Bryan v Slothower

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Bryan v Slothower 2018 NY Slip Op 32396(U) September 21, 2018 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 651014/2018 Judge: O. Peter Sherwood 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] NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/25/2018 09:08 AM INDEX NO. 651014/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 46 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/25/2018 SlJl)llE!\lF.: (:~()lJl~'"r .01~., ·ru ·~= S~fA]'E ()F' NJ£\\l YORK C<llJNT\" ()F N~W \lORK: C<>MIVIF:R(~l~z\l.. Dt'VISION I>i\Rrf 49 . . -~~------~~~-~--~~~~-~~~~---~--~~---~-----~X-. ~ i\1Al{K 81{\'AN, Dl1:ClSION ANI> Ol~llF:R J>lain.tiff., Index No.: 651014/2018 -agai11st- Mot. Seq. No.: 001 JEf,t'l~EY Sl.J()"rHQ\\'ER, BA l"''"rEil\/ )'RIV 1\ TE, I Ne·., ll1\.~fTJ.~l~Y Plil\l A'l'f.2 RE,_ LL(:~ an<l XYZC~OR.P. l-10, Dcfel1<la11ts. <>. PET~:ll SllF.:l~W<>Ofl,.~J .. : I. F. \(~TS /\.s this is a n1otion to disn1iss . the tacts are taken fron1 the C'<)111plaint (N YSf:~l:F f)oc. No. 2). Dclcndant Jeffrey Slotho'vvcr \vas plaintiff T\1ark Bryan ,s investtnent hr<.>ker \Vhilc Slotho\ver \\,.as en1ployed at Men~in Lynch bctvveen about August 2012 and l)ecember 2015. ln late 20 I 5. Slotho"'ver told l3ryan he \-vas going to start his ov1/n.firn1~ defendant Battery Private~ Inc Bryan never signed any agrcc1ncnts \Vith Battery. appli<.:ation under Bryan 'Is na1r1e \Vith Interactive Brl1kers. (liatt.ery). Slothower tclrged both an account LI.~(~ (JB) and an lnvest1nent i\dvisory Agreerncnt i()r fJatl.ery . (:ts \Veil f-1.s other docun1ents. In Scp1e1nbcr-N<.1\'en1ber~ 2016~ Bryan sent det(~ndants n1oney t<l be invested. Fron1 .11.\ugust 2016 into Novcn1ber 2017 . Slotho\vcr repeatedly reassured llryan that his invesllncnts were doing \Veil and n1aking n1oney. Slotho\ver also periodicarly n1adc s111all .. ~dividend'" payn1cnts to IJryan~ including fron1 Slotho\vcr"s ovvn funds . to convince Brvan all \Vas \VCI I. Sf()tho\ver denies these clai1ns and ofters so1Ttc do<:urnentarv... evidence in support ( l)ctendanl ~ s ivlcn10 pp 19-21 ). ln n1id-Noven1bcr 2017., Bryan instructed Slothower to sell his stoc.k in just hit an alJ-tirnc high. Slotl·10\ver infor1ncd Bryan that Br)~a11 .AJibaba~ \vhich had did not actually t)\Vn the stock and that the n1oncy \Vas gone. Slothtlwcr explained that he used the rnoncy fro1n Bryan to purchase optio11s~. \vhich did not pan <)Ut. Bryan believes Slotho'A-·er deJ~tlcatcd for h in1sel for to cover other custon1er losses. 1 2 of 9 \Vi th the funds and used thcn1 [*FILED: 2] NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/25/2018 09:08 AM INDEX NO. 651014/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 46 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/25/2018 ln IJecen1ber 1 0 l 7 '\ Slotl10\ver and Bryan entered into a Settlc1nent 1\grecn1ent to resolve the dispute. lJndcr its tcrn1s~ Slotho\vcr agreed to pay Bryan $775,0()() by f cbruary I 0 . 