Free Memorandum in Support of Motion - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:01-cv-02158-WWE

Document 128

Filed 09/08/2005

Page 1 of 21

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT DONALD WAINRIGHT, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. OSM COMMUNICATIONS, INC., ET AL., Defendants. : : : : : : : : :

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:01-CV-02158 (WWE)

SEPTEMBER 8, 2005

JOINT MEMORANDUM OF DEFENDANTS ISRAEL H. POLANSKY AND ANNE POLANSKY IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, WITH APPENDIX Introduction This is an action brought by two former employees of OSM Communications, Inc. ( S ) oa Wa r h a Deborah A. Russo-Wii s n b D nl Wa r h s i , " M" D nl O d i i t nd ng la ad y oa lm d i i t wf ng ' e Janet Wainright. Their claims against the defendants Israel H. Polansky and Anne Polansky are bsduo p i is c i sfr a r, ee ne ado e bnfs lm dt b o e t ae pn ln f ' lm o sl y svr c, n t r ee t c i e o e w d o a tf a a a h i a them by reason of the employment of Donald Wainright and Deborah A. Russo-Williams by OSM. Defendants Israel H. Polansky and Anne Polansky have moved for summary judgment. Their motions are supported by their previously filed affidavits [Docket items 51 and 53], the Affidavit of Robert E. Polansky filed with his Motion for Summary Judgment and by excerpts of p i is dpsi s n t o e m t is otndi t s df dn ' ped [ okt ln f ' eoio ad h t r a r lcn i n h e e nat apni D ce a tf tn e h ea ae e e s x item 50].

Case 3:01-cv-02158-WWE

Document 128

Filed 09/08/2005

Page 2 of 21

The Causes of Action In their first cause of acti p i is lm t ths df dn a lb fr S s o ln f c i h t e e nat r i l o O M' n a tf a a e e s e ae aee bec o cn at eas " S i a ae g adm r i t m n ly o t s lgd r h f ot c bcue O M s n lr o n e n r eti " f h e l a r t -e e su at e defendants. (Complaint ¶ 17) The second cause of action is a claimed violation of Connecticut General Statutes relating to the failure of OSM to pay wages to Mr. Wainright and Ms. Russo-Williams and that these df dn a lb fr n dm gs ne t tet n eas " S ia ae e nat r i l o ay a ae udrh sco bcue O M s n lr and mere e s e ae a i t -ego i t m n ly o t s df dn . C m ln ¶ n r eti" fh e e nat (o p i 18) su at e e s at The third cause of action against Israel H. Polansky is founded upon the allegations that Ial . o nk pr nl ga n e O M' ol aos opyMrWa r h h w gs s e H P l sy e oay ur t d S s b gt n t a r a s l ae i i . i i t i ae, ng s bonus and moving expense reimbursement as an inducement to accepting employment at OSM adt t . o nk l e i ga n e O M' pr r ac o i ol aosoMsR s n h MrP l sy i ws ur t d S s e om ne ft b gt n t . us a a k e ae f s i i o Williams both as an inducement to her accepting employment with OSM and as an inducement for her to remain an employee of OSM. (Complaint ¶ 19) The fourth cause of action alleges Israel H. Polansky induced Mr. Wainright to accept e p y et i O M b f sl r r et gO M' f ac l od i adf sl c i i m l m n wt S y a e e e n n S s i ni cnio n a e lm n o h l y ps i n a tn ly a g t at s ga n r f S s b gt n t MrWa r h adt t . o nk made like o c a a ur t o O M' ol aos o . i i t n h MrP l sy ao i i ng a a representations to Ms. Russo-Williams to induce her to accept employment with OSM and to continue employment with OSM. (Complaint ¶ 21) The fifth cause of action claims that Israel H. Polansky falsely represented that he would reimburse Mr. Wainri to r oao epne adh i t r oelb fr S s lgd g fr e ct n xess n e s h e r i l o O M' aee h l i ef ae l

2

Case 3:01-cv-02158-WWE

Document 128

Filed 09/08/2005

Page 3 of 21

failure to reimburse repay expenses to both Mr. Wainright and his wife Janet Wainright. (Complaint ¶ 23) The claims against Israel H. Polansky are therefore based entirely upon three premises: A. The plaintiffs were induced to become employees of OSM through the

f uu n r r eti s fs e H P l sy ocri O M' f ac l i it adI al r dl te e n t n o Ial . o nk cne n S s i ni v b i n s e a e p s ao r a ng n a a ly r H P l sy wlnns t pr nl ga n t tO M w u m e i ol . o nk' ii es o e oay ur t h S a s lg s l ay a ol et t b gations to d s i plaintiffs. B. Polansky. C. In June of 1998 Israel H. Polansky promised Ms. Russo-Williams that he OSM is nothing more than an alter ego and instrumentality of Israel H.

