Jaspar Holdings, LLC v. Gotham Trading Partners # 1, LLC, 2019–04369
| Decision Date | 12 August 2020 |
| Docket Number | 2019–04369,Index No. 38904/05 |
| Citation | 186 A.D.3d 582,130 N.Y.S.3d 19 |
| Parties | JASPAR HOLDINGS, LLC, Appellant, v. GOTHAM TRADING PARTNERS # 1, LLC, etc., Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
186 A.D.3d 582
130 N.Y.S.3d 19
JASPAR HOLDINGS, LLC, Appellant,
v.
GOTHAM TRADING PARTNERS # 1, LLC, etc., Respondent.
2019–04369
Index No. 38904/05
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Submitted—February 13, 2020
August 12, 2020
Offit Kurman, New York, N.Y. (Umar A. Sheikh of counsel), for appellant.
Law Offices of Jay S. Markowitz, P.C., Williston Park, NY, for respondent.
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, ANGELA G. IANNACCI, PAUL WOOTEN, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
In an action for the partition and sale of real property, the plaintiff appeals from an amended order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Larry D. Martin, J.), dated February 19, 2019. The amended order, insofar as appealed from, upon renewal and reargument, vacated the determination in a prior order of the same court dated April 25, 2017, denying that branch of the defendant's prior motion which was to reinstate a prior order of the same court dated June 13, 2016, appointing a referee and directing the sale of the subject property, and thereupon granted that branch of the defendant's prior motion, and directed the Referee to conduct a judicial sale of the subject property without regard to any minimum sales price, and denied that branch of the plaintiff's cross motion which was for an interlocutory judgment in its favor and against the defendant in the sum of $116,177.41, purportedly representing 50% of the carrying costs associated with the subject property from the date of the parties' stipulation of settlement through March 2018.
ORDERED that the amended order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the determination in the order dated April 25, 2017, denying that branch of the defendant's prior motion which was to reinstate the order dated June 13, 2016, appointing a referee and directing the sale of the
subject property, is adhered to, and that branch of the plaintiff's cross motion which was for an interlocutory judgment in its favor and against the defendant in the sum of $116,177.41, purportedly representing 50% of the carrying costs associated with the subject property from the date of the parties' stipulation of settlement through March 2018, is granted to the extent that the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a hearing to determine the amount of the defendant's 50% share of the carrying costs associated with the subject property from the date of the parties' stipulation of settlement through March 2018 and the entry of an interlocutory judgment thereafter.
On May 17, 1978, Joseph Mulholland and Paul Gaspard purchased property located in Brooklyn as joint owners, each owning 50% of the property. On June 12, 2003, James Gaspard, as heir to the estate of Paul Gaspard, transferred his 50% interest
in the property to the plaintiff, Jaspar Holdings, LLC.
In December 2005, the plaintiff commenced the instant action against Mulholland for the partition and sale of the property. On November 1, 2013, Mulholland sold his 50%...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Arthur Ave. Med. Servs., PC v. GEICO Ins. Co.
...821, quoting McGill v. Goldman , 261 A.D.2d 593, 594, 691 N.Y.S.2d 75 [2d Dept. 1999] ; Jaspar Holdings, LLC v. Gotham Trading Partners No. 1, LLC , 186 A.D.3d 582, 130 N.Y.S.3d 19 [2d Dept. 2020] ). The movant must make an effort to demonstrate in what manner the court, in rendering the or......
-
Peretz v. Xu
...decided, or to present arguments different from those originally presented’ " ( Jaspar Holdings, LLC v. Gotham Trading Partners # 1, LLC, 186 A.D.3d 582, 584, 130 N.Y.S.3d 19, quoting McGill v. Goldman, 261 A.D.2d 593, 594, 691 N.Y.S.2d 75 ; see Degraw Constr. Group, Inc. v. McGowan Bldrs.,......
-
Steven G. v. Gary G. (In re Lillian G.)
...162 N.Y.S.3d 411 ; Stanecky v. Stanecky, 200 A.D.3d 819, 821, 155 N.Y.S.3d 115 ; Jaspar Holdings, LLC v. Gotham Trading Partners #1, LLC, 186 A.D.3d 582, 585, 130 N.Y.S.3d 19 ). Furthermore, Gary was represented by counsel at the time that he executed the stipulation and unequivocally agree......
-
Andrezzi v. Sprint Spectrum L.P.
...but shall not 3 include any matters of fact not offered on the prior motion'" (Jaspar Holdings, LLC v Gotham Trading Partners #1, LLC, 186 A.D.3d 582, 584 [2d Dept 2020], quoting CPLR 2221[d][2]; see Degraw Constr. Group, Inc. v McGowan Bldrs., Inc., 178 A.D.3d 772, 773 [2d Dept 2019]). The......