2018 (the Sett lenient 1\grecn1ent). Slotho\ver fhilcd lo tnake the payn1cnt.. f >laintitr asserts clain1s f()r: I) Fraudulent lnduccn1ent as lo the Scttlcn1cnt 1\grccn1ent- Slotho\ver had no intent to n1ake the required payn1cnt~ 2) Fraud against 1\ll Defendants- f(1r ~·untrue statcn1ents of n·1aterial fi1ct'.I or on1i l.ssionsf~: 3) Negligent Misrepresentation against Slotho,.ver an(l l3atlery- based on their status as 1nvcst111cnl advisor and registered representative., they had a special relationship \vith Bryan'\ and rnade untrue or 1nislcading state1nents~ 4) E~reach of Fiduciary Duty against All l)elendants- for forging llryan's sig11aturc an<.1 stealing or n1isn1anaging his funds; 5) (~on version against t\Il f)cfendants; and 6) Breach of c~ontract against SlothO\VCrSettlcn1cnt Agree1ncnt. 11. f()f failure to n1ake the payn1ent required by the 1\l{GlJlVlENTS i\ . l)efcndants' 1\rgumcnts to Dismiss l)clendanls 1novc to disn1iss the first thrt)ugh fifth causes of action pursuant to C:PI ,I{ 3211 (a)(5) ru1d (7) (based on release and lailur~ to state a clain1) (!-caving the sixth clai111~ against Slotho\vcr . for breach of the Settlcn1ent /\grcctnent.) and lo file one docu111ent (the Settlen1ent 1\grecn1ent) under seal. 111. l)JS<:lJSSl.()N A. •"'irst (~lai111, Fraudulent Inducement as to the Settlcn1ent Agreement Plaintiff seek.s to void the Settlcn1ent Agreen1ent on the grounds that dciendants rnisrcprcsentcd th~ir intent to n1ake the pay1nent' conten1plated therein and. also that at the tin1c he signed the Scttlen1cnt J\grecn1cnt'! plaintiff did not kno\·V about various n1isrcpresentations and 0111issions~ including the forgery of I~ryan 's signature on various doctu11ents (C'on1plaint ii~' 66- 69). 2 3 of 9 [*FILED: 3] NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/25/2018 09:08 AM INDEX NO. 651014/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 46 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/25/2018 Hin a fraudulent induccn1cnt i~tcL prcscnt clai111~ the alleged 111isre_presentation should be 011\: or thcn- \\hich \vould be extraneous to the contract and involve a duty separate fi·on1 or in addition to that (1npos~d by the contract ... and not 111cn.:ly a n1isreprest."ntcd intent to pcr!'onn'· (llaH>Jfu1r1u' (irou;> v l<f?J:· r--,·enlures . 7 ;\[)3d 320" 323-241 Jst [)cpl 1004J tcitations ornittedJ: see o/.,·o .l AI /}/£Ir.\'. (~· . -1 ...,-soc., Inc. ,, /.JnLlner . 6 7 .1\1)3d 718 . 74 l ['Jd I)ept. '0071 IHI al present intent to deceive n1ust be alh:g.l:d and a 1n~rc p~rfon11 under n1isreprescntatitHl of an intention to contract is insufficient to allege fi·aud""I)- l<cprcsi::ntati(lr1S of opinion. even as lo n1attcrs the or l~1cL are not representations and arc not actionable unless gunrantccd (see /.,tn7i v /?rook.\'. 54 l\f)'d l 05 7 I l '-)76 I~ t{//l:l 43 N '{ 2d 778 f l 97_7 J: J4un. /i.fela/lic /3ecl A'!/._f!,. ( ·ol1'· r /)ohhs. 25> N 'r' J 13 I 1930_1L P1ainti ff argues that Slotht)\Vcr'." s alleged preconceived intent not to pcrf()t'fll sustain the fraud in the 1nducc1ncnt cJain1 . citing i11hite v f)arit:l.-.,·on ( 1501\D3d 610~ is sufficient to 611 [lst [)ept 2017 j ). In 111hile, the First Dcpartn1ent held the plaintiff had .. "pleaded a cognizable c lain1 fi.Jr fi·audulcnt. inducen1ent based on ... 111isrepresentations'"! that the detendant bad prorniscd. or clain1ed ~-( 1) their record label \Vas highly successful and that they had }Jrcvious.ly successfully represented fi1111ous recording artists; (2) they \vould pron1otc plaintiffs 1nusic to radio ·broadcasting the.~.r venues~ (3) they \vould organize n1arketing events to pron1ote plaintifCs single; (4) \Votild organize a radio tour; and (5) they \Votild prornotc the re-release of the single around ' \/ alentine's Day 201 S.... (icl ). 