w u pr nl ga n O M'f ac lb gt n. ol e oay ur t S si ni ol aos d s l ay n a i i The claims against Anne Polansky are therefore based entirely upon two premises: A. Polansky. B. Money was drained from OSM and property was purchased through and OSM is nothing more than an alter ego and instrumentality of Anne

p cdn ne o nk'nm t sid s tfrom OSM creditors. l e iA n P l sy a eo h l as s a a s e e Facts In 1996 OSM purchased the assets which had once belonged to a company called InStore Advertising, Inc. Those assets included electronic signs which had been installed in supermarkets advertising on those signs would be sold to consumer product companies and p cd n h s n v cm u r vre poei s Iw s S s b cv t scr otd l e o t i s i o pt oe tehn l e. t a O M'oj t eo eue u i a eg a e l n ei se

3

Case 3:01-cv-02158-WWE

Document 128

Filed 09/08/2005

Page 4 of 21

investment capital to fund the marketing of such advertising and the telecommunications network. (Israel H. Polansky Affidavit, hr nf r IP" ¶3 Israel H. Polansky invested e i t " , ¶ -5) e ae H sufficient sums for OSM to acquire those assets and May of 1996. T ecm ln aee t p i isD nl Wa r h ( i i t adD br A h o p i lgs h ln f oa at l e a tf d i i t " n g " n eoa . n g Wa r h ) h Russo-Wii s( us-Wii s) e e p ye of OSM from 1996 through late 2000. la " s lm R o la " w r m l es lm e o Pa tfpr r e t idts t S s fcsn e Y r ( fdv o R brE P l sy ln f e om d h r u e aO M'of e i N w ok A f ai f oe . o nk i is f e i i i t t a ( E " ¶ 3 adt ol cnet no aypr t t Sa o C netu it t oa " P) 5) n h n onco f n a y o h te f oncctsh D nl R , e y i t e t i a d and Janet Wainwright resided in Connecticut. Israel H. Polansky Ial . o nk' rl a O M w s i id I t fs p c, S w s oa di s e H P l sy o t S r a s e a l t . n h it l e O M a l t n me e r a ce New York City and Israel Polansky lived in Newton, Massachusetts with his wife. In May of 1996 he was 86 years old and his primary function came to care for his then 84 year old wife. She required and continues to require his constant attention and presence in their home in Newton, Massachusetts. Her movement is severely restricted by reason of her arthritis. She suffers from severe diverticulitis, has constant headaches, and rarely has day without pain. Her cnio a n wt Ial o nk' ae cm ee h t r i f m bs es nJn o od i l g i s e P l sy g, o pld i o er r tn o h r a s l m te o ui s i ue f n 1997. As a consequence of all of this he rarely traveled to New York City or OSM. (IHP ¶¶ 6, 7) Although Israel Polansky was a director of the company by reasons of what he understood to be Delaware requirements, he had no role of any kind in the operation of OSM.

4

Case 3:01-cv-02158-WWE

Document 128

Filed 09/08/2005

Page 5 of 21

Ial o nk'sn oe P l syw sh Pei n ad n hre all operations (IHP ¶¶ s eP l sys o R br o nk, a t r d tn i ca of r a t a e se g 8, 9; REP ¶ 67, 73) In 1999 Israel Polansky was reaching the point that he could no longer make investments in OSM, and in 2000 he stopped making investments altogether. (IHP ¶ 12) Israel Polansky made no representations to Mr. Wainright with respect to the condition of OSM or his guaranty of salary (IHP ¶ 16). In fact, in his deposition, Mr. Wainright testified that his first communication of any substance with Israel Polansky was after he was employed by OSM. That communicati t k p c a O M' of e ad t sbt c o t t o o n o l e t S s fc, n h us ne f h a i e a a

cm ui t n " a h [ r lP l sys dsentt ke sed gm ny ntke o m n ao w s i Ia o nk' ei o o ep pni ci s se a ] r n oe, o ep i et gm ny nt bs esoke igi . D nl Wa r h D psi ( WD ) p n sn oe i h ui s t ep t o g v i e n n " oa d i i t eoio " ng t n D " p. 57-58. Mr. Wainright further testified that his communications with Israel Polansky continued in that same vein through the summer of 2000 when Mr. Wainright had his last communication with Israel Polansky (DWD pp. 59-61). Mr. Wainright did not know what role, if any, Israel Polansky had in the day-to-day operations of the company (DWD p. 65). He also

acknowledged that if Israel Polansky had not been investing money into OSM that it could not have operated (DWD p. 77) and that Israel Polansky received no financial benefits from OSM (DWD p. 79). Plaintiff Janet Wainright never spoke or communicated with Israel Polansky (Janet Wa r h D psi "WD p 1) S e a n cn at i O M aday fh df dn i i t eoio J " . 1. h hd o ot c wt S n n o t e nat ng tn r h e e s (id.).

