Response to Matt Marcucci — Compliance Evidence, CPLR 2221(e) Path, Kozek Meeting, and Outstanding Items¶
Version: v1.1 | Updated: 2026-04-30
On April 28, 2026, I sent Matthew Marcucci at Pryor Cashman a consolidated response addressing three Pryor Cashman communications: an April 15, 2026 11:21 AM email confirming the procedural-not-merits character of the September 29, 2023 denial and identifying a renewed-motion path under CPLR 2221(e); an April 15, 2026 12:49 PM email setting out four outstanding categories of documents and asking when the court appearance occurred at which there were on-the-record admissions of fraud; and an April 28, 2026 1:56 PM status follow-up. The response also reported the outcome of the April 22, 2026 meeting with Michael Kozek (Ween & Kozek, PLLC). Pryor Cashman acknowledged receipt at 7:43 AM on April 29, 2026, and transmitted a substantive section-by-section reply at 12:41 PM on April 30, 2026, with red-text commentary inline throughout. The verbatim Pryor Cashman communications addressed by the response are reproduced first below, followed by the response by topic, followed by the verbatim Pryor Cashman reply received April 30, 2026.
Pryor Cashman Communications Being Addressed¶
April 15, 2026 — 11:21 AM¶
From: Matthew A. Marcucci, Pryor Cashman LLP
To: Christian Gray
CC: Eric Sherman, Pryor Cashman LLP
Subject: RE: HP 6086 Package — Working Analysis and Evidentiary Access
Christian:
Were you ever able to connect with Kozek, particularly with respect to the hearing transcript?
To address the substance of your email below briefly, yes, of course we agree that the denial of the motion to restore the HP action to the calendar was procedural in nature and not a determination on the merits. And yes, there was indeed an appeal of that denial noticed by Kozek on October 31, 2023, which was never perfected (i.e., fully brief in time), ultimately resulting in a September 23, 2024 decision dismissing that appeal for failure to perfect. As you point out, the court denied the motion on the procedural ground that there was insufficient evidence submitted with the motion to show that paragraph 5 of the settlement stipulation was complied with — specifically, the emailing of the post-remediation report, that Olmstead conducted his inspection within 5 days thereof, and that Olmstead's own post-remediation report was emailed to respondent's counsel within 14 days thereof. Accordingly, the court held that "[t]he ability to bring this motion was therefore never triggered and the motion must be denied." There is no indication whatsoever that that denial was "with prejudice" to your ability to bring a proper motion seeking the same relief. And a couple of weeks ago or so, we indeed managed to locate: (i) Skaller's August 11, 2021 email attaching his client's post-remediation report; and (ii) Sandercock's August 19, 2021 email to Skaller attaching Olsmtead's post-remediation report based upon his August 16 inspections. (See attached for our prior emails about this.) Based on all of this, it appears that paragraph 5 of the settlement stipulation was, in fact, complied with: Skaller delivered his post-remediation report on August 11, Olmstead inspected within five days thereof, on August 16, and Sandercock provided a copy of Olmstead's post-remediation report to Skaller within 14 days thereof, on August 19. Thus, the path forward in the HP action would be to bring a renewed motion to restore the case to the calendar that actually cites all of this evidence thereby leaving no room for doubt. It is true that, under CPLR 2221(e), a motion to renew does not have a strict deadline, but I am sure that we'd face pushback that the motion is somehow untimely because these facts were always at your disposal. Strangely, it doesn't seem that either of the parties addressed compliance with paragraph 5 of the stipulation in their papers, and the court sort of pulled this argument out of nowhere as a ground to deny your motion.
I am going to write back later today with any other outstanding questions.
