FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 02/28/2019 04:48 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 211
`
`INDEX NO. 600685/2013
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/28/2019
`
`Hodwes
`t
`rn a
`c Ce
`SUPREME
`OF THE STATE
`COURT
`OF NASSAU
`COUNTY
`.-.........------.-...----.---...-....___...........--.....--X
`infant
`an
`under
`the
`age
`M.W.,
`Mother
`LATISHA
`her
`LATISHA
`individually,
`
`WHITE,
`WHITE,
`
`of
`and
`
`OF NEW YORK
`
`fourteen
`Natural
`
`years,
`(14)
`Guardian,
`
`&
`
`Z9Sfa
`Mate
`,
`4 $6
`Atold
`S O }
`Index
`
`by
`and
`
`No.:
`
`$3S
`
`tow
`
`ae
`
`600685/13
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`.
`
`.against--.....-.----
`
`A
`
`ORDER TO
`[PROPOSED)
`SHOW CAUSE
`TO COMPEL
`COMPLIANCE
`WITH
`COURT
`PRIOR
`ORDER,
`COMPEL
`DISCLOSURE
`OF INSURANCE
`AND TO
`POLICIES
`DISQUALIFY
`COUNSEL
`FROM REPRESENTING
`DEFENDANT
`RUBAND
`AND TO STAY
`TRIAL
`
`SOLUTIONS,
`COLOR WHEEL
`
`TRACTIN
`and CERTA
`INC.
`PAINTING,
`INC.,
`
`ORP
`PROPAINTERS,
`
`MB
`
`OTION
`
`SEQUENCE
`
`#
`
`LTD.
`
`and
`ORIGINAL
`
`RETURN
`
`DATE
`
`Defendants.
`
`_._.--,fELIEF
`
`COUNSELORS:
`
`Upon
`
`the
`
`annexed
`
`affirmation
`
`o
`
`obert
`
`S Cypher
`
`Esq.
`
`dated
`
`October
`
`2018,
`
`and
`
`the
`
`exhibits
`
`annexed
`
`and
`
`upon
`
`all
`
`the
`
`proceedings
`
`other
`
`papers
`
`heretofore
`
`filed
`
`herein
`
`hereto,
`
`and
`
`and
`
`due
`
`deliberation
`
`having
`
`been
`
`had
`
`thereon
`
`it
`
`is hereby
`
`ordered
`
`that
`
`defendants,
`
`RUBAND
`
`CONTRACTING
`
`CORPORATION
`
`(RUBAND),
`
`EMBE HOME SOLUTIONS,
`
`INC
`
`(EMBE),
`
`PRO PAINTERS
`
`LTD
`
`(CERTA-PRO),
`
`show
`
`cause
`
`before
`
`this
`
`court
`
`at
`
`IAS
`
`part
`
`at
`
`e co
`
`use
`
`1=ted
`
`100 Supreme
`
`Court
`
`Drive,
`
`Mineola,
`
`NY e
`
`'6r
`
`as
`
`soon
`
`thereafter
`
`as counsel
`
`can
`
`be heard,
`
`for why
`
`an order
`
`should
`
`not
`
`be
`
`and. CERTA
`dto
`
`be held
`
`2013,
`
`Part a
`
`entered
`
`herein:
`
`(03261541.DOCX / )
`
`

`

`FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 02/28/2019 04:48 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 211
`
`INDEX NO. 600685/2013
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/28/2019
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`Requiring
`prior
`Order
`and
`pay
`(hereinafter
`
`defendant
`of
`this
`counsel
`referred
`
`RUBAND,
`EMBE,
`entered
`court,
`May
`fees
`defendants
`to
`to as WESTHAB);
`
`to the
`to manediately
`and CERTA-PRO
`adhere
`that
`14, 2018,
`defend,
`they
`indeninify
`directing
`WESTHAB
`and ELM STREET
`ASSOCIATES
`
`Disqualifying
`attorneys
`defendants,
`
`the
`firm
`for RUBAND,
`on the basis
`
`of Marshall,
`Desñchcy,
`and CERTA-PRO
`EMBE,
`that a conflict
`of
`interest
`
`Wamer,
`from
`
`Coleman
`continuing
`
`and Goggins,
`to represent
`
`current
`those
`
`exists;
`
`deSndanh
`Compelling
`in the defendants'
`forth
`
`to supply
`demand
`
`the dersâñdcd
`to all parties
`and letter
`of July
`10, 2018;
`
`insurance
`
`information
`
`as set
`
`to New York
`Pursuant
`Civil
`for
`a temporary
`the
`of
`stay
`Cause
`is decided;
`and there
`
`Practice
`Law and Rules
`("CPLR")
`in the
`until
`below
`action
`court
`is compliance
`said Order;
`with
`
`§ 2201
`Defendants'
`
`issuing.
`Order
`
`an Order
`to Show
`
`to CPLR § 2201,
`Pursuant
`staying
`the
`decision
`2018,
`23,
`pending
`the resulting
`with
`Order;
`
`Staying
`under
`
`of
`Trial
`the
`the circumstances,
`
`this matter
`and;
`
`of
`the trial
`of Defendants'
`
`this
`
`action
`Order
`
`currently
`to Show
`
`scheduled
`and
`
`Cause;
`
`for October
`compliance
`
`pursuant
`
`to the Court's
`
`inherent
`
`power
`
`to issue
`
`a stay
`
`7. Granting
`
`such
`
`other
`
`and further
`
`relief
`
`as this
`
`court may
`
`deem just
`
`and proper,
`
`'
`
`CURRENTLY
`THE TRIAL
`THAT
`IT IS ORDERED
`p4md
`23, 2018 BE STAYED.
`OCTOBER
`n
`
`hg
`
`SCHEDULED
`h e.(3 r
`j n
`
`OR
`
`.
`
`(Ydh(2
`
`IÒyL
`
`SUFFICIENT
`
`RBASON
`
`APPEARING
`
`THEREFORE,
`
`it
`
`is hereby:
`
`ORDERED,
`
`that
`
`service
`
`of a copy
`
`of
`
`this
`
`order,
`
`together
`
`with
`
`the papers
`
`on which
`
`it
`
`is granted,
`
`TO BE MADE
`
`upon
`
`counsel
`
`for defendâñts,
`
`R
`
`AND,
`
`EMBE,
`
`and CERTA-PRO,
`
`105 Maxis
`
`eÅ\ff
`
`Rd., Suite
`
`303 Melville,
`
`NY 11747,
`
`by/
`
`Mail,
`
`FIRM
`
`71-18 Main
`
`Street
`
`Flushing,
`
`New York
`
`11367,
`
`and to plainti
`s counsel,
`A t $ iT
`ot/4F
`Mail
`
`by
`
`THE OR LOW
`
`on or before
`
`service
`
`thereof.
`
`Answering
`
`papers
`
`shall
`
`dJe
`
`/
`
`2018,
`
`shall
`
`be deemed
`
`de served
`
`on or before
`
`foivofb
`
`(03261541.DOCX/
`
`}
`
`good
`
`and sufficient
`
`d 2018.
`
`EN
`
`:
`
`.S.
`
`

