Court Opinion

ID: 9929186
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-01 21:08:20.7276+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:05:31.093214
License: Public Domain

Avant Capital 388 Broadway LLC v 388 Broadway
                      Owners LLC
               2024 NY Slip Op 30338(U)
                    January 26, 2024
           Surpeme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 850264/2021
               Judge: Francis A. Kahn III
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.
                                                                                                                          INDEX NO. 850264/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 239                                                                                             RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/26/2024

                               SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                         NEW YORK COUNTY
        PRESENT:             HON. FRANCIS A. KAHN, 111                                          PART                               32
                                                                                Justice
        ------------------------------------------------------------------------------X         INDEX NO.           850264/2021
         AVANT CAPITAL 388 BROADWAY LLC,
                                                                                                MOTION DATE
                                                     Plaintiff,
                                                                                                MOTION SEQ. NO.          002
                                             - V -

         388 BROADWAY OWNERS LLC,NEW YORK LEE
         FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, AC BROADWAY LENDER
         LLC,CRIMINAL COURT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK,
         NEW YORK CITY ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL BOARD,
         SIGNATURE BANK, NA, BARRY LEON, ELISE WARD,
         CARL GOLDHAGEN, LEISURE SALOON INC. D/B/A EDEN                                           DECISION + ORDER ON
         DAY SPA, ARGYLE SYSTEMS INC.,DANIEL SAYNT,                                                         MOTION
         MARY MEGEE. THE SERIES EVENTS LLC,ANDREW
         WHARTON-BICKLEY, SHAHN ANDERSEN, KIMIKO
         FUJIMURA, SAMUEL FISHMAN, JOHN DOE, JANE DOE,
         XYZ CORP.

                                                     Defendant.
        ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

        The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 002) 137, 138, 139, 140,
        141,142,143,144,145,146,147,148,149,150,151,152,153,154,155,156,157,158,159,160,161,
        162,163,164,165,166,167,168,169,170,171,172,173,174,175,176,177,178,179,180,181,182,
        183,184,185,186,187, 188, 189, 190,191,192, 193, 194,195,196, 197, 198,199,200,201,202,203,
        204,205,206,207,208,209,210,211,212,213,214,215,216,217,218,219,220,221,222,223,224,
        225,226,227,228,229
        were read on this motion to/for                                                      JUDGMENT - SUMMARY

                  Upon the foregoing documents,. the motion and cross-motion are determined as follows:

                The within action is to foreclose on a consolidated, extended and modified mortgage
        encumbering a parcel of commercial real property located at 388 Broadway, New York, New York.
        Defendant 388 Broadway Owners LLC ("'Owners") gave a mortgage. dated October 31, 2017, to
        Plaintiff Avant Capital 388 Broadway LLC ('."Avant"). The mortgage secures two loans with original
        principal amounts of $8,400,000.00 and $3,600,000.00 which are memorialized by consolidated,
        amended and restated notes (A and B). respectively. The notes and mortgage were executed by
        Defendants Barry Leon ("Leon") as an authorized signatory of Owners. Concomitantly with these
        documents, Leon executed a guaranty of the indebtedness. On March 2, 2020, Plaintiff, Owners and
        Leon entered a forbearance agreement wherein, inter alia, the Mortgagors and Guarantors
        acknowledged the Mortgagors' indebtedness in an amount of $15,934,025.59, their default in repayment
        and their "absolute and unconditional'· obligation to pay the outstanding debts.

              On November 15, 2021, Plaintiff commenced this action alleging Defendants defaulted in
        repayment of the loans and under the guarantees. Also joined were Defendants Carl Goldhagen

         B50264/2021 AVANT CAPITAL 38B BROADWAY LLC vs. 38B BROADWAY OWNERS LLC ET AL                                Page 1 of 9
         Motion No. 002

                                                                              1 of 9
[* 1]
                                                                                                    INDEX NO. 850264/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 239                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/26/2024

        ("Goldhagen"), Leisure Saloon Inc. d/b/a Eden Day Spa ("Eden") and Elise Ward ("Ward") as alleged
        necessary subordinate lienors. Defendant Leon answered and pied five affirmative defenses. Defendant
        Goldhagen answered and pled a crossclaim, incorrectly titled a counter claim, against Owner for breach
        of contract. Defendant Eden answered five "defense[s]", presumably affirmative given their substance
        (CPLR §3018[b ]). Defendant Ward answered and pled one affirmative defense and two crossclaims
        against Owner. Answers and replies to the above counterclaims and crossclaims were also served.

