FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/09/ :26 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 246 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/09/2018

Transcription

1

2 NDEX NO O/2016 (F LED : NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/ : 14 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 220 RECEVED NYSCEF: 11/22/2017 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK SUMNER REDSTONE, ndex No /2016 (Edwards, J.) Plaintiff, PRE-ARGUMENT v. STATEMENT MANUELA HERZER and HOTEL CARLYLE OWNERS CORPORATON, Defendants. PLEASE TAKE NOTCE, that pursuant to 22 NYCRR , Defendant-Appellant Manuela Herzer does hereby interpose her Pre-Argument Statement in connection with that certain Notice of Appeal dated November 22, 2017, as follows: 1. Title of Action: See caption above. 2. Names of Parties: See caption above. 3. Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellant: NESENOFF & MLTENBERG, LLP 5th 363 Seventh Avenue, FlOOr New York, New York LAW OFFCES OF JEFFREY LCHTMAN 44" 11 East 44 Street, Suite 501 New York, New York (212) Attorneys for Plaintiff-Respondent MATALON SHWEKY ELMAN PLLC 33' d 450 Seventh Avenue, 33 Floor New York, New York (212) This appeal is from the entirety of the Decision and Order of the Honorable Erika M. Edwards, Justice of the Supreme Court, New York County, which decided Motion Sequence 1 1 of 4

3 NDEX NO. FLED : NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/2 2 / : /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 220 RECEVED NYSCEF: 11/22/2017 Nos. 002 and 003. Said Decision and Order is dated October 23, 2017 and was filed and entered in the Office of the Clerk of the Court on October 26, A copy of the Notice ofentryserved on September 12, 2017 is annexed heretoasexhibita. 6. Plaintiff and Herzer have been, or are, involved in litigation in the State of California as follows: Case Number Court Caption Status BP Superior Court n re Advanced Health Care Closed Los Angeles Directive of Sumner M. Redstone BC Superior Court Manuela Herzer v. Shari This case is in Los Angeles Redstone, Tyler Korff discovery and there is a motion pending as to jurisdiction BC Superior Court Sumner Redstone v. Manuela This case is in Los Angeles Herzer, Sydney Holland discovery 17STPB04740 Superior Court n re the Matter of Sumner M. This case is in Los Angeles Redstone 2003 Trust dated discovery Probate Court July 23, 2003 as amended and restated No. 2:17-cv United States Manuela Herzer v. Shari Complaint District Court Redstone and Tyler Korff filed Central District of California 7. Plaintiff brought this action pursuant to Article 15 of New York's Real Property Law seeking a determination of the ownership rights in a cooperative apartment, Unit Number , 35 East 76th Apartment" Street, NeW YOrk, New York (the "Carlyle Apartment"). He also pled alternative causes of action for a constructive trust and partition and sale. 8. Before any depositions were taken in the action, Plaintiff moved for summary judgment on his first cause of action, seeking a declaration from the Court that Ms. Herzer holds no ownership interest in the Carlyle Apartment and compelling the Carlyle to cancel the 2 2 of 4

4 FLED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/ NDEX NO. : /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 220 RECEVED NYSCEF: 11/22/2017 Proprietary Lease and shares issued to Plaintiff and Ms. Herzer (Motion Seq. #002). The court below granted summary judgment in Plaintiff's favor on the ground that a single document, constituted' dated January 8, 2015, constituted a clear and unambiguous agreement between Plaintiff and Herzer that demonstrated that Ms. Herzer had no ownership rights in the Carlyle Apartment. The Court ordered Defendant Carlyle Owners Corporation to cancel (i) the proprietary lease which named Plaintiff and Herzer as joint tenants with rights of survivorship and (ii) the shares in the apartment that belonged to Herzer. While Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was pending, and after Plaintiff's counsel refused to produce Plaintiff for deposition, Herzer moved by order to show cause for an order directing Plaintiff's mental examination. The court below denied Herzer's motion on the ground that Plaintiff's causes of action did not place his mental health "in issue." 9. Herzer seeks to reverse the court below's decision granting Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the grounds that: i) There are material issues of fact, and issues of law, concerning the validity and enforceability of the January 8, 2015 "Agreement" relied upon by the court below in reaching its decision including whether: the document was superseded by a subsequent agreement between the parties which contains a merger clause; Herzer was fraudulently induced into signing the document; and Plaintiff's signature on the document was forged; ii) Contrary to the court below's finding, Herzer did not admit that her understanding of the agreement between she and Plaintiff with respect to the Carlyle Apartment was memorialized in the January 8, 2015 document; iii) The court below failed to consider extrinsic evidence regarding the parties' intent; and iv) There are material issues of fact as to whether the Carlyle Apartment was an inter 3 3 of 4

