Brooklyn 5511 Mgt. LLC v. Hang Feng 5511 LLC
Opinion
Brooklyn 5511 Mgt. LLC v Hang Feng 5511 LLC 2024 NY Slip Op 34372(U)
December 16, 2024
Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: Index No. 521763/2021 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 12/16/2024 09:19 AM INDEX NO. 521763/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 113 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/16/2024
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS : CIVIL TERM:. COMMERCIAL PART 8 --------------.------.-----.----. -------.---""'· ·x BROOKLYN 5511 MANAGEMENT LLC Plaintiffs; Decision: and order
- against - Index No. 521763/2021
HANG FENG 5511 LLC,
Defendant, December 16, 2024 -. - .. ---------- .-------- .-- ·-· .. ---·-.-·.------x PRESENT: HON. LEON RUCHELSMAN Motion Seq. J3
The defendant has once again moved pursuant to CPLR §3212 seeking summary judgement dismissing the lawsuit and cancelling the Notice of Pendency. The plaintiff has opposed the motion. Papers were submitted by the parties and arguments held. After reviewing all the arguments this court now makes the following determination.
As recorded ih prior orders, on April 7, 2021 the plaintiff pu:rchaser entered into a contract with defendant seller concerning p:roperty located at 5517 7 th Avenue in Kings County. The purchase price was $2, 99,9, ODO and the plaintiff made a down payment of $300,000. A rider to the contract provided that "Seller acknowledges that Purchaser is permitted to assume the Seller's existing underlying mo1;tgage and Seller shall cooperate to facilitate the process. However, if the mcirtgagec is not assumatiLe,. purc;has.er must s:till proceed to purchase" ( see; Rider to Contract, 'i!X [NYSCEF Doc. No. 20]) . Instead of assuming the
:mortgage and completing a mortgage i;ippl{cation required by the mor.t.gagor, the plaintiff proposed purchasing the defendant's
1 of 5
[* 1]
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 12/16/2024 09:19 AM INDEX NO. 521763/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 113 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/16/2024
shares of the Corporatio~ to assume the mortgage.in that way. The .defendant consented, however, upon learning of negative tax consequences in the amount of $54,750, the defEcndant requested the plaintiff pay that amount to facilitate the transfer of shares. The plaintiff refused and offered $10,000. A tirne of the essence letter was sent by the defendc1.nt requiring th.e closing take place on July 30, 2021. On that date the plaintiff failed to appear. The defendant declared the contract breached and entered into another contract to sell the property to someone else. The plaintiff filed a Notice of Pendency and a summons and complaint seeking a return of the down payment or specific perto·rmance ordering a closing pursuant to the contract and attorney's fees. 'I'he defendant has moved again essentially seeking summary judgement dismissing the complaint as well as cancelling the Notice of Pendency on the grounds there are no questions of fact the complaint fails to support the Claims asserted. The plaintiff opposes the rtmtion contending there are. quest:ions bf fact whether the complaint alleges valid claims.
Conclusions of Law
It is well settled that ''successive motions for summary
judgment should not be made based upon facts or arguments which
could have been. submitted on the originai motion for summary j.udgmen t'' (see, .P. J. 3 7 Food Co:i:p . , v. Ge orqe Doul a var.is & Son
Inc. 1 189 AD3d 858,. 137 NYS2d 43.7 [2d Dept,, 2020].). Thu.s, where
2
2 of 5
[* 2]
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 12/16/2024 09:19 AM INDEX NO. 521763/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 113 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/16/2024
the party sufficiently demqnstrates that evidence was not available to it when the first summary judgement motion was filed then a successive: motion is prdpe~ (Hilltich Holding corp,, v. BMSL Management LLC, 175 AD3d 474, 103 NYS3d 846 [2d Dept., 2019] ) .
Therefore, any testimony or affidavit of any member of the defendant, the prior tnova:nt, is insufficient to constitute new evidence since it was readily available when the.first Summary judgement motion was filed (Binar v. Litman, 110 AD3d 867, 972 NYS2d 704 [2d Dept., 2013] ) .
Moreover, concerning the deposition of Mr. TO, which took place a:.fter the motion for summary judgement was filed, the case of Perretta v. New York City Transit Authority, 230 AD3d 428, 217 NYS3d 30 [Ft Dept., 2024] is instructive. Th that Case the plaintiff, Kathleen Perretta filed a summary judgement motion before the qonclusion of all discovery. The court explained that "in her rush to obtain summary judgment and to avoid the inevitable delays in discovery that resulted from the COVID-19 pandemic restrictions, plaintiff chose to rely on FOIL responses, believing that her submissions would be sufficient" (id). Summary judgement was denied ahd. the patties proceeded with
diSc◊very. Following all discovery the plaintiff again mo~ed seeking summary judgement. In denying the rec:1:uest the co.urt held that "her motion was not denied "without prejudice" nor was sh.e
3
3 of 5
[* 3]
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 12/16/2024 09:19 AM INDEX NO. 521763/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 113 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/16/2024
granted "leave to renew" after discovery :was complJ:ated. Having made i;hese choices in i::he litigation, she cannot now be heard to complain that she was unable to obtain the evidence necessary to support her prior motion .for summary judgment" (id). Further, the court explained that "plaintiff's renewal motion is a second attempt at summary judgment on liability, which was denied by the. court on her first motion. Her first motion was premature. She should have waited for the completion of discovery before moving for summary judgment and her renewal motion should not be granted unless the new facts resolve or eliminate: the factual issue.s foµnci by the court in denying her first motion" (id) .
Likewise, in this case, the motion seeking summary judgement was filed less than two months after the amended complaint was filed, without any discovery at all. The defendant cannot at this juncture assert the deposition testimony of Mr. To is now "new" and sufficient to warrant granting summary judgement. Nor does the deposition testimony Of Mr. To eliminate all questi·Ons of fact, Thus, it i.s improper to seek renewal Of a sununary judgement based upon deposition testimony; when no explanation has been presented why the deposition could not have taken place prior to the Submission of the motion (Castillo v, TRM contr.acting 626 Li.c, 223 AD3<l 458, 203 }jY~3d 5:1 [1 st Dept., 2024]).
A successive motion for surrimary judgement wo.uld be
4
4 of 5
[* 4]
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 12/16/2024 09:19 AM INDEX NO. 521763/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 113 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/16/2024
appropriate where the st1ccessive motion raises different arguments and adduces evidence that was truly not available at the time the first motion for summary judgment was filed (North Fork Preserve, Inc. v. Kaplan, 68 AD3d 732, a90 NYS2d 93 {2d Dept., 2009]) or is predicateci upon events which occurred after the ·original motion for summary judgment :was filed (Citicorp Trust Bank, FSB v. Makkas, 127 AD3d 907, 7 NYS3d 379 [2d Dept., 2015]) or where the motion is based on a decision of the court of appeals rendered after denial of the first motion {Rose v. Horton Medical Center; 29 AD3d 977, 816 NYS2d 174 [ 2d Dept., 2006]) . Alternatively, a successive motion woulci be proper where the motion is made after the completion .of discovery and involves legal issues not previously ciecicied (Green Harbour Homeowners
Association, Inc. v. Ermiger, 128 AD3d 1142, 8 NYS3d 705 [3d Dept. , 2015] ) .
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
2024 NY Slip Op 34372(U) (Brooklyn 5511 Mgt. LLC v. Hang Feng 5511 LLC) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.