White Tab 106D — Exhibit 1 / Scope-of-Work Transmission Record¶
GUARDRAIL: WHITE — FACT REPOSITORY ONLY
Facts and source pinpoints only. No strategy, no argument, no legal opinions. All quotations are exact text from the cited source; original spellings are preserved with [sic] where nonstandard.
A) Scope of This Tab¶
This tab records, from native correspondence and the executed and filed instruments, the transmission history of the scope-of-work documents in HP 6086/2020: what scope documents existed, when each reached petitioner, and the correspondence requesting them. All times are Eastern (EDT). In the source archive, top-level "Date:" headers print UTC for messages sent from protonmail.com, goodfarblaw.com and bbgllp.com addresses (four-hour offset verified on multiple pairs against the sender's mailbox and against quoted headers), and print Eastern time for messages sent from olmsted.mac@mac.com (verified on three independent pairs, June 27, 2020 and January 10, 2021, and on the June 18, 2021 message at row T-1c); quoted headers inside message bodies print the quoting client's Eastern time.
Primary sources: Sandercock correspondence archive (MD5 7ef25c2d, 1,418 pages; page pins below — every cited page is reproduced unaltered in WT-106D_Sandercock_Archive_Cited_Pages_Extract.pdf, MD5 12d4f5dd, 26 pp., with a page map on its cover; each "Archive p." pin links to the corresponding extract page); executed signing attachments of June 19, 2021 (signed redline PDF MD5 dcef62ca; signed clean v2 DOCX MD5 a6be699b); pre-filing assembly scan (MD5 b958d5f6); the so-ordered stipulation as filed; the June 1, 2021 draft as transmitted (WT-106D_20210601_BBG_Stipulation_Draft_v1.docx, MD5 d756848d, 26,137 bytes); the June 2, 2021 draft as transmitted (WT-106D_20210602_Stipulation_Draft_with_Comments.pdf, MD5 0777388c, 11 pp.).
B) The Three Scope Documents of Record¶
| Ref | Document | Status in the record |
|---|---|---|
| S-1 | Total Restoration estimate packet (see WT-104B), printed Jan 19, 2021, carrying the Olmsted-authored Dec 8, 2020 scope as revised after the Dec 21, 2020 comment round (seven of eight JG comments incorporated; WT-104B §D) | Reviewed by petitioner during the settlement negotiations (the price-redacted proposal forwarded Feb 10, 2021); the basis of petitioner's understanding of the agreed scope. Exhibit 1 (S-2) annexes the unrevised text. |
| S-2 | Exhibit 1 as annexed to the so-ordered stipulation (carries eight printed "JG" comments; see WT-106 and WT-106B) | Not annexed to either executed signing artifact (row T-2); first transmitted to petitioner, as the annexed exhibit, August 14, 2021 (row T-13). Content is page-for-page identical to the five scope pages of the June 2 draft (row T-0b) — same text, layout, and internal page numbers, and all eight printed "JG" comments at identical anchors — verified by independent-scan text comparison and full raster read of both copies. |
| S-3 | The scope of work issued to or verified by SERVPRO (styled "Serve Pro" in the stipulation), the company that performed the July 2021 work | No transmission to petitioner located anywhere in the reviewed record (Section G). |
C) Transmission and Execution Anchors¶
| Ref | Date (EDT) | Fact | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| T-0 | May 20, 2021, 10:35 PM | Sandercock to petitioner (subject "Important!!! Emergency!!!!"), transmitting her without-prejudice message to Respondent's counsel: "we have prevailed on Mr. Gray to accept the existing scope of work provided that the owner will conduct its post testing first and give us the results before we have to start our post testing. If the scope of work is not sufficient as Mr. Gray believes..." | Archive p.970 |
| T-0a | Jun 1, 2021, 9:02 AM | Orefice (Goodfarb & Sandercock) to petitioner, cc Sandercock, subject "HP case settlement": "Ms. Sandercock has been away but is available to discuss the attached proposed Stipulation with you tomorrow afternoon." Attachment: a 5-page Word draft of the stipulation, text only — Exhibit 1 referenced ("annexed hereto") but no exhibit, scope content, or diagram included; no remediation company named; commencement date and inspection deadlines blank. The file carries Belkin Burden Goldman's document-management stamp DPHILLIPS/11132.0050/3078710.1 — the same DMS document number whose v2 clean and redlined versions Skaller transmitted June 17 (row T-1a) — establishing landlord drafting origin from the instrument itself. First draft transmission of record. |
