MONIKA BALAZY v. SUPER BUS INC. et al, 501032/2018, 141 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Kings County Apr. 25, 2022) (2024)

`

`FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/25/2022 04:17 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 141
`
`INDEX NO. 501032/2018
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/25/2022
`
`May
`
`2, 2022,
`
`but
`
`is scheduled
`
`to be heard
`
`in the Central
`
`Compliance
`
`Part.
`
`It
`
`is requested
`
`that
`
`these
`
`Motions
`
`be heard
`
`together
`
`as a single
`
`application,
`
`as
`
`the
`
`parties'
`
`arguments
`
`are
`
`essentially
`
`the
`
`same
`
`in favor
`
`and
`
`in opposition
`
`to each
`
`application.
`
`In the
`
`alternative,
`
`it
`
`is requested
`
`that
`
`both
`
`Motions
`
`be referred
`
`to the
`
`Justice
`
`to be assigned
`
`at
`
`the
`
`time
`
`of
`
`trial,
`
`whomever
`
`that
`
`Justice
`
`might
`
`the
`
`case
`
`goes
`
`to trial.
`
`In that
`
`regard,
`
`the Court
`
`is advised
`
`that
`
`prior
`
`this
`
`be, and whenever
`
`to filing
`
`Affirmation
`
`in Opposition,
`
`Plaintiff
`
`moved
`
`by Order
`
`To
`
`Show
`
`Cause
`
`for
`
`a stay
`
`of
`
`the
`
`trial
`
`scheduled
`
`for
`
`April
`
`28,
`
`2022
`
`in
`
`order
`
`to
`
`afford
`
`Defendants
`
`additional
`
`time
`
`to
`
`retain
`
`experts
`
`to
`
`counter
`
`the
`
`testimony
`
`anticipated
`
`by Plaintiff's
`
`experts.
`
`That
`
`Order
`
`To
`
`Show
`
`Cause
`
`was
`
`signed
`
`on April
`
`22,
`
`2022
`
`by The Honorable
`
`Lawrence
`
`Knipel,
`
`and made
`
`returnable
`
`on April
`
`28,
`
`2022
`
`in
`
`the
`
`Part
`
`of
`
`that Order
`
`To
`
`Show
`
`Cause
`
`Jury
`
`Coordinating
`
`(JCP),
`
`A copy
`
`and
`
`the
`
`accompanying
`
`Affirmation
`
`In Support
`
`(without
`
`Exhibits)
`
`is marked
`
`Exhibit
`
`A.
`
`For
`
`her
`
`own
`
`part,
`
`Plaintiff
`
`submits
`
`this
`
`one
`
`Affirmation
`
`in Opposition
`
`to both Motions;
`
`this
`
`one
`
`document
`
`will
`
`be filed
`
`in
`
`opposition
`
`to both
`
`Motion
`
`#3 and Motion
`
`#4.
`
`4.
`
`The
`
`arguments
`
`against
`
`preclusion
`
`follow,infra.
`
`FACTS
`
`A.
`
`The
`
`Prior
`
`History
`
`of
`
`this
`
`Action
`
`-
`
`the COVID
`
`Adjournments.
`
`5.
`
`Plaintiff
`
`has not
`
`acted
`
`in bad
`
`faith
`
`time
`
`in this
`
`process.
`
`Plaintiff
`
`taken
`
`proper
`
`steps
`
`in preparation
`
`for
`
`trial,
`
`and
`
`has
`
`afforded
`
`Defendants
`
`the
`
`notice
`
`to which
`
`at any
`
`Rather,
`
`has
`
`they
`
`were
`
`entitled.
`
`Plaintiff
`
`has
`
`served
`
`several
`
`CPLR
`
`3101(d)
`
`Responses
`
`in preparation
`
`for
`
`trial,
`
`three
`
`of which
`
`are
`
`the
`
`subject
`
`matter
`
`of
`
`these
`
`two Motion
`
`Proceedings.
`
`The
`
`history
`
`of
`
`the
`
`previous
`
`Court
`
`dates
`
`in this matter
`
`support
`
`Plaintiff's
`
`contention
`
`that
`
`there
`
`has been
`
`no intentional
`
`or willful
`
`failure
`
`to disclose
`
`the
`
`identity
`
`of Plaintiff's
`
`expert.
`
`2
`
`2 of 14
`
`

