CI Notes LLC v. 7th Realty Holdings, LLC

2024 NY Slip Op 31940(U)
CourtNew York Supreme Court, New York County
DecidedJune 3, 2024
StatusUnpublished

This text of 2024 NY Slip Op 31940(U) (CI Notes LLC v. 7th Realty Holdings, LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court, New York County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
CI Notes LLC v. 7th Realty Holdings, LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 31940(U) (N.Y. Super. Ct. 2024).

Opinion

CI Notes LLC v 7th Realty Holdings, LLC 2024 NY Slip Op 31940(U) June 3, 2024 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 850657/2023 Judge: Francis A. Kahn III 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. 850657/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 104 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/04/2024

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY \l PRESENT: HON. FRANCIS A. KAHN, Ill PART 32 Justice ---------------.X 850657/2023 H I INDEX NO. Cl NOTES LLC, MOTION DATE Plaintiff, MOTION SEQ. NO. 001 - V -

7TH REAL TY HOLDINGS, LLC,SAADIA SHAPIRO, SHAPIRO & ASSOCIATES ATTORNEY AT LAW, PLLC,CITY OF NEW YORK ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL DECISION + ORDER ON BOARD, CITY OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF MOTION FINANCE, JOHN DOE #1-10 AND JANE DOE #1-10

Defendant. ----------------------------------------X

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21,22, 23, 24, 25,26,27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59,60, 61, 62 were read on this motion to/for APPOINT - FIDUCIARY

Upon the foregoing documents, the motion is determined as follows:

In this action to foreclose on a mortgage encumbering commercial real property located at 2291 1~ · 7 th Ave, New York New York a/k/a 2291 Adam C. Powell Jr. Blvd., New York New York (Block: 1919, 1:

Lot: 6), Plaintiff moves pursuant to RPL §254[10] and RP APL §1325 for the appointment of a 1,·.

I temporary receiver of the rents of the mortgaged premises. Defendant guarantors Saadia Shapiro and Shapiro & Associates Attorney at Law, PLLC oppose the motion. ! Section 2.05 of the mortgage provides, in pertinent part, as follows: ~

I After the happening of any Event of Default and immediately upon the commencement of any action, suit or other legal proceedings by Mortgagee to obtain judgment for the principal of, or interest on, the Note and other sums required to be paid by Mortgagor pursuant to any provision of this Mortgage or of any nature in aid of the enforcement of the Note, or this Mortgage Mortgagor will, if required by Mortgagee, consent to the appointment of a receiver or receivers of the Mortgaged Property or any part thereof and of all the earnings, revenues, rents, maintenance payments, issues, profits and income thereof in accordance with Section 2.11 hereof. After the happening of any Event of Default or upon the commencement of any proceedings to foreclose this Mortgage or to enforce the specific performance hereof or in aid thereof or upon the commencement of any other judicial proceeding to enforce any right of Mortgagee, Mortgagee shall be entitled, as a matter of right, if it shall so elect, without the giving of notice to any other party and without regard to the adequacy or inadequacy of any security for the Mortgage

850657/2023 Cl NOTES LLC vs. 7TH REAL TY HOLDINGS LLC ET AL Page 1 of 5 Motion No. 001 '

[* 1] 1 of 5 INDEX NO. 850657/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 104 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/04/2024

indebtedness, forthwith either before or after declaring the unpaid principal of the Note to be due and payable, to the appointment of such a receiver or receivers.

Under Real Property Law §254[1 0], the appointment of a receiver in the event of a default is proper where the parties to the mortgage agree to same even without notice or without regard to the sufficiency of security (see ADHY Advisors LLC. v 530 W 152nd St. LLC, 82 AD3d 619 [1 st Dept 2011]; 366 Fourth St. Corp. v Foxfire Enters., 149 AD2d 692 [2 nd Dept 1989]). Despite the parties' assent, the appointment is not perfunctory and the Court, in the exercise of its equitable power, retains the discretion to deny the appointment ofa receiver (see ADHY Advisors LLC. v 530 W 152nd St. LLC, supra; Nechadirn Corp. v Simmons, 171 AD3d 1195, 1197 [2d Dept 2019]). I In the present case, it is undisputed that the parties' mortgage provides that Plaintiff may apply for the appointment of a receiver regardless of the adequacy of the property as security and Plaintiff pied that Defendants, inter alia, defaulted in repayment of the indebtedness. Accordingly, Plaintiff ,, established its entitlement to the appointment of a receiver of the mortgaged premises (see eg SKW Hillside Bleeker Lender LLC v 145 Bleeker LLC, 217 AD3d 536 [1 st Dept 2023]; CSFB 2004-C3 Bronx , 1, Apts LLC v Sinckler, Inc., 96 AD3d 680 [ I st Dept 2012]).

