White Tab 121 -- Kozek HP 6086 Correspondence Timeline¶
GUARDRAIL: WHITE -- FACT REPOSITORY ONLY
Facts & source pinpoints only. No strategy, no argument, no legal opinions. All entries are documented from the Kozek Attorney Correspondence PDF with page references. Procedural dates are from WT-117 (NYSCEF Docket Analysis).
Document: White Tab 121 -- Kozek HP 6086 Correspondence Timeline Version: v1.2 | Updated: 2026-04-13 Source PDF: Kozek_Attorney_Correspondence.pdf (729 pages) Cross-references: WT-117, WT-118
PART A -- Purpose¶
This document maps every substantive communication (and every notable absence of communication) between Michael Kozek / Ween & Kozek and Christian Gray concerning HP 6086/2020, from the Smith Decision through the appeal dismissal and beyond. Each entry is pinned to a page number in the source PDF. Procedural milestones from the court docket are interleaved to show what was happening in the case at each point.
The document also records the billing pattern during the same period, because the billing communications provide additional chronological context during windows when no substantive HP 6086 communications appear in the reviewed correspondence file.
The review of the correspondence file underlying this tab used two complementary methods: (1) a per-entry page-pinned tabulation of every substantive HP 6086 communication and every billing communication from the firm, reflected in Parts C and D; and (2) a case-insensitive keyword-indexed search of the full 729-page corpus for appeal-related terms, reflected in Part D.5. Both methods produced consistent results and are documented with page pinpoints.
PART B -- Procedural Reference Dates¶
These dates are established in WT-117 and the NYSCEF docket for LT-006086-20/KI:
| Date | Event | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Jun 14, 2022 | Motion to Restore filed (Sandercock) | WT-117 Doc #11 |
| Jul 28, 2022 | Opposition filed (Skaller) | WT-117 Doc #17 |
| Aug 31, 2022 | Reply filed (Sandercock / Olmsted) | WT-117 Doc #22, #23 |
| Nov 15, 2022 | Substitution: Ween & Kozek replace Goodfarb & Sandercock | WT-117 Doc #25 |
| Sep 29, 2023 | Smith Decision: Motion to Restore denied | WT-117 Doc #31 |
| Oct 31, 2023 | Notice of Appeal filed (Kozek) | WT-117 Doc #37 |
| Sep 23, 2024 | Appellate Term dismissal for failure to perfect | WT-117 Doc #38 |
Per WT-118: No supplemental filings were made between the substitution of counsel (Nov 15, 2022) and the Smith decision (Sep 29, 2023) that supplied the missing trigger-proof material identified in the denial.
PART C -- Correspondence Timeline¶
C.1 Pre-Decision Context (Sep 2023)¶
Sep 20, 2023 -- Busch emails Christian about growing invoice balance: "We need you to make some sort of payment." (Source: p. 426)
Sep 21, 2023 -- Christian responds that he will work on securing a loan to make a payment, explains he has been in the process of company valuation. (Source: p. 426)
Sep 26, 2023 (3:30 PM) -- Kozek sends a Microsoft Teams meeting invite to Christian for "(MPK) Gray - Oral Argument" scheduled that afternoon, 3:30-4:30 PM. (Source: p. 394)
C.2 Smith Decision and Immediate Response (Sep 29, 2023)¶
Sep 29, 2023 (11:40 AM) -- Kozek forwards the NYSCEF notification of the Smith Decision to Christian. Kozek writes:
"The judge just issued this decision on the motion to restore for a hearing on compliance with the agreement. She denied the motion on grounds not argued by either side, finding that there were certain pre-conditions to bringing the motion that were not satisfied in the motion papers that Sandercock submitted. Let's discuss how to deal with this. This does not preclude a motion for contempt, which I have said we would pursue; so I'm not concerned about this having much impact on the settlement discussion." (Source: pp. 394-395)
Sep 29, 2023 (6:19 PM) -- Christian responds the same day:
"Let me know when you are available to discuss. I am around and working all weekend and next week. I will make the time, at your convenience." (Source: p. 396)
No follow-up meeting or call appears in the reviewed Kozek Attorney Correspondence PDF in response to this exchange.
C.3 Oct 2023 -- Appeal Filing Window¶
Oct 1, 2023 -- Kozek emails a third party (Ludis) regarding a tenant referral from Christian for TA representation. Not related to HP 6086. (Source: p. 402)
Oct 18, 2023 -- Three automated MyCase invoice notifications sent to Christian. No substantive communication. (Source: pp. 403-404)
Oct 31, 2023 -- Kozek files the Notice of Appeal from the Smith Decision (NYSCEF Doc #37). The RATA form states the order was "improperly denied based upon arguments never raised in opposition and unsupported by law and the stipulation." (Source: WT-117)
No communication appears in the reviewed Kozek Attorney Correspondence PDF from Kozek to Christian notifying him that the appeal was filed, requesting authorization to appeal, or discussing appellate strategy.
