Skip to content

Orange Tab D002 -- HP Motion: Procedural Analysis, Post-Denial Remedies, and Path to Restoration v1.3

Purpose and Scope

This document provides a procedural analysis of the Motion to Restore filed in the HP proceeding, the denial issued by Judge Smith on September 29, 2023, the post-denial vehicles available under New York law, the documented late-stage WT-120A corrective proposal that existed before substitution, and the current state of any pathway back to active HP litigation. It serves as a companion document to Orange B001 (Sandercock malpractice) and as a foundation document for Orange B005 (Kozek malpractice, forthcoming).

Part I -- Full Chronological Timeline

Pre-Motion: The Stipulation and Compliance Chain

Date Event Significance
2021 (prior) Stipulation of Settlement entered; Paragraph 5 establishes ALC PRV / remediation compliance trigger Baseline obligation for landlord performance
Aug 11, 2021 STIP-EMAIL-1904: Skaller forwards ALC PRV to Sandercock (10:48 AM); Sandercock forwards to Olmsted (11:17 AM) Day 0 of Paragraph 5 compliance clock; proof existed in Sandercock's own files
Aug 16, 2021 Olmsted inspection conducted (Day 5 -- within compliance window) Compliance deadline met; documentary proof available
Aug 18, 2021 Prestige lab results to Olmsted (9:47 AM); Olmsted forwards to Sandercock and Gray (10:04 AM) Compliance chain evidence; available at time of motion
Aug 19, 2021 STIP-EMAIL-1927: Sandercock sends notice of default and Olmsted draft report to Skaller Sandercock authored this document; it was in her own files
Sep 3, 2021 Y-006: Gray notifies Sandercock of continuing adverse conditions (CC'd) Evidence of ongoing harm; embedded photos require extraction
Sep 2021 -- May 2022 No enforcement action documented -- approximately 9 months of inaction Enforcement Gap (see Orange B001, Section G)
May 31, 2022 Sandercock email to Gray: "we are messing up our ability to get damages" Contemporaneous admission of strategic harm; Section G lead exhibit

The Motion Phase: Sandercock's Work Product

Date Event Significance
Jun 14, 2022 Sandercock files Motion to Restore (Docs #11-16) Motion filed approximately 10 months after notice of default
Jun 16, 2022 Sandercock buyout-pressure communication to Gray Incentive-structure flag; see Orange B001, Section L
Jul 28, 2022 Opposition filed (Docs #17-21) Opposition challenges motion and attaches ALC PRV
Aug 31, 2022 Sandercock files Reply papers (Docs #22-23) Reply lists 11 scope failures and adds Olmsted's sworn affidavit
Oct 10, 2022 Doc #24 filed Adjournment to Nov 22, 2022; sur-reply deadline Nov 15, 2022

The Post-Substitution Period: Kozek's Inherited Position

Date Event Significance
Nov 3, 2022 WT-120A / Skaller settlement-purpose proposal for a new stipulation Documents a late-stage cure architecture: revised remaining scope, expert-supervised completion, neutral third-party tie-breaker, and proposed affidavit withdrawal upon execution
Nov 15, 2022 Substitution of counsel and Notice of Appearance filed (Docs #25-26) Ween & Kozek replaces Goodfarb & Sandercock
Nov 16, 2022 Doc #27 filed Adjournment at petitioner's request
Dec 28, 2022 Doc #28 filed Adjournment from Jan 4, 2023 to Feb 1, 2023
Jan 26, 2023 Doc #29 filed Adjournment from Feb 1, 2023 to Mar 6, 2023 on consent
Mar 1, 2023 Doc #30 filed Adjournment from Mar 6, 2023 to Apr 19, 2023
Nov 2022 -- Sep 2023 Motion remains pending under successor counsel No supplemental affirmations, no additional exhibits, and no docketed application to cure the evidentiary gap
Sep 29, 2023 Judge Smith denies Motion to Restore (Doc #31) Denial issued on evidentiary grounds: compliance proof not in the record

