City Partners, Ltd. v. Jamaica Sav. Bank
Decision Date | 13 July 1978 |
Docket Number | No. 77 C 2399.,77 C 2399. |
Parties | CITY PARTNERS, LTD. BMG, a Florida Limited Partnership, by its General Partner, City Equities Corp., a Florida Corporation, Plaintiff, v. JAMAICA SAVINGS BANK, Carol Management Company, Pasquale A. Simone, Louis J. Lefkowitz, as Attorney General of the State of New York, Adam A. Balzer and Ronald C. Spielberger, Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
Goldschmidt, Fredericks, Levinson & Oshatz, New York City (Barry I. Fredericks, Edward Sussman, Robert A. Faller, of counsel), for plaintiff.
Robinson, Silverman, Pearce, Aronsohn, Sand & Berman, New York City (Leonard B. Sand, Floran L. Fink, and Robert A. Wolf, New York City, of counsel), for defendants Jamaica Savings Bank, Balzer and Spielberger.
Finley, Kumble, Wagner, Heine & Underberg, New York City (Donald S. Snider, New York City, of counsel), for defendant Carol Management Co.
Gerry E. Feinberg, Deputy Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant Lefkowitz.
Plaintiff, a limited partnership, brought this action seeking damages and a declaratory judgment and alleging eleven causes of action said to arise out of events in connection with the bringing of a leasehold mortgage foreclosure action by defendant Jamaica Savings Bank ("the Bank"). Jurisdiction is allegedly based on 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 (federal question), 1332 (diversity of citizenship), and 1343 (civil rights); 42 U.S.C. § 1983; and the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Various defendants have moved pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) and (1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss the causes of action either for failure to state a claim or for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Plaintiff holds the tenant's interest in a ground lease of certain property in Queens, New York known as Heather Gardens. According to the complaint, Heather Gardens consists of four different apartment complexes. Plaintiff's leasehold interest in one of those complexes, Alley Apartments, is subject to a mortgage held by the Bank. The mortgage agreement, entered into by the Bank and plaintiff's predecessor in the leasehold interest, provided for acceleration by the Bank of the debt secured by the mortgage in the event of default, and further provided that in an action to foreclose the Bank would be entitled to appointment of a receiver.
On October 31, 1977 the Bank commenced an action to foreclose on the mortgage in New York Supreme Court, Queens County. Plaintiff claims that it was not then in default. That same day one of the Bank's attorneys submitted ex parte an affirmation to the court alleging plaintiff's default and requesting appointment of a receiver. On November 2, 1977, Justice Joseph Calabretta appointed defendant Simone as receiver and authorized him to employ defendant Carol Management Co. ("Carol Management") to rent and collect rents of the mortgaged premises. Plaintiff claims that it received no notice of the Bank's application for a receiver, that Justice Calabretta's order made no provision for service upon plaintiff, and that plaintiff was never served with any process in the foreclosure action.
Upon his appointment Simone retained the services of defendant Carol Management as agent. Plaintiff alleges that Simone and Carol Management have failed to confine their activities to the Alley Apartments and that they have entered other premises controlled by plaintiff not subject to the mortgage and ordered tenants of those premises to pay rent to them rather than to the plaintiff.
After the filing of the instant motion the action was dismissed by stipulation as against defendants Lewis, Goldberg, Kaskel and Wentworth. The ninth cause of action was asserted solely against these four, and thus that cause of action is not before the court. Plaintiff's remaining ten claims seek the following relief: (1) a judgment declaring that the provisions of New York law authorizing ex parte applications for appointment or a receiver violate the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; (2) damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 from the Bank for applying ex parte for the appointment of a receiver and for making false or inadequate assertions in support of that application; (3-6) damages from the Bank, Simone, and Carol Management for their alleged activities with respect to plaintiff's premises allegedly not subject to the mortgage; (7) damages from the Bank for breach of the mortgage agreement; (8) damages from defendants Balzer and Spielberger, officers and trustees of the Bank, for their alleged approval of commencement of the foreclosure action and for Spielberger's alleged failure to advise Simone and Carol Management of the limitations of their power with respect to plaintiff's other premises; (10) damages for an alleged conspiracy among all the defendants to deprive plaintiff of its rights; and (11) punitive damages.