C.4 Nov-Dec 2023 -- Post-Appeal Filing¶
Nov 7, 2023 -- Erez Horovitz emails Christian about a Kozek invoice: "just a reminder to send over that 131.86." (Source: p. 404)
Nov 20, 2023 -- Four automated MyCase invoice notifications sent to Christian. (Source: pp. 405-406)
Dec 6, 2023 -- Two automated MyCase invoice notifications sent to Christian. (Source: p. 406)
Dec 20, 2023 (11:07 AM) -- Kozek emails Christian:
"Christian, I'd like to set up a meeting to discuss next steps with you after the New Year. Petrena from my office (copied here) will coordinate with you on a time." (Source: p. 407)
Dec 22, 2023 (2:24 PM) -- Christian responds:
"Please let me known when you'd like to meet. Happy holidays." (Source: p. 408)
Dec 22, 2023 (10:23 AM) -- Petrena Harrison (Ween & Kozek staff) emails Christian:
"I will be back in touch with you shortly with some meeting dates, in the meantime, if you can give me a sense of your availability for early January I will do my best to work with your schedule." (Source: p. 408-409)
Dec 22, 2023 (4:14 PM) -- Christian responds:
"My schedule is open in early January and the meeting is a top priority so I'll make the scheduling work. Afternoons are preferable." (Source: p. 409)
C.5 Jan 2024 -- Meeting and Follow-up¶
Jan 3, 2024 (12:25 PM) -- Kozek emails Christian:
"Attached here is the scope of work that they have proposed." (Source: p. 418)
Jan 4, 2024 (2:20 PM) -- Kozek sends Google Meet invite for a call at 11:00 AM that same day. (Source: pp. 418-419)
Jan 4, 2024 (4:11 PM) -- Christian emails:
"I've been waiting to get in since 11am." (Source: p. 419)
Jan 4, 2024 (11:19 AM) -- Kozek responds:
"On a call running late. Just a minute." (Source: p. 419)
A call apparently occurred. Christian later references this as the last substantive HP conversation (see Sep 26, 2024 email below).
Jan 5, 2024 (6:53 AM) -- Christian sends a follow-up email with an attached PDF analysis of the proposed scope of work:
"Attached is a pdf of an initial analysis of the Serpro scope of work. Please let me know when you'd like to discuss. [...] I would like you to come do a walk through at the loft so that we can be on the same page when this is finally signed off on." (Source: p. 420)
No response from Kozek to this Jan 5 follow-up appears in the reviewed Kozek Attorney Correspondence PDF.
C.6 Jan-Aug 2024 -- Communication Gap¶
Jan 10-11, 2024 -- Automated MyCase invoice notifications. (Source: pp. 421-422)
Jan 24, 2024 -- Busch billing follow-up requesting partial payment. (Source: p. 423)
Feb 5, 2024 -- Busch billing follow-up. (Source: p. 425)
Feb 14, 2024 through Aug 2024 -- The record shows only automated invoice notifications and billing correspondence from Busch. Invoices were sent on approximately monthly intervals: Feb 5, Feb 29, Apr 2, May 7 (x3), Jun 12 (x3), Jul 11.
No substantive HP 6086 communication from Kozek to Christian appears in the reviewed Kozek Attorney Correspondence PDF during this 8-month period.
During this same period, the appeal remained pending before the Appellate Term. No communication appears in the reviewed Kozek Attorney Correspondence PDF regarding appellate briefing, perfection deadlines, extension requests, or appellate strategy.
C.7 Sep 2024 -- Appeal Dismissal¶
Sep 6, 2024 -- Automated invoice notifications. (Source: p. 458)
Sep 11, 2024 (2:26 PM) -- Busch emails Christian about the open balance: "When we were in touch about this in February you had indicated you were going to address the invoicing shortly, but then never did. [...] We need you to make some sort of payment immediately." (Source: p. 458)
Sep 17, 2024 (4:21 PM) -- Busch follows up again on billing. (Source: p. 458)
Sep 23, 2024 -- The Appellate Term dismisses the appeal for failure to perfect (NYSCEF Doc #38). The dismissal states the appeal was placed on the dismissal calendar and no extension of time to perfect had been granted. (Source: WT-117)
No communication appears in the reviewed Kozek Attorney Correspondence PDF from Kozek to Christian notifying him of the appeal dismissal.