5 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 246 RECEVED NDEX NYSCEF: NO / /09/2018 F LED : NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/2 2 / : 14 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 220 RECEVED NYSCEF: 11/22/2017 vivos gift or provided Herzer any other form of ownership interest in the Carlyle Apartment. v) The court below should have dismissed Plaintiff's alternative causes of action. Herzer also seeks to reverse the court below's decision denying Herzer's motion to compel Plaintiff's mental examination on the ground that Plaintiff's mental capacity is in controversy. Dated: New York, New York November 22,-2017 Respectfully Submitted, NESENOFF & MLTENBERG, LLP By: /s/ Andrew T. Miltenberg Andrew T. Miltenberg, Esq. Philip A. Byler, Esq. Kara L. Gorycki 363 Seventh Avenue, Fifth Floor New York, New York (212) amiltenberg@nmilplaw.com pbyler@nmilplaw.com kgorycki@nmilplaw.com -and- LAW OFFCES OF JEFFREY LCHTMAN By: /s/ Jeffrey Lichtman Jeffrey Lichtman 44* 11 East Street, Suite 501 New York, New York (212) jhl@jeffreylichtman.com Attorneys for Defendant-Appellant Manuela Herzer 4 4 of 4

6 F L ED: NEW Y ORK COUNTY CL E RK 11 / -22 / :14 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 221 RECEVED NYSCEF: 11/22/2017 KXHB'' EXHBT A

7 FLED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/22/ :14 NDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 221 RECEVED NYSCEF: 11/22/2017 (F LED : NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10 / 27 / : 12 NDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 163 RECEVED NYSCEF: 10/27/2017 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK SUMNER M. REDSTONE, ndex No /2016 Plaintiff, - vs - AS Part 47 Hon. Erika M. Edwards, J.S.C. MANUELA HERZER and HOTEL CARLYLE OWNERS CORPORATON, NOTCE OF ENTRY Defendants. PLEASE TAKE NOTCE that the attached is a true copy of the Order and Judgment that was entered in the office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court, New York County, on October 26, Dated: October 27, 2017 New York, New York /s/ Howard. Elman Howard. Elman, Esq. Judd R. Spray, Esq. Yelena Rapoport, Esq. MATALON SHWEKY ELMAN PLLC 450 Seventh Avenue, 33rd Floor New York, New York (212) By NYSCEF to: Damian L. Albergo COLE SCHOTZ P.C Avenue of the Americas Suite 1900 New York, New York (212) of 12

8 NDEX NO. FLED : NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/22/ : /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 221 RECEVED NYSCEF: 11/22/2017 ÈÏLED : NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/27 / : 12 PM) NYSCEF DOC. NO. 163 RECEVED NYSCEF: 10/27/2017 Ronald N. Richards THE LAW OFFCES OF RONALD RCHARDS & ASSOCATES, A.P.C. P.O. Box Beverly Hills, California (310) Attorneys for Defendant Manuela Herzer Dale J. Degenshein STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP 180 Maiden Lane New York, New York (212) Attorneys for Defendant Hotel Carlyle Owners Corp of 12

