Alekna v. 207-217 W. 110 Portfolio Owner LLC
| Decision Date | 23 December 2021 |
| Docket Number | INDEX 156847/2016 |
| Parties | MARIANA DIMITROVA ALEKNA, BEATRIZ DA COSTA, SAMUEL GILCHRIST, RACHEL OLSON, JOSE SANTAMARIA, LAURA MAHLER, KELLY HOLLAND, MAX HOLLAND, MICHAEL TIVE, JOHN COLE, MARY ELLEN COLE, KRISTIN MANNONI, JOSEPH DEBART, WILLIAM DEBART, ALEX BERRICK, ASHAN SINGH, LAMAR SMALL, RACHEL PERKINS, SARA MUSE, KYUNG CHAN ZOH, JIHOE KOO Plaintiff, v. 207-217 WEST 110 PORTFOLIO OWNER LLC.207 REALTY ASSOCIATES L.L.C., MANN REALTY ASSOCIATES, GFB MANAGEMENT LLC, Defendant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
MOTION DATE 03/23/2021, 04/01/2021
DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 006) 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207 208, 209, 210, 218, 219, 222, 223, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252, 253 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259, 260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 270, 271, 272 were read on this motion to/for JUDGMENT - SUMMARY.
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 007) 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 220, 224 were read on this motion to/for REARGUMENT/RECONSIDERATION
It is hereby
ORDERED that the motion, pursuant to CPLR 3212, of plaintiffs Mariana Dimitrova Alekna, Beatriz Da Costa, Samuel I. Gilchrist, Rachel Olson, Jose Santamaria, Laura Mahler, Kelly C. Holland, Max A. Holland, Michael G. Tive, John C. Cole, Mary Ellen Cole, Kristin Mannoni, Joseph Richard Debart, III, William Blair Debart, Alex Berrick, Ashan Singh, Lamar Small, Rachel L. Perkins, Sara Muse, Kyung Chan Zoh and Jihoe Koo (motion sequence number 006) is held in abeyance with respect to a finding on the issue of liability on the plaintiffs' first cause of action pending the parties' respective submissions of the additional material described in this decision; and it is further
ORDERED that the parties shall submit the additional material described in this decision within sixty (60) days; and it is further
ORDERED that the balance of said plaintiffs' motion (motion sequence number 006) is held in abeyance pending the aforementioned submissions and the court's issuance of a ruling based thereon; and it is further
ORDERED that the cross motion, pursuant to CPLR 3212, of defendants 207-217 West 110 Portfolio Owner LLC and GFB Management LLC (motion sequence number 006) is held in abeyance pending the aforementioned submissions and the court's issuance of a ruling based thereon; and it is further
ORDERED that the motion, pursuant to CPLR 2221 (motion sequence number 007), of defendants 207 Realty Associates LLC and Mann Realty associates for leave to reargue a portion of the court's March 2, 2021 decision (motion sequence number 005) is granted; and it is further
ORDERED that, upon reargument, the application of defendants 207 Realty Associates LLC and Mann Realty Associates to dismiss the second cross-claim in the amended answer of defendants 207-217 West 110 Portfolio Owner LLC and GFB Management LLC, and so much of the third cross-claim in that answer that seeks liability against defendant 207 Realty Associates LLC on a theory of common-law indemnity is granted; and it is further
ORDERED that counsel for plaintiffs shall serve a copy of this order, along with notice of entry, on all parties within ten (10) days; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court, upon service upon him (60 Centre Street, Room 141B) of a copy of this order with notice of entry, is directed to enter judgment dismissing the cross claims of defendants 207-217 West 110 Portfolio Owner LLC and GFB Management LLC against defendants 207 Realty Associates LLC and Mann Realty Associates, with prejudice, and with costs and disbursements to the latter defendants as taxed by the Clerk; and it is further
ORDERED that the balance of this action shall continue.
MEMORANDUM DECISIONIn this residential landlord/tenant action, the plaintiff-tenants move for summary judgment on the complaint and the current building owner and managing agent cross-move for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint (together, motion sequence number 006), while the prior building owner and managing agent move separately for leave to reargue a portion of one of the court's earlier decisions (motion sequence number 007). This decision resolves both sets of motions.
