• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All
Active Filters1
63 results

Helena Steinberg v. A.S. Estates, LTD.

Docket EF008119-2024, New York State, Orange County, Supreme Court (Sept. 27, 2024)
Case TypeReal Property - Other (specific performance)
TagsReal Property, Other, Specific Performance
Plaintiff Helena Steinberg
Defendant A.S. Estates, LTD.
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

LETTER / CORRESPONDENCE TO JUDGE (Motion #2)

Document Helena Steinberg v. A.S. Estates, LTD., EF008119-2024, 63 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Orange County Dec. 20, 2024)
We write in response to defendant A.S. Estates, Ltd.’s (“Defendant”) letter (“Letter,” Dkt No. 62) objecting to Steinberg’s Reply Memorandum of Law in Further Support of its Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 61, “Reply”) and seeking the opportunity to submit a sur-reply in further opposition to Steinberg’s Cross-motion and the Reply.
CPLR §2214(b) permits “responding affidavits to a cross-motion in certain instances.” See Siegel & Connors, New York Practice §249.
2017) (“The Court finds that defendants, as a matter of law, are entitled to submit a reply to plaintiff's opposition to their cross-motion.”); Eugene Smilovic Hous.
2018) (“The Court agrees with Petitioner that Respondent’s affidavit is impermissible as a sur-reply submitted without leave, however Respondent was entitled to serve a reply to Petitioner’s opposition to its own cross-motion.
2020) (acknowledging that cross-movant had opportunity to address argument in reply to cross-motion); Jannetti v. Whelan, 131 A.D.3d 1209, 1210 (N.Y. App. Div.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

LETTER / CORRESPONDENCE TO JUDGE (Motion #2)

Document Helena Steinberg v. A.S. Estates, LTD., EF008119-2024, 62 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Orange County Dec. 19, 2024)
Ltd. Dear Judge Williams: My firm represents the defendant, A.S. Estates, in the above-referenced Ltd., I am writing For the reasons set request the action.
forth below, to respectfully that Reply Memorandumof Law in Further Court decline consider the plaintiff's to Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (NYSCEFDoc.
After the motions were fully a cross-motion submitted by of A.S. Estates' submission in support of its motion for summary the filing reply judgment and in opposition for summaryjudgment, to the plaintiffs cross-motion the - without - and receiving of Court leave a sur-reply plaintiff seeking filed Since there is no right to submit a reply in support of a cross-motion and submission.
While the plaintiffs (which is designed to serve as two opposition sur submissions reply to A.S. Estates' motion for summary judgment) that would raise to impart any information
fails issue of fact so as to preclude the grant of A.S. Estates' motion, A.S. Estates triable leave to requests submission of no more than three pages to outline submit a further the myriad misstatements in the submission if the Court to consider plaintiffs is inclined the sur-reply.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN REPLY (Motion #2) Memorandum of Law in Further Support of Steinberg's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment

Document Helena Steinberg v. A.S. Estates, LTD., EF008119-2024, 61 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Orange County Dec. 13, 2024)
In any event, Steinberg’s opening papers explain that New York courts interpreting nearly identical “anti-specific performance” provisions have found that such “limitation[s] contemplate[] the existence of a situation beyond the control of the parties and implicitly require[] the seller to act in good faith.” Naso v. Haque, 289 A.D.2d 309, 310 (2d Dep’t 2001); see also Mokar Properties Corp. v. Hall, 6 A.D.2d 536, 539 (1st Dep’t 1958) (clause limiting liability for seller’s failure to provide marketable title does not “exculpate [seller] from liability ... when his own conduct is the cause of the nonperformance of that condition.
Brum Really, Inc. v. Takeda, 205 A.D.2d 365, 3 74 (1st Dep’t 1994) (“If the date so fixed as time of the essence is subsequently waived, the party causing the waiver cannot later claim a default on account of such delay.”).
Having dealt with [purchasers] in such a manner, the [sellers] could not, without warning, declare a forfeiture or suddenly maintain that the [purchasers’] earlier conduct constituted a default.”); Kutalek v. Studer, 26 Misc.
2009) (“Having attempted to renegotiate the deal after May 2008, defendant cannot [sic] now claim that plaintiff was in default as of May 31, 2008”); Haiduk v. Nassar, 177 A.D.2d 545, 545 (2d Dep’t 1991) (“Any defense based upon the purchaser’s alleged failure to appear at a[] ... closing was waived by the parties’ subsequent negotiations.”).
Despite that, A.S. Estates now claims that Steinberg’s argument that the Executor “had the power and authority to sell the property by the preliminary letters testamentary issued to him ... misses the point (at best) and is highly disingenuous (at worst) .
cite Cite Document
Analyze

