Skip to content

White Tab 120A — Skaller Proposed New Stipulation — Revised Scope and Affidavit Withdrawal

GUARDRAIL: WHITE — FACT REPOSITORY ONLY

Facts & source pinpoints only. No strategy, no argument, no legal opinions. All quotations are "as reported" unless exact text appears in a cited source.

Source

Document Identification

  • From: David Skaller
  • To: Margaret Sandercock
  • Date: November 3, 2022, 11:29 AM
  • Subject line shown: FW: Attached Image
  • Marking shown on page: FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES ONLY

The source PDF shows a November 3, 2022, 11:29 AM email from David Skaller to Margaret Sandercock, subject FW: Attached Image, marked FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES ONLY.

The Sandercock correspondence archive contains a later same-day forward from Sandercock to Christian Gray, cc: Adam Goodfarb, stating: “The above proposed agreement and email below concern your HP case. I have already, separately, sent these things to Ed Olmsted.”

The current project record treats WT-110A as the one-page scanned remaining-scope attachment transmitted with this email. Final native attachment-metadata confirmation remains desirable, but the Nov. 3 sequence now fixes the document's place in the scope-evolution chain.

Factual Summary

This document is a one-page email from David Skaller to Margaret Sandercock proposing terms for a new stipulation of settlement.

The email states that a new scope of work had been prepared by Jack and that Ed had indicated at the last apartment meeting that the scope was acceptable as the remaining scope of work. In the current project record, that attached remaining-scope page is treated as WT-110A.

The email proposes that Servpro and two other companies be given access to inspect and bid the work, with both Jack and Ed present so the contractors understand and agree to perform the work per the attached scope.

The email further proposes that, once a remediation company is selected, access would be provided for the work; that Jack and Ed would be present on the last day of work while the remediation company is still on site; and that testing would occur either that same day or within one week of completion. The email also states that both ALC and Ed may be present while the work is being done.

The email sets out a three-part dispute mechanism for any disagreement at completion: immediate additional work if the experts agree the item is within scope and the landlord pays; additional work at the tenant's expense if the experts agree the item is outside scope; or decision by a pre-selected third party if the experts cannot agree.

The email states that, upon full execution of the proposed stipulation, the affidavits of Jack and Candice would be withdrawn.

The email also states that, after the work is completed, access would be provided for the tenant's contractors to perform legalization work pursuant to approved plans by DOB and the Loft Board.

Placement Note

This tab is placed after WT-120 because it documents a later-stage proposed replacement or revision to the remediation / stipulation framework, and because it links the revised scope discussion to an express proposal for withdrawal of the Jack and Candice affidavits.

Cross-References

  • WT-106B — Stipulation of Settlement
  • WT-108A — Mold Abatement Work Scope
  • WT-110A — ALC Additional Scope of Work
  • WT-117 — HP 6086/2020 NYSCEF Docket Analysis
  • WT-118 — Stipulation Compliance Timeline Analysis
  • WT-120 — G21 Scope Evolution Comparison
  • WT-001 — Master Timeline
  • Orange B001 — Margaret Sandercock — Attorney Malpractice Framework

Record Caution

This document proposes withdrawal of the Jack and Candice affidavits upon execution of a new stipulation. This document does not itself use the phrase not accurate.

END — White Tab 120A — Skaller Proposed New Stipulation — Revised Scope and Affidavit Withdrawal v1.1