Case Name: The Carlyle, LLC, Appellant, v. Beekman Garage LLC et al., Defendants, and Quik Park 1633 Garage LLC, Respondent. Rafael Llopiz et al., Nonparty Respondents
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2018-01-11
Citations: 157 A.D.3d 509
Docket Number: 
Parties: The Carlyle, LLC, Appellant, v Beekman Garage LLC et al., Defendants, and Quik Park 1633 Garage LLC, Respondent. Rafael Llopiz et al., Nonparty Respondents.
Judges: Concur—Renwick, J.P., Richter, Manzanet-Daniels, Kahn and Kern, JJ.
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 157
Pages: 509–510

Head Matter:
The Carlyle, LLC, Appellant, v Beekman Garage LLC et al., Defendants, and Quik Park 1633 Garage LLC, Respondent. Rafael Llopiz et al., Nonparty Respondents.
[67 NYS3d 622]

Opinion:
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan M. Kenney, J.), entered January 10, 2017, which denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on its cause of action for use and occupancy against defendant Quik Park 1633 Garage LLC (QP 1633), unanimously affirmed, without costs. Order, same court and Justice, entered March 6, 2017, which denied plaintiff's motion to compel QP 1633 and nonparties Rafael Llopiz, Citizens Icon Holdings, LLC, and Quik Park West 50th Street, LLC, to comply with postjudgment subpoenas, and granted Llopiz and defendants' cross motion for a protective order, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Summary judgment on the cause of action for use and occupancy is precluded by issues of fact as to the nature of the use and occupancy, assuming that QP 1633 occupied the parking garage premises at issue, and whether the repairs undertaken by plaintiff constituted a partial actual eviction of QP 1633 from the premises (see 81 Franklin Co. v Ginaccini, 160 AD2d 558, 559 [1st Dept 1990]; Union City Union Suit Co. v Miller, 162 AD2d 101, 105 [1st Dept 1990], lv denied 77 NY2d 804 [1991]). Moreover, in the event it is determined that there was no partial actual eviction, it will be necessary to determine the value of the use and occupancy, which was not included in the assessment of damages for unpaid rent.
Plaintiff's postjudgment disclosure demands were overly broad (see Stern v Carlin Communications, 210 AD2d 110 [1st Dept 1994]; CPLR 5223, 5224). In addition to information related to the judgment debtors' assets, plaintiff improperly sought information related to the assets and operations of the non-judgment-debtors it subpoenaed.
Concur—Renwick, J.P., Richter, Manzanet-Daniels, Kahn and Kern, JJ.