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

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 04/16/2024 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 OF NEW 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 Authority ordering a deposi tiori. 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 sought documents 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 subject matter 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 subject property (see, RPAPL 

§1541). The ownership had been detepnined 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 still maintains 

jurisdiction over the State by virtue of its original waiver of 

immunity. 

RPAPL §1541 states that ''an a ct ion 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 

explained that "basically this section was enacted in order to 

establish a 'clearing house' for a final determination of claims 

to real property. The intention Of the article is to place the 

court in a position where through its equity juri.sdiction it can 

terminate adverse claims to p~operty and ~rit~r an order ~6 a~ to 

provide a conclusive title to one of the parties involved" (id). 

In that case there were questions whether the state would assert 

claims to disputed property. The cou~t Bxplained that "ss to the 

questions of whether or not the State of New York should disclose 

to the parties herein any information which they may necessitate 

and whether 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 court held that '\to agree with the State's 

contention that only in the Court of Claims, ca11 they J::,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 interpretation of 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 apply all the more so in this 

case where the State is an actual party to the proce.edings. 

Thus, the State;s unduly narrow view of its affiliation in thi.:5 

lawsuit fails to appreciate that without its continued 

involvetnentr the precise contours of the plaintifff s ownership 

remains in doubt~ While it is true that the State's sphere of 

ownership has been resolved, its continued. participi3.tion in the 

action: can only serve to further the ownership interests of the 

remaining parties. The court is not deciding whether the State 

.must move for sununa_ry j udgemerit to free its elf of ahy further 

jurisdictional connections or whether 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; in Hurley· -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 State may 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, since the 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 the foregoing, 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]