`

`FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/25/2022 04:17 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 141
`
`INDEX NO. 501032/2018
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/25/2022
`
`6.
`
`This
`
`matter
`
`is scheduled
`
`for
`
`trial
`
`on April
`
`28,
`
`2022.
`
`The
`
`last Conference
`
`prior
`
`to
`
`the April
`
`28 trial
`
`date was
`
`held
`
`on March
`
`1, 2022
`
`before
`
`Justice
`
`Cohen
`
`in the
`
`Jury
`
`Coordinating
`
`Part
`
`(JCP).
`
`At
`
`that
`
`time,
`
`Defense
`
`Counsel
`
`had
`
`indicated
`
`that
`
`Defendants'
`
`Trial
`
`Counsel
`
`was
`
`sick
`
`due
`
`to a secondary
`
`infection
`
`from
`
`Covid,
`
`and
`
`had
`
`requested
`
`an adjournment
`
`of
`
`the April
`
`28 trial.
`
`That
`
`request
`
`was
`
`denied
`
`Justice
`
`Cohen.
`
`However,
`
`our
`
`office
`
`was
`
`also
`
`informed
`
`at
`
`that
`
`by
`
`Conference
`
`that
`
`the Defendants
`
`were
`
`interested
`
`in mediating
`
`this matter.
`
`While
`
`there
`
`were
`
`prior
`
`discussions
`
`on
`
`the mediation
`
`issue,
`
`upon
`
`information
`
`and
`
`belief,
`
`this
`
`was
`
`the
`
`first
`
`occasion
`
`on
`
`which
`
`the
`
`discussions
`
`grew
`
`serious,
`
`and
`
`a date was
`
`chosen
`
`shortly
`
`after
`
`that March
`
`1 Conference.
`
`The
`
`case was mediated
`
`on April
`
`5 with
`
`NAM,
`
`but
`
`did
`
`not
`
`settle
`
`at
`
`that
`
`time.
`
`The Mediator
`
`has
`
`continued
`
`his
`
`efforts
`
`to settle
`
`the
`
`case
`
`after
`
`the Mediation.
`
`7.
`
`this March
`
`1, 2022
`
`Conference
`
`date with
`
`Justice
`
`Cohen,
`
`it became
`
`clear
`
`Following
`
`that
`
`this matter
`
`was
`
`either
`
`going
`
`to
`
`be
`
`settled
`
`at
`
`a mediation
`
`or
`
`in
`
`post-Mediation
`
`follow-up
`
`negotiations,
`
`or would
`
`go to trial
`
`on April
`
`28,
`
`2022.
`
`From
`
`that
`
`point
`
`on, Plaintiff's
`
`Counsel
`
`began
`
`the task
`
`ofretaining
`
`additional
`
`experts
`
`and
`
`discussing
`
`this matter
`
`with
`
`experts.
`
`Since
`
`it was
`
`unclear
`
`prior
`
`to March
`
`1 that April
`
`28 would
`
`be an actual
`
`trial
`
`date,
`
`preparation
`
`started
`
`following
`
`the March
`
`1 Conference
`
`date.
`
`8.
`
`Defendants
`
`acknowledge
`
`that
`
`the Expert
`
`Exchange
`
`from
`
`the
`
`Life
`
`Care
`
`Planner
`
`was
`
`dated March
`
`2022.
`
`It was
`
`filed
`
`on April
`
`29,
`
`4, 2022
`
`(NYSCEF
`
`Document
`
`#72).
`
`Defendants
`
`argue
`
`that
`
`since
`
`the
`
`Report
`
`states
`
`that Ms.
`
`Balazy
`
`met
`
`with
`
`the
`
`Life
`
`Care
`
`Planner
`
`in
`
`this
`
`office
`
`on
`
`December
`
`12,
`
`2019,
`
`Plaintiff's
`
`Counsel
`
`failed
`
`to
`
`diligently
`
`prosecute
`
`this
`
`action
`
`(Motion
`
`#4,
`
`Affirmation,
`
`¶l0).
`
`But
`
`this
`
`is a specious
`
`argument.
`
`Given
`
`the
`
`nature
`
`of
`
`this
`
`area
`
`of
`
`expertise
`
`a
`
`Life
`
`Care
`
`Planner's
`
`Report
`
`cannot
`
`be prepared
`
`until
`
`a trial
`
`date
`
`is close
`
`by,
`
`because
`
`if
`
`the
`
`subject
`
`3
`
`3 of 14
`
`

`

`FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/25/2022 04:17 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 141
`
`INDEX NO. 501032/2018
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/25/2022
`
`were
`
`to
`
`continue
`
`medical
`
`treatment,
`
`that
`
`Report
`
`would
`
`have
`
`to
`
`amended
`
`as the
`
`trial
`
`date
`
`drew
`
`nearer.
`
`9.
`
`In addition,
`
`by
`
`its very
`
`nature,
`
`the Life
`
`Care
`
`Planner
`
`expert
`
`has
`
`to rely
`
`on the reports
`
`of various
`
`treating
`
`medical
`
`doctors.
`
`Producing
`
`a Life
`
`Care
`
`Plan
`
`is not
`
`an endeavor
`
`to be undertaken
`
`when
`
`a trial
`
`date
`
`is not
`
`on the
`
`horizon.
`
`10.
`
`Since
`
`the
`
`testimony
`
`of an Economist
`
`is also
`
`necessary,
`
`the Economist
`
`has
`
`to have
`
`to the
`
`Life
`
`Care
`
`Plan
`
`in order
`
`to project
`
`the
`
`amounts
`
`required
`
`finance
`
`that
`
`access
`
`dollar
`
`to
`
`Life
`
`Care
`
`Plan.
`
`That
`
`is why
`
`the Economist
`
`Report
`
`was
`
`filed
`
`on April
`
`8, 2022
`
`(NYSCEF
`
`document
`
`#77).
`
`11.
`
`Therefore,
`
`Defendants'
`
`argument
`
`is a simplified
`
`and
`
`overly
`
`dramatic
`
`attempt
`
`to
`
`argue
`
`dilatory
`
`conduct
`
`on
`
`the
`
`part
`
`of
`
`Plaintiff's
`
`Counsel,
`
`but
`
`the
`
`argument
`
`fails
`
`to
`
`resonate.
`
`Plaintiff's
`
`Counsel
`
`acted
`
`with
`
`deliberate
`
`speed
`
`once
`
`it became
`
`clear
`
`that
`
`if
`
`the
`
`case
`
`did
`
`not
`
`settle
`
`at mediation,
`
`it would
`
`proceed
`
`to trial
`
`on April
`
`28,
`
`2022.
`
`There
`
`is no insult
`
`added
`
`(Defendants'
`
`here
`
`Affirmation,
`
`Motion
`
`#4,
`
`¶6).
`
`Plaintiff's
`
`Counsel
`
`vigorously
`
`prosecuted
`
`the
`
`to injury
`
`at play
`
`action
`
`following
`
`the March
`
`1, 2022
`
`Conference.
`
`12.
`
`Finally,
`
`it
`
`is requested
`
`that
`
`the Court
`
`take
`
`into
`
`account
`
`the
`
`extraordinary
`
`nature
`
`of
`
`the
`
`Covid
`
`pandemic,
`
`and
`
`the
`
`havoc
`
`it
`
`has
`
`wrought
`
`on
`
`the
`
`Court
`
`system,
`
`and
`
`especially
`
`the
`
`scheduling
`
`of
`
`trials.
`
`While
`
`Ms.
`
`Balazy
`
`met with
`
`the
`
`Life
`
`Care
`
`Planner
`
`in December
`
`2019,
`
`there
`
`Defendants
`
`cannot
`
`argue
`
`that
`
`Plaintiff's
`
`Counsel
`
`was
`
`was
`
`no
`
`trial
`
`date
`
`at
`
`that
`
`time.
`
`credibly
`
`dilatory
`
`in not
`
`preparing
`
`this matter
`
`for
`
`trial
`
`in the
`
`early
`
`months
`
`of 2020
`
`when
`
`there
`
`was
`
`no trial
`
`date
`
`on the
`
`horizon.
`
`This
`
`case
`
`did
`
`not
`
`have
`
`a trial
`
`date when
`
`the New York
`
`Court
`
`system
`
`all
`
`but
`
`shut
`
`down
`
`in March
`
`2020.
`
`Covid
`
`had
`
`a resurgence
`
`in the Fall
`
`and Winter
`
`of 2020
`
`to 2021,
`
`and
`
`a
`
`trial
`
`date was
`
`still
`
`not
`
`scheduled.
`
`There
`
`was
`
`no
`
`prospect
`
`of
`
`this
`
`case
`
`proceeding
`
`to trial
`
`at
`
`that
`
`4
`
`4 of 14
`
`