`

`FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 02/28/2019 04:48 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 211
`
`INDEX NO. 600685/2013
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/28/2019
`
`SUPREME
`COUNTY
`
`COURT OF THE
`OF NASSAU
`
`STATE
`
`OF NEW YORK
`
`M.W.,
`LATISHA
`LATISHA
`
`an
`
`infant
`
`WHITE,
`WHITE,
`
`under
`her
`
`age
`the
`Mother
`
`of
`and
`
`fourteen
`Natural
`
`years,
`(14)
`Guardian,
`
`by
`and
`
`individually,
`
`Index
`
`No.:
`
`600685/13
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`- against
`
`-
`
`ELM
`STREET
`ASSOCIATES,
`RUBAND
`CONTRACTING
`SOLUTIONS,
`INC.
`and
`COLOR WHEEL
`
`PAINTING,
`
`CERTA
`
`WESTHAB,
`L.P.,
`EMBE
`CO1tP.,
`PROPAINTERS,
`
`INC.,
`HOME
`and
`LTD.
`
`INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`OF DEFENDANTS'
`OF LAW SUBMITTED
`MEMORANDUM
`IN SUPPORT
`TO SHOW CÃUSE
`RUBAND
`ORDER
`CONTRACTING
`TO COMPEL
`DEFENDANTS,
`LTÚ TQ
`CERTA
`ORP..ÉMBEHOME
`sdLÚTION$3INCLand
`PROPAINTERSi
`COMPLY
`OF ALL
`ORDER.COMPEL
`A PRIORCOUNT
`WITH
`DISCLOSURE
`FROM
`RELEVENT
`INFORMATION
`COUNSEL
`TO DISQUALIFY
`INSURANCE
`AND TO STAY
`SAID
`REPRESENTING
`PROCEEDINGS
`DEFENDANTS,
`PENDING
`RESOLUTION
`OF THESE
`
`ALL
`ISSUES.
`
`RITZERT
`
`&
`
`LP AND
`
`ROSENFELD
`LLP
`Defendants
`ASSOCIATES
`
`HAVKINS
`VARRIALE,
`for
`Attorneys
`ELM STREET
`WESTHAB
`170 Hamilton
`Avenue,
`NY 10601
`White
`Plains,
`11990-000524
`File No.:
`
`INC.
`
`Ste
`
`210
`
`Of Counsek
`
`Tara
`Robert
`
`C. Fappiano,
`Cypher,
`
`Esq.
`
`Esq.
`
`{03262770.DOCX/
`
`}1
`
`

`

`FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 02/28/2019 04:48 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 211
`
`INDEX NO. 600685/2013
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/28/2019
`
`STATEMENT
`
`OF FACTS
`
`For
`
`a more
`
`complete
`
`recitation
`
`of
`
`the
`
`facts
`
`underlying
`
`this
`
`action,
`
`this
`
`Honorable
`
`Court
`
`is
`
`respectfully
`
`referred
`
`to
`
`the
`
`accompanying
`
`Affirmation
`
`of Robert
`
`S. Cypher,
`
`dated
`
`October
`
`15,
`
`2018
`
`(the
`
`"Cypher
`
`Affirmation"),
`
`and
`
`the
`
`exhibits
`
`annexed
`
`thereto.
`
`PRELIMINARY
`
`STATEMENT
`
`Defendants,
`
`ELM STREET
`
`ASSOCIATES,
`
`L.P.
`
`and WESTHAB,
`
`INC.,
`
`(hereinafter
`
`to
`
`Law
`
`support
`
`their
`
`Order
`
`referred
`
`as
`
`"Defendants"),
`
`submit
`
`this
`
`Memorandum
`
`of
`
`in
`
`of
`
`To
`
`Show
`
`Cause.
`
`For
`
`the
`
`reasons
`
`set
`
`forth
`
`below,
`
`Defendants'
`
`motion
`
`should
`
`be
`
`granted
`
`in
`
`its
`
`entirety.
`
`Based
`
`upon
`
`the
`
`clear
`
`and
`
`undisputed
`
`evidence,
`
`it
`
`is
`
`respectfully
`
`requested
`
`that
`
`this
`
`Honorable
`
`Court
`
`grant
`
`the moving
`
`Defendants'
`
`Order
`
`to Show
`
`Cause
`
`in its entirety.
`
`P McCormack
`
`of
`
`the Nassau
`
`Supreme
`
`On May
`
`4,
`
`2018,
`
`Justice
`
`James
`
`County
`
`Court,
`
`granted
`
`defendant
`
`WESTHAB's
`
`motion
`
`for
`
`summary
`
`judgment,
`
`ordering
`
`that
`
`defendant
`
`RUBAND
`
`defend,
`
`indemnify
`
`and
`
`pay WESTHAB's
`
`legal
`
`fees.
`
`The
`
`order
`
`has
`
`been
`
`ignored.
`
`WESTHAB
`
`has
`
`demanded
`
`multiple
`
`times
`
`that
`
`counsel
`
`for RUBAND
`
`provide
`
`copies
`
`of
`
`all
`
`primary
`
`and
`
`excess
`
`policies
`
`for
`
`each
`
`defendant
`
`represented
`
`them:
`
`RUBAND,
`
`EMBE
`
`by
`
`HOME
`
`SOLUTIONS
`
`and CERTA-PRO
`
`PAINTERS
`
`LTD.
`
`To
`
`date
`
`there
`
`has
`
`been
`
`no
`
`response.
`
`At
`
`a mediation
`
`held
`
`on
`
`July
`
`9, 2018,
`
`RUBAND
`
`and
`
`its
`
`insurance
`
`carrier,
`
`, asserted
`
`that
`
`the
`
`only
`
`coverage
`
`available
`
`was
`
`its
`
`primary
`
`policy,
`
`issued
`
`to RUBAND.
`
`This
`
`had
`
`never
`
`previously
`
`been
`
`disclosed,
`
`despite
`
`defendants'
`
`prior
`
`demands
`
`for
`
`all
`
`insurance
`
`information.
`
`{03262770.DOCX /
`
`}2
`
`