5

Case 3:01-cv-02158-WWE

Document 128

Filed 09/08/2005

Page 6 of 21

In her deposition, Deborah Russo-Williams testified that she had never actually talked to Israel Polansky until the time she started working for OSM (Deborah Russo-Williams D psi , R "p 2) H r r eoio " WD . 0. e pe tn -employment discussions were with Robert Polansky, and when asked about those, Ms. Russo-Williams made no mention of any participation by Israel Polansky (RWD pp. 23-24). Ms. Russo-Williams also claims that Israel Polansky guaranteed her salary. In fact her m enswt I al o nk w r t "ast t eo dya h cm fr t r upss et g i s e P l sy e o ps h i f a s e a e o o e proe" i h r a e e m h (RWD p. 36). Communications remained this way until her last communication with Israel Polansky in June of 1998 when, she said, she was going to take a job with another employer and t ts e P l sym t i hr th cf ehue " et dm t thr were investors h Ial o nk e wt e a t of os. H o e h t e a r a h e e l a e interested in the company; that he wanted me to stay on; he thinks that the company is going to t e faa ,n t t sol cni r t i o aa adntae h nw j . H l a of gi ad h Ihu os e s y g n gi n o t t s e o ... e e k n a d d an n k i b d me to believe that he was going to keep investing in the company to keep it going for as long as inee t b ut t y e i et snt r ... H si t t I o'r e br ieat t edd o e n lh gtn s r i h e i e v o e. e a h .... dnte m e h xc d a m s words. I think he brought up the point that he had been putting money into the company to pay our salaries and e ol cn neo o ht h w u ot u t d t . d i a" " . n,s eto cn ea,o d h syht Q A da bsyu a r l hw i e a t ? cl d a" " . Peym c l et tt t ehdbe ptn m nyi ot cm ayadh A r t uh i h ,h h a en u i oe n h o pn n e t k a a tg t e would continue to do that and I should stick around and things were going to happen soon. " [Emphasis supplied] " .S iw s' cm i eto udh cm ay oee " Q o t an a o m t ntfn t o pn fr r t m e v?

6

Case 3:01-cv-02158-WWE

Document 128

Filed 09/08/2005

Page 7 of 21

" . We, t k ts uh H hd en ud g t p n lht o tn h l m t A l Io ia sc. e a be fni iu ut t pi ad ee eo l o n i a n d believe that he was going to fund it up until we got investors it r" nh e e. " .E e iit ke ya ? Q vn fto t er ' o n s " .Y a. A eh " " .A dht a yu epc t n" Q n t w s orxeti ? a ao " . N , w shp gw w u gtnet si t r adt cm ayw u b A o I a oi e ol e i s r n h e n h o pn ol e n d v o e e d sces lgi " ucs uaa . f n " . B thr w s discussion with him as to how long he would continue to fund the Q u t e a no e cm ay" o pn? " . N t n seicn.T e hd en et g i a o n ai et ad e ae A o i pc i o hy a be m en wt pt tln s r n h m d hg f, i h ei v o it sound like that deal was going to happen and it was just a matter of time before real money s r d o i i adh cm ay ol b o i w y p gi " t t cm n n n t o pn w u e n t a u aa . ae g e d s n " . S t t ew s'gi t hv t fn t cm ayvr m c l gri 't t Q o h h an o g o ae o ud h o pn e uh o e s th a t n e y n ,n a rh " it g? " .Y a. A eh " " . (yMrS l ah We, hnyum t Q B . u bc) l w e o e with Mr. Polansky he told you there's an z l i et t y e tk gor h " n s rh w r a i t i t v o e e ln , g ? " .Y s A e. " " .A dhy e ot iiaotht Q n t w r p m sc bu t ? e e i t a" " .Y s A e. "