'l'hc C(>Urt ft)und that these n1isre1>resentations \Vere collateral to the agreen1ent a( issue and thcrcf(1rc could supJJOrl the clain1 asserted (it./. at 611-12). representation at issue here., that de.lcndant \Vould pay plaintiff., is not collateral to th~ The contract. It is a ten11 of the a2:reen1ent. ...... l)l'1inti11~ also relics t>n iVeckles /Juil<.lers, Inc. v Turner ( 117 AI>3d 923~ 924 f2d lJcpt 2014]). In that case'! the Second Dcpartn1ent staled that. '° .. [,v]here the grava111en of the alleged fraud does not arise fron1 the n1crc failure of a promisor to pcrforn1 his or her obligations under a <.:<.lnt.racl~ but arises fi·on1 a pron1isor's successful attcn1pts to induce a pron1iscc to enter into a contractual relationship despite the fact that the pron1isor harb<.)red an undisclosed inte.11tion 1101 to perfi. n111 under the contract. a proper <.:uuse of action sounding in fraud inay be statedn (itl. at 925). Here . the heart of the alleged fraud is dcfc.ndant's .lailure to pcrf()r111 \Vhilc still obtaining a release. The 3 4 of 9 [*FILED: 4] NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/25/2018 09:08 AM INDEX NO. 651014/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 46 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/25/2018 alleged n1isn:prcsentalion of Slotho\vcr'ls intent to perf(-,r1n under the Settlcn1ent 1\grcen1~nt cannot sustain a ti-audulent inducen1cnt clain1. Plaintiff also ~lain1s defendants 01nitted n1atcrial facts about it>rgcd docutncnts and \Vhat happened to $60 . 000 of ph1intifl-s 1l1oney . in an a1tc1npl to induce plaintiff to enter into the Scttlen1"-~nt 1\l!.recn1~nt ~- det~ndants · ~fhc and to obtain the l{cleasc before l3rvun bccan1e a\7'/are of the full extent of w bad conduct docun1cntarv cvidcnl:e befi.>re the court belies this clain1. ,; docun1ents provided sho\v that prior to entering into the Scttlen1ent ·rhe unconlestab.lc .~gree1ncnl.. plainti tr received a<.:count stalen1cnts sho,ving ho\v plaintiff's funds were utilized (NYSCE.F l)ocs. No. 8-11) as \vell as copies of n1ost of the allegedly forged docun1ents (see ·NYSC.~EF Docs. No. 26 and 24) and that plainti rr sent text n1cssagcs cotnplaining thai his stock \.Vas i1nproperly sold . options vvere itnproperly utilized and that plaintitl lost profits as a result (Slotho\ver Ex. 6). 'fhis docun1entary evidence sho\vs conclusively that E~ryan \Vas avvarc defendants had bought options \Vith his n1oney_ instcacl of stock~ \\·'hen he signed the Settlen1cnt AgrG~n1cnt~ and also that Bryan had concerns ahoul Slotho\vcr lying and not follo\ving l3ryan ': s instructions about \Vhat to do with his money. It also shO\\-'S [3ryan had knovvledge of alleged \Vro11gdoing and~ arn1cd \Vit.h that knov\dcdge., chose to settle his dispute (NYS(~F:r· [)oc. No. 33). l~ryan \\.:as on notice of the allt:ged \Vrong<loing . and n1adc an aflirrnative decision lo proceed. 1\ccordingly., he should not ~··be heard to con1plain that he has been defrauded \vhen it is his ovvn evident Jack of due care vvhich is responsible for his predica1nc11C~ (l?ocl£1.,· \.' 1\4anill.1ras~ 159 A[>2d 34 J 343 '! 