Ambase Corp. v. 111 W. 57th Sponsor LLC
This text of 2025 NY Slip Op 31795(U) (Ambase Corp. v. 111 W. 57th Sponsor LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court, New York County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Ambase Corp. v 111 W. 57th Sponsor LLC 2025 NY Slip Op 31795(U) May 15, 2025 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 652301/2016 Judge: Joel M. Cohen 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. INDEX NO. 652301/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1265 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/15/2025
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK: COMMERCIAL DIVISION PART 03M -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------X AMBASE CORPORATION, 111 WEST 57TH MANAGER INDEX NO. 652301/2016 FUNDING LLC,111 WEST 57TH INVESTMENT LLC, ON BEHALF OF ITSELF AND DERIVATIVELY ON BEHALF OF 111 WEST 57TH PARTNERS LLC,111 WEST 57TH MOTION DATE 03/07/2025 MEZZ 1 LLC, MOTION SEQ. NO. 035 Plaintiffs,
-v- DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION 111 WEST 57TH SPONSOR LLC,111 WEST 57TH CONTROL LLC,111 WEST 57TH DEVELOPER LLC,KEVIN MALONEY, MATTHEW PHILLIPS, MICHAEL STERN, NED WHITE, 111 CONSTRUCTION MANAGER LLC,PROPERTY MARKETS GROUP, INC.,JDS DEVELOPMENT LLC,JDS CONSTRUCTION GROUP, LLC,PMG CONSTRUCTION GROUP LLC,MANAGER MEMBER 111W57 LLC,LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, 111 WEST 57TH PARTNERS LLC (AS A NOMINAL DEFENDANT), 111 WEST 57TH MEZZ 1 LLC,
Defendants. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------X
HON. JOEL M. COHEN:
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 035) 1151, 1152, 1153, 1154, 1155, 1156, 1157, 1158, 1159, 1160, 1161, 1162, 1163, 1164, 1165, 1166, 1168, 1169 were read on this motion to SEAL .
Defendants move for an order sealing and/or redacting certain portions of NYSCEF 950,
1037, 1038, 1039, 1040, 1041, 1043, 1102, and 1107 filed in connection with the parties’
summary judgment motions. No parties oppose this motion. For the following reasons,
Defendants’ motion is granted in part.
Pursuant to § 216.1 (a) of the Uniform Rules for Trial Courts, this Court may seal a filing
“upon a written finding of good cause, which shall specify the grounds thereof. In determining
652301/2016 AMBASE CORPORATION vs. 111 WEST 57TH SPONSOR LLC Page 1 of 4 Motion No. 035
1 of 4 [* 1] INDEX NO. 652301/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1265 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/15/2025
whether good cause has been shown, the court shall consider the interests of the public as well as
of the parties” (22 NYCRR § 216.1 [a]).
The Appellate Division has emphasized that “there is a broad presumption that the public
is entitled to access to judicial proceedings and court records” (Mosallem v Berenson, 76 AD3d
345, 348 [1st Dept 2010]). “Since the right [of public access to court proceedings] is of
constitutional dimension, any order denying access must be narrowly tailored to serve
compelling objectives, such as a need for secrecy that outweighs the public's right to access”
(Danco Labs., Ltd. v Chemical Works of Gedeon Richter, Ltd., 274 AD2d 1, 6 [1st Dept 2000]
[emphasis added]; see also, e.g. Gryphon Dom. VI, LLC v APP Intern. Fin. Co., B.V., 28 AD3d
322, 324 [1st Dept 2006]). “Furthermore, because confidentiality is the exception and not the
rule, ‘the party seeking to seal court records has the burden to demonstrate compelling
circumstances to justify restricting public access’” (Maxim, Inc. v Feifer, 145 AD3d 516, 517
[1st Dept 2016] [citations omitted]).
