Frank Brunckhorst III v. Bischoff
Frank Brunckhorst III, individually and in his capacity as trustee of The Frank Brunckhorst III 2001 Trust v. Eric Bischoff et al.
- John Cronan
- 1:21-cv-04362
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Brunckhorst v. Bischoff: Judge Cronan ordered supplemental briefing on a proposed statutory-interest defense.
Counsel for Richard Todd Stravitz, Susan Stravitz Kemp, and Eric Bischoff must file supplemental briefs addressing the proposed defense and New York Civil Practice Law and Rules section 5001.
What happened
In Frank Brunckhorst III v. Eric Bischoff, the court addressed a request to add a “Statutory Interest Offset” defense to the Trustees’ answer to Bischoff’s third amended counterclaims and crossclaims.
The court ordered counsel for Richard Todd Stravitz and Susan Stravitz Kemp, and counsel for Eric Bischoff, to file supplemental briefs of no more than three pages by September 18, 2025. The briefs must address whether New York Civil Practice Law and Rules section 5001 applies and how that proposed defense should be evaluated for possible legal insufficiency.
Judge John P. Cronan issued the order on September 11, 2025. The opinion orders supplemental briefing and does not decide the motion to amend or the proposed defense.
The detailed version
- Frank Brunckhorst III v. Bischoff · No. 1:21-cv-04362
- John Cronan
- Sept. 11, 2025
Order
The court ordered counsel for Richard Todd Stravitz and Susan Stravitz Kemp, and counsel for Eric Bischoff, to file supplemental briefs by September 18, 2025. Each brief may be no more than three pages.
The briefs must address whether, and to what extent, New York Civil Practice Law and Rules section 5001 applies to the proposed “Statutory Interest Offset” defense that the Trustees seek to add in their motion for permission to amend their answer to Eric Bischoff’s Third Amended Counterclaims and Crossclaims. The court also directed the parties to address how, if at all, the proposed defense should be analyzed for legal insufficiency under section 5001 and Manufacturer’s & Traders Trust Co. v. Reliance Ins. Co., 870 N.E.2d 124 (N.Y. 2007).
Disposition
Judge John P. Cronan ordered supplemental briefing. The opinion does not state a ruling granting or denying the motion for permission to amend, and it does not decide whether the proposed defense is legally insufficient.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.