Free Affidavit - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

DAVIDOFF MALITO & HUTCHER LLP
GARDEN CITY ATTORNEYS AT LAW ALBANY
EDO G;\RDEN CITYiPLAZ;\ 605 THIRD AVENUE 150 STATE STREET
canniir 1*530 NEW YORK, Nnw Yonrt 10158 ;;;;;§2°7
(2121 887-7200
NEW JERSEY FAX (2 12) 288- 1884 ‘*’A$H*NGT¤N- ¤-¤-
7-14 BROAD STREET. FL. 16 44 L __ _ _ _ _
Nwm. Na. 07 www-DMLEGAL-COM “ `JZI`§§'r§$$§§?§.ZlS£Zi `I W
*977-‘·l 7B5·05*1-3 (2021 847-1 1 17
April 5, 2006
VIA FAX (212) 884-8979
AND FIRST CLASS MAIL
The Honorable Bernard J. Fried
Justice, Supreme Court ofthe
State of New York, County of New York
60 Centre Street
New York, New York 10007
Re: Smith v. GTFM, Inc., et al.
Index No. 120364/05 -
Dear Justice Fried: I
We represent the defendants in the above—referenced action and we write pursuant to
Rule 23 of the Rules of Practice for the Commercial Division.
On December 23, 2005, oral argument was held on plaintitt‘s motion to compel, for
sanctions, and other discovery and on defendants’ cross-motion seeking a protective order,
sanctions, summary judgment and partial summary judgment. By an Order dated December 23,
2005, your Honor decided the parties’ discovery—related motions. However, that portion of
defendants’ cross-motion which sought summary judgment and partial summary judgment was (
not decided. More than 60 days have elapsed since oral argument was conducted on det`endants’ .
cross-motion.
Since discovery is already underway, a decision on defendants’ cross—motion for ,
summary judgment and partial summary judgment would greatly assist the parties and Jl-IO j
Beverly Cohen in resolving any outstanding discovery disputes. Thank you for your courtesy.
Res ectfully yours,
cc: Robert Meloni, Esq. (via e-mail)
00333190 Case 2:04-cv-00299-DGC Document 399-2 Filed O5/O9/2006 Page 1 of 1

Case 2:04-cv-00299-DGC

Document 399-2

Filed 05/09/2006

Page 1 of 1