Phoenix Life Ins. Co. v Town of Oyster Bay

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Phoenix Life Ins. Co. v Town of Oyster Bay 2017 NY Slip Op 33253(U) November 30, 2017 Supreme Court, Nassau County Docket Number: 605451/2016 Judge: Linda S. Jamieson Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [*FILED: 1] NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 02/16/2018 04:35 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 89 INDEX NO. 605451/2016 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/16/2018 --------------------------------·-~--· To commence the statutory time period for appeals as ofright (CPLR § 5513 [a]), you are advised to serve copy of this order, with notice of entry, upon all parties. a Disp __ Seq. Nos. _2-311-2_ Dec_x_ Type _stay_ SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW'YORK COUNTY OF NASSAU -----------------------.-----------------x PHOENIX LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Index No. 605451/2016 Plaintiff, DECISION AND ORDER -againstTOWN OF OYSTER BAY, Defendant. --------------------c--------"---C------X TOWN OF OYSTER BAY, Index No. 606132/2017 Plaintiff, DECISION AND ORDER -againstHARENDRA SINGH, S.R.B. CONVENTION & CATERING CORP., SRB CONCESSION, INC., HVS TAPPAN BEACH, INC., RUBY SINGH, FREDERICK MEI, HARRIS BEACH, PLLC,, WILLIAM J. GARRY, PHOENIX LIFE INSURANCE co., and PHL VARIABLE INSURANCE CO., Defendants. -----------------------------------------x The following papers numbered 1 to 13 were read on these motions: Paper Number Notice of Motion 1 Affirmation and Exhibits 2 Memorandum of Law 3 Notice of Motion and Memorandum'· 4 1 This document is neither an affirmation noi is it a memorandum of law. Instead, it is lust labeled 'a 1 of 5 "motion." [*FILED: 2] NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 02/16/2018 04:35 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 89 INDEX NO. 605451/2016 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/16/2018 Affirmation in Partial Opposition 5 Response and Partial Opposition 6 Reply Affirmation 7 Notice of Motion and Memorandum 8 Notice of Motion 9 Affirmation and Exhibits in Support 10 Memorandum of Law 11 Response and Partial Opposition 12 Reply Affirmation 13 There are four motions before.,,., the Court in these two cases arising ou·t of a series of transactions among the parties in which serious sums of money were involved. actions are not Although the two (yet) consolidated,' the Court decides these motions together for practical purposes·. identical motions in each action. There are two virtually In the Phoenix case, the first motion is filed by non-parties Harris Beach, PLLC and William Garry (collectively, "Harris Beach"). It seeks a protective order staying any proceedings concerning four subpoenas served on them pending the completion of a criminal trial scheduled to start on January 16, 2018 in the Eastern District of New York (the "criminal trial"). The second motion in the Phoenix case, filed by the Acting United States Attorney for the Eastern 2In a conference on the Phoenix Life. Insurance Company ("Phoenix") case, Index No. 605451/2016, on November 20, 2017, both parties agreed with the Court that these cases should be consolidated at some point in the near future. 2 2 of 5 [*FILED: 3] NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 02/16/2018 04:35 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 89 INDEX NO. 605451/2016 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/16/2018 District of New York. (the "Government") seeks both to intervene in the action and to stay the proceedings pending the commencement of the criminal trial, but to allow certain discovery in the meantime. In the action filed by the Town of Oyster Bay (the "Town"), Index No. 606132/2017, there are two similar motions. motion, The first filed by Harris Beach, seeks to stay the action. The second motion, filed by the Government, seeks to intervene and to stay the proceedings. On November 20, 2017, the court held a conference in the Phoenix action. Counsel for these parties appeared, and explained to the Court that all of the parties (and the Government) in both actions agree ·to the stay of both actions. The Court concurs. the stay. The only iss.ue appears to be the duration of At this point, the Court will only stay these cases until a verdict is rendered. Should something occur to suggest a modification of this either way, the Court will. entertain a motion to lift or extend the stay. With respect to discovery, the Court discussed it with the parties in the Phoenix case, and resolved that they would each make initial document productions, including .writ ten responses, by December 6, 2017. Any followup requests would be stayed as provided above. A review of the Government's motions .in these two cases 3 3 of 5 [*FILED: 4] NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 02/16/2018 04:35 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 89 INDEX NO. 605451/2016 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/16/2018 indicates that the sole purpose for its requests to intervene appears to be to enable it to make the motions for the stays. Since the Court has granted the stays based on the motions of Harris Beach, there does not appear to be any need for the Government' to intervene in either action. Accordingly, the motions to intervene are denied without prejudice. The next appearance in these actions is set for February 15, 2018 at 9"30 a.m. All parties on both cases shall appear. Plaintiffs in each case shall send copies of this Decision and Order to all defendants in their respective cases by overnight mail within two business days of receipt. The foregoing constitutes the decision and order of the Court. Dated: White Plains, New York November_~j 2017 ~ Supreme Court To: ENTERED Lewis Johs et al. Attorneys for Plaintiff 1 CA Plaza, #225 Islandia, NY 11749 FEB 1 6 2018 NASSAU COUNTY COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE Quinn Emanuel et al. Attorneys for Defendant 51 Madison Ave. New York, NY 10010 Greenberg Traurig, LLP Attorneys for Harris Beach 200 Park Av.e., 39'h Fl. New York, NY 10166 4 of 5 [*FILED: 5] NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 02/16/2018 04:35 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 89 INDEX NO. 605451/2016 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/16/2018 Bridget M. Rohde Acting United States Attorney 610 Federal Plaza Central Islip, NY,11722 5 5 of 5

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.