255 Butler Assocs., LLC v. 255 Butler, LLC
| Decision Date | 31 August 2022 |
| Docket Number | 2019–03306,Index No. 511560/15 |
| Citation | 208 A.D.3d 831,173 N.Y.S.3d 672 |
| Parties | 255 BUTLER ASSOCIATES, LLC, appellant, v. 255 BUTLER, LLC, et al., respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
208 A.D.3d 831
173 N.Y.S.3d 672
255 BUTLER ASSOCIATES, LLC, appellant,
v.
255 BUTLER, LLC, et al., respondents.
2019–03306
Index No. 511560/15
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Argued—May 10, 2022
August 31, 2022
Sills Cummis & Gross P.C., New York, NY (Mitchell D. Haddad, Matthew P. Canini, and Susman Godfrey LLP [Jacob W. Buchdahl ], of counsel), for appellant.
Heller, Horowitz & Feit, P.C., New York, NY (Stuart A. Blander and Eli Feit of counsel), for respondents.
MARK C. DILLON, J.P., SHERI S. ROMAN, JOSEPH J. MALTESE, DEBORAH A. DOWLING, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
In an action, inter alia, for declaratory and injunctive relief, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Sylvia G. Ash, J.), dated February 14, 2019. The order, insofar as appealed from, granted that branch of the plaintiff's
motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3126 to strike the defendants’ answer and counterclaims only to the extent of directing the defendants to comply with outstanding discovery orders and determining that the defendants had waived the right to use an "attorneys’ eyes only" designation due to their abuses of that designation.
ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, with costs, and that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3126 to strike the defendants’ answer and counterclaims is granted in its entirety.
The underlying facts of this appeal are summarized in the related appeals decided herewith ( 255 Butler Associates, LLC v. 255 Butler, LLC, 208 A.D.3d 829, ––– N.Y.S.3d –––– [Appellate Division Docket No. 2018–12445] ; 255 Butler Associates, LLC v. 255 Butler, LLC, 208 A.D.3d 834, ––– N.Y.S.3d –––– [Appellate Division Docket No. 2019–12260] ). As relevant here, in March 2013, the defendant landlord, 255 Butler, LLC (hereinafter the landlord), entered into a commercial lease with the plaintiff tenant, 255 Butler Associates, LLC (hereinafter the tenant), relating to certain real property located at 255 Butler Street in Brooklyn (hereinafter the lease) (see 255 Butler Assoc., LLC v. 255 Butler, LLC, 173 A.D.3d 649, 650, 103 N.Y.S.3d 589 ). On July 27, 2015, the landlord served the tenant with a "Notice to Cure Lease Default," alleging several defaults, including that the plaintiff failed to "diligently pursue" the planned conversion of the building located on the property into a multi-unit commercial...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
255 Butler Assocs., LLC v. 255 Butler, LLC
...Yellowstone injunction maintains the status quo so that a commercial tenant, when confronted by a threat of termination of its lease, 208 A.D.3d 831 may protect its investment in the leasehold by obtaining a stay tolling the cure period so that upon an adverse determination on the merits th......
-
255 Butler Assocs., LLC v. 255 Butler, LLC
...determinations on related appeals from orders 173 N.Y.S.3d 651 dated February 14, 2019 (see 255 Butler Associates, LLC v 255 Butler, LLC, 208 A.D.3d 831, ––– N.Y.S.3d –––– [Appellate Division Docket No. 2019–03306; decided herewith] ), and October 9, 2019 (see 255 Butler Associates, LLC v 2......
-
255 Butler Assocs. v. 255 Butler, LLC
...held. After reviewing all the arguments this court now makes the following determination. In 255 Butler Associates LLC v. 255 Butler LLC, 208 A.D.3d 831, 173 N.Y.S.3d 672 [2d Dept., 202.2] the Appellate Division struck the answer of the defendants. Specifically, the court held that "the def......
-
Musso v. OTR Media Grp.
...explanations for their failures to comply'" then striking the answer is proper (see, 255 Butler Associates LLC v. 255 Butler LLC, 208 A.D.3d 831, 173 N.Y.S.2d 672 [2d Dept., 2022]). In this case there has clearly been an extended period of time Wherein the defendant has failed to provide an......