1051 Corp v. Bynum

• Decision Date: 15 August 2018
• Docket Number: 2016–05310,Index No. 21220/08
• Citation: 83 N.Y.S.3d 137,164 A.D.3d 630
• Parties: 1051 CORP, appellant, et al., plaintiff, v. David BYNUM, et al., defendants, Mark Scheiner, et al., respondents.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

164 A.D.3d 630
83 N.Y.S.3d 137

1051 CORP, appellant, et al., plaintiff,
v.
David BYNUM, et al., defendants, Mark Scheiner, et al., respondents.

2016–05310
Index No. 21220/08

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Submitted—April 13, 2018
August 15, 2018

83 N.Y.S.3d 138

Jason Chang, New York, NY, for appellant.

The Law Offices of Jay S. Markowitz, P.C., Williston Park, NY, for respondents.

MARK C. DILLON, J.P., JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, ROBERT J. MILLER, COLLEEN D. DUFFY, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

In an action, inter alia, to vacate a satisfaction of judgment and for declaratory relief, the plaintiff 1051 Corp appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lawrence Knipel, J.), dated March 31, 2015. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied that branch of the plaintiffs' motion which was, in effect, for summary judgment declaring that the plaintiff 1051 Corp holds a 99% interest in a judgment entered in an underlying action entitled Bynum v. Scheiner, commenced in the Supreme Court, Kings County, under Index No. 15380/01.

ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, that branch of the plaintiffs' motion which was, in effect, for summary judgment declaring that the plaintiff 1051 Corp holds a 99% interest in a judgment entered in an underlying action entitled Bynum v. Scheiner, commenced in the Supreme Court, Kings County, under Index No. 15380/01, is granted, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for the entry of an appropriate judgment, inter alia, declaring that the plaintiff 1051 Corp holds a 99% interest in the judgment in the underlying action.

In February 2005, a judgment was entered in an underlying action to recover on a promissory note entitled Bynum v. Scheiner, commenced in the Supreme Court, Kings County, under Index No. 15380/01. The judgment was in favor of David Bynum and Deft Corp. and against Mark Scheiner in the principal sum of $24,000. In a decision and order dated October 24, 2006, this Court affirmed an order of the Supreme Court denying the...