99th Ave. Holdings, LLC v Schatz 2025 NY Slip Op 30979(U) March 13, 2025 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 151688/2024 Judge: Emily Morales-Minerva 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: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/25/2025 03:30 P~ INDEX NO. 151688/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 47 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/25/2025
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: HON. EMILY MORALES-MINERVA PART 42M Justice . . ------------------------------------X INDEX NO. 151688/2024 99TH AVENUE HOLDINGS, LLC MOTION DATE 06/27/2024 Plaintiff, MOTION SEQ. NO. 001 -v- LARRY H SCHATZ, DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION Defendant. ----------------------X
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27,28,29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39,40,41,42,43,44,45 were read on this motion to/for DISMISS
APPEARANCES:
Thomas D. Shanahan, P.C., New York, New York (Thomas D. Shanahan, Esq., of counsel) for Plaintiff.
Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, New York, New York (Nicholas Peter Chrysanthem, Esq., of counsel) for Defendant.
HON. EMILY MORALES-MINERVA:
In this legal malpractice action, defendant LARRY H.
SCHATZ, moves, by notice of motion (sequence no. 001), pursuant
to CPLR § 3211 (a) (1), (5) and (7), 1 dismissing the complaint of
1 CPLR § 3211 (a) provides, as pertinent here, "A party may move for judgment dismissing one or more causes of action asserted against him on the ground that: "(1) a defense is founded upon documentary evidence; or "(5) the cause of action may not be maintained because of arbitration and award, collateral estoppel, discharge in bankruptcy, infancy or other disability of the moving party, payment, release, res judicata, statute of limitations, or statute of frauds; or "(7) the pleading fails to state a cause of action."
151688/2024 99TH AVENUE HOLDINGS, LLC vs. SCHATZ, LARRY H Page 1 of 18 Motion No. 001
[* 1] 1 of 18 [FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/25/2025 03:30 P~ INDEX NO. 151688/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 47 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/25/2025
plaintiff 99TH AVENUE HOLDINGS, INC. Plaintiff appears and
opposes the motion.
In addition to opposing defendant's motion, plaintiff
moves, by cross-motion, pursuant to CPLR § 3212, for an order
granting it summary judgment against defendant. Defendant
appears and opposes plaintiff's motion.
For the reasons set forth below, defendant's motion (seq.
no. 001) is denied entirely, and plaintiff's cross-motion is
denied entirely.
BACKGROUND
On or about April 20, 2015, plaintiff, 99TH AVENUE
HOLDINGS, LLC (plaintiff), entered into a Lease Agreement (the
Lease) with non-party New York Communications Center Associates,
LP, (Landlord) for the premises located at 350 West 50th Street,
New York, NY, ground-floor, operated as TMPL Gym (the Gym) (see
New York State Court Electronic Filing System [NYSCEF] Doc. No.
26, Lease) . Pursuant to Paragraph 78 of the Lease, entitled
"Landlord's Contribution", Landlord agreed to reimburse
plaintiff up to $3,750,000.00 for renovation costs -- utenant
improvement funds" -- incurred by plaintiff within the first
year of the lease term (see id. at 1 78 [A]). The Lease further
provided as follows:
151688/2024 99TH AVENUE HOLDINGS, LLC vs. SCHATZ, LARRY H Page 2 of 18 Motion No. 001
2 of 18 [* 2] [FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/25/2025 03:30 P~ INDEX NO. 151688/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 47 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/25/2025
"{C) [Landlord ] sha ll pay t o [p lai ntiff ] the rema ining 1 0% [$375,000.00] of the [$3 , 750,000.00] promptly following the later to occur of the date ( i) [pl ain t iff] opens for busi ness to the gene ral public in the demised premises and ( ii) [plaintiff ] shall deliver to Landlord [] (y) all Building Department Fi li ng d ocument s, permi t s, and approvals, or su ch other evidence reasonably satisfactor y to Landl ord tha t the work is i n compliance wi th the Law [] " (D) No tw ithst anding the foregoing, [plain t iff ' s ] right t o co ll ect Landlord's Contr ibut ion shall exist only with respect to costs actual l y incurred by Te nant within the fi rst year o f the Term [], and to t he extent not ut ili zed within such period, Landlo rd' s Contribution shall be d eemed waived by Tenant and Landlord shall be under no further obligation to make any further payments to Tenant [] . "
(id.).