Sep 24, 2024 (4:38 PM) -- One day after the appeal dismissal, Busch sends another billing follow-up to Christian: "Following up again. Please be in touch." (Source: p. 459)
C.8 Sep 26, 2024 -- Christian's "Checking In" Email¶
Sep 26, 2024 (2:12 PM) -- Christian emails Busch about the open balance, stating: "I am unable to pay anything towards the balance at the moment. [...] At the moment, I am still homeless and budgeting to eat." (Source: p. 460)
Sep 26, 2024 (10:19 AM) -- Busch responds: "I'm so sorry to hear you've been struggling. I had no idea. We will be happy to work with you on the question of the balance when you're ready. In the meantime, be well and we will follow up soon concerning the status of your case." (Source: p. 461)
Sep 26, 2024 (2:52 PM) -- Christian emails Kozek directly with the subject line "Checking in." The email states:
"During our last phone conversation, we agreed on our path forward with the HP case and the terms you would present to Marty's legal team. You said you'd get back to me after hearing from them. I haven't heard from you regarding the HP case since, and that conversation happened right before the holidays last year."
Christian also states: "I haven't pressed the matter for several reasons: I've been extremely busy, I lack funds to pay you, and Erez informed me that 'things were on hold' with our building and loft board. I have only heard back from you regarding the multiple referrals that I have given you."
He also writes: "Additionally, your fees should be fully covered by the settlement in the HP case." (Source: pp. 460, 463)
No response from Kozek to this "Checking in" email appears in the reviewed Kozek Attorney Correspondence PDF. Christian wrote this email three days after the appeal had been dismissed -- without knowing the appeal had been dismissed.
Sep 26, 2024 (3:08 PM) -- Christian emails Busch confirming he has just emailed Kozek to reconnect: "I'm looking forward to getting the HP case resolved and returning home." (Source: p. 465)
C.9 Post-Dismissal (Oct 2024 - Jan 2025)¶
Oct 1, 2024 -- Two automated invoice notifications. (Source: p. 467)
Nov 8-12, 2024 -- Three automated invoice notifications. (Source: pp. 468-469)
Dec 3, 2024 -- Automated invoice notification. (Source: p. 469)
No substantive HP 6086 communication from Kozek to Christian appears in the reviewed Kozek Attorney Correspondence PDF between the Sep 23, 2024 appeal dismissal and Jan 2, 2025.
Jan 2, 2025 (12:27 PM) -- Busch emails the tenant group (Erez, Christian, David, Kathryn) to schedule a meeting with Kozek: "There are some items that Michael needs to review and discuss with you." (Source: p. 470)
Jan 2, 2025 -- Christian immediately responds, confirming availability, and coordinates scheduling with the other tenants for Jan 6, 2025 at 2:00 PM. (Source: pp. 471-473)
PART D -- Communication Pattern Summary¶
D.1 Substantive HP 6086 communications from Kozek to Christian¶
The email record contains the following substantive HP 6086 communications from Kozek to Christian after the Smith Decision:
| Date | Communication | PDF Page |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 29, 2023 | Forwards Smith Decision; proposes discussion | 394-395 |
| Dec 20, 2023 | Proposes post-New Year meeting to discuss next steps | 407 |
| Jan 3, 2024 | Sends proposed scope of work | 418 |
| Jan 4, 2024 | Schedules and holds call (late start) | 418-419 |
Total substantive HP 6086 communications from Kozek to Christian in this record after the Smith Decision: four.
D.2 Communications absent from the email record¶
The following categories of communication do not appear anywhere in the reviewed Kozek Attorney Correspondence PDF during the relevant period:
- Notification that the Notice of Appeal was filed (Oct 31, 2023)
- Discussion of appellate strategy or briefing
- Discussion of perfection deadlines or extension requests
- Notification that the appeal was dismissed (Sep 23, 2024)
- Response to Christian's Sep 26, 2024 "Checking in" email
- Response to Christian's Jan 5, 2024 scope analysis follow-up
- Any supplemental filing or motion to renew/reargue before the Smith Decision
D.3 Billing pattern during HP 6086 procedural windows¶
The firm sent automated invoice notifications to Christian on the following dates during the period between the Smith Decision and the appeal dismissal:
Oct 18, 2023 (x3); Nov 20, 2023 (x4); Dec 6, 2023 (x2); Jan 10-11, 2024 (x4); Feb 5, 2024 (x1); Feb 29, 2024 (x3); Apr 2, 2024 (x1); May 7, 2024 (x3); Jun 12, 2024 (x3); Jul 11, 2024 (x1); Sep 6, 2024 (x3).
In addition, Busch sent personal billing follow-up emails on: Jan 24, 2024; Feb 5, 2024; Sep 11, 2024; Sep 17, 2024; Sep 24, 2024 (one day after the appeal dismissal).
The billing record shows repeated automated invoice notifications and personal billing follow-up during the same period when no substantive HP 6086 communications appear in the reviewed correspondence file.
