Thor Gateway I & II, LLC v Greater Omentum & Lawrence Harlem Foods LLC 2025 NY Slip Op 31205(U) April 9, 2025 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 650072/2023 Judge: Nicholas W. Moyne 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: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/09/2025 04:52 PM INDEX NO. 650072/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 17 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/09/2025
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: HON. NICHOLAS W. MOYNE PART 41M Justice ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X INDEX NO. 650072/2023 THOR GATEWAY I & II, LLC, MOTION DATE 03/21/2023 Plaintiff, MOTION SEQ. NO. 001 -v- GREATER OMENTUM AND LAWRENCE HARLEM FOODS LLC,COREY LAWRENCE, JOSEPH EDWARDS, SAMUEL J. DANIEL, DAVID FROST, RONALD CHASE, BILLY H. DECISION + ORDER ON FORD, WILLIE ALEXANDER MORTON, TREVOR MOTION WORRELL
Defendant. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15 were read on this motion to/for DISMISS .
Upon the foregoing documents, it is
Plaintiff, Thor Gateway I & II, LLC (“Thor” or “Landlord”), commenced this action
against defendants, Greater Omentum and Lawrence Harlem Food LLC (“Tenants”), Corey
Lawrence, Joseph Edwards, Samuel J. Daniel, David Frost, Ronald Chase, Billy H. Ford, Willie
Alexander Morton, and Trevor Worrell (“Guarantors”)1, to recover damages allegedly sustained
in the amount of $795,000.00, plus costs and attorneys’ fees, and asserting causes of action for
breach of a lease agreement and breach of guaranty agreement.
In Motion Sequence 001, defendants now move for an order, pursuant to CPLR §§ 3211
(a)(1) & (a)(7), dismissing the complaint for the failure to state a claim and/or pursuant to the
1 The court notes that plaintiff has only filed proof of service of the summons and complaint for two of the defendants named herein: Joseph Edwards and Samuel J. Daniel (NYSCEF Doc. No. 2; 3). Accordingly, the court lacks personal jurisdiction over the individual defendants which have not been served with the papers for this action. 650072/2023 THOR GATEWAY I & II, LLC vs. GREATER OMENTUM AND LAWRENCE HARLEM Page 1 of 6 FOODS LLC ET AL Motion No. 001
1 of 6 [* 1] FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/09/2025 04:52 PM INDEX NO. 650072/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 17 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/09/2025
“Guaranty Law”, New York City Administrative Code § 22-1005 as the plaintiff may not
recover against the individual Guarantors.
The relevant factual allegations as stated within the complaint are as follows. Plaintiff
alleges that as of March 2015, it acquired and became the landlord of the retail space on the first
floor in the building located at 2082-2088 Lexington Avenue, New York, New York. Plaintiff
contends that in April 2011, the previous landlord entered a lease with Greater Omentum, as
Tenant, renting the premises for an IHOP restaurant. This lease was then allegedly amended by a
Tenant Improvement Amendment dated October 6, 2011, Second Lease Amendment dated
October 31, 2011, Addendum to Lease dated November 21, 2011, and Third Modification of
Lease dated December 12, 2014, with a term commencing on April 1, 2011, and expiring March
31, 2026.2 Plaintiff contends that in consideration of this lease, each of the Guarantors signed a
personal guaranty for the lease. Regarding the provisions of the supposed guaranties, the
complaint includes that, “…they absolutely, irrevocably and unconditionally guaranteed to
Landlord the full and prompt compliance by Tenant of all of the obligations of Tenant under the
Lease, including the payment of all Rent and Additional Rent… and any costs incurred by
Landlord in enforcing the [g]uaranty”, and “the [g]uaranties state that the Guarantors consent to
personal jurisdiction with respect to all claims, actions and proceedings arising under the
[g]uaranties, and agree that the proper venue for any such action or proceeding shall be the
Supreme Court, New York County or the Civil Court, New York County” (NYSCEF Doc. No. 1
2 Relevant factual allegations relating to the provisions of the supposed lease are as follows: (1) “The Lease requires Tenant to pay fixed rent in monthly installments, percentage rent, real estate tax escalations, water charges, and sewer charges”; (2) “The Lease allows Landlord to re-enter and repossess the Premises if Tenant defaults in the payment of rent…Tenant remains liable for sums equal to the deficiency between the rent and additional rent reserved, and the net amount (if any) of the rents collected from any re-letting of the Premises for each month of the period which would otherwise have constituted the balance of the term of the Lease”; (3) the Lease provides that if Landlord prevails in an action based on Tenant’s default under the Lease, Landlord is entitled to recover its reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses incurred in the prosecution of such action” (NYSCEF Doc. No. 1 ¶¶ 16-18).