In October of 2016, plaintiff and non - party TSI Hel l 's
Kitchen , LLC (TSI) entered into discussions to sell the Gym to
TSI (see NYSCEF Doc. No . 00 2 , Comp lai nt). Plaintiff r e tained
defendant LARRY H SCHATZ (defendant) to represent plaint i ff for
t he p u r poses of th is sal e (see i d. ) .
In a ccordanc e with t h e sa l e, defendant d raf ted and
negotia ted an Asse t Purchase Agre ement (APA) and Assi gnment and
Assumption of Lease {As signment ) o n behalf of plaintiff . On or
abo u t November 22, 2017 , plaintiff, re p resented by defendant,
and TS I entered into t he APA and Assignment (see NYSCEF Doc . No.
003 , APA, dat ed November 22, 20 1 7; see a lso NYSCEF Doc. No. 004,
Assignment , dated December 11 , 2017 ).
De f endant a l so draf ted and negotiat ed a Consent Agreement,
en te red into between plaintiff and Landl ord on Decembe r 12, 2017
(se e NYSCEF Doc. No. 004, Consent Ag r eement , dated December 12 ,
151688/2024 99TH AVENUE HOLDINGS, LLC vs. SCHATZ, LARRY H Page 3 of 18 Motion No. 001
3 of 18 [* 3] [FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/25/2025 03:30 P~ INDEX NO. 151688/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 47 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/25/2025
2017}. The Consent Agreement required plaintiff to "obtain a
temporary certificate of occupancy (TCO} in connection with
certain alterations performed by tenant [plaintiff] in the
premises in respect of the permitted use" (id. at~ 3[a]}. It
also provided that, "failure of [plaintiff] to have obtained the
TCO as of the date of this Consent . . shall not be deemed to
be a default under the Lease, provided and on the condition,
that [plaintiff] shall promptly undertake and proceed with
diligence to obtain such TCO" (id.). Pursuant to the same,
plaintiff was required to give $250,000.00 to Landlord to hold
in escrow until plaintiff obtained the TCO (see id. at~ 3 [b)} 2
Thereafter, in accordance with the Consent Agreement,
plaintiff deposited $250,000.00 with Landlord, who had also held
the $375,000.00, representing ten percent of the $3,750,00.00
owed to plaintiff for renovation expenses (the TI Funds) (see
NYSCEF Doc. No. 002, Complaint). In total, Landlord retained
$625,000.00.
On or about September 22, 2020, the City of New York issued
the TCO with an effective date of September 29, 2020 (see NYSCEF
Doc. No. 005, TCO, dated September 29, 2020). However, Landlord
refused to release the $625,000.00 to plaintiff because TSI had
failed to make rent payments pursuant to the Lease, which
2 The Consent Agreement states, "Landlord may use any part of the TCO Security to satisfy any default or failure of Tenant" (NYSCEF Doc. No. 004, Consent Agreement, 1 3 [bl).
151688/2024 99TH AVENUE HOLDINGS, LLC vs. SCHATZ, LARRY H Page 4 of 18 Motion No. 001
[* 4] 4 of 18 [FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/25/2025 03:30 P~ INDEX NO. 151688/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 47 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/25/2025
plaintiff had assigned to TSI (see NYSCEF Doc . No. 002,
Complaint) .
On October 8, 2020, defendant demanded that Landlord
release the TI Funds "of $375,000.00 a s a final payment of [the ]
Tenant Improvement Allowance due to [plaintiff] plus the sum of
$250,000.00 as security for the issuance of a TCO [ ] which has
been issued" (NYSCEF Doc. No. 006, Demand Letter, dated October
08 , 2020) . Land l ord refused to release the funds.
Consequen t ly, on October 26, 20 20, p laintif f commenced an
action against TSI and Landlord to recover, among other things ,
the $625,0 00 .00 in funds al l egedly belonging to plaintiff (see
99th Avenue Holding s , LLC v TSI Hell's Kitchen LLC, New York
Communications Cente r Assoc ia tes, LP , SL Green Manag emen t, LLC
a nd RXR Realty LLC, Index No . 655667 / 2020 [A. Engoron, J . S.C.]