D.4 Christian's documented availability and responsiveness¶
The email record shows that Christian responded to every substantive communication from Kozek on the same day or the following day:
| Kozek communication | Christian response | Gap |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 29, 2023 Smith Decision | Same day (6:19 PM) | Hours |
| Dec 20, 2023 meeting proposal | Dec 22, 2023 | 2 days |
| Jan 3, 2024 scope of work | Jan 5, 2024 (with analysis) | 2 days |
| Jan 4, 2024 late to call | Waited, then emailed | Same day |
D.5 Keyword sweep results¶
To corroborate the per-entry enumeration in Parts C-E and the absent-communication list in D.2 against a corpus-wide search, a keyword-indexed review of the full 729-page Kozek Attorney Correspondence PDF was conducted. The review used four search terms associated with the HP 6086/2020 appellate proceeding and one bare-term control. Searches were case-insensitive and covered all word-form variants.
| Search term | Scope | Hits | In-scope hits (HP 6086 appellate) |
|---|---|---|---|
| "Notice of Appeal" | 729 pp | 0 | 0 |
| "Appellate Term" | 729 pp | 0 | 0 |
| "dismiss" (dismiss / dismissed / dismissal / dismissing) | 729 pp | 0 | 0 |
| "perfect" (perfect / perfected / perfection / perfecting) | 729 pp | 1 | 0 |
| "appeal" (bare; appeal / appeals / appealed / appealing) | 729 pp | 34 | 0 |
Notes on non-zero results:
-
The single "perfect" hit is on p. 111, in an email from Kathryn Downie to Erez Horovitz dated November 6, 2022, in the phrase "Oh perfect / I thought there was going to be more to it than that." This is a colloquial exclamation in a thread discussing a Kozek meeting. It is not used in the appellate sense.
-
The 34 "appeal" hits distribute as follows: 32 hits relate to the 226 Franklin PAA Admin Appeal, a separate Loft Board administrative proceeding addressed in correspondence clustered around the November 2022 substitution of counsel; 1 hit on p. 18 relates to an unrelated tenant-association matter described in the correspondence as "the Access case"; 1 hit on p. 265 relates to unit F2's OATH loft-law coverage determination and the landlord's appeal right in that proceeding. None of the 34 "appeal" hits reference the HP 6086/2020 appellate proceeding.
The keyword sweep and the per-entry enumeration in Parts C-E produce consistent results: no communication from Kozek to Christian Gray concerning the HP 6086/2020 Notice of Appeal filing, appellate briefing, perfection deadlines, extensions, or appellate dismissal appears in the reviewed corpus under either review method.
PART E -- Procedural Window Analysis¶
This section maps the correspondence gaps against the procedural windows that were open during each period. All procedural dates are from WT-117.
E.1 Window: Smith Decision to Notice of Appeal¶
Sep 29, 2023 -- Oct 31, 2023 (32 days)
Procedural status: The 30-day window for filing a Notice of Appeal from the Smith Decision was running.
Correspondence in this window: One substantive email from Kozek (the Sep 29 decision notification). No follow-up discussion. No client communication about the decision to appeal.
Kozek filed the Notice of Appeal on the last business day of the 30-day window (Oct 31). The email record does not contain any communication notifying Christian or discussing this filing.
E.2 Window: Notice of Appeal to Smith Decision Anniversary¶
Oct 31, 2023 -- Sep 29, 2024 (11 months)
Procedural status: The appeal was pending. The appellant was required to perfect the appeal by filing and serving the appellate brief and record within the time prescribed by the Appellate Term rules.
Correspondence in this window: Four substantive HP-related emails from Kozek (Dec 20 meeting proposal, Jan 3 scope, Jan 4 call, Jan 4 late notification). Zero communications about the appeal itself, briefing, perfection deadlines, or extensions.
The Jan 3-4, 2024 communications concerned a proposed scope of work from the landlord side, not appellate strategy.
E.3 Window: Appeal Dismissal¶
Sep 23, 2024
Procedural status: The Appellate Term dismissed the appeal for failure to perfect. No extension had been granted.
Correspondence on this date: None.
The next communication from the firm was a Busch billing follow-up on Sep 24, 2024 -- one day after the dismissal.
Christian's "Checking in" email to Kozek was sent on Sep 26, 2024 -- three days after the dismissal. The email confirms Christian did not know the appeal had been dismissed. He references the HP case as ongoing and asks about "the terms you would present to Marty's legal team."
PART F -- Source Index¶
| Source | Description |
|---|---|
| Kozek_Attorney_Correspondence.pdf | 729-page email archive |
| WT-117 | NYSCEF docket analysis with all filing dates |
| WT-118 | Stipulation compliance timeline (supplemental filing gap) |
All page references are to the Kozek_Attorney_Correspondence.pdf pagination as printed in the document footers.
END -- White Tab 121 Kozek HP 6086 Correspondence Timeline v1.2