### Bikes by Olga LLC v People 2024 NY Slip Op 31336(U) April 16, 2024 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: Index No. 506816/2021 Judge: Leon Ruchelsman Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip

Op30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local governmentsources, including the New

York State Unified Court System's eCourtsService. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication.

### FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/16/2024 02:09 PM INDEX NO. 506816/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 244 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/16/2024

1 of 4 

### SUPREME COURT OF THE STA.TE OFNEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS : CIVIL TERM: COMMERCIAL PART 8

----- ·---. ·-· --------·---.-----. -- .. --·------·. X BIKES BY OLGA LLC, Plaintiff,

- against

- THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORKi NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF T:RANSPORTATIQN, CITY OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT 

### OF TRANSPORTATION, NYCTL 2018-A TRUST, 2017-A TRUST, NYCTL 2016~A TRUST & NYCTL 

### 1998-2 TRUST; Defendants,

- ··.---·---------.-- .·---... ·---. --. --· .· ..-·.----· .. X. PRE$ENT: HON. LEON RUCHELSMAN Decision and order Index No. 

### 506816/2021

April 

### 16, 2024 Motion Seq. #8

On November

### ZS, 2023 the court issued a subpoena upon the New Yor:k City Transit Authorityordering a depositiori. from
someone with knowledge concerning the Trans:i..t Authority's claim of right to erect, maintain, and/or enter the structure on a portion of real property located at 353 Berry Street in Kings County. The subpoen·a further soughtdocuments regarding the
same. The State of New York has filed this motion seeking to: vacate the subpoena on the .grounds of sovereign immunity depriving the court of subjectmatter jurisdiction. The facts 

### of the case have been adequately described in prior orders and need not be repeated here. The State 

### was originally mad.e 

### a party to

### this 

### action to adj.udicate the owners11ip of the subjectproperty (see, RPAPL §1541). The ownershiphadbeendetepnined in a 

### decis.ion of

### this court 

### and, a 

### final judgement 

### was then entered ori

### March 15, 2022



### [* 1]

### FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/16/2024 02:09 PM INDEX NO. 506816/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 244 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/16/2024

2 of 4 (see, Order and Judgement [NYSGEF boc, No. 

### 129]). The State argues that upon the entry of the judgement the waiver of immunity concluded and that any further litigation concerning the property. does not involve the State at .all. Consequently, there
can be no action taken against the State without the State's consent. The plaintiff counters the court stillmaintains jurisdiction over the State 

### by virtue of its original waiver of immunity. RPAPL §1541 states that ''an action may :Pe maintained
...by or against the people of the state of New York" as outlined in the article, namely to compel the determination of. a claim to real property. In Hibiscus Harbor Inc., v. Ebersold, 53.Misc2d 868, 280 NYS2d 44 [County·Court Seneca County 19671 the court explainedthat "basically this section was enacted in order to establish a 'clearing house' for a final determinationof claims to real property. The intention Of the article is to place the court in a position where through its equityjuri.sdiction it can terminate adverse claims to p~operty and ~rit~r an order ~6 a~ to provide a conclusive title to one of theparties involved" (id). In that case there were questions whether the state would assert claims to disputedproperty. The cou~tBxplained that "ss to the questions of whether ornot the State of New York should disclose to the parties herein any information which they may necessitate andwhether their agerits and officers must submit to an
2

···············-·-···-·····-·-·----------------------~------ 

### [* 2]

### FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/16/2024 02:09 PM INDEX NO. 506816/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 244 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/16/2024

3 of 4 examination by the parties herein; should be c3.nswered in the affirmative" (id). In addressing the State's refusal to participate the courtheld that '\to agree with the State's contention that only in the Court of Claims, ca11 theyJ::,e examined, would destroy the intention o.f Article 15 and the broad equity jurisdiction of the Court under Section 1511 of the Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law. The technical aspects 

### of ascertaining descriptions outlined in the various conveyances and surveys; and the interpretationof the letters patent; and the locations of the defendants' cottages, woulq be thwarted, and the proof and issues would become prolonged, if the State would be allowed to remain alobf from any disclosure

## or examination" (id). These requirements of participation applyall the more so in this
case where the State is an actual party to the proce.edings. Thus, the State;s unduly narrowview of its affiliationin thi.:5 lawsuit fails to appreciate that without its continued involvetnentr the precise contours of the plaintifffs ownership remains in doubt~ While it is true that the State's sphere of ownership hasbeen resolved, its continued.participi3.tionin the action: can only serve to further the ownership interests 

### of the remainingparties. The court is not deciding whether theState 

### .must move 

### for sununa_ry judgemerit 

### to 

### free itself of 

### ahy further 

### jurisdictional connectionsorwhether the.connections auto;rnatically 

### expire 1.1ppn th.e 

### conclus.iori. cif the 

### State's
3



### [* 3]

### FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/16/2024 02:09 PM INDEX NO. 506816/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 244 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/16/2024

4 of 4 

### involvement

### with_the 

### Pti.bject 

### p.rop.E!rty. I;n.de~d; 

### inHurley·-v. :Hurley, 

### 50 N.Y:2d 78., 427 NYS2.d 986 [1980] the court held 

### the State did 

### not 

### waive immunity 

### for claims 

### 1.w:related to. the 

### property 

### even 

### if other 

### claims

### were validly

### waived. Rather, sinc-e there a:re 

### clearly contiections between the State 

### arid.the s.ubj

### ect 

### propierty, specifically concerning 

### information the Statemay 

### pQssess.·the 

### waiver has 

### -not 

### yet expired. 

### The State 

### further argues the 

### State.has provided 

### all information in its pos-s·ession. However,. clearly, 

### th=e plaintiff 

### remains unsatisfied with the prod1,1ctions.thus ;Ear. 

### Notwithstariding the State's 

### assurances to"

### the 

### contrary th'e pL:1iritiff

### rn·ay inqμire 

### about the cb"ntents- of 

### the subpoena. 

### Lastly, 

### sincethe 

### court considers

### the <::onclusion of the 

### waiver premature the cour-t

### need

### not·address 

### ahy of the e.quity arguments 

### which a:re 

### inapplicable- at this juncture. Therefore, based 

### on theforegoing, the 

### motion seekihg tci 

### vacate the order and 

### subpoena dated November

### 2B, 202·.3 is dE;!t1ied. ::io orde,re.d.

DATiE;D: April 16;-- 

### 2024 arooklyn N.

### 'l. EN';l'ER:

.Hon
. I,,eon JSC

4



### [* 4]