Abrams v. Renaissance Equity Holdings, LLC

• Decision Date: 28 February 2014
• Citation: 2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 24058,985 N.Y.S.2d 822,43 Misc.3d 57
• Parties: Nossan T. ABRAMS, Respondent, v. RENAISSANCE EQUITY HOLDINGS, LLC, David Bistricer and Jacob Schwimmer, Appellants.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Term

43 Misc.3d 57
985 N.Y.S.2d 822
2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 24058

Nossan T. ABRAMS, Respondent,
v.
RENAISSANCE EQUITY HOLDINGS, LLC, David Bistricer and Jacob Schwimmer, Appellants.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term,
Second Dept., 2, 11 & 13 Judicial Dist.

Feb. 28, 2014.

Nosson T. Abrams, Brooklyn, respondent pro se.

Nabihah Azam, Brooklyn, for appellants.

PRESENT: PESCE, P.J., WESTON and SOLOMON, JJ.

Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Noach Dear, J.), entered June 25, 2012. The judgment, entered pursuant to a decision of the same court dated June 18, 2012, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $10,762.45 and dismissed defendants' counterclaims.

ORDERED that, on the court's own motion, the notice of appeal from the decision dated June 18, 2012 is deemed a premature notice of appeal from the judgment entered June 25, 2012 ( seeCPLR 5520[c] ); and it is further,

ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, without costs, and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for all further proceedings in accordance with this decision

[985 N.Y.S.2d 823]

before a different judge in the Pro Se Part.

In this action, plaintiff, who had been employed as an attorney by defendant Renaissance Equity Holdings, LLC, seeks to recover the principal sum of $10,800, alleging that he incurred medical costs because, at times during his employment, defendants failed to provide him with the level of medical insurance coverage they had promised him. After defendants were served with the summons with endorsed complaint, they timely answered, interposed affirmative defenses and counterclaims, and, approximately six weeks later, moved to dismiss the complaint or, in the alternative, for summary judgment. Plaintiff cross-moved for an order dismissing defendants' affirmative defenses and counterclaims. By order entered May 24, 2012, the Civil Court denied defendants' motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment, and granted plaintiff's motion to dismiss defendants' affirmative defenses and counterclaims.

On June 13, 2012, the parties appeared in Civil Court. Defendants asserted, and plaintiff did not dispute, that, on or about May 30, 2012, following the determination of the parties' motion and cross motion, defendants had served a number of discovery demands, including document requests and a request for an examination before trial, and that they had not, as of June 13, 2012, received any responses to their demands....