I am a partner with FisherBroyles, LLP in its Litigation Practice and affiliated with its office in Boston, Massachusetts.

1995) ("Whether the defendant's liability in this case became 'reasonably clear' calls for an objective standard of inquiry into the facts and applicable law.

defendant's liability is 'reasonably clear' is an objective one", citing, Demeo v. State Farm); O'Leary-Alison v. Metropolitan Property & Cas.

2003) ("An objective test is used to decide when an insured's liability has become 'reasonably clear'", citing, Demeo v. State Farm); Silva

The bright line rule or subjective standard articulated in Van Dyke has not been followed by any Massachusetts state court appellate decisions followiñg Demeo and Clegg, and the sta.ndard set forth in Demeo is currently the well-established and black letter law of Massachusetts.

Action, The Hartford seeks, through this Motion, to ensure that Sedgwick is not permitted to introduce evidence of no probative value at trial or to otherwise confuse the jury with references to that relevant that must As the Court decisions are not to the questions be decided here.

A jury, hearing the relevant facts for the first time, may be misled by the tangled web of different litigations and assu-.e the federal courts' rulings are either persuasive or dispositive here-indeed, Sedgwick appears to be counting on such misdirection.

The TPA Agreement further provides that Sedgwick would defend and hold harmless The Hartford ... from third claims to the extent "indemnify, any party such loss or litigation expenses arise out of negligent

In addition to Sedgwick's failure to settle the case and keep The Hartford apprised of any settlement discussions, The Hartford will prove that Sedgwick was negligcñt in =a=i=ictcring the Wrongful Death Case in multiple other ways as well, inchiding by failing to send a reservation of rights letter informing the Radius Entities that certain of the damages sought the Calandro by to Estate were not covered the insurance by policy, and failing to take adaanate, ongoing steps evaluate the Calandro Estate's claim.

The Court recognized that distinction in its for "Negligence does not turn on the denial of Sedgwick's motion onmmary judgment, noting question of whether liability in the Calañdro action was reasonably clear.

the basis for you have prüvided the records review of I am at a loss after to understand than your an accepted of care, other your assertion that Radius breached standard factual or that any such breach, you have appropriate unsupported allegations, assuming death.

for such an allegation, caused the plaintiff's decedent's expert support defendants You have once again asserted wholly unsupported who you bring against claims venture" of "joint now on a theory or in the exercise of good claims against when you know, is no basis in law or in fact know there such a charge.

should to support faith, that you leave Radius Danvers to vigorously Please anticipate little choice but claim.

SLoANE AND WALSH, LLP Thylee Center Plaza Boston, MA O2108

fu..auil-± containedin this e-mail transmissionis privileged, ovniiueniini and covered by the Electronic Confidentiality Notice: CommunicatinosPrivacyAct, 18U.S.C.

None of each entity of the operating entities the exposure owned the real estate which the title to which was also held in separate it occupied, entities. bank accounts and separate financial such entity maintained separate records.

... Hoey interrogatories and requests requests these discovery of with None in the Calandro commenced discovery of documents for production directed Entities were sent to the Radius or Matter ...

... the former bought which wind the sigmficant people who were at the facility facilities... none of Radius in employed are still or have been there for this discovery some time ...

Every reported within claim to 2 days that the reaches TPA Services $250,000, in addition to Oversight Consultant, any Nat of the the attached Miller.

process, including compliance with the Hartford prompt an E-Mail satus report to the Settlement Home authority Office follows the normal referral requirement.

to or more Burn for admission body degree; the third eyes; loss of 50% or more of vision in either or both (vikhospitalization for or more days; dii) fatalities; internal (viii)

toxic tort claims, disease caused including exposure by a broad to toxic category or hazardous of injuries, damages, and substances; (xxi) (xxii) reflex sympathetic dystrophy, chronic pain syndrome, fibromialgia; or psychological compensation injuries that are covered under various workers' statutes or regulations.

losses to Hartford shall report catastrophic telephone, with confirmation property facsimile [by immediately emaillin writing.

