At an IAS Part of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, at IAS General Assignment Part 7: Room 345 held in and for the County, City and State of New York, at the Courthouse located at 60 Centre Street, New York, NY 10007 on the day of, 2018. PRESENT: Hon. GERALD LEBOVITS, J.S.C. SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NASSAU ELRAC LLC d/b/a ENTERPRISE RENT- A-CAR, Plaintiff ~ against ~ STEVEN FELDMAN, Defendant Index No.: 158466/2015 Defendants ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Motion Sequence #4 Sirs: Upon the reading and filing of the annexed affirmation of Kevin Phillip Krupnick, Esq. attorney for defendant, and upon the pleadings, prior orders, court filings and the documents annexed hereto as Exhibits A through AA, together with all of the prior proceedings held in and for the captioned matters, presently pending in the New York State Supreme Court, County of New York had heretofore; Let the plaintiff, ELRAC LLC d/b/a ENTERPRISE RENT-A- CAR,and/or her attorneys show cause at an IAS General Assignment Part 7 Room 345 of the Supreme Court of the State of New York,
County of New York, at the courthouse located at 60 Centre Street, New York, NY 10007, on the day of, 20 at 9:30 a.m. or as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard, as to: Why an order should not be made and entered by this court granting to all of the above named defendants: 1. An order vacating the default judgment rendered by Hon. Gerald Lebovits, JSC, on the 1 st day of November, 2018 in favor of plaintiff, and entered on the 5 th day of November, 2018 by the Clerk of the Supreme Court of Nassau County, and restoring the captioned matter to the Court s calendar. 2. Defendant s application restoring the captioned matter to the Court s calendar pursuant to CPLR 5015 and/or CPLR 317 seeking to vacate and set aside the default judgment and order entered on or about the 26 th day of January, 2018 ( the judgment ), in favor of plaintiff against the defendant in it s entirety upon the grounds that: a. The instant show cause motion has been interposed by defendant within one year of time since the date that plaintiff obtained a default judgment against defendant herein; and b. Defendant s delay in response to plaintiff s motion was an excusable default on the part of defendant; and c. Defendant has a meritorious defense against plaintiff; and 3. Denying plaintiff s motion dated October 10, 2018 seeking an order (a) pursuant to CPLR 3126 striking the pleading
of defendant; (b) precluding the defendant from offering testimonial and documentary evidence in support of Defendant s position in this action at trial; (c) resolving against the defendant all issues; (c) directing defendant to pay costs and expenses, including plaintiff s attorneys fees, occasioned by his contempt and multiple violations of Court orders and discovery violations; and (d) for such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper; and 4. Denying plaintiff s motion dated October 10, 2018, because said motion fails to contain necessary exhibits, specifically the Pleadings interposed in the captioned matter, and this is a patent defect in the plaintiff s motion; and 5. Denying plaintiff s motion dated October 10, 2018 as plaintiff failed to comply with the New York Supreme Court Part 7 Rules, pertaining to motion practice, specifically Section D. Disclosure Motions which clearly states Disclosure motions are strongly discouraged. If a disclosure dispute arises, a party may, instead of filing a motion, request an expedited conference by calling the Part Clerk. Conferences requested on an expedited basis will be granted only at the Court s discretion. If a party has made a formal disclosure motion a conference will be scheduled for the same date as oral argument and will be conducted before counsel is heard on the motion No conference was scheduled on the courts calendar prior to plaintiff interposing Plaintiff s October 10, 2018 motion, thus it seems reasonable to conclude that once again, plaintiff failed to request an expedited conference by calling the Part Clerk in Part 7 prior to making yet a second disclosure motion seeking to strike the defendant s answer, despite the fact that plaintiff has not yet interposed a response at all whatsoever to Defendant s Demand for a
Verified Bill of Particulars, said demand dated December 2, 2015; and 6. An order pursuant to 22 NYCRR Part 130, finding (i) plaintiff s motion is and was frivolous; (ii) Sanctioning the plaintiff for interposing a frivolous motion and failing to comply with the Part 7 Rules; and (iii) An order directing plaintiff to to pay to defendant s counsel fees in the amount of $2,500.00 for having to respond to plaintiff s motion; and PLAINTIFF S FAILURE TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANT S DISCOVERY DEMANDS 7. Granting to defendant an order pursuant to CPLR 3126 a) Striking the pleading of plaintiff; b) Precluding the plaintiff from offering testimonial and/or documentary evidence in support of plaintiff s causes of action at trial; c) Resolving against the plaintiff all issues; d) Directing plaintiff to pay costs and expenses, including defendant s reasonable attorney fees, in the amount of $2,500.00 due to plaintiff s failure to respond to defendant s demands, specifically: i. Defendant s Demand for a Bill of Particulars dated December 2, 2015; ii. Defendant s Demand for Discovery and Inspection dated December 2, 2015; and