7

Case 3:01-cv-02158-WWE

Document 128

Filed 09/08/2005

Page 8 of 21

" . A dyuudrodh t cm it cn ne ofn t cm ays t th Q n o ne t s o i o o m to ot u t ud h o pn o h t m i e a at investor or the deal with that investor could come through, isn't that right? " . Y a, geshtnet , ryuko , n i et t t a i e s di t A eh I us t i s ro, o nw ay n s rh w s n r t n h a v o v o a te e e company. They usually had a couple that were interested at the same time. I didn't know which i et h w se rn tseicl. n s r e a r e i o pc i l" v o frg f ay " . B t hnh tkdt yuh f t n cnee t yut t ni et et a Q u w e e a e o o e e ad ovyd o o h a n s n w s l l a v m i m nn i 'hti t m i t s t ar h " e,nt g ? " .Y s A e. " " . A dh cm i et i t r w soe w st fn t cm ayut t t Q n i o m t n f h e a n, a o ud h o pn n l h s m , e e i a i et etom d, n t ti t n s ngt aei 'h r h " v m st a g ? " . We, n l ni et et o m d.H w s p m sc bu t t n btt i ' A l ut a n s n gt ae e a ot ii aoth oe u id n l i v m i t a dt m a iw s o go apn ent a gi thpe. n " " .B te i ' a,' gi td ia l g stae? Q uh d n syI o go o tso a it s" dt m n n k " .We,eh A l ya. l " " .H d ? Q ei" d " . H peym c cnee t t e be i et gu ut t s o t n h w s A e r t uh ovyd h h' en n sn p n lh pi ad e a t a s v i i i n gi tcn neo netn l e o r l oe cm n i" o go ot u ti sut w gte m ny o i n n i v i a g . " . H w d yuj pf m t f tht ew s ei yut r w s ni m nn Q o i o u r h a t h a tl g o h e a a m i t d m o e c a ln e e investment, and that he would fund the company so that could happen, to an undertaking to fund t cm ay oeead oee " h o pn fr rn fr r e v v?

8

Case 3:01-cv-02158-WWE

Document 128

Filed 09/08/2005

Page 9 of 21

" . We, e a ot iiaoth pt tlnet , u id n a as en ht A l h w s p m sc bu t s o n ai s rbtt i ' l y m a t l i t i ei v o dt w a that's what was going to happen. I mean, they've had potential investors before and the deal fell t og at l t i t" h uh th a m n e r e s u. " .B tn h cn x o t s i us nt d cs o w s bu a i m nni et , Q u i t ot t fh d cs o, e i us n a aotn m i tn s r e e i s i h s i e v o rh " it g? " . I ntue ft a j t n i et o it r w r a A ' o sr iiw su oe n s r rfh e e couple out there and they m s v o e e w rgi t t th w t s n se h h n cm bc wtt bsof . e o go e t a rad e w i oe a e ak i h et f r e n s e e c h e e" " .B th d cs o w s bu i m nn i et et Q ut i us n a aotm i tn s n e s i e v m ? " .Wht o o m a b " m nn , k hwso? A ad yu en y i i t l e o on" m e"i " .We, t t n oeealft e Q l i h h fr eb u r" ln e e s e u. " .Wht i o t er e" A ak d fi f m ? n m a " .We, lm w ak d fi er e Q l tl e ht i o t f m . le n m a " " . I en i m nn cu b wt n h nx ya Iden ncs ry en i i A m a,m i tol e i i t et er t os' ees i m a wt n e d h e . t al h t nx f w es h ete ek. e w " " .Wolihv be a er Q u t ae en ya " d ? " .P s b ,eh A os l ya. ie " " .B to m rt n ht Q unt oeh t ? a a" " .Wi t t a i l i et ? A t h prc a n s r h a tu r v o " " .Wi t s i et s i w o h w sa i . Q t h en s rwt hm e a tk g h o v o h ln " .N ,rbb nt A opoal o " y . " .S h cm i et ol ' ae en oehnhti e w u i" Q o i o m t n w u n hv be m rt t ehr ol t s m dt a a t , d?

9

Case 3:01-cv-02158-WWE

Document 128

Filed 09/08/2005

Page 10 of 21

" . We,icm i et a ut the company was funded. He was optimistic about A l h o mt nw s nl l s m i these two that they were working with, but it wasn't imminent that it was going to happen or definite that it was going to happen with either one of those. It could have fallen through with both of those and then there would be another investor that they would be optimistic about. So there was never really any deadline as to how long this was going to take. It was, he would fund it for as long as it took. If this deal fell through, then they'd get another deal and the cycle

w u s ra oeaa . ol t tl vrgi" d a l n " . S w a w st e a t t ae o blv t t e ol fn t cm ay o Q o ht a ih si h m d yu eee h h w u ud h o pn fr d a i a d e hw vrogt i taeee iiw u b t ya ? o eel im g t ,vnft ol ee er " n h k d n s " .I o' e e br ieat od. A dn r m eh xcw rs tm s " " .We,a yu a pr et Q l cn o pr ha i" l a s ? " . Iw s y ne t d g ht e a gi t fn t cm ay n lh daw s A t a m udra i t h w s o g o ud h o pn ut t el a sn n a n e i e s nd i e. g " " .N m tr o l gtok" Q o aehw o it ? t n o " .Y s A e. " " . A d m qet n o yu i w a d h sy t yu t tgv yu t t Q n y uso f o s i : ht i e a o o h ae o h d a a udrad g" ne t i ? sn n " Well, that he kind of said something like that. Like I said, I don't remember exactly A. what he said, but it was, you know, relaying that he would continue to fund the company. He wanted me to stay around and he wanted Don to stay around and he would continue to put m nyn t cm ay n lh m ny a t r" oe i oh o pn ut t oe w sh e t e i e e.