of out She was acute admitted to Radius was she remained Danvers, with no MA on unexpected 12/13/07 from an assisted issues until July 2008. her physician numerous lab ordered wound care and coccyx wheelchair her sent to the in the ER and dining admitted tests care and nutrition room with with renal receiving posttraumatic of intracranial intracerebral contusion, appendicitis, dehydration failure and urosepsis.

this Plaintiff served information and his the expert records disclosures we had Dr. Terrence reports to our expert for a defense opinion (attached on April 27th (attached result and Radius of a significant decline of her physical condition dementia.

Based on our causation standard issues, care of inability we filed and will to the try produce attached case the anybody (#6) the on to testify Stipulation.

also We do is to attend the Court to to a jury would leave out based separately on the This to settle the case scenario.

recipient, message use an email system that supports and and its contents were transmitted securely to

Peter Sherwood New York State Supreme Court Commercial Division-IAS Part 49 60 Centre Street, Room 615 New York, NY 10007 Re: Hartford Fire Insurance Company v. Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc., Index No. 653915/15 Dear Ms. Guadalupe: I write as counsel for Hartford Fire Insurance Company ("The Hartford") in the above captioned case regarding certain discovery deadlines set forth in the Preliminary Conference Order, dated July 26, 2016 (the "Order").

However, counsel for The Hartford has an arbitration hearing scheduled for the week of December 5, 2016.

Thus, The Hartford respectfully requests that the compliance conference be adjourned to December 20, 2016, or as soon thereafter as may be convenient to the Court.

Second, counsel for The Hartford and Sedgwick have also conferred and agreed to extend certain discovery deadlines.

As we continue to work through the discovery process, we respectfully request that the Court extend the following deadlines set forth in the Order: • For production of documents, from December 1, 2016 to January 9, 2017; and • For the depositions on oral questions, from February 22, 2017 to March 27, 2017.

... either pany may request twelve if none ...

's argument, p. 4, that Plaintiff's losses resulted from Bhaveen Sapra's failing to obtain approval from Pepsi as a distributor is obviously not on the notes and true.

It is significant that the payment date of November 1, 2013, was well before the expiration of the period under the Closing Documents that Bhaveen Sapra had to obtain Pepsi's approval.

In Lucido v. Mancuso, 49 A.D.3d (2d Dep't 2008), the Second Department the proper rule is that a plaintiff's motion examined this issue in detail and declared that to amend to add a claim should be granted without an automatic inquiry into its merits.

Rudolf v. Shayne, Dachs, dealt with an Stanisci, Corker & Sauer, 8 N.Y.3d (2007) appeal involving jury instructions and a second trial on the merits.

Here Stern's negligence in the preparation of the Closing Documents and then permitting Plaintiff to execute them and be bound to their obligations is the basis of the first cause of action.

605707/2016 11/10/2017 FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 11m2017 02:58 PM

Thomas Feinman Motion No. 004, 005

On February 24, 2017, I served Defendant/Third Party Plaintiff Allan Martin Stern’s Memorandum of Law, Affirmation of Allan Martin Stern, and Affirmation of Anthony D. Green, submitted in Opposition to Third Party Defendants Bhaveen Sapra and Bruckner Beverage Distribution, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss the Third Party Complaint and Defendant/Third Party Plaintiff Allan Martin Stern’s Cross-Motion for Sanctions against Third Party Defendants Bhaveen Sapra and Bruckner Beverage Distribution, Inc. upon all parties who have appeared in the above-captioned litigation by uploading same to the NYSCEF system.

Dated: New York, New York February 24, 2017

ANTHONY GREEN, an attorney duly admitted to practice law in the State of New York, hereby affirms the following to be true under the penalty of perjury:

I am a partner with the law firm of Winget, Spadafora & Schwartzberg, LLP, attorneys of record for Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff, Allan Martin Stern, and as such, I am fully familiar with the facts and circumstances surrounding this action by virtue of a review of the file maintained by this office.