`

`FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/25/2022 04:17 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 141
`
`INDEX NO. 501032/2018
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/25/2022
`
`time.
`
`There
`
`was
`
`a Settlement
`
`Conference
`
`held
`
`on November
`
`5, 2020,
`
`at which
`
`numbers
`
`were
`
`exchanged,
`
`but
`
`a trial
`
`date was
`
`not
`
`scheduled.
`
`13.
`
`Defendants'
`
`Counsel
`
`does
`
`not
`
`use
`
`the word
`
`"prejudice"
`
`in its
`
`papers,
`
`but
`
`implies
`
`that
`
`it will
`
`suffer
`
`prejudice
`
`if Plaintiff's
`
`experts
`
`are not
`
`precluded.
`
`In doing
`
`so, Defendants
`
`simplify
`
`the
`
`situation.
`
`This
`
`is not
`
`a case
`
`where
`
`Plaintiff
`
`willfully
`
`or
`
`intentionally
`
`(see,
`
`infra)
`
`withheld
`
`from
`
`or
`
`acted
`
`in
`
`a manner
`
`so as
`
`to
`
`put
`
`Defendants
`
`at a
`
`information
`
`Defendants,
`
`purposefully
`
`disadvantage.
`
`Given
`
`the
`
`totality
`
`of
`
`circ*mstances,
`
`Plaintiff
`
`have
`
`acted
`
`in
`
`a proper
`
`manner
`
`in
`
`prosecuting
`
`this
`
`action.
`
`14.
`
`Plaintiff
`
`offers
`
`the
`
`following
`
`analyses
`
`of
`
`the
`
`three
`
`separate
`
`Expert
`
`Disclosures.
`
`A.
`
`The
`
`Economist
`
`Response
`
`and
`
`Report.
`
`15.
`
`The
`
`3101(d)
`
`for
`
`Plaintiff's
`
`Economist,
`
`Kristen
`
`Kucsma
`
`or
`
`Kenneth
`
`Betz,
`
`was
`
`served
`
`on March
`
`18,
`
`2022
`
`(the
`
`document
`
`is marked
`
`Exhibit
`
`A to
`
`Defendants'
`
`Motion,
`
`and
`
`is
`
`NYSCEF
`
`Document
`
`#50).
`
`That
`
`document
`
`was
`
`filed
`
`and
`
`served
`
`in excess
`
`of
`
`thirty
`
`days
`
`prior
`
`to
`
`the
`
`April
`
`28,
`
`2022
`
`trial
`
`date.
`
`The
`
`Response
`
`makes
`
`clear
`
`that
`
`it would
`
`be
`
`supplemented
`
`and
`
`amended,
`
`as indicated
`
`on Page
`
`2 of
`
`the
`
`document.
`
`The
`
`Economist's
`
`Report
`
`was
`
`filed
`
`and
`
`served
`
`on April
`
`8, 2022
`
`(NYSCEF
`
`Document
`
`#77, marked
`
`Exhibit
`
`Defendants'
`
`B to
`
`Motion
`
`#4).
`
`16.
`
`Defendants
`
`appear
`
`to argue
`
`that
`
`since
`
`the Economist's
`
`Report
`
`of April
`
`8, 2022
`
`is
`
`dated
`
`after
`
`the
`
`Care
`
`Planner
`
`were
`
`Life
`
`Report
`
`of March
`
`28,
`
`2022,
`
`both
`
`Reports
`
`filed
`
`by Plaintiff
`
`in bad
`
`faith.
`
`Defendant
`
`does
`
`not
`
`explain
`
`how
`
`the
`
`conclusion
`
`is reached.
`
`Instead,
`
`the Affirmation
`
`unilaterally
`
`concludes
`
`that
`
`the
`
`entire
`
`operation
`
`was
`
`conducted
`
`in bad
`
`faith.
`
`17.
`
`In actuality,
`
`Plaintiff
`
`filed
`
`the Reports
`
`upon
`
`receipt.
`
`Defendant
`
`jumps
`
`to the
`
`bad
`
`faith
`
`conclusion,
`
`without
`
`any
`
`consideration
`
`as
`
`to whether
`
`the
`
`Economist
`
`had
`
`the
`
`Life
`
`Care
`
`Planner's
`
`analysis
`
`before
`
`the
`
`Economists'
`
`Report
`
`was
`
`finalized.
`
`5
`
`5 of 14
`
`