`

`FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 02/28/2019 04:48 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 211
`
`INDEX NO. 600685/2013
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/28/2019
`
`When
`
`the
`
`case
`
`did
`
`not
`
`resolve
`
`at mediation,
`
`demand
`
`was
`
`made
`
`for
`
`any
`
`excess
`
`or
`
`additional
`
`insurance
`
`information
`
`for
`
`all
`
`of
`
`the
`
`other
`
`defendants
`
`in
`
`this
`
`action.
`
`As
`
`of
`
`this
`
`date
`
`there
`
`has
`
`been
`
`no
`
`response.
`
`Defendants
`
`also
`
`reiterated
`
`their
`
`demand
`
`for RUBAND,
`
`EMBE
`
`HOME
`
`SOLUTIONS
`
`and
`
`CERTA-PRO
`
`PAINTERS
`
`LTD
`
`to
`
`assume
`
`the
`
`defense
`
`of
`
`the
`
`defendants,
`
`and
`
`raised
`
`an
`
`ethical
`
`issue. When
`
`the
`
`parties
`
`appeared
`
`for
`
`formally
`
`the mediation,
`
`they
`
`were
`
`represented
`
`by Mark
`
`Volpi,
`
`who
`
`was
`
`previously
`
`an attorney
`
`employed
`
`by
`
`counsel
`
`for
`
`ELM STREET
`
`ASSOCIATES,
`
`L.P.
`
`and WESTHAB,
`
`INC.
`
`this
`
`was
`
`the
`
`first
`
`time
`
`that
`
`counsel
`
`became
`
`aware
`
`that
`
`he was
`
`involved
`
`in this
`
`case,
`
`having
`
`previously
`
`left
`
`the
`
`employ
`
`of Havkins,
`
`Rosenfeld,
`
`Ritzert
`
`& Varriale.
`
`Because
`
`the
`
`defendants
`
`RUBAND,
`
`EMBE HOME
`
`SOLUTIONS
`
`and
`
`CERTA-PRO
`
`PAINTERS
`
`LTD
`
`have
`
`refused
`
`to
`
`assume
`
`the
`
`defense
`
`of
`
`the
`
`moving
`
`involvement
`
`in this
`
`as well
`
`as that
`
`of
`
`defendants
`
`there
`
`remains
`
`a conflict
`
`of
`
`interest
`
`in his
`
`case,
`
`the
`
`firm
`
`of Marshall
`
`Dennehey,
`
`Warner
`
`& Goggins.
`
`This matter
`
`has
`
`been
`
`assigned
`
`to next
`
`appear
`
`in
`
`the DCM part
`
`on October
`
`23,
`
`2018,
`
`therefore
`
`necessitating
`
`this
`
`application
`
`be
`
`brought
`
`by
`
`Order
`
`To Show Cause
`
`and
`
`the
`
`need
`
`to stay
`
`all
`
`proceedings
`
`pending
`
`the
`
`resolution
`
`of
`
`these
`
`issues.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`DEFENDANT
`
`RUBAND
`PRIOR
`
`MUST
`ORDER
`
`BE COMPELLED
`OF THIS
`COUR__T
`
`TO OBEY THE
`
`The
`
`Order
`
`of
`
`Justice
`
`McCormack,
`
`dated May
`
`2, 2018,
`
`and
`
`entered
`
`May
`
`4, 2018,
`
`speaks
`
`for
`
`itself
`
`as
`
`it
`
`clearly
`
`and
`
`unambiguously
`
`granted
`
`Defendants',
`
`ELM STREET
`
`ASSOCIATES,
`
`L.P.
`
`and WESTHAB,
`
`INC,
`
`motion
`
`for
`
`summary
`
`judgment,
`
`requiring
`
`defendants,
`
`RUBAND,
`
`EMBE HOME
`
`SOLUTIONS,
`
`and CERTA-PRO
`
`PAINTERS
`
`LTD,
`
`to defend,
`
`indemnify
`
`and
`
`pay
`
`WESTHAB's
`
`legal
`
`fees.
`
`The
`
`order,
`
`which
`
`has
`
`been
`
`ignored,
`
`granted
`
`summary
`
`judgment,
`
`holding
`
`that
`
`the
`
`moving
`
`defendants
`
`are
`
`entitled
`
`to
`
`contractual
`
`indemnity,
`
`common
`
`law
`
`indemnity,
`
`and
`
`are
`
`owed
`
`a defense
`
`and
`
`contribution.
`
`The
`
`order
`
`also
`
`holds
`
`that
`
`the moving
`
`{03262770.DOCX /
`
`}3
`
`

`

`FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 02/28/2019 04:48 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 211
`
`INDEX NO. 600685/2013
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/28/2019
`
`defendants
`
`are
`
`free
`
`from
`
`negligence.
`
`Judge
`
`McCormack's
`
`order
`
`states
`
`"It
`
`is
`
`undisputed
`
`RUBAND
`
`was
`
`solely
`
`responsible
`
`for
`
`all
`
`construction
`
`means,
`
`methods,
`
`techniques,
`
`sequences,
`
`and
`
`procedures,
`
`and
`
`for
`
`coordinating
`
`all
`
`portions
`
`of
`
`the
`
`work
`
`under
`
`the
`
`contract".
`
`The
`
`court
`
`further
`
`found
`
`that RUBAND
`
`even
`
`acknowledged
`
`its own
`
`negligence,
`
`and
`
`failed
`
`to establish
`
`the
`
`negligence
`
`of WESTHAB.
`
`The
`
`court
`
`also
`
`found
`
`that WESTHAB
`
`established
`
`entitlement
`
`to
`
`as a matter
`
`of
`
`law
`
`on
`
`the
`
`issue
`
`of
`
`common-law
`
`indemnification.
`
`The
`
`court
`
`summary
`
`judgment
`
`found
`
`that RUBAND
`
`failed
`
`to meet
`
`its burden
`
`to show
`
`that
`
`there
`
`was
`
`an issue
`
`of
`
`fact
`
`requiring
`
`a
`
`trial.
`
`The
`
`court
`
`further
`
`found
`
`that
`
`it was
`
`undisputed
`
`there
`
`was
`
`a valid
`
`contract
`
`the WESTHAB.
`
`Defendants
`
`performed
`
`by
`
`paying
`
`for
`
`the
`
`services
`
`that
`
`RUBAND
`
`was
`
`to
`
`supply,
`
`but
`
`that
`
`RUBAND
`
`breached
`
`the
`
`contract
`
`by
`
`failing
`
`to name WESTHAB
`
`as an additional
`
`insured
`
`on
`
`its
`
`policy,
`
`as
`
`contractually
`
`required.
`
`Finally,
`
`the
`
`court
`
`decided
`
`that WESTHAB
`
`was
`
`entitled
`
`to
`
`counsel
`
`was
`
`the
`
`trial
`
`court
`
`or otherwise
`
`resolved.
`
`fees,
`
`which
`
`to be determined
`
`by
`
`It
`
`is
`
`undisputed
`
`that
`
`the
`
`decision
`
`of
`
`Judge
`
`McCormack,
`
`which
`
`is
`
`attached
`
`to
`
`the
`
`affirmation
`
`of
`
`Robert
`
`Cypher
`
`as Exhibit
`
`"A",
`
`is
`
`the
`
`law
`
`of
`
`the
`
`case.
`
`Although
`
`defendant
`
`RUBAND
`
`has
`
`filed
`
`a notice
`
`of
`
`appeal,
`
`it has
`
`neither
`
`perfected
`
`its
`
`appeal,
`
`nor moved
`
`to
`
`stay
`
`the
`
`trial
`
`To
`
`date,
`
`counsel
`
`has
`
`ignored
`
`the
`
`order
`
`of
`
`Justice
`
`McCormack
`
`in its
`
`entirety.
`
`Therefore,
`
`it
`
`is
`
`necessary
`
`that
`
`this
`
`court
`
`issue
`
`an order
`
`directing
`
`defendant
`
`RUBAND
`
`to comply.
`
`When
`
`an
`
`issue
`
`of
`
`ultimate
`
`fact
`
`has
`
`once
`
`been
`
`determined
`
`that
`
`issue
`
`cannot
`
`again
`
`be
`
`litigated
`
`between
`
`the
`
`same
`
`parties
`
`in any
`
`future
`
`lawsuit
`
`Ashe
`
`v. Swenson,
`
`397 US 436,
`
`443,
`
`445,
`
`(1970)
`
`;People
`
`v.
`
`Cunningham,
`
`62 Misc.
`
`2d
`
`515,
`
`519
`
`(Kings
`
`County
`
`Supreme
`
`Court
`
`1970);
`
`McGrath
`
`v. Gold
`
`36 NY 2d
`
`406,
`
`369 NYS
`
`2d
`
`62
`
`( 1975).
`
`In Vanguard
`
`Tours
`
`Inc.
`
`v. Yorktown,
`
`102
`
`A.D.
`
`2d
`
`868,
`
`477
`
`N.Y.S.
`
`2d
`
`40
`
`(2d
`
`Dept.
`
`1984),
`
`held
`
`that
`
`a court's
`
`decision
`
`as
`
`to
`
`a
`
`(03262770.DOCX /
`
`}4
`
`

