Board of Mgrs. of the 100 W. 93 Condomimium v 660 Columbus Retail Owner LLC 2026 NY Slip Op 30913(U) March 12, 2026 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 656533/2023 Judge: Lyle E. Frank 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.6565332023.NEW_YORK.002.LBLX000_TO.html[03/19/2026 3:45:58 PM] FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/13/2026 10:22 AM INDEX NO. 656533/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 137 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/13/2026
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: HON. LYLE E. FRANK PART 11M Justice ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X INDEX NO. 656533/2023 BOARD OF MANAGERS OF THE 100 WEST 93 CONDOMIMIUM ON BEHALF OF ITS UNIT OWNERS, MOTION DATE 10/31/2025
Plaintiff, MOTION SEQ. NO. 003
-v- 660 COLUMBUS RETAIL OWNER LLC,KAMAL AMAKRANE, NICOLE BUGAJSKI, MICHAEL A. DICHIARO, DECISION + ORDER ON ROBERT JOHNSON, JEFF LITVACK, HEATHER MOORE, MOTION JOHN REID
Defendant. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 003) 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127 were read on this motion to/for DISCOVERY .
Upon the foregoing documents, the motion is granted, and the cross-motion is granted.
Background
These discovery motions arise out of a dispute between the board of managers of a
condominium and a commercial unit owner over the grocery delivery practices of the unit’s
tenant, Trader Joe’s. Plaintiff alleges that Trader Joe’s staging of deliveries on the sidewalk is a
violation of the condominium rules. Both parties have served discovery requests on each other,
with partial responses submitted. Defendant now moves to compel Plaintiff to reply to various
discovery disputes, and Plaintiff has cross-moved to compel Defendant to produce the lease
agreements between it and Trader Joe’s. Oral argument on these motions was held on March 12,
2025, somewhat narrowing the outstanding issues.
Discussion
656533/2023 BOARD OF MANAGERS OF THE 100 WEST 93 CONDOMIMIUM ON BEHALF OF Page 1 of 5 ITS UNIT OWNERS vs. 660 COLUMBUS RETAIL OWNER LLC Motion No. 003
1 of 5 [* 1] FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/13/2026 10:22 AM INDEX NO. 656533/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 137 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/13/2026
Addressing the cross-motion first, counsel for Defendant agreed in oral argument that
they would produce the lease agreements between them and Trader Joe’s; therefore, the cross-
motion is granted. Their opposition to the cross-motion is limited to the extent that Plaintiff
demands immediate production of the documents. The Court finds that twenty days is a
reasonable schedule for production of the lease(s) in question, and as stated in the oral argument
will order production of the lease(s) within this set timeframe. Turning to the motion to compel,
there are four main areas of contention between the parties, each of which will be addressed in
turn.
The first dispute concerns the designation of Plaintiff’s board members as custodian of
records. Defendant is seeking certain electronically stored information (“ESI”) from the Board,
and Plaintiff has designated two of its seven members (those on the legal committee) as
custodians of the records being sought. Defendant is moving to compel Plaintiff to designate all
seven Board members as custodians, arguing that otherwise the Board would be able to hide
responsive documents from them. The Court finds that this speculative argument is not
sufficient, at this stage, to require the designation of all Board members as custodians. It would
be unduly burdensome to require all members to respond to the document request, absent a
showing that the non-responding members are likely to be in possession of responsive
documents that are not part of the legal committee’s response. Therefore, this portion of the
motion is denied.
The second disagreement also concerns ESI. Defendant has made a discovery request for
certain ESI and wishes the Court to issue an order compelling Plaintiff to retain an ESI vendor
for the purpose of collecting the responsive documents. Defendant argues that because this case
concerns allegations of bad faith against Plaintiff, a neutral ESI vendor is the only way to be
656533/2023 BOARD OF MANAGERS OF THE 100 WEST 93 CONDOMIMIUM ON BEHALF OF Page 2 of 5 ITS UNIT OWNERS vs. 660 COLUMBUS RETAIL OWNER LLC Motion No. 003
2 of 5 [* 2] FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/13/2026 10:22 AM INDEX NO. 656533/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 137 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/13/2026
assured that all responsive documents have been produced. Plaintiff opposes on the grounds that
such an order would be unduly burdensome and costly. The Court finds that Defendant has not
made a showing as to why, at this juncture, Plaintiff should not be permitted to produce the
responsive documents according to their own in-house procedures. If Defendant wishes to pay
for such a vendor agreeable to Plaintiff, the Court will permit that. Therefore, it would be
premature to mandate that Plaintiff hire an outside ESI vendor to process the document request.
The next issue concerns several engineering reports that Plaintiff had generated regarding
a dispute between the parties over the common charges formula in the condominium’s governing
documents. Defendant has requested communications regarding these reports (from FirstService
and DBS Technical), and Plaintiff has objected on the grounds that the reports were generated in
preparation for litigation. The general rule is that the reports of experts retained to assist in
preparing for litigation are covered under the attorney-client privilege. Hudson Ins. Co. v.
