Defendant, -and- ANTONIA SHAPOLSKY, SABRINA SHAPOLSKY, CHANTAL MEYERS, and JOHN DOES 1-100, Relief Defendants.

Transcription

1 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Index No.: /2013 COUNTY OF NEW YORK JUDITH GHEDINI, (Revised Per Judgment Clerk) Plaintiff, Notice of Settlement of -against- Proposed Order & Judgment ARTHUR SHAPOLSKY, with Certified Bill of Costs Defendant, -and- ANTONIA SHAPOLSKY, SABRINA SHAPOLSKY, CHANTAL MEYERS, and JOHN DOES 1-100, Relief Defendants. Please take notice that the proposed order and judgment with certified bill of costs annexed hereto shall be submitted to the Honorable Charles E. Ramos for settlement on the 1st day of September, 2016, at 9:30 am, Part 53, 60 Centre Street, New York, New York Please take further notice that attached hereto are the following documents: Affirmation of Richard E. Lerner in support of entry of order directing entry of judgment. Plaintiff s proposed order directing entry of judgment. Plaintiff s proposed judgment. Plaintiff s certified bill of costs and disbursements. Dated: New York, New York August 24, 2016 Respectfully submitted, THE LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD E. LERNER, P.C. To: (Via electronic filing) Cardenas Law Office Attn: J. Roberto Cardenas, Esq. Counsel for the defendants 119 West 57th Street, Suite 1215 New York, New York (Phone) By: Richard E. Lerner Attorney for plaintiff Judith Ghedini 122 West 27th Street, 10th Floor New York, New York (Phone) (Fax) richardlerner@msn.com 1 1 of 10

2 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Index No.: /2013 COUNTY OF NEW YORK JUDITH GHEDINI, Plaintiff, Affirmation of Richard E. Lerner -against- ARTHUR SHAPOLSKY, -and- Defendant, ANTONIA SHAPOLSKY, SABRINA SHAPOLSKY, CHANTAL MEYERS, and JOHN DOES 1-100, Relief Defendants. I, Richard E. Lerner, state under penalty of perjury, pursuant to CPLR I am the principal of The Law Office of Richard E. Lerner, P.C., counsel for plaintiff Judith Ghedini. I am familiar with the facts stated herein based upon my review of the file maintained for the prosecution of this action. 2. On August 18, 2016, this court (Charles E. Ramos, JSC) signed an order directing entry of the judgment, which order was entered on August 19, The order directed that the judgment clerk enter the judgment in the form that had been proposed by the plaintiff, as to which there had been no objection by the defendant. 3. On August 22, 2016, the proposed judgment was presented to the judgment clerk, along with the order directing that the judgment clerk enter the judgment in the form that had been proposed by the plaintiff. 4. Notwithstanding that the judgment clerk had previously advised that it was necessary to obtain an order directing the entry of the judgment, when now presented with the order and the proposed judgment, the judgment clerk now advised that the order must state the sum certain that is to be adjudged, as well as the accrued interest and interest rates, and that it is not enough that the proposed judgment set forth those numbers and rates with specificity. 5. That is, the judgment clerk advised that the order must contain the same numbers as the proposed judgment, and it is insufficient for a judge to, essentially, incorporate those numbers by reference to the proposed judgment. 2 2 of 10

3 6. Aside from that, the judgment clerk further advised that certain changes needed to be made to the proposed judgment. For example, the judgment clerk advised that it should not state ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED, but only ADJUDGED, because judgment clerks don t issue orders or decrees, and only a judgment issued by the judge should use the ORDERED and DECREED language. 7. Rather than engage in a logomachy with the judgment clerk, it is, I respectfully submit, the better part of valor to do as she says she who must be obeyed as it has already taken several months to get the judgment clerk to even review the proposed judgment, and I am assured that if the order is re-issued by your Honor in the form proposed herewith, the judgment will be entered forthwith. 8. I say that with hope that it will be so, yet mindful of Hamlet s soliloquy to be or not to be and that two of the reasons he contemplated suicide were the Law s delay and the insolence of office. 9. Accordingly, I submit herewith a proposed order, and the proposed judgment, and respectfully request that the Court direct (again) that the judgment be entered forthwith. WHEREFORE, it is respectfully requested that the proposed order be issued, directing the judgment clerk to immediately enter the judgment in the form annexed. Dated: New York, New York August 23, 2016 Respectfully submitted, THE LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD E. LERNER, P.C. By: Richard E. Lerner Attorney for plaintiff Judith Ghedini 122 West 27th Street, 10th Floor New York, New York (Phone) (Fax) richardlerner@msn.com 3 3 of 10

