`Forshay
`
`is
`
`a
`
`successor
`
`in
`
`interest
`
`to
`
`defendant
`
`DNP.
`
`If Defendant
`
`Forshay
`
`is
`
`not
`
`a successor
`
`in
`
`interest
`
`to
`
`defendant
`
`DNP
`
`and
`
`did
`
`n_ot
`
`assume
`
`DNP's
`
`liabilities,
`
`then
`
`plaintiff's
`
`complaint
`
`against
`
`the
`
`Spencer
`
`Defendants,
`
`the
`
`causes
`
`of
`
`action
`
`of which
`
`only
`
`flow
`
`from
`
`plaintiff's
`
`sole
`
`allegation
`
`was
`
`a successor
`
`to
`
`defendant
`
`must
`
`that
`
`Forshay
`
`in
`
`interest
`
`DNP,
`
`necessarily
`
`be
`
`dismissed
`
`with
`
`prejudice
`
`against
`
`the
`
`Spencer
`
`Defendants
`
`and
`
`thus
`
`must
`
`obviously
`
`be
`
`dismissed
`
`against
`
`Defendants.
`
`In
`
`other
`
`words,
`
`if
`
`the
`
`Spencer
`
`Defendants
`
`are
`
`found
`
`not
`
`to
`
`be
`
`liable
`
`to
`
`plaintiff,
`
`then
`
`necessarily,
`
`no
`
`liability
`
`could
`
`inure
`
`to
`
`Defendants
`
`because
`
`necessarily,
`
`there
`
`would
`
`have
`
`to
`
`have
`
`been
`
`a finding
`
`that
`
`Defendant
`
`Forshay
`
`is
`
`not
`
`a successor
`
`in
`
`interest
`
`to
`
`defendant
`
`DNP
`
`and
`
`did
`
`n_ot
`
`assume
`
`DNP's
`
`liabilities,
`
`or
`
`{00032036.DOCX}
`
`9 of 14
`
`

`

`FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 02/13/2019 08:59 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 342
`
`INDEX NO. 034071/2011
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/13/2019
`
`else
`
`liability
`
`would
`
`have
`
`inured
`
`to
`
`the
`
`Spencer
`
`Defendants.
`
`Thus,
`
`as
`
`in
`
`Fappiano,
`
`if
`
`plaintiff
`
`ultimately
`
`fails
`
`to
`
`satisfy
`
`its
`
`burden
`
`of
`
`establishing
`
`the
`
`existence
`
`of
`
`a viable
`
`cause
`
`of
`
`action
`
`against
`
`the
`
`Spencer
`
`Defendants,
`
`then
`
`necessarily
`
`there
`
`can
`
`be
`
`no
`
`viable
`
`cause
`
`of
`
`action
`
`established
`
`against
`
`Defendants
`
`and
`
`no
`
`judgment
`
`can
`
`lie
`
`against
`
`Defendants
`
`irrespective
`
`of
`
`the
`
`evidentiary
`
`effect
`
`of
`
`Defendants'
`
`default,
`
`i.e.,
`
`that
`
`defendants
`
`deemed
`
`have
`
`complaint".
`
`are