[Sup Ct, NY Cnty] [TSI Litigation] ) . Plaintiff retained non-party
Thomas Shanahan, Esq . (TS I Litiga t i on counsel), to represent it
in the TSI Litigat ion.
Throughout the TSI Litigation , TSI Lit igation counsel and
p l aintiff continued to confer with defendant (see NYSCEF Doc .
No . 18 , Email Exchanges between plaint iff , defendant, and TSI
lit igation counse l, dated November 5 , 2020 , through October 5,
2021). Though plaintiff successfully recovered the $250 , 000 . 00,
the court (A . Engo ron, J.S.C.) de clined to award plaintiff the
151688/2024 99TH AVENUE HOLDINGS, LLC vs. SCHATZ, LARRY H Page 5 of 18 Motion No. 001
5 of 18 [* 5] [FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/25/2025 03:30 P~ INDEX NO. 151688/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 47 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/25/2025
remaining $375,000.00 (see NYSCEF Doc. No. 12, TSI Litigation
Decision and Order, dated September 05, 2023).
Thereafter, on February 25, 2024, plaintiff commenced the
instant action against defendant LARRY H. SCHATZ for legal
malpractice. In the complaint, plaintiff alleges that
defendant, as counsel to plaintiff, had a duty to act in a
manner consistent with an attorney with "54 years of experience
in his field" (NYSCEF Doc. No. 002, Complaint). According to
plaintiff, defendant failed to exercise such skill and knowledge
when defendant omitted any reference to the $375,000.00 in the
APA, Assignment or Consent Agreement, and that but for
defendant's omission, plaintiff would have had a written
document memorializing the $375,000.00 and been able to recover
the funds as part of the TSI litigation (see id.}.
Defendant timely filed the instant pre-answer motion to
dismiss (seq. no. 001) plaintiff's complaint. In support of
dismissal, defendant argues that the complaint (1) is time
barred, pursuant to CPLR § 3211 (a) (5); (2) is barred by
documentary evidence, pursuant to CPLR § 3211 (a) (1); and
(3) fails to state a cause of action, pursuant to CPLR § 3211
(a) (7) (see NYSCEF Doc. No. 29, Memorandum of Law in Support of
Motion to Dismiss).
151688/2024 99TH AVENUE HOLDINGS, LLC vs. SCHATZ, LARRY H Page 6 of 18 Motion No. 001
[* 6] 6 of 18 [FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/25/2025 03:30 P~ INDEX NO. 151688/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 47 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/25/2025
Plaintiff opposes, and cross-moves for an order, pursuant
to CPLR § 3212, of summary judgment (see NYSCEF Doc. No. 33,
Notice of Cross-Motion).
ANALYSIS
MOTION TO DISMISS
Statute of Limitations
Pursuant to CPLR § 3211 (a) (5), a "party may move for
judgment dismissing one or more causes of action asserted
against him on the ground that [] the cause of action may not be
maintained because of the statute of limitations."
An action to recover damages arising from an attorney's
malpractice must be commenced within three years from the
accrual (see CPLR § 214 [6]). A legal malpractice claim accrues
"when all facts necessary to the cause of action have occurred
and an injured party can obtain relief in court" (~cCo~
Feinman, 99 NY2d 295, 301 [2002] quoting Ackerman v Price
Waterhouse, 84 NY2d 535, 541 [1994] [internal quotation marks
omitted]) .
Here, on October 8, 2020, defendant demanded that Landlord
release the $625,000.00 to plaintiff, which Landlord refused to
do (see NYSCEF Doc. No. 006, Demand Letter, dated October OB,
151688/2024 99TH AVENUE HOLDINGS, LLC vs. SCHATZ, LARRY H Page 7 of 18 Motion No. 001
[* 7] 7 of 18 [FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/25/2025 03:30 P~ INDEX NO. 151688/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 47 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/25/2025
2020). Thereafter, on October 26, 2020, plaintiff commenced the
TSI Litigation against Landlord to rec over the $625,000.00, and
retained new counsel to represent it in that proceeding. As a
general rule, the retention of the TSI Litigat i on counsel ended
the atto rney-client relationship between plaint i ff and defendant
(see Steinberg v Schnapp, 73 AD3d 171, 176 [1st Dept 201 0]; see
also Cohen v Grainer, Tesoriero & Bel l , 81 NY2d 655, 658 [1993]
Cerio v Koldin , 289 AD2d 1080 [4th Dept 2001 ) [finding that
attorney-client relationship ceased to exist when plaintiff
retained new counsel). Therefore, defendant avers that the
l egal malpractice cause of action accrued on or before October
26, 2020, and this action, commenced on February 25, 2 024, is
barred as untimely.
