Skip to content

Transmittal 4 of 5 — Signing Circumstances: The June 2021 Stipulation and Release (September 4, 2026)

Version: v1.0 | Updated: 2026-09-04

This page archives, verbatim, email 4 of the five-email transmission sent to Pryor Cashman LLP on September 4, 2026, responsive to the firm's August 27, 2026 post-call requests in Christian Gray v. American Package Co., Inc. The as-sent body is reproduced below from the sent-mail record; the attachments transmitted with it are archived in this section's media folder and listed after the body. The transmittal index carries the full set, the send sequence, and counsel's acknowledgment.

Send Metadata

Field Value
Date September 4, 2026, 5:23:28 PM EDT
From Christian Gray (Proton Mail)
To Matthew A. Marcucci, Pryor Cashman LLP
Cc Eric Sherman, Pryor Cashman LLP
Subject Signing circumstances — the June 2021 stipulation and release, my account with the record
Thread Sent as a reply to Matt Marcucci's August 27, 2026, 4:07 PM post-call email, with the subject changed
Matter HP 6086/2020; Index No. 506171/2021; Gray v. American Package Co., Inc.
As-sent source Proton Mail sent-message export, MD5 086808ea
Attachments 4 (listed after the body; archived copies linked)

The text below is a faithful reading copy of the as-sent body; the sent-message file, including this body and its attachments byte-for-byte, is fingerprinted MD5 086808ea.

As-Sent Body

Hi Matt,

On August 27 you wrote that to pursue the release question you would "need very specific color from you about the events leading to and surrounding your signing of the release all with the aim of showing, to the extent possible, that it was not a fair transaction on your end," and that we should "dig deeper" than what the site already holds. This is that account.

Three notes on how it is organized. First, I have arranged it under fourteen questions; the questions are my organizing frame for convenience, not a questionnaire from you. Second, every line is tagged: [D] is a document, with its source; [R] is my recollection; [P] is something I wrote at the time, with the archive page. Where I do not remember, I say so rather than fill the gap. Third, this is my account, not a characterization of anyone's motives; what people did and wrote is stated, and the reading of it is yours.

If you read one section first, read question 6: it carries the scope-of-work chain, dated, from the agreed scope in December 2020 to the first delivery of Exhibit 1 in August 2021. Two attachments are the executed instrument as I returned it on June 19, 2021 — the signed redline PDF and the signed Word file — with a provenance note on where each came from. A separate supplement carries the same documentary chain and the pre-signing correspondence in full verbatim form, February 11 through August 15, 2021.

1. When and where the signing happened. [D] By email. I returned "the signed Word doc and PDF" to Margaret Sandercock on Saturday, June 19, 2021, at 11:24 AM, from my ProtonMail account, adding "I'm going to be offline until at least the 27th" (archive p.1017). Not DocuSign, not at court. The stipulation was so-ordered June 29, 2021. [R] "I don't remember exactly where I was. Probably at a friend's place using their internet and my laptop, or at the studio at 66 Freeman Street. I signed on my laptop over the internet."

2. Who was present or on the thread. [D] The signing-week thread was Margaret Sandercock, Elizabeth Sandercock, Jenifer Orefice, and Edward Olmsted; David Skaller was opposite, through Sandercock. The June 17, 4:11 PM transmittal asked "both of you" to review — that was me and Olmsted. At 9:19 AM on June 18 she wrote "Chris, I need you to sign it today" (p.1014). Olmsted's entire documented review is one line, June 18, 10:58 AM: "It looks good to me Margaret" (pp.1014, 1016). At 12:21 PM she replied on that thread, to Olmsted with me copied: "Christian, please respond, and I need you to sign the agreement before you go out of town!!!" (p.1015). No lawyer walked me through the document in writing; no one with a legal lens reviewed it for me other than the counsel giving the assurances. [R] "No. No one was with me when I signed on June 19, 2021. I relied on Sandercock's emails and advice, and on Ed Olmsted's one-line review of the settlement agreement that she forwarded to me the day before."