Archived copy (MD5 d756848d, 26,137 bytes, byte-count-exact to the extraction record of the sending email) |
| T-0b | Jun 2, 2021, 4:11 PM | Sandercock to petitioner, subject "FW: Gray HP," forwarding the landlord-originated draft with her notes ("with my comments"): a single 11-page PDF — the stipulation text (19 numbered paragraphs) at pp. 1–6 and, at pp. 7–11, the five scope-of-work pages bearing the eight printed "JG" comments (present in this draft; annexed to neither the June 17 versions nor the executed artifacts — see T-2, T-3). The release paragraph (then ¶12) is unmarked by the handwritten notes; her handwritten comments elsewhere (company name at ¶1, days/hours query, "No" at the ¶7 legalization sentence, restoration-if-unsatisfactory at ¶8, May-unit coordination at ¶10, fees objection at ¶13, "Elizabeth" struck for "Margaret" at the signature block) were each implemented in the June 17 redline. First scope-bearing version of record; the last draft petitioner received before the June 17 redline. | Archive p.998; EML a30e450b; archived copy of the attachment (MD5 0777388c) |
| T-1 | Jun 13, 2021, 8:06 PM | Sandercock to petitioner and Olmsted, subject "update": "The remediation will be done by Servpro." Identity statement only; no scope document attached or referenced. | Archive p.1008 |
| T-1a | Jun 17, 2021, 4:04 PM | Skaller to Sandercock: "Please see the attached clean and redlined revised versions of the stipulation that incorporate all of your agreed upon comments." | Archive p.1013, 1016 |
| T-1b | Jun 17, 2021, 4:11 PM | Sandercock to petitioner and Olmsted: "I'd like to hear from both of you today or tomorrow and we need for Christian to sign it before he goes out of town." | Archive p.1013, 1016 |
| T-1c | Jun 18, 2021, 10:58 AM | Olmsted to Sandercock, cc petitioner: "It looks good to me Margaret" | Archive p.1014, 1016 |
| T-1d | Jun 18, 2021, 9:19 AM | Sandercock to petitioner and Olmsted, subject "Important reminder": "I need both of you to review the proposed agreement settling the HP case today, and Chris, I need you to sign it today." | Archive p.1014 |
| T-1e | Jun 18, 2021, 12:21 PM | Sandercock to Olmsted, cc petitioner, replying on the thread above Olmsted's approval: "Christian, please respond, and I need you to sign the agreement before you go out of town!!!" | Archive p.1015–1016 |
| T-1f | Jun 19, 2021 (Saturday), 11:24 AM | Petitioner to Sandercock: "Attached are the signed Word doc and PDF. I'm going to be offline until at least the 27th." | Archive p.1017 |
| T-2 | Jun 19, 2021 | Both executed signing artifacts run eight pages, contain one textual reference to Exhibit 1, and annex no scope exhibit. | dcef62ca; a6be699b |
| T-3 | Jun 20, 2021, 5:59 PM | Exhibit 1 bearing the eight printed "JG" comments first appears in the pre-filing assembly scan. | b958d5f6 (creation metadata) |
| T-3a | Jun 29, 2021 | So-ordered and filed with Exhibit 1 annexed (NYSCEF Doc. No. 10, 12 pages). The so-ordered caption page bears the court’s electronic approval stamp beside the J.H.C. signature, reading “APPROVED / KI-HOUSING-502 , 6/29/2021, 9:38:04 AM” (two-line stamp; spacing as on the instrument); the NYSCEF filing banner on every page reads 11:28 AM the same day. | Archived copy (Doc 10 as re-filed June 14, 2022 as NYSCEF Doc 15, original 06/29/2021 banner beneath the 2022 banner; MD5 2a100e0d); stamp detail (600-dpi extract of the same page) |
| T-4 | Jul 20–27, 2021 | Contracted work window under the stipulation; preparation July 20, remediation from July 21. | So-ordered stipulation ¶1 |
| T-5 | Jul 21, 2021, 2:08 PM | Petitioner to Sandercock: "I just gave it to Raheem the guy who's running the Servpro crew." (Key handoff; petitioner on site at work commencement. See WT-208.) | Archive p.1032 (header p.1007) |
C2) Instrument Text Record¶
| Ref | Fact | Source |
|---|---|---|
