FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/06/ :46 AM INDEX NO /2012 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 279 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/06/2016

Transcription

1 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/06/ :46 AM INDEX NO /2012 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 279 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/06/2016 SUPREME COURT OF THE COUNTY OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK X HEIDI GORE and NATHANIEL S. GORE, Plaintiffs, -against- Index No /12 NARCONON GULF COAST, INC. and DEBBIE ROSS, AFFIRMATION Defendants X DENNIS HOUDEK, ESQ., an attorney duly admitted to practice before the Courts of the State of New York, affirms the truth of the following statements under the penalties of perjury: 1. I am the attorney for defendants Narconon Gulf Coast, Inc. and Debbie Ross ( defendants hereinafter), and as such I fully familiar with all of the facts, background and circumstances of this action. I submit this Affirmation in support of defendants cross-motion for an order (i) pursuant to 22 NYCRR (d) granting Defendants leave to conduct discovery after the filing of a Note of Issue and Certificate of Readiness; or, 1

2 alternatively, modifying the deadline by which a Note of Issue and Certificate of Readiness must be filed and permitting the depositions of plaintiffs to go forward; and (iii) for such other, further and different relief as the Court may deem just and proper. 2. This cross-motion is made in response to plaintiffs motion for similar relief, which defendants do not oppose. Instead, this cross-motion is being made to make sure that defendants are afforded to depose the plaintiffs herein, as those depositions fell by the wayside in the wake of plaintiffs two separate motions for discovery sanctions. Specifically, the plaintiff s first motion (Motion 004), seeking the draconian remedy of discovery sanctions and which is before the court as Docket Nos herein, with an Amended Notice of Motion before the Court as Docket No. 247, consisted of a total of three hundred eighty (380) pages, including Exhibits A-AA, i.e., twenty seven (27) separate Exhibits, eleven (11) separate case citations and seventy eight (78) factual citations. 3. This first, voluminous, motion was quickly followed up by a second motion for sanctions and which is currently before the Court as Docket Nos herein, with an Amended Notice of Motion before the Court as Docket No. 248 herein. This second motion for the draconian remedy of discovery sanctions consisted of a total of four hundred eighty six (486) 2

3 pages, including Exhibits A-FF, i.e., thirty two (32) separate Exhibits, thirteen (13) separate legal citations and seventy (70) separate factual citations. 4. These first two (2) motions were followed by a third motion to extend the discovery time and which is before the Court as Docket No and Motion 006 and which is the subject of this cross-motion. This third motion totaled forty four (44) pages and contains six (6) separate legal citations and four (4) separate factual citations. 5. Accordingly, I was served with a total of nine hundred ten (910) pages of motion papers, including sixty one (61) separate Exhibits, thirty (30) separate case citations and one hundred fifty two (152) separate factual citations. 6. Needless to say, such a blizzard of paper led plaintiffs deposition to fall by the wayside, and this cross-motion is being filed in an excess of caution to remedy that situation. 7. In an excess of caution, I note that this Court can take judicial notice of my previously filed opposition to the companion motion. Indeed, this Court can and must take judicial notice of all of the documents from the prior proceedings and draw its own conclusions as to their force and effect. A court may take judicial notice of its records and files. Walker v. City of New 3

4 York, 46 A.D.2d 278 (1 st Dept. 2007). A court may take judicial notice of a record in the same court concerning either the pending matter or of some other action. Allen v. Strough, 301 A.D.2d 11 (2d Dept. 2002). A court may take judicial notice of prior judicial proceedings though in a different court and involving different parties. Matter of Justin EE, 153 A.D.2d 772 (3d Dept. 1989); Mendelovitz v. Cohen, 26 Misc.3d 1230(A) (Sup. Ct. Kings Cty. 2010). This settled law is based on common sense considerations of judicial economy. See, e.g., In re Aerial Transit Co., 190 Bankr. 464 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 1990) (judicial notice should be taken so as not to grind the same corn twice ); In re Applin, 108 Bankr. 253 (Bankr. E.D. Cal. 1989) (judicial notice of basic filings in all proceedings). WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons it is respectfully submitted that defendants cross-motion motion should be granted in each and every respect, and defendants granted such other, further and different relief as the Court may deem just and proper. Dated: New York, New York January 5, 2016 s/ DENNIS HOUDEK, ESQ. 4

5 5