`

`FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/25/2022 04:17 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 141
`
`INDEX NO. 501032/2018
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/25/2022
`
`18.
`
`Either
`
`way,
`
`Defendants'
`
`papers
`
`are
`
`silent
`
`as to whether
`
`Defendant
`
`would
`
`be able
`
`to obtain
`
`their
`
`own
`
`expert
`
`based
`
`upon
`
`the
`
`documents
`
`which
`
`Plaintiff
`
`has
`
`served.
`
`Defendant
`
`does
`
`not
`
`state
`
`either
`
`way
`
`whether
`
`this
`
`will
`
`be done,
`
`but
`
`does
`
`not
`
`affirmatively
`
`rule
`
`out
`
`doing
`
`so.
`
`The
`
`silence
`
`on this
`
`issue
`
`obviously
`
`does
`
`not mean
`
`that Defendants
`
`have
`
`not
`
`already
`
`engaged
`
`their
`
`own
`
`Life
`
`Care
`
`Planner
`
`and
`
`Economist.
`
`it
`
`is hard
`
`to
`
`imagine
`
`that
`
`Defense
`
`Counsel
`
`has
`
`not
`
`engaged
`
`an Economist
`
`to testify,
`
`and Defense
`
`Counsel
`
`does
`
`not
`
`deny
`
`that
`
`it has done
`
`so.
`
`Respectfully,
`
`B.
`
`The
`
`Life
`
`Care
`
`Planner
`
`Response
`
`and
`
`Report.
`
`19.
`
`The
`
`3101(d)
`
`for
`
`Plaintiff's
`
`Life
`
`Care
`
`Planner
`
`was
`
`served
`
`on March
`
`18, 2022
`
`(the
`
`document
`
`is marked
`
`Exhibit
`
`Defendants'
`
`B to
`
`Motion,
`
`and
`
`is NYSCEF
`
`Document
`
`#45).
`
`That
`
`document
`
`was
`
`filed
`
`and
`
`served
`
`in excess
`
`of
`
`thirty
`
`days
`
`prior
`
`to the April
`
`28,
`
`2022
`
`trial
`
`date.
`
`The
`
`Response
`
`clear
`
`that
`
`it would
`
`be supplemented
`
`and
`
`as indicated
`
`on Page
`
`2 of
`
`also makes
`
`amended,
`
`the
`
`document.
`
`The
`
`Life
`
`Care
`
`Planner's
`
`Economist's
`
`Report
`
`was
`
`filed
`
`and
`
`served
`
`on April
`
`4, 2022
`
`(NYSCEF
`
`Document
`
`#72, marked
`
`Exhibit
`
`A to
`
`Defendants'
`
`Motion
`
`#4).
`
`20.
`
`While
`
`the
`
`initial
`
`Response
`
`was
`
`served
`
`without
`
`the
`
`Report,
`
`the
`
`service
`
`of
`
`that
`
`Response
`
`afforded
`
`notice
`
`to Defendants
`
`that
`
`Plaintiff
`
`intended
`
`to call
`
`a Life
`
`Care
`
`Planner
`
`as an
`
`expert,
`
`and
`
`by extension
`
`that Plaintiff
`
`also
`
`intended
`
`to call
`
`an Economist
`
`as an expert.
`
`Defendants
`
`rhetorical
`
`questions
`
`as to when
`
`the
`
`report
`
`could
`
`and
`
`postulate
`
`that
`
`it might
`
`be
`
`ask
`
`the
`
`be expected,
`
`a day
`
`or a week
`
`before
`
`trial,
`
`or perhaps
`
`during
`
`jury
`
`selection
`
`(Defendants'
`
`Affirmation,
`
`Motion
`
`#3,
`
`¶l3).
`
`In fact,
`
`the Report
`
`was
`
`filed
`
`on April
`
`8, at which
`
`time
`
`Defendants
`
`immediately
`
`noticed
`
`Motion
`
`#4.
`
`Defendants
`
`claim
`
`Plaintiff's
`
`action
`
`in filing
`
`an Expert
`
`Response
`
`before
`
`Plaintiff
`
`had
`
`the
`
`Report
`
`actually
`
`served
`
`as
`
`an
`
`action
`
`taken
`
`in
`
`bad
`
`faith,
`
`but
`
`that
`
`action
`
`formally
`
`notified
`
`Defendants
`
`that
`
`Plaintiff
`
`would
`
`be
`
`calling
`
`these
`
`experts,
`
`which
`
`is
`
`the
`
`very
`
`purpose
`
`of CPLR
`
`6
`
`6 of 14
`
`

`

`FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/25/2022 04:17 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 141
`
`INDEX NO. 501032/2018
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/25/2022
`
`3101(d).
`
`Similar
`
`to its response
`
`regarding
`
`Plaintiff's
`
`retention
`
`of an Economist,
`
`Defense
`
`Counsel
`
`does
`
`not
`
`affirmatively
`
`state
`
`that
`
`it will
`
`not
`
`retain
`
`a Life
`
`Care
`
`Planner
`
`to rebut
`
`Plaintiff's
`
`own
`
`expert.
`
`C.
`
`The
`
`Accident
`
`Reconstruction
`
`Response
`
`and
`
`Report.
`
`21.
`
`The
`
`3101(d)
`
`for
`
`Plaintiff's
`
`Accident
`
`Reconstruction
`
`Expert
`
`was
`
`served
`
`on March
`
`18, 2022
`
`(the
`
`document
`
`is marked
`
`Exhibit
`
`Defendants'
`
`C to
`
`Motion,
`
`and
`
`is NYSCEF
`
`Document
`
`#49).
`
`That
`
`document
`
`was
`
`filed
`
`and
`
`served
`
`in excess
`
`of
`
`thirty
`
`days
`
`prior
`
`to the April
`
`28,
`
`2022
`
`trial
`
`date.
`
`Defendants
`
`offer
`
`two
`
`arguments
`
`regarding
`
`this
`
`Response.
`
`The
`
`first
`
`is that
`
`the Report
`
`does
`
`not
`
`state
`
`the
`
`date
`
`on which
`
`Dr.
`
`Pugh
`
`inspected
`
`the
`
`scene
`
`of
`
`the
`
`occurrence,
`
`and
`
`Defendant
`
`speculates
`
`that
`
`it was
`
`done
`
`at what
`
`Defendants
`
`term
`
`"the
`
`11th
`
`hour
`
`(Defendants'
`
`Affirmation,
`
`Motion
`
`#3,
`
`¶14).
`
`The
`
`second
`
`argument
`
`concerns
`
`Defendants'
`
`claim
`
`that
`
`they
`
`cannot
`
`identify
`
`an
`
`appropriate
`
`expert
`
`to
`
`review
`
`this matter,
`
`and
`
`perform
`
`a site
`
`visit
`
`and
`
`the
`
`required
`
`testing
`
`and
`
`still
`
`((Defendants'
`
`trial
`
`Motion
`
`measuring
`
`and
`
`be available
`
`for
`
`Affirmation,
`
`#3,
`
`¶l5).
`
`22.
`
`The
`
`questions
`
`raised
`
`by Defendants
`
`in
`
`their
`
`first
`
`argument
`
`are
`
`irrelevant
`
`to
`
`the
`
`question
`
`of
`
`the
`
`date
`
`on
`
`which
`
`Dr.
`
`Pugh's
`
`Response
`
`and
`
`Report
`
`were
`
`served.
`
`Defendants
`
`acknowledge
`
`that
`
`the Report
`
`was
`
`served
`
`with
`
`the Response,
`
`but
`
`do not mention
`
`the
`
`date
`
`on which
`
`these
`
`documents
`
`were
`
`served
`
`- March
`
`18, 2022.
`
`The
`
`questions
`
`raised
`
`by Defendants
`
`may
`
`or may
`
`not
`
`be proper
`
`subjects
`
`for
`
`cross
`
`examination
`
`at
`
`the
`
`time
`
`of
`
`Either
`
`the
`
`question
`
`of when
`
`trial.
`
`way,
`
`Dr.
`
`Pugh
`
`visited
`
`the
`
`scene;
`
`the
`
`information
`
`regarding
`
`Delta
`
`V forces
`
`and
`
`g-loading
`
`forces,
`
`anything
`
`else
`
`do not
`
`go to the
`
`question
`
`of preclusion.
`
`This
`
`Exchange
`
`was
`
`not
`
`served
`
`"virtually
`
`or
`
`on
`
`the
`
`eve
`
`of
`
`trial"
`
`as Defendants
`
`claim
`
`(Defendants'
`
`Affirmation,
`
`Motion
`
`#3,
`
`¶4).
`
`Defendants
`
`will
`
`have
`
`had
`
`this Report
`
`for well
`
`over
`
`a month
`
`before
`
`the
`
`date
`
`of
`
`trial
`
`(which
`
`is almost
`
`certainly
`
`not
`
`the
`
`date
`
`on which
`
`Dr.
`
`Pugh
`
`will
`
`actually
`
`testify,
`
`making
`
`Defendants'
`
`time
`
`to secure
`
`an accident
`
`7
`
`7 of 14
`
`