10

Case 3:01-cv-02158-WWE

Document 128

Filed 09/08/2005

Page 11 of 21

" .H wo w s e thti ed yu nw MrP l syt ts" Q o l a h at t ,o o ko , . o nk, ai d a m a h ? " .I o' e e br I nwh'u t r" A dn r m e ko e ph e tm . s e. " .Ih k e a ehri t A t n h w s i ee h -nine or ninety, something like that i t gy . " " . S d t ted o t blv t t e ol cn ne ud g h cm ay sog Q o i h l yu o eeeh h w u ot u fni t o pn a l d a a i a d i n e n a h l e? s ei d" v " .Y s A e. " " .A d ht a ih sit t ae o blv t t Q n w aw st e a h m d yu eeeh ? d a i a" " . IE : I j t b c Ih kt s s h t r t eyu eakdt MR RL Y ' u oj t t n h i t h d i o' se hat l s e. l i i e i m v qet n n I eeehth hs a pr e o." uso ad blv t se a pr ha d r. i i a a s . . " . U Z A H I a ie nqet nad f o cn nw rt l s d. MR S L B C : t d f etuso,n iyu a as ei p ae o ' fr s i ,e " " . IE :I nt . a Iut l s ha t qet naa adhw i MR RL Y ' o . C n j p ae erh uso gi n o t m . . s e e i n ' s different from the last time it's ben se. e akd " " . U Z A H T e uso w s ht e a t t ol m k hr eee MR S L B C : h qet n a w ah si h w u ae e blv i d a d i t t e olfn t cm ay o a l g s ei d h h w u ud h o pn frso a h l e. a d e n v " " . IE : hn yu MR RL Y T ak o. " " . We, e i ' i m t i pes nt t e a gi ay hr ay i e on A l h d n g e e h m r i h h w s o g nw e n t so. l dt v e so a n e m He seemed to be a pretty healthy person. And pretty much what I said before, that he said that ut h gtnnet h w s o go ot u tfn t cm ay n le oa i s r e a gi t cn neo ud h o pn. i v o n i e " " .(y . u bc)Dd e a ay i e ehto cn ea? Q B MrS l ah i h sy nt n l t yu a r l" z hg s a cl " .N . A o " " .A d ht iyu a th ? Q n w ad o syo i " d m

11

Case 3:01-cv-02158-WWE

Document 128

Filed 09/08/2005

Page 12 of 21

" .Ih k t d i I a t t n aott A t n Io h hd oh k bui" i l m i . " . A dw e,f vrw sh nx t e o i a m ne cm ui t wt I al Q n hn iee a t eti yu n y anr o m n a d i s e , e m ce h r P l sy" o nk? a " .I i '" A d nt d . (DRW pp. 36-45) In fact, Israel Polansky continued to fund the company for another year and a half before he finally gave up (IPA pp. 12, 13). After her alleged 1998 meeting with Mr. Polansky, Ms. Russo-Williams never communicated with Mr. Polansky again but did send communications to OSM with regard to expenses and salary, see Exhibits 7, 10, and 11 to her deposition. Anne Polansky A A n P l sy a i v m ksc a hrol i o e etwt O M w s s ne o nk' fd i ae l r e n n l m n i S a s fa t e, y vv h a telephoning her husband, Robert Polansky, who worked there. She certainly had no control over OSM. She never had access to any OSM assets, accounts or credit cards. She did not possess or control and never possessed or controlled any asset or thing of value of OSM and she never received money or anything of value from OSM. Donald Wainright was asked at page 78 o h dpsi w e e h hd"n ei ne f i eoio ht r e a ay v ec s tn h d a a t t ne o nk r e e ay i f m O M" e epne " oI ae v ec" t l h A n P l sy e i d nt n r la a cv h g o S h r odd D hv ei ne ... s d " o A pg 7 h r pne t t e a ua a o ay i ni bnfsee e b I al N . t ae 9 e e odd h h w s nw r f n f ac l ee tr i d y s e " s a e n a i cv r P l sy rm O M. H waot ne o nk? " . d nt nw" o nk f a o S " o buA n P l sy" A I o o ko . a

