Grace v. Rosenstock, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18449 (E.D.N.Y 1996). · Go Syfert
Search
Grace v. Rosenstock, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18449 (E.D.N.Y 1996). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
14 citation events (7 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Insurance Company of North America v. Kayser-Roth Corp., 92-5248 (1999) (risuperct, 1999-07-29)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Insurance Company of North America v. Kayser-Roth Corp., 92-5248 (1999)
Sup. Ct. R.I. · 1999 · confidence medium
Final judgment will be entered by the Court on the remaining damages claims after such additional hearings as may become necessary. 1 Citations to "Rule #" are to the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure. 2 Although Kayser-Roth failed to certify that it had conferred with First State in an effort to secure the information without court action, see Rule 37 (a)(2), because Rule 37 "does not create a prerequisite to addressing the merits of a discovery motion," Reidy v. Runyon, 169 F.R.D. 486, 491 (E.D.N.Y. 1997), the Court exercised its discretion to waive strict compliance with the conferenc…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Land Ocean Logistics, Inc. v. Aqua Gulf Corp. (2×) also: Cited "see"
W.D.N.Y. · 1998 · confidence medium
Matsushita, supra, at *1 cited in Reidy, supra, at 491.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Oliver R. GRACE
v.
Robert ROSENSTOCK
Civil Action No. CV-85-2039 (DGT).
District Court, E.D. New York.
Nov 6, 1996.
1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18449
Herbert Rubin, Herzfeld & Rubin, New York City, for defendant Genser., Robert Fryd, Warshaw Burnstein Cohen Schlesinger & Kuh, New York City, for proposed defendant Bank Leumi., Roy B. Oser, Wohl & Entwistle, New York City, for proposed defendants David Mack, Leo V. Berger & Apex Marine Corp., David K. Bergman, Siller Wilk, L.L.P., New York City, for proposed defendant Gary Holman., Sidney Bender, Leventritt, Lewittes & Bender, New York City, for plaintiffs.
Trager.
Published

ORDER .

TRAGER, District Judge.

Prior report: 169 F.R.D. 473.

On September 30, 1996, Magistrate Judge Levy issued a Memorandum and Order, granting in part and denying in part plaintiffs’ motion to amend the complaint. Plaintiffs were allowed to substitute executors for the two deceased plaintiffs and were allowed to relinquish their claim under the Martin Act. The motion was denied with respect to the remaining proposed amendments.

By letter dated October 23, 1996, pursuant to the direction of Judge Trager, plaintiffs submitted their objections to certain portions of Magistrate Levy’s Memorandum and Order. By letters dated October 28, 1996, October 30, 1996 and October 30, 1996, proposed additional defendants responded to plaintiffs’ letter, and by letter dated October 30, 1996, defendant Genser submitted his response.

After review of the Memorandum and Order and the letters submitted by the parties and proposed additional parties, and upon due consideration, it is hereby

ORDERED that Magistrate Levy’s Memorandum and Order dated September 30,1996 is affirmed in its entirety.

SO ORDERED.