Free Response - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:01-cv-02158-WWE

Document 152

Filed 01/05/2006

Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT DONALD WAINRIGHT, et al., Plaintiffs, v. OSM COMMUNICATIONS, INC., et al., Defendants. : : : : : : : : :

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:01-CV-02158 (WWE)

JANUARY 5, 2006

RESPONSE OF DEFENDANTS ISRAEL H. POLANSKY AND ANNE POLANSKY T P A N IFSJ I TME R N U O L W I O P ST O O L I TF ' O N MO A D M F A N P O I I N T D F N A T ' T O SF RS MMA YJ D ME T O E E D N S MO I N O U R U G N Although plaintiffs filed a memorandum in opposition to the motion for summary judgment of these defendants on October 26, 2005 (Doc. 135) to which these defendants responded in accordance with the Local Rules of Civil Procedure, plaintiffs have filed another " m r dm o Lw i O psi t D f dn 'Mo osfrS m a Jdm n o Me oa u f a n poio o e nat n tn e s t n o u m r ug et n i y " December 12, 2005 (Doc. 150). This new memorandum of plaintiffs is not authorized by the Local Rules and leave to file it has neither been sought nor granted. The new memorandum and its exhibits should not be considered by the court. However, if the court is going to give any consideration to the new memorandum, these defendants respectfully request that the court consider the following. The motions for summary judgment of these defendants were supported by affidavits made on personal knowledge setting forth facts which would be admissible in evidence in accordance with Rule 56(e) Fed.R.Civ.P. T oea i v sad m t isdm nt t t tO M w sntt "lreo ad m r hs fd i n a r l e osa d h fa t ea re a S a o h ae g n e e t e

Case 3:01-cv-02158-WWE

Document 152

Filed 01/05/2006

Page 2 of 4

i t m n ly o t s df dn , n s ni e Ial . o nk nr ne o n r eti" fh e e nat ad o ehrs e H P l sy o A n P lansky had su at e e s t r a ayi itudr ln f ' r c o cn atn f l eo a w gs lm . n lb i nep i isbe h fot cad au t py ae c i s a ly a tf a r ir a Those materials likewise demonstrated that Israel H. Polansky did not guaranty the payment of O M'ol aoso ln f Wa r h ad la s n d nt S s b gt n t p i is i i tn Wii ad i o make any representations to i i a tf ng lm d ay ln f Pa tf i tl poio t df dn ' o os ae t stot f tw i n p i i. ln f 'n i opsi o e nat m t n f l o e fr a s h h a tf i is ia tn e s i id h c c w u b am s b i ei ne ocn oe df dn ' o o.Al fh w s e fr i ol e d i i e n v ec t ot vr e nat m t n lo t s a stot n d sl d r t e s i i h dtln hs df dn 'e (Doc. 149). Thereafter, plaintiffs filed the new memorandum in e ii t e e nat r a e e s ply opsi ( o.5)up i "e f t ( o.5 p. ad ) poio D c10 spl n nw a s D c10 p2 n 3. tn yg c" Assuming, arguendo, that the alleged transcript of the deposition of Israel H. Polansky is accurate and admissible and t th o e "e f t a t ep i is ae tlae t m e h t t r nw a s r r ,ln f hv slf l o et a e h c " e u a tf i id their burden to produce such facts as would be admissible in evidence to provide a foundation for any of their claims against these defendants. That Israel H. Polansky loaned money to OSM (even in 2004) and that his loans funded the operations of OSM do not make him different from am r do l ei et sadcr i yd nt upr aeaoso "lreoadm r yi f i n s r n e a l o o spot lgt n f ae g n e a k v o tn l i t e i t m n ly T a D nl Wa r h w sa a t t s e P n r eti. ht oa su at" d i i t a w r h I al olansky was the primary ng e a r investor in OSM Communications does not even suggest that Israel Polansky represented anything to him or guaranteed anything to him. Likewise, receipt of a copy of a company memorandum concerning the salary of one of t cm ay f employees does not make the company the alter ego and mere instrumentality h o pn' ew e s of the recipient.

Case 3:01-cv-02158-WWE

Document 152

Filed 01/05/2006

Page 3 of 4

As to Anne Polansky, the existence of joint tax returns showing nominal income for the years 1996, 1997 and 1999 and a residence address at 69th Street in Manhattan does not compel or even support a conclusion that OSM was her alter ego and mere instrumentality or that money w sda e f m O M adpoe yw spr ae t og adp cdi A n P l sy a r nd r i o S n rpr a uc sd h uh n l e n ne o nk' t h r a a s nm tsid s tf mO M'c d os a eo h l as sr e e o S s r ir et . The situation here remains the same as it always has been. The plaintiffs have made conclusory allegations which might support causes of action against these defendants, but plaintiffs have failed to supply facts in support of any of those allegations. DEFENDANTS ISRAEL H. POLANSKY AND ANNE POLANSKY

/s/________________________________ J. Michael Sulzbach Fed Bar ct00206 385 Orange Street New Haven CT 06511 Tel.: (203) 781-0880 Fax: (203) 781-0861 Email: [email protected]

Case 3:01-cv-02158-WWE

Document 152

Filed 01/05/2006

Page 4 of 4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on January 5, 2006, a copy of the foregoing Response of D f d nsI al . o nk a dA n P l syt Pa tf Jit moa d m o e n a t s e H P l sy n n e o nk o l nis o Me rn u f e r a a i f' n Law i O p si t D f d ns Moi s o S mmayJ d met n p oio o e n a t tn e ' t n fr u o r u g n was filed electronically and served by mail on anyone unable to accept electronic filing. Notice of this filing will be sent by e-m it a pre b oe t no t cut e c oi fi a o l a i y pr i fh ors l t n in l l ts ao e ' e r c l gsystem or by mail to anyone unable to accept electronic filing as indicated on the Notice of Electronic Filing. Parties may acst sin t og t cut C E F yt . h pre sre a a fl w : cesh fi h uhh ors M/C S s m T e a i e d r so o s i lg r e ' e ts v e l Counsel for plaintiffs Donald Wainright and Deborah Russo-Williams Robert E. Arnold III, Esquire 205 Church Street, New Haven CT 06066 E-mail: [email protected] Counsel for defendants Robert E. Polansky and OSM Communications, Inc. Michael P. Goldsmith, Esquire 38 W. 21st St., 5th floor, New York NY 10010-6977 E-mail: [email protected]

/s/______________________________ J. Michael Sulzbach Fed Bar #ct00206 385 Orange Street New Haven CT 06511 Telephone: (203) 781-0880 Fax: (203) 781-0861 E-mail: [email protected]