`

`FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 02/28/2019 04:48 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 211
`
`INDEX NO. 600685/2013
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/28/2019
`
`defendant's
`
`liability
`
`constituted
`
`the
`
`law
`
`of
`
`the
`
`case which
`
`was
`
`binding.,
`
`And
`
`is binding
`
`upon
`
`the
`
`court
`
`in
`
`the
`
`absence
`
`of
`
`a
`
`showing
`
`of
`
`extraordinary
`
`circumstances.
`
`No
`
`such
`
`extraordinary
`
`circumstances
`
`exist
`
`in this matter.
`
`The
`
`decision
`
`of
`
`the Court
`
`is currently
`
`the
`
`law
`
`of
`
`this
`
`case.
`
`RUBAND'S
`INFORMATION
`
`TO RESPOND
`FOR INSURANCE
`TO DEMANDS
`IS REQUIRED
`AND SHOULD
`UNDER
`CPLR 3101ff)
`BE COMPELLED
`TO DO SO
`BY THIS
`COURT
`
`Counsel
`
`stated
`
`at
`
`the
`
`July
`
`9, 2018
`
`mediation,
`
`that
`
`only
`
`one
`
`insurance
`
`policy
`
`is available
`
`to provide
`
`coverage
`
`for
`
`claims
`
`asserted
`
`This
`
`position
`
`has
`
`never
`
`been
`
`put
`
`the
`
`by
`
`plaintiffs
`
`herein.
`
`in writing
`
`and
`
`all
`
`demands
`
`for
`
`insurance
`
`information
`
`have
`
`been
`
`ignored.
`
`WESTHAB,
`
`demanded
`
`copies
`
`of
`
`all
`
`insurance
`
`policies
`
`from
`
`both
`
`the
`
`general
`
`contractor
`
`and
`
`the
`
`subcontractors,
`
`as well
`
`as correspondence
`
`relating
`
`to any
`
`such
`
`policies.
`
`This
`
`demand
`
`for
`
`the
`
`insurance
`
`information
`
`was
`
`in a letter,
`
`dated
`
`July
`
`10, 2018,
`
`Exhibit"
`
`B"
`
`to Cypher
`
`Affirmation.
`
`The moving
`
`defendants
`
`also
`
`demaded
`
`the
`
`disclosure
`
`of all
`
`relevant
`
`insurance
`
`information
`
`early
`
`in the
`
`litigation.
`
`Exhibit"C"
`
`to Cypher
`
`Affirmation.
`
`CPLR
`
`contents
`
`3101(f)
`
`states:
`
`" A party may
`
`obtain
`
`discovery
`
`of
`
`the
`
`existence
`
`and
`
`of any
`
`insurance
`
`agreement
`
`under
`
`which
`
`any
`
`person
`
`carrying
`
`on
`
`an insurance
`
`business
`
`may
`
`be liable
`
`satisfy
`
`part
`
`or
`
`all
`
`of
`
`the
`
`judgment
`
`which
`
`may
`
`be
`
`entered
`
`in
`
`the
`
`action
`
`or
`
`to
`
`indemnify
`
`to
`
`or
`
`reimburse
`
`for
`
`payments
`
`made
`
`to satisfy
`
`the
`
`judgment."
`
`RUBAND
`
`has
`
`neither
`
`objected
`
`to this
`
`demand,
`
`nor moved
`
`for
`
`a protective
`
`order.
`
`Rather,
`
`it has
`
`simply
`
`ignored
`
`the
`
`demands.
`
`In Sharkey
`
`(4*
`
`691
`
`Division
`
`that:
`
`v. Chow,
`
`84 A.D.3d
`
`1719,
`
`922 N.Y.S.
`
`2d
`
`Dept.
`
`2011),
`
`the Appellate
`
`held
`
`"Plaintiff
`
`was
`
`unquestionably
`
`entitled
`
`to
`
`insurance
`
`information
`
`for
`
`use
`
`in
`
`formulating
`
`his
`
`trial
`
`strategy"
`
`In Ambra
`
`v. Awad
`
`, 16 Misc.
`
`3d
`
`1128
`
`(A),
`
`847 N.Y.S.
`
`2d
`
`900
`
`(Supreme
`
`Court
`
`Nassau
`
`County
`
`2007)
`
`the
`
`court
`
`held
`
`that:
`
`"Article
`
`31
`
`of
`
`the Civil
`
`Practice
`
`Law and Rules
`
`gives
`
`rise
`
`to a
`
`duty
`
`on
`
`the
`
`part
`
`of
`
`the
`
`defendant
`
`to
`
`provide
`
`complete
`
`accurate
`
`and
`
`truthful
`
`discovery.
`
`To
`
`the
`
`(03262770.DOCX /
`
`)5
`
`

`

`FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 02/28/2019 04:48 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 211
`
`INDEX NO. 600685/2013
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/28/2019
`
`extent
`
`that
`
`an
`
`attorney
`
`assumes
`
`responsibility
`
`for
`
`compliance
`
`on
`
`behalf
`
`of
`
`the
`
`client,
`
`that
`
`attorney
`
`is answerable
`
`for
`
`a breach
`
`of
`
`that
`
`duty."
`
`In
`
`this matter,
`
`repeated
`
`demands
`
`were
`
`made
`
`for
`
`insurance
`
`policies
`
`and
`
`coverage
`
`for
`
`all
`
`of
`
`the
`
`other
`
`defendants.
`
`To
`
`this
`
`date,
`
`there
`
`has
`
`been
`
`no
`
`response
`
`from
`
`their
`
`in response.
`
`Counsel's
`
`representation
`
`of
`
`counsel,
`
`continued
`
`the RUBAND
`
`defendants
`
`poses
`
`a clear
`
`conflict
`
`of
`
`interest
`
`in
`
`this
`
`case.
`
`Therefore,
`
`the
`
`court
`
`should
`
`compel
`
`RUBAND
`
`to immediately
`
`disclose
`
`this
`
`infonnation.
`
`THERE
`
`IS A CLEAR
`
`CONFQÛÈ
`
`OF INTEREST
`
`In Salow
`
`v. W.R. Grace
`
`& Co.,
`
`83 NY 2d
`
`303,
`
`610 N.Y.S.
`
`2d
`
`128,
`
`(1994),
`
`the Court
`
`of
`
`Appeals
`
`held
`
`that:
`
`both
`clients
`
`A lawyer
`may
`when
`matters
`that
`provide
`all
`attorneys
`presumption
`forecloses
`matters
`established
`former
`308,130.
`
`id.
`
`and
`
`and
`for
`not
`client
`the
`oppose
`appear
`rule
`are
`the
`The
`adverse.
`interests
`from
`is disqualified
`in a firm
`if one
`attorney
`This
`is so because
`firm
`are disqualified.
`in the
`employed
`of
`shared
`confidences
`attorneys
`among
`in the
`and
`future
`others
`from
`the
`firm
`representing
`to disqualify
`an
`307,129
`...a
`seeking
`party
`of
`a prior
`one
`attorney-client
`existence
`are both
`current
`representations
`adverse
`
`related
`extended
`a client
`representing
`there
`is an irrebuttable
`firm
`which
`the
`related
`most
`the
`at
`
`on
`substantially
`has
`been
`
`by
`substantially
`or
`law
`and
`
`firm,
`to
`that
`related
`
`attorney
`relationship
`and
`substantially
`
`to
`and
`
`Id,
`
`the
`
`parties'
`
`as
`
`In
`
`instant
`
`case,
`
`there
`
`is no
`
`question
`
`that
`
`the
`
`interests
`
`are
`
`adverse
`
`as
`
`long
`
`RUBAND
`
`fails
`
`to
`
`provide
`
`WESTHAB
`
`and
`
`ELM STREET
`
`with
`
`a
`
`complete
`
`defense
`
`and
`
`indemnification,
`
`and
`
`fails
`
`to reimburse
`
`legal
`
`fees
`
`now due.
`
`RUBAND
`
`cannot
`
`on
`
`the
`
`one
`
`hand
`
`claim
`
`that
`
`there
`
`is
`
`no
`
`coverage
`
`beyond
`
`the
`
`primary
`
`policy,
`
`and
`
`still
`
`represent
`
`the moving
`
`defendants.
`
`In Tekni-
`
`and
`
`Plex,
`
`Inc.
`
`v. Meyer
`
`Landis,
`
`89 N.Y.
`
`2d
`
`123,
`
`651 N.Y.S.2d
`
`954
`
`(1996),
`
`the
`
`Court
`
`of Appeals
`
`"
`
`held,
`
`except
`
`with
`
`the
`
`consent
`
`of a former
`
`client
`
`after
`
`full
`
`disclosure,
`
`a lawyer
`
`who
`
`has
`
`represented
`
`the
`
`former
`
`client
`
`in a matter
`
`shall
`
`not
`
`thereafter
`
`represent
`
`another
`
`person
`
`the
`
`same
`
`or
`
`substantially
`
`related
`
`matter
`
`in which
`
`that
`
`person's
`
`interests
`
`are materially
`
`adverse
`
`in
`
`to
`
`(03262770.DOCX /
`
`}6
`
`