Post-Denial Procedural Sequence

Date Vehicle Status in Current Record Significance
Oct 2, 2023 Notice of Entry on Smith decision (Doc #32) Filed / served Starts the 30-day clocks tied to service with notice of entry
Oct 2, 2023 -- Nov 1, 2023 Reargue (CPLR 2221(d)) Not filed in current record Reargue window passed without a docketed application
Oct 31, 2023 Appeal (Doc #37) Filed Notice of Appeal + RATA filed by Kozek
Post-denial onward Renew (CPLR 2221(e)) Not filed in current record No lower-court renewal application appears in WT-117
Sep 23, 2024 Appellate Term dismissal (Doc #38) Appeal dismissed for failure to perfect No extension of time to perfect had been granted
Oct 2, 2024 Notice of Entry on appellate dismissal (Doc #38) Filed / served Confirms dismissal sequence
Post-dismissal Motion to vacate appellate dismissal Not found in current record No filing of this type appears in the materials presently in corpus

Part II -- New York Procedural Law Framework

Overview: Record Closure and Successor Counsel's Position

Once a motion is fully submitted, there is no automatic right to keep adding proof simply because counsel changes. Substitution of counsel does not reopen the record by itself. That said, the docket here also shows that successor counsel was not merely a passive inheritor of an immediately decided motion: after substitution on November 15, 2022, the matter remained on the calendar through multiple adjournments before the September 29, 2023 decision. Any evaluation of successor-counsel obligations must account for both rules at once: no automatic right to supplement, but an extended pendency period in which procedural steps could potentially have been pursued.

A second procedural backdrop now matters as well: WT-120A shows that, before substitution, there was a documented settlement-purpose proposal to replace the failed stipulation architecture with a new stipulation, revised remaining scope, expert-supervised bidding/completion, and a neutral tie-breaker if the experts disagreed. That proposal was off-docket, so it does not cure the motion record by itself. It does, however, show that a parallel cure path existed outside the motion record and should be accounted for when evaluating both Sandercock's end-stage handling and what successor counsel inherited.

Vehicle 1: Motion to Reargue -- CPLR 2221(d)

What it is: A motion asking the same court to reconsider its prior order based on matters of fact or law the court allegedly overlooked or misapprehended.

Deadline: 30 days from service of the order with notice of entry.

Critical limitation: No new facts or documents may be added on reargument. The court reviews only the record that existed when it decided the motion.

Assessment for this case: Weak vehicle. Judge Smith denied because the Paragraph 5 trigger and timing proof were not in the record. Reargument cannot cure that omission. Its only plausible use would have been to preserve litigation posture while appealing or pursuing another avenue.

Current record status: No CPLR 2221(d) motion appears in WT-117 after the October 2, 2023 Notice of Entry.

Conclusion: Not the operative restoration vehicle on these facts, and not used in the current record.

Vehicle 2: Motion to Renew -- CPLR 2221(e)

What it is: A motion asking the same court to reconsider its prior order based on new facts not offered on the original motion, together with a reasonable justification for why those facts were not presented earlier.

Deadline: No fixed statutory deadline, but delay weakens justification and courts exercise discretion in deciding whether to entertain renewal.

What renewal could have done here: Renewal is the clearest trial-court vehicle for placing STIP-EMAIL-1904, the scheduling materials, WT-108B, and STIP-EMAIL-1927 before Judge Smith after the denial.

Weak point: Reasonable justification. New York courts do not treat renewal as a routine second chance for a party who failed to exercise due diligence. The strongest available justification here is prior counsel's omission: the missing documents existed, were in Sandercock's own files, and were not placed before the court. That is a factually distinctive justification, but it remains discretionary and fact-sensitive, not automatic.

Current record status: No CPLR 2221(e) motion appears in WT-117 after the September 29, 2023 denial.

Conclusion: On the present facts, renewal appears to have been the strongest trial-court restoration vehicle, but it was not pursued in the current lower-court record.

Vehicle 3: Appeal to the Appellate Term -- CPLR 5513 / 22 NYCRR Part 731

What it is: Appeal from the Housing Court order to the Appellate Term.

