Ghana v. Labkowski
| Decision Date | 26 July 2022 |
| Docket Number | Index Nos. 503045/15,14 |
| Citation | 2022 NY Slip Op 32568 (U) |
| Parties | CONG. MACHON GHANA, a Religious Corporation, Plaintiff, v. SARA LABKOWSKI, ZALMAN LABKOWSKI, RIVA TELESHEVSKY and BAILA BRONSTEIN a/k/a BAILA GRlNKER, Defendants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
2022 NY Slip Op 32568(U)
CONG. MACHON GHANA, a Religious Corporation, Plaintiff,
v.
SARA LABKOWSKI, ZALMAN LABKOWSKI, RIVA TELESHEVSKY and BAILA BRONSTEIN a/k/a BAILA GRlNKER, Defendants.
Index Nos. 503045/15, 14
Supreme Court, Kings County
July 26, 2022
Unpublished Opinion
HON. LAWRENCE KNIPEL ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
The following exiled papers read herein: NYSCEF Doc Nos.:
Notice of Motion/Order to Show Cause/ Petition/Cross Motion and Affidavits (Affirmations) Annexed - 473-502
Opposing Affidavits (Affirmations), - 503-504
Affidavits/Affirmations in Reply - 506-513 '
Defendants' Memorandum of Law - 505 '
Upon the foregoing papers, in this declaratory judgment action by plaintiff, purporting to repieseht Cong. Machon Chana (plaintiff), a religious corporation, plaintiff moves, under motion sequence number 14, for an order, pursuant to CPLR 3101 and 3126, directing. (1) that the answer of defendants Zalman Labkowski, Riva Teleshevsky (1 eleshevsky), and Baija Bronstein a/k/a Bails Grihker (Bronstein), dated April 3, 2019, be stricken in its entirety; or in the alternative (2) that the issue of whether Zalman
Labkowski, Teleshevsky, and Bronstein are members of the board of trustees of Cong. Mach on Chana be deemed resolved in plaintiffs favor; or in the alternative (3) that Zalman Labkowski, Teleshevsky, and Bronstein be prohibited from opposing plaintiff s claim that they are not members of Cong. Machon Chana's board of trustees and/or precluding them from introducing any evidence at trial to support their contention that they are members Of Cong. Machon Ghana's board of trustees; or in the alternative (4) granting such other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper.
Facts and Procedural Background
This action arises out of a dispute as to who is authorized to act on behalf of Cong. Machon Charih, and, in turn, control the use of real properly located at 1367 President Street in Brooklyn (the premises) and held in the name of the Cong. Machon Chana. The premises have been used since the 1970s as a dormitory lor female students engaged in lorah study, in accordance with Cong. Machon Chana's mission to hold and conduct classes in religious subjects.
Plaintiff claims that Cong, Machon Chana's board of trustees has changed over the years, that elections for board members are held on an annual basis, and that over the years many different persons have served as members of the board of trustees. Defendants dispute this and claim that .since 1973, the board of trustees of Corig, Machon Chana has consisted of only four persons, namely, Zalman Labkowski, Teleshevsky, Bronstein, and Rabbi Nathan Gurary, who is deceased. Defendants also claim that since 1973, Sara Labkowski has been the sole person to occupy the position of president of Cong. Machon Chana.
By a petition dated December 23,2014, Sara Labkowski, purporting to act on behalf of Cong, Machon Chana, as its president, commenced a holdover proceeding in the Civil Court, Queens County, to evict the students residing at the premises. Op March 17,2015, Cong. Machon Chana commenced this action against Sara Labkowski and Machon Chana Women's Institute. Inc. (the Women's Institute), seeking a judicial declaration that Sara Labkowski is not authorized to act on behalf of Cong. Machon Chana.
By a decision and order dated September 25, 2015, the court granted that branch of a motion by plaintiff which sought a preliminary injunction restraining Sara Labkowski and the lybmerfs Institute, from continuing with the prosecution of the holdover proceeding and for a stay of that proceeding. That decision and order was affirmed by the Appellate Division, Second Department (Cong. Machon Chana v Machon Chana Women's Inst., Inc., 162 A.D.3d 635, 637 [2d Dept 2018]).
While the originally named defendants in this action were Sara Labkowski and the Women s Institute, following the initial exchange of documents between the parties, the Women's Institute moved to dismiss plaintiff s complaint as against it, and plaintiff crossmoved to amend its complaint to add Zalman Labkowski, Teleshevsky, and Bronstein, who claim to be the sole members of the board of trustees of Cong. Machon Chana, as defendants. I his claim by Zalman Labkowski, feleshevsky, and Bronstein is vehemently disputed by plaintiff, which asserts that they have no power or authority to act on behalf of Cong. Machon Chana.