3. Time between receiving the final document and signing. [D] The Workshare redline and clean version reached me Thursday, June 17, at 4:11 PM, with "I think I got most of the changes that we wanted" (p.1013). "Chris, I need you to sign it today" came Friday, June 18, at 9:19 AM, about 17 hours later (p.1014); at 12:21 PM the same day, "Christian, please respond, and I need you to sign the agreement before you go out of town!!!" (p.1015). I signed Saturday, June 19, at 11:24 AM — about 43 hours after receipt, in the days before I left town. The one documented review session before that, a June 7 Zoom, was capped at about 30 minutes by Olmsted's trial schedule and centered on scope. The first draft reached me June 2, 2021, at 4:11 PM, forwarded by Sandercock with "Here is the proposed settlement agreement with my comments" (p.998); seventeen days before signing, with that one 30-minute review in between. [D] The June 19 attachments are byte-identical to the June 17 transmittal; the release paragraph is unchanged from the first draft through execution and through the so-ordered filing; the paragraph numbering resolves (paragraph 12 in the landlord's first draft, paragraph 10 executed and filed). Detail is in the provenance note, attachment (3).

4. Whether Sandercock walked through the release paragraph, and what she said it covered. [R] "No, she did not. In fact she said that they tried to put in tricky language that would keep us from suing for damages, but she caught it and took it out. This was done over the phone." [D] In writing, June 15: "The landlord lawyer has backed off on our most important objections." The "Petition" definition in the opening paragraph, and the release's "claims... contained in Petition" language, were in the landlord's first draft as it reached me June 2; neither came from our side. Sandercock's own handwritten notes on that draft mark the contractor paragraph, the legalization-access sentence, the restoration paragraph, the emergency-work paragraph, and the fees paragraph; each of those became a change in the June 17 redline. The release paragraph carries no note, and the June 17 redline shows it unedited. No carve-out for the pending damages action was added at any stage. The June 17 transmittal's only explanation of the changes is "I think I got most of the changes that we wanted." No email between June 14 and 22 explains any edit. The mailbox is silent on the specifics of the assurance, consistent with its having been given by phone. [R] "I do not remember the insertion of the 'Petition' definition being explained to me as the fix for the damages case or otherwise."

5. Whether the pending Supreme Court damages case was discussed; whether I was told the release could bar it. [D] The same firm had filed the damages action on March 16, 2021, fourteen weeks before I signed. The stipulation does not reference it, and there is no carve-out. No email in the signing window mentions the Supreme Court action. May 20, 2021, in her without-prejudice message to Skaller, which she forwarded to me: she had "prevailed on Mr. Gray" to accept a scope she described as "not sufficient as Mr. Gray believes." The insurance allegations that the damages case rests on were in the Verified Petition itself, paragraph 14, verified June 29, 2020. [R] "Before I signed, I was told that the damages case was safe and that signing would not affect it. I also understood from Sandercock that once the insurance fraud came to light, Kofman would not want the damages case to go to court because of his own exposure."

6. What I was told about the repair scope and timeline in exchange. [D] The chain, dated (supplement rows in brackets; the full record is also at https://greenstreetcase.com/vol07-white/White_Tab_106D_Exhibit_1_Scope_Transmission_Record/): - December 8, 2020 — the scope of work agreed (Exhibit A), built on the Total Restoration / Chris Roussis scope. - February 10, 2021 — her framework for it, in writing: "You are going to have to accept what they will do now and test after and argue for more after. We keep telling you it's the best we can do" (p.642). My reply the next day: "I don't understand how that is remotely acceptable... Ridiculous!" (p.644). - June 13, 2021, 8:06 PM — one line from her to me and Olmsted, subject "update": "The remediation will be done by Servpro." No scope attached. [A0] - June 17, 2021 — the redline's contractor line names "Serve Pro." [A5] - June 19, 2021 — I signed. Exhibit 1 is not annexed to either signed artifact. [A1] - June 20, 2021 — the Exhibit 1 with eight printed "JG" reduction comments ("only 2 feet," etc.) first appears in the pre-filing assembly. [A2] - July 20–27, 2021 — the work window. [A3] - August 13, 2021 — I asked for Exhibit 1 in writing six times (pp.1057–1063). August 14 — first delivery to me: "The stipulation with Exhibit 1 is attached" (p.1064). [B1–B10, A4] - August 15, 2021 — I wrote that I did not realize the contractor change until I was on site (p.1065). [D1, D2] - "Total Restoration" appears nowhere in any version of the instrument. No Servpro scope was ever transmitted to me. [A6, F] [R] "I understood that the work would be performed within the scope associated with Total Restoration, under Chris Roussis's oversight. I did not know that Total Restoration would be replaced by Servpro, and I was never shown Servpro's proposed or confirmed scope of work before the agreement was presented to me. I have since seen that a one-line email on June 13, 2021 said the remediation would be done by Servpro; it did not register with me at the time, no scope came with it, and my August 2021 emails show I was still under the impression it was Total Restoration until the work started."