Defendants urge the court to abstain from exercising jurisdiction over the claim for a declaratory judgment concerning the New York statutes authorizing ex parte appointment of a receiver.
None of the agreements between plaintiff or its predecessor and the Bank explicitly authorizes it to make an ex parte application for appointment of a receiver. The agreements state only that the Bank "shall be entitled", in any action to foreclose, to the appointment of a receiver. However, § 254(10) of the New York Real Property Law recites that a covenant in a mortgage that the holder in any action to foreclose "`shall be entitled to the appointment of a receiver,' must be construed as meaning" that the holder "shall be entitled, without notice and without regard to adequacy of any security of the debt, to the appointment" of a receiver.
Defendants claim that by agreeing to a covenant providing for receivership the plaintiff had at least constructive notice of the applicability of § 254(10) and therefore waived notice of the motion for a receivership; alternatively, they claim that even absent such waiver the ex parte procedure established by § 254(10) is not unconstitutional.
The judicially-created doctrine of abstention includes two parallel concepts addressed to different aspects of the relationship between the federal and state judiciary.
The notions of federalism expressed in the Younger case have the effect of adding an extra dimension to "the two classic preconditions for the exercise of equity jurisdiction," i. e. an inadequate remedy at law and irreparable injury. Trainor v. Hernandez, 431 U.S. 434, 441, 97 S.Ct. 1911, 1917, 52 L.Ed.2d 486 (1977). Absent "extraordinary circumstances", the Younger opinion requires that federal courts decline to exercise jurisdiction which would enjoin pending state criminal proceedings. Younger v. Harris, supra, at 53-54, 91 S.Ct. 746.
Since the Younger case, the Supreme Court has extended the abstention doctrine to applications for declaratory as well as injunctive relief Kugler v. Helfant, 421 U.S. 117, 95 S.Ct. 1524, 44 L.Ed.2d 15 (1975); Samuels v. Mackell, 401 U.S. 66, 91 S.Ct. 764, 27 L.Ed.2d 688 (1971) and applied the doctrine to a variety of non-criminal proceedings in which a state was asserting a significant state policy. Trainor v. Hernandez, supra ( ); Juidice v. Vail, 430 U.S. 327, 97 S.Ct. 1211, 51 L.Ed.2d 376 (1977) ( ); Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd., 420 U.S. 592, 95 S.Ct. 1200, 43 L.Ed.2d 482 (1975) ( ).
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Scutieri v. Estate of Revitz
...196, 50 L.Ed.2d 158 (1976); Taylor v. First Wyoming Bank, 707 F.2d 388, 390, n. 3 (9th Cir.1983); City Partners Ltd., BMG v. Jamaica Savings Bank, 454 F.Supp. 1269, 1275 (E.D.N.Y.1978). Furthermore, an action may be brought against a private citizen under the Civil Rights Act if it is alleg......
-
In re Yellow Cab Co-op. Ass'n
...parties had ample opportunity to object to the receiver's actions in the state court proceeding); City Partners, Ltd. BMG v. Jamaica Savings Bank, 454 F.Supp. 1269, 1276 (E.D.N.Y.1978) (a receiver acting beyond the scope of its 38. In the event that such allegations were made, this Court de......
-
T & W Inv. Co., Inc. v. Kurtz, 77-1611
...that the receiver here was not acting in accordance with and under the protection of a court order. Cf. City Partners, Ltd. v. Jamaica Sav. Bank, 454 F.Supp. 1269 (E.D.N.Y.1978). This is based upon the charge that the assets of T & W which were sold by Kurtz, and his failure to pay rents du......
-
Spitzer v. Aljoe
...Dev. Corp. v. Guetschow, 869 F.2d 1298 (9th Cir. 1989), Davis v. Bayless, 70 F.3d 367 (5th Cir. 1995), City Partners, Ltd. v. Jamaica Sav. Bank, 454 F. Supp. 1269 (E.D.N.Y. 1978), Alexander v. Hedback, 2012 WL 2004103 (D. Minn. June 5, 2012), Downeast Ventures, Ltd. v. Washington Cty., 2005......