650072/2023 THOR GATEWAY I & II, LLC vs. GREATER OMENTUM AND LAWRENCE HARLEM Page 2 of 6 FOODS LLC ET AL Motion No. 001
2 of 6 [* 2] FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/09/2025 04:52 PM INDEX NO. 650072/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 17 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/09/2025
¶¶ 19, 20). In the complaint, plaintiff is asserting a claim against Greater Omentum and
Lawrence Harlem Food LLC for breach of lease, as well as a claim against the Guarantors for
breach of guaranty.
Counsel for defendants alleges that, “[t]he estate of Greater Omentum and Lawrence
Harlem Foods LLC has been fully administered and discharged in Chapter 7 Bankruptcy
(NYSCEF Doc. No. 5 ¶ 6). In response to which, plaintiff has and/or is withdrawing its claims as
against the Tenants, stating “plaintiff no longer seeks recover against the tenant, and will proceed
solely against the guarantors” (NYSCEF Doc. No. 11 at 3, n. 1). Accordingly, complaint and/or
first cause of action for breach of lease agreement may be dismissed (Noto v Planck, LLC, 228
AD3d 516, 517 [1st Dept 2024]; Victory State Bank v EMBA Hylan, LLC, 169 AD3d 963, 967
[2d Dept 2019]).
CPLR §§ 3211 (a)(1) and (a)(7):
In their motion papers, defendants mention various grounds on which they may be
seeking dismissal, including: (1) the plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted as against the Guarantors; (2) that the guaranties are not enforceable against Guarantors
under Admin Code 22-10053; (3) plaintiff refused to provide defendants with a fully executed
copy of the lease and/or fully executed copies of the alleged personal guaranties; and (4)
“challenging personal jurisdiction, because service of process on [d]efendants is insufficient, for
lack of service; service is invalid on one or more of the [d]efendants, for failure to serve at the
actual or usual place of abode; Affidavits of Service have not been filed with the Court for all
[d]efendants. As it is unclear from the motion papers what grounds/the basis of the motion is,
both CPLR §§ 3211 (a)(1) or (a)(7) will be addressed. Notwithstanding the issues of personal
3 While this motion was pending, defendants withdrew but then later attempted to and/or did reinstate the claim for dismissal based on Administrative Code § 22-1005. 650072/2023 THOR GATEWAY I & II, LLC vs.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Thor Gateway I & II, LLC v Greater Omentum & Lawrence Harlem Foods LLC 2025 NY Slip Op 31205(U) April 9, 2025 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 650072/2023 Judge: Nicholas W. Moyne 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: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/09/2025 04:52 PM INDEX NO. 650072/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 17 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/09/2025
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: HON. NICHOLAS W. MOYNE PART 41M Justice ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X INDEX NO. 650072/2023 THOR GATEWAY I & II, LLC, MOTION DATE 03/21/2023 Plaintiff, MOTION SEQ. NO. 001 -v- GREATER OMENTUM AND LAWRENCE HARLEM FOODS LLC,COREY LAWRENCE, JOSEPH EDWARDS, SAMUEL J. DANIEL, DAVID FROST, RONALD CHASE, BILLY H. DECISION + ORDER ON FORD, WILLIE ALEXANDER MORTON, TREVOR MOTION WORRELL
Defendant. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15 were read on this motion to/for DISMISS .