Deadline to take appeal: 30 days from service of the order with notice of entry.

What happened here: The appeal was timely taken. Kozek filed the Notice of Appeal and RATA on October 31, 2023, after the October 2, 2023 Notice of Entry. The RATA stated that the order was "based upon arguments that were never raised in opposition" and were unsupported by law and the so-ordered stipulation.

Critical limitation: Appeal reviews the record as submitted. It does not add the missing documentary proof.

What happened next: The appeal was not perfected. The Appellate Term dismissed it on September 23, 2024, stating that the appeal had been placed on the Dismissal Calendar and that no extension of time to perfect had been granted.

Conclusion: The appeal route was used, but not completed. The live appellate question after September 23, 2024 became dismissal-vacatur, not whether a notice of appeal had been filed.

Vehicle 4: Motion to Vacate Appellate Dismissal

What it is: A motion directed to the Appellate Term seeking vacatur of the dismissal for failure to perfect.

Potential function here: If timely and supported, this vehicle could seek restoration of the already-filed appeal rather than beginning a new lower-court application.

Practical issue: This is a discretionary vehicle. The movant would need to address why the appeal was not perfected, why vacatur should be granted, and why the appeal has sufficient merit to justify restoration.

Current record status: No motion to vacate the September 23, 2024 appellate dismissal appears in the materials presently in corpus.

Conclusion: This is the missing post-dismissal appellate vehicle that must now be asked about directly. In the current record it is an unpursued gap, not an open-ended unknown.

Vehicle 5: CPLR 5015 / Other Extraordinary Relief

What it is: CPLR 5015 provides specific grounds for relief from a judgment or order, including excusable default, newly discovered evidence, fraud or misconduct by an adverse party, lack of jurisdiction, and reversal or modification of a prior order on which the order is based.

Assessment for this case: Secondary and more speculative than renewal. The present record fits CPLR 2221(e) more naturally than CPLR 5015. Any 5015-based argument would need a specific predicate, not a general appeal to fairness.

Conclusion: Flag for malpractice counsel review, but do not treat as the primary restoration theory on the current record.

Part III -- Consequences of Each Path

If Motion to Renew Had Been Filed and Succeeded

The HP matter would have returned to active litigation with the missing compliance proof now in the record. That would have mitigated, though not erased, the harm caused by Sandercock's original motion failure.

If Motion to Renew Had Been Filed and Failed

A failed renewal would have clarified that even with the correct documents in hand, the court would not restore the matter. That would materially strengthen the causation and damages posture of the malpractice claim.

If Motion to Renew Was Never Filed

That is the posture shown by the current lower-court record. The question for successor-counsel analysis is no longer whether renewal was available in theory, but why it was not pursued in practice after the denial.

If Appeal Was Filed But Not Perfected

That is the posture shown by the current appellate record. Filing the notice of appeal created an appellate obligation and jurisdictional path that then was not carried through. This is analytically different from never filing an appeal at all.

If No Motion to Vacate the Appellate Dismissal Was Filed

That is also the posture shown by the current record. Once the appeal was dismissed on September 23, 2024, any continued appellate path depended on vacatur of that dismissal. The absence of such a motion leaves the appeal route procedurally closed on the present record.

Part IV -- Current Path Back to HP Court

Pryor Cashman's Assessment

Per the client's report, Pryor Cashman believes there may be a viable path to restore the HP proceeding. That assessment should be preserved, but the current procedural record now requires greater specificity. The standard vehicles reflected in the current docket have either not been used (reargue, renewal, dismissal-vacatur) or were used and then lost (appeal not perfected). If Pryor Cashman still sees a path back, the path should be identified by vehicle rather than described in the abstract.

What the Current Record Actually Shows

  • Reargument was not filed.
  • Renewal was not filed.
  • Appeal was filed and then dismissed for failure to perfect.
  • No motion to vacate the appellate dismissal appears in the current corpus.
  • WT-120A shows that, as of Nov. 3, 2022, there was also a documented off-docket effort to cure the broken stipulation/compliance situation through a new settlement architecture rather than through the existing motion path alone.