`
`to
`
`"admitted
`
`the
`
`traversable
`
`allegations
`
`in
`
`the
`
`As
`
`such,
`
`contrary
`
`to
`
`plaintiff's
`
`baseless
`
`contention,
`
`if
`
`the
`
`Spencer
`
`Defendants
`
`prevail
`
`at
`
`trial
`
`such
`
`will
`
`impact
`
`Defendants,
`
`specifically,
`
`such
`
`will
`
`cause
`
`the
`
`complaint
`
`against
`
`Defendants
`
`to
`
`be
`
`dismissed
`
`and
`
`the
`
`default
`
`judgment
`
`entered
`
`against
`
`Defendants
`
`to
`
`be
`
`vacated.
`
`B.
`
`The
`
`Judgment
`
`2015,
`July
`1,
`The
`Because
`The
`Judgment
`
`Entered
`Must
`Be
`
`on
`
`Vacated
`
`Findings
`Were
`
`Underlying
`Vacated
`
`By
`
`The
`
`Appellate
`
`Division
`
`Plaintiff
`
`does
`
`not
`
`dispute
`
`that
`
`"it
`
`is
`
`well
`
`settled
`
`jurisprudence
`
`that
`
`8.
`
`when
`
`an
`
`appellate
`
`court
`
`reverses
`
`a judgment,
`
`the
`
`rights
`
`of
`
`the
`
`parties
`
`are
`
`left
`
`'wholly
`
`unaffected
`
`by
`
`any
`
`previous
`
`adjudication'"
`
`Ceravole
`
`v.
`
`Giqlio,
`
`186
`
`A.D.2d
`
`170
`
`(2d
`
`Dept.
`
`1992),
`
`quoting,
`
`Taylor
`
`v. New York
`
`Life
`
`Ins.
`
`Co.,
`
`209
`
`N.Y.
`
`29,
`
`34
`
`(1913).
`
`Indeed,
`
`there
`
`can
`
`be
`
`no
`
`dispute
`
`that
`
`"the
`
`parties
`
`are
`
`left
`
`in
`
`the
`
`same
`
`position
`
`as
`
`though
`
`there
`
`had
`
`been
`
`no
`
`trial"
`
`Atifa
`
`v.
`
`56
`
`A.D.3d
`
`703,
`
`704
`
`(2d
`
`Dept.
`
`2008).
`
`Shairzad,
`
`Rather,
`
`using
`
`assumptions
`
`and
`
`otherwise
`
`surmising
`
`what
`
`the
`
`Appellate
`
`Division
`
`contemplated
`
`when
`
`it
`
`vacated
`
`this
`
`Court's
`
`directed
`
`verdict
`
`and
`
`remitted
`
`in
`
`total,
`
`the
`
`instant
`
`matter
`
`to
`
`this
`
`Court
`
`"for
`
`a new
`
`trial",
`
`plaintiff
`
`baselessly
`
`claims
`
`that
`
`the
`
`testimony
`
`adduced
`
`at
`
`the
`
`first
`
`trial
`
`"remains".
`
`Again,
`
`plaintiff
`
`offers
`
`no
`
`statute
`
`or
`
`other
`
`citation
`
`to
`
`substantiate
`
`this
`
`baseless
`
`claim
`
`but
`
`rather,
`
`only
`
`states
`
`that
`
`it would
`
`be
`
`"foolhardy
`
`to
`
`assume
`
`that
`
`the
`
`{00032036.DOCX}
`
`10 of 14
`
`