Thanks,
Matt
April 15, 2026 — 12:49 PM¶
From: Matthew A. Marcucci, Pryor Cashman LLP
To: Christian Gray
CC: Eric Sherman, Pryor Cashman LLP
Subject: RE: HP 6086 Package — Working Analysis and Evidentiary Access
Christian: Just a final follow up from me today. As best I can tell, the most significant outstanding categories of documents we still need relate to the OATH proceedings, details about each of your lost business opportunities, details about any space leased elsewhere as a consequence of the flooding, and copies of any lease agreements. There are some other categories, too, but these are top-of-mind. Also, equally important, please let us know once you've spoken to Kozek, particularly about when the court appearance was where, as you recollect, there were on-the-record admissions of fraud. Thanks. –Matt
April 28, 2026 — 1:56 PM¶
From: Matthew A. Marcucci, Pryor Cashman LLP
To: Christian Gray
CC: Eric Sherman, Pryor Cashman LLP
Subject: RE: HP 6086 Package — Working Analysis and Evidentiary Access
Christian: Just another follow up to see where things stand. Thanks. –Matt
Response Sent April 28, 2026¶
Renewed-Motion Path¶
Responding to: April 15, 2026 11:21 AM email — appeal posture, motion-denial character, and CPLR 2221(e) renewal
Yes — the procedural-not-merits character of the September 29, 2023 denial, the appeal posture, the absence of any "with prejudice" bar to renewal, and the CPLR 2221(e) path forward all align with my understanding of the record. The "counsel did not properly inform me about significant events in the litigation" framing for the (e)(3) showing tracks the correspondence record. The thirteen-month gap between full briefing (August 31, 2022) and the decision compounds the procedural strangeness Pryor Cashman noted.
Paragraph 5 Compliance¶
Responding to: April 15, 2026 11:21 AM email — Aug 11 / Aug 16 / Aug 19 sequence
Confirmed — same documents, same conclusion on the August 11 / August 16 / August 19 sequence.
Kozek Meeting — Admission-Date Investigation¶
Responding to: April 15, 2026 12:49 PM email — admission-date question; April 15, 2026 11:21 AM email — Kozek connection on hearing transcript
The meeting with Michael Kozek ran approximately forty minutes on April 22, 2026 — the earliest date he could confirm. On paragraph 57 of the May 2025 draft Supreme Court complaint — the allegation that David Skaller acknowledged during the HP proceedings that his clients' affidavits were inaccurate — Kozek grounded the allegation in "representation by their lawyer... during the course of the HP case." He stated he had reviewed Ween & Kozek's emails and confirmed the September 26, 2023 oral argument was recorded; he did not identify any conference date. When I pressed him on whether his files contained any contemporaneous record of the admission event, he did not produce, describe, or confirm the existence of any such record. He stated only that he was not going to use his notes as evidence, and the topic was not revisited. He proposed three forward proof paths in lieu of the records: the clerk audio if produced, an admission elicited on deposition, and my own testimony as to what I observed.
Kozek could not say whether the conference itself was placed on the record. Housing court appearances are typically recorded as a matter of practice, but he could not confirm that the judge initiated the recording in this instance. He did not narrow the conference date among the candidates. On April 17, 2026, I filed an audio-recording request with the Kings County Housing Court clerk covering four dates: September 26, 2023 (oral argument on the Motion to Restore); March 6, 2023 (candidate pre-trial conference); April 19, 2023 (candidate pre-trial conference); and August 8, 2023 (candidate pre-trial conference). Clerk turnaround is four to six weeks; expected return is late May to mid-June 2026. The recordings will be routed to Pryor Cashman as soon as they are produced.
OATH / TH-221¶
Responding to: April 15, 2026 12:49 PM email — OATH proceedings as outstanding category
Kozek had already raised the recommendation to drop the harassment case before the April 22 meeting; the discussion in that meeting was an elaboration of his prior position.
In short: Harry Shapiro and Martin Kofman opened settlement; the Tenant Association and Kozek countered; Shapiro and Kofman rejected the counter. The choice now is whether to take the harassment case to trial or drop it. Kozek's recommendation is to drop and pivot to the Loft Board enforcement and Supreme Court injunction route described below. The landlord's motion to dismiss has been pending without a ruling since Ween & Kozek substituted in for Goodfarb & Sandercock in November 2022 — about three and a half years — which is part of what informs his view.
His reasoning for the drop: the landlord's motion to dismiss has been pending since he came into the case, with a two-to-six-month judicial estimate and no scheduled decision date; the available remedies on a harassment finding are limited (civil penalty payable to the city rather than the tenant, no fee-shifting, and a one-to-three-year deregulation restriction that, in his view, is unlikely to constrain this particular landlord); and the settlement path is closed. Harry Shapiro — counsel for Kofman and American Package Co. on the harassment matter, distinct from David Skaller on the civil side — opened with $20,000 each for David May, Kate Downie, and Erez Horovitz and $200,000 for me, conditioned on my release of all damages and future claims. I declined. The Tenant Association and Kozek countered at $50,000 per applicant with no release of my claims; the landlord rejected. The shape of the exchange was that the landlord priced the Tenant Association settlement around extinguishing my individual exposure, not around the harassment claims themselves; once that structural element was off the table, the deal collapsed.