9 (FLED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/22/ :14 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 221 RECEVED NYSCEF: 11/22/2017 FLED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/2U/2017 inb:3.s NYSCEF DOC. NO. 162 RECEVED NYSCEF: 10/2U/2017 O" SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY O' NEW YORK PRESENT: HON.ERlKAM, EDWARDS Justice ' PART ~+ index Number : /2016 REDSTONE, SUMNER M. CASti,' (:/.Sii' vs THSSANFALEDCASE '4'HS 0'81S HERZER, MANUELA ALL DOCUMENTs M.UST Sequence Number : 002 ) FD 0 ) p y SUMMARY JUDGMENT NDEXNO. MOTONDATE MOTONSEQ.NO. QOQ The following papers, numbered 1 to _, were read on this motion to/for Notice of Motion/Order to Show Cause - Affidavite -Exhibits No(s)., Answering Affidavits - Exhibits 4) No(a). Renlving Affidavits Upon the foregoing papers, it is ordered that this motion is 4) No(s). DECDED AS PER ATTACHED DECSON AND ORDER D 0 O. O W CO Ww m ~ 0 u uj 0O g (() p ~Ups QQut4< (PF.. os~ 0' pq 2QAl 2 ~t g G~Peso ~G ~ gg+5. pygmy. / Dated:, J.S.C. HON.ER1KAM.EDWARDS 1. CHECK ONE:... O CASE DSPOSED gf fk NON-FNAL DSPOSTON 2. CHECK AS APPROPRATE:...,,...MOTON S: yf GRANTED O DENED OGRANTED N PART O OTHER 3. CHECK F APPROPRATE: APPROPRATE'... O SETTLE ORDER O SUBMT ORDER.0 DO NOT POST O FDUCARY APPONTMENT O REFERENCE t af of 1Q

10 {FLED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/22/ :14 PM) NYSCEF DOC. NO. 221 RECEVED NYSCEF: 11/22/2017 [FLED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/28/2017.JLS.:3.S NYSCEF DOC. NO. 162 RECEVED NYSCEF: 10/28/201. SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: PART " eo.' A ~VVl /V~ wow NO. ~VS+o /-( -v- MOTONDATE MOTONSEQ.NO. The following papers, numbered 1 to,, were read on this motion to/for Notice of Motion/Order to Show Cause - Affidavits - Exhibits. / No(s). Answering Affidavits - Exhibits. ) No(s). Replying Affidavits ) No(s). Upon the foregoing papers, it is ordered that this motion is HgED AS PER ATTACHED DECFS ON AND ORDER V t 0 0 e Q ' QQ$$6~~~ C~RKSOR' N ~ O o ~ GOO~>~gggg...-+-' O Dated:, J,S.C. Ho~ FRT at. ft)ur~ 1. CHECK ONE:... D CASE DSPOSED P OÑ- POSmON 2. CHECK AS APPROPRATE:...MOTON S: O GRANTED Pf DENED O GRANTED N PART O OTHER 3. CHECK F APPROPRATE:... SETTLE ORDER SUBMT ORDER DO NOT POST FDUCARY APPOiNTMENT REFERENCE g of. g

11 NDEX NO. FLED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/22/ : /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 221 RECEVED NYSCEF: 11/22/2017 (F LED : NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK ER:319 PM NYSCEF DOC. NG. 162 RECEVED NYSCEF: 10/25/201 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK SUMNER M. REDSTONE, ' ndex No /2016 Plaintiff, DECSON/ORDER v. Motion Seq. 002 and 003 : MANUELA HERZER and HOTEl- HOTEL OWNERS.CORPORATON, CARLYLE Defendants.. Recitation, as required by CPLR 2219(a), of the papers considered in the review of this motion: Papers. Numbered Notice of Motion, Order to Show Cause and Affidavits/.. Affirmations/Memos of Law annexed 1 2.Answering Answering. Affidavits/Affirmations and Memos 3, 4 of Law annexed Affidavits/Affirmations and Memos of Law Reply -. 5, 6 annexed ERKA M. EDWARDS, J.: Plaintiff Sumner M. Redstone ("Redstone") brings this action against Defendants (" Carlyle" Manuela Herzer ("Herzer") and Hotel Carlyle Owners Corporation ("Carlyle") (collectively "Defendants" "Defendants") to quiet title to cooperative apartment number in The Carlyle Hotel, 76th located at 35 East Street, New York, New York. Redstone's causes of action pled in the alternative include compelling the determination of a claim to real property, for imposition of a constructive trust and for partition and sale. Herzer asserts numerous affirmative defenses, including that Redstone intended to make an inter vives gift of the apartment to Herzer. Redstone moves under motion sequence 002 for summary judgment prior to discovery on its First Cause of Action for a declaration that Herzer has no valid claim to any ownership interest in the apartment, pursuant to Art. 15 of thereal Property Actions and Proceedings Law 5 of 10