`

`FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 02/28/2019 04:48 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 211
`
`INDEX NO. 600685/2013
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/28/2019
`
`the
`
`interests
`
`of
`
`the
`
`former
`
`client.".
`
`In Rotan
`
`v. Lawrence
`
`Hospital,
`
`46 A.D.
`
`2d
`
`199,
`
`361 N.Y.S.
`
`2d
`
`372
`
`(1st
`
`Dept.
`
`1974),
`
`an attorney
`
`representing
`
`a doctor
`
`in a medical
`
`malpractice
`
`case,
`
`left
`
`his
`
`defense
`
`firm,
`
`and was
`
`hired
`
`as an attorney
`
`for
`
`the
`
`firm
`
`representing
`
`the
`
`plaintiff.
`
`The
`
`court
`
`held
`
`that
`
`:
`
`these
`While
`facts
`conduct
`or breach
`is a situation
`rife
`of
`justice.
`Though
`
`indicate
`ethical
`
`any
`
`nor
`
`imply
`we cannot
`canon,
`of discredit
`his
`good
`
`neither
`of
`any
`the
`with
`possibility
`we do
`not
`dispute
`both
`the
`possibility
`[The
`to ignore.
`
`"
`
`of
`was
`no
`
`representing
`appearance
`
`attorney
`there
`
`is
`
`relationship
`not
`the
`has
`the
`
`plaintiff,
`it are
`hired
`implication
`requires
`insurance
`sword
`
`too
`for
`
`the
`
`company
`shield
`
`and
`
`strong
`reasons
`having
`of
`improper
`who
`client
`and
`the
`attorney
`and will
`travel.
`
`departure
`the
`escape
`bar
`to the
`and
`or
`faith
`the
`good
`of
`of
`conflict
`opinion
`the
`
`professional
`from
`that
`conclusion
`the
`administration
`faith
`of
`the
`and
`interest
`while
`litigation"
`
`states]
`pending
`attorney-client
`the
`determination
`the
`a gladiator
`who
`
`this
`
`firm
`the
`the
`
`and
`
`simply
`
`concurring
`to do with
`
`nothing
`motive.
`Nonetheless,
`make
`defendant
`is the
`is not merely
`
`In Aversa
`
`v.
`
`Taubes,
`
`194
`
`A.D.2d
`
`579,
`
`598
`
`N.Y.S.
`
`2d
`
`(2d
`
`Dept.1993),
`
`the
`
`Appellate
`
`Division
`
`reversed
`
`an
`
`order
`
`denying
`
`disqualification
`
`of
`
`the
`
`defendant's
`
`firm
`
`in
`
`a medical
`
`malpractice
`
`action.
`
`In that
`
`case,
`
`an attorney,
`
`formerly
`
`with
`
`the
`
`plaintiff's
`
`law
`
`finn,
`
`joined
`
`the
`
`law
`
`firm
`
`of
`
`the
`
`defendant.
`
`The
`
`court
`
`held
`
`that:
`
`detriment,
`that
`
`Irrespective
`apprehension
`consequence
`The
`attorney.
`clients
`and
`the
`the
`appearance
`
`eXceptions,
`interest
`obligations
`
`may,
`
`of
`
`of
`actual
`any
`and
`to certainty
`of
`representation
`standards
`of
`are
`demanding;
`of
`representing
`the
`lawyer
`may
`even
`inadvertently,
`the
`professional
`
`the
`
`his
`of
`the
`profession
`an attorney
`conflicting
`place
`
`for
`
`give
`
`not
`
`affect,
`relationship.
`
`himself
`or
`
`first
`the
`interest
`
`entitled
`is
`be prejudiced
`the
`
`client
`will
`not
`litigant
`by
`opposing
`protection
`the
`exist
`avoid
`not
`must
`With
`interests.
`in
`a position
`appearance
`the
`
`to
`
`freedom
`from
`quantum
`and
`former
`client's
`of
`and
`insurance
`even
`the
`fact
`but
`conditional
`and
`a conflicting
`affecting
`
`of
`
`the
`
`only
`rare
`where
`
`Finally,
`
`in Cardinale
`
`v. Golinello
`
`55 A.D.2d
`
`898,
`
`389 N.Y.S.2d
`
`893,
`
`(2d Dept.
`
`1977),
`
`the
`
`Appellate
`
`Division
`
`held
`
`that
`
`defendants'
`
`motion
`
`to
`
`disqualify
`
`an
`
`attorney
`
`for
`
`the
`
`plaintiff,
`
`who
`
`had
`
`previously
`
`done
`
`legal
`
`work
`
`for
`
`the
`
`defendant:
`
`...
`
`"was
`
`properly
`
`granted,
`
`and
`
`that
`
`there
`
`was
`
`such
`
`a conflict
`
`of
`
`interest
`
`in violation
`
`of
`
`the Code
`
`of Professional
`
`Responsibility
`
`that
`
`it was
`
`of no
`
`{03262770.DOCX /
`
`}7
`
`

