Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am. v Vema Group, LLC 2025 NY Slip Op 32336(U) July 1, 2025 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 161411/2019 Judge: Arlene P. Bluth Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/01/2025 04:44 PM INDEX NO. 161411/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 530 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/01/2025
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: HON. ARLENE P. BLUTH PART 14 Justice ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X INDEX NO. 161411/2019 THE TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA, AS SUBROGEE OF WESTSIDE RADIOLOGY MOTION DATE 06/23/2025 ASSOCIATES PC,MID-ROCKLAND IMAGING PARTNERS INC.,KEY EQUIPMENT FINANCE, A DIVISION KEY BANK MOTION SEQ. NO. 014 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
Plaintiff,
-v- VEMA GROUP, LLC,1790 BROADWAY ASSOCIATES, LLC,GOODHOPE MANAGEMENT CORP., BROADWAY, DECISION + ORDER ON IONIAN MANAGEMENT INC.,NORDSTROM, INC.,JONES MOTION LANG LASALLE AMERICAS, INC.,LIBERTY CONTRACTING CORP., KETCHAM PUMP COMPANY, INC.,FIRE SAFETY ALARMS, INC, LLC,CONTROLLED COMBUSTION CO., INC.,JOHN DOES 1-3,
Defendants. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X
1790 BROADWAY ASSOCIATES, LLC, GOODHOPE Third-Party MANAGEMENT CORP. Index No. 596092/2020
-against-
BROADWAY 57TH/58TH RETAIL INVESTOR, LLC, JT MAGEN & COMPANY, INC., LIBERTY CONTRACTING CORP., SAFWAY ATLANTIC, LLC, EXCALIBUR GROUP, LLC, JONES LANG LASALLE, INC., KETCHAM PUMP COMPANY, INC., FIRE SAFETY ALARMS, INC., CONTROLLED COMBUSTION CO., INC., JOHN DOE 1-10, (BEING FICTITIOUS ENTITIES)
Defendant. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------X
IONIAN MANAGEMENT INC. Second Third-Party Index No. 595912/2022 Plaintiff,
GOODHOPE MANAGEMENT CORP.
161411/2019 TRAVELERS PROPERTY vs. VEMA GROUP, LLC Page 1 of 6 Motion No. 014
1 of 6 [* 1] FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/01/2025 04:44 PM INDEX NO. 161411/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 530 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/01/2025
Defendant. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------X
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 014) 501, 502, 503, 504, 505, 506, 507, 508, 509, 510, 511, 512, 513, 514, 515, 516, 517, 518, 519, 520, 521, 522, 523, 529 were read on this motion to/for VACATE/STRIKE - NOTE OF ISSUE .
Defendant Liberty Contracting Corp.’s (“Liberty”) motion to strike the note of issue is
denied.
Background
In this subrogation action, this Court issued an order dated November 19, 2024 in which
it directed that a note of issue be filed by December 3, 2024 (NYSCEF Doc. No. 453). The Court
observed that the parties had ignored a prior Court order that set a November 18, 2024 deadline
for the parties to update the Court about the status of discovery (id.). When the parties uploaded
nothing, the Court assumed that all discovery was completed, particularly because the parties had
entered into a stipulation dated March 5, 2024 that set a deadline of August 15, 2024 for all
depositions to be completed (NYSCEF Doc. No. 441). Plaintiff then filed a note of issue on
December 2, 2024 (NYSCEF Doc. No. 469).
This Court subsequent vacated this note of issue in a decision dated January 8, 2025
(NYSCEF Doc. No. 486). In that decision, the Court set a new note of issue deadline of April 30,
2025 and plaintiff filed the note of issue on May 1, 2025 (NYSCEF Doc. No. 500). Liberty did
not participate in that prior motion practice.
Liberty now moves to strike the note of issue on the ground that it is awaiting discovery
responses to a demand dated May 10, 2021 (NYSCEF Doc. No. 505) as well as inter alia
insurance information and a demand dated April 26, 2023.
161411/2019 TRAVELERS PROPERTY vs. VEMA GROUP, LLC Page 2 of 6 Motion No. 014
2 of 6 [* 2] FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/01/2025 04:44 PM INDEX NO. 161411/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 530 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/01/2025
Defendants Nordstrom, Inc., Broadway 57th/58th Retail Investor, LLC, Jones Lang
LaSalle Americas Inc and third-party defendant J.T. Magen & Company (collectively,
“Opposing Defendants”) contend that they responded to many of the outstanding demands on
July 18, 2024 and that the rest of the responses were sent on June 2, 2025. They insist that all
responses have now been turned over.
