Stocking v. Newmark Knight Frank Valuation & Advisory, LLC
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:22-cv-07347
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 8
In Stocking v. Newmark Knight Frank Valuation & Advisory, LLC, Judge Ramos ordered Newmark to respond to Stocking’s evidence-and-sanctions motion by November 26, 2024.
Maria Stocking and Newmark Knight Frank Valuation & Advisory, LLC. The order specifically required Newmark to respond by November 26, 2024; it did not resolve Stocking’s requested relief.
What happened
In Stocking v. Newmark Knight Frank Valuation & Advisory, LLC, Maria Stocking asked the court to consider a letter about the termination of her long-term disability benefits as evidence supporting reinstatement of health insurance and increased sanctions against Newmark. She alleged that Newmark retaliated against her and influenced insurers, including Unum and Liberty Mutual.
Stocking’s filing described her allegations about an incorrect medical report, the termination of her disability benefits, and missing medical information in Unum’s claim file. She also argued that these events showed a continuing pattern of retaliation and interference with her employment-discrimination case.
Judge Ramos did not decide the requested relief in the order shown. Instead, the court directed Newmark to respond by November 26, 2024. The available text does not state whether the court admitted the letter, reinstated benefits, or increased sanctions.
The detailed version
- Stocking v. Newmark Knight Frank Valuation & Advisory, LLC · No. 1:22-cv-07347
- Edgardo Ramos
- Nov. 22, 2024
Background
Maria Stocking filed a motion titled “Motion to Admit Evidence in Support of Health Insurance Reinstatement and Increased Sanctions.” She submitted as Exhibit A a March 1, 2024 letter of intent concerning Unum’s termination of her long-term disability benefits. The filing sought court intervention to maintain her health insurance during the litigation and to increase sanctions against Newmark.
Stocking alleged that Newmark terminated her employment and health insurance benefits after she engaged in protected activity. She further alleged that Newmark had influenced Liberty Mutual and Unum to take actions that harmed her and obstructed her employment-discrimination claims. These allegations are presented as Stocking’s assertions; the order does not resolve their truth.
Submitted Evidence and Arguments
The submitted letter stated Stocking’s intent to pursue claims against Unum over the termination of her long-term disability benefits. In the letter, Stocking alleged that Unum relied on an erroneous medical report, did not properly account for her medical diagnoses, and refused to reinstate her benefits. She also referred to a favorable Social Security decision concerning her ability to perform her job responsibilities and alleged that Unum’s actions harmed her health, finances, and ability to litigate against Newmark.
Stocking argued that the letter supported her claim that Newmark engaged in retaliation, obstruction of justice, and constitutional violations. She cited circumstantial evidence and alleged patterns of conduct as support for an inference of retaliatory intent. The opinion text does not state that the court adopted these arguments.
Order
The court’s November 22, 2024 memo endorsement directed Newmark to respond by November 26, 2024. The text provided does not state that the court admitted the letter as evidence, reinstated Stocking’s health insurance, increased sanctions, or otherwise ruled on the merits of Stocking’s allegations. The disposition shown is limited to directing a response.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.