`

`FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/25/2022 04:17 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 141
`
`INDEX NO. 501032/2018
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/25/2022
`
`reconstruction
`
`expert
`
`even
`
`longer).
`
`Defendants
`
`do not
`
`explain
`
`why
`
`an expert
`
`cannot
`
`be retained
`
`in this
`
`period
`
`of
`
`time,
`
`nor
`
`do Defendants
`
`claim
`
`that
`
`an expert
`
`will
`
`not
`
`be retained.
`
`23.
`
`Finally,
`
`Dr.
`
`Pugh's
`
`Report
`
`was
`
`not
`
`deliberately
`
`withheld,
`
`as Defendants
`
`suggest.
`
`He was
`
`retained
`
`by
`
`this
`
`Firm
`
`in mid-February
`
`2022.
`
`Thus,
`
`any
`
`suggestion
`
`that
`
`this
`
`Firm
`
`was
`
`withholding
`
`information
`
`from
`
`Defendants
`
`is simply
`
`not
`
`the
`
`case.
`
`DEFENDANTS'
`
`DENIED
`
`CAN AND SHOULD
`MOTION
`IN THE COURT'S
`DISCRETION
`
`BE
`
`24.
`
`CPLR
`
`3101(d)(1)
`
`reads
`
`as follows:
`
`each
`(i) Upon
`shall
`request,
`party
`trial
`and
`at
`witness
`an expert
`shall
`expert
`to testify,
`is expected
`each
`expert
`the
`is expected
`to testify,
`grounds
`for
`each
`expert's
`opinion.
`an
`expert
`an
`insufficient
`period
`appropriate
`not
`notice
`the
`thereof,
`party
`expert's
`trial
`at
`the
`grounds
`solely
`testimony
`that
`of any
`upon motion
`made
`instance,
`be just.
`court
`may make
`order
`whatever
`may
`a party,
`in responding
`to a request,
`malpractice,
`podiatric
`but
`shall
`experts
`be required
`to disclose
`experts
`otherwise
`this
`paragraph.
`required
`
`However,
`of
`time
`shall
`on
`
`party,
`
`may
`
`all
`
`whom the
`person
`each
`identify
`detail
`the
`in reasonable
`disclose
`facts
`and
`the
`substance
`of
`the
`expert
`qualifications
`of each
`witness
`good
`a party
`for
`where
`commencement
`before
`the
`thereupon
`be precluded
`noncompliance
`of
`or at
`before
`In an action
`omit
`other
`
`from
`with
`this
`or on its own
`trial,
`for medical,
`dental
`the
`of medical,
`names
`information
`concerning
`
`to call
`expects
`party
`subject
`on which
`matter
`each
`on which
`opinions
`of
`a summary
`the
`and
`retains
`cause
`shown
`trial
`give
`the
`In
`the
`
`as
`
`of
`
`to
`
`introducing
`paragraph.
`
`initiative,
`or podiatric
`dental
`
`or
`such
`
`by
`
`25.
`
`There
`
`is no time
`
`requirement
`
`or deadline
`
`imposed
`
`in the
`
`above
`
`section,
`
`and
`
`recent
`
`Second
`
`Department
`
`caselaw
`
`has
`
`indicated
`
`more
`
`of
`
`a burden
`
`on
`
`the
`
`party
`
`attempting
`
`to preclude
`
`than
`
`on the
`
`party
`
`who
`
`served
`
`the
`
`purportedly
`
`late
`
`3101(d)
`
`notice;
`
`see Rowan
`
`v. Cross
`
`County
`
`Ski
`
`& Skate,
`
`Inc.,
`
`42 A.D.3d
`
`563,
`
`840 N.Y.S.2d
`
`414
`
`(2d Dept.
`
`2007),
`
`The Court
`
`affirmed
`
`a Motion
`
`In Limine
`
`which
`
`denied
`
`a plaintiff's
`
`request
`
`to preclude
`
`a defense
`
`expert
`
`where
`
`a 3101(d)
`
`Expert
`
`Response
`
`was
`
`served
`
`two
`
`weeks
`
`before
`
`trial.
`
`That
`
`is a shorter
`
`time
`
`period
`
`than
`
`what
`
`occurred
`
`here.
`
`The Court
`
`stated
`
`the
`
`following:
`
`8
`
`8 of 14
`
`