However, plaintiff alleges that defendant cont i nued to
confer with plaintiff and TSI Litigation counsel, as well as
provide le ga l advi ce and defense strategies, th roughou t the
entirety of the TSI Litigation, thereby tolling the statute of
limita tions pursuant to the continuous representation doctrine.
"The continuous representation doctrine tolls the statute
of limi tat ions . where there is a mutual understanding of
the need for further representation on the specific subject
underlying the malpractice claim" (Zorn v Gilbert, 8 NY3d 933 ,
934 [2007 ] quoting McCoy , 99 NY2d at 306). "For the continuous
representation doctrine t o apply t o an action sounding in legal
151688/2024 99TH AVENUE HOLDINGS, LLC vs. SCHATZ, LARRY H Page 8 of 18 Motion No. 001
[* 8] 8 of 18 [FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/25/2025 03:30 P~ INDEX NO. 151688/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 47 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/25/2025
malpractice, there must be clear indicia of an ongoing,
continuous, developing and dependent relationship between the
client and the attorney, which often includes an attempt by the
attorney to rectify the alleged act of malpractice" (Lavelle-
Tomko v Aswad & Ingraham, 191 AD3d 1142, 1145 [3d Dept 2021]
quoting Intl. Electron Devices (USA) LLC v Menter, Rudin &
Trivelpiece, P.C., 71 AD3d 1512, 1513 [4th Dept 2010]).
"[T]he continuous representation doctrine tolls the statute
of limitations only where the continuing representation pertains
specifically to the matter in which the attorney committed the
alleged malpractice" (Shumsky v Eisenstein, 96 NY2d 164, 168
[2001]; see Davis v Cohen & Gresser, LLP, 160 AD3d 484, 486 [1st
Dept 2018] [finding that in order to establish continuous
representation, the related matters must be "part of a
continuing, interconnected representation"). "Accordingly, the
doctrine tolls the running of the statute of limitations on
malpractice claims until the ongoing representation is
completed" (Encalada v McCarthy, Chachanover & Rosado, LLP, 160
AD3d 475, 476 (1st Dept 2019]).
At this juncture, particularly because plaintiff retained
new counsel in the TSI Litigation, the court can not determine
whether the continuous representation doctrine tolled the
statute of limitations. There are issues of fact as to whether
defendant's conferral with plaintiff and TSI Litigation counsel
151688/2024 99TH AVENUE HOLDINGS, LLC vs. SCHATZ, LARRY H Page 9 of 18 Motion No. 001
9 of 18 [* 9] [FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/25/2025 03:30 P~ INDEX NO. 151688/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 47 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/25/2025
from October 22, 2020, through October 5, 2021, constitutes an
attempt to rectify the alleged malpractice; whether there was a
clear delineation of an ongoing and continuous relationship
between plaintiff and defendant, and mutual understanding of the
same; and whether the sale of the Gym and the TSI litigation
were part of a continuing, interconnected representation (see
Red Zone LLC v Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP, 27 NY3d 1048,
1050 [2016] [finding that questions of fact exist regarding
whether the statute of limitations was tolled by the continuous
representation doctrine in light of "the absence of any clear
delineation of the period of such representationn and "the
changed nature of the alleged legal representation"]; see ~lso
Berger & Assoc. Attorneys, P.C. v Reich, Reich, & Reich, P.C.,
144 AD3d 543 [1st Dept 2016]; Davis, 160 AD3d at 486).
Further, defendant's submission of an affidavit disclaiming
any mutual understanding of legal representation after October
26, 2020, is contradicted by the allegations in plaintiff's
complaint, wherein plaintiff alleges that defendant was
"actively involved in the [TSI] Litigation and his opinion and
input were sought throughout" (see NYSCEF Doc. No. 23, Affidavit
of Larry H. Schatz, Esq.; _see also NYSCEF Doc. No. 002,
Complaint) _ These conflicting accounts further establish the
existence of issues of fact and preclude dismissal of
plaintiff's complaint on this pre-answer motion (see Red Zone
151688/2024 99TH AVENUE HOLDINGS, LLC vs. SCHATZ, LARRY H Page 10 of 18 Motion No. 001
[* 10] 10 of 18 [FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/25/2025 03:30 P~ INDEX NO. 151688/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 47 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/25/2025
LLC, 27 NY3d at 1050 [finding that issues of fact exist based on
defendant's submission of affidavit disclaiming any mutual
understanding of legal representation after certain time
period] ) .