4 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Index No.: /2013 COUNTY OF NEW YORK JUDITH GHEDINI, Plaintiff, Order -against- ARTHUR SHAPOLSKY, -and- Defendant, ANTONIA SHAPOLSKY, SABRINA SHAPOLSKY, CHANTAL MEYERS, and JOHN DOES 1-100, Relief Defendants. WHEREAS, on October 7, 2013 the summons and complaint herein was duly filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County; WHEREAS, on October 8, 2013, an amended complaint was duly filed; WHEREAS, issue was thereafter timely joined; WHEREAS, defendants Antonia Shapolsky, Sabrina Shapolsky, Chantal Meyers moved to dismiss the complaint against them on April 24, 2014, and the court granted such motion on August 13, 2014; WHEREAS, a motion for summary judgment was duly served and filed by plaintiff Judith Ghedini upon defendant Arthur Shapolsky on October 19, 2015; WHEREAS, on December 14, 2015, defendant Arthur Shapolsky timely served his opposition thereto; WHEREAS, on January 20, 2016, plaintiff Judith Ghedini timely served her reply thereto; WHEREAS, on March 31, 2016, counsel for plaintiff Judith Ghedini and counsel for defendant Arthur Shapolsky appeared before the Honorable Charles E. Ramos, Justice of the Supreme Court, and were duly heard; 4 4 of 10

5 WHEREAS, the Honorable Justice Ramos ruled in plaintiff s favor and directed that judgment be settled accordingly; WHEREAS, on August 18, 2016, this court issued an order directing the judgment clerk to enter the judgment in the form proposed by the plaintiff (without objection by the defendant), and said order was entered on August 19, 2016; WHEREAS, the judgment clerk has advised that it could not enter the judgment because said order did not recite the sum of the judgment, the accrued interest and the interest rates; it is NOW, ORDERED that the order of August 18, 2016 (entered on August 19, 2016) is vacated, and this order is substituted therefor; and it is ORDERED that the judgment clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of plaintiff Judith Ghedini, of Glenmoor Drive, West Palm Beach, Florida 33409, against defendant Arthur Shapolsky, of 99 Tripp Street, Mount Kisco, New York 10549, in the principal sum of $500,000, with interest accrued in the amount of $22, at a rate of 10% (compound interest) through August 31, 2010, for a total of $522,350.23, and plaintiff have execution therefor; and it is ORDERED that interest accrue at the rate of 9% (simple interest) on that total of $522, from September 1, 2010 through the date of entry of this judgment, and plaintiff Judith Ghedini have execution therefor against defendant Arthur Shapolsky; and it is ORDERED that plaintiff have one bill of costs and disbursements against defendant Arthur Shapolsky in the amount of $1,577.50, and plaintiff Judith Ghedini have execution therefor against defendant Arthur Shapolsky; and it is 5 5 of 10

6 ORDERED that plaintiff Judith Ghedini s complaint against defendants Antonia Shapolsky, Sabrina Shapolsky, and Chantal Meyers is dismissed with prejudice, and the clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of those defendants. Dated: New York, New York September, 2016 E N T E R: Charles E. Ramos, J.S.C. 6 6 of 10

