Ambase Corp. v. 111 W. 57th Sponsor LLC

2025 NY Slip Op 31794(U)

Opinion

Ambase Corp. v 111 W. 57th Sponsor LLC 2025 NY Slip Op 31794(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. 1264 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 02/28/2025 MEZZ 1 LLC, MOTION SEQ. NO. 034 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 034) 1140, 1141, 1142, 1143, 1144, 1145, 1146, 1148, 1149, 1167, 1176, 1180, 1202, 1203, 1205, 1206, 1207, 1208, 1209, 1211, 1246, 1247 were read on this motion to SEAL .

Non-parties American General Life Insurance Co. (”AGLIC”), Variable Annuity Life

Insurance Co. (“VALIC”), The United States Life Insurance Co. in the City of New York

(“USLIC), Corebridge Institutional Investments (U.S.), LLC (formerly known as AIG Asset

Management (U.S.), LLC) (“Corebridge,” and together with AGLIC, VALIC, and USLIC, the

“Requesting Parties”)1 move for an order sealing and/or redacting a certain document produced

1 While the Motion to Seal was filed on behalf of American International Group (“AIG”), the parties filed a stipulation which agreed that the motion should have been brought in the name of

652301/2016 AMBASE CORPORATION vs. 111 WEST 57TH SPONSOR LLC Page 1 of 4 Motion No. 034

1 of 4 [* 1] INDEX NO. 652301/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1264 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/15/2025

by AIG (NYSCEF 974 [“Ex. CC”]) that was filed by Defendants as an Exhibit to their motion

for Summary Judgment. No parties have opposed this motion. For the following reasons, the

Requesting Parties’ motion is granted.

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

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])

Here, the Court has reviewed NYSCEF 974 and finds that sealing comports with the

applicable sealing standards as laid out in Mosallem, 76 AD3d at 348-50, and its progeny, in that

it contains sensitive commercial information relating to the Requesting Parties’ internal business

strategies, market analyses, and investment evaluations, the disclosure of which could provide an

the Requesting Parties, i.e., corporate entities who were subject to certain disclosure obligations in the Action (see NYSCEF 1203; 1246).

652301/2016 AMBASE CORPORATION vs. 111 WEST 57TH SPONSOR LLC Page 2 of 4 Motion No. 034

2 of 4 [* 2] INDEX NO. 652301/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1264 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/15/2025

advantage to the Requesting Parties’ competitors (Mancheski v Gabelli Group Capital Partners,

39 AD3d 499, 502 [2d Dept 2007] [“disclosure could impinge on the privacy rights of third

parties who clearly are not litigants herein”]).

The Requesting Parties did not provide any basis for sealing the papers filed in support of

this motion (NYSCEF 1141, 1142, 1143, 1205, 1206, 1207) or include these documents in their

sealing chart. Therefore, the Court concludes that the Requesting Parties are not moving to seal

these documents, and the Clerk shall be directed to unseal them.

Accordingly, it is:

ORDERED that the Requesting Parties’ Motion is GRANTED; it is further

ORDERED that the County Clerk shall maintain NYSCEF Document Number(s) 974

and 1145 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 Clerk shall unseal NYSCEF 1141, 1142, 1143, 1205, 1206, 1207; it

is further

ORDERED that the Requesting Parties 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 Electronically Filed Cases (accessible at the “E-Filing” page on the court’s

website); it is further

ORDERED as it related to future submissions, made by any party, that contain subject

matter that the Court has authorized to be sealed by this Order, parties may file a joint

stipulation, to be So Ordered, which will authorize the filing of such future submissions to be

652301/2016 AMBASE CORPORATION vs. 111 WEST 57TH SPONSOR LLC Page 3 of 4 Motion No. 034

3 of 4 [* 3] INDEX NO. 652301/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1264 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/15/2025

filed in redacted form on NYSCEF, provided that an unredacted copy of any redacted document

is contemporaneously filed under seal; and it is further

ORDERED that nothing in this Order shall be construed as authorizing the sealing or

redactions of any documents or evidence to be offered at trial.

5/15/2025 DATE JOEL M. COHEN, J.S.C. CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED X NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

X GRANTED DENIED GRANTED IN PART OTHER

APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER

CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT REFERENCE

652301/2016 AMBASE CORPORATION vs. 111 WEST 57TH SPONSOR LLC Page 4 of 4 Motion No. 034

4 of 4 [* 4]