Upon the foregoing documents, it is
Plaintiff, Thor Gateway I & II, LLC (“Thor” or “Landlord”), commenced this action
against defendants, Greater Omentum and Lawrence Harlem Food LLC (“Tenants”), Corey
Lawrence, Joseph Edwards, Samuel J. Daniel, David Frost, Ronald Chase, Billy H. Ford, Willie
Alexander Morton, and Trevor Worrell (“Guarantors”)1, to recover damages allegedly sustained
in the amount of $795,000.00, plus costs and attorneys’ fees, and asserting causes of action for
breach of a lease agreement and breach of guaranty agreement.
In Motion Sequence 001, defendants now move for an order, pursuant to CPLR §§ 3211
(a)(1) & (a)(7), dismissing the complaint for the failure to state a claim and/or pursuant to the
1 The court notes that plaintiff has only filed proof of service of the summons and complaint for two of the defendants named herein: Joseph Edwards and Samuel J. Daniel (NYSCEF Doc. No. 2; 3). Accordingly, the court lacks personal jurisdiction over the individual defendants which have not been served with the papers for this action. 650072/2023 THOR GATEWAY I & II, LLC vs. GREATER OMENTUM AND LAWRENCE HARLEM Page 1 of 6 FOODS LLC ET AL Motion No. 001
1 of 6 [* 1] FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/09/2025 04:52 PM INDEX NO. 650072/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 17 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/09/2025
“Guaranty Law”, New York City Administrative Code § 22-1005 as the plaintiff may not
recover against the individual Guarantors.
The relevant factual allegations as stated within the complaint are as follows. Plaintiff
alleges that as of March 2015, it acquired and became the landlord of the retail space on the first
floor in the building located at 2082-2088 Lexington Avenue, New York, New York. Plaintiff
contends that in April 2011, the previous landlord entered a lease with Greater Omentum, as
Tenant, renting the premises for an IHOP restaurant. This lease was then allegedly amended by a
Tenant Improvement Amendment dated October 6, 2011, Second Lease Amendment dated
October 31, 2011, Addendum to Lease dated November 21, 2011, and Third Modification of
Lease dated December 12, 2014, with a term commencing on April 1, 2011, and expiring March
31, 2026.2 Plaintiff contends that in consideration of this lease, each of the Guarantors signed a
personal guaranty for the lease. Regarding the provisions of the supposed guaranties, the
complaint includes that, “…they absolutely, irrevocably and unconditionally guaranteed to
Landlord the full and prompt compliance by Tenant of all of the obligations of Tenant under the
Lease, including the payment of all Rent and Additional Rent… and any costs incurred by
Landlord in enforcing the [g]uaranty”, and “the [g]uaranties state that the Guarantors consent to
personal jurisdiction with respect to all claims, actions and proceedings arising under the
[g]uaranties, and agree that the proper venue for any such action or proceeding shall be the
Supreme Court, New York County or the Civil Court, New York County” (NYSCEF Doc. No. 1
2 Relevant factual allegations relating to the provisions of the supposed lease are as follows: (1) “The Lease requires Tenant to pay fixed rent in monthly installments, percentage rent, real estate tax escalations, water charges, and sewer charges”; (2) “The Lease allows Landlord to re-enter and repossess the Premises if Tenant defaults in the payment of rent…Tenant remains liable for sums equal to the deficiency between the rent and additional rent reserved, and the net amount (if any) of the rents collected from any re-letting of the Premises for each month of the period which would otherwise have constituted the balance of the term of the Lease”; (3) the Lease provides that if Landlord prevails in an action based on Tenant’s default under the Lease, Landlord is entitled to recover its reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses incurred in the prosecution of such action” (NYSCEF Doc. No. 1 ¶¶ 16-18).
650072/2023 THOR GATEWAY I & II, LLC vs. GREATER OMENTUM AND LAWRENCE HARLEM Page 2 of 6 FOODS LLC ET AL Motion No. 001
2 of 6 [* 2] FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/09/2025 04:52 PM INDEX NO. 650072/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 17 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/09/2025
¶¶ 19, 20). In the complaint, plaintiff is asserting a claim against Greater Omentum and
Lawrence Harlem Food LLC for breach of lease, as well as a claim against the Guarantors for
breach of guaranty.
