Stocking v. Newmark Knight Frank Valuation & Advisory, LLC
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:22-cv-07347
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Stocking v. Newmark, Judge Ramos granted Stocking’s request to admit an attached letter as evidence in support of her claims.
Maria Stocking and Newmark Knight Frank Valuation & Advisory, LLC; the order concerns the evidence Stocking may use in their ongoing litigation.
What happened
In Stocking v. Newmark Knight Frank Valuation & Advisory, LLC, Maria Stocking asked the court to admit a letter concerning the termination of her long-term-disability benefits as evidence. She said the letter supported her allegations that Newmark retaliated against her and interfered with her ability to litigate.
Stocking also asked the court to consider the letter in connection with her request for increased sanctions and continued health-insurance coverage during the litigation. Newmark filed a response to her request.
Judge Edgardo Ramos granted Stocking’s request to admit the letter as evidence. The order did not decide the merits of Stocking’s retaliation allegations, rule on increased sanctions, or order health-insurance reinstatement.
The detailed version
- Stocking v. Newmark Knight Frank Valuation & Advisory, LLC · No. 1:22-cv-07347
- Edgardo Ramos
- Dec. 2, 2024
Background
Maria Stocking submitted a letter attached to Doc. 132 and asked the court to admit it as evidence. The letter concerned her communications with Unum about the termination of her long-term-disability benefits. Stocking argued that the letter supported an alleged pattern of retaliation and obstruction by Newmark, including alleged interference with her health benefits and ability to litigate.
Stocking also referred to earlier evidence in Doc. 85 and requested court intervention concerning her health insurance and increased sanctions against Newmark. These assertions were Stocking’s positions; the order did not resolve whether they were true.
Newmark’s Response
The opinion states that Newmark filed a response to Stocking’s request, identified as Doc. 141. It does not describe the substance of that response.
Court’s Ruling
The court stated that it had received Stocking’s request to admit the letter as evidence and Newmark’s response. Judge Edgardo Ramos granted Stocking’s request. The order did not rule on the truth of the alleged retaliation, obstruction, or constitutional violations; did not impose increased sanctions; and did not order reinstatement of health-insurance or long-term-disability benefits.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.