Defendant-landlord 207-217 West 110 Portfolio Owner LLC (207 W 110) is the current owner of a residential apartment building located at 207 Central Park North in the City, County and State of New York (the building). See notice of cross motion (motion sequence number 006), exhibit A (amended complaint), ¶ 1. Co-defendant GFB Management LLC (GFB) is the building's current managing agent (together, the "buyer defendants"). Id., ¶ 2. Co-defendant 207 Realty Associates LLC (207 Realty) was the building's prior record owner, and co-defendant Mann Realty associates (Mann) was the building's prior managing agent (together, the "seller defendants"). Id., ¶¶ 4-5. The buyer defendants acquired the building from the seller defendants on April 20, 2016 via a "Purchase and Sale Agreement" (the "PSA"), which was recorded in the Office of the City Register of the City of New York on May 4, 2016 along with the deed of sale. Id., ¶ 4. The plaintiff-tenants (tenants) are all current or former tenants of the building who assert that they paid rent overcharges in violation of their rights under the Rent Stabilization Law (RSL) and Code (RSC). Id., ¶¶ 6-8. Both sets of landlord/defendants deny imposing overcharges and assert that none of the tenants' apartments were rent regulated.
Tenants initially commenced this action on August 16, 2016 via a summons and verified complaint, to which the buyer and seller defendants each filed timely verified answers. On September 6, 2019, tenants filed a motion for leave to serve and file an amended complaint, which the court granted in a decision dated October 31, 2019 (motion sequence number 003). Tenants' amended complaint sets forth causes of action for: 1) violation of RSL § 26-512; 2) a declaratory judgment (that the buyer and seller defendants both violated RSL § 26-512); 3) a declaratory judgment (that all of the tenants' apartments are rent stabilized, and that the buyer defendants are required to issue them rent stabilized leases that reflect each apartment's "legal regulated rent"); 4) a permanent injunction (preventing the buyer defendants from commencing eviction proceedings against any of the tenants, and ordering the buyer defendants to issue each tenant a rent stabilized lease that reflects his/her/their apartment's correct "legal regulated rent"); 5) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing (by the buyer defendants); and 6) attorney's fees. See notice of cross motion (motion sequence number 006), exhibit A (first amended verified complaint). The buyer defendants initially filed an amended answer on November 20, 2019, but later filed a second amended answer on January 23, 2020 that includes 29 affirmative defenses, a counterclaim against tenants for attorney's fees, and cross-claims against the seller defendants for: 1) breach of contract; 2) fraud and fraudulent inducement; 3) indemnity and contribution; and 4) rescission. See second amended answer (buyer defendants). On January 27, 2020, tenants filed a reply to the buyer defendants' counterclaim which raised six affirmative defenses. See plaintiffs' verified reply. For their part, the seller defendants filed a motion to dismiss the buyer defendants' cross-claims against them, which the court granted in part and denied in part in a decision dated March 2, 2021 (motion sequence number 005). Thereafter, on March 22, 2021, the seller defendants filed an amended answer to the tenants' second amended complaint that includes 24 affirmative defenses and cross-claims against the buyer defendants for: 1) breach of contract; 2) contractual indemnity; 3) the "implied contractual right of indemnity"; 4) common-law indemnity; and 5) contribution. See amended answer (seller defendants).
Tenants filed the instant motion for summary judgment on the amended complaint as against the buyer defendants (only) on March 24, 2021.[1] See notice of motion (motion sequence number 006). The buyer defendants filed a cross motion for summary judgment to dismiss that complaint on June 1, 2021. See notice of cross motion (motion sequence number 006).
On April 1, 2021, the seller defendants moved separately for leave to reargue so much of the court's March 2, 2021 decision as denied their motion to dismiss two of the buyer defendants' cross-claims. See notice of motion (motion sequence number 007). The buyer defendants filed timely opposition to that motion.
This matter is now fully submitted (motion sequence numbers 006 & 007).
For the sake of clarity, this decision reviews the two motions before the court in reverse order.
I. Seller defendants' motion for leave to reargue (motion sequence number 007) As was noted, the court's March 2, 2021 decision disposing of the seller defendants' motion to dismiss the buyer defendants cross-claims (motion sequence number 005) granted that relief in part and denied it in part. The buyer defendants had originally asserted cross-claims for: 1) breach of contract; 2) fraud and fraudulent inducement; 3) indemnification and contribution; and 4) rescission. See second amended answer (buyer defendants). The court's March 2, 2021 decision dismissed the first, third and fourth cross claims as against Mann, and the first and fourth cross claims as against 207 Realty. In the current motion (motion sequence number 007), the...
To continue reading
Request your trial