Plaintiff opposes and points out that most of the demands Liberty complains about are
from June 2021 and April 2023. It emphasizes that Liberty did not make a discovery motion
prior to the filing of the first note of issue in December 2024 or prior to deadline for the filing of
the second note of issue. Plaintiff points out that Liberty did not join in the first motion to strike
the note of issue filed by other defendants.
In reply, Liberty contends that there are still outstanding demands and observes that none
of the other defendants have opposed the portion of the motion to strike the note of issue (these
defendants merely insist they have responded). Liberty claims it would be unjust and unfair if it
were unable to obtain this discovery prior to summary judgment motions or a possible trial.
Discussion
The Court denies the motion. As an initial matter, the Court emphasizes that the timeline
of the demands raised by Liberty in this motion at best evince an utter lack of interest in moving
this case forward and at worst show a scheme to delay. Despite Liberty’s demands remaining
outstanding for years, various discovery orders noticeably omitted any specific mention of these
demands. For instance, so-ordered stipulations from May 2023 and August 2023 make no
mention of any of Liberty’s demands (NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 386, 396) even though Liberty signed
off on those stipulations.
161411/2019 TRAVELERS PROPERTY vs. VEMA GROUP, LLC Page 3 of 6 Motion No. 014
3 of 6 [* 3] FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/01/2025 04:44 PM INDEX NO. 161411/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 530 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/01/2025
The only Court order Liberty relies upon is from March 2024 and, while it mentions
Liberty’s outstanding demands, it also includes the vague phrase “To [the] extent not responded”
(NYSCEF Doc. No. 506). In other words, it required parties to respond to the extent they had not
responded already.
This part’s rules specifically warn against the inclusion of such language because it
makes this directive toothless. It necessarily requires a separate inquiry as to whether some party
may have previously responded to some, or all, of the demands. Attorneys should know what
they have received at the time of a conference. In any event, this ambiguous directive required
responses by April 5, 2024. There is no indication in Liberty’s moving papers why it did nothing
for more than a year following this deadline to obtain responses to these demands. During that
intervening time, there were not one, but two notes of issues filed and a motion to vacate the first
note of issue. The failure to promptly seek these responses compels the Court to deny the instant
motion. “While a note of issue will generally be stricken if the case is not ready for trial, the
motion to strike can be denied where the parties had sufficient time to complete discovery” (Lisa
I.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am. v Vema Group, LLC 2025 NY Slip Op 32336(U) July 1, 2025 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 161411/2019 Judge: Arlene P. Bluth Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/01/2025 04:44 PM INDEX NO. 161411/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 530 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/01/2025
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: HON. ARLENE P. BLUTH PART 14 Justice ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X INDEX NO. 161411/2019 THE TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA, AS SUBROGEE OF WESTSIDE RADIOLOGY MOTION DATE 06/23/2025 ASSOCIATES PC,MID-ROCKLAND IMAGING PARTNERS INC.,KEY EQUIPMENT FINANCE, A DIVISION KEY BANK MOTION SEQ. NO. 014 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
Plaintiff,
-v- VEMA GROUP, LLC,1790 BROADWAY ASSOCIATES, LLC,GOODHOPE MANAGEMENT CORP., BROADWAY, DECISION + ORDER ON IONIAN MANAGEMENT INC.,NORDSTROM, INC.,JONES MOTION LANG LASALLE AMERICAS, INC.,LIBERTY CONTRACTING CORP., KETCHAM PUMP COMPANY, INC.,FIRE SAFETY ALARMS, INC, LLC,CONTROLLED COMBUSTION CO., INC.,JOHN DOES 1-3,
Defendants. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X
1790 BROADWAY ASSOCIATES, LLC, GOODHOPE Third-Party MANAGEMENT CORP. Index No. 596092/2020
-against-
BROADWAY 57TH/58TH RETAIL INVESTOR, LLC, JT MAGEN & COMPANY, INC., LIBERTY CONTRACTING CORP., SAFWAY ATLANTIC, LLC, EXCALIBUR GROUP, LLC, JONES LANG LASALLE, INC., KETCHAM PUMP COMPANY, INC., FIRE SAFETY ALARMS, INC., CONTROLLED COMBUSTION CO., INC., JOHN DOE 1-10, (BEING FICTITIOUS ENTITIES)
Defendant. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------X
IONIAN MANAGEMENT INC. Second Third-Party Index No. 595912/2022 Plaintiff,
GOODHOPE MANAGEMENT CORP.