Oppenheim, 72 A.D.3d 489, 490 [1st Dept. 2010]. But it appears that Defendant is seeking
communications from the Board and engagement letters regarding the reports, which may not be
privileged. Therefore, to the extent that Plaintiff is in possession of non-privileged documents
responsive to the requests regarding the engineering reports, such documents should be
produced. To the extent that there are any responsive documents that Plaintiff considers
privileged, they should be presented to the Court for an in-camera review to determine whether
the privilege applies, in accordance with an application made in Plaintiff’s papers.
The final two issues concern videos of the sidewalk in question that are held by Plaintiff.
Defendant seeks an order compelling Plaintiff to turn over physical copies of all of the
aforementioned videos, along with a date and time listed for each alleged violation of the
condominium rules. Plaintiff contends that it would be unduly burdensome for them to comply.
656533/2023 BOARD OF MANAGERS OF THE 100 WEST 93 CONDOMIMIUM ON BEHALF OF Page 3 of 5 ITS UNIT OWNERS vs. 660 COLUMBUS RETAIL OWNER LLC Motion No. 003
3 of 5 [* 3] FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/13/2026 10:22 AM INDEX NO. 656533/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 137 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/13/2026
They have made the videos available for inspection at their offices and have provided the dates
for the alleged violations.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Board of Mgrs. of the 100 W. 93 Condomimium v 660 Columbus Retail Owner LLC 2026 NY Slip Op 30913(U) March 12, 2026 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 656533/2023 Judge: Lyle E. Frank 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.6565332023.NEW_YORK.002.LBLX000_TO.html[03/19/2026 3:45:58 PM] FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/13/2026 10:22 AM INDEX NO. 656533/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 137 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/13/2026
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: HON. LYLE E. FRANK PART 11M Justice ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X INDEX NO. 656533/2023 BOARD OF MANAGERS OF THE 100 WEST 93 CONDOMIMIUM ON BEHALF OF ITS UNIT OWNERS, MOTION DATE 10/31/2025
Plaintiff, MOTION SEQ. NO. 003
-v- 660 COLUMBUS RETAIL OWNER LLC,KAMAL AMAKRANE, NICOLE BUGAJSKI, MICHAEL A. DICHIARO, DECISION + ORDER ON ROBERT JOHNSON, JEFF LITVACK, HEATHER MOORE, MOTION JOHN REID
Defendant. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 003) 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127 were read on this motion to/for DISCOVERY .
Upon the foregoing documents, the motion is granted, and the cross-motion is granted.
Background
These discovery motions arise out of a dispute between the board of managers of a
condominium and a commercial unit owner over the grocery delivery practices of the unit’s
tenant, Trader Joe’s. Plaintiff alleges that Trader Joe’s staging of deliveries on the sidewalk is a
violation of the condominium rules. Both parties have served discovery requests on each other,
with partial responses submitted. Defendant now moves to compel Plaintiff to reply to various
discovery disputes, and Plaintiff has cross-moved to compel Defendant to produce the lease
agreements between it and Trader Joe’s. Oral argument on these motions was held on March 12,
2025, somewhat narrowing the outstanding issues.
Discussion
656533/2023 BOARD OF MANAGERS OF THE 100 WEST 93 CONDOMIMIUM ON BEHALF OF Page 1 of 5 ITS UNIT OWNERS vs. 660 COLUMBUS RETAIL OWNER LLC Motion No. 003
1 of 5 [* 1] FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/13/2026 10:22 AM INDEX NO. 656533/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 137 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/13/2026
Addressing the cross-motion first, counsel for Defendant agreed in oral argument that
they would produce the lease agreements between them and Trader Joe’s; therefore, the cross-
motion is granted. Their opposition to the cross-motion is limited to the extent that Plaintiff
demands immediate production of the documents. The Court finds that twenty days is a
reasonable schedule for production of the lease(s) in question, and as stated in the oral argument
will order production of the lease(s) within this set timeframe. Turning to the motion to compel,
there are four main areas of contention between the parties, each of which will be addressed in
turn.
The first dispute concerns the designation of Plaintiff’s board members as custodian of
records. Defendant is seeking certain electronically stored information (“ESI”) from the Board,
and Plaintiff has designated two of its seven members (those on the legal committee) as
custodians of the records being sought. Defendant is moving to compel Plaintiff to designate all
seven Board members as custodians, arguing that otherwise the Board would be able to hide
responsive documents from them. The Court finds that this speculative argument is not
sufficient, at this stage, to require the designation of all Board members as custodians. It would
be unduly burdensome to require all members to respond to the document request, absent a
showing that the non-responding members are likely to be in possession of responsive
documents that are not part of the legal committee’s response. Therefore, this portion of the
motion is denied.