12

Case 3:01-cv-02158-WWE

Document 128

Filed 09/08/2005

Page 13 of 21

At page 14 of her deposition Janet Wainright acknowledges that she has never had any contact with Anne Polansky, never met her and never communicated with her. She was asked " o'enm dhrnyu l si w a s or lm aa sA n P l sy iay" " . Y uv a e e i ora u ; ht yu c i gi t ne o nk,f n? A I w t ' a n a dntnw" o'ko . At pages 33 and 34 of her deposition, Deborah Russo-Williams acknowledges that she had met Anne Polansky only once and that was before she was employed by OSM. She also related that she ol soe i Mr P l syw e se cldadakdfr . o nk. n pk wt s o nk hn h "ae n se o MrP l sy y h . a l a " ... "h w u j t a adakfr i adw ' t nf t cloe t t a i" " .N S e ol u cl n s o h n e r s rh a vr h w st Q o d s l m d a e e l ,a . o ed cs os fn k dit ti t " . o t r i us n o ay i , h r h " A N . h s i n s a g? " At pages 82 through 84 the following colloquy takes place with regard to the absence of facts to substantiate her claims against Anne Polansky. " . Wi r a t A n P l sypro yu cm ln sy t t oe w s r nd Q t e r o ne o nk, a f or o p i ash m ny a da e h gd a t at a i from OSM and property was purchased through and placed in Anne Polansky's name to shield astf mO M c d os D yu ae n r sno eeeht t e" s sr e o S r i r o o hv ay e o tblv t ' r ? et . a i as u " .Y s A e. " " .A d htsht Q n w ait ? a" " .S w cn g a eR brP l sy o t m nyht e w s s A o e a' o f r oe o nk frh oe t h o e u. t t t a e a " " .Whtstht ne o nk hsht e ne tO M? Q aiit A n P l sy a t bl gdo S " a a a o " .I o' nw" A dn ko . t " . I en yut du t th ol m nyt t S ee hdcm f m I al Q m a, o o s h t n oe h O M vr a a e r s e l a e y a o r P l sy i et et s'hti t o nk' n s n i t ar h " a s v m ,nt g ?

13

Case 3:01-cv-02158-WWE

Document 128

Filed 09/08/2005

Page 14 of 21

" .Y s A e. " " .A d htstht S p cd n ne o nk'nm ? Q n w aiit O M l e i A n P l sy a e" a a a s " .I o' nw" A dn ko . t " .S yu o' nwyusl. Q o o dn ko or f. t e ." . " .N . A o " . . o ayr snt blv t tnf t rpr hdbe pr ae t og ad Q . f n e o o eee h i a poe y a en uc sd h uh n . . a i a c t h r placed in Anne Polansky's name to keep it away from creditors? You don't know of any fact that spott tlm d yu" upr h c i ,o o? s a a " .N tf adn. A oof n,o -h " " .We,o o w n t t n aott lt m r I o' ato t hv t m k a Q l d yu ato h k bu iail oe dn w n yu o aeo ae l i te ? t sa j g et npu m n" d . " . o i t t cnh k f A N t n h Ia t n o. hg a i " Argument The facts set forth here with respect to Israel H. Polansky and Anne Polansky are the sm a t s stot a pgs 1 1 ad1 o Mair e ug Ft i m n'eo m ne a e sh e e fr t ae 1, 2 n 3 f g t t Jde is os r m edd o h sa zm c ruling on Motion to Open Judgment and Stay Enforcement of Judgment in this matter. Copies of those pages are appended hereto and set forth the law in this case that these facts constitute a cm le e neoh p i isc i s o p tdf s tt ln f 'lm . e e e a tf a Because all matters set forth in the complaint occurred in New York State, if there were a conflict between the law of Connecticut and New York in this matter, under the most significant contacts analysis employed by the Connecticut Supreme court in cases such as Dugan v. Mobil

14

Case 3:01-cv-02158-WWE

Document 128

Filed 09/08/2005

Page 15 of 21

Testing Services, 265 Conn. 791, 801-07 (2003), the law of New York would control. See also, O C no vO C no, 201 Conn. 632 (1986). 'onr . 'onr The First and Second Causes of Action A n P l sy adIal . o nk' nn vl m n i t at ie o O M ne o nk' n s e H P l sy oi o e et n h cv i f S a s r a s n v e i ts defeat the alter ego and instrumentality claims upon which the first and second causes of action are based. Under the cases cited by plaintiff at pp. 12 and 13 of its Motion for Summary Judgment dated August 6, 2005, prerequisite for individual liability is complete control of the corporation on the part of that individual. See e.g., Zaist v. Olson, 154 Conn. 563, 575, (1967), 576 (767). Likewise, under New York law exercise of control and domination is also a prerequisite to individual liability. See, Litvinskiy v. May Entertainment Group, Inc., 4 Misc.3d. 1028 (A), 798 N.Y.S.2d 345, 2004 WL 2187173 (N.Y. Sup.) and Lupien v. Bartolomeo, 5 Misc.3d. 1025 (A), 799 N.Y.S.2d 161, 2004 WL 2827678 (N.Y. Sup.). Neither Israel Polansky nor Anne Polansky had such control and neither received any thing of value from OSM. The Third and Fourth Causes of Action As to the guarantee claims of the third and fourth causes of action, Mr. Polansky, Mr. Wainright and Ms. Russo-Williams are all in agreement that there were no communications at all between them and Israel H. Polansky before they accepted employment at OSM rendering it impossible for them to have relied on guarantees by Mr. Polansky in accepting employment at OSM.

