Solomon Holding Corp. v. Stephenson
| Decision Date | 24 June 2014 |
| Parties | SOLOMON HOLDING CORP., et al., Petitioners–Respondents, v. Humphrey STEPHENSON, et al., Respondents–Appellants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
118 A.D.3d 613
989 N.Y.S.2d 22
2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 04703
SOLOMON HOLDING CORP., et al., Petitioners–Respondents,
v.
Humphrey STEPHENSON, et al., Respondents–Appellants.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
June 24, 2014.
Yamicha Stephenson, New York, for Humphrey Stephenson, appellant.
Elaine Cereta Davis–Stephenson, appellant pro se.
Law Offices of Jay S. Markowitz, P.C., Fresh Meadows (Jay S. Markowitz of counsel), for Solomon Holding Corp., respondent.
Michael A. Zimmerman, Melville, respondent pro se.
TOM, J.P., MOSKOWITZ, MANZANET–DANIELS, FEINMAN, GISCHE, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan B. Lobis, J.), entered August 8, 2013, which, to the extent appealable, denied respondents' motion for renewal of the petition for an order directing the sale of their home to satisfy two unrelated judgments held by petitioners, for vacatur of the Zimmerman judgment, and for attorneys' fees, unanimously modified, on the facts and in the interest of justice, to grant the motion for renewal, and, upon renewal,
[989 N.Y.S.2d 23]
deny the petition, and otherwise affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered June 7, 2013, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as superseded by the August 8, 2013 order.
Respondents, husband and wife, live in a property they own that is represented to be worth more than $1 million. Petitioner Solomon Holding Corp. is the assignee of a default judgment in the amount of $41,820.21 obtained against respondent Humphrey Stephenson in Pennsylvania and entered in New York State in 2001. Petitioner Zimmerman obtained an order setting the amount of his fees in a matrimonial action in which he represented respondent Davis–Stephenson that was subsequently converted to a judgment in the amount of $54,835.71. An earlier proceeding brought by Zimmerman to enforce the judgment through the sale of respondents' property was denied on the ground that less drastic enforcement measures are available, pursuant to CPLR 5240, in light of the fact that the property is the residence of both respondents, who hold it as tenants by the entirety, and an order of protection was issued in favor of respondents. Zimmerman and Solomon then commenced the instant proceeding for an order directing the sale of the property to satisfy both judgments.
In their motion to renew, respondents demonstrated that Solomon's lien had expired by the time this proceeding was commenced more than 10 years after the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wilk Auslander LLP v. Murray (In re Murray)
...to whether property may be sold, not whether a debtor’s interest in property may be sold. See, e.g. , Solomon Holding Corp. v. Stephenson , 118 A.D.3d 613, 989 N.Y.S.2d 22, 23 (2014). Regardless, we fail to see how the New York court’s power to account for equitable considerations differs f......
-
Benham v. Ecommission Solutions, LLC
...seeks precisely the same damages as her claim for breach of contract, is “indistinguishable from [her] claim for breach of contract” [989 N.Y.S.2d 22]( Martin H. Bauman Assoc. v. H & M Intl. Transp., 171 A.D.2d 479, 484, 567 N.Y.S.2d 404 [1st Dept.1991] ), and must be dismissed as duplicati......
-
Grunbaum v. Skloot
...611 (1st Dept. 2003), despite a failure to satisfy the rigorous requirements of a motion to renew. Solomon Holding Corp. v. Stephenson , 118 A.D.3d 613, 614, 989 N.Y.S.2d 22 (1st Dept. 2014). See , e.g. , Dorian v. City of New York , 129 A.D.3d 445, 9 N.Y.S.3d 577 (1st Dept. 2015). Be that ......
-
Solomon Holding Corp. v. Stephenson
...drastic result of depriving" the other spouse of his rights as a tenant by the entirety. Solomon Holding Corp. v. Stephenson, 118 A.D.3d 613, 614 (1st Dep't 2014).Page 3 In this proceeding the petitioners are again seeking to force a sale of the marital premises. In a pre-answer motion resp......