Accordingly, because the continuous representation doctrine
may apply, the motion to dismiss is denied (see 1232 s. Blvd LLC
v FXFowle Architects, LLC, 233 AD3d 528, 529 [1st Dept
2024] [finding that defendant's motion to dismiss was properly
denied where continuous representation doctrine toll may
apply)) .
Documentary Evidence
"[On] a motion to dismiss on the ground that the action is
barred by documentary evidence, such motion may be appropriately
granted only where the documentary evidence utterly refutes
plaintiff's factual allegations, conclusively establishing a
defense as a matter of law" (Goshen v Mut. Life Ins. Co. of New
York, 98 NY2d 314, 326 [2002] citing Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d
83, 88 [1994]). A motion to dismiss based on documentary
evidence can only succeed if the documents submitted "utterly
refute the factual allegations of the complaint and conclusively
establish a defense to the claims as a matter of law" (MREF REIT
151688/2024 99TH AVENUE HOLDINGS, LLC vs. SCHATZ, LARRY H Page 11 of 18 Motion No. 001
11 of 18 [* 11] [FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/25/2025 03:30 P~ INDEX NO. 151688/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 47 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/25/2025
Lender LLC v FPG Maiden Holdings LLC, 233 AD3d 482, 484 [1st
Dept 2024]) .
Defendant produces the 2015 Lease to support his position
that plaintiff can not establish the "but forll causation element
of a legal malpractice cause of action (see NYSCEF Doc. No. 26,
Lease, dated April 20, 2015). Specifically, defendant argues
that (1) he did not represent plaintiff in negotiating and
executing the Lease, and (2) the Lease establishes that the
$375,000.00 at issue represents the final 10% installment of the
TI Funds to be paid to plaintiff upon procurement of the TCO,
which plaintiff failed to procure within the requisite time
frame. Therefore, it is defendant's position that plaintiff's
own negligence caused it to forfeit its entitlement to the
remaining $375,000.00 of the TI Funds.
However, this argument is unavailing. While it is
unconverted that defendant did not represent plaintiff in
negotiating and executing the Lease, defendant did represent
plaintiff in connection with the sale of the Gym, for which
defendant drafted the APA, Assignment, and Consent Agreement.
The APA, Assignment, and Consent Agreement are the documents at
issue here. Indeed, the crux of plaintiff's legal malpractice
cause of action centers on the allegation that defendant omitted
any reference to the $375,000.00 in those documents, precluding
151688/2024 99TH AVENUE HOLDINGS, LLC vs. SCHATZ, LARRY H Page 12 of 18 Motion No. 001
[* 12] 12 of 18 [FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/25/2025 03:30 P~ INDEX NO. 151688/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 47 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/25/2025
plaintiff from recovering the funds (see NYSCEF Doc. No. 002,
Complaint).
Further, a plain reading of Paragraph 78 of the Lease does
not support defendant's position that plaintiff's failure to
obtain the TCO within the first year of the lease term resulted
in a forfeiture of the $375,000.00. Specifically, subsection A
of Paragraph 78 provides that Landlord agreed to reimburse
plaintiff up to $3,750,000.00 for renovation costs incurred by
plaintiff within the first year of the lease term, and
subsection D provides that plaintiff's entitlement to
reimbursement extends only to costs actualJ-y incurred within the
first year of the lease term (NYSCEF Doc. No. 26, Lease).
Therefore, plaintiff was entitled to reimbursement of any
renovation costs incurred from May 1, 2015, through May 1, 2016,
and any costs incurred thereafter were deemed waived.