Counsel for defendants alleges that, “[t]he estate of Greater Omentum and Lawrence
Harlem Foods LLC has been fully administered and discharged in Chapter 7 Bankruptcy
(NYSCEF Doc. No. 5 ¶ 6). In response to which, plaintiff has and/or is withdrawing its claims as
against the Tenants, stating “plaintiff no longer seeks recover against the tenant, and will proceed
solely against the guarantors” (NYSCEF Doc. No. 11 at 3, n. 1). Accordingly, complaint and/or
first cause of action for breach of lease agreement may be dismissed (Noto v Planck, LLC, 228
AD3d 516, 517 [1st Dept 2024]; Victory State Bank v EMBA Hylan, LLC, 169 AD3d 963, 967
[2d Dept 2019]).
CPLR §§ 3211 (a)(1) and (a)(7):
In their motion papers, defendants mention various grounds on which they may be
seeking dismissal, including: (1) the plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted as against the Guarantors; (2) that the guaranties are not enforceable against Guarantors
under Admin Code 22-10053; (3) plaintiff refused to provide defendants with a fully executed
copy of the lease and/or fully executed copies of the alleged personal guaranties; and (4)
“challenging personal jurisdiction, because service of process on [d]efendants is insufficient, for
lack of service; service is invalid on one or more of the [d]efendants, for failure to serve at the
actual or usual place of abode; Affidavits of Service have not been filed with the Court for all
[d]efendants. As it is unclear from the motion papers what grounds/the basis of the motion is,
both CPLR §§ 3211 (a)(1) or (a)(7) will be addressed. Notwithstanding the issues of personal
3 While this motion was pending, defendants withdrew but then later attempted to and/or did reinstate the claim for dismissal based on Administrative Code § 22-1005. 650072/2023 THOR GATEWAY I & II, LLC vs. GREATER OMENTUM AND LAWRENCE HARLEM Page 3 of 6 FOODS LLC ET AL Motion No. 001
3 of 6 [* 3] FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/09/2025 04:52 PM INDEX NO. 650072/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 17 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/09/2025
jurisdiction and the applicability of the Guaranty Law, the complaint must be dismissed due to
the failure to state a claim.
Under CPLR § 3211(a)(1), a dismissal is warranted only if “the documentary evidence
utterly refutes plaintiff's factual allegations, conclusively establishing a defense as a matter of
law” (Xu v Van Zwienen, 212 AD3d 872, 874 [2d Dept 2023], quoting Goshen v Mut. Life Ins.
Co. of New York, 98 NY2d 314, 326 [2002]). “Allegations that are ‘bare legal conclusions’ or
that are ‘inherently incredible or flatly contradicted by documentary evidence’ are not sufficient
to withstand a motion to dismiss” (RTW Retailwinds, Inc. v Colucci & Umans, 213 AD3d 509,
510 [1st Dept 2023] [internal citations omitted]).
To the extent asserted, defendants motion to dismiss based on CPLR § 3211 (a)(1),
documentary evidence, would be denied. The only evidence offered is an affidavit which, in
addition to failing to constitute documentary evidence, lacks any probative value as it is
unsigned, uncertified, and contains the same allegations as those contained in the affirmation by
counsel (see Bou v Llamoza, 173 AD3d 575, 576 [1st Dept 2019], Correa v Orient-Express
Hotels, Inc., 84 AD3d 651 [1st Dept 2011]; Hill v New York City Health and Hosps. Corp., 147
AD3d 430, 432 [1st Dept 2017]; Li Xian v Tat Lee Supplies Co., Inc., 170 AD3d 538, 539 [1st
Dept 2019]).