This Reply Affirmation is submitted in further support of the instant motion seeking an Order, (1) pursuant to CPLR § 3215, granting a default judgment in favor of the Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff and against Third-Party Defendants Bhaveen Sapra (“Bhaveen”) and Bruckner Beverage Distribution, Inc. (f/k/a PBR Beverage Distribution, Inc.) (“Bruckner”) based upon their failure to timely answer or otherwise defend against the Third-Party Complaint; (2) scheduling this matter for an inquest on damages; and (3) for such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper.

Attached hereto as Exhibit E is the United States Trustee’s Memorandum of Law in support of Motion to Dismiss the Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Proceeding of Buhre Beverage Distribution, Inc.

For the reasons set forth in the Memoranda of Law filed in support of the within motion for default judgment, it is respectfully requested that this Court issue an Order (1) pursuant to CPLR § 3215, granting a default judgment in favor of the Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff and against Third-Party Defendants Bhaveen Sapra and Bruckner Beverage Distribution, Inc. (f/k/a PBR Beverage Distribution, Inc.) based upon their failure to timely answer or otherwise defend against the Verified Third-Party Complaint; (2) scheduling this matter for an inquest on damages; and (3) for such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper.

recruit other senior managers and executives of Shareholders (f) There will be an Annual General Meeting ("AGM") of accountant Board for the ensuing year and to approve the appointment auditor).

(c) Additional Compensation: Brown and Sapra shall each be enthled to receive profit sharing to be distributed not tater than forty-five (45) days afler the end of each calendar year, or at such other times mutually agreed.

The Officers are "employers" and "supervisors" to the National Labor Relations Act and the Company shall not be pursuant required to treat Sapra or Brown as employees subject to the terms of the collective agreement.

to purchase the Offered Shares agrees The Offeree choosing not the Seller and the Outsider with respect to the Pepsi application to reasonably assist (90) days after process.

respective heirs, executors, administrators (b) The parties agree to hold and cause to be held all such meetings of directors and the Company and to deliver and execute all such documents as may be Shareholders of necessary to give full effect to this Agreement.

Judge States United Bankruptcy Court States United Bankruptcy of New York District Southern 300 Quarropas Street New York White Plains, 10601-4140 Re: In re: Buhre Beverage Distribution, Inc.; Case no: 14-22048 (Chapter

then, of the Anne counsel, Fund's of the questions than rate debtor's payment that he has accept less the interest with Ms. the The withholding her advised would Fund questioned speaking calculating to the disbursing Ms. Penachio that Mr. Sanchez has Penachio, claim with agent.

that me creditor Penachio informed insider Ms. to of rate this this As respectfully date, note any It Court.

the debtor will therefore, the not pay respectfully Fund's requests unsecured permission without claim to move this a directive from Court to compel

Respectfully submitted, 13~13~ Susan Bruno Cc: Stone Susette Ms. A. Penachio Ms. Mr. M. McAuliffe (by (via (via email)

CHRISTINE E. NELSON, being duly sworn, deposes and says: I am over eighteen years of age and an employee in the office

annexed AFFIRMATION IN PARTIAL OPPOSITION upon the attorneys and/or parties named below, by first class mail, by depositing a true copy thereof, properly enclosed in a sealed, post-paid wrapper, in a letter box in the County of

lof2 Nassau and State of New York, a depository under the exclusive care and custody of the United States Postal Service, directed to said attorneys as follows: Bhaveen Sapra 22 Stony Hollow Chappaqua, New York 10541 Bruckner Beverage Distribution, Inc. 22 Stony Hollow Chappaqua, New York 10541 Penachio Malara, LLP 235 Main Street, 6‘h Floor White Plains, New York 10601 Anne Penachio, Esq.

235 Main Street, 6th Floor White Plains, New York 10601 Sworn to before me this 6lh day of January, 2017.

Notary Public, Stole of New York No. 01$A6154121 Qualified in Nassau County (3 Commission Expires Oct. 23, 20,1...