15

Case 3:01-cv-02158-WWE

Document 128

Filed 09/08/2005

Page 16 of 21

Israel Polansky denies that he guaranteed Ms. Russo-Wii s sl y t n t e h h la ' a r a ay i w i lm a m c includes the one time she claims that she spoke with Israel Polansky in June of 1998. Although Ms. Russo-Williams cannot remember exactly what she claims Mr. Polansky said in that discussion, her testimony in that regard is set forth at pages 6 through 12 of this Memorandum. Notwithstanding her claimed belief that Israel Polansky was obliged to support her salary for as long as she chose to work at OSM, her testimony, taken most favorably in context, would have obliged Mr. Polansky to support her salary for a period of less than a year and, in fact, he did support her salary for another year and a half. Be all that as it may, this guarantee, even if it existed, would be unenforceable under the law of the States of Connecticut and New York. In Connecticut, this claimed guarantee is subject to Connecticut General Statutes § 52550 which provides in relevant part Sec. 52-550. Statute of frauds; written agreement or memorandum. a. No civil action may be maintained in the following cases unless the agreement, or a memorandum of the agreement, is made in writing and signed by the a yo t aet fh pr ,ob ca e: () gi tn pr nuo pr , rh gn o t a yt e hr d ... 2 aa say e o pn t e e t g n s aysei po i t as e frh db df lo m sa i e f nt r... n pc l rm s o nw ro t et e u r i ra o ao e a e e , at c rg h; (5) upon any agreement that is not to be performed within one year from the m k ghr f ... . ai t e ; n eo T eaee ga n ei a"pc l rm s t as e frh db df lo m sa i eo h lgd ur t s sei po i o nw r o t et e u r i ra f l ae a e e , at c rg ao e" T ef t hr cnt e m s f oal t t p i i a cniet i E. Paul nt r h a s e osud ota r y o h ln f r os t wt h. c e r v b e a tf e sn h Kovacs & Co. v. Blumgarten, 150 Conn. 8 (1962). There, a plaintiff subcontractor, worried about the ability of the general contractor to pay for ongoing work, secured an oral promise from

16

Case 3:01-cv-02158-WWE

Document 128

Filed 09/08/2005

Page 17 of 21

t o nropy o t w r it gnr cn at d nt T e orfudt sob "n h w e t a frh ok fh ee l ot c r i o h cuton h t e a e e e a r o d . i undertaking, by a party not before liable, for the purpose of securing, or for the performance of, a duty for which the party for whom the undertaking is made continues liable is within the statute o f us Id. at 11 (Internal citations omitted). fr d. a " In this case until the commencement of this lawsuit no demand for payment was made upon Israel Polansky and all demands were made upon OSM (see Exhibits 7, 10, and 11 to Deborah Russo-Wii s dpsi , oi o w i a i t A pni . Al fhs a la ' eoio cp s f h h r n h ped ) lo t e r lm tn e c e e x e e demands for money addressed to OSM Communications. Of particular note is that Ms. RussoWii s l g yadsl la 'e t n e -serving letter of December 2000 (Exhibit 10) was written long after lm nh f t "ur t . Istfr i get e ihr m l m n h t y t S Idtlt Jn h ga n e te ot n r dtl e e p y et io aO M. t e i h ue e a e" s h a a o sr as e 1998 o of bt ae n r e neo s eP l sy I f tse te "dc e t r a j f r u m ks o e r c t I al o nk. n a ,h s t I ei d o e i b e fe r a c as d m n with OSM because I believed in the company and thought we could make it profitable again. My supervisor, Donald Wainright, also felt strongly about the deal that was being negotiated, w i hl dpr ae e os y N m n o im d o Ial o nk o a ur t ad h h e e e ud m t t . o et n s ae fs e P l sy r ga n e n c p s a" i r a ae clearly she viewed OSM as liable for her claimed salary. Likewise, an agreement to an undertaking to fund the company for as long as it would take is not an agreement to be performed within one year from the making thereof. The situation under New York law is very much the same. This claimed obligation is subject to N wY r'G nr O l aos a § -701 (a)(1) and (a)(2): e oks ee l b gt n L w 5 a i i § 5-701. Agreements required to be in writing.

