Schoolcraft v. The City Of New York et al

Filing 284

LETTER addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Gregory J. Radomisli dated 10/6/2014 re: Request to adjourn trial date. (ajs)

101°35/2014

09: 58

MARTIN

PAGE

MARTIN CLEARWATER BE

2129497054

C~EARWATE.R

& BELL

L.LP

COl.fNSE:l..ORs AT LAW

220 t::AST 4:2NP Sl'FU:E:T, NE:W YORK, NY
TEL.E:PHONE (212) 697·St22

T0017~$842

FACSIMILE; (2t:2) 949-7054

www.mcblaw.wm

GREr.ORY J. RAOOMJSl.I
PARTN'Eh.

DIRJlCt DIAL: (212) ~16·0923
&-MAJ!..: [e-mail]

October 6, 2014

FILED

Re:

Schgolcraft v. Jamaica Hospital Medical
Civil Action No.
10 CV 6005 (RWS)

MCB File No.

Ccnt~r

667-82153

Dear Judge Sweet:
We represent the defendant Jamaica Hospital Medical Center ("JHMC'') in the abovereferenced matter.
On October I. 2014, only five days ago, the parties appeared before Your Honor for a
conference. At the conference, Your Honor scheduled January 21, 2015 as the return date for
dispositive motions, and a trial date of April 6, 2015.

When I returned to my office} I learned that the attorney scheduled to try this case,
Kenneth R. Larywon, Esq., will be in China throughout most of April and May. It is therefore
respectfully requ.csted that Your Honor adjourn the trial date to May 20, 2015, or a date
thereafter that is convenient for the Court.
Counsel for all defendants have consented to this request. Plaintiff's counsel opposes it.
Presumably, plaintiff's counsel will submit a letter replete with eloquent hyperbole about how
the defendants have allegedly delayed this case. A close look at the specifics, however,
demonstrates that all the delays are attributable to plaintiff. For example, plaintiff's counsel has
still not provided complete expert discovery. In addition, plaintiff's counsel recently identified
additional fact witnesses, necessitating an extension of the fact~discovery deadline, despite its
G.11!/da
2~n14s2_1

WE:!:,.CHESTER <;.OUNTV OF'l"ICS:
:Z4!5 MAIN BTftEET

WHITE PLAIN!I, NY 1oao1
,..ELEF'HONI!:

(~

14)

'1129,~<11'!9

FAC:::.t!UMIL.1! (B [A) 32B·40ti:EI

NA,SIGAU COUN,-'r'
BO

M~RRICKA\l!iNUE

Ol"F'IC~

• :;UlTE 401

E:Ae"T' ME:Apow, NY , I tl!54· 1 "171.'1
'l"El.lll"HON~

(1'111!) 222.,131lOO

FAC61MILE (!51C!) 222.·9!51!1.1

NEW .JE:RSi:;:y Ol"f"J<:;E
74A !lROAO STRO:l:T

NC:WARK, N.J 07102
TEl.<t~HON~

(517.1!) 7'9!i.Q~7B

PA.esrMtL.I!: (S>7ll) 73!!1•0!!B'1

02/03

10/35/2014

09:58

2129497054

MARTIN CLEARWATER BE

PAGE

October 6, 2014
Page2

having expired months ago. I do not believe that plaintiff's counsel will be able to identify any
specific delays as a. result of defendants i cowisel' s conduct beyond having to accommodate the
schedules of the attorneys who have appeared in this action.
I am not suggesting that plaintiff's counsel is to "blame.'' Rather, in light of the various
delays that have plagued this case from the beginning, I am suggesting that an additional 6 weeks
out of the past 216 weeks this case has been pending is a "drop in the bucket/' and that any
opposition by plaintiff's counsel to defendants' request would by unreasonable. Indeed, we are
only requesting a 6 week adjournment, in contrast to the 6 month delay that was necessitated by
plaintiffs belated disclosure.
Thank you for Your Honor1 s attention to this matter.
Respectfully submitted,

MARTIN CLEARWATER & BELL ru

cc:

BY E-MAIL
Attorneys fot all parties

03/03