Bikes by Olga LLC v. People

2024 NY Slip Op 31336(U)

• Court: New York Supreme Court, Kings County
• Decided: April 16, 2024
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Bikes by Olga LLC v People 2024 NY Slip Op 31336(U) April 16, 2024 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: Index No. 506816/2021 Judge: Leon Ruchelsman 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 04/16/2024 02:09 PM INDEX NO. 506816/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 244 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/16/2024

SUPREME COURT OF THE STA.TE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS : CIVIL TERM: COMMERCIAL PART 8 - - - - - ·---. ·-· --------·---.-----. - - .. --·------·. X BIKES BY OLGA LLC, Plaintiff, Decision and order

- against - Index No. 506816/2021

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORKi NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF T:RANSPORTATIQN, CITY OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, NYCTL 2018-A TRUST, 2017-A TRUST, NYCTL 2016~A TRUST & NYCTL 1998-2 TRUST; Defendants, April 16, 2024 - ··. - - - · - - - - - - - - - . - - .· - - - . . ·---. - - . --· . ·. . -·. ----· .. X. PRE$ENT: HON. LEON RUCHELSMAN Motion Seq. #8

On November ZS, 2023 the court issued a subpoena upon the

New Yor:k City Transit Authority ordering a deposi tiori. from

someone with knowledge concerning the Trans:i..t Authority's claim

of right to erect, maintain, and/or enter the structure on a

portion of real property located at 353 Berry Street in Kings

County. The subpoen·a further sought documents regarding the

same. The State of New York has filed this motion seeking to:

vacate the subpoena on the .grounds of sovereign immunity

depriving the court of subject matter jurisdiction.

The facts of the case have been adequately described in

prior orders and need not be repeated here.

The State was originally mad.e a party to this action to

adj.udicate the owners11ip of the subject property (see, RPAPL

§1541). The ownership had been detepnined in a decis.ion of this

court and, a final judgement was then entered ori March 15, 2022

1 of 4 [* 1] FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/16/2024 02:09 PM INDEX NO. 506816/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 244 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/16/2024

(see, Order and Judgement [NYSGEF boc, No. 129]). The State

argues that upon the entry of the judgement the waiver of

immunity concluded and that any further litigation concerning the

property. does not involve the State at .all. Consequently, there

can be no action taken against the State without the State's

consent. The plaintiff counters the court still maintains

jurisdiction over the State by virtue of its original waiver of

immunity.

RPAPL §1541 states that ''an a ct ion may :Pe maintained ... by or

against the people of the state of New York" as outlined in the

article, namely to compel the determination of. a claim to real

property. In Hibiscus Harbor Inc., v. Ebersold, 53.Misc2d 868,

280 NYS2d 44 [County·Court Seneca County 19671 the court

explained that "basically this section was enacted in order to

establish a 'clearing house' for a final determination of claims

to real property. The intention Of the article is to place the

court in a position where through its equity juri.sdiction it can

terminate adverse claims to p~operty and ~rit~r an order ~6 a~ to

provide a conclusive title to one of the parties involved" (id).

In that case there were questions whether the state would assert

claims to disputed property. The cou~t Bxplained that "ss to the

questions of whether or not the State of New York should disclose

to the parties herein any information which they may necessitate

and whether their agerits and officers must submit to an

2 of 4 -·····-·-·--------- -------------~---- -- ···············-·-··· [* 2] FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/16/2024 02:09 PM INDEX NO. 506816/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 244 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/16/2024

examination by the parties herein; should be c3.nswered in the

affirmative" (id). In addressing the State's refusal to

participate the court held that '\to agree with the State's

contention that only in the Court of Claims, ca11 they J::,e

examined, would destroy the intention o.f Article 15 and the broad

equity jurisdiction of the Court under Section 1511 of the Real

Property Actions and Proceedings Law. The technical aspects of

ascertaining descriptions outlined in the various conveyances and

surveys; and the interpretation of the letters patent; and the

locations of the defendants' cottages, woulq be thwarted, and the

proof and issues would become prolonged, if the State would be

allowed to remain alobf from any disclosure or examination" (id).

These requirements of participation apply all the more so in this

case where the State is an actual party to the proce.edings.

Thus, the State;s unduly narrow view of its affiliation in thi.:5

lawsuit fails to appreciate that without its continued

involvetnentr the precise contours of the plaintifff s ownership

remains in doubt~ While i t is true that the State's sphere of

ownership has been resolved, its continued. participi3.tion in the

action: can only serve to further the ownership interests of the

remaining parties. The court is not deciding whether the State

.must move for sununa_ry j udgemerit to free its elf of ahy further

jurisdictional connections or whether the.connections auto;rnatically expire 1.1ppn th.e conclus.iori. cif the State's

3 of 4 [* 3] FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/16/2024 02:09 PM INDEX NO. 506816/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 244 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/16/2024

involvement with _the Pti.bject p.rop.E!rty. I;n.de~d; in Hurley· -v.

:Hurley, 50 N.Y:2d 78., 427 NYS2.d 986 [1980] the court held the State

did not waive immunity for claims 1.w:related to. the property even

if other claims were validly waived. Rather, sinc-e there a:re

clearly contiections between the State arid. the s.ubj ect propierty,

specifically concerning information the State may pQssess. ·the

waiver has -not yet expired. The State further argues the State.has provided all information in its pos-s·ession. However,. clearly, th=e plaintiff

remains unsatisfied with the prod1,1ctions. thus ;Ear.

Notwithstarid ing the State's assurances to" the contrary th'e

pL:1iritiff rn·ay inqµire about the cb"ntents- of the subpoena.

Lastly, since the court considers the <::onclusion of the waiver

premature the cour-t need not· address ahy of the e.quity arguments

which a:re inapplicable- at this juncture. Therefore, based on the foregoing, the motion seekihg tci

vacate the order and subpoena dated November 2B, 202·.3 is dE;!t1ied. ::io orde,re.d. EN';l'ER:

DATiE;D: April 16;-- 2024 arooklyn N. 'l. .Hon . I,,eon JSC

4 of 4 [* 4]