17

Case 3:01-cv-02158-WWE

Document 128

Filed 09/08/2005

Page 18 of 21

a. Every agreement, promise or undertaking is void, unless it or some note or memorandum thereof be in writing, and subscribed by the party to be charged therewith, or by his lawful agent, if such agreement, promise or undertaking: 1. By its terms is not to be performed within one year from the making thereof or the performance of which is not to be completed before the end of a lifetime; 2. Is a special promise to answer for the debt, default or miscarriage of another person;

To have guaranteed her salary for more than a year clearly runs a foul of subsection a.1. Lkws,h aee ga n eic a y" sei po i t as e frh db df lo i i t lgd ur t s l r a pc l rm s o nw ro t et e u r e e e l ae el a e e , at m sa i e f nt r i ra o ao e..." Prcl l o pi t t situation is the case of Worlock Paving c rg h. a i a y n o to his tu r n Corp. v. Camperlino, 617 N.Y.S.2d. 87, 207 A.D.2d. 975 (1994), a copy of which is in the Appendix. There, a subcontractor claimed that an owner had guaranteed payment in the event of default by the general contractor. The court applied the statute of frauds, § 5-701 (a)(2) because whether or not the alleged promise was supported by new consideration, there was no evidence t t t po i r a bcm i t i et no t pre a r c a db r r a l liable h " e rm s hs eo e n h n n o fh a i pi i l et pi ry a h o e t i e ts np o m i [Id. at 89]. The court considered dispositive the facts that the plaintiff invoiced the general contractor after the purported guarantee and that there was no indication that the new promise w si eddt et gi t gnr cn at ' lbility, Id. a n ne o x nu h h ee l ot c r i t i s e a r os a As set forth above, until

bringing this lawsuit, Ms. Russo-Williams looked only to OSM for payment. The Fifth Cause of Action The fifth cause of action asserts that Israel Polansky falsely represented that he would reimburse Mr. Wainright and Mrs. Wainright for relocation expenses. Given that Israel Polansky

18

Case 3:01-cv-02158-WWE

Document 128

Filed 09/08/2005

Page 19 of 21

and Mr. Wainwright had no communications before Mr. Wainright came on board at OSM and, b Mr Wa r h so n t t oy hd n d cs osbyn Mr P l sysd m ya y . i i t w e i n, a o i us n eod . o nk' i a t ng ' sm s i a s continuing to fund OSM, it is impossible for Mr. Polansky to have guaranteed anything. A t Mr Wa r h s lm isol b prcl l nt t thr w s ee ay s o s i i t c i ,t hu e a i a y o d h t e a nvr n . ng ' a d tu r e a e communication between Janet Wainright and Mr. Polansky, and there was no contractual relationship between Mrs. Wainright and OSM. Her claim is without any basis at all. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, these defendants respectfully ask that their motions for summary judgment be granted as to all causes of action.

THE DEFENDANTS ISRAEL H. POLANSKY and ANNE POLANSKY

By: _______________________________ J. Michael Sulzbach 385 Orange Street New Haven, CT 06511 Telephone: (203) 781-0880 Fed. Bar No. ct00206 Attorney for Defendants Israel H. Polansky and Anne Polansky

19

Case 3:01-cv-02158-WWE

Document 128

Filed 09/08/2005

Page 20 of 21

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that on this 8th day of September, 2005, a copy of the foregoing was deposited in the United States mails, first-class, postage prepaid, addressed to: Robert E. Arnold, Esquire 205 Church Street, Suite 310 New Haven CT 06510 Karen E. Haley, Attorney at Law 419 Whalley Avenue, Suite 105 New Haven CT 06511 Michael P. Goldsmith, Esquire 38 West 21st St., 5th floor New York NY 10010-6977

_____________________________ J. Michael Sulzbach

20

Case 3:01-cv-02158-WWE

Document 128

Filed 09/08/2005

Page 21 of 21

APPENDIX INDEX PAGE

PAGES 1, 57-61, 65, and 77-79 OF DONALD WAINRIGHT DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PAGES 1, 11, 14 and 25 OF JANET WAINRIGHT DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PAGES 1, 20, 23-24, 33-34, and 36-45 OF DEBORAH A. RUSSO-WILLIAMS DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

A-1

A-11

A-15

EXHIBITS Exhibit 7 Memorandum from Deborah Russo-Williams to Robert Polansky dated June 24, 1999. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Letter from Deborah Russo-Williams to Robert Polansky Dated December 28, 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Letter from Deborah Russo-Williams to Robert E. Polansky Dated April 20, 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

A-31

Exhibit 10

A-32

Exhibit 11

A-35

RECOMMENDED RULING ON MOTION TO OPEN JUDGMENT AND STAY OF ENFORCEMENT, PAGES 1, 11-13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NEW YORK GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW § 5-701 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . WORLOCK PAVING CORP. V. CAMPERLINO, 617 N.Y.S.2d. 87, 207 A.D.2d. 975 (1994) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

A-37 A-41

A-45

21