In opposition, Defendants have not demonstrated that denial of the appointment of a receiver is an appropriate exercise of the Court's discretion (see id.; US Bank, NA. v Rufai, 202 AD3d 719, 721 [2d , Dept 2022]; Shaw Funding, LP v Bennett, 185 AD3d 857, 858 [2 nd Dept 2020]). Notably, Defendants · have not demonstrated that issues exist as to the validity of the mortgage or whether a payment default has in fact occurred (cf Phoenix Grantor Trust v Exclusive Hospitality, LLC, 172 AD3d 926 [2d Dept 2019]). Defendants' claim that Plaintiff does not have standing to seek the appointment of a receiver is unavailing. The assignment of the mortgage dated November 15, 2023, from the original lender, Santander Bank, NA, to Plaintiff provides for transfer of the mortgage "TOGETHER with the notes or obligations described in said mortgages, and the moneys due and to grow due thereon together with Interests". This language sufficiently established conveyance of the note (see Broome Lender LLC v Empire Broome LLC, 220 AD3d 611 [l5t Dept 2023]; US Bank Natl. Assn. v Ezugwu, 162 AD3d 613 [1 st 1

1·.

Dept 2018]; see also Chase Horne Fin., LLC v Miciotta, 101 AD3d 1307 [3d Dept 2012]; GRP Loan, 11

LLC v Taylor, 95 AD3d 1172 [2d Dept 2012]). :~

Defendants' assertion that RPL §254[10] does not apply because Plaintiff was not a party to the mortgage is nonsensical. Section 3.01 of the mortgage provides that "[a]ll of the grants, covenants, terms, provisions and conditions of this Mortgage shall run with the land and shall apply to, bind and inure to the benefit of the successors and assigns of the Mortgagor, and the successors and assigns of Mortgagee" (see generally Warberg Opportunistic Trading Fund L.P. v GeoResources, Inc., 151 AD3d 465,472 [1 st Dept 2017]; Wald v Marine Midland Bus. Loans, Inc., 270 AD2d 73, 74 [1 st Dept 2000]).

To the extent Defendants' opposition is based on cases where appointment of a receiver was sought pursuant to CPLR §6401 it is unavailing (see eg Groh v Halloran, 86 AD2d 30 [1 st Dept 1982]). The Appellate Division cases are clear that where, as here, the mortgage contains a provision that a lender may "without notice and without regard for the adequacy of the security for the Debt and without regard for the solvency of Borrower"', under RPL §254[1 0], that provision denotes that a mortgagee may apply for a receiver '"regardless of proving the necessity for the appointment"' (see GECMC 2007- CJ Ditmars Lodging, LLC v Moho/a, LLC, 84 AD3d 1311, 1312 [2d Dept 2011], citing Naar v. JJ Litwak & Co., 260 AD2d 613 [2d Dept 1999]; see also SKW Hillside Bleeker Lender LLC v J 45 Bleeker LLC, supra). 850657/2023 Cl NOTES LLC vs. 7TH REAL TY HOLDINGS LLC ET AL Motion No. 001 ' Page 2 of 5

I

[* 2] 2 of 5 \l INDEX NO. 850657/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 104 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/04/2024

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that the motion for the appointment of a Temporary Receiver is granted; and it is further

ORDERED that Gregory M.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Warberg Opportunistic Trading Fund L.P. v. GeoResources, Inc.
2017 NY Slip Op 4537 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Shaw Funding, LP v. Bennett
2020 NY Slip Op 3936 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
ADHY Advisors LLC v. 530 West 152nd Street LLC
82 A.D.3d 619 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
GECMC 2007-C1 Ditmars Lodging v. Mohola
84 A.D.3d 1311 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Groh v. Halloran
86 A.D.2d 30 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1982)
GRP Loan, LLC v. Taylor
95 A.D.3d 1172 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
366 Fourth Street Corp. v. FoxFire Enterprises, Inc.
149 A.D.2d 692 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)
Naar v. I.J. Litwak & Co.
260 A.D.2d 613 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Broome Lender LLC v. Empire Broome LLC
220 A.D.3d 611 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2023)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2024 NY Slip Op 31940(U), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ci-notes-llc-v-7th-realty-holdings-llc-nysupctnewyork-2024.