Hamilton Equity Group, LLC v. Jeffrey D. Grant & Assoc., PLLC

2026 NY Slip Op 31023(U)
CourtNew York Supreme Court, New York County
DecidedMarch 16, 2026
DocketIndex No. 151457/2025
StatusUnpublished
AuthorJames G. Clynes

This text of 2026 NY Slip Op 31023(U) (Hamilton Equity Group, LLC v. Jeffrey D. Grant & Assoc., PLLC) 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
Hamilton Equity Group, LLC v. Jeffrey D. Grant & Assoc., PLLC, 2026 NY Slip Op 31023(U) (N.Y. Super. Ct. 2026).

Opinion

Hamilton Equity Group, LLC v Jeffrey D. Grant & Assoc., PLLC 2026 NY Slip Op 31023(U) March 16, 2026 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 151457/2025 Judge: James G. Clynes 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.1514572025.NEW_YORK.001.LBLX000_TO.html[03/25/2026 3:45:46 PM] FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/17/2026 12:34 PM INDEX NO. 151457/2025 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 24 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/17/2026

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: HON. JAMES G. CLYNES PART 39M Justice -------------------X INDEX NO. 151457/2025 HAMILTON EQUITY GROUP, LLC, AS ASSIGNEE OF HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION MOTION DATE 06/25/2025 SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO HSBC BANK USA, MOTION SEQ. NO. 001 Plaintiff,

-v- DECISION + ORDER ON JEFFREY D. GRANT & ASSOCIATES, PLLC, JEFFREY GRANT MOTION

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

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19,20,21,22 were read on this motion to/for RENEWAL

Upon the foregoing documents, it is ordered that the motion by Plaintiff for summary judgment to renew a money judgment and extend its lien against defendants' property in its favor and against defendants Jeffrey D. Grant & Associates, PLLC and Jeffrey Grant in the principal amount of $142,989.26, together with interest from November 4, 2005, at the statutory rate of 9% per annum, plus post judgment costs of $1,071.25, and disbursements and the Defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment and dismissal or in the alternative for a hearing to be scheduled to determine jurisdictional issues are decided as follows. On November 4, 2005, plaintiff HSBC BANK USA obtained default judgment against JEFFREY D. GRANT & ASSOCIATES, PLLC, and JEFFREY GRANT in the amount of $142,989.25. Plaintiff contends the judgment became a lien against real property upon the filing and docketing of the judgment. On December 8, 2009, HSBC BANK USA assigned their judgment against JEFFREY D. GRANT & AS SOCIATES, PLLC, and JEFFREY GRANT to HAMILTON EQUITY GROUP, LLC. On May 4, 2012, plaintiff and defendants entered into a stipulation of settlement in the Superior Court of Stamford-Norwalk where defendants would owe Plaintiff $226. 717 .10 with no weekly order of payments due to the defendants' circumstances.

151457/2025 HAMILTON EQUITY GROUP, LLC, AS ASSIGNEE OF HSBC BANK USA, Page 1 of4 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO HSBC BANK USA vs. JEFFREY D. GRANT & ASSOCIATES, PLLC ET AL Motion No. 001

1 of 4 [* 1] FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/17/2026 12:34 PM INDEX NO. 151457/2025 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 24 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/17/2026

Defendants' cross-moves against plaintiff contending proper service was not made at his address, the application is untimely as a renewal of a judgment must be done within IO years from the docket date, he has no assets or property outside of his property in Florida, the previous stipulation of settlement promised plaintiff would have no right to execute a wage garnishment or be obliged to make weekly payments, and demands $1,000,000.00 for his counterclaims. PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RENEWAL JUDGMENT

Pursuant to CPLR 5014 an action upon a money judgment entered in a court of the state may only be maintained between the original parties to the judgment where: 1. ten years have elapsed since the first docketing of the judgment; or 2. the judgment was entered against the defendant by default for want of appearance and the summons was served other than by personal delivery to him or to his agent for service designated under rule 318, either within or without the state; or 3. the court in which the action is sought to be brought so orders on motion with such notice to such other persons as the court may direct. A renewal judgment provides a judgment creditor with a new 20-year judgment and a corresponding 10-year lien." (Emerald lnvs. Ltd. v Toms, 133 AD3d 558, 558, 19 N.Y.S.3d 421 [1st Dept 2015].) Although a money judgment is valid and enforceable for a period of20 years (CPLR 211 [b]), under New York law such a judgment only remains viable as a lien against real property for 10 years (CPLR 5203 [a]). Renewal of the lien for an additional IO-year period may be obtained in accordance with the provisions of CPLR 5014, or, under certain circumstances not applicable here, the lien may be extended for a limited period pursuant to the provisions of CPLR 5203 (b). To obtain what CPLR 5014 terms a renewal judgment, through which the judgment creditor's lien against real property can be extended for a second I 0-year period, CPLR 5014 requires commencement of a new plenary action between the same parties (Gletzer v Harris, 51 AD3d 196, 198 [1st Dept 2008]). Here, plaintiff's motion is granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff correctly states that a money judgment is enforceable for up to twenty years and timely filed for renewal judgment prior to the expiration of the twenty-year period for renewal of a money judgment. Plaintiffs submission, including attorney affidavit, affidavit of Matthew J. Szczepanski, and the attached exhibits, established that Hamilton Equity Group, LLC, as Assignee of HSBC Bank USA,

151457/2025 HAMILTON EQUITY GROUP, LLC, AS ASSIGNEE OF HSBC BANK USA, Page 2 of4 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO HSBC BANK USA vs. JEFFREY D. GRANT & ASSOCIATES, PLLC ET AL Motion No. 001

2 of 4 [* 2] FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/17/2026 12:34 PM INDEX NO. 151457/2025 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 24 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/17/2026

National Association is entitled to summary judgment to renew a money judgment in the amount of$142,989.26, together with interest thereon from November 4, 2005, at the legal rate of9% per annum, plus post judgment costs of$1,071.25 and disbursements. However, plaintiff failed to seek an extension ofits lien against defendants' property before the ten-year period from when the first judgment elapsed, creating a lien gap. On November 4, 2005, default judgment was granted in favor of HSBC BANK USA. On December 8, 2009, HSBC assigned their judgment to HAMILTON EQUITY GROUP, LLC. Plaintiff admits in their affidavit that the money judgment became a lien against real property owned upon the filing and docketing of the judgment (NYSCEF DOC NO 9). Plaintiff should have sought an extension of its lien against defendants' property in or about 2014 to 2015, one year prior to the ten-year mark from when the original judgment was granted. Therefore, plaintiff's motion seeking summary judgment to renew a money judgment is granted and the motion seeking to extend its lien against defendants' property is denied. DEFENDANTS' CROSS-MOTION FOR DISMISSAL

Defendants cross-move for summary judgment seeking dismissal and $1,000,000.000 on its counterclaims, plus treble damages, and punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial. Here, the Court is not persuaded by defendant's cross-motion as the defendants made no showing warranting summary judgment for a dismissal other than what was alleged in their cross motion. Therefore, defendants' cross-motion is denied. Thus, Plaintiff's motion seeking summary judgment to renew a money judgment and to extend its lien against defendants' property is granted in part and denied in part. Defendants cross-motion is denied.

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

Related

Emerald Investors Ltd. v. Toms
133 A.D.3d 558 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Gletzer v. Harris
51 A.D.3d 196 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2026 NY Slip Op 31023(U), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hamilton-equity-group-llc-v-jeffrey-d-grant-assoc-pllc-nysupctnewyork-2026.