Candlewood Holdings, Inc. v. Valle, 2016–06830

• Citation: 92 N.Y.S.3d 98,168 A.D.3d 804
• Decision Date: 16 January 2019
• Docket Number: 2016–06830,Index No. 18465/10
• Parties: CANDLEWOOD HOLDINGS, INC., et al., Respondents, v. Nicanor VALLE, Jr., et al., Appellants, et al., Defendant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

168 A.D.3d 804
92 N.Y.S.3d 98

CANDLEWOOD HOLDINGS, INC., et al., Respondents,
v.
Nicanor VALLE, Jr., et al., Appellants, et al., Defendant.

2016–06830
Index No. 18465/10

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

Argued—October 4, 2018
January 16, 2019

Sperber & Stein, LLP, Garden City, N.Y. (Leonard R. Sperber and Michelle S. Stein of counsel), for appellants.

Rosalie Moore, Boynton Beach, Florida, respondent pro se.

MARK C. DILLON, J.P., BETSY BARROS, ANGELA G. IANNACCI, LINDA CHRISTOPHER, JJ.

92 N.Y.S.3d 99

DECISION & ORDER

168 A.D.3d 804

In an action, inter alia, for declaratory relief, the defendants Nicanor Valle, Jr., 676 Holding Corp., and Cutlass Enterprises, Inc., appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Stephen A. Bucaria, J.), dated June 16, 2016. The order denied their motion to recover damages resulting from the issuance of a preliminary injunction granted to the plaintiffs, and granted the plaintiffs' cross motion to discharge an undertaking given in connection with that preliminary injunction.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In this action, inter alia, for a declaratory judgment with respect to the entitlement to a condemnation award for real property located at 676 Grand Concourse in the Bronx (hereinafter the real property), this Court previously affirmed an order which directed the entry of a judgment, among other things, declaring that the defendant Nicanor Valle, Jr., was the beneficial and legal owner of the defendant 676 Holding Corp., and as such was entitled to the condemnation award, and directed dismissal of the remaining causes of action against Valle, 676 Holding Corp., and Cutlass Enterprises, Inc. (hereinafter collectively the defendants) (see Candlewood Holdings, Inc. v. Valle, 134 A.D.3d 872, 23 N.Y.S.3d 266 ). The basis for the Supreme Court's holding, as affirmed by this Court, was the doctrine of in pari delicto, premised on the finding that the defendants established that the plaintiffs were...