161411/2019 TRAVELERS PROPERTY vs. VEMA GROUP, LLC Page 1 of 6 Motion No. 014
1 of 6 [* 1] FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/01/2025 04:44 PM INDEX NO. 161411/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 530 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/01/2025
Defendant. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------X
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 014) 501, 502, 503, 504, 505, 506, 507, 508, 509, 510, 511, 512, 513, 514, 515, 516, 517, 518, 519, 520, 521, 522, 523, 529 were read on this motion to/for VACATE/STRIKE - NOTE OF ISSUE .
Defendant Liberty Contracting Corp.’s (“Liberty”) motion to strike the note of issue is
denied.
Background
In this subrogation action, this Court issued an order dated November 19, 2024 in which
it directed that a note of issue be filed by December 3, 2024 (NYSCEF Doc. No. 453). The Court
observed that the parties had ignored a prior Court order that set a November 18, 2024 deadline
for the parties to update the Court about the status of discovery (id.). When the parties uploaded
nothing, the Court assumed that all discovery was completed, particularly because the parties had
entered into a stipulation dated March 5, 2024 that set a deadline of August 15, 2024 for all
depositions to be completed (NYSCEF Doc. No. 441). Plaintiff then filed a note of issue on
December 2, 2024 (NYSCEF Doc. No. 469).
This Court subsequent vacated this note of issue in a decision dated January 8, 2025
(NYSCEF Doc. No. 486). In that decision, the Court set a new note of issue deadline of April 30,
2025 and plaintiff filed the note of issue on May 1, 2025 (NYSCEF Doc. No. 500). Liberty did
not participate in that prior motion practice.
Liberty now moves to strike the note of issue on the ground that it is awaiting discovery
responses to a demand dated May 10, 2021 (NYSCEF Doc. No. 505) as well as inter alia
insurance information and a demand dated April 26, 2023.
161411/2019 TRAVELERS PROPERTY vs. VEMA GROUP, LLC Page 2 of 6 Motion No. 014
2 of 6 [* 2] FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/01/2025 04:44 PM INDEX NO. 161411/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 530 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/01/2025
Defendants Nordstrom, Inc., Broadway 57th/58th Retail Investor, LLC, Jones Lang
LaSalle Americas Inc and third-party defendant J.T. Magen & Company (collectively,
“Opposing Defendants”) contend that they responded to many of the outstanding demands on
July 18, 2024 and that the rest of the responses were sent on June 2, 2025. They insist that all
responses have now been turned over.
Plaintiff opposes and points out that most of the demands Liberty complains about are
from June 2021 and April 2023. It emphasizes that Liberty did not make a discovery motion
prior to the filing of the first note of issue in December 2024 or prior to deadline for the filing of
the second note of issue. Plaintiff points out that Liberty did not join in the first motion to strike
the note of issue filed by other defendants.
In reply, Liberty contends that there are still outstanding demands and observes that none
of the other defendants have opposed the portion of the motion to strike the note of issue (these
defendants merely insist they have responded). Liberty claims it would be unjust and unfair if it
were unable to obtain this discovery prior to summary judgment motions or a possible trial.
Discussion
The Court denies the motion. As an initial matter, the Court emphasizes that the timeline
of the demands raised by Liberty in this motion at best evince an utter lack of interest in moving
this case forward and at worst show a scheme to delay. Despite Liberty’s demands remaining
outstanding for years, various discovery orders noticeably omitted any specific mention of these
demands. For instance, so-ordered stipulations from May 2023 and August 2023 make no
mention of any of Liberty’s demands (NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 386, 396) even though Liberty signed
off on those stipulations.
161411/2019 TRAVELERS PROPERTY vs. VEMA GROUP, LLC Page 3 of 6 Motion No. 014
3 of 6 [* 3] FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/01/2025 04:44 PM INDEX NO. 161411/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 530 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/01/2025
The only Court order Liberty relies upon is from March 2024 and, while it mentions
Liberty’s outstanding demands, it also includes the vague phrase “To [the] extent not responded”
(NYSCEF Doc. No. 506). In other words, it required parties to respond to the extent they had not
responded already.