11 st Dept 1990 J). ··rhe Scttlcn1ent i\gree1ncnt provides that the ";;release is intended to be cornpletely ctlcctive and binding irrespective o.f any present lack of kno\vlcdge on the party of any such clain1s and/ot causes of action (or of any l~icts or circun1stunces pertaining thcrctof'! (Seltlcn1cnt i\green1cnt'I ii 4). l·laving explicitly disclairncd any right to reject the Scttlcn1ent. Agreen1enl based on ne\v inforn1ation;, the fi·audulcnt induccn1c111 clain1 shaJI he disn1isscd. B. (~lain1s 2-5 flclcndants argue that tht: Scttlc.n1cnt Agrcc111ent contains a release (the l{elcasc)., \vhich precludes '"'"kno\vn or unkn<)\·Vn causes of action that relate to refer to act of on1ission of rv1r. Slotho\vcr or any entity he \.vas atli1iated at 17~ \Vith~ including'\ but not lirnitcd to., l3attery f>rivatc'~ (itl citing Settlen1cn.t /\green1ent., attached as Exhibit 15 to Slothtl\ver i\tl~, N't1SCEf l)oc. No. 4 5 of 9 [*FILED: 5] NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/25/2018 09:08 AM INDEX NO. 651014/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 46 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/25/2018 34). l"herc is no linrit.ation on the l{c)casc, so claitns 2 through 5 shtluld be disn1issed . as having been released. Plaintiff ar1!ues that these clain1s should survive because the Release included in the . ~- . . . . Scttlen1ent i\grecinent is not cnfi.)rccablc . as Slotho\ver fi1iled to n1akc the required payn1cnt (()pp at 13). [Jrya11. alterr1atively~ seeks to cnf()rcc the Settlen1ent 1\green1ent and alleges breach of l.:Onlracl ( C lair11 6 )~ stating that the Settlen1enl 1\grcen1ent is a val id and cnf(>rccablc contract 1 ((:~ornplaint., i!97.). l.f nder /lHYtr(/.\'.COnt LL(l v Kinko'.v~ Inc. (47 ;\f)Jd 178. l 88 rl st L)ept 2007 J~ ((//(/. 14 N Y3d 791 [20 J 0 J )., relied upon by the plaintif[ he \vould have the option to tern1inalc th~ Scttlen1enl 1\green1ent if Slotho\ver n1atcrially breached. P·laintiff cannot argue both \vays ...-\Vhcn a party n1alerially breac:hes a contract., the nonhrcaching party n1ust choose hct\vccn t\vo rcn1cdics: it can elect to tcrn1i11atc the conlra(.;t or continue it. If il \:hooses the latter <.:()Urse, it l<)ses its right to tcrn1inatc the contract because of the def~u.1lf" to tcnninatc the Scttlcn1ent i\green1cnl based t)n (it..l at I 88 ). i\s plainti11· has not stated his intent dctcndant~s fltilurc to pertorn1, and has chosen to e11ion..:e the Scttlcn1cnt Agrccrnent, clain1s 2-5 filil. (.". Amend (~~omplaint l\s to plaintifT's request li>r leave to aincnd the com·plaint, fhc n1otion '-"should be fi~ely granted . . . absent prejudice or surprise resulting t.herefron1 ... ., unless the JJfOfK>sed an1endn1cnt is palpably insufficient or patently devoid of rnctit ... If)cJendants] need not establish the rnerit of l theirl prop<)scd nc,.v allegations ..... but sin1ply show that the pr()ftcrcd a1ncndrn\:nt is not palpably insut1icicnt <)r clearly devoid of n1erif~ (J\.4/Jl.4 Ins. ( 'otJJ. v (irey,,·/one (~ (.'o., Inc ... 74 Al)3d 499 . 499-500 [I "1 [)ept 2()1 OJ; (:Pl"'R 3025 [bf}. I'rejudice in this context is shown \Vhcrc the nonn1oving party is ,.;.hindered in the preparation of his case or has been prevented rron1 laking SOJllC n1casurc in support of his position . " (l~oo1nis v (.'ivetla c~orinno (.~onslr. c.·017J."' 54 N \'2d 18~ ' 73 1· 19811 ). Although leave to an1end should be freely granted, an exa111ination of the underlying n1erits of the proposed causes of action is \Varrantcd in order t.o conserve judicial resources (see E'i..~ht ~·1 ve. (;arl(ge ( '017J. v I I. K. l~. l?l(V~ ("fo11J.'; 60 i\[J3d 404, 405 f I st l)cpt 2(J09 J). V/hether to pen11it an1cndn1cnt is \-Vithin the sound discretion of the cotn1 (see 177 .t\D2d 554, 557 [2d [)ept 1991]). 5 6 of 9 Pelle~Z,rino v Nlf(.,' 1/·itnsil ~Juth.