12 (FLED:_ N_EW_YOR_K COUNTY CLERK 11/22/ :14 NDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 221 RECEVED NYSCEF: 11/22/2017 FLED : NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10 / 2 B 2017 mb : l a PMl! (RPAPL), to compel Carlyle to cancel Redstone's and Herzer's proprietary lease and 2,110 new' shares that it issued to them as joint tenants and to compel Carlyle to issue a new proprietary, lease and new shares solely to Redstone, Herzer opposes the motion and argues in substance that Redstone's motion is premature because he refused to provide any responses to Herzer's ' discovery.demands, nor to appear for a deposition or mental examination. Herzer contends that the parties' intent is in dispute, it cannot be resolved on summary judgment, the January 8* purpo'rted agreement is irrelevant, it does not constitute an agreement because there was no consideration, it is ambiguous and unenforceable. Alternatively, Herzer argues that material issues of fact remain to be tried and that Redstone lacks the capacity and intent to bring this claim. For the reasons set forth herein the court grants Redstone's motion for summary judgment his favor as against Defendants on his First Cause of Action and finds that Herzer has no valid ownership claim to the apartment based on the intent of the parties as set forth in their prior dated January 8, Herzer moves by order to show cause under motion sequence 003 for the court to modify certain dates in the Preliminary Conference Order dated May 25, 2017, and to compel Redstone to submit to a mental competency examination on an expedited basis. Redstone opposes the ' order to show cause for various reasons. Herzer argues in substance that Redstone lacks the mental capacity to prosecute this action in his own name or to revoke any gifts he made to her, including the gift Èf of the co-op apartment based on his alleged rapidly declining physical and emotional health. The court denies Herzer's order to show cause on its merits and determines. that Herzer failed to demonstrate her entitlement to such mental examination in this case. The forth' court finds that the clear and unambiguous terms of the parties' prior agreement sets forth Redstone's intent and determines that the claims in Redstone's complaint do not place his mental 2 ii of 1ii

13 FLED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/22/ :14 NDEX NO. PM) /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 221 RECEVED NYSCEF: 11/22/2017 (FLED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10 / DS : PM.NYSCEF o' DOC. NO RFF'F TVFD NY C 'PP - 1 A / 9 f9a7 condition in issue. Additionally, the court denies Herzer's order to show cause as moot, since the court grants summary judgment in Plaintiff's favor on his First Cause of Action. Redstone and Herzer were previously romantically involved and they maintained a close friendship for many years. There is a related pending action in California regarding Redstone's allegations that Herzer and another Sydney. ex-girlfriend, Sydney Holland, manipulated and emotionally.. abused Redstone to improperly take his money. Herzer previously deposed Redstone in California on a limited issue involving revocation of his healthcare proxy. n the instant matter, Redstone solely purchased the co-op apartment from a holding company for $3.75 million on March 6, Redstone and Herzer entered into a long-term proprietary lease with Defendant Carlyle as joint tenants with right to survivorship. However, on January 8, 2015, prior to the closing, Redstone and Herzer entered into a written agreement, which confirmed a previous oral agreement, that Redstone intended to give the apartment to Herzer as a gift at his death, but "[t]o avoid probate and for other reasons of convenience, [Redstone and Herzer] will take title to the Apartment as joint tenants with right of survivorship." The parties also agreed that Herzer would be added to the contract as a joint purchaser and that Redstone was providing all the consideration for the purchase. However, the agreement specifically stated that Redstone "does not intend to make a current gift" of the apartment to Herzer and Herzer acknowledged that "notwithstanding that the Apartment is held in [Redstone's and Herzer's] names as joint tenants with right of survivorship, until [Redstone's] death, the Apartment belongs exclusively to [Redstone]." To prevail on a motion for summary judgment, the movant must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient admissible evidence to demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact (Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 i 3 s9 uf of ii) 10