That means any remaining pathway must be identified specifically as: (a) a still-viable delayed renewal application; (b) a motion to vacate the appellate dismissal; (c) a documented successor-file explanation for why the WT-120A corrective path was not pursued; or (d) some other extraordinary or fresh procedural route not captured by the present record.

Current Trial-Court Restoration Theory to Test

If a trial-court path still exists, the most plausible one remains a carefully justified CPLR 2221(e) renewal application built around Sandercock's omission of documents that were in her own files. The difficulty is not document availability. The difficulty is justification, delay, and judicial discretion.

Current Appellate Restoration Theory to Test

If an appellate path still exists, it would have to run through vacatur of the September 23, 2024 dismissal for failure to perfect. That requires a separate explanation for the non-perfection and a showing that appellate restoration is warranted.

The Kozek Consultation as a Threshold Step

Before current counsel can evaluate any restoration strategy, the Kozek consultation remains a threshold factual step. The core questions have now shifted from whether basic vehicles were used to why they were not completed or not pursued.

Part V -- Open Questions for the Kozek Consultation

The current record answers some of the original threshold questions. The remaining questions should now be framed more directly.

  1. Why was no CPLR 2221(d) motion to reargue filed after the October 2, 2023 Notice of Entry?
  2. Why was no CPLR 2221(e) renewal motion filed after the September 29, 2023 denial, despite the identifiable Paragraph 5 documentary gap?
  3. When Kozek substituted in on November 15, 2022, did he review the inherited motion papers and identify the missing Paragraph 5 trigger and timing proof before the court decided the motion?
  4. During the pendency period from November 2022 through September 2023, was any effort made to seek leave to supplement the record, seek an adjournment for that purpose, or otherwise alert the court to the evidentiary problem?
  5. After filing the Notice of Appeal on October 31, 2023, why was the appeal not perfected?
  6. Was any extension of time to perfect ever requested? If so, when and with what result?
  7. After the September 23, 2024 dismissal, was any motion made to vacate the appellate dismissal? If not, why not?
  8. Did Kozek's engagement letter or any later writing authorize appellate work?
  9. What post-denial procedural options were discussed with Gray, and when?
  10. Did Kozek receive or review the Nov. 3, 2022 WT-120A corrective proposal and any attached revised scope package?
  11. If so, why was that corrective path not pursued, preserved, or incorporated into successor-counsel strategy?
  12. In Kozek's present assessment, does any specific procedural vehicle remain available to restore the HP proceeding?

Part VI -- Malpractice Integration Notes

For Sandercock (Orange B001)

The procedural analysis in this document confirms and deepens Section E (Motion Evidentiary Failure). Sandercock filed all substantive motion papers -- Docs #11-16 and #22-23. The opposition did attack the motion on evidentiary grounds, and Sandercock responded with Olmsted's sworn reply affidavit (Doc #23), but she still did not place the Paragraph 5 trigger and timing proof before the court. WT-120A adds a separate end-stage fact: before substitution, there was a documented late-stage settlement-purpose proposal to replace the broken stipulation architecture with revised scope oversight and affidavit withdrawal upon execution. The causation chain for the motion denial remains direct, but the existence of that off-docket cure path matters to the end-stage handling record.

For Kozek (Orange B005, forthcoming)

The current record now shows more than passive inheritance. Kozek substituted in on November 15, 2022, participated in the adjournment sequence while the motion remained pending, filed the Notice of Appeal on October 31, 2023, did not perfect it, and does not appear in the current record to have pursued renewal, reargument, or dismissal-vacatur. Those are distinct post-inheritance and post-denial questions that should be analyzed separately from Sandercock's original motion failure.

Shared Caution

The present record supports a clear separation between Sandercock's motion-building failures and Kozek's later procedural decisions. That separation should be preserved. One attorney's exposure should not be diluted or inflated by collapsing the two timelines together.

Cross-References

END -- Orange Tab D002 -- HP Motion: Procedural Analysis, Post-Denial Remedies, and Path to Restoration v1.3