However, subsection C of Paragraph 78, which permitted
Landlord to withhold 10% of the reimbursement amount until
plaintiff opened for business and secured all building
department approvals, does not contain the same strict time
requirements as subsections A and D. It does not require
plaintiff to obtain the TCO within the first year of the lease
term to receive its final reimbursement of the TI Funds, as
defendant suggests. Instead, it provides that Landlord not issue
final reimbursement for any renovation costs incurred from May
151688/2024 99TH AVENUE HOLDINGS, LLC vs. SCHATZ, LARRY H Page 13 of 18 Motion No. 001
13 of 18 [* 13] [FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/25/2025 03:30 P~ INDEX NO. 151688/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 47 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/25/2025
01, 2015, to May 01, 2016, until such time plaintiff secured the
TCO. Where, as here, "the terms of a contract are clear and
unamb i guous, the in tent of the parties must be found within the
four corners of the contract, giving a pract i cal interpretation
to the language employed and reading the contract as a whole"
(E ll ing t on v EMI Music, Inc., 24 NY3d 239, 244 [ 2014] citing
Greenfield v Philles Records, 98 NY2d 562, 569 [2002]).
Further, at the t i me the Consent Agreement was e n tered into
i n 2017, plaintiff had yet to obtain the TCO (see NYSCEF Doc.
No. 004, Consent Agreement at 1 3 [a]) . I f i t i s defenda nt 's
position that plaintiff was required to obtain the TCO within
the first year of the l ease term, then p laintiff was already
del inquent and forfeited its right to reimbursement of the
$375,000.00 when the Consent Agreement, APA, a nd Assignment were
ente r ed into . This position i s directly contradicted by the
affirmation defendant submitted on beha l f o f plaintiff in the
TSI Litigation, which plain tiff attaches to its complaint,
wherein defendant aff irms , "at the ti me of the assignment [on
December 11, 2017 ] , Landlord was admit tedly indebted to
[plaintiff ] in t he sum of $375,000.00 represent i ng the final
installment of the Tena nt Al l owance for building improvements"
(NYS CEF Doc. No. 009, Defendant's Affirmation i n Support of
Emergency App l ication in TSI Litigation) (emphasi s added) .
151688/2024 99TH AVENUE HO LDINGS, LLC vs. SCHATZ, LARRY H Page 14 of 18 Motion No. 001
14 of 18 [* 14] [FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/25/2025 03:30 P~ INDEX NO. 151688/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 47 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/25/2025
In sum, the documentary evidence defendant submits does not
utterly refute plaintiff's factual allegations. Accordingly, at
this pre-discovery stage of the instant action, dismissal is not
appropriate (see IMO Indus. V Anderson Kill & Olick, 267 AD2d
10, 11 [1st Dept 1999] citing Leon, 84 NY2d at 88).
Failure to State a Cause of Action
"On a CPLR § 3211 (a) ( 7) motion to dismiss for failure to
state a cause of action, the complaint must be construed in the
light most favorable to the plaintiff and all factual
allegations must be accepted as true" (Alden Glob. Value
Recovery Master Fund, L.P. v KeyBank Nat'l Ass'n, 159 AD3d 618,
621 [1st Dept 2018] citing 219 Broadway Corp. v Alexander's,
Inc., 46 NY2d 506 [1979]). Further, on such a motion, the
complaint is to be construed liberally and all reasonable
inferences must be drawn in favor of the plaintiff (see Leon, 84
NY2d at 87). "Whatever an ultimate trial may disclose as to the
truth of the allegations, on such a motion, a court is to take
them as true and resolve all inferences which reasonably flow
therefrom in favor of the pleader" (Sander v Winship, 57 NY2d
391, 394 [1982] [emphasis added]).
In order to establish a cause of action for legal
malpractice, a plaintiff must establish "(l) the negligence of
151688/2024 99TH AVENUE HOLDINGS, LLC vs. SCHATZ, LARRY H Page 15 of 18 Motion No. 001
[* 15] 15 of 18 [FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/25/2025 03:30 P~ INDEX NO. 151688/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 47 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/25/2025
the attorney; (2) that the negligence was the proximate cause of
the loss sustainedi and (3) proof of actual damagesll (Ulico Cas.
