AFC Agent LLC v. JG HoldCo LLC

2026 NY Slip Op 31064(U)

• Court: New York Supreme Court, New York County
• Decided: March 17, 2026
• Docket: Index No. 652644/2025
• Status: Unpublished
• Author: Andrew Borrok

Opinion

AFC Agent LLC v JG HoldCo LLC 2026 NY Slip Op 31064(U) March 17, 2026 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 652644/2025 Judge: Andrew Borrok 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.

file:///LRB-ALB-FS1/Vol1/ecourts/Process/covers/NYSUP.6526442025.NEW_YORK.001.LBLX038_TO.html[03/26/2026 3:45:32 PM] FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/17/2026 12:35 PM INDEX NO. 652644/2025 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 81 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/17/2026

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK: COMMERCIAL DIVISION PART 53 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------X AFC AGENT LLC INDEX NO. 652644/2025

Plaintiff, 07/10/2025, MOTION DATE 01/23/2026 -v- JG HOLDCO LLC, MOTION SEQ. NO. 002 003

Defendant. DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

HON. ANDREW BORROK:

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 002) 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 41, 42, 43 were read on this motion to/for DISMISSAL .

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 003) 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79 were read on this motion to/for MISCELLANEOUS .

Upon the foregoing documents, the Defendant’s motion (Mtn. Seq. No. 002) to dismiss is

DENIED.

Simply put, the Defendant in this case is not entitled to dismissal based on the preliminary

injunction issued by the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (Zahid N.

Quraishi, J.) and the court’s (the NJ Federal Court) findings “for the limited purposes of this

motion” (NYSCEF Doc. No. 27 at 16-17, 24; NYSCEF Doc. No. 26) that the borrower had

demonstrated a likelihood of success that, among other things, (i) the lender breached the

Reopening Agreement (not the borrower), (ii) the obligation to deliver financial statements was

waived, and (iii) the conduct of Tim Bossidy (which the NJ Federal Court attributed to the

652644/2025 AFC AGENT LLC vs. JG HOLDCO LLC Page 1 of 4 Motion No. 002 003

1 of 4 [* 1] FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/17/2026 12:35 PM INDEX NO. 652644/2025 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 81 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/17/2026

lender, not the borrower [NYSCEF Doc. No. 27 at 29]), caused the failure to obtain the required

certificate of occupancy.

The granting or denial of a motion for a preliminary injunction does not constitute an

adjudication on the merits. It is a provisional remedy designed to maintain the status quo rather

than conclusively resolve legal disputes (Ratner v Fountains Clove Rd.-Apartments, Inc., 118

AD2d 843 [2d Dept 1986]; see JY Not So Common L.P. v P&R Bronx, LLC, 79 Misc 3d 626, 630

[Sup Ct, Bronx County 2023] and Trustco Bank v. Pearl Mont Commons, LLC, 55 Misc 3d 371,

375 [Sup Ct, Schenectady County 2016]; Moore v Ruback's Grove Campers' Ass'n, Inc., 85

AD3d 1220, 1221 [3d Dept 2011]; Lackey v Stinnie, 604 US 192 [2025]). As such, dismissal

based on the preliminary injunction is simply not appropriate.

Although JG HoldCo LLC (HoldCo) was subsequently added as a plaintiff to the lawsuit

pending in the NJ Federal Court, the Defendant is also not entitled to dismissal based on CPLR

3211(a)(4). However, HoldCo is not wrong that the preliminary injunction granted by the NJ

Federal Court is significant. Of course, it is. Thus, while dismissal is inappropriate at this stage,

the Defendant may well be entitled to a stay of this litigation pending adjudication by the NJ

Federal Court on the issue as to whether there has been an underlying borrower default.

The motion (Mtn. Seq. No. 003) seeking to compel is DENIED without prejudice as premature.

The Plaintiff simply does not meet its burden in demonstrating that the Defendant is refusing to

engage in proportionate discovery warranting an order compelling discovery at this time. On the

record before the Court, the Defendant in this case does not object to engage in discovery. The

652644/2025 AFC AGENT LLC vs. JG HOLDCO LLC Page 2 of 4 Motion No. 002 003

2 of 4 [* 2] FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/17/2026 12:35 PM INDEX NO. 652644/2025 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 81 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/17/2026

search terms (and the revised search terms) provided by the Plaintiff have produced too many

hits. The Plaintiff simply has not properly explained why the search terms proposed by the

Defendant are inadequate and the parties do not appear to have met and conferred to bridge any

perceived gap in the Defendant’s proposed search terms. In any event, the record is not

sufficiently developed as to the scope of any actual disagreement, and the parties are directed to

meet and confer. The branch of the motion seeking sanctions is also DENIED without prejudice.

The Court has considered the parties’ remaining arguments and finds them unavailing.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that HoldCo’s motion (Mtn. Seq. No. 002) to dismiss is

DENIED; and it is further

ORDERED that HoldCo is ORDERED to file an answer within 20 days of this Decision and

Order; and it is further

ORDERED that HoldCo is granted leave to move by Order to Show Cause to seek a stay of this

action pending adjudication of the lawsuit pending the NJ Federal Court; and it is further

ORDERED that the branch of AFC Agent LLC’s motion (Mtn. Seq. No. 003) seeking to compel

responses to certain of AFC Agent LLC’s First Requests for Production and First Set of

Interrogatories is DENIED without prejudice as premature; and it is further

652644/2025 AFC AGENT LLC vs. JG HOLDCO LLC Page 3 of 4 Motion No. 002 003

3 of 4 [* 3] FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/17/2026 12:35 PM INDEX NO. 652644/2025 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 81 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/17/2026

ORDERED that the branch of AFC Agent LLC’s motion (Mtn. Seq. No. 003) seeking attorneys’

fees and costs is DENIED without prejudice.

3/17/2026 DATE ANDREW BORROK, J.S.C. CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED X NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

□ GRANTED X DENIED GRANTED IN PART OTHER

APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER

□ CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT REFERENCE

652644/2025 AFC AGENT LLC vs. JG HOLDCO LLC Page 4 of 4 Motion No. 002 003

4 of 4 [* 4]