Kozek's suggested alternative is to have the Loft Board (or the tenants' group directly) bring an enforcement proceeding for non-compliance with legalization, and following a finding, file a Supreme Court action for an injunction requiring legalization. The practical distinction he drew is that a Supreme Court injunction carries contempt as an enforcement mechanism, where the OATH harassment remedy does not.
My view going into the Tenant Association discussion is that the cost-benefit does not favor continuing — the remedies do not carry the leverage the harassment case was meant to generate, and trial cost for a capped, non-fee-shifting outcome is difficult to justify. The four TH-221 applicants — myself, David May, Kate Downie, and Erez Horovitz — are the members of the 226 Franklin Tenant Association, and the Association needs to convene before any direction is set.
Before that meeting, Pryor Cashman's read on the alternative path would be valuable. The harassment case itself is no longer worth pursuing on the cost-benefit, in my view; the live question is whether the Loft Board enforcement and Supreme Court injunction route benefits or creates liabilities for the Supreme Court complaint and HP work Pryor Cashman is developing. Specifically, Pryor Cashman's read on how a factual record built in an injunction proceeding interacts with the Supreme Court complaint and HP work, and any procedural complications a parallel proceeding might create, would shape how the Tenant Association frames the next steps.
Lost Business Opportunities — Karuna Freeman Studios¶
Responding to: April 15, 2026 12:49 PM email — lost business opportunities as outstanding category
The principal lost-business-opportunity category is Karuna Freeman Studios — a planned integrated studio-and-media business headquartered at 66 Freeman Street and weeks from full operation when the flood hit. The entity has not yet been formed, but a complete business valuation has been prepared. Andrew Duffy, CFA — Chief Investment Officer and Senior Portfolio Manager at Ranger Global Real Estate Advisors, LLC — guided an extensive valuation process and approved the final results. Duffy is also an early investor in the venture. Mark Salamone, now Executive Director of Sales and Partnerships at Sweetwater Integration (the investor letter was signed under his prior title), separately reviewed the business plan and company valuation and provided an investor-facing letter assessing the financial projections and strategic plans as aligned with industry standards and recommending the venture to investors. The binder documents four pathways at risk: major-label record projects (UMG approval, Sony pathway), Grammy-validator commitments, corporate and enterprise partnerships (including Dolby Atmos design approval), and an investment consortium that did not close. The valuation, the Sweetwater investor letter, and a focused client narrative will be routed to Pryor Cashman as a single package.
Leased Space Elsewhere¶
Responding to: April 15, 2026 12:49 PM email — space leased elsewhere as outstanding category
The relevant lease is 66 Freeman Street, with one clarification: the lease was already in effect before the flood. After the flood, the alternative housing Kofman offered was compromised, and 66 Freeman became my actual residence as a consequence. The lease itself is therefore not a flood-consequence; the occupation shift is.
Lease Agreements¶
Responding to: April 15, 2026 12:49 PM email — lease agreements as outstanding category
I am scanning the 97 Green Street G21 lease and the 66 Freeman Street lease over the next several days and will route copies to Pryor Cashman as soon as they are ready.
Pryor Cashman Reply Received¶
Acknowledgment — April 29, 2026 — 7:43 AM¶
From: Matthew A. Marcucci, Pryor Cashman LLP
To: Christian Gray; Eric Sherman, Pryor Cashman LLP
Subject: Re: HP 6086 Package — Compliance Evidence, CPLR 2221(e) Path, Kozek Meeting, and Outstanding Items
Thanks very much for this email, Christian. I will review in depth today.
Matt
Substantive Reply — April 30, 2026 — 12:41 PM¶
From: Matthew A. Marcucci, Pryor Cashman LLP
To: Christian Gray
CC: Eric Sherman, Pryor Cashman LLP
Subject: RE: HP 6086 Package — Compliance Evidence, CPLR 2221(e) Path, Kozek Meeting, and Outstanding Items
Attachment: LBO-5301-TH-0222-226-240-Frankling-Street-Bklyn.pdf (733.90 KB)
Pryor Cashman's reply was structured as inline red-text commentary embedded within the quoted text of the April 28 response. The new substantive content — the red-text passages — is reproduced below verbatim, in thread order, each labeled by the section of the April 28 response it addresses.
Opening¶
Christian:
Some follow-ups from me in red below.