`

`FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 02/13/2019 08:59 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 342
`
`INDEX NO. 034071/2011
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/13/2019
`
`testimony
`
`no
`
`longer
`
`exists".
`
`Carrying
`
`plaintiff's
`
`logic
`
`forward
`
`however,
`
`there
`
`is
`
`no
`
`need
`
`for
`
`the
`
`Court
`
`to
`
`conduct
`
`a new
`
`trial.
`
`Rather,
`
`using
`
`plaintiff's
`
`logic,
`
`the
`
`Court
`
`need
`
`only
`
`to
`
`impanel
`
`a new jury,
`
`provide
`
`them
`
`with
`
`the
`
`transcripts
`
`of
`
`the
`
`first
`
`trial,
`
`let
`
`the
`
`panel
`
`go
`
`home
`
`for
`
`a few
`
`days
`
`to
`
`review
`
`the
`
`transcripts
`
`and
`
`have
`
`them
`
`return
`
`to
`
`render
`
`a new
`
`verdict.
`
`To
`
`be
`
`sure
`
`however,
`
`such
`
`is most
`
`obviously
`
`not
`
`the
`
`case.
`
`While
`
`plaintiff
`
`attempts
`
`to
`
`substantiate
`
`its
`
`contention
`
`by
`
`citing
`
`to
`
`two
`
`criminal
`
`citations
`
`for
`
`the
`
`proposition
`
`that
`
`a witness
`
`may
`
`be
`
`impeached
`
`with
`
`the
`
`sworn
`
`testimony
`
`that
`
`he
`
`or
`
`she
`
`gave
`
`at
`
`an
`
`earlier
`
`proceeding
`
`thereby
`
`purportedly
`
`showing
`
`that
`
`prior
`
`testimony
`
`from
`
`a
`
`reversed
`
`trial
`
`"does
`
`not
`
`vanish",
`
`indeed
`
`CPLR
`
`4517
`
`provides
`
`that
`
`prior
`
`testimony
`
`in
`
`a
`
`civil
`
`action
`
`may
`
`be
`
`used
`
`to
`
`impeach
`
`a witness.
`
`To
`
`be
`
`sure
`
`however,
`
`prior
`
`testimony
`
`from
`
`a trial
`
`that
`
`has
`
`been
`
`vacated
`
`in
`
`cannot
`
`be
`
`used
`
`to
`
`establish
`
`a party's
`
`case
`
`in
`
`total,
`
`chief
`
`unless
`
`one
`
`of
`
`five
`
`exceptions
`
`promulgated
`
`under
`
`CPLR
`
`4517
`
`exist,
`
`of which
`
`none
`
`are
`
`present
`
`or
`
`alleged
`
`in
`
`the
`
`case
`
`at
`
`bar.
`
`Simply
`
`put,
`
`in
`
`the
`
`instant
`
`action,
`
`because
`
`the
`
`first
`
`trial
`
`and
`
`directed
`
`verdict
`
`have
`
`been
`
`vacated,
`
`the
`
`prior
`
`testimony
`
`at
`
`the
`
`first
`
`trial
`
`is
`
`inadmissible
`
`and
`
`otherwise
`
`insufficient
`
`to
`
`establish
`
`damages
`
`against
`
`the
`
`Defendants.
`
`Thus,
`
`the
`
`testimony
`
`underlying
`
`the
`
`judgment
`
`entered
`
`against
`
`Defendants
`
`in
`
`the
`
`amount
`
`of
`
`$347,524.95,
`
`said
`
`judgment
`
`based
`
`upon
`
`"sufficient
`
`testimony...presented
`
`by
`
`plaintiff
`
`concerning
`
`damages
`
`against
`
`these
`
`defaulting
`
`defendants,
`
`so
`
`the
`
`Court
`
`will
`
`allow
`
`plaintiff
`
`to
`
`submit
`
`a judgment
`
`including
`
`the
`
`amount
`
`of
`
`damages
`
`that
`
`plaintiff
`
`testified
`
`to",
`
`is now
`
`precluded
`
`as
`
`a matter
`
`of
`
`law
`
`to
`
`establish
`
`"damages
`
`against
`
`these
`
`defaulting
`
`defendants"
`
`because
`
`the
`
`aforementioned
`
`testimony
`
`has
`
`been
`
`vacated,
`
`and
`
`at
`
`best,
`
`can
`
`only
`
`be
`
`used
`
`to
`
`impeach
`
`a witness,
`
`but
`
`insufficient
`
`to
`
`establish
`
`damages.
`
`Indeed,
`
`as
`
`a
`
`result
`
`of
`
`the
`
`Appellate
`
`Division's
`
`reversal
`
`of
`
`the
`
`Court's
`
`directed
`
`verdict,
`
`"the
`
`rights
`
`of
`
`{00032036.DOCX}
`
`11 of 14
`
`