iii. Failure to comply with Defendant s Notice and Demand for an Examination Before Trial, dated December 2, 2015, specifically the EBT of ANWAR ISMAEL, member of plaintiff ELRAC, LLC and the person who allegedly verified plaintiff s complaint in the captioned matter; and 8. Granting to defendant a decision determining that plaintiff s refusal to provide any meaningful response to defendant s demands and plaintiff s interposing two disclosure motions, both failing to comply with the Part 7 Rules for same, while said plaintiff-movant (Motion Sequence #1 & #3) has all out failed to produce a response to Defendant s Demand for a Bill of Particulars or a meaningful response to Defendant s Demands for Discovery and Inspection, constitute nothing less than plaintiff s complete and total failure to comply with this court s preliminary conference order and the provisions set forth under New York CPLR 3126, yet plaintiff has now made a second disclosure motion to this court alleging defendant s failure to comply with plaintiff s discovery demands is outrageous conduct worthy of sanctions pursuant to 22 NYCRR Part 130. DISMISSING PLAINTIF S THREE CAUSES OF ACTION SOUNDING IN BREACH OF CONTRACT PURSUANT TO CPLR 3211(a)(5) 9. Dismissing Plaintiff s First Cause of Action Breach of Contract ; Second Cause of Action Promissory Estoppel ; and Fourth Cause of Action Breach of Contract pursuant to NY CPLR 3211(a)(5), as these causes of action may not be maintained by plaintiff because the Statute of Frauds precludes this court from granting any ruling in plaintiff s favor and defendant has
raised this as an affirmative defense in his Verified Complaint dated December 2, 2015; DISMISSING PLAINTIF S CAUSE OF ACTION SOUNDING IN FRAUD PURSUANT TO CPLR 3016(b) and 3211(a)(5) 10. Dismissing Plaintiff s Third Cause of Action Fraud pursuant to NY CPLR 3016(b), as plaintiff s cause of action based upon fraud, fails to plead the circumstances constituting the wrong plaintiff alleges in detail in the verified complaint, and also has failed to respond to Defendant s Demand for a Bill of Particulars dated December 2, 2015; 11. Dismissing Plaintiff s Third Cause of Action Fraud pursuant to NY CPLR 3211(a)(7), as plaintiff had failed to state a cause of action; 12. Granting to defendant an award of reasonable legal fees in defending this frivolous litigation interposed by plaintiff in the amount of $45,000.00; and 13. Such other and further relief the court deems just and proper under the circumstances. Now upon motion of Kevin Phillip Krupnick, Esq., attorney for defendant STEVEN FELDMAN., and sufficient cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY Ordered pursuant to New York County Supreme Court Part 7 Rules, B. Orders to Show Cause hard Copies of opposition papers to this motion are to be submitted to the Part Clerk for Part 7, Room 345, at Supreme Court of the State of New York, 60 Centre Street, New York, NY 10007 on or before the day of, 20 ;
Ordered that opposition papers to this motion are to be served upon counsel for defendant on or before the day of, 20 on or before the day of, 2018 pursuant to CPLR and/or CPLR ; Therefore, now LET service of this order together with the supporting papers upon which it is granted upon the plaintiff, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, be made upon plaintiff s attorneys RIVKIN RADLER LLP Evan R. Schieber, Esq Attorneys for Plaintiff ELRAC LLC d/b/a ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR 477 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10022 on behalf of the Plaintiff, pursuant to CPLR or CPLR on or before the day of, 201_ be deemed good and sufficient service. ENTER JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT
Index No. 158466/2015 Year Filed: 2018 SUPREME COURT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK ELRAC LLC d/b/a ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR, Plaintiff - against - STEVEN FELDMAN, Defendant Attorney for Defendant STEVEN FELDMAN KEVIN P. KRUPNICK, ESQ Office and Post Office Address 56 Hammond Road Glen Cove, NY 11542 516-592-2820 kpkkrupnick@gmail.com Defendant s Order to Show Cause Motion Sequence #4 To: RIVKIN RADLER LLP Attorneys for Plaintiff ELRAC LLC d/b/a ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR 477 Madison Avenue 20 th Floor New York, NY 10022 Pursuant to: 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 Certification: KEVIN P. KRUPNICK, Esq.