People v. Emstar Pizza, Inc.

• Decision Date: 16 September 2020
• Docket Number: Index No. 17345/14,2015–04033
• Citation: 186 A.D.3d 1376,128 N.Y.S.3d 920 (Mem)
• Parties: In the Matter of PEOPLE of State of New York, etc., petitioner-respondent, v. EMSTAR PIZZA, INC., et al., respondents, Emmanuel Onuaguluchi, appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

186 A.D.3d 1376
128 N.Y.S.3d 920 (Mem)

In the Matter of PEOPLE of State of New York, etc., petitioner-respondent,
v.
EMSTAR PIZZA, INC., et al., respondents,

Emmanuel Onuaguluchi, appellant.

2015–04033
Index No. 17345/14

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

Argued - January 2, 2020
September 16, 2020

Emmanuel Onuaguluchi, Queens Village, NY, appellant pro se.

Letitia James, Attorney General, New York, N.Y. (Steven C. Wu and Seth M. Rokoksy of counsel), for petitioner-respondent.

REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., RUTH C. BALKIN, JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

186 A.D.3d 1377

In a proceeding, inter alia, pursuant to Executive Law § 63(12), Emmanuel Onuaguluchi appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Johnny Lee Baynes, J.), entered January 30, 2015. The order and judgment, among other things, is in favor of the petitioner and against Emmanuel Onuoguluchi in the total sum of $789,507.06.

ORDERED that the order and judgment is reversed, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, with costs, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for further proceedings on the petition in accordance herewith.

In December 2014, the petitioner commenced the instant special proceeding against, among others, Emmanuel Onuaguluchi (hereinafter the appellant), alleging, inter alia, that he had "repeatedly violated" articles 6 and 19 of the Labor Law by failing to pay employees proper wages and had engaged in "illegal activity" in violation of Executive Law § 63(12). On January 30, 2015, less than two months after the commencement of this proceeding, the Supreme Court denied the appellant's request for an adjournment in order to enable him to obtain new counsel. On that date, the appellant declined to sign a settlement agreement, which had been agreed to by the other respondents, while he and those respondents had been represented by the same counsel. The court, inter alia, entered a judgment in favor of the petitioner and against the appellant in the principal sum...