The Court has reviewed the term sheet, dated March 5, 2018; Preferred 111W57 LLC
Operating Agreement, dated May 7, 2018; Manager 111W57 LLC Operating Agreement, dated
May 7, 2018; JV 111W57 LLC Agreement, dated May 7, 2018; Construction Management
Agreement, dated May 4, 2018; Development Agreement, dated May 4, 2018; 111 West 57th
JDS LLC Operating Agreement, dated March 3, 2014 (NYSCEF 1037, 1038, 1039, 1040, 1041,
1043, and 1107), and finds that Defendants have not demonstrated a sufficient basis for sealing
these documents. The fact that the parties have stipulated to sealing documents, or that they have
designated the documents during discovery as “Confidential” or “Highly Confidential,” does not,
by itself, require granting of the motion” (see, e.g., Maxim, 145 AD3d at 518; Gryphon, 28
AD3d at 324). While portions of these documents may include sensitive commercial
652301/2016 AMBASE CORPORATION vs. 111 WEST 57TH SPONSOR LLC Page 2 of 4 Motion No. 035
2 of 4 [* 2] INDEX NO. 652301/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1265 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/15/2025
information, Defendants have not demonstrated that any such concern cannot be adequately
protected through targeted redactions. In view of the admonition that sealing of court records
must be “narrowly tailored to serve compelling objectives,” (Danco, 274 AD2d at 6), Defendants
will need to propose and justify targeted redactions that satisfy the requirements of 22 NYCRR §
216 (a) and applicable case law. NYSCEF 1037, 1038, 1039, 1040, 1041, 1043, and 1107 will
remain provisionally under seal to permit the prompt filing of a follow-up motion proposing and
explaining the need for specific redactions.
However, the proposed redactions of the deposition transcript of Michael Stern (filed at
NYSCEF 950 and 1102, with redacted versions at NYSCEF 1155, 1156) are approved.
Finally, the Court notes that two other documents were filed under seal, but no parties
have moved to seal these documents: NYSCEF 1048, 1049. However, Plaintiffs have filed
several requests for temporary restricted status of these documents since they were filed in
February 2025 (NYSCEF 1139, 1150, 170, 1177, 1179, 1201, 1204, 1252). A motion must be
made within seven (7) days of the date of this Order to cover these documents, or they will be
unsealed. Plaintiffs should be advised that the Court will not grant full sealing of memorandum
of law or Rule 19-a Statements, and any proposed redactions must be narrowly tailored.
Accordingly, it is:
ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion is GRANTED IN PART; it is further
ORDERED that the County Clerk shall maintain NYSCEF Document Number(s) 950,
1102, 1157, 1158, 1164, and 1165 under seal, so that the documents may only be accessible by
the parties, their counsel, and authorized court personnel; it is further
ORDERED that the documents filed as NYSCEF 1037, 1038, 1039, 1040, 1041, 1043,
1107, 1159, 1160, 1161, 1162, and 1163 shall remain provisionally sealed for 21 days from the
652301/2016 AMBASE CORPORATION vs. 111 WEST 57TH SPONSOR LLC Page 3 of 4 Motion No. 035
3 of 4 [* 3] INDEX NO. 652301/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1265 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/15/2025
date of the Court's entry of this Decision and Order on NYSCEF. If the parties file a new motion
to seal or redact confidential portions of the documents consistent with this Decision and Order
within that 21-day period, the documents shall remain provisionally sealed pending resolution of
that motion. If no such motion is filed within 21 days from the entry of this Decision and Order,
the parties shall within three business days thereafter file unredacted/unsealed copies of the
documents on NYSCEF; it is further
ORDERED that Defendants shall serve a copy of this order upon the Clerk’s Office
within five (5) days of the date of this Order, and such service shall be made in accordance with
the procedures set forth in the Protocol on Courthouse and County Clerk Procedures for
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2025 NY Slip Op 31795(U), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ambase-corp-v-111-w-57th-sponsor-llc-nysupctnewyork-2025.