14 NYSCEF [FLED DOC. : NO. NEW246YORK RECEVED NYSCEF: 02/09/2018 COUNTY CLERK 11/22/ :14 NDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 221 RECEVED NYSCEF: 11/22/2017 FLED : NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10 / 2 8 / 2017 ll B : 3i B PM) nectivlÿ tris cer. ro z a /2 u1, NY2d 557, 562 [1980}; Jacobsen v New fork City Health and Hospitals Corp., 22 NY3d 824, 833 [2014] ; Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986}). The submission of s evidentiary proof must be in admissible form (Friends of Animals v Associated Fur Mfrs., 46 NY2d 1065, [1979]). flie movant's initial burden is a heavy one and on a motion for summary judgment, facts must be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party (Jacobsen, 22 NY3d at 833; William J. Jenack Estate Appraisers and Auctioneers, nc. v. Rabizadeh, 22 NY3d 470, 475 [2013]). f the moving party fails to make such prima facie showing, then the court is required to deny the motion, regardless of the sufficiency of the non-movant's papers (Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Center, 4 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]). However, if the moving party meets its burden, then the burden shifts to the party opposing the motion to establish by admissible evidence the existence of a factual issue requiring a trial of the action or tender an acceptable excuse for his failure to do so (Zuckerman, 49 NY2d at 560;.Jacobsen, 22 NY3d at 833 ; Vega v Restani. Construction Corp., 18 NY3d 499, 503 [2012]). Summary judgment is "often termed a drastic remedy and will not be granted if there is any doubt as to the existence of a triable issue" (Siegel, NY Prac 278 at 476 [5* ed 2011], citing Moskowitz v Garlock, 23 AD2d 943 [3d Dept 1965]). Generally, parties to an agreement are free to tailor their contract to meet their particular needs and to include or exclude provisions as they see fit (Grace v Nappa, 46 NY2d 560, [1979]). Absent some indicia of fraud or other circumstances warranting equitable intervention, the court has a duty to enforce the terms of the agreement (id. [internal citations onutted]). When. the relevant terms of an agreement are clear and unambiguous, the intentions of the parties are apparent and the court is prohibited from altering the terms of the contract (see Osprey Partners, LLC v Bank of N Y Mellon Corp., 115 AD3d 561, [1" Dept 2014])..4 8 of lrr

15 FLED: NEW YORK OUNTY CLERK 11/22/2017 NDEX NO :14_PM) O/ 2 O1 6 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 221 RECEVED NYSCEF: 11/22/2017 FXLED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10 / D12 : la PM) eear a=. a. 1. halvau mscse: 10/2s/201 ; - The court has considered the arguments raised by Herzer in her opposition to this motion and finds them to be unpersuasive. The court determines that Redstone established his right to summary judgment in his favor as a matter of law based on the evidence presented and Herzer's attempts to raise disputed material issues of fact to preclude summary judgment fail. Here, the terms of the agreement are clear and unambiguous and the agreement expressly sets forth the parties' intent. Therefore, the court is precluded from looking outside of the four corners of the. agi'eement to consider alternative intentions of the parties, alternative interpretations of certain terms or alternative clauses. Redstone did not intend to make an inter.vives gift of the apartment to Herzer and he only intended to give it to her upon his death. Additionally, Herzer would not be entitled to the apartment even upon Redstone's death solely based upon this agreement. Redstone retained exclusive ownership of the apartment throughout his lifetime. Herzer understood that she had no ownership rights to the apartment during Redstone's lifetime, but now improperly wishes to assert such claim. The parties clearly set forth their intentions and explained why Herzer's name would appear on the proprietary lease and shares. Therefore, the fact that the First Aitiendment to the Contract of Sale,-the proprietary deed'and shares all include Herzer were anticipated and explained in the January 802 agreement. Even though the subsequent agreement has a merger clause and does not reference the previous agreement not to convey present ownership rights to Herzer does not raise the issue qf the parties' intent and preclude summary judgment. Here, the parties intended for such documents to be sufficient to convey such rights upon Redstone's death to avoid probate. However, based on the parties' previous agreement, the parties did not intend for the proprietary lease and shares to give Herzer present ownership rights to the apartment of 19

