Skip to content

Transmittal 5 of 5 — Sandercock July 31, 2022 Email: Damages Figures in the Original Complaint (September 4, 2026)

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

This page archives, verbatim, email 5 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, 5:25:54 PM EDT
From Christian Gray (Proton Mail)
To Matthew A. Marcucci, Pryor Cashman LLP
Cc Eric Sherman, Pryor Cashman LLP
Subject Sandercock July 31, 2022 email re: the damages figures in the original complaint — five questions
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 b2e57164
Attachments 1 (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 b2e57164.

As-Sent Body

Hi Matt,

One document I want to make sure is in front of you on its own, not buried in a larger set. On July 31, 2022 (10:07 PM; the archive header prints Aug 1, 2022, 2:07 AM UTC), Margaret Sandercock sent me an email titled "In preparation for our conference tomorrow with the 226 Franklin TA, and your prior call with Adam" — a point-by-point assessment of what she considered my claims to be worth. In it, referring to the Supreme Court complaint she drafted and filed in 2021, she wrote:

"The summary of this is that when I wrote up the summons and complaint for Supreme Court, I used my imagination and pled very high numbers to intimidate the landlord. That does not at all mean I ever thought you would get those numbers, nor that I think you are entitled to them."

The complete email is attached (pages 1332–1333 of the Sandercock correspondence archive) — you should have the whole document rather than my summary of it. Five questions: 1. The original numbers vs. my documented record. If defendants ever point to the ad damnum figures in the original complaint — "you demanded these millions" — does this email let us establish that those figures were her construction, not my claim? I want the damages presentation we've actually built, which is documented item by item, to be judged on its own and not against numbers she describes as imagination. 2. Amendment. If you amend the complaint, does having this in hand help explain any change in figures or claims between the pleadings, so a swing reads as correction rather than retreat? 3. Negotiation. In any settlement discussion, does this take the original figures off the table as a reference point? 4. Pattern. The tone and method here match her August 13, 2021 written responses, which are part of the signing-circumstances record you asked me for — pressure framing, "the value to you of having money now." Is that continuity useful to you, or is it noise from your vantage? 5. The other edge, raised rather than sat on. (a) Her description of how the operative complaint's numbers were pled — is that a problem we should get ahead of, and does it argue for amending sooner rather than later? (b) I understand this is attorney-client correspondence with prior counsel and that sharing it with you keeps it protected; whether and how it could ever be used in the case is a waiver question I'm leaving entirely to you — I just don't want to trip anything by mishandling it.

No action needed beyond your read; answers whenever convenient.

Thank you.

Peace, Christian

Attachments (1): 1. Sandercock_Archive_pp1332-1333_20220731_Valuation_Email_EXTRACT.pdf — the complete July 31, 2022 email, pages 1332–1333 of the Sandercock correspondence archive (MD5 7a8d1dcba62b61c605546d09c8dbbadb)

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
Sandercock_Archive_pp1332-1333_20220731_Valuation_Email_EXTRACT.pdf The complete July 31, 2022 Sandercock email (pages 1332–1333 of the Sandercock correspondence archive) 5,561 7a8d1dcb

This transmittal set

Binder pages referenced in the body

Originating request

END — Transmittal 5 of 5 — Sandercock July 31, 2022 Email: Damages Figures in the Original Complaint (September 4, 2026) v1.0