At _____ of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, held in and for the County of NEW YORK at the Courthouse, 60 Centre Street, New York, the______ day of ______________________________, 2024.

Individually and as an Agent of THE

Upon reading and considering the papers submitted in support of Attorney MICHAEL J. MCFARLAND, ESQ.’s application for admission pro hac vice, Wherefore, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion to admit MICHAEL J. MCFARLAND ESQ. pro hac vice for this action is GRANTED; and it is further ORDERED that MICHAEL J. MCFARLAND, ESQ. is permitted to appear and to participate in this action on behalf of Plaintiff; and it is further

ORDERED that MICHAEL J. MCFARLAND, ESQ., shall at all times during this action be associated with counsel who is a member in good standing of the Bar of the State of New York and is attorney of record for the aforesaid party in question; and it is further ORDERED that all pleadings, briefs, and other papers filed with the court shall be signed by the attorney of record, who shall be responsible for such papers and for the conduct of this action; and it is further ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 520.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals and Section 602.2 of the Rules of the Appellate Division, First Department, the attorneys hereby admitted pro hac vice shall abide by the standards of professional conduct imposed upon members of the New York Bar, including the rules of the courts governing the conduct of attorneys and the Rules of Professional Conduct; and it is further ORDERED that said counsel shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of the State of New York with respect to any acts occurring during the course of his participation in this matter; and it is further ORDERED that said counsel shall notify the court immediately of any matter or event in this or any other jurisdiction that affects his standing as a member of the bar.

This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.

Metropolitan’s September 24, 2020, letter (“the First Denial Letter”) declined coverage because of a single exclusion: Section I, Paragraph 3(A), which excludes losses that result from “wear and tear, marring, scratching, aging, deterioration, corrosion, rust, mechanical breakdown, latent defect, inherent vice, or any quality in property that cause it to damage or destroy itself.” Id.

The Schonberger Report, however, disputes this characterization, claiming that the brick veneer is more properly considered a separate element of the construction and would have typically been installed by a different subcontractor than the rough carpenter who built the structural wood framing.

1 Illinois courts recognize that “a resulting or ensuing loss clause operates to carve out an exception to the policy exclusion” and thus “limit[s] the scope of what is otherwise excluded under the policy.” Moda Furniture, LLC v. Chicago Title Land Trust Co., 35 N.E.3d 1139, 1149, 394 Ill.Dec.

… The damage caused by the fire is a covered ensuing loss because it is an unforeseeable event occurring wholly separate from the defective property.” Id. (citing Prudential Property & Casualty Insurance Co. v. Lillard–Roberts, No. CV–01–0362–ST, 2002 WL 31488243, at *8 (D.Or. June 14, 2002)).

(holding that “an insurer who misrepresents facts, denies coverage after refusing to conduct an adequate investigation, and bases its decision upon speculation or incomplete information could be considered to have acted without reasonable cause.”).

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREEDby and between the below named attorneys for Plaintiff Jane Doe (“Plaintiff”) and Defendants THE CITY OF NEW YORK, THE

Plaintiff, pursuant to New York Civil Rights Law §50-b,is permitted to file and prosecute her Complaint under a pseudonym; Defendants agree that only the pseudonym ofPlaintiff shall appear within the body of any documents publicly filed with the Court in order to protect her identity; any documentthat bears the true nameof Plaintiff or any documentthat tends to identify Plaintiff shall be redacted by the party filing such documents and the original unredacted documentshall be retained by the party who hasfiled the redacted document and may be subject to an in camera inspection if directed by the Court; and 4.a., that nothingin this stipulation restrains defendants the City of New York and the New York City Board/Department of Education from using plaintiff's name during the normal course of discovery, including, but not limited to, providing plaintiff's name to its agents, experts, investigators, deponents, other individuals or entities represented by defense counsel herein and/or agencies, agency personnel, and/or witnesses and/or any other individuals or entities identified in future Case Management Order(s), Confidentiality Order(s), or any other relevant directives of the Court.

Prior to disclosing the true identity of the plaintiff and any other identifying information to the recipients mentioned in Section 4.a., defendants shall ensure that the recipient(s) are made fully aware of the termsofthe stipulation herein, and agrees to the termsof the stipulation of non-disclosure of plaintiff's identity and identifying information.

Further, all authorizations shall be HIPAA-compliant and must include the plaintiff s standard identifying information, including name, date of birth, and social security number, so longasplaintiff's nameis not otherwise disclosed.

Friesz, Esq. Senior Counsel New York City Law Department Special Litigation Unit 233 Broadway, 15th Floor New York, NY 10279 Attorneyfor NYC School Defendants Dated: February 16, 2024

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the below named attorneys for Plaintiff Jane Doe (“Plaintiff”) and Defendants THE CITY OF NEW YORK, THE

WHEREAS, the New York School Defendants are not in opposition to the relief requested in Plaintiff’s Order to Show Cause, namely, that Plaintiff be permitted to proceed in this action under a pseudonym, And WHEREAS, Defendant Scott Biski has failed to respond to Plaintiff’s Order to Show Cause, it is hereby ORDERED that: 1) Plaintiff, pursuant to New York Civil Rights Law §50-b, is permitted to file and prosecute her Complaint under a pseudonym; 2) Defendants agree that only the pseudonym of Plaintiff shall appear within the body of any documents publicly filed with the Court in order to protect her identity; 3) any document that bears the true name of Plaintiff or any document that tends to identify Plaintiff shall be redacted by the party filing such documents and the original unredacted document shall be retained by the party who has filed the redacted document and may be subject to an in camera inspection if directed by the Court; and

4) 4.a., that nothing in this stipulation restrains defendants the City of New York and the New York City Board/Department of Education from using plaintiff's name during the normal course of discovery, including, but not limited to, providing plaintiff's name to its agents, experts, investigators, deponents, other individuals or entities represented by defense counsel herein and/or agencies, agency personnel, and/or witnesses and/or any other individuals or entities identified in future Case Management Order(s), Confidentiality Order(s), or any other relevant directives of the Court.

Prior to disclosing the true identity of the plaintiff and any other identifying information to the recipients mentioned in Section 4.a., defendants shall ensure that the recipient(s) are made fully aware of the terms of the stipulation herein, and agrees to the terms of the stipulation of non-disclosure of plaintiff’s identity and identifying information.

Further, all authorizations shall be HlPAA-compliant and must include the plaintiff s standard identifying information, including name, date of birth, and social security number, so long as plaintiff's name is not otherwise disclosed.