`

`FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 02/28/2019 04:48 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 211
`
`INDEX NO. 600685/2013
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/28/2019
`
`moment
`
`that
`
`the
`
`attorney
`
`did
`
`not
`
`personally
`
`render
`
`any
`
`legal
`
`services
`
`to
`
`the
`
`defendant.
`
`It
`
`suffices
`
`that
`
`he was
`
`associated
`
`with
`
`the
`
`firm
`
`that
`
`did".
`
`The
`
`court
`
`held,
`
`at 295,
`
`195:
`
`be
`disqualified
`in the
`attorneys
`of a lawyer
`the
`termination
`client
`the
`with
`forbids
`also
`the
`in matters
`affecting
`adversely
`has
`reposed.
`been
`confidence
`is predicated,
`former
`the
`client
`in
`representation
`second
`the
`former
`the
`in
`client
`first
`the
`fact
`firm
`or
`lawyer
`the
`related
`former
`client
`in matters
`it
`answer
`is no
`in connection
`of
`firm
`his
`the
`his
`
`would
`all
`the
`obligation
`after
`
`lawyer
`then
`The
`continue
`to
`represent
`confidences
`from
`others
`to which
`against
`use
`the
`the
`the
`
`one
`
`if
`That
`representation
`representation.
`of
`his
`client
`an
`attorney
`or
`secrets
`employment
`with
`respect
`a case
`of
`from
`from
`
`taking
`possibility
`obtained
`
`only
`
`simply
`represented
`representation.
`confidential
`any
`it was
`Irrespective
`apprehension
`consequence
`attorney.
`all
`the
`
`other
`of
`
`detriment,
`
`Accordingly,
`information
`members
`actual
`any
`and
`to
`certainty
`of
`representation
`of
`standards
`are
`of
`representing
`lawyer
`the
`may
`even
`inadvertently
`professional
`the
`
`the
`
`demanding;
`
`that
`the
`of
`profession
`an attomey
`conflicting
`place
`affect
`relationship.
`
`not
`
`The
`and
`clients,
`appearance
`
`exceptions,
`interest
`obligations
`
`may
`
`of
`
`from
`undertaking
`likewise
`precluded
`are
`firm
`to preserve
`the
`confidences
`The
`of
`his
`employment.
`undivided
`not
`subsequent
`of
`
`any
`The
`
`and
`fidelity
`acceptance
`interest
`proscription
`on more
`
`a
`
`subsequent
`from
`such
`secrets
`and
`obligation
`divulge
`retainers
`the
`of
`
`of
`the
`or
`
`client
`against
`the
`than
`
`however,
`information
`of
`The
`representation.
`he was
`with
`which
`matter
`to the
`subject
`the
`lawyer
`did
`not
`that
`first
`the
`with
`render
`who
`client
`first
`interest
`
`employment,
`the
`services
`entitled
`not
`
`to
`be
`the
`
`confidentially
`limitation
`arises
`then
`associated
`of
`the
`second
`in fact
`obtain
`or even
`that
`the
`client.
`to
`freedom
`from
`in
`prejudiced
`former
`client's
`of
`and
`assurances
`even
`the
`but
`fact
`conditional
`and
`where
`of
`
`only
`rare
`
`conflicting
`affecting
`
`the
`
`is
`will
`litigant
`by
`opposing
`the
`for
`protection
`exist
`avoid
`not
`must
`interests.
`With
`himself
`a position
`in
`or
`appearance
`give
`the
`
`There
`
`be
`
`no
`
`here
`
`of
`
`interests
`
`exists
`
`and
`
`disqualification
`
`is
`
`can
`appropriate
`
`the
`
`doubt
`remedy.
`
`that
`
`a conflict
`
`THE TRIAL
`
`MUST
`
`BE STAYED
`ISSUES
`
`PENDING
`PRE5ËNTEIf
`
`THE RESOLUTION
`
`OF THE
`
`In
`
`its
`
`application
`
`for
`
`relief
`
`by means
`
`of
`
`the
`
`submitted
`
`order
`
`to
`
`show
`
`cause,
`
`the
`
`WESTHAB
`
`defendants
`
`request
`
`that
`
`this
`
`court
`
`compel
`
`the RUBAND
`
`defendants
`
`to
`
`comply
`
`with
`
`the
`
`previous
`
`order
`
`of
`
`Justice
`
`McCormack,
`
`and
`
`direct
`
`them
`
`to assume
`
`the
`
`defense
`
`of WESTHAB,
`
`indenmify
`
`the moving
`
`defendants,
`
`and
`
`pay
`
`their
`
`legal
`
`costs.
`
`Additionally,
`
`WESTHAB
`
`demands
`
`that RUBAND
`
`provide
`
`the
`
`insurance
`
`policies
`
`and
`
`other
`
`information
`
`pertaining
`
`to
`
`coverage
`
`for
`
`{03262770.DOCX/
`
`}8
`
`

`

`FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 02/28/2019 04:48 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 211
`
`INDEX NO. 600685/2013
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/28/2019
`
`all
`
`defendants.
`
`Lastly,
`
`counsel
`
`for RUBAND
`
`must
`
`be
`
`disqualified.
`
`Giving
`
`all
`
`these
`
`issues,
`
`and
`
`in order
`
`to
`
`avoid
`
`severe
`
`prejudice
`
`to the WESTHAB
`
`defendants,
`
`all
`
`proceedings,
`
`including
`
`any
`
`trial,
`
`now on
`
`for October
`
`23,
`
`2018,
`
`in the DCM part must
`
`the
`
`stayed.
`
`CPLR
`
`2201
`
`states:
`
`"Except
`
`where
`
`otherwise
`
`prescribed
`
`by
`
`law,
`
`the
`
`court
`
`in which
`
`an action
`
`is peñdiñg
`
`may
`
`grant
`
`a stay
`
`of
`
`proceedings
`
`in
`
`a proper
`
`case
`
`upon
`
`such
`
`terms
`
`as may
`
`be
`
`just"
`
`See
`
`also
`
`Coburn
`
`v. Coburn
`
`109
`
`A.D.2d
`
`486
`
`NYS
`
`2d
`
`Dept.
`
`Courts
`
`have
`
`an
`
`inherent
`
`power
`
`to
`
`a
`
`984,
`
`467
`
`(3d
`
`1985).
`
`stay
`
`proceeding
`
`where
`
`a former
`
`attorney
`
`of
`
`a party
`
`subsequently
`
`represents
`
`his
`
`adversary.
`
`Feldman
`
`v.
`
`Bernham
`
`6 A.D.
`
`2d 498,
`
`179 N.Y.S.2d
`
`881
`
`(1st
`
`Dept.1958).
`
`In
`
`the
`
`instant
`
`matter,
`
`proceeding
`
`with
`
`the
`
`trial
`
`would
`
`render
`
`the
`
`decision
`
`of
`
`Justice
`
`McCormack
`
`a nullity,
`
`and
`
`endorse
`
`the
`
`principle
`
`that
`
`a party
`
`can
`
`avoid
`
`the
`
`consequences
`
`of
`
`a
`
`court
`
`order
`
`by
`
`simply
`
`ignoring
`
`it. Further,
`
`proceeding
`
`with
`
`the
`
`trial
`
`at
`
`this
`
`time
`
`would
`
`be a waste
`
`of
`
`legal
`
`and
`
`judicial
`
`resources,
`
`as well
`
`as great
`
`cost
`
`to the
`
`parties
`
`herein.
`
`{03262770.DOCX /
`
`}9
`
`

`

`FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 02/28/2019 04:48 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 211
`
`INDEX NO. 600685/2013
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/28/2019
`
`WHEREFORE,
`
`it
`
`is
`
`respectfully
`
`submitted
`
`that
`
`the
`
`defendant
`
`WESTHAB's
`
`motion
`
`should
`
`be
`
`granted,
`
`and
`
`an
`
`order
`
`issued
`
`requiring
`
`defendant
`
`RUBAND
`
`to:
`
`defend,
`
`indemnify,
`
`and
`
`pay
`
`the
`
`legal
`
`fees
`
`of defendant
`
`WESTHAB,
`
`provide
`
`the
`
`demanded
`
`insurance
`
`information
`
`for
`
`all
`
`other
`
`defendants,
`
`and
`
`to disqualify
`
`counsel
`
`from
`
`further
`
`representation
`
`of RUBAND
`
`in this
`
`action,
`
`and
`
`to
`
`stay
`
`all
`
`proceedings,
`
`and
`
`for
`
`such
`
`other
`
`and
`
`further
`
`relief
`
`as this
`
`court
`
`deems
`
`just
`
`and
`
`proper.
`
`Dated:
`
`White
`October
`
`New York
`Plains,
`17, 2018
`
`HAVKINS
`WÅlUÛALE
`
`ROSENFELD
`LLP
`
`RITZERT
`
`&
`
`eq.
`efendants
`
`ASSOCIATES,
`INC.
`Avenue
`New York
`
`210
`Suite
`10601
`
`L.P.
`
`and
`
`Plains,
`368-7211
`11990-534
`No.:
`
`Cypher
`Robert
`for
`Attorneys
`ELM STREET
`WESTHAB,
`170 Hamilton
`White
`
`(914)
`File
`
`(03262770.DOCX /
`
`} 1 O
`
`

