Imad Ayoubi v. Doaa Ayoubi

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided March 16, 2026·No. 7:26-cv-01028·Unknown

Opinion

ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC# ANTHONY J. CENTONE, P.C, _ [| DATE FILED: __3/16/2026 _ ATTORNEY AT LAW 1950 East Main Street, Suite 205A Mohegan Lake, New York 10547 (914) 528-4529 ANTHONY J. CENTONE* anthony □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□

* ALSO ADMITTED IN PA & NJ March 13, 2026

The Honorable Nelson S. Roman United States District Court Judge The Honorable Charles L. Brieant Jr. Federal Building and United States Courthouse 300 Quarropas Street White Plains, NY 10601-4150 Re: Imad Ayoubi y. Doaa Ayoubi 7:26 CV 01028 (NSR)

Dear Judge Roman: Please be advised that I represent the defendant, Doaa Ayoubi, in the above- referenced case. I write this letter pursuant to Section 8 of Your Honor’s Individual Practice Rules, as defendant Ayoubi would like to file a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Plaintiff's complaint fails to state any cause of action upon which relief can be granted. Instead of alleging any proper cause of action, plaintiff's complaint demands part of the proceeds from the sale of Ms. Ayoubi’s lawful property, which she solely owned pursuant to a divorce decree. Furthermore, pro-se plaintiff Imad Ayoubi served a summons with a “letter” addressed to the court (see attached Exhibit “A”). No formal complaint was attached to the summons. The form of any complaint requires the plaintiff to state its claim in numbered paragraphs and a demand for the relief sought (Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b)). The complaint must also state the grounds for relief sought (Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(b)). Here, the plaintiff does no such thing. Plaintiff does not number his paragraphs, nor does he ever state a proper claim. Instead of stating a proper claim, the plaintiff merely attempts to argue that he is entitled to the proceeds of the sale of the home. The plaintiff never outlines under what grounds he is entitled to these proceeds. To state a plausible claim for relief, the plaintiff must plead “factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the

misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Additionally, the factual allegations within a complaint “must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level on the assumption that all of the complaint’s allegations are true.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Substantively, it is well established under New York law that the owner of property in fee simple absolute cannot be subject to alienation restrictions, as that would run contrary to the owner’s rights under fee simple absolute. See Application of Mazzone, 281 N.Y. 139, 146 (1939). The New York Court of Appeals has previously held “[t]here can be no doubt that the rule of common law as well as the constitutional provision was intended to and did void covenants in voluntary conveyances of a fee which had the effect of restraining subsequent alienation of the property.” Id. Consequently, the plaintiff has failed to assert any facts which could demonstrate legal misconduct by the defendant. The plaintiff clearly admits in his complaint that he transferred the former marital property to the defendant. Additionally, the stipulation of settlement for the divorce states that the “Husband shall transfer and assign to wife, and hereby waives and relinquishes, all of his right title and interest in and to the marital residence” (see attached Exhibit “B” pg. 18 { 2). Thus, any alleged agreement not to transfer the property between the parties would be void. Such an agreement would run contrary to well established New York law that restrictions on alienation are void as they run contrary to owner’s right of fee simple absolute. Taking all the plaintiffs claims as true, he has failed to establish any facts which would tend to show misconduct by the defendant. Therefore, defendant Ayoubi seeks leave to file a motion seeking dismissal of plaintiff's complaint pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6). I look forward to hearing from the court in this regard. The Court waives the pre-motion conference and sets the following briefin schedule for Defendant Doaa Ayoubi's motion to dismiss: Very truly yours, oy (1) Defendant's moving papers are to be served (not filed) by April 27, 202¢€ {_ JATT ae. (2) Plaintiff's opposition papers are to be served (not filed) by June 8, 2026; Xntho y/J. Centone (3) Defendant's reply papers are to be served and filed on June 22, 2026.

All motion papers are to be filed on the reply date, June 22, 2026. □□□□□□□□ ce. Imad Ayoubi directed to file all motion papers, including pro se Plaintiff's opposition pa The parties shall mail two courtesy copies to chambers of their respective papers as they are served. Defendant is further directed to provide an electr copy of all motion papers (including pro se Plaintiff's papers) by email to chambers as soon as practicable after filing. The Clerk of Court is kindly directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 8 mail a copy of this endorsement to Plaintiff at the address on the docket, ar show service on the docket. ‘ SO ORDERED: Dated: March 16, 2026 D> White Plains, New York Cf NELSONS. ROMAN _- UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

EXHIBITA

Pe ey epee aiuiniti ne 2 oo □□ oo Tee

ae ae Be SS |. nee ees □□□□

“Imad Ayoubl ee Be □□

408 Moore AVE □□ meee ae ae

SEE SEU es HAS! LS Bee eee Ee a oe

□ a ee oo ook □□ □□□

sibs ELE OSes Se ee 2 es oe ae ae ae □□

□□ SS ee : oe ee Ee a oe Be a □□

Deaa aye ee oo fl. oe a

uae fs... Bee Le Ws SPREE □□□□

PS) TE ee oa ee CF oe ae □□

Katonah, NY 10536 oe a. a Ge

ho ak ee ane oe PU HAE ee: □□

e Judge and Feder: at ae ve ae

oO1B Lameeailie. end Federal Comm. 5 ee ee

slagreediwi oO Ege □□ er oe ae eee Sear

as Nername a □□ h my. ex-wifk ‘thant will ee oF ee ring □□□□□

ern art ope f Se eS see: Bee ate: Ee nt) amitlio BAER □□□□ □□ □ □□□□

the dy a : eae □ Soke □□ Ce Se te ant wase □□□

home tal ert ® said qoeeaty fo mefrom my. ole erenl one ad

purch Wee oes ft MO oo ee

i : oe ie. a A □□ ae one

Villa eels Was paid bstiy by sé ao detaber 204 a any

did not have money to! Histom my own challenging a Middle □□

clderhome. ana linck hase the old home a wee vork, When [married □□

Bmedntot 45.900 □□ a le ee lided my other home in Flor eneverhadthat statusto

‘ site vol baa ws a eee ee. bes COREE as a oe ae tment for □□□ □□

did infection‘cont mate NY trom 2005 to201 aS ne Lo ees ee □□

Ce Saseictd ace’ oe □□ □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ CE ea ne oe Sonar od Saag a gk SNe Gane ee ee ce co.

M Wane yee □□□ GEN i □□ Ne Saas ee omer

Le PTE LANG RES CS es uy te DUR) BELT PORE Ce SHER oF ee □□ □

Pes LES AMON ye ee Renee aeidGrat RE LR ES ey Se Oe □□□ □□□□□

et ee Spy ee ees Cloreapict pe 8 CU ee ee

= oe Athi, □ vc a LOE ESE ee Led LR Eas Sepa Pee geen Dy A See, □□□□□ □□ □□□

ort nat the court to asked mytelt of the ho {6 Sell the Home tS mov. es □□

oe. AL oe ee Te LO WED ae int Ce IE □□ Se nae ING Une □□□□□□ a

ere AGHEY, anc oa meee ein Ul oo @, she Saic Mhehometomove □

nat money Ora. nd sh 6 now ay a = Situatio □□□ ead that

a RUSSEL vue aoc eee w away: i Nehewe ne □□□ ee AR is

in me.

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

Imad Ayoubi v. Doaa Ayoubi, (S.D.N.Y. 2026).

Imad Ayoubi v. Doaa Ayoubi (Imad Ayoubi v. Doaa Ayoubi) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (Supreme Court, 2007)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court, 2009)
Matter of Mazzone
22 N.E.2d 315 (New York Court of Appeals, 1939)