| I-1 | In the June 17, 2021 Workshare redline, the contractor identification — " named Serve Pro (emergency contact is Lisa Mulcahy whose email address is lmulcahy@servprohoboken.com and cell phone # 551-226-1997)" — renders as inserted text (blue), a new insertion in the final pre-signing round. It is the instrument's single contractor reference, in ¶1, adjacent to the "Petition" defined term. | WORKSHARE_REDLINE_20210617.pdf (span rendering); June 17 clean v2 DOCX; executed artifacts |
| I-2 | "Total Restoration" and "Total Renovation" appear nowhere in any version of the instrument (June 17 clean v2; June 17 redline; either executed artifact). | Full-text extraction, all four files |
| I-3 | The stipulation's contractor contact is lmulcahy@servprohoboken.com; the SERVPRO franchise recorded for the performing crew is SERVPRO West Somerset County (legal-name verification pending). Franchise-identity verification is tracked in WT-208 §§A, E. | Instrument text; WT-208 |
D) The Request Correspondence — Verbatim¶
| Ref | Date/Time (EDT) | From → To (subject) | Exact text (ellipses mark omitted text only) | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| T-6 | Aug 2, 2021, 3:07 PM | Petitioner → Sandercock ("Mold Remediation") | "The company that is doing the job, Servepro, is not Total Restoration. TR is the company that submitted the scope of work that we signed off on. Isn't this a conflict? ALC issued the scope of work to these companies to bid on but we never saw or signed off on Servepro's scope of work." | Archive p.1034–1035 |
| T-7 | Aug 13, 2021, 1:41 PM | Petitioner → Sandercock ("Exhibit 1") | "Please send me Exhibit 1, aka the Scope of Work from the Stipulation of Settlement. I never saw Servepro's scope of work. I signed off on what we all agreed to during the lengthy email exchanges, phone calls, and final zoom meeting, that were based around ALC's and Total Renovation's Scope of Work." | Archive p.1047 |
| T-8 | Aug 13, 2021, 1:41 PM (same message) | Petitioner → Sandercock | "In reading the settlement agreement it says that the scope of work in Exhibit 1 is the legally binding agreement so please send it to me. I was told by Ed that it was the same scope of work that we had all agreed to. How did I not receive a copy of Exhibit 1 to review??? Did you review it and make sure that it was the same scope of work that we all agreed to? ... Please send me Exhibit 1. If it differs from what we all agreed upon then we have a big problem." | Archive p.1045–1047 |
| T-9 | Aug 13, 2021, 2:08 PM | Petitioner → Sandercock | "I look forward to receiving and reading Exhibit 1. I followed your and Ed's advice and signed the Stipulation of Settlement, that to the best of my knowledge, covered the scope of work that we agreed to." | Archive p.1046 |
| T-10 | Aug 13, 2021, 2:45 PM | Petitioner → Sandercock | "...the scope of work was clearly outlined in our documented negotiation...but I never read or was even sent Exhibit 1. ... Please send it to me today so I can clearly understand the situation." | Archive p.1058 |
| T-11 | Aug 13, 2021, 3:04 PM | Petitioner → Sandercock | "...if they haven't completed the scope work outlined in Exhibit 1, it speaks for itself. If they have completed the work in Exhibit 1, then that speaks for itself. So, Exhibit 1 will speak for itself. Please send me Exhibit 1 today. I need to read it before I meet with Ed on Monday." | Archive p.1062 |
| T-12 | Aug 13, 2021, 3:22 PM | Petitioner → Sandercock | "You or Ed never told be that that was the case. Ever. ... Please send me Exhibit 1." [sic "be"] | Archive p.1059 |
| T-12a | Aug 13, 2021, 4:07 PM | Petitioner → Sandercock | "I still haven't received Exhibit 1. Can you please have your assistant send it to me." | Archive p.1060 |
| T-12b | Aug 13, 2021, 6:03 PM | Petitioner → Sandercock (new thread: "I still haven't received the Exhibit 1 document") | "Please send me the document." | Archive p.1062–1063 |
| T-13 | Aug 14, 2021, 10:46 AM | Orefice (Goodfarb & Sandercock) → Petitioner, cc Sandercock | "The stipulation with Exhibit 1 is attached." | Archive p.1064 |
Six explicit written requests for Exhibit 1 were sent on August 13, 2021 (T-7/T-8, T-10, T-11, T-12, T-12a, T-12b), following the August 2 correspondence (T-6). The first transmission of Exhibit 1 to petitioner of record is T-13, eighteen days after the close of the work window (T-4).