`

`FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 02/13/2019 08:59 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 342
`
`INDEX NO. 034071/2011
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/13/2019
`
`the
`
`parties
`
`are
`
`left
`
`'wholly
`
`unaffected
`
`by
`
`any
`
`previous
`
`adiudication,
`
`and
`
`the
`
`parties
`
`are
`
`left
`
`in
`
`the
`
`same
`
`position
`
`as
`
`thouoh
`
`there
`
`had
`
`been
`
`no
`
`trial'".
`
`Thus,
`
`since
`
`the
`
`Appellate
`
`Division
`
`reversed
`
`the
`
`judgment
`
`and
`
`remitted
`
`the
`
`matter
`
`for
`
`a new
`
`trial,
`
`it
`
`is
`
`as
`
`if
`
`the
`
`trial
`
`and
`
`inquest
`
`conducted
`
`in
`
`this
`
`action
`
`had
`
`never
`
`occurred
`
`in
`
`that
`
`"the
`
`parties
`
`are
`
`left
`
`in
`
`as
`
`judgment
`
`on
`
`the
`
`same
`
`position
`
`though
`
`there
`
`had
`
`been
`
`no
`
`trial".
`
`Thus,
`
`the
`
`entered
`
`July
`
`1,
`
`2015
`
`against
`
`Defendants
`
`in
`
`the
`
`sum of
`
`$347,524.95,
`
`that
`
`was
`
`based
`
`upon
`
`"sufficient
`
`testimony...presented
`
`by
`
`plaintiff
`
`concerning
`
`damages
`
`against
`
`these
`
`defaulting
`
`defendants,
`
`so
`
`the
`
`Court
`
`will
`
`allow
`
`plaintiff
`
`to
`
`submit
`
`a judgment
`
`including
`
`the
`
`amount
`
`of damages
`
`that
`
`plaintiff
`
`testified
`
`to",
`
`must
`
`also
`
`be
`
`vacated
`
`as
`
`a matter
`
`of
`
`law.
`
`Court
`
`should
`
`vacate
`
`the
`
`judgment
`
`entered
`
`against
`
`Defendants
`
`on
`
`Accordingly,
`
`the
`
`July
`
`1,
`
`2015,
`
`in
`
`the
`
`sum of
`
`$347,524.95,
`
`in
`
`its
`
`entirety.
`
`C.
`
`Plaintiff
`
`For
`As
`
`Is Not
`Expenses
`
`Entitled
`
`Incurred
`
`Such,
`
`Plaintiff's
`
`To Reimbursement
`Attorneys'
`And
`Cross-Motion
`
`Should
`
`Fees;
`Be
`
`Denied
`
`In
`
`Its
`
`Entirety
`
`9.
`
`Simply
`
`put,
`
`plaintiff
`
`is
`
`not
`
`entitled
`
`to
`
`reimbursement
`
`for
`
`actual
`
`expenses
`
`incurred
`
`and
`
`attorneys'
`
`fees.
`
`10.
`
`It
`
`is
`
`well
`
`settled
`
`that,
`
`pursuant
`
`22 NYCRR
`
`to
`
`§130-1.1,
`
`the
`
`Court
`
`in
`
`its
`
`discretion
`
`may
`
`award
`
`costs
`
`in
`
`the
`
`form
`
`of
`
`reimbursement
`
`for
`
`actual
`
`expenses
`
`a party
`
`incurred
`
`and
`
`attorneys'
`
`fees
`
`resulting
`
`from
`
`a party's
`
`frivolous
`
`conduct.
`
`Indeed,
`
`22
`
`NYCRR
`
`§130-1.1
`
`defines
`
`"frivolous
`
`conduct",
`
`inter
`
`alia,
`
`as
`
`conduct
`
`that
`
`"is
`
`completely
`
`without
`
`merit
`
`in
`
`law
`
`and
`
`cannot
`
`be
`
`supported
`
`extension,
`
`modification
`
`or
`
`reversal
`
`of
`
`existing
`
`by
`
`law"
`
`a reasonable
`
`argument
`
`for
`
`an
`
`22 NYCRR
`
`§130-1.1(c)(1).
`
`In
`
`light
`
`of
`
`the
`
`foregoing,
`
`there
`
`can
`
`be
`
`no
`
`doubt
`
`that
`
`nothing
`
`in
`
`Defendants'
`
`conduct
`
`can
`
`remotely
`
`be
`
`described
`
`as
`
`frivolous.
`
`{00032036.DOCX}
`
`12 of 14
`
`