~ [*FILED: 6] NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/25/2018 09:08 AM INDEX NO. 651014/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 46 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/25/2018 In this case . a n1otion l{)r leave to file an a11lcndcd con1plaint has not been fileci. /\bscnt consent by dctendants, plaintiff \viH need to file a for1nal 111otion. i\ssurni11g plaintilT n1ects the highly f~1vorable standards described above and leave is granted., it is likely that a lll<)tion lo.disn1iss \Viii fiJllo\v. In an cff(lrt to help the parties avoid the cost of proceeding by forn1al n1otion . the. court notes the fiJllo\ving as to vial1i lity of re~pleading of certain. dismissed causes of action under the above described standards. For the reasons discussed abt)Ve the first clai1n cann<.)l be revived. Ilegarding the second cla1111 for 1raud, defendants argue it should be disn-risscd based on docun1cnlary evidence, spcci1ically con1n1unications fron1 plaintiff to defenda.nts in which plaintifl~ n1cntions ~ . con1ing 1\lso~ \Vtth°'~ Slotl10\vCt\ and account statcn1~nts sent to the plaintiff' (t\,1cn10 at 19). t.hc <locun1cntary evidence C<Jntradicts the allegations or thefi.~ as the docurnents plaintiff '\vi red funds to Ill and that the funds \Vere used to i1urchasc ()ption~ ( icl. ). shO\V Plaintiff n1aintains that present intent not to pcrf()rrn can be t.he basis f(Jr a 1i·aud clain1 (Clpp. at 16). 'fhe court has already rejected this argun1ent. PlaintitT has also alleged the follo\ving n1isreprcsentations: Bryan did not sign an agrcen1ent \vith Battery Private~ Slot.ho\ver fiJrgcd l3ryan "s nan1e on several docun1cnts; Slotho\ver took the Scpten1ber 8, 2016 check fron1 l~ryan \Vhich \Vas not "~properly apply"' to be f()r Bryan's actt)UnL but did the check; Slotho,ver n1isrcprescnted that Bryan ~s deposits \-Vere gc>ing "to he invested in ,i\libaba; Slotho\ver fi-tilcd lt> tell l~ryan his n1oncy \·Vas gone . and instead reassured hin1 every·thing \Vas fine and n1isn:presentcd ho\v 1nuch 1\libaha stock Jlrvan O\Vned and the value of his holdinc.s (id at 17). . ~ ~ L)c.tendanls" argun1ent that the plaintiff received statcn1cnts fron1 Ill (attached as .Exhibit 5 to Slo\vtho\vcr art~ N'{SC~r:F Doc. No. 24) an<.L previou!:5ly, Pershing would 1~1il because the staten1cnts an~ not d(.)Cun1cntary cvidt!ncc conclusively establishing statcn1cnts shO\V the treatn1ent Bryan received sucl-1 statcn1ents. N<>r do the or the Scpten1bcr 8, 2016, check'.' n1entioned abtlVC. i\ssun1ing plaintiff chooses to tc1111inate the Scttle1i-1cnt Agreen1ent.. these allegations could survive a tnotion to disn1iss. Regarding the third clain1 for negligent n1isrcprescntation~ plaint1tl~s texts sho"ving Bryan~ s knov~--Iedge of the ac.c\lunt 's transfer . the account stalen1cnls~ and the \viri ng instructions sho\ving [-lryan knc\v of 18 and Battery .Private and sent the t11oney at issue here directly to 113~ constitute docun1entary evidence directly contradicting tl1e c.lain1s inade in the complaint. ·rhus, say defendants~ this clain1 n1ust be dis1nissed (tv1en10 at 20). 6 7 of 9 Plaintiff argues that defendants" [*FILED: 7] NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/25/2018 09:08 AM INDEX NO. 651014/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 46 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/25/2018 n1otion does not address the n1isrcpresentations that Slotho\.ver forged plaintiff's signature .. or that SJotho\vcr grossly n1isn1anagcd plainti!f~s assets against his investn1cnt objectives and told Bryan the invcstrncnts v.rere n1aking inoncy (id at 19-20). Further') if Bryan kne\V about the change accounts (and the docun1cnts do not establish he did)~ that docs n<Jtefitninat.c a cfain1 tor the of th<: docun1cnts creating. the account (it:f at. 20). Nor arc the "rhat plaintiff \,vi red the n1oncy to Ir~ \Vi ring or forger~/ instructions conclusive (it/.). does not have anything to do \vi th the l~ict that defendants I icd (.it/. at 20-21 ). 