56 E. Invs. LLC v. Upreal Brooklyn LLC

2024 NY Slip Op 31050(U)

• Court: New York Supreme Court, Kings County
• Decided: March 28, 2024
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

56 E. Invs. LLC v Upreal Brooklyn LLC 2024 NY Slip Op 31050(U) March 28, 2024 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: Index No. 503964/2019 Judge: Leon Ruchelsman Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/28/2024 02:24 PM INDEX NO. 503964/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 187 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/28/2024

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KING$' : CIVIL TERM: COMMERCIAL PART 8 -----~------------------------ . ---- --x 56 EAST INVESTORS LLC, individually as well as derivatively on behalf of EAST UPREAL LLG, and EAST UPREAL LLC, Plaintiffs, Decision arid otder

- against - Index No. 503964/20.19

UPREAL BROOI

- against -

EAST UPREAL LLC, Nominal Defendant,

-- ... -- --------- -- -------~ -- ~-------x PRESENT: HON. LEON RUCHELSMAN Motion Seq. #8

The defendants David Goldberger and Eyal Yagev have moved

pursuant to CPLR §3211 seeking to dismiss the amended complaint.

The plaintiff opposes the motion.. Papers were submitted by the

parties arid arguments held. After reviewing all the arguments,

this court now makes th€:! following determination.

As recorded in prior orders, during 2014 the plaintiff 56 Ea.st

Investors LLG, which comprised eighteen individual investors,

invested over two million dollars in a real estate development

project located i;lt 56 Ea.st 2ist Street in Kings County. Pursuant

to the operating agreement defendants D.avid Goldberger an,d Eyal

Y:agev were made manag.ers o;f: the plaintiff corporation. Further, in

.connection with the proj eat E.ast Upteal LLC was fo.rmed which .had

two mernl:iers., the plaintiff, .56 East Invest.ors LLC and defenda.nt

[* 1]

1 of 5 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/28/2024 02:24 PM INDEX NO. 503964/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 187 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/28/2024

Upteal Brooklyn. LLC a holding company owned by defendant Brookland

Upreal Limited,

Essentially, the amended complaint alleges the defendants

defrauded the plaintiff by failing to invest the funds and by

committing waste, mismanagement, gross negligence and self ....

dealing. The amended coITtplaint alleges the entire investment has

been lost. The amended complaint alleges seven causes of action

including breach Of fiduciary duty directly and derivatively, fraud

directly and derivati ve,ly, an accounting, breach of contract and

conversion. The defendants have now moved, once again, seeking to

dismiss the complaint. While pribr c;r.ders held that any Israeli

settlement reci.c:::hed concerning the bankruptcy of defendant Brookland

Upreal Limited, had no conriectioh to the plaintiff herein, the

defendants now argue that subsequent activity compels the dismissal

of this action. Specifically, Guy Gissim the trustee of claims in

the Israeli bankruptcy court entered into a creditor settlernent agreement which among other relief provided a methodology of

payment to creditors_ Foll.owing that settlemeht all claims

existing in New York were settled except the claims in this case.

In 2022 Gissim commenced an action in Kings County and pursuant to

th·at action the defendants assert the plaintiff in this case

assigned all e.pist.ing claims to Gissiin and that ;;3.ll claims w:ill be

settled pursuant to I-sraeli iaw, Gonsequerttly, the defendants move

seeking to dismis.s this action. As noted, the motion is oppo.s.ed.

[* 2]

2 of 5 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/28/2024 02:24 PM INDEX NO. 503964/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 187 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/28/2024

Conclusions of Law

It is well settled that upon a motion to dismiss the co1.1rt

must determine, accepting the allegations of the complaint as

true, whether the party can succeed upon any reasonable view of

those facts (Perez v. Y & M Transportation Corporation, 219 AD3d

1449, 196 NYS3d 145 [2d Dept., 2023]). Furth~rj all the

allegations in the complaint are deemed true ahd all reasonable inferences may be drawn in favor of the plaintiff (Archival Inc.;

v. 177 Realty Corp., 220 AD3d 90·9, 198 NYS2d 5 67 [ 2d Dept.;

2023]). Whether the complaint will later survive a motion for

summary judgment, or w:hether the plaintiff will ultimately be able to prove its claims, of course, plays no part in the

determination of a pre-discovery CPLR §3211 motion to dismi.ss

(see, Lam v. Weiss, 219 AD3d 713, 195 NYS3d 488 [2d Dept.,

2023] ) .

On July 20, 2023 the plairitiff in this action, referred to

as 'Investors', assigned "(I) all of Investors 1 rightsi title and

interest, in East Upreal LLC; (ii) any claims (known and unknown)

rielating the Project, the Investors and/or .East Upreal LLC Upreal

Brooklyn LLC, Brooklyn Upreal Limited group of companies, its

prior and current members and managers and their insurance

company; (iii) any claims Invet;;_tors asserteo. or could have

asserted· in the action styled, 5 6 East Investors, LLC, e:t al v.

Upreal Brooklyn, LLC, et a.l. New York State Supreme Court, Kings County, Index No. 5039.6.4/2019" and further clairrt.s (see~

3 [* 3]

3 of 5 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/28/2024 02:24 PM INDEX NO. 503964/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 187 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/28/2024

Assignment of Claims [NYSCEF Doc. No. 173]). Thus; by its plain

tersm the plaintiff has assigned "any claims" asserted in this

act-ion. The plaintiff argues that '\the assignment contained an

annexed to the Gissim Settlement specifically contemplated

the assignment and continuation of this Action by Gissin" (see,

Memorandum in Opposition, page 2 [NYSCEF Doc. No. 178]).

However, there can be no reasonable. interpretation of the

assignment wherein claims in this action were permitted to

continue.

Next, the plaintiff argues that East Upreal LLC was riot a

party to the assignment and claims brought by East Upreal must

continue. However, the assignment states that Investors assigned

its interests in East tlpreal. Further, the assignment states

that any claims Investors or East Upreal maintains against many

parties including the defendants David Goldberger- and Eyal ·Yagev

are hereby assigned to Gissirn. Thus, any interests of East

Upreal through its owner 56 East Investors LC have been assigned

to Gissim.. Gonsequ_ently, there are no claims that East Upreal

LLC ~ay ~tidividu~lly pursue ?gainst the defendants in this

action.

Nor does CPLR §1018 demand a contrary result. CPLR §1018

permitrs a par:t;:.y in interest .such as an assignee to continue a

laWsuit in place of the original party. It does npt siand 'for the proposition that when an assignment .has be.en ritade

transferring all interests to a third party that third party must

4 [* 4]

4 of 5 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/28/2024 02:24 PM INDEX NO. 503964/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 187 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/28/2024

continue the lawsuit. Indeed, the posture of the opposition is

curious, The plaihtifft owher of East upreal assigned its interests in East Upreal and any claims against any of the

defendants to Gissim. East Up.teal, now denuded of any ability to

pursue any claims, opposes the dismissal on the grounds it shou,1d

be given the opportunity to pursue its claim in this action.

That circular reasoning really has no legitimacy considering the

assignment. Any clairns a.te adequately protected by Gissim's

pursuit of therri. in Israel. Therefore, there are no claims that

can be pursued in this action. Consequently; the motion of the

defendants seeking dismissal of the complaint is granted.

So ordered. ENTER:

.,,,.......,,,.

DATED: March 28, 2024 Brooklyn N.Y. Hon. Leon Ruchelsman JSC

[* 5]

5 of 5