`

`FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 02/28/2019 04:48 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 211
`
`INDEX NO. 600685/2013
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/28/2019
`
`SUPREME
`COUNTY
`
`COURT OF THE
`OF NASSAU
`
`STATE
`
`OF NEW YORK
`
`M.W.,
`LATISHA
`LATISHA
`
`an
`
`infant
`
`WHITE,
`WHITE,
`
`under
`her
`
`age
`the
`Mother
`
`of
`and
`
`fourteen
`Natural
`
`years,
`(14)
`Guardian,
`
`by
`and
`
`Index
`
`No.:
`
`600685/13
`
`individually,
`
`- against
`
`-
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`IN
`
`AFFIRMATION
`SUPPORT
`ORDER
`TO SHOW CAUSE
`
`OF
`
`ELM STREET
`L.P., WESTHAB,
`INC.,
`ASSOCIATES,
`RUBAND
`EMBE HOME
`CONTRACTING
`CORP.,
`and CERTA
`SOLUTIONS,
`INC.
`PROPAINTERS,
`COLOR WHEEL
`INC.,
`
`PAINTING,
`
`LTD.
`
`and
`
`Defendants.
`
`ROBERT
`
`S. CYPHER,
`
`an attorney
`
`duly
`
`admitted
`
`to practice
`
`in New York
`
`State,
`
`avers
`
`the
`
`following
`
`pursuant
`
`to CPLR
`
`§2106:
`
`1.
`
`I am associated
`
`with
`
`the
`
`law
`
`firm
`
`of Havkins
`
`Rosenfeld
`
`Ritzert
`
`& Varriale,
`
`attorneys
`
`ELM
`
`STREET
`
`LLP,
`
`INC.
`
`for
`
`the
`
`defendants,
`
`ASSOCIATES,
`
`L.P.
`
`and WESTHAB,
`
`Accordingly,
`
`based
`
`upon my
`
`review
`
`of
`
`the
`
`files
`
`maintained
`
`by
`
`this
`
`office,
`
`I am familiar
`
`with
`
`the
`
`facts
`
`and
`
`proceedings
`
`as set
`
`forth
`
`herein.
`
`2.
`
`I submit
`
`this
`
`Affirmation
`
`in support
`
`of
`
`the
`
`instant
`
`Order
`
`To Show
`
`cause:
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`Requiring
`to
`the
`
`prior
`
`indemnify
`ASSOCIATES
`
`defendant
`Order
`and
`
`of
`
`RUBAND,
`this
`court,
`fees
`counsel
`pay
`(hereinafter
`referred
`
`and CERTA-PRO
`EMBE,
`to immediately
`entered
`that
`May
`defend,
`2, 2018,
`directing
`they
`WESTHAB
`and ELM STREET
`defendants
`to
`to as WESTHAB);
`
`adhere
`
`Disqualifying
`current
`represent
`
`attorneys
`those
`
`the
`
`of Marshall,
`firm
`for RUBAND,
`on the
`defendants,
`
`Warner,
`Dennehey,
`and CERTA-PRO
`EMBE,
`interest
`basis
`of
`a conflict
`
`that
`
`Coleman
`from
`
`continuing
`exists;
`
`and
`
`Goggins,
`
`to
`
`{03262882.DOCX /
`
`} l
`
`

`

`FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 02/28/2019 04:48 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 211
`
`INDEX NO. 600685/2013
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/28/2019
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`Compelling
`information
`
`defendants
`as set
`forth
`
`to
`in the
`
`supply
`defendants'
`
`to
`
`all
`parties
`demand
`and
`
`the
`letter
`
`demanded
`of
`
`July
`
`insurance
`
`10, 2018;
`
`Pursuant
`Order
`Order
`
`to New York
`for
`a temporary
`to Show
`Cause
`
`Civil
`
`Practice
`of
`the
`stay
`is decided,
`and
`
`Law and Rules
`("CPLR")
`court
`action
`in
`the
`below
`there
`is compliance
`with
`
`issuing
`Defendants'
`
`§ 2201
`until
`said Order;
`
`an
`
`e.
`
`Pursuant
`
`currently
`Order
`
`to CPLR
`scheduled
`to Show
`
`Cause;
`
`§ 2201,
`staying
`for
`October
`23,
`compliance
`and
`
`the
`
`trial
`
`and
`
`all
`
`2018,
`with
`
`pending
`the
`resulting
`
`proceedings
`decision
`
`the
`
`in
`
`action
`this
`Defendants'
`
`of
`
`Order;
`
`f.
`
`the
`
`Trial
`the
`
`of
`
`this matter
`
`pursuant
`
`to the Court's
`
`inherent
`
`power
`
`to
`
`issue
`
`a
`
`Staying
`under
`stay
`
`circumstances,
`
`and;
`
`g.
`
`Granting
`
`such
`
`other
`
`and
`
`further
`
`relief
`
`as
`
`this
`
`court may
`
`deem just
`
`and
`
`proper.
`
`No Prior
`
`Request
`
`For
`
`The
`
`Relief
`
`Requested
`
`Herein
`
`Has
`
`Been Made
`
`By Movants
`
`PRELIMINARY
`
`STATEMENT
`
`3.
`
`This
`
`Court
`
`has
`
`already
`
`held
`
`that
`
`defendants,
`
`RUBAND
`
`CONTRACTING
`
`CORP.,
`
`EMBE
`
`HOME
`
`defendants
`
`for
`
`SOLUTIONS,
`
`and
`
`CERTA-PRO
`
`PAINTERS,
`
`are
`
`liable
`
`to
`
`the
`
`moving
`
`this
`
`contractual
`
`and
`
`common
`
`law
`
`indemnification,
`
`and
`
`contribution.
`
`A copy
`
`of
`
`Court's
`
`Order,
`
`filed
`
`and
`
`entered
`
`May
`
`4,
`
`2018,
`
`is
`
`annexed
`
`hereto
`
`as Exhibit
`
`"A".
`
`To
`
`date,
`
`despite
`
`multiple
`
`requests,
`
`and
`
`the
`
`submission
`
`of
`
`proof
`
`of
`
`attorneys'
`
`fees
`
`and
`
`costs,
`
`the
`
`defendants,
`
`RUBAND
`
`CONTRACTING
`
`CORP.,
`
`EMBE
`
`HOME
`
`SOLUTIONS,
`
`and CERTA-
`
`have
`
`failed
`
`the Court
`
`Order
`
`or
`
`reimburse
`
`ELM
`
`PRO PAINTERS,
`
`to
`
`comply
`
`with
`
`defendants,
`
`STREET
`
`ASSOCIATES,
`
`L.P.
`
`and WESTHAB,
`
`INC.,
`
`for
`
`attorneys'
`
`fees
`
`and
`
`costs,
`
`as required
`
`by
`
`the Order.
`
`4.
`
`On May
`
`4,
`
`2018,
`
`Justice
`
`James
`
`P. McCormack
`
`of
`
`the Nassau
`
`County
`
`Supreme
`
`Court,
`
`granted
`
`defendant
`
`WESTHAB's
`
`motion
`
`for
`
`summary
`
`judgment,
`
`ordering
`
`that
`
`defendant
`
`RUBAND
`
`defend,
`
`indemnify
`
`and
`
`pay WESTHAB's
`
`legal
`
`fees.
`
`The Order
`
`has
`
`been
`
`ignored.
`
`{03262882.DOCX /
`
`}2
`
`

