WT-106C - May 25, 2023 Hearing - REFERENCE SUMMARY (NAMES CORRECTED)

Matter: HP 6086/2020 - Christian Gray v. American Package Co., Inc. - Hon. Remy Smith
Court:  Civil Court of the City of New York, County of Kings - Part B / Room 409
Audio:  FTR civkin-ftr409 - 2023-05-25, 9:30 AM appearance - session GUID 01d98eefe980ca80

----------------------------------------------------------------------
PROVENANCE / DISCLAIMER - READ FIRST

This summary was auto-generated by Plaud (an automated speech-to-text
application) from the hearing audio and then edited by hand to: correct proper
names and speaker labels; correct the party designations to the HP-proceeding
posture (petitioner = Christian Gray; respondent = the owner, American Package
Co.); and remove the application's own editorial characterizations and its
auto-generated task list. What remains is a neutral, factual precis intended
only as an orientation aid.

This is NOT a certified record. For what was actually said, rely on the court's
native FTR audio (.wma, the source of record) and the companion reference
transcript. A certified transcript may be ordered from an OCA-authorized vendor.

Participants:
  The Court  - Hon. Remy Smith
  Mr. Skaller - David Skaller, counsel for respondent/owner (American Package Co.)
  Mr. Kozek   - Michael Kozek, counsel for petitioner (Christian Gray)
  (Christian Gray present.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------


WHAT THE APPEARANCE COVERED

Completion of the so-ordered stipulation.
  Both sides agreed that the work required under the original so-ordered
  stipulation was not fully completed and that further remediation is needed.
  A March 21 site visit had set a scope of six or seven probes to check for mold.

On-record statement by respondent's counsel.
  Mr. Skaller stated on the record that the affidavits attesting to completion
  are not accurate, that he learned this after the fact, that his client paid
  SERVPRO and an expert to perform the scope of work, and that the work was not
  done. He stated he would stipulate that the stipulation was not complied with
  and would stipulate to performing the remaining work.

The probe-testing dispute.
  A dispute remained over the purpose of the probes: Mr. Skaller's understanding
  was visual inspection first, with material testing only if the visuals
  indicated mold; Mr. Kozek's position was that probes without material
  sampling/testing serve no purpose in determining whether active mold is present.

The related Loft Board matter.
  Mr. Kozek raised that the owner is invoking a release-of-claims provision from
  the same stipulation in a related Loft Board harassment matter. He argued the
  owner cannot rely on a settlement provision when the consideration for that
  settlement - completing the work - was not provided, and said any stipulation
  language would need to address that issue.

The Court's disposition.
  The Court suggested testing a small number of probes as a cost-benefit
  compromise, marked the motion reserved, and set an approximately two-week hold
  for the parties to negotiate stipulation language, with a possible short
  virtual conference to follow and the option of an earlier conference on request
  if discussions stalled.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Editor's note: the source application's "Core Synopsis" framing
(characterizations of strategy/motive) and its "Next Move" task list assigning
action items to counsel were removed as interpretive content not suitable for a
reference record. They are not reproduced here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

END - WT-106C Reference Summary (Names Corrected) - uncertified orientation aid; source of record is the FTR .wma