E) Counsel's Same-Thread Responses — Verbatim¶
| Ref | Date/Time (EDT) | From → To | Exact text | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| T-14 | Aug 13, 2021, 1:52 PM | Sandercock → Petitioner | "I have asked my assistant to see if she can send it to you. I keep trying to prepare you for the fact that if Ed's test reports are good, you have no position and you are wasting your time pursuing this. I would not do one more thing if I were you, till I know what Ed's reports say. And, Ed and I are both going to have issues if you don't want to follow our advice, as both of us have trouble doing work we don't believe in." | Archive p.1045, 1047 |
| T-15 | Aug 13, 2021, 2:13 PM | Sandercock → Petitioner | "I am telling you that if Ed's tests are good, neither one of us is behind you. We have already discussed it. If you wanted this better managed, you would have needed to have Ed there during the work. You wanted to limit cost and he was only there one day." | Archive p.1058 |
| T-16 | Aug 13, 2021, 3:08 PM | Sandercock → Petitioner | "If Ed had been there, he would have been part of any decision that certain work was not needed. If the test results are good, neither Ed nor I can advocate for work that was part of a contract but perhaps not needed. Either you want the maximum work done to punish the landlord, or due to some suspicion about your future health. On the latter, you have no expertise to insist on that." | Archive p.1059 |
| T-17 | Aug 13, 2021, ~3:31 PM | Sandercock → Petitioner | "You have a tendency to say things are the fault of others when they don't go your way. You've said it about Frazer, Petrucci and Atlas." | Archive p.1059 |
F) Petitioner's Statements of August 15, 2021 — Verbatim¶
| Ref | Date/Time (EDT) | From → To (subject) | Exact text | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| T-18 | Aug 15, 2021, 7:43 PM | Petitioner → Sandercock ("My apologies") | "...I had reviewed, in detail, the Scope of Work submitted as Exhibit 1. As I recall there was a rush to get the last and final iteration of the document signed and submitted and if I had thoroughly reviewed it and noticed the company name change I would have asked to review Exhibit 1 before I signed off on it. I did not realize that Servepro would be doing the job until I was on-site to let them and Ed in. I asked Ed about the Scope of Work and he said it was the same as the one Total Renovation submitted so I did not think anything more of it." | Archive p.1065 |
| T-19 | Aug 15, 2021, 8:28 PM | Petitioner → Sandercock ("Again, my apologies.") | "In reviewing the previous Stipulation of Settlement docs that were sent to me, Servepro was listed. My apologies. I thought that is was going to be Total Renovation as that was the company that submitted the scope of work that I was sent to review." [sic "that is was"] | Archive p.1066 |
Rows T-1 and T-18 are both of record: T-1 is a June 13, 2021 notice addressed to petitioner stating the contractor identity; T-18 is petitioner's August 15, 2021 statement that he did not realize SERVPRO would perform the work until on site. This tab records both without reconciliation.
G) Search Result — SERVPRO-Side Scope (S-3)¶
A review of every reference to SERVPRO (all spellings) in two sources — the Sandercock correspondence archive 7ef25c2d (1,418 pages; 28 pages bearing the name, each reviewed) and petitioner's mailbox extract (1,959 messages; 47 bearing the name, each reviewed) — locates no transmission to petitioner, at any time, of the scope of work issued to SERVPRO, a SERVPRO bid or proposal, a SERVPRO work order, or any SERVPRO-verified scope. The pre-work references to SERVPRO in petitioner's correspondence are the June 13, 2021 identity notice (T-1) and the contractor name as listed in the stipulation documents (T-19). This result reflects the email record reviewed; collection targets for the SERVPRO job file, work orders, and scope directives are tracked in WT-208 §E and WT-003.
H) Sequence Summary (dates only)¶
Counsel's "prevailed on Mr. Gray" report to opposing counsel, noting client's belief the scope was insufficient (May 20) — first draft transmission: landlord-drafted text-only Word version, Exhibit 1 referenced but not annexed (Jun 1) — first scope-bearing version forwarded to petitioner, scope pages bearing the eight "JG" comments included, release paragraph unmarked (Jun 2) — contractor-identity notice (Jun 13) — revised versions transmitted, contractor name newly inserted in the redline (Jun 17, 4:04 PM) — "sign it before he goes out of town" (Jun 17, 4:11 PM) — "sign it today" (Jun 18, 9:19 AM) — Olmsted's one-line approval (Jun 18, 10:58 AM) — "please respond, and I need you to sign the agreement before you go out of town!!!" (Jun 18, 12:21 PM) — execution with no scope exhibit annexed (Saturday Jun 19, 11:24 AM; petitioner offline from signing until on or after Jun 27) — Exhibit 1 with the eight "JG" comments first appears in the assembly scan (Jun 20) — so-ordered (court e-stamp 9:38:04 AM) and filed (11:28 AM) with Exhibit 1 annexed (Jun 29) — work performed (Jul 20–27; petitioner on site Jul 21) — contractor question raised (Aug 2) — six written requests for Exhibit 1 in one day (Aug 13) — first transmission of Exhibit 1 to petitioner (Aug 14, 10:46 AM) — petitioner's two follow-up statements (Aug 15).
I) Cross-References (White)¶
WT-104B (S-1 source document) · WT-106 (court-ordered vs. executed scope) · WT-106A (field record) · WT-106B (the instrument) · WT-120 (scope evolution) · WT-207 / WT-208 (SERVPRO personnel) · WT-003 (collection tracker)
END — White Tab 106D — Exhibit 1 / Scope-of-Work Transmission Record v1.7