7. Whether the five-day Olmsted re-inspection window was explained, and the consequence of missing it. [D] Paragraph 5 sets the sequence: contractor's completion report, Olmsted's inspection within five days, his report. Nothing in the June 14–22 emails explains the window or what happens if it is missed. It surfaced only in execution: August 11, 2021, 10:48 AM, Skaller's transmittal started the clock ("Ed Olmstead has 5 days to inspect"); at 11:17 AM Sandercock forwarded it to Olmsted, copying me: "I know you are away. Can you, or someone else, inspect within 5 days?" [R] "No. Before I signed, no one explained the five-day Olmsted inspection window, when it would begin, or what consequence would follow if the inspection was not completed within that period. I did not understand any of that until August 11, 2021, when the landlord's transmittal started the clock and Sandercock was asking Olmsted whether someone else could inspect in his place."

8. Whether any alternatives to signing were presented. [D] Court was the alternative named, as the thing to avoid: May 11, 2021, "I do think you should accept their scope of work if you want to avoid court. I think we have to stop asking for things they won't do" (p.948); May 21, "I don't want to keep asking for things they won't do. It's a waste of time (mine) and money (yours.)" (p.995). No email presents trial, waiting, or further negotiation as a course for my case. My own line in the May 11 exchange: "I would like to avoid court and more importantly, Skaller's fees" (p.948). [R] "No. Counsel never presented me with an alternative I understood I could actually pursue — refusing to sign, insisting on seeing Exhibit 1 first, or taking more time to look into the scope of work. Court was mentioned only as something to avoid. The one real alternative I was offered came from Judge Stoller, not from my lawyer; Sandercock interjected at the time to say we were close to an agreement, and by the time I signed I did not know whether the court's offer was still open. That is under question 14."

9. What deadlines or pressures were invoked. [D] (1) A judge's clock: "the judge called both lawyers yesterday to ask for a progress report and he says he will do so again on or about June 30" (June 15); the instrument was so-ordered June 29. (2) The adversary-waiting frame: "they are waiting a while to hear from us" (June 4). (3) The travel deadline: "we need for Christian to sign it before he goes out of town" (June 17, 4:11 PM); "I need you to sign it today" (June 18, 9:19 AM); "Christian, please respond, and I need you to sign the agreement before you go out of town!!!" (June 18, 12:21 PM, p.1015). (4) Billing: "We would like you to pay your bill" arrived June 17 at 2:24 PM, about two hours before the redline (p.1010); the same week carried a demand that I collect other tenants' bills, with representation-withdrawal stakes (June 14–17; also May 10–11, pp.930, 953). (5) Earlier waiver pressure (October 2020, p.304). (6) Background: about twenty months displaced; COVID. (7) May 14, 2020, 3:32 PM and 4:07 PM: "PLEASE EMPTY the 3 storage spaces in the factory by monday"; "We need at least two of the storage rooms" (WT-101, Bates G21-HOUS-005–008). Executive Order 202.31, issued the same day, extended the New York PAUSE stay-at-home directives for New York City through May 28, 2020; the order had been due to expire May 15. [D] Counsel's description of my position to the other side, May 20, 2021: she had "prevailed on Mr. Gray" to accept a scope "not sufficient as Mr. Gray believes." [R] "By June 2021 I had been out of my apartment for about twenty months, since October 2019, and was living between my studio at 66 Freeman Street, a work space, not a home, and friends' apartments. My income from the studio had been cut off by the flood and the displacement, and then by COVID. Early on, the landlord had his contractors move my belongings into three storage units and then, on May 14, 2020 — the day New York extended its stay-at-home order for the city — told me to empty the three storage spaces by the following Monday, 'we need at least two of the storage rooms,' which meant consolidating what was left into one. By the time of the signing I was exhausted from the stress of not having my home and of the litigation. I needed the repairs done so I could get back into my apartment, and I understood that signing was the way to move them forward. I was being pressed to sign immediately — before I left town, then that same day. Sandercock was bullying me the whole time, caustic and abrasive in the emails and worse on the phone, when nothing was being recorded. I had just received the redline, I had been asking for the scope of work and had not been given it, and I heavily if not fully relied on her advice. I did not feel I had meaningful time or circumstances in which to stop, investigate the changes, and negotiate."