The second disagreement also concerns ESI. Defendant has made a discovery request for
certain ESI and wishes the Court to issue an order compelling Plaintiff to retain an ESI vendor
for the purpose of collecting the responsive documents. Defendant argues that because this case
concerns allegations of bad faith against Plaintiff, a neutral ESI vendor is the only way to be
656533/2023 BOARD OF MANAGERS OF THE 100 WEST 93 CONDOMIMIUM ON BEHALF OF Page 2 of 5 ITS UNIT OWNERS vs. 660 COLUMBUS RETAIL OWNER LLC Motion No. 003
2 of 5 [* 2] FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/13/2026 10:22 AM INDEX NO. 656533/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 137 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/13/2026
assured that all responsive documents have been produced. Plaintiff opposes on the grounds that
such an order would be unduly burdensome and costly. The Court finds that Defendant has not
made a showing as to why, at this juncture, Plaintiff should not be permitted to produce the
responsive documents according to their own in-house procedures. If Defendant wishes to pay
for such a vendor agreeable to Plaintiff, the Court will permit that. Therefore, it would be
premature to mandate that Plaintiff hire an outside ESI vendor to process the document request.
The next issue concerns several engineering reports that Plaintiff had generated regarding
a dispute between the parties over the common charges formula in the condominium’s governing
documents. Defendant has requested communications regarding these reports (from FirstService
and DBS Technical), and Plaintiff has objected on the grounds that the reports were generated in
preparation for litigation. The general rule is that the reports of experts retained to assist in
preparing for litigation are covered under the attorney-client privilege. Hudson Ins. Co. v.
Oppenheim, 72 A.D.3d 489, 490 [1st Dept. 2010]. But it appears that Defendant is seeking
communications from the Board and engagement letters regarding the reports, which may not be
privileged. Therefore, to the extent that Plaintiff is in possession of non-privileged documents
responsive to the requests regarding the engineering reports, such documents should be
produced. To the extent that there are any responsive documents that Plaintiff considers
privileged, they should be presented to the Court for an in-camera review to determine whether
the privilege applies, in accordance with an application made in Plaintiff’s papers.
The final two issues concern videos of the sidewalk in question that are held by Plaintiff.
Defendant seeks an order compelling Plaintiff to turn over physical copies of all of the
aforementioned videos, along with a date and time listed for each alleged violation of the
condominium rules. Plaintiff contends that it would be unduly burdensome for them to comply.
656533/2023 BOARD OF MANAGERS OF THE 100 WEST 93 CONDOMIMIUM ON BEHALF OF Page 3 of 5 ITS UNIT OWNERS vs. 660 COLUMBUS RETAIL OWNER LLC Motion No. 003
3 of 5 [* 3] FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/13/2026 10:22 AM INDEX NO. 656533/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 137 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/13/2026
They have made the videos available for inspection at their offices and have provided the dates
for the alleged violations. The Court finds that this is a sufficient response to the request. Should
Defendant require physical copies of the videos, they may at their own expense have the videos
copied. Accordingly, it is hereby
ADJUDGED that the motion is granted in part and the cross-motion is granted; and it is
further
ORDERED that defendant 660 Columbus Retail Owner LLC produce the relevant lease
agreement(s) between itself and the commercial tenant Trader Joe’s within twenty days of
service of this order by notice of entry; and it is further
ADJUDGED that to the extent the motion requests that the plaintiff Board of Managers
of the 100 West 93 Condominium be required to designate all board members as custodians for
the purposes of defendant’s discovery requests, be required to retain a commercial ESI vendor in
order to process defendant 660 Columbus Retail Owner LLC’s requests, and require the plaintiff
Board of Managers of the 100 West 93 Condominium to turn over physical copies of the videos
in question along with the exact time stamp of the alleged violations, the motion is denied; and it
is further
ORDERED that plaintiff Board of Managers of the 100 West 93 Condominium turn over
all non-privileged documents responsive to the FirstService and DBS Technical document
requests made, with all responsive documents that plaintiff Board of Managers of the 100 West
93 Condominium intends to assert a privilege regarding be turned over to the Court for an in-
camera review, not more than thirty days following the date of this Order.
656533/2023 BOARD OF MANAGERS OF THE 100 WEST 93 CONDOMIMIUM ON BEHALF OF Page 4 of 5 ITS UNIT OWNERS vs. 660 COLUMBUS RETAIL OWNER LLC Motion No. 003
4 of 5 [* 4] FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/13/2026 10:22 AM INDEX NO. 656533/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 137 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/13/2026
3/12/2026 DATE LYLE E. FRANK, J.S.C. CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED X NON-FINAL DISPOSITION
□ □ GRANTED DENIED X GRANTED IN PART OTHER
APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER
□ CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT REFERENCE
656533/2023 BOARD OF MANAGERS OF THE 100 WEST 93 CONDOMIMIUM ON BEHALF OF Page 5 of 5 ITS UNIT OWNERS vs. 660 COLUMBUS RETAIL OWNER LLC Motion No. 003
5 of 5 [* 5]