RESPONSE TO STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS (Motion #2) Response to Plaintiff's Statement of Material Facts

Document Helena Steinberg v. A.S. Estates, LTD., EF008119-2024, 56 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Orange County Dec. 12, 2024)
to fund the balance Purchase Price [sic] on the Second Closing date," (see Brunner's affirmation, ¶ 8), he has not provided any documentary evidence to actually offers USBstatements and, instead, demonstrate that he had that in January 2024 financial ability in the year.
The USBstatements that Brunner for months later submits to the Court do not show that he had the financial ability, at any time, to fund the balance of the purchase price (or anything close to it).
Brunner represents in his affirmation that as of July 2024 he no longer had the company, Cranberry Development LLC, was to close but financial that his "limited ability approved for a loan from M.P.
to the motion-in-chief) but was unwilling to, and did not, satisfy the plaintiff s title company's requirement that he produce a certified appraisal/broker price opinion as to the value of the property as of the date three years ago when the Contract of Sale was signed.
Instead, the plaintiff s counsel, implicitly acknowledging that the Contract of Sale was properly terminated, stated by email: "Gary, title said they will get two independent realtors to get a value and on a whim."
cite Cite Document
Analyze

AFFIDAVIT OR AFFIRMATION IN OPPOSITION TO CROSS-MOTION AND IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF MOTION (Motion #2) Reply Affirmation in support of motion for summary judgment and in opposition to plaintiff's cross-m ... show more

Document Helena Steinberg v. A.S. Estates, LTD., EF008119-2024, 57 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Orange County Dec. 12, 2024)
Ralph L. Puglielle, Jr., an attorney at law duly admitted to practice in the state of New York, affirms
under the penalties of perjury: the following I am a member of ·Drake Loeb PLLC, attorneys for the defendant, A.S. Estates, Ltd.
Annexed hereto is a copy of a printout as Exhibit showing the entity for M.P.
Management, LLC as maintained by the Department of State Division of
is an e-mail, dated September 24, 2024, from John Revella, Esq. requested that the defendant's motion for summary to Gary Gogerty, Esq. WHEREFORE,it is respectfully judgment dismissing the complaint be granted and the plaintiffs cross-motion denied, together with such other and further relief deemedjust and proper.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

EXHIBIT(S) - K (Motion #1) E-mail dated September 24, 2024

Document Helena Steinberg v. A.S. Estates, LTD., EF008119-2024, 53 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Orange County Dec. 12, 2024)
They do not want to lose the deal but won't go to 2.5million on a whim
cite Cite Document
Analyze

RESPONSE TO STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS (Motion #1) Response to Plaintiff's Statement of Material Facts

Document Helena Steinberg v. A.S. Estates, LTD., EF008119-2024, 50 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Orange County Dec. 12, 2024)
to fund the balance Purchase Price [sic] on the Second Closing date," (see Brunner's affirmation, ¶ 8), he has not provided any documentary evidence to actually offers USBstatements and, instead, demonstrate that he had that in January 2024 financial ability in the year.
The USBstatements that Brunner for months later submits to the Court do not show that he had the financial ability, at any time, to fund the balance of the purchase price (or anything close to it).
Brunner represents in his affirmation that as of July 2024 he no longer had the company, Cranberry Development LLC, was to close but financial that his "limited ability approved for a loan from M.P.
to the motion-in-chief) but was unwilling to, and did not, satisfy the plaintiff s title company's requirement that he produce a certified appraisal/broker price opinion as to the value of the property as of the date three years ago when the Contract of Sale was signed.
Instead, the plaintiff s counsel, implicitly acknowledging that the Contract of Sale was properly terminated, stated by email: "Gary, title said they will get two independent realtors to get a value and on a whim."
cite Cite Document
Analyze
1 2 3 4 5 >>