10. What reason Sandercock gave for why I should sign. [D] The reason of record, May 11: "accept their scope of work if you want to avoid court... stop asking for things they won't do" (p.948); May 21: "a waste of time (mine) and money (yours.)" (p.995). In the signing window itself nothing in writing gives a reason, only urgency: June 15, "The landlord lawyer has backed off on our most important objections"; June 17, "I think I got most of the changes that we wanted" and "before he goes out of town"; June 18, "I need you to sign it today." No email between June 14 and 22 explains why the agreement was good for me or what it did. [R] "Between June 17 and June 19, I was told or led to understand that signing was necessary to move the matter forward and get the repairs done. As I said under question 6, I had no idea Servpro was doing the work, and I was never shown any Servpro scope. Beyond being told the damages case was safe, I was given no explanation of what the release meant. The emails show the pressure; the phone calls were worse."

11. Whether I saw drafts or redlines, and whether there were comments in the margins. [D] The instrument originated with the landlord's side and reached Sandercock in late May. The first draft came to me June 2 as a single 11-page PDF with her handwritten notes; pages 7–11 of that PDF are the Olmsted mold-abatement scope carrying the JG comment balloons, unmentioned in the transmittal. The Workshare redline reached me June 17; no scope was attached to the June 17 or June 19 packages. No ServPro scope, certified or otherwise, was sent to me at any point. On August 13 I wrote, "I still haven't received Exhibit 1." The margin comments could not have been pointed out to me at signing; the exhibit carrying them was not in what I signed (question 6). [R] "I was never sent a ServPro scope of work or a ServPro-certified scope of work. I do not remember at this point whether I looked at the last pages of the June 2 PDF, or what was in front of us on the June 7 call." [R] "I read through the June 17 redline before signing, but I did not independently work through or verify every tracked change, including the insertion naming Serve Pro as the contractor, as verified in the email exchange that happened later." [R] "I signed the Stipulation of Settlement because I relied on the advice of Margaret and what she said Ed Olmsted had said and understood that it covered, to the best of my knowledge, the scope of work we had agreed upon that was outlined in our original agreement and based on the Total Restoration/Chris Roussis' scope of work." [R] "I was under immense pressure by Margaret to sign the doc before I left — there was a time crunch according to Margaret and I had just recently received the redline and stip doc." "I heavily if not fully relied on Margaret's professional advice and she was also bullying me to do it despite me repeatedly asking for copies of the scope of work. Final review was not thorough and relied on Sandercock and I was stressed out by her constant bullying." [R] "I thought that Chris Roussis and Total Restoration were doing the job." (Consistent with my August 15, 2021 email, in the supplement.) [R] "I did ask during the signing window, maybe by phone — I do not have a record of it as that phone has been gone long ago." [R] On whether there was a call with Sandercock around the signing: "At the moment, I don't remember whether there was a phone call with Margaret around the signing, and I have no phone logs." Inference only, not a memory: there probably would have been one around that time, a day before or that day. No email between June 14 and 22 documents a call; her billing entries would show it if it happened. [D] Corroboration for the recollections above, by date, is in the supplement (August 13, 2:08 PM; August 15, 7:43 PM; the June 17 and 18 messages).

12. Who proposed the release language; whether my side asked for anything in it. [D] The instrument came from the landlord's side, release language included. Changes were sought and obtained on the paragraphs Sandercock had marked on the June 2 draft; Skaller wrote on June 17 that the revised versions "incorporate all of your agreed upon comments," and the redline shows them: the restoration bar struck and the restoration ground broadened, the emergency-work and legalization-access provisions removed, fees reserved. None of the marked paragraphs was the release; its body was not edited in that round. Paragraph 12 deems both parties drafters. [R] I do not recall any discussion of the release language as such, apart from what is under question 4, and I do not remember the "Petition" definition being explained to me.

13. What I understood I was giving up when I signed. [R] "I was settling the repair case so the remediation would finally happen, and my damages case was still mine."