This part’s rules specifically warn against the inclusion of such language because it
makes this directive toothless. It necessarily requires a separate inquiry as to whether some party
may have previously responded to some, or all, of the demands. Attorneys should know what
they have received at the time of a conference. In any event, this ambiguous directive required
responses by April 5, 2024. There is no indication in Liberty’s moving papers why it did nothing
for more than a year following this deadline to obtain responses to these demands. During that
intervening time, there were not one, but two notes of issues filed and a motion to vacate the first
note of issue. The failure to promptly seek these responses compels the Court to deny the instant
motion. “While a note of issue will generally be stricken if the case is not ready for trial, the
motion to strike can be denied where the parties had sufficient time to complete discovery” (Lisa
I. v Manikas, 188 AD3d 1369, 1371, 135 NYS3d 192) [3d Dept 2020] [internal quotations and
citation omitted]).
Moreover, Liberty did not adequately describe what items are actually outstanding on this
record. In its reply, Liberty claims that “All parties should be compelled to provide the full
primary and excess policies” (NYSCEF Doc. No. 529 at 7). But the Opposing Defendants
attached a response dated July 2024 that specifically addresses the applicable insurance policies
(NYSCEF Doc. No. 510 at 8 of 13). That the reply does not bother to address this issue raises
questions about what, if anything, remains outstanding. Defendant CC Controlled Combustion
161411/2019 TRAVELERS PROPERTY vs. VEMA GROUP, LLC Page 4 of 6 Motion No. 014
4 of 6 [* 4] FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/01/2025 04:44 PM INDEX NO. 161411/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 530 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/01/2025
also included a very belated response about its insurance coverage (NYSCEF Doc. No. 528)
prior to Liberty’s reply.
The Court also observes that Liberty complains about not being included at a site
inspection that occurred more than seven years ago in January 2018 (it appears that this
inspection happened in connection with a separate action in which Liberty was not named as a
party). Liberty claims that it has not received anything in response to its demands about the site
inspection. However, the Opposing Defendants addressed the site inspection demands in its July
2024 response (NYSCEF Doc. No. 510 at 9 of 13). Similar to the insurance issue, Liberty argues
in reply that “all parties who attend the site inspection of the property . . . owe Liberty
Contracting Corp. discovery from the site inspection” (NYSCEF Doc. No. 529, ¶ 4). This
assertion is contradicted by the inclusion of the aforementioned response from the Opposing
Defendants.
The branch of Liberty’s motion that seeks to stay this case and to extend the time for
summary judgment motions is denied.
Summary
The Court denies the instant application for several reasons. Liberty’s delay in seeking
these demands, even after depositions occurred, compels the conclusion that there is no need to
strike the note of issue. Liberty had ample opportunity to seek this discovery and, for some
reason, waited until after plaintiff filed multiple notes of issues (and after a prior motion to
vacate the note of issue) to finally seek responses to paper discovery demands from years ago.
The Court has no idea whether this delay is due to poor case management or part of some tactic
to drag out this case indefinitely, but the fact is that this case has now been pending for nearly six
years. And it arises out of purported water leaks that occurred in 2017 and 2018.
161411/2019 TRAVELERS PROPERTY vs. VEMA GROUP, LLC Page 5 of 6 Motion No. 014
5 of 6 [* 5] FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/01/2025 04:44 PM INDEX NO. 161411/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 530 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/01/2025
It is long past time for this case to proceed to dispositive motions and towards a
resolution. The longer this case lingers, the more witnesses’ memories fade and the more
difficult it becomes for all parties to litigate this case. This is not a situation in which the parties
recently learned about an additional witness or some other critical discovery issue. Instead, the
record shows that Liberty served demands and then did almost nothing about that discovery until
years and years later. That lack of interest suggests these demands were not that important and it
is wholly unfair to make plaintiff file yet another note of issue because of Liberty’s reticence to
pursue its defenses.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that the instant motion to strike the note of issue is denied in its entirety.
7/1/2025 $SIG$ DATE ARLENE P. BLUTH, J.S.C. CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED X NON-FINAL DISPOSITION
□ GRANTED X DENIED GRANTED IN PART OTHER
APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER
□ CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT REFERENCE
161411/2019 TRAVELERS PROPERTY vs. VEMA GROUP, LLC Page 6 of 6 Motion No. 014
6 of 6 [* 6]