In Re: 491 Bergen St. Corporation
- Lewis Kaplan
- 1:25-cv-04387
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Re: 491 Bergen St. Corporation: Judge Kaplan denied the Frank Estate’s request to strike a reply declaration and allowed a surreply by August 28.
The ruling affected the Estate of Frank Sofia, which sought to exclude the declaration, and the Franklin Debtor, whose reply submission included the declaration.
What happened
In Re: 491 Bergen St. Corporation involved a request by the Estate of Frank Sofia to remove from the court record, or disregard, a declaration by Amy Sofia. The declaration was submitted by the Franklin Debtor in support of a motion to vacate an interim stay order.
The Estate argued that the declaration added irrelevant history and new allegations for the first time in a reply, and that it contained unsupported and defamatory statements. It also argued that the declaration had no evidentiary value concerning communications about payment of the judgment because those communications were made only among counsel.
Judge Kaplan denied the motion. The order allowed the appellee to file a surreply—a response to the reply—by August 28, 2025.
The detailed version
- In Re: 491 Bergen St. Corporation · No. 1:25-cv-04387
- Lewis Kaplan
- Aug. 21, 2025
Background
The Estate of Frank Sofia, identified in the filing as the “Frank Estate,” is the appellee in the related matters. The Franklin Debtor had filed a motion to vacate an interim stay order. The motion concerned whether an underlying state-court judgment had been paid in full and whether there was a basis to continue the stay.
Request to Strike the Declaration
The Frank Estate asked the court to strike from the record, or decline to consider, the August 5, 2025 declaration of Amy Sofia. The filing said the declaration was submitted to provide “context” and “history,” rather than facts or evidence relevant to the narrow issues raised by the motion. The Frank Estate argued that the declaration contained twelve pages of false, defamatory, irrelevant, and unsupported assertions and improperly introduced new allegations and material for the first time in reply.
The Frank Estate also argued that the declaration had no evidentiary value concerning communications about payment of the judgment. According to the filing, those communications were made only among counsel, and Amy Sofia was not copied on them. The filing identified exhibits supporting that position.
Ruling
The court’s order states: “Motion denied.” It also states that the appellee may file a surreply, meaning an additional response after the reply, by no later than August 28, 2025. The provided text does not give the court’s reasons for denying the motion.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.