7 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Index No.: /2013 COUNTY OF NEW YORK JUDITH GHEDINI, Plaintiff, Judgment -against- ARTHUR SHAPOLSKY, -and- Defendant, ANTONIA SHAPOLSKY, SABRINA SHAPOLSKY, CHANTAL MEYERS, and JOHN DOES 1-100, Relief Defendants. WHEREAS, on October 7, 2013 the summons and complaint herein was duly filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County; WHEREAS, on October 8, 2013, an amended complaint was duly filed; WHEREAS, issue was thereafter timely joined; WHEREAS, defendants Antonia Shapolsky, Sabrina Shapolsky, Chantal Meyers moved to dismiss the complaint against them on April 24, 2014, and the court granted such motion on August 13, 2014; WHEREAS, a motion for summary judgment was duly served and filed by plaintiff Judith Ghedini upon defendant Arthur Shapolsky on October 19, 2015; WHEREAS, on December 14, 2015, defendant Arthur Shapolsky timely served his opposition thereto; thereto; WHEREAS, on January 20, 2016, plaintiff Judith Ghedini timely served her reply WHEREAS, on March 31, 2016, counsel for plaintiff Judith Ghedini and counsel for defendant Arthur Shapolsky appeared before the Honorable Charles E. Ramos, Justice of the Supreme Court, and were duly heard; 7 7 of 10

8 WHEREAS, the Honorable Justice Ramos ruled in plaintiff s favor and directed that judgment be settled accordingly; it is NOW, on motion of plaintiff, by her counsel, The Law Office of Richard E. Lerner, P.C., it is ADJUDGED that plaintiff Judith Ghedini, of Glenmoor Drive, West Palm Beach, Florida 33409, recover from defendant Arthur Shapolsky, of 99 Tripp Street, Mount Kisco, New York 10549, in the principal sum of $500,000, with interest accrued in the amount of $22, at a rate of 10% (compound interest) through August 31, 2010, for a total of $522, as of August 31, 2010; and that interest accrue at the rate of 9% (simple interest) on that total of $522, from September 1, 2010 through the date of entry of this judgment, in the amount of $ ; and plaintiff Judith Ghedini have execution against defendant Arthur Shapolsky in the total sum of $ (i.e., $522, plus interest from September 1, 2010); and it is further ADJUDGED that plaintiff have one bill of costs and disbursements against defendant Arthur Shapolsky in the amount of $1,577.50, and plaintiff Judith Ghedini have execution therefor against defendant Arthur Shapolsky. Dated: New York, New York September, 2016 E N T E R: 8 8 of 10

9 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Index No.: /2013 COUNTY OF NEW YORK JUDITH GHEDINI, -against- ARTHUR SHAPOLSKY, -and- Plaintiff, Defendant, Bill of Costs and Disbursements ANTONIA SHAPOLSKY, SABRINA SHAPOLSKY, CHANTAL MEYERS, and JOHN DOES 1-100, Relief Defendants. TAXABLE COSTS Costs before note of issue, CPLR 8201 (1) $ Costs after note of issue, CPLR 8201 (2) $ Costs upon assessment of damages, CPLR 8201 (3) $ Cost of motion for summary judgment, CPLR 8202 $45.00 Total Taxable Costs: $ TAXABLE DISBURSEMENTS Fee for index number, CPLR 8018 (a) $ Transcript of court hearing of oral argument of MSJ, CPLR 8021 Stenographic transcriptions of EBT s of defendant Arthur Shapolsky and non-party witness Martin Lager, CPLR 8301(a)(9) $ $ Subpoena of non-party witness Martin Lager, CPLR 8301(d) $ Total Taxable Disbursements: $ TOTAL TAXABLE COSTS & DISBURSEMENTS: $1, of 10

10 ATTORNEY S CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO CPLR 2106 I, Richard E. Lerner, an attorney admitted to practice in the courts of the State of New York, affirms under penalty of perjury that I am counsel of record for plaintiff Judith Ghedini in the above-entitled action, and that the foregoing disbursements have been necessarily made or incurred in this action and are reasonable in amount and that each of the persons named as witnesses attended as such witnesses at examination before trial, and that the disbursements set forth above were actually and necessarily paid by the undersigned. Dated: New York, New York July 25, 2016 Respectfully submitted, THE LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD E. LERNER, P.C. By: Richard E. Lerner Attorney for plaintiff Judith Ghedini 122 West 27th Street, 10th Floor New York, New York (Phone) (Fax) richardlerner@msn.com of 10