By an order dated May 25, 2017, the court, in light of counsel for the Women's Institute s assertion in open court that the Women's Institute does not claim ownership or
the right to use or occupy the premises, granted the Women's Institute's motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint as against it. The court further granted plaintiff s cross motion to add Zalman Labkowski, Teleshevsky, and Bronstein as defendants. Thus, the present defendants in this action consist of Sara Labkowski, who claims to be the president of Cong. Machon Chana, Zalman Labkowski, Teleshevsky, and Bronstein. Plaintiffs redrafted amended summons and complaint was filed with the court on June 7, 2017, and was served on Teleshevsky on June 23, 2017, Sara Labkowski and Zalman Labkowski on August 3, 2017, and Bronstein on October 4, 2017.
On May 17. 2017, the Women's Institute filed an action against Yosef Spalter (Spalter), Meir Horowitz (Horowitz), Rabbi Shloma Majeski, and Machon L'Yahadus, under index number 509876/2017 (the 2017 Women's Institute action),[1] seeking monetary damages for an alleged conversion of its funds, and a declaration that Spalter and Horowitz are not its board members. The 2017 Women's Institute action concerns a claim that a competing women's yeshiva stole employees and resources from the Women's Institute to start the competing school, known as Machon L'Yahadus. By an order dated July 3, 2019, the court denied a motion to stay the 2017 Women's Institute action or consolidate it with this action (NYSCEF Doc No. 500).
Oil April 9, 2019, Zalman Labkowski, Teleshevsky, and Bronstein Served and filed their joint answer to plaintiff s amended complaint, Which consists of a one sentence statement that they joined in full in the answer of Sara Labkowski dated October 29. 2015 as if fully set forth therein (NYSCEF Doc No. 438).
On April 19, 2019, plaintiff served its first notice for discovery and inspection and first set of interrogatories on Zalman Labkowski, Teleshevsky, and Bronstein (NYSCEF Doc Nos. 482,483, 484). By st consent to change attorneys filed on September 19, 2019 (NYSCEF' Doc No. 439), defendants retained new counsel, Abrams, Fensterman, Fensterman, Eisman, Formate, Ferrara, Wolf & Carone, LLP. On December 30, 2019. plaintiff filed a motion to compel responses to its discovery requests, under motion sequence number 13 (NYSCEF Doc No. 442). On January 17. 2020, defendants' attorney, Amy B. Marion, Esq., a partner with the law firm of Abrams, Fensterman, Fensterman, Eisman, Formato, Ferrara, Wolf &Carone, LLP, opposed this motion on the ground that it was moot because on that day, January 17, 2020, her law firm transmitted Zalman Labkowski, Teleshevsky, and Bronstein's discovery responses to plaintiffs counsel (NYSCEF Doc No. 466).
Zalman Labkowski, Teleshevsky, and Bronstein served their discovery responses, which are dated January 17, 2020, on plaintiffs counsel (NYSCEF Doc Nos. 488, 489, 490), On March 10, 2020, plaintiffs attorney, Mark S. Frey, Esq,, served a deficiency letter upon defendants' counsel regarding these discovery responses, and requested that they set up a time to discuss each referenced document request and response (NYSCEF Doc No. 479).
On March 12, 2020, plaintiff withdrew motion sequence number 13, on consent and without prejudice (NYSCEF Doc No. 471).
On March 11,2020, plaintiff served a notice to take the deposition of Teleshevsky (NYSCEF Doc No. 499). By an email dated April 30, 2021, plaintiff s counsel informed defendants' attorneys that it had been over three months since they promised to respond to his deficiency letter in this matter dated March 10, 2020, and that they also had refused to schedule the deposition of Teleshevsky, which had been noticed for April 16, 2020 (NYSCEF Doc No. 480). Defendants' attorneys have taken the position that defendants will not proceed with Teleshepvsky's deposition, nor any deposition in this, case, unless Jonathon Bachrach, Esq., who represents Spalter and Horowitz in the 2017 Women's Institute action, attends the deposition.
On February 7, 2022, plaintiff filed its instant motion (NYSCEF Doc No. 473). Defendants oppose plaintiff s motion.
The Parties' Contentions
In support of its motion, plaintiff argues that discovery sanctions should be imposed on Zalman Labkowski, Teleshevsky and Bronstein, pursuant to CPLR 3126, based on their failure to provide proper responses to their discovery requests and Teleshevsky's refusal to appear for deposition. Plaintiff contends that Zalman Labkowski, Teleshevsky, and Bronstein s responses to their notice for discovery and inspection show that they do not have any documents which support their claims that they are the sole and exclusive members of the board of trustees of Cong. Machon Chana.
Plaintiff asserts that Zalman Labkowski, feleshevsky, and Bronstein, rather than admit that there are no documents supporting their claims, have...
To continue reading
Request your trial