Stocking v. Newmark Knight Frank Valuation & Advisory, LLC
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:22-cv-07347
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 7
In Stocking v. Newmark Knight Frank, Judge Ramos directed Newmark to respond to Stocking’s reconsideration motion by May 2, 2025.
Maria Stocking and Newmark Knight Frank Valuation & Advisory, LLC; the order sets a response deadline for Newmark on Stocking’s motion for reconsideration.
What happened
In Stocking v. Newmark Knight Frank Valuation & Advisory LLC, Maria Stocking, representing herself, asked the court to reconsider its April 15, 2025 denial of her request for discovery. She argued that Newmark had made false statements about whether she served discovery requests and tried to resolve the dispute with Newmark’s lawyers.
Stocking pointed to written objections dated November 27, 2024, a December 17, 2024 email, and other communications as support for her account. She asked the court to reconsider based on overlooked facts or alleged misrepresentations, and said she could obtain phone records if needed. These allegations were made by Stocking in her motion and were not resolved in the order described here.
On April 25, 2025, Judge Edgardo Ramos directed Newmark to respond by May 2, 2025. The order did not state that the court granted or denied Stocking’s reconsideration motion.
The detailed version
- Stocking v. Newmark Knight Frank Valuation & Advisory, LLC · No. 1:22-cv-07347
- Edgardo Ramos
- Apr. 25, 2025
Nature of the filing
Maria Stocking, who is representing herself, filed a motion asking the court to reconsider its April 15, 2025 order denying her motion to compel discovery. Her motion invoked Southern District of New York Local Civil Rule 6.3 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(3), which can provide relief from an order based on fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party.
Stocking’s position
Stocking argued that Newmark Knight Frank Valuation & Advisory, LLC had made materially false statements in opposing her discovery motion. She identified four disputed statements: that she had never served the discovery requests, never attempted to discuss the dispute with Newmark, that Newmark had not received a November 10, 2024 deficiency letter, and that the motion to compel was Newmark’s first notice of the discovery requests or alleged deficiencies.
Stocking stated that some discovery requests had been served by her former lawyer, Stewart Karlin, and that Newmark had partially produced documents related to one request. She also said she personally served other requests on October 28, 2024, and that Newmark responded with written objections dated November 27, 2024. According to Stocking, a December 17, 2024 email led to a phone call and later discovery conferences. She acknowledged that her reference to a November 10 deficiency letter was a clerical error and said the correct date was December 17, 2024.
Stocking contended that these materials contradicted Newmark’s statements and that the court relied on those statements when denying her motion to compel. She asked the court to reconsider the April 15 order and said she could subpoena phone records if necessary. The opinion text provided here contains Stocking’s allegations and attached-exhibit descriptions; it does not resolve whether those allegations are true.
Court’s action
On April 25, 2025, Judge Edgardo Ramos endorsed the filing and directed Newmark to respond by May 2, 2025. The provided text does not state that the court granted or denied the motion for reconsideration, nor does it decide the underlying discovery dispute.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.