Matt
Following Renewed-Motion Path and Paragraph 5 Compliance¶
I feel comfortable with where we've landed on a potential motion to renew the earlier motion to restore the HP action to the Court's calendar. Unless I'm missing something, it appears that we have everything we need to move forward. But let us discuss strategy internally about this and the other potential paths forward, and we'll revert. Ideally, we'd adopt and implement one global strategy with the aim of a full and final settlement.
Following Kozek Meeting — Admission-Date Investigation¶
Thanks for taking the initiative to file those recording requests with the court. As to Kozek's three "proposed proof paths," the only one that has real value would be an on-the-record admission by defendant or its counsel that their prior averments were false. You refer to "an admission elicited on deposition"—were there ever any depositions taken of defendant in the HP action? If so, do you have the transcripts? Otherwise, let's wait and see what the recordings you've ordered reveal. Please be sure to follow up frequently with the court on the status of their delivery. Overall, we can't assume that these admissions/retractions were made by defendant until we have actual evidence that that happened.
Following OATH / TH-221¶
As a general matter, OATH records are more inaccessible compared to those that appear on a standard, publicly accessible court docket. (All we can really access are certain isolated rulings and orders.) We cannot do any in-depth analysis of any OATH proceeding unless you (or Kozek) provides us with the full case file, which would include materials not publicly accessible on the limited online OATH filings database. Certainly, your question about how any future OATH or other proceedings would impact other adversarial proceedings, such as the HP action or any other litigation we'd handle, is apt, but we need full files before we can render a complete analysis—as previously discussed, the only conceivably relevant document I've managed to locate online is the attached order, though it doesn't seem to apply to any pending harassment proceeding. Do you have the OATH case files or can you get them easily and forward them to us? I appreciate your detailed descriptions, but we really need actual files for our analysis.
All of that said, to the extent Kozek or anyone else commences a new proceeding on your behalf, then it would be prudent to coordinate efforts in connection with any future litigation we'd handle. Among other things, you'd want to avoid taking a position in one matter that could affect your rights in the parallel one. And since the same subject-matter underlies the dispute, all counsel should be aligned on strategy.
Following Lost Business Opportunities — Karuna Freeman Studios¶
Pryor Cashman's commentary in this section was distributed across multiple inline insertions; the consolidated red-text content is reproduced below in thread order:
Please get us this valuation.
Other than the valuation, do you have any additional materials that shed light on the venture's potential value? Separately, is that venture related in any way to any preexisting ventures that have an established track-record of revenue-generation? That would really strengthen any lost-profits claim.
(we'd like this business plan)
Please get us this letter and any relevant financial projections or similar materials.
Again, what's most important for us are actual documents—you don't need to focus your energies on generating narratives, etc. Moreover, I emphasize again that, to the extent any future ventures are continuations of preexisting ones with established revenue streams or profitability, any lost-profits claims will be much stronger than in the alternative.
Following Leased Space Elsewhere¶
How does 66 Freeman Street compare with the compromised alternative housing that Kofman offered you?
Following Lease Agreements¶
Thanks.
Attachment¶
The April 30 reply attached LBO-5301-TH-0222-226-240-Frankling-Street-Bklyn.pdf (733.90 KB), described in Pryor Cashman's red-text commentary as "the only conceivably relevant document I've managed to locate online" with the observation that it "doesn't seem to apply to any pending harassment proceeding." The attachment is Loft Board Order No. 5301, Docket No. TH-0222 — the Sally Schmidt harassment application (Unit G4), filed December 20, 2021 and withdrawn with prejudice on the record before ALJ Kevin F. Casey on April 2, 2024. Order issued May 16, 2024. The Schmidt application is a separate matter from the TH-221 harassment proceeding in which Christian Gray, David May, Kate Downie, and Erez Horovitz are the applicants. The Schmidt order confirms three address aliases for the same building: 226-240 Franklin Street, 108 Freeman Street, and 97 Green Street, Brooklyn (IMD No. 30077).
