Strikeforce Mech. Corp. v. Red Hook 160 LLC

2025 NY Slip Op 31471(U)

• Court: New York Supreme Court, Kings County
• Decided: April 25, 2025
• Docket: Index No. 521878/2022
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Strikeforce Mech. Corp. v Red Hook 160 LLC 2025 NY Slip Op 31471(U) April 25, 2025 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: Index No. 521878/2022 Judge: Reginald A. Boddie 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 04/25/2025 04:46 PM INDEX NO. 521878/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 96 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/25/2025

AtanIAS Commercial Part 12 oftheSupreme Court ofthe.State of New York, held in andforthe County of Kings, at the Courthouse, located at 360 Adams Street, Borough of Brooklyn, City ancl State of New York on the 25 th day of April 2025,

PRES E.NT: Honorable Regin;:tld A. Boddie Justice, Supreme·Court. -· ------- ·-------------· -----------: --------- .. -.----· -------. --·:. --x

STRIKEFORCE MECHANICAL CORP.,

Plaintiff; IndexNo. 521878/2022

-against- Cal. No; 11 MS2

RED HOOK 160 LLC and PHILADELPHIA INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY, Decision and Order

Defendants;

----- ·-. - . __ .------- . --------------------------------------------. - . -x The following e-filed papers read herein: NYSCEF Doc Nos. MS2 64-'95

Upon the foregoing papers, defendants' motion to consolidate pursuant to CPLR. § 602(a)

and Lien Law§ 43 . is decided as follows:

Background.

Defendant Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company (''Philadelphia") moves to

co11solidc:1te the ins~1;LI1t case ajth. a mechanic's lien foreclosure action-·]vfanda Internatipnal Corp.

v. R.ed HoQk lqO LLC et ci/:, foclex No. 531163/2022-.in which Philadelphia is also a defendant,

prirsuaµt to CPLR § 602(a) and Lien Law §. 43. Philadelphia argues that both cases involve aileged

non-payment.for work perfon11ed on the same construction project at 160 Imlay Street; concern

si.lbstantially overlappi11g lega1 and factual __issues:, and .seek foreclosure of mechanic;s liens

i

1 of 4 [* 1] FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/25/2025 04:46 PM INDEX NO. 521878/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 96 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/25/2025

·discharged by bonds Issued by Philadelphia. Philadelphia em,phasizes that·both plaintiffs are

affiliated entities· O'-"ned by the: same irn;ij:v_idual, share a tiusiness.- ad~ess; arn;l are represented. by

the same counsel. Philadelphia contends that plaintiff Stdkeforce Mechanic

("Strik¢fotce") served .as· a subcontractor to Manda Intemationai Corp. ("Manda'~) and that

Manda's. lien includes. work _perfonned :by Strikeforce,. further ·tyin$ the claims togc.=:ther.

Philadeiphia asserts that consolidation would avoid duplicative discovery! unnecessary expense,

'and inconsistent .outcollles, particularly -since neither action has progressed beyond document

production. Philadelphia, furthe_i' contend$ that co-4efendant Rc,':4 .Hook.- 160 LLC. has already

consented to consolidation, but_plaintiffs have tefi.lsed, prompting Philad¢lphia to seek judicial

relief.

In opposition, $ttikeforce _argues·-:that cons.olidatfon would be improper and.-prejudicial 'due

to the distinct nature of the. two actions. .S:trikeforce asserts that it performed a separate scope of

work ·under a time-and-:materials arrangement:,. completed its work by January 2020; and helped

·secure TCOs for cores A throu~h C; by contrast" Manda had· fl formal written- construction

management contract be ginri.ing in December 2019 and continued work into August 2020 in· other

·cores .of the building, Strikeforce claims ihat the legal issues, timeframes, and counterclaims are

-different in each case~ and that ·corisoliclatj,on would create jucy cop.fusion, fo_rce eac:h plaintiff to

defend·against unrelated claims, arid unfairly conflate the parties' liability._

!n repiy., Philadelphia argues that Strikefotce' s opposition.fails to. rebut the "iegal grounds

fat consolidation and iilstefl.d relies o~ tacti9al and. unsll:pported 01:Jjectiqns. Ji'hiladelphia argue~·

that Strikeforce fails to address Lie~ Law §43~ which supports consolidation oflien foreclosure.

aptiop.s involving the same _property, evep. if .tlie liens have been bonded. Phiiadelphia -reasserts

that both actioilsaris_efrom.the same project,-inv_oive the ~ame defendantS;.and contain overlapping;

factual issues-.including .Manda seeking payment for work performed by Stdkefotce. 2

2 of 4 [* 2] FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/25/2025 04:46 PM INDEX NO. 521878/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 96 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/25/2025

Philadelphia contends Strikeforce's clainls of prejud1ce and juty confusion. as speculative and

unsupported, noti_ng that cQurt~ favor ·consolidation ·to promote efficiency and reduce

inconsistencies; Philadelphia also argue$ that the plaintiffs' separate corporate identities do not

preclude: consoli4ation,:.especially given their shared ownership, ·shared address, shared counsel,

and int~ri:elated claims.