On a CPLR § 3211 (a)(7) motion to dismiss, a court must “accept the facts as alleged in
the complaint as true, accord plaintiffs the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and
determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory” (Seaman v
Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP, 176 AD3d 538, 538 [1st Dept 2019]). However, allegations
consisting of bare legal conclusions are insufficient, and “[d]ismissal of the complaint is
warranted if the plaintiff fails to assert facts in support of an element of the claim, or if the
650072/2023 THOR GATEWAY I & II, LLC vs. GREATER OMENTUM AND LAWRENCE HARLEM Page 4 of 6 FOODS LLC ET AL Motion No. 001
4 of 6 [* 4] FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/09/2025 04:52 PM INDEX NO. 650072/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 17 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/09/2025
factual allegations and inferences to be drawn from them do not allow for an enforceable right of
recovery” (Connaughton v Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., 29 NY3d 137, 142 [2017]).
Plaintiff has failed to adequately allege a claim of breach of contract against the two
individual defendants based on the existence of a supposed guaranty agreement. A guaranty is a
promise to fulfill the obligations of another party, and is subject “to the ordinary principles of
contract construction” (Cooperatieve Centrale Raiffeisen-Boerenleenbank, B.A. v Navarro, 25
NY3d 485, 492 [2015]). To adequately state a claim for breach of contract, a plaintiff must
allege that: (1) a contract exists; (2) plaintiff performed in accordance with the contract; (3)
defendant breached its contractual obligations; and (4) defendants’ breach resulted in damages
(34-06 73, LLC v Seneca Ins. Co., 39 NY3d 44, 52 [2022]). Further, the plaintiff’s allegations
must sufficiently identify the provisions of any such agreement and how they were breached
(Martin Assoc., Inc. v Illinois Natl. Ins. Co., 188 AD3d 572 [1st Dept 2020]).
However, the plaintiff’s allegations, including those supplemented in the motion
opposition papers, are insufficient to state a claim (Detringo v S. Is. Family Med., LLC, 158
AD3d 609, 610 [2d Dept 2018]). The plaintiff has failed to include allegations pertaining to the
individual defendants or any conduct constituting a breach which may be attributed to them
(Barker v Time Warner Cable, Inc., 83 AD3d 750, 752 [2d Dept 2011]). The unverified
complaint is entirely devoid of any specific or detailed factual allegations to adequately allege
the material elements of the claim, including: the relationship of the parties, the existence of an
enforceable guaranty agreement, or the supposed underlying material terms or conditions thereof
(Martin Assoc., Inc. v Illinois Natl. Ins. Co., 188 AD3d 572 [1st Dept 2020]; Chip Fifth Ave.
LLC v Quality King Distributors, Inc., 158 AD3d 418 [1st Dept 2018]). Instead, the allegations
in the complaint are conclusory, non-specific, and insufficient to adequately plead a claim based
650072/2023 THOR GATEWAY I & II, LLC vs. GREATER OMENTUM AND LAWRENCE HARLEM Page 5 of 6 FOODS LLC ET AL Motion No. 001
5 of 6 [* 5] FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/09/2025 04:52 PM INDEX NO. 650072/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 17 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/09/2025
on an alleged breach of guaranty (see Mandarin Trading Ltd. v Wildenstein, 16 NY3d 173, 182
[2011] [“[t]he complaint only offers conclusory allegations without pleading the pertinent terms
of the purported agreement…[w]e are left to speculate as to the parties involved and the
conditions under which this alleged appraisal contract was formed”]). Accordingly, plaintiff has
failed to sustain a cause of action for breach of contract (Marino v Vunk, 39 AD3d 339, 340 [1st
Dept 2007]).
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that the motion by defendants, to dismiss the complaint, is GRANTED and the
complaint is dismissed, without prejudice and without costs; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.
This constitutes the decision and order of the court.
4/9/2025 DATE NICHOLAS W. MOYNE, J.S.C. CHECK ONE: X CASE DISPOSED NON-FINAL DISPOSITION
□ □ X GRANTED DENIED GRANTED IN PART OTHER
APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER
□ CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT REFERENCE
650072/2023 THOR GATEWAY I & II, LLC vs. GREATER OMENTUM AND LAWRENCE HARLEM Page 6 of 6 FOODS LLC ET AL Motion No. 001
6 of 6 [* 6]