`

`FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 02/13/2019 08:59 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 342
`
`INDEX NO. 034071/2011
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/13/2019
`
`11.
`
`As
`
`Defendants
`
`have
`
`amply
`
`demonstrated,
`
`Defendants'
`
`instant
`
`Order
`
`to Show
`
`Cause
`
`is well-grounded
`
`in
`
`law
`
`and
`
`is most
`
`certainly
`
`meritorious
`
`and
`
`supported
`
`reasonable
`
`by
`
`argument.
`
`Indeed,
`
`notwithstanding
`
`plaintiff's
`
`belief
`
`that
`
`the
`
`Appellate
`
`Division's
`
`prior
`
`ruling
`
`"encompassed
`
`the
`
`arguments
`
`made
`
`herein",
`
`Defendants'
`
`instant
`
`application
`
`readily
`
`demonstrates
`
`that
`
`in
`
`fact,
`
`the
`
`Appellate
`
`Division's
`
`prior
`
`ruling
`
`did
`
`"encompass
`
`the
`
`arguments
`
`made
`
`herein".
`
`Your
`
`deponent's
`
`position
`
`was
`
`conveyed
`
`in
`
`had
`
`with
`
`counsel
`
`for
`
`plaintiff.
`
`the
`
`expressly
`
`discussions
`
`Moreover,
`
`arguments
`
`contained
`
`in
`
`Defendants'
`
`Order
`
`to Show
`
`Cause
`
`were
`
`briefly
`
`set
`
`forth
`
`in
`
`open
`
`Court
`
`when
`
`Defendants
`
`sought
`
`leave
`
`from
`
`the
`
`Court
`
`to make
`
`their
`
`instant
`
`application,
`
`and
`
`nonetheless,
`
`the
`
`Court
`
`granted
`
`Defendants
`
`leave
`
`to make
`
`their
`
`instant
`
`application.
`
`Finally,
`
`while
`
`plaintiff
`
`claims
`
`that
`
`your
`
`deponent's
`
`use
`
`of
`
`the
`
`word
`
`"unlawfully"
`
`in
`
`connection
`
`with
`
`plaintifFs
`
`efforts
`
`to
`
`collect
`
`on
`
`the
`
`judgment
`
`suggests
`
`that
`
`plaintiff
`
`'s
`
`counsel
`
`an"
`
`illegal"
`
`your
`
`deponent
`
`of
`
`has
`
`committed
`
`act,
`
`was g suggesting
`
`anything
`
`the
`
`sort,
`
`and
`
`plaintiff
`
`knows
`
`this
`
`well.
`
`Rather,
`
`your
`
`deponent's
`
`use
`
`of
`
`the
`
`word
`
`"unlawfully"
`
`herein,
`
`conduct
`
`was
`
`to
`
`emphasize
`
`only
`
`the
`
`baselessness
`
`of
`
`the
`
`judgment
`
`as
`
`set
`
`forth
`
`and
`
`not
`
`to
`
`suggest
`
`in
`
`any
`
`way,
`
`shape
`
`or
`
`form,
`
`any
`
`wrongdoing
`
`"illegal"
`
`or
`
`by
`
`plaintiff's
`
`counsel.
`
`As
`
`such,
`
`there
`
`can
`
`be
`
`no
`
`doubt
`
`that
`
`Defendants'
`
`instant
`
`Order
`
`to Show
`
`Cause
`
`most
`
`merit
`
`and
`
`basis
`
`law
`
`and
`
`and
`
`the
`
`certainly
`
`has
`
`contentions
`
`set
`
`forth
`
`herein
`
`are
`
`most
`
`certainly
`
`supported
`
`in
`
`by
`
`in
`
`fact,
`
`a reasonable
`
`argument
`
`for
`
`an
`
`extension,
`
`Defendants'
`
`modification
`
`or
`
`reversal
`
`of
`
`existing
`
`law.
`
`Thus,
`
`there
`
`can
`
`be
`
`no
`
`doubt
`
`that
`
`instant
`
`Order
`
`to Show
`
`Cause
`
`most
`
`surely
`
`does
`
`not
`
`constitute
`
`frivolous
`
`conduct
`
`as
`
`defined
`
`by
`
`statute,
`
`and
`
`does
`
`not
`
`remotely
`
`warrant
`
`the
`
`imposition
`
`of
`
`an
`
`award
`
`in
`
`plaintiff's
`
`favor
`
`for
`
`the
`
`reimbursement
`
`for
`
`actual
`
`expenses
`
`incurred
`
`and
`
`{00032036.DOCX}
`
`13 of 14
`
`

`

`FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 02/13/2019 08:59 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 342
`
`INDEX NO. 034071/2011
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/13/2019
`
`attorneys'
`
`fees
`
`incurred.
`
`Accordingly,
`
`the
`
`Court
`
`should
`
`deny
`
`in
`
`its
`
`entirety
`
`plaintiff's
`
`cross-motion
`
`that
`
`seeks
`
`reimbursement
`
`for
`
`actual
`
`expenses
`
`incurred
`
`and
`
`attorneys'
`
`fees.
`
`12.
`
`In
`
`light
`
`of
`
`the
`
`foregoing,
`
`Defendants
`
`respectfully
`
`request
`
`that
`
`the
`
`Court
`
`vacate
`
`the
`
`judgment
`
`entered
`
`against
`
`Defendants
`
`in
`
`its
`
`entirety,
`
`allow
`
`Defendants
`
`defend
`
`action
`
`in
`
`and
`
`grant
`
`to
`
`the
`
`instant
`
`at
`
`trial,
`
`deny
`
`plaintiff's
`
`cross-motion
`
`its
`
`entirety,
`
`Defendants
`
`such
`
`other
`
`and
`
`further
`
`relief
`
`as
`
`this
`
`Court
`
`deems
`
`just,
`
`equitable
`
`and
`
`proper.
`
`Defendants'
`
`entirety.
`
`Dated:
`
`WHEREFORE,
`
`it
`
`is
`
`respectfully
`
`requested
`
`that
`
`the
`
`Court
`
`grant
`
`instant
`
`application
`
`in
`
`its
`
`entirety
`
`and
`
`deny
`
`plaintiff's
`
`cross-motion
`
`in
`
`its
`
`February
`New York,
`
`13,
`
`2019
`New York
`
`Jeremy
`
`Rosenberg
`
`{00032036.DOCX}
`
`14 of 14
`
`