Battle v. 22 St Nicholas, LLC

2024 NY Slip Op 33580(U)

• Court: New York Supreme Court, Kings County
• Decided: October 8, 2024
• Docket: Index No. 147/2023
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Battle v 22 St Nicholas, LLC 2024 NY Slip Op 33580(U) October 8, 2024 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: Index No. 147/2023 Judge: Richard Velasquez 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 10/08/2024 04:35 PM INDEX NO. 147/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 301 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/08/2024

At an IA Term Part 66 of the upreme Court of the tate of ew York held in and for the County of Kings, at the Courthou e, at 360 Adams Street, Brooklyn, e~ York, on the 8th day of October, 2024 PRESENT: HON. RICHARD VELASQUEZ Justice. ------------------------------------------------------------------------X AL CORT BATTLE ,, Plaintiff, Index No.: 147/2023 -against- Decision and Order Mot. Seq. No. 26, 28 ,29 22 ST NICHOLAS, LLC , Defendants, -----------------------------------------------------------------------------X The following papers NYSCEF Doc #'s 241 to 286 were read and considered on this motion :

After having come before the Court on July 31 , 2024 and the Court having taken

said motions on subm ission the court finds as follows:

Motion sequence number 26 is a motion requesting leave of the Court, to reargue

and renew its decision dated May 10, 2024, in motion sequence no. 2, and granting any

and all relief, that was requested in motion sequence no. 4; and/or (B) awardin g the costs ,

disbursements, and reasonable fees in this proceeding . Plaintiff contends this court

misapplied the law. Defendant partially opposes the same , but does not oppose the court

reversing the den ial of their sanctions request.

Motion sequence number 28 is a motion by the plaintiff pursuant to CPLR §

5015(A)[3] vacating this Court's May 10th, 2024 order, in the interests of substantial

justice on the basis that plaintiff alleges Defendant defrauded this Court, into misapplying

controlling principles of law, specifically the NY Court of Appeals held that the Supreme

Court has concurrent jurisdiction with NY DHCR , over Plaintiffs first cause of action .;or

1 of 4 [* 1] FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 10/08/2024 04:35 PM INDEX NO. 147/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 301 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/08/2024

(B) as an alternative, consolidating this motion with motion sequence # 26 , which is to

reargue and renew this Court's decision stating that NYS DHCR has primary jurisdiction ,

of Plaintiffs first cause of action , where the Court misapplied controlling principles of law;

or granting Plaintiff relief pursuant to a Court's inherent discretionary power, to vacate an

order or judgment, in the interests of substantial justice, and awarding the costs,

disbursements, and reasonable fees in this proceeding . Defendant opposes the same.

Motion sequence number 29 is a motion for numerous sanctions against

defendants counsel.

ANALYSIS

CPLR 2221 in pertinent part states: "(d) A motion for leave to reargue : 1. shall be

identified specifically as such ; 2. shall be based upon matters of fact or law allegedly

overlooked or misapprehended by the court in determining the prior motion, but shall not

include any matters of fact not offered on the prior motion; and 3. shall be made with in

thirty days after service of a copy of the order determining the prior motion and written

notice of its entry . CPLR 2221 (d)(2) articulates the standards previously outlined in the

caselaw. A motion to reargue , it says: "sha ll be based upon matters of fact or law allegedly

overlooked or misapprehended by the court in determ ining the prior motion but shall not

include any matters of fact not offered on the prior motion . CPLR 2221 .

Under the caselaw existing prior to the 1999 amendments, a motion for re-

argument was often used when there was a change in the law after the prior order. CPLR

2221 (e)(2) now clarifies that the motion to renew, not the motion to reargue , is the proper

expedient when the motion is based on a change in the law that occurs while the case is

still subjudice, such as a new statute taking effect or a defin itive ruling on a relevant point

of law being handed down by an appellate court that is entitled to stare decisis. See

2 of 4 [* 2] FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 10/08/2024 04:35 PM INDEX NO. 147/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 301 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/08/2024

Siegel, New York Practice 449 (4th ed. 2005). The distinction , made clear in the caselaw

and now embodied in the statute, is that the motion to renew involves new proof while the

motion to reargue does not; it merely seeks to convince the court that it overlooked or

misapprehended something the first time around and ought to change its mind . NY CPLR

2221 . Additionally , A court has inherent discretionary power to vacate an order or

judgment in the interests of substantial justice. See Woodson v. Mendon Leasing Corp.,

100 NY2d 62 , 760 NYS2d 727, 790 NE2d 1156 (2003) .

In the present case , Plaintiff contends that in deciding the previous motion and

dismissing the matter on collateral estoppel grounds , the Court overlooked or

misapprehended relevant facts or misapplied controll ing principles of law. The Court can

find nothing in Plaintiff's renewal which indicates that the Court overlooked or

misapprehended relevant facts or law at that time . Plaintiff fails to set forth any facts that

the Court overlooked , however, but contend apparently that the Court misapplied

controlling principles of law . The Court disagrees. As such plaintiffs motion to reargue is

hereby denied .

CPLR 5015(a)(3) states in pertinent part; on motion by a party "the court which

rendered a judgment or order may relieve a party from it upon such terms as may be just,

on motion of any interested person with such notice as the court may direct, upon the

ground of (3) fraud , misrepresentation , or other misconduct of an adverse party." See

CPLR 5015(a)(3). Plaintiff contends the court should vacate the May 10, 2024 decision

on these grounds. The court finds nothing in the record that supports the plaintiff

unsubstantiated fraud and misrepresentation claims . As such , plaintiff motion to vacate

the May 10, 2024 order is hereby denied .

Pursuant to NY Ct Rules§ 130-1 .1. Costs; Sanctions (a) The court, in its discretion ,

3 of 4 [* 3] FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 10/08/2024 04:35 PM INDEX NO. 147/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 301 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/08/2024

may award to any party or attorney in any civil action or proceeding before the court,

except where prohibited by law, costs in the form of reimbu rsement for actual expenses

reasonably incurred and reasonable attorney's fees, resulting from frivolous conduct as

defined in this Part. In addition to or in lieu of awarding costs, the court, in its discretion

may impose financial sanctions upon any party or attorney in a civil action or proceeding

who engages in frivolous conduct as defined in this Part, which shall be payable as

provided in section 130-1.3 of this Part." NY Ct. R. 130-1 .1 (McKinney). In the present

case this court declines to award sanctions. As such th is motion is hereby denied .

Accordingly , plaintiffs request to reargue is hereby denied. (MS#26) . Plaintiffs

request to vacate this courts decision dated May 10, 2024 is hereby denied in its entirety.

(MS# 28) . Plaintiffs motion for sanctions is hereby denied in its entirety . (MS#29).

This constitutes the Decision/Order of the court.

Dated : Brooklyn , New York October 8, 2024 ENTER FORTHWITH :

HO~~LASQUEZ

Hon.Rkted\JelMquet,JSC

-{ 0'o 1~1~ \)\, \

[* 4] 4 of 4