Co. v Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, 56 AD3d 1, 10
[1st Dept 2008]). •rt requires the plaintiff to establish that
counsel failed to exercise the ordinary reasonable skill and
knowledge commonly possessed by a member of the legal profession
and that 'but for' the attorney's negligence, the plaintiff
would have prevailed in the matter or would have avoided
damages" (id., quoting AmBase Corp. v Davis Polk & Wardwell, 8
NY2d 428, 434 [2007] [internal quotation marks omitted]).
Applying these principals -- and construing the complaint
liberally, drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of
plaintiff, and determining whether the facts as alleged fit into
any cognizable legal theory -- the court denies the motion to
dismiss plaintiff's complaint.
Plaintiff adequately pleads that (1) defendant, who
represented plaintiff in the sale of the Gym, owed plaintiff a
duty of care with respect to the legal advice and representation
he offered in connection with that sale; and (2) that
defendant's failure to memorialize the $375,000.00 in the APA,
Assignment, or Consent Agreement caused plaintiff to sustain the
loss of the $375,000.00 in TI funds (see NYSCEF Doc. No. 002,
Complaint). These allegations are sufficiently pled to assert
the elements of a legal malpractice cause of action.
151688/2024 99TH AVENUE HOLDINGS, LLC vs. SCHATZ, LARRY H Page 16 of 18 Motion No. 001
[* 16] 16 of 18 [FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/25/2025 03:30 P~ INDEX NO. 151688/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 47 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/25/2025
Though defendant relies on his own affidavit to refute the
factual allegations contained in plaintiff's complaint, whether
plaintiff can ultimately prevail on these allegations is not
relevant on this pre-answer motion to dismiss {see Cortlandt
street Recovery Corp. v Benderman, 31 NY3d 30, 47 [2018]).
Accordingly, defendant's motion (seq. no. 001) to dismiss
is denied entirely.
CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Summary judgment is a drastic remedy and is only
appropriate where the movant has established that there is no
question of fact on any issue which would require a trial (see
Andre v Pomeroy, 35 NY2d 361, 364 [1974]; see also Bronx-Lebanon
Hosp. Ctr. V Mount Eden Ctr., 161 AD2d 480, 480 [1st Dept
1990] [reasoning that "summary judgment is a drastic remedy, the
procedural equivalent of a trial [] it should not be granted
where there is any doubt about the issue"]). The court may
grant summary judgment upon prima facie showing of entitlement
to judgment as a matter of law, through admissible evidence
sufficient to eliminate material issues of fact (CPLR § 3212 [b];
Nomura Asset Capital Corp. v Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP,
26 NY3d 40, 49 [2015]; Alvarez v Prospect Hos~, 68 NY2d 320,
151688/2024 99TH AVENUE HOLDINGS, LLC vs. SCHATZ, LARRY H Page 17 of 18 Motion No. 001
[* 17] 17 of 18 [FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/25/2025 03:30 P~ INDEX NO. 151688/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 47 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/25/2025
324 [1986); Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851
[1985]) .
However, summary judgment is premature if as here --
discovery is in its infancy (see gu~man v City of New York, 171
AD3d 653, 653 [1st Dept 2019] [holding that summary judgment
motion was premature where no discovery had been conducted]; see
also New Hampshire Ins. Co. v Clearwater Ins. Co., 129 AD3d 99,
117 [1st Dept 2015] ["summary judgment motion was premature,
given it was made when discovery was still in its infancynJ)
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that motion (sequence no. 001} of defendant LARRY H
SCHATZ to dismiss the complaint of plaintiff 99TH AVENUE
HOLDINGS, LLC is denied entirely; it is further
ORDERED that the cross-motion of plaintiff 99TH AVENUE
HOLDINGS, LLC for an order of summary judgment is denied
entirely; it is further
ORDERED that the parties shall appear for a virtual status
conference in Part 42M on June 23, 2025, at 10:30 A.M.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
3/13/2025 ~~~~(~ DATE RALES-MINERVA, J.S.C.
~ CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED NON-FINAL ;ISPOSITION
APPLICATION:
CHECK IF APPROPRIATE:
Motion No. 001 GRANTED
SETTLE ORDER 0 DENIED
INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN
151688/2024 99TH AVENUE HOLDINGS, LLC vs. SCHATZ, LARRY H 8GRANTED IN PART
SUBMIT ORDER
FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT □ OTHER
□ REFERENCE
Page 18 of 18
18 of 18 [* 18]