Discussion.

"A motiori to. consolidate ·,• . . . two . . or .more. actions rests '•• ..• . . the sound. wiihin . discretion . of the . trial

·court" (R,_hoe v R_eid,166 AD3d_919, 921 [2d Dept-2018] [cjf;ltion.omitted]). Pursuant to CPLR §

602, "[w]hen actions involving a common question of law or fact are pendirtg.·before a court, the

court., ~ponmotion, may order ajoint trial .of any ·or all the . .matters,in, issue~ may ·orderthe·actions

-.consolidated, illld_ may make.such other orders _concernin-Rproceedin_gs therein-as may tend to-avoid

unnecessary costs. or delay." "A motion to consolidate pursuant to CPLR 602(a) should he granted

absent a :showing ·of prejudice to a substantial tight by the party ·opposing. the motion" (Via/ax

Corp. v -Citicorp Leasing; Inc;_,. -54 AD3d 8.46, &50· [2d D~pt 2008] [citations omitte:d]).

''Consolidation is appropriate where .it will avoid up.necessary duplication of· trials, save

tiimecessary costs and expense, -and preve11tan. injustice· which would result from divergent

decisions- based ori the same facts" (id).

Additionally, pursuant to Lien Law § 43, for actions ''to enforce nteqhanics' Iien_s on real

propertyt .. [i]f actions ar.e brought by different Henors,in a court of.record., ihe i:ourt in whi.'ch.the

first action was br<;mght, may, upon its own. ~otion, or upon the applic.ation of any party in any of

such actions, consolidate all of such actions.'' "the Lien Law .also expresses a strong policy in

favor of having all controversies arising out of. liens ·on the ·same properly resolved in the same

action" (He_nry Quentz_elP/um_bing S-qpplyCo.,. lnc. v 60 Pineap_ple Residence Corp., 126 Misc 2d

751; 753 [Sup Ct 19.84] [citation omitted]). 3

3 of 4 [* 3] FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/25/2025 04:46 PM INDEX NO. 521878/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 96 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/25/2025

Here, consolidation is warranted under both CPLR § 602(a) and Lien Law§ 43.The two

actions arise from the same construction project at 160 Imlay Street in Brooklyn. Both plaintiffs

assert claims for non-payment against the same defendant; Red Hook 160 LLC,. and seek to

foreclose. on mechanic's· liens for labor and materials furnisheci at the same property. Philadelphia

Indemnity Insurance Company, the surety for both discharged liens, is also a named• defendant in

both actions. Although the plaintiffs are distinct· le gal entities, they are both owned by the same

individual, Angelo Corrao, are represented by the same counsel, share a business address as

reflected in their respective liens, and allege substantially interrelated claims. Moreover,

Strikeforce acted as Manda; s subcontractor for a significant portion of the project, and :Manda's

lien itemization includes "hundreds of pages of Strikeforce invoices and other documents

concerning• Strikeforce 's work." ·This overlap further demonstrates that the same work and factual

allegations are at issue in both actions; such that the claims Cannot be fully adjudicated in isolation

without risking inconsistent results or inefficiencies.

Moreover, the procedural posture of the two actions weighs in favor of consolidating the

two cases for joint discovery and trial .. The Manda action was commenced less than three months

after the Strikeforce action, .µid both cases remain at substantially the same stage; no depositions

have been scheduled or taken, and the parties are still engaged in documentary discovery.

Based on the foregoing, defendants' motion is gr,mted to the extent that Strikeforce

Mechanical Corp. v. Red Hook 160 LLC etaL, Index No. 521878/2022, and Manda International

Cotp; v. Red Hook [60 LLC et al., Index No. 531163/2022, are hereby joined for purposes of

discovery ahd trial .. Each case sha:H retain its own index number, file a separate R.JI, .separate notes

of isstlei and file sepaxatej udginents.

ENTER: ~ 4 HON. REGlNAlD A. 8-DDDfE J.S.C,

4 of 4 [* 4]