`

`FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 02/28/2019 04:48 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 211
`
`INDEX NO. 600685/2013
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/28/2019
`
`5.
`
`On July
`
`10,
`
`2018,
`
`counsel
`
`for WESTHAB
`
`demanded
`
`that
`
`counsel
`
`for RUBAND
`
`provide
`
`copies
`
`of
`
`all
`
`primary
`
`and
`
`excess
`
`policies,
`
`and
`
`other
`
`relevant
`
`insurance
`
`information,
`
`for
`
`each
`
`defendant
`
`represented
`
`by
`
`them:
`
`RUBAND,
`
`EMBE HOME
`
`SOLUTIONS
`
`and CERTA-PRO
`
`LTD.
`
`To
`
`date,
`
`there
`
`has
`
`been
`
`no
`
`response.
`
`Demand
`
`letter
`
`is
`
`attached
`
`hereto
`
`as
`
`PAINTERS
`
`Exhibit
`
`"B"
`
`6.
`
`At
`
`a mediation
`
`on
`
`counsel
`
`and
`
`its
`
`insurance
`
`held
`
`July
`
`9,
`
`2018,
`
`for RUBAND
`
`carrier,
`
`Main
`
`Street,
`
`America
`
`Assurance
`
`Company,
`
`asserted
`
`that
`
`the
`
`only
`
`coverage
`
`available
`
`was
`
`the
`
`one
`
`primary
`
`policy,
`
`issued
`
`to RUBAND.
`
`This
`
`information
`
`had
`
`never
`
`previously
`
`been
`
`disclosed,
`
`despite
`
`defendants'
`
`prior
`
`demands
`
`for
`
`all
`
`insurance
`
`information.
`
`See Exhibit
`
`"B".
`
`7.
`
`When
`
`the
`
`case
`
`did
`
`not
`
`resolve
`
`at mediation,
`
`demand
`
`was made
`
`for
`
`any
`
`excess
`
`or
`
`in this
`
`action.
`
`As
`
`of
`
`this
`
`additional
`
`insurance
`
`information
`
`for
`
`all
`
`of
`
`the
`
`other
`
`defendants
`
`there
`
`has
`
`been
`
`no response.
`
`Defendants
`
`also
`
`reiterated
`
`the
`
`request
`
`for RUBAND,
`
`date,
`
`EMBE HOME
`
`SOLUTIONS,
`
`and CERTA-PRO
`
`PAINTERS
`
`LTD
`
`to assume
`
`the
`
`defense
`
`of
`
`the
`
`defendants,
`
`and
`
`formally
`
`raised
`
`an ethical
`
`issue. When
`
`the
`
`parties
`
`appeared
`
`for
`
`the mediation,
`
`they
`
`were
`
`represented
`
`by Mark
`
`Volpi,
`
`who
`
`was
`
`previously
`
`an attorney
`
`employed
`
`counsel
`
`by
`
`for ELM
`
`STREET
`
`was
`
`the
`
`first
`
`time
`
`that
`
`counsel
`
`ASSOCIATES,
`
`L.P.
`
`and WESTHAB,
`
`INC.
`
`This
`
`became
`
`aware
`
`that
`
`he was
`
`involved
`
`in this
`
`case,
`
`having
`
`previously
`
`left
`
`the
`
`employ
`
`of Havkins,
`
`Rosenfeld,
`
`Ritzert
`
`& Varriale.
`
`Because
`
`the
`
`defendants,
`
`RUBAND,
`
`EMBE HOME
`
`SOLUTIONS,
`
`and CERTA-PRO
`
`PAINTERS
`
`LTD,
`
`have
`
`refused
`
`to assume
`
`the
`
`defense
`
`of
`
`the
`
`moving
`
`defendants,
`
`there
`
`remains
`
`a conflict
`
`of
`
`interest
`
`in his
`
`involvement
`
`in this
`
`case,
`
`as well
`
`as
`
`that
`
`of
`
`the
`
`firm
`
`of Marshall
`
`Dennehey,
`
`Warner
`
`& Goggins.
`
`{03262882.DOCX /
`
`}3
`
`

`

`FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 02/28/2019 04:48 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 211
`
`INDEX NO. 600685/2013
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/28/2019
`
`8.
`
`This
`
`matter
`
`is next
`
`on
`
`for
`
`an appearance
`
`on October
`
`23,
`
`2018,
`
`in the DCM Part,
`
`therefore
`
`necessitating
`
`this
`
`application
`
`be brought
`
`by Order
`
`To Show
`
`Cause.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`9.
`
`On March
`
`15, 2018,
`
`Defendants
`
`moved
`
`for
`
`summary
`
`judgment
`
`against
`
`RUBAND
`
`demanding
`
`contractual
`
`and
`
`common-law
`
`indemnification,
`
`defense,
`
`and
`
`the
`
`payment
`
`of
`
`counsel
`
`fees.
`
`10.
`
`Justice
`
`McCormack
`
`granted
`
`defendants'
`
`motion
`
`in its entirety.
`
`Decision
`
`attached
`
`as Exhibit
`
`"A".
`
`Justice
`
`McCormack
`
`cited
`
`Article
`
`2 of
`
`the
`
`contract
`
`between
`
`WESTHAB
`
`and
`
`RUBAND,
`
`which
`
`will
`
`not
`
`be repeated
`
`here
`
`in the
`
`interest
`
`of
`
`space,
`
`as it
`
`is attached
`
`as an exhibit.
`
`11.
`
`Justice
`
`McCormack
`
`correctly
`
`held:
`
`"A
`
`simple
`
`reading
`
`of
`
`the
`
`contract
`
`makes
`
`it
`
`clear
`
`that RUBAND
`
`agreed
`
`The
`
`Court
`
`found
`
`the WESTHAB
`
`to
`
`indemnify
`
`WESTHAB".
`
`that
`
`defendants
`
`established
`
`entitlement
`
`to
`
`summary
`
`judgment
`
`as
`
`a matter
`
`of
`
`law
`
`on
`
`the
`
`issue
`
`of
`
`contractual
`
`indemnity.
`
`The
`
`Court
`
`further
`
`found
`
`that
`
`the
`
`indemnification
`
`clause
`
`was
`
`enforceable,
`
`due
`
`to
`
`the
`
`fact
`
`that
`
`the
`
`indemnitee
`
`was
`
`free
`
`from
`
`negligence,
`
`Thus,
`
`any
`
`argument
`
`that
`
`the
`
`contract
`
`violated
`
`the
`
`anti-indemnification
`
`provisions
`
`of
`
`the
`
`General
`
`Obligations
`
`Law
`
`are
`
`meritless.
`
`These
`
`determinations
`
`are the
`
`law
`
`of
`
`the
`
`case
`
`and
`
`are no longer
`
`subject
`
`to dispute.
`
`12.
`
`The
`
`Court
`
`also
`
`found
`
`that WESTHAB
`
`is entitled
`
`to common
`
`law
`
`indemnity.
`
`It did
`
`so
`
`on
`
`the
`
`basis
`
`that
`
`defendant
`
`is not
`
`negligent,
`
`and
`
`delegated
`
`exclusive
`
`responsibility
`
`for
`
`the
`
`work
`
`to RUBAND.
`
`(03262882.DOCX /
`
`}4
`
`

`

`FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 02/28/2019 04:48 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 211
`
`INDEX NO. 600685/2013
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/28/2019
`
`13.
`
`The
`
`court
`
`further
`
`found
`
`that
`
`the WESTHAB
`
`defeñdants
`
`are
`
`entitled
`
`to
`
`common-
`
`law
`
`contribution
`
`from
`
`RUBAND,
`
`and
`
`t