Items Outstanding After Pryor Cashman Reply¶
| Item | Status |
|---|---|
| Pryor Cashman internal strategy discussion on HP renewal and global-settlement path | Pending Pryor Cashman return |
| HP action depositions of defendant — were any taken; transcripts if so | Pending Christian-side answer |
| Karuna Freeman Studios — business valuation document | In assembly; routing on completion |
| Karuna Freeman Studios — business plan document (the plan Salamone reviewed) | In assembly; routing on completion |
| Karuna Freeman Studios — Sweetwater investor letter (current dated/title preferred) | Pending; routing on completion |
| Karuna Freeman Studios — financial projections or similar materials | In assembly; routing on completion |
| Karuna Freeman Studios — additional value-evidencing materials beyond valuation | In assembly; routing on completion |
| Karuna Freeman Studios — preexisting-venture / track-record framing answer | Pending Christian-side answer + supporting materials |
| OATH / TH-221 full case file delivery to Pryor Cashman | Pending; required before Pryor Cashman can render analysis |
| 66 Freeman Street vs Kofman alternative housing — comparison answer | Pending Christian-side answer |
| Lease scans — 97 Green Street G21 + 66 Freeman Street | In progress; routing on completion |
| Clerk audio recordings — September 26, 2023; March 6, 2023; April 19, 2023; August 8, 2023 | Filed April 17, 2026; expected late May to mid-June 2026; weekly clerk follow-up requested |
| Tenant Association meeting — drop-vs-continue TH-221 | Pending Pryor Cashman read on alternative-path question (which is contingent on OATH file delivery) |
| Schmidt TH-0222 / TH-221 distinction explainer | Pending Christian-side response to Pryor Cashman |
Documented Chronology¶
| Date | Event | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Aug. 11, 2021 | Skaller email to Sandercock attaching ALC post-remediation report | Sandercock Correspondence Archive |
| Aug. 16, 2021 | Olmsted inspection (within 5 days of Skaller delivery) | Sandercock Correspondence Archive |
| Aug. 19, 2021 | Sandercock email to Skaller attaching Olmsted post-remediation report (within 14 days) | Sandercock Correspondence Archive |
| Dec. 20, 2021 | Sally Schmidt files harassment application (TH-0222) — separate matter from TH-221 | Loft Board Order No. 5301 |
| Jun. 14, 2022 | Motion to Restore filed | NYSCEF Doc #11 |
| Aug. 31, 2022 | Reply Affirmation filed (full briefing complete) | NYSCEF Doc #22 |
| Nov. 2022 | Substitution of Counsel — Ween & Kozek for Goodfarb & Sandercock | Substitution of Counsel |
| Sep. 26, 2023 | Oral argument on Motion to Restore | WT-117 NYSCEF Docket Analysis |
| Sep. 29, 2023 | Decision/Order denying Motion to Restore on procedural grounds | NYSCEF Doc #31 |
| Oct. 31, 2023 | Notice of Appeal filed by Kozek | WT-117 NYSCEF Docket Analysis |
| Apr. 2, 2024 | Sally Schmidt withdraws TH-0222 with prejudice on record before ALJ Casey | Loft Board Order No. 5301 |
| May 16, 2024 | Loft Board Order No. 5301 issued | Loft Board Order No. 5301 |
| Sep. 23, 2024 | Appeal dismissed for failure to perfect | WT-117 NYSCEF Docket Analysis |
| Apr. 17, 2026 | Audio-recording request filed with Kings County Housing Court clerk (4 dates) | Internal record |
| Apr. 22, 2026 | Meeting with Michael Kozek (~40 minutes) | Internal record |
| Apr. 28, 2026 | Consolidated response transmitted to Pryor Cashman | This document |
| Apr. 29, 2026 | Pryor Cashman acknowledgment of receipt | This document |
| Apr. 30, 2026 | Pryor Cashman substantive reply received with red-text commentary; LBO-5301 attached | This document |
Supporting Binder References¶
| Document | Link |
|---|---|
| HP 6086/2020 NYSCEF Docket Analysis | WT-117 |
| Stipulation Compliance Timeline Analysis | WT-118 |
| Stipulation of Settlement (source text) | WT-106B |
| Notice of Motion to Restore (NYSCEF Doc #11) | |
| Reply Affirmation (NYSCEF Doc #22) | |
| Decision/Order denying Motion to Restore (NYSCEF Doc #31) | |
| Substitution of Counsel (OATH TH-221) | |
| OATH Harassment Executive Overview | Red OATH Tab A000 |
| Karuna Freeman Studios — Executive Overview | Red Tab 000 |
| Freeman Street Industry Validation Framework | Red Tab 001 |
| Freeman Street Mathematical Verification | Red Tab 002 |
| Pryor Cashman Evidence Chain Analysis (March 25, 2026) | Document |
| Sandercock Correspondence Archive | Downloads — Email Correspondence Archives |
| Kozek Correspondence Archive | Downloads — Email Correspondence Archives |
END — Response to Matt Marcucci: Compliance Evidence, CPLR 2221(e) Path, Kozek Meeting, and Outstanding Items v1.1