`

`FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/25/2022 04:17 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 141
`
`INDEX NO. 501032/2018
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/25/2022
`
`Contrary
`testify.
`witness
`
`proffering
`is evidence
`
`to the plaintiff
`CPLR
`3101
`information
`expert
`of
`party".
`Here,
`opposing
`in retaining
`expert
`their
`disclosure
`Furthermore,
`the
`plaintiff
`had
`two
`trial
`was
`scheduled
`been
`eliminated
`
`s contention,
`does
`(1)
`(i)
`(d)
`at any
`specific
`testimony
`intentional
`
`the
`or
`of
`weeks
`to begin.
`Moreover,
`by an adjournment
`
`permitted
`the court
`the
`expert
`properly
`to respond
`a party
`not
`require
`for
`to a demand
`expert
`it mandate
`time
`nor
`that
`does
`be precluded
`a party
`from
`because
`of noncompliance
`with
`the
`unless
`there
`statute,
`merely
`or willful
`failure
`to disclose
`and
`a showing
`of prejudice
`the
`defendants'
`record
`does
`not
`support
`a conclusion
`that
`the
`in serving
`their
`expert
`information
`was
`intentional
`the
`expert
`information
`not made
`was
`the
`eve
`on
`within
`which
`to review
`the material
`prior
`to the
`potential
`prejudice
`to the
`plaintiffs
`any
`the
`trial.
`
`defendants'
`
`to
`
`by
`delay
`or willful.
`trial
`since
`of
`date when
`the
`could
`have
`
`of
`
`(Id,
`
`at 564)
`
`(cites
`
`omitted)
`
`26.
`
`Similarly,
`
`in Burbige
`
`v. Siben
`
`& Ferber,
`
`115 A.D.3d
`
`632,
`
`981 N.Y.S.2d
`
`537
`
`(2d
`
`Dept.
`
`2014),
`
`the Court
`
`modified
`
`a Lower
`
`Court's
`
`preclusion
`
`Order,
`
`on
`
`a finding
`
`that
`
`plaintiff's
`
`delay
`
`in
`
`retaining
`
`an
`
`expert
`
`or
`
`in
`
`serving
`
`expert
`
`information
`
`was
`
`intentional
`
`or willful,
`
`with
`
`a
`
`further
`
`finding
`
`that
`
`any
`
`potential
`
`prejudice
`
`to defendants
`
`was
`
`ameliorated
`
`by a relatively
`
`short
`
`trial
`
`adjournment
`
`of
`
`two months.
`
`In Rivera
`
`v. New York
`
`City
`
`Housing
`
`Authority,
`
`177 A.D.3d
`
`499,
`
`112
`
`N.Y.S.3d
`
`72 (1st Dept.
`
`2019),
`
`a First
`
`Department
`
`case,
`
`even where
`
`plaintiff
`
`affirmatively
`
`withheld
`
`information
`
`about
`
`an expert
`
`he had
`
`retained
`
`during
`
`several
`
`court
`
`conferences,
`
`and
`
`failed
`
`to disclose
`
`that
`
`expert
`
`in response
`
`to demands.
`
`When
`
`plaintiff
`
`the
`
`of
`
`did
`
`disclose,
`
`it was
`
`not
`
`on
`
`eve
`
`trial;
`
`rather
`
`it was
`
`about
`
`six week
`
`prior,
`
`a time
`
`which
`
`was
`
`extended
`
`with
`
`a 60 day
`
`adjournment.
`
`27.
`
`The
`
`cases
`
`cited
`
`by Defendants
`
`are
`
`readily
`
`distinguishable.
`
`In Bauernfeind
`
`v.
`
`Albany
`
`Medical
`
`Center,
`
`195
`
`A.D.2d
`
`819
`
`(3d
`
`Dept.
`
`1993),
`
`the Record
`
`revealed
`
`that
`
`plaintiff's
`
`had
`
`retained
`
`an expert
`
`four
`
`years
`
`before
`
`that
`
`expert
`
`was
`
`disclosed
`
`to the
`
`defense
`
`attorney
`
`and
`
`defense
`
`counsel
`
`was
`
`not
`
`advised
`
`of
`
`that
`
`expert
`
`until
`
`four
`
`days
`
`prior
`
`to trial.
`
`In that
`
`counsel,
`
`case,
`
`the
`
`Court
`
`could
`
`only
`
`conclude
`
`that
`
`the
`
`failure
`
`to disclose
`
`the
`
`expert
`
`was willful.
`
`Here,
`
`there
`
`were
`
`no
`
`Reports
`
`to
`
`disclose
`
`prior
`
`to
`
`the
`
`time
`
`that
`
`the
`
`existence
`
`of
`
`the
`
`three
`
`experts
`
`was
`
`disclosed.
`
`In
`
`9
`
`9 of 14
`
`

