New Deal Realty LLC v 684 Owners Corp.

2024 NY Slip Op 33156(U)

September 9, 2024

Supreme Court, New York County

Docket Number: Index No. 652893/2020

Judge: Arlene P. Bluth

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.
652893/2020 NEW DEAL REALTY LLC vs. 684 OWNERS CORP.

Motion No. 003

Page 1 of 4

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 003) 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 

73, 74, 75, 76, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96

were read on this motion to/for SANCTIONS .

Plaintiff’s motion for an order imposing sanctions against defendant 684 Owners Corp. 

(“684”) is denied. 

Background

In this action, plaintiff, a commercial tenant, claims it was overcharged rent for many 

years. Plaintiff entered a commercial lease with defendant 684, a cooperative, on November 15, 

1994. Section 4.2 of the lease provides that plaintiff’s rent was calculated as follows: “the 

amount by which (A) 24% of Landlord’s Qualified Income for that year (excluding, however, 

amounts attributable to any period prior to the effective date of this lease) exceeds (B) so much 

of Landlord’s gross income for that year as is neither Qualified Income nor rent under this 

lease,” (NYSCEF Doc. No. 57 at 3 ¶ 4.2). According to the lease, qualified income included all 

gross income of 684 derived from the tenant stockholders (id. at 7 ¶ 6.2.2). In other words, 

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

NEW YORK COUNTY

PRESENT: HON. ARLENE P. BLUTH PART 14

Justice 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X INDEX NO. 652893/2020

 MOTION DATE 07/31/2024

 MOTION SEQ. NO. 003

DECISION + ORDER ON 

MOTION

NEW DEAL REALTY LLC,

 Plaintiff, 

- v -

684 OWNERS CORP., YANNIS BAKOS, FELIX RUO, 

BRIAN GLEASON, ALEXANDRA SCOTT, ROBERTA 

GOSS, TONY CURTIS, KLEIMAN & WEINSHANK LLP, 

WILKIN & GUTTENPLAN, P.C.

 Defendant. 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

INDEX NO. 652893/2020

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 101 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/09/2024

1 of 4 [* 1]
652893/2020 NEW DEAL REALTY LLC vs. 684 OWNERS CORP.

Motion No. 003

Page 2 of 4

whatever the tenant stockholders paid toward 684, 24% of said amount constituted the plaintiff’s 

rental payment.

Plaintiff insists that there is a carve-out—it insists that the amounts 684 collects and 

spends for capital improvements have to be removed before the aforementioned 24% rent charge 

is calculated. Put another way, plaintiff admits it has to pay 24% of the money needed to 

maintain the building (i.e., taxes and fuel) but that it need not pay money for capital 

improvement projects. It claims that after 2013, 684 stopped giving credits to plaintiff despite the 

fact that capital improvements continued; plaintiff argues it made excess rent payments totaling 

over $200,000. 

Plaintiff moves for sanctions on the ground that 684 is deliberately withholding 

documents it was ordered to produce. Specifically, this Court issued an order in March 2024 

stating that “684 Owners must take this seriously and fully comply with this order and timely 

produce, in legible form, all financial documents demonstrating payments made to engineers, 

architects, and consultants (“professionals”) from 2008 to 2019; this includes the contracts with 

the professionals, the invoices from the professionals, proof of payments to the professionals and 

all other back up to show why each was hired, what each did and how and when each was paid. 

It should be organized by professional and the sum of each professional’s paid bills must equal 

the amount reportedly paid to professionals each year” (NYSCEF Doc. No. 65). 

Plaintiff includes an affidavit from one of its managing members in which he (Mr. 

Shnayer) contends that it should be relatively easy for 684 to produce the records requested. Mr. 

Shnayer explains that he also lives in the building and was the treasurer for 684’s board for about 

14 years. Mr. Shnayer observes that 684 uses a managing agent (“Andrews”) to handle its dayto-day operations and that a spreadsheet of receipts and disbursements is created each year. He 

INDEX NO. 652893/2020

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 101 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/09/2024

2 of 4 [* 2]
652893/2020 NEW DEAL REALTY LLC vs. 684 OWNERS CORP.

Motion No. 003

Page 3 of 4

insists that 684 keeps its books on a cash basis and that means its expenses (including payments 

to professionals) are recorded in records at the time the payment is made not when the work is 

performed. Mr. Shnayer insists that Andrews should be able to produce reports that show all 

payments made to professionals during the relevant period with backup for each payment (such 

as invoices and a contract) as that is how 684 kept its accounting records. 

In opposition, 684 argues that it produced over 3,500 pages of backup documentation on 

May 2, 2024 but that plaintiff is still unsatisfied. 684 claims that plaintiff relied upon financial 

audit reports prepared by defendant Kleiman & Weinshank, LLP (“K&W”), 684’s former 

accountant. 684 argues that plaintiff insisted that the expenditure figures in the May 2024 

production did not match K&W’s records. 684 claims that it then engaged in an internal search 

for additional documentation but concluded that “it did not have access to the documents and 

categorizations that K&W used to prepare the financial audit reports as the calculated numbers 

from the Co-op’s records did not match the numbers in the financial audit reports for 10 of the 12 

fiscal years in question” (NYSCEF Doc. No. 79). 684 demanded that K&W produce the 

documents demanded by plaintiff as 684’s former accountant. 

684 claims that it believes that it has produced all of the relevant documentation but does 

not know how K&W prepared the financial reports and stresses that its board members are lay 

people who are unable to opine about K&W’s accounting methods. 684 points to an affidavit of 

due diligence it submitted to plaintiff dated July 12, 2024 that claims it has produced all relevant 

documents (NYSCEF Doc. No. 92). This affidavit also insists that 684’s board is not aware how 

its accountant categorizes professional fees when preparing audit reports from 2008-2019 and so 

that explains the disparities between the professionals’ fees in the audit reports and 684’s 

production. 

INDEX NO. 652893/2020

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 101 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/09/2024

3 of 4 [* 3]
652893/2020 NEW DEAL REALTY LLC vs. 684 OWNERS CORP.

Motion No. 003

Page 4 of 4

Discussion

The Court denies plaintiff’s motion for sanctions at this time. To be sure, plaintiff is 

correct to inquire about the apparent discrepancy between the audit reports and the 

documentation it received from 684. But that issue must be fully explored before the Court will 

consider issuing sanctions. The fact is that K&W1is a party in this case and can answer questions 

concerning the aforementioned discrepancy through discovery or at a deposition. 684 noted that 

its board is comprised of lay people, not accountants, and so this Court cannot sanction 684 for 

not being able to offer an explanation for why reports prepared by an accountant do not match up 

with the supporting documentation. 

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for sanctions is denied. See NYSCEF Doc. No. 78 

concerning the next conference. 

1 684 explains that its prior accountants were initially defendant Wilkin & Guttenplan, P.C. which then became a 

division of defendant K&W in 2018. 

9/9/2024 $SIG$

DATE ARLENE P. BLUTH, J.S.C.

CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED X NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

GRANTED X DENIED GRANTED IN PART OTHER

APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER

CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT REFERENCE

INDEX NO. 652893/2020

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 101 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/09/2024

4 of 4

□ 

□ 

[* 4]