13y repleading.. plaintiff n1ay be able to ovcrco1nc deJendants ~ argtnncnts that the docun1entary evidence conclusively refutes aflcgat.ions of ll1ilurc to irnpart accurate infi)r111ation and absence or dctrin1cntal rclian<.:e. 4. 'l'hc conversion clai1n is not viable and cannot. survive even upo11 repleading because the funds in issue arc not (see I1llli(F roans ~~specific, idcnti fiablc fund[s ]'~ sul.~ject to trcatn1ent in a pa11iculur n1anncr v ;.\~/erlirll!. l·lat '/ /3(tflk (~ ]/·11s1 ('o., 177 /\[J2d 277 r I~· l")ept 1991 f) . .D. Seal Scttlc111cnt 1\greemcnt 'f'he parties have agreed to seal the Settlcn1cnt l\green1enL 'l'hc fi1ct or a settlen1cnt agrec111cnl 1s already established by this action. The request is granted. h is hcrchv"' ()l{l)EllEI> that the n1otion to disn1iss the first through fifth causes of action is Gf{1\N.ll·])~ and it is further Ol{lll~lll_~~O causl~s tha.1 the first cause of action is IJISf\lfJSSEJ) and t.l1e second throut!h fourth "-' . of action are [)ISMJSSE1> \.Vithout prejudice to re-plead to upon plaintiff'ls election to tcr1ninatc the contract and to pursue fraud . negligent lnisreprescntation and breach of fiduciary duty clairns. Plaintiff shaH infi:H·n1 defe11dants 01· his decision to an1cnd or not by Septen1ber 20 I~. Should plainti rr so elect, plaintiff sh<:tll fil~ his an1cnded ccnnp1aint \VJ thin 26~ 20 days of the dale of this decision and order. Should plaintiff elect not to an1end .. defi~ndan1s shall file the anS\Ver \Vithin JO days of this decision and ()1~.D.El{F.:I) f)oc. No. 34 shall be order~ and it. is further that the request to seal the scttle1nenl agrccn1cnl is (.iJ{/\N"rJ~J) an<l scaled~ and it is further 7 8 of 9 NYSC'l~F [*FILED: 8] NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/25/2018 09:08 AM INDEX NO. 651014/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 46 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/25/2018 ()l{l)El-tEIJ that the c:ounty C~lerk~ upon service on hin1 of a ct>py of this <.1rder~ is directed to seal the above1ncntioned docu1ncnt a contidentlal scttlernenl agrecn1ents in this t:asc . and to separate these papers and to keep then1 separate fron1 the balance of the file in this act.ion: and it is further 01~1.>•:t~EI> access to the said that s~alcd thc·rcafter~ . or until further order of the court, the papers lo anyone (other than th~ C~ountv C~lerk staff of the (_,ounty - C~lerk shall dcnv ~ or the court) except fi.lr counsel or record for any party lo this case~ a party . cu~ti any re1)rcscntativt: of couns~l of record fiJr a party up(nl presentation to the C~ounty (~]erk (>f \Vrittcn authorizati<.ln fron1 said CtHlnscJ: and it is further ()l{D£Rl•2l> that counsel to plaintifls shall serve a co1'Y of this order by e-n1ail upon the Ol~J)t.:t~F:l.l ()0 c~entrc that counsel shalJ appear at a prelin1ihary conference at Part 49~ f{oon1 252" Street . Ne\\! ·yt)rk. Nc\v 't'.. ork I 000~> on (Jecen1bei· 11, 2018 al 9:3() an1. ·rhis constitutes the deci$i(>11 and order of the court. EN . 8 9 of 9 ~r ER,

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.