`

`FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/25/2022 04:17 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 141
`
`INDEX NO. 501032/2018
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/25/2022
`
`addition,
`
`and
`
`respectfully,
`
`Bauernfeind
`
`is a factually
`
`specific
`
`1993
`
`Third
`
`Department
`
`case,
`
`which
`
`should
`
`not
`
`be relied
`
`upon
`
`in this matter
`
`due
`
`to the
`
`extensive
`
`time
`
`lapse
`
`involved.
`
`28.
`
`The
`
`failure
`
`to disclose
`
`was
`
`even more
`
`egregious
`
`in Corning
`
`v. Carlin,
`
`178 A.D.2d
`
`576,
`
`577 N.Y.S.2d
`
`474
`
`(2d Dept.
`
`1991),
`
`also
`
`cited
`
`by Defendants.
`
`In this
`
`case,
`
`plaintiff
`
`did
`
`not
`
`plaintiff's
`
`counsel
`
`called
`
`the
`
`expert
`
`as a trial
`
`disclose
`
`the
`
`existence
`
`of
`
`the
`
`expert;
`
`instead,
`
`simply
`
`witness,
`
`without
`
`any
`
`prior
`
`disclosure
`
`at all.
`
`In addition,
`
`there
`
`was
`
`no good
`
`cause
`
`shown
`
`as to why
`
`plaintiff
`
`had not
`
`retained
`
`an expert
`
`until
`
`the eve of
`
`trial,
`
`and had
`
`then
`
`failed
`
`to disclose
`
`the existence
`
`of
`
`that
`
`expert.
`
`In Interfilm,
`
`Inc.
`
`v. Advanced
`
`Exhibition
`
`Corp.,
`
`249 A.D.2d
`
`242,
`
`672 N.Y.S.2d
`
`309
`
`a 1998
`
`First
`
`Department
`
`the
`
`was more
`
`on
`
`the
`
`of
`
`(1st
`
`Dept.
`
`1998)
`
`case,
`
`focus
`
`type
`
`damages
`
`to
`
`which
`
`plaintiffs
`
`were
`
`entitled.
`
`The Court
`
`offered
`
`a cursory
`
`statement
`
`that
`
`preclusion
`
`was
`
`proper
`
`in
`
`light
`
`of
`
`a failure
`
`to
`
`identify
`
`the
`
`expert
`
`until
`
`the
`
`eve
`
`of
`
`trial.
`
`While
`
`it
`
`is not
`
`surprising
`
`that
`
`Defendants
`
`would
`
`characterize
`
`Plaintiff's
`
`disclosure
`
`here
`
`as an "eve
`
`of
`
`trial"
`
`disclosure,
`
`that
`
`term
`
`instance.
`
`instance
`
`still
`
`afforded
`
`is inaccurately
`
`applied
`
`in this
`
`The
`
`Disclosure
`
`in this
`
`Defendants
`
`time
`
`to retain
`
`their
`
`own
`
`experts.
`
`29.
`
`As
`
`set
`
`forth
`
`in the
`
`caselaw
`
`cited
`
`above,
`
`the
`
`standard
`
`for
`
`preclusion
`
`is "willful
`
`and
`
`intentional".
`
`Under
`
`the
`
`circ*mstances
`
`of
`
`this
`
`matter
`
`as
`
`set
`
`forth
`
`above,
`
`Defendants
`
`cannot
`
`claim
`
`that Plaintiff
`
`has approached
`
`that
`
`standard,
`
`because
`
`it has
`
`not
`
`been
`
`approached
`
`successfully
`
`at all.
`
`10
`
`10 of 14
`
`

`

`FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/25/2022 04:17 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 141
`
`INDEX NO. 501032/2018
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/25/2022
`
`IF A REMEDY
`IS REQUIRED
`TO RETAIN
`EXPERT
`DEFENDANTS
`THAT
`IS AN ADJOURNMENT
`REMEDY
`DATE
`TRIAL
`APRIL
`2022
`
`TO PERMIT
`WITNESSES,
`OF THE
`
`28,
`
`30.
`
`Plaintiff
`
`has
`
`come
`
`forward
`
`with
`
`a reasonable
`
`explanation
`
`for
`
`why
`
`the CPLR
`
`3101(d)
`
`Expert
`
`Disclosures
`
`were
`
`not
`
`served
`
`earlier.
`
`If Defendants
`
`believe
`
`that
`
`prejudice
`
`will
`
`be
`
`suffered
`
`as a result
`
`of when
`
`the
`
`3101s
`
`were
`
`filed,
`
`the
`
`proper
`
`remedy
`
`is an adjournment
`
`of
`
`the
`
`trial.
`
`argue
`
`that
`
`not
`
`suffer
`
`such
`
`prejudice
`
`-
`
`service
`
`of
`
`the
`
`Life
`
`While
`
`Plaintiff
`
`would
`
`Defendant
`
`will
`
`Care
`
`Planner
`
`Report
`
`and
`
`Economist
`
`Report
`
`still
`
`gives
`
`the Defendant
`
`just
`
`about
`
`three
`
`weeks
`
`to
`
`secure
`
`an expert
`
`witness
`
`- even
`
`if
`
`Defendants'
`
`argument
`
`of prejudice
`
`is accepted,
`
`adjourning
`
`the
`
`trial
`
`date will
`
`remove
`
`that
`
`possibility.
`
`Defendants'
`
`argument
`
`of prejudice
`
`as indicated
`
`in Motion
`
`#s 3 and
`
`4 go
`
`to when
`
`the Responses
`
`were
`
`served.
`
`Defendants
`
`want
`
`to term
`
`that
`
`as an "eve
`
`of
`
`trial"
`
`eve
`
`the trial
`
`service,
`
`but
`
`it was
`
`not
`
`on the
`
`of
`
`trial.
`
`This
`
`is not
`
`a situation
`
`where,
`
`for
`
`example,
`
`had
`
`started
`
`and
`
`Plaintiff
`
`called
`
`an
`
`expert
`
`witness
`
`without
`
`any
`
`prior
`
`expert
`
`disclosure
`
`at
`
`all
`
`-
`
`Defendants
`
`cited
`
`a case
`
`where
`
`that
`
`occurred;
`
`see,
`
`Corning
`
`v. Carlin,
`
`178
`
`A.D.2d
`
`576,
`
`577
`
`N.Y.S.2d
`
`474
`
`(2d Dept.
`
`1991),
`
`cited
`
`by Defendants
`
`in Motion
`
`#3 (Affirmation,
`
`¶7).
`
`were
`
`should
`
`not
`
`be
`
`31.
`
`The
`
`question
`
`of when
`
`the CPLR
`
`3101(d)
`
`Exchanges
`
`served
`
`conflated
`
`with
`
`the
`
`fact
`
`that
`
`they
`
`were
`
`served
`
`at all.
`
`There
`
`is a readily
`
`available
`
`solution
`
`to protect
`
`Defendants
`
`from
`
`any
`
`claim
`
`of
`
`prejudice
`
`in this matter.
`
`Respectfully,
`
`it
`
`is Plaintiff
`
`who
`
`will
`
`be
`
`prejudiced
`
`if
`
`Defendant'
`
`Preclusion
`
`Motions
`
`are granted..
`
`An adjournment
`
`of
`
`the
`
`trial
`
`date
`
`is the
`
`equitable
`
`solution
`
`to protect
`
`both
`
`parties.
`
`11
`
`11 of 14
`
`