16 FLED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/22/ :14 PM) NYSCEF DOC. NO. 221 RECEVED NYSCEF: 11/22/2017 F LE D : NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10 / 2 B / 2017 E B : 1 B f the court were to consider the surrounding circumstances and equitable considerations, then the facts also lead to the same same conclusion that Herzer has no ownership rights in the apartment Redstone paid all the money.to purchase and maintain the apartment. He paid the. purchase price, closing costs, renovations and redecoration of the apartment and all of the monthly maintenance andassessmentfees. Additionally, the closing documents for the purchase of the apartment were solely in his name. However, as Redstone and Herzer agreed, Redstone permitted Herzer to be named on the proprietary lease as a joint tenant with right to survivorship solely to avoid probate and to make it easier for Herzer to possess the apartment upon his death. ' Herzer admitted that she understood this arrangement when she signed the agreement..herzer Herzcr does not dispute that she signed and understood the agreement, but disputes whether Redstone signed it and if so, whether he understood what he was signing and whether he intended to make an inter vivos gift of the apartment to Herzer. The court relies on -the supporting evidence and does not find there to be a valid question of fact as to Redstone's intent sufficient to preclude summary judgment in his favor, even without discovery. As such, no discovery is needed, his mental state is not in issue based on the agreement and the allegations set forth in his complaint and the court grants summary judgment in Redstone's favor as against Defendants on his First Cause of Action and denies Herzer's order to show cause in its entirety. As such it is hereby ORDERED that under motion sequence 002 the court GRANTS Plaintiff.Sumner M. Redstone's motion for summary judgment in his favor as against Defendants Manuela Herzer and Hotel Carlyle Owners Corporation on Plaintiff's First Cause of Action in his complaint without costs;and it is further 6. E ocff 11CQ

17 FLED : NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/22/ :14 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 221 RECEVED NYSCEF: 11/22/2017 [F LED : NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10 / DS : 3LB NYRCFR DOC. NO, 163 1<EUE1VED NYNUEFT 10/24/2]il-"/ ADJUDGED and DECLARED that Defendant Manuela Herzer has no valid claim to any 35' ownership interest in apartment number , located at 35 East 76th Street, New York, New York; and it is further ADJUDGED and DECLARED that the court directs Defendant Notel Carlyle Owners Corporation to cancel the proprietary lease and 2,110 shares for this apartment that it issued to Plaintiff.Sumner M. Redstone and Defendant Manuela Herzer as joint tenants with right of. survivorship and directs Defendant Hotel Carlyle Owners Corporation to issue a new proprietary. lease and riew shares for the apartment solely to Plaintiff Sumner McRedstone; and that it is further ORDERED that under motion sequence 003, the court DENES Defendant.Manuela Herzer's order to show cause seeking a modification of certain dates in the court's Preliminary Conference Order dated May 25,2017, and to compel Plaintiff Sumner M. Redstone to submit to a mental competency examination on an expedited basis; and it is further ORDERED that the parties must appear for a status conference before Justice Erika M. Edwards to discuss the remaining claims, on December 7, 2017, at 11:00 a.rn., at 80 Centre Street, New York, New York, unless all remaining claims, counterclaims and cross-claims, if any, are voluntarily discontinued prior to this date. Date: October 23, LE OCT co9mveummm NEWYQWR D 4ON, ÈRKA M. E$WÁRDS de t 7

18 (FLED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/22/ :14 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 221 RECEVED NYSCEF: 11/22/2017 '.NDEx lndex. NO /2016. FLED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/ B!B:3 NYSCEF DOC. NO RECEVED NYSCEF: 10/28/2017 ALsqeg 3tL~v ~f. ~47 r /..1 P Ag PLp j) OCT 2 b 2017 y~, ' LR$ ~ (gppg p r '\ 4! 10 'of 10