14. Anything that felt rushed, unexplained, or wrong at the time. [R] "Judge Stoller offered to make a decision on the scope of work — he seemed confident in Ed Olmsted's reputation — and said it would save me a lot of time and money paying lawyers and the environmental and other professionals. Margaret interjected and said that they were close to an agreement, or something like that. I regret not taking the Stoller offer to this day." [R] "It was not an informed choice. I trusted my attorney's strong opinion on the matter; I had no idea at the time what I was giving up by not taking the court's offer." [D] The date of that appearance is not yet pinned; I will confirm it against the court record when the transcript request comes back. Adjacent in the record: June 15, 2021, in writing, "We are pretty close to having a settlement agreement that can be signed." [P] My contemporaneous objection, February 11, 2021, to the acceptance framework: "I don't understand how that is remotely acceptable... Ed already agreed that this needed to be done, without a doubt... Ridiculous!" (p.644). The same day, her reply: "you are asking for some things beyond his recommendations" (p.658). [D] The skeleton: 43 hours; "sign it today" and, three hours later, "please respond... sign the agreement before you go out of town!!!"; offline through the so-ordering. [R] "The signing weekend was not an independently informed negotiation on my part. I relied on the advice and explanations I had received, believed the document reflected the agreed scope of work, and did not understand that the contractor, scope of work, or legal effect of the release differed from what I had understood. I was not given the information or time I needed to independently evaluate those issues." [R] "Between the redline arriving Thursday afternoon and my signing Saturday morning, what I received in writing from my lawyer was a bill, then the redline with 'I think I got most of the changes that we wanted' and 'we need for Christian to sign it before he goes out of town,' then 'Chris, I need you to sign it today,' then a forwarded one-line 'It looks good to me' from Ed Olmsted; behind that stood a month of 'stop asking for things they won't do' and 'a waste of time (mine) and money (yours)'; I do not remember anyone walking me through the release paragraph, I did not know whether the court's offer to decide the scope was still open to me, and I signed alone on a laptop believing I was settling the repair case and keeping my damages case."

One thing I want to state plainly rather than leave for you to find: the supplement includes, alongside counsel's pre-signing messages, my own May 11, 2021 line to her, "I would like to avoid court and more importantly, Skaller's fees," because it is part of the same exchange and you should have it.

The supplement runs February 11 to August 15, 2021, dates and verbatim text only; the request chain for the scope exhibit is at its section B, and the pre-signing counsel correspondence is at section G.

Thank you.

Peace, Christian

Attachments (4): 1. 284_ATTACH_A1_Stipulation_Signed_Redline_PDF_20210619.pdf — the signed redline PDF exactly as I sent it June 19, 2021, 11:24 AM (MD5 dcef62ca0ccd613682e02eac7b8980c3) 2. 284_ATTACH_A2_Stipulation_Signed_v2_DOCX_20210619.docx — the signed clean v2 Word file from the same June 19 email (MD5 a6be699bff6585265e4ef8801582b8c2) 3. 284_ATTACH_A_Provenance_Note_v1_1.pdf — one page: where each of the two files above comes from and how it was verified (MD5 048979ca5a5de513fed3ea0bdd7a1dcb) 4. 284_Q11_Q6_Documentary_Supplement_v0_10_RULED.pdf — four pages: the signing-week record, message by message, with archive page pins (MD5 486ab6b9aaf6cfab763b091053263158)

Sent with Proton Mail secure email.

Attachments — Archived Copies

Each file below is the archived copy of the attachment as transmitted, extracted byte-for-byte from the sent message; the MD5 shown is the hash of the transmitted file.

File Description Size (bytes) MD5
284_ATTACH_A1_Stipulation_Signed_Redline_PDF_20210619.pdf The signed redline PDF exactly as returned to counsel June 19, 2021, 11:24 AM 253,432 dcef62ca
284_ATTACH_A2_Stipulation_Signed_v2_DOCX_20210619.docx The signed clean v2 Word file from the same June 19, 2021 email 133,787 a6be699b
284_ATTACH_A_Provenance_Note_v1_1.pdf One page: the provenance and verification of the two executed-instrument files above 39,351 048979ca
284_Q11_Q6_Documentary_Supplement_v0_10_RULED.pdf Four pages: the signing-week record, message by message, with archive page pins (February 11 to August 15, 2021) 73,437 486ab6b9

This transmittal set

Binder pages referenced in the body

Originating request

END — Transmittal 4 of 5 — Signing Circumstances: The June 2021 Stipulation and Release (September 4, 2026) v1.0