`

`FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/25/2022 04:17 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 141
`
`INDEX NO. 501032/2018
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/25/2022
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`32.
`
`The
`
`standard
`
`for
`
`preclusion
`
`as set
`
`forth
`
`in the
`
`caselaw
`
`is "willful
`
`and
`
`intentional".
`
`Plaintiff
`
`has demonstrated
`
`that
`
`that
`
`line
`
`has
`
`not
`
`been
`
`crossed
`
`in this matter.
`
`There
`
`are
`
`reasonable
`
`explanations
`
`indicated
`
`for when
`
`the Expert
`
`Exchanges
`
`and Reports
`
`were
`
`served.
`
`Defendants
`
`argue
`
`that
`
`they
`
`are unable
`
`to retain
`
`experts,
`
`but
`
`do not
`
`state
`
`that
`
`they
`
`will
`
`not
`
`do so.
`
`To
`
`the
`
`extent
`
`that
`
`a
`
`remedy
`
`is necessary
`
`here,
`
`that
`
`remedy
`
`is an adjournment
`
`of
`
`the trial
`
`date
`
`of April
`
`28,
`
`2022.
`
`In that
`
`trial
`
`manner,
`
`Defendants
`
`will
`
`have
`
`the
`
`necessary
`
`time
`
`to retain
`
`experts
`
`of
`
`their
`
`choice,
`
`and
`
`the
`
`can
`
`then
`
`proceed.
`
`WHEREFORE,
`
`it
`
`is respectfully
`
`requested
`
`that
`
`Defendants'
`
`Preclusion
`
`Motions
`
`be denied
`
`in
`
`their
`
`entirety;
`
`or
`
`in the
`
`alternative,
`
`if
`
`the Court
`
`tis
`
`inclined
`
`to grant
`
`prelusion,
`
`that
`
`the Court
`
`adjourn
`
`the trial
`
`of
`
`this
`
`smatter
`
`to accommodate
`
`Defense
`
`Counsel's
`
`retention
`
`of appropriate
`
`experts,
`
`together
`
`with
`
`such
`
`other
`
`and
`
`further
`
`relief
`
`as this Court
`
`deems
`
`just
`
`and
`
`proper.
`
`Dated:
`
`New York,
`April
`25,
`
`New York
`2022
`
`Michael
`
`L. Taub
`
`12
`
`12 of 14
`
`

`

`FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/25/2022 04:17 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 141
`
`INDEX NO. 501032/2018
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/25/2022
`
`CERTIFICATION
`
`PURSUANT
`
`TO Rule
`
`202.8-b
`
`Pursuant
`
`to 22 NYCRR 202.8-b,
`
`I certify
`
`as follows:
`
`1.
`
`The
`
`number
`
`of words
`
`in this
`
`document
`
`(Affirmation
`
`of Michael
`
`L. Taub,
`
`Esq.)
`
`is
`
`3,637
`
`2.
`
`The
`
`count
`
`excludes
`
`the words
`
`in the
`
`signature
`
`block
`
`that
`
`appear
`
`on Page
`
`11,
`
`the
`
`words
`
`that
`
`appear
`
`in the
`
`caption
`
`on Page
`
`1, and
`
`the words
`
`that
`
`appear
`
`in this Certification.
`
`3.
`
`The
`
`number
`
`indicated
`
`above
`
`was
`
`determined
`
`in
`
`reliance
`
`on the word
`
`count
`
`of
`
`the
`
`word
`
`processing
`
`system
`
`used
`
`to prepare
`
`this
`
`document
`
`(22 NYCRR 202.8-b(c).
`
`4.
`
`This
`
`number
`
`complies
`
`with
`
`the
`
`requirements
`
`of Rule
`
`202.8-b(a)(i).
`
`Dated:
`
`New York,
`April
`25,
`
`New York
`2022
`
`PLLC
`
`1927
`
`Law
`Platta
`The
`Firm,
`for Plaintiff
`Attorneys
`Michael
`L. Taub
`- Suite
`42 Broadway
`NY 10004
`New York,
`514-5100
`(212)
`mt@platalaw.com
`
`13
`
`13 of 14
`
`

`

`FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/25/2022 04:17 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 141
`
`INDEX NO. 501032/2018
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/25/2022
`
`OF THE STATE
`
`COURT
`SUPREME
`OF KINGS
`COUNTY
`--------------------------------------------------------------------X
`MONIKA
`BALAZY,
`
`OF NEW YORK
`
`Index
`
`No.:
`
`501032/18
`
`-agains/-
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`SUPER
`
`BUS INC.
`
`and YUAN LIANG
`
`LI,
`
`Defendants.
`____________________________________________________________________Ç
`
`AFFIRMATION
`THE PLATTA
`
`PLLC
`
`1927
`10004
`
`IN OPPOSITION
`LAW FIRM,
`for Plaintiff
`Attorney
`Suite
`42 Broadway,
`New York
`New York,
`514-5100
`(212)
`to 22 NYCRR
`he/she
`that
`130-1.1-a
`nt
`in 22 NYCRR
`s that
`term is defined
`
`undersigned
`The
`papers
`the within
`
`attorney
`and
`that
`
`hereby
`same
`
`certifies,
`are not
`
`friv
`
`·
`
`p
`
`read
`has
`130-1.1(c).
`
`Service
`
`Dated,
`
`PLEASE
`
`of a copy
`
`of
`
`the within
`
`is hereby
`
`admitted.
`
`Attorney
`
`ame: Michael
`
`L. Taub
`
`for
`
`Attorney(s)
`TAKE
`NOTICE:
`O NOTICE
`OF ENTRY
`the within
`that
`is a (certified)
`the within
`of
`named
`court
`
`on
`
`true
`
`copy
`
`of an Order
`
`duly
`20__.
`
`entered
`
`in the
`
`office
`
`of
`
`the
`
`clerk
`
`OF SETTLEMENT
`the within
`of which
`
`O NOTICE
`that
`an Order
`Justice
`at
`
`is a true
`
`copy
`one
`
`will
`of
`
`be presented
`the judges
`
`settlement
`for
`the within
`
`of
`
`to the Hon.
`named
`
`Court,
`on
`
`20
`
`at
`
`O'clock
`
`.M.
`
`Dated,
`
`April
`
`25,
`
`2022
`
`Yours,
`
`etc.
`
`THE PLATTA
`
`LAW FIRM,
`
`PLLC
`
`14
`
`14 of 14
`
`