REPLY BRIEF FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

_____________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

I. REPLY

As to Appellee’s “Point I”, he presents no counter-argument to Appellant’s argument that

because Appellee proceeded solely on a breach of contract complaint and upon those issues at

trial then he never could prove quantum meruitt because it was never pled. At no time did he at

trial even conform the pleadings to the proof because he was proceeding solely on a breach of

contract and there was no quantum meruitt proof made by Plaintiff-Appellee. Since he can not

proceed by law on breach of contract then Appellee’s case must be dismissed.

As to Appellee’s “Point II”, Appellee’s counsel misrepresents the law to this court despite

being informed that premature notice of appeal by a pro se party is not fatal. For the record

Appellant’s counsel’s May 4, 2004 letter faxed to Appellee’s counsel warned Appellee’s counsel

not to present a premature notice argument as it is frivolous and said fax presented the

applicable law that Appellee chose not to present to this court:

“...the law is contrary to your argument that Ms. Doe’s appeal was premature and

should be dismissed. Especially in cases of pro se parties, the appellate courts

will not dismiss a premature notice of appeal. ( CPLR 5520[c]; Jump v. Jump, 268

A.D.2d 709, 710 n. 1, 701 N.Y.S.2d 503; Hunter v. Hunter, 206 A.D.2d 700, 701 n. 1,

614 N.Y.S.2d 784;Alessi v. Alessi, 734 N.Y.S.2d 665, 289 A.D.2d 782, 2001 N.Y.

Slip Op. 10350 (N.Y.A.D. 3 Dept.,2001)). In Seigel’s CPLR 5520 Practice

Commentaries 1995 Main Volume, C5520:1. Defects and Omissions he states also:

“Prematurity of the appeal, such as by taking it before the judgment or order

has been drafted and entered, can be disregarded. As long as the appeal is timely

now--when the matter is called to the court's attention-- and the service and filing

have been received by all entitled to it, the defect should be ignored and everything

sustained as is.”

Also CPLR 2001 can kick in to eliminate the prematurity issue. Moreso, premature

notice never did and does not prejudice your client in any way. In light of the law, a

premature argument in this case would be frivolous.”

Making matters worse, Appellee’s counsel then wrongfully submits a document to this court as

part of his Reply Brief that was not part of the record. Appellee never made a timely objection

that the Record was incomplete (Appellant submits it was not incomplete). Appellee can not now

submit addendums or appendixes. The New York Supreme Court Rules sec.640.5(e), which is

strictly adhered to, prohibit Appellee from submitting documents not part of the Record. Any

documents not in the Record must be disregarded by this court and Appellee’s Point II must be

disregarded as well since it is based on improper procedure and mainly is not supported by the

Record nor by law.

As to Appellant’s Point III, Appellee concedes that Plaintiff Altered Structure, Inc. can not be a

plaintiff by submitting that only “Michael Desanto dba Altered Structure” was licensed. Still, since

Appellee never entered into evidence a valid “dba” for the remaining plaintiff nor proof that

defendant did business with that entity and no witness for that entity then there was no proof at

trial that such an entity validly existed nor that defendant worked with that entity. (Neggy Travel

Service, Inc. v. Sabena Belgian World Airlines, 391 N.Y.S.2d 581, 56 A.D.2d 537 (1st Dept.,

1977). Appellee’s own evidence shows only Michael DeSanto was involved individually as no

company documents or an entity’s letterhead named “Altered Structure” were submitted into

evidence and all checks were made to “Michael DeSanto”, an individual and never to an entity

“Michael DeSanto dba Altered Structure”. R.169-192. Thus, the only proper plaintiff would have

been Michael DeSanto individually or Altered Structure, Inc, both of whom were not licensed and

thus could never be plaintiffs-and so the whole complaint failed from the start and the judgment

also so fails.

II. CONCLUSION

Plaintiffs failed to prove a quantum meruitt case, the party plaintiff’s were not proper

parties and the lower court’s decision must be reversed and Plaintiffs’ complaint should be

dismissed in its entirety. Appellant requests costs and sanctions against Appellee for ignoring

the law and making a frivolous argument as his “Point III” and disregarding 640.5(e).

Dated: New York, New York Yours, etc.,

May 13, 2004 _____________________

Attorney for Defendant-Appellant

853 Broadway, Suite 1516

New York, NY 10003 (212) 358-5762