              By order of this Court dated January 17, 2023, Plaintiff's motion for a default judgment against
        non-appearing Defendants 388 Broadway Owners LLC, Daniel Saynt, AC Broadway Lender LLC,
        Shahn Andersen, New York Lee Federal Credit Union, Criminal Court of the City Of New York and
        New York City Environmental Control Board, was granted without opposition.

               Now, Plaintiff moves for fourteen branches of relief which are as follows:

               (a) Pursuant to CPLR §3212, awarding Plaintiff summary judgment against defendant Barry
                   Leon under its first cause of action and fourth cause of action;

               (b) Pursuant to CPLR §§ 3212, 3013 and 3018(b), dismissing defendant Barry Leon's
                   affirmative defenses contained in its Verified Answer;

               (c) Pursuant to CPLR §3212, awarding Plaintiff summary judgment against defendant Leisure
                   Saloon Inc. d/b/a Eden Day Spa under its first cause of action;

               (d) Pursuant to CPLR §§ 3212, 3013 and 3018(b ), dismissing defendant Leisure Saloon Inc.
                   d/b/a Eden Day Spa affirmative defenses contained in its Verified Answer;

               (e) Pursuant to CPLR §3212, awarding Plaintiff summary judgment against defendant Elise
                   Ward under its first cause of action;

               (f) Pursuant to CPLR §3212, dismissing defendant Elise Ward's first affirmative defense;

               (g) Pursuant to CPLR §321 l(a)(7), dismissing defendant Elise Ward's counterclaims against the
                   Plaintiff;

               (h) Pursuant to CPLR §3212, awarding Plaintiff summary judgment against defendant Carl
                   Goldhagen under its first cause of action;

               (i) Pursuant to CPLR §3212, dismissing defendant Carl Goldhagen's first affirmative defense;

               (i) Pursuant to CPLR §3211 (a)(7), awarding Plaintiff summary judgment dismissing defendant
                   Carl Goldhagen' s counterclaim against the Plaintiff; or if the court does not dismiss the
                   counterclaim, then, in the alternative

               (k) Pursuant to CPLR 3212(e), severing defendant Carl Goldhagen's counterclaim from this
                   action;

               (1) Appointing a referee and directing him or her to compute the amount due to the Plaintiff for
                   principal, late fees, interest, default interest, the forbearance fee, advanced tax payments for
         850264/2021 AVANT CAPITAL 388 BROADWAY LLC vs. 388 BROADWAY OWNERS LLC ET AL          Page 2 of 9
         Motion No. 002

                                                           2 of 9
[* 2]
                                                                                                    INDEX NO. 850264/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 239                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/26/2024

                   the subject property, exit fees, attorneys' fees, costs and disbursements due as set forth in the
                   complaint, as well as directing him or her to examine and report whether the property can be
                   sold in parcels; and

               (m)Substituting the name of White Walker Holdings 1 LLC in the place of AVANT CAPITAL
                  388 BROADWAY LLC as plaintiff in the caption of this action; and

               (n) Striking "John Doe", "Jane Doe" and XYZ Corp. from the caption of this action; and

               Defendant Leon initially only filed opposition to Plaintiffs motion. Defendants Goldhagen and
        Ward jointly opposed the motion and cross-moved pursuant CPLR §3025[b] for leave to amend their
        answer to assert an affirmative defense of standing and for summary judgment in favor of Ward against
        Owner and Leon on her crossclaim. In response to the cross-motion, Lyon cross-moved to dismiss
        Ward's crnssclaims pursuant to CPLR §32l l(a](4]. Plaintiff opposed Goldhagen and Ward cmss-
        motion. Defendants Goldhagen and Ward opposed Leon's cross-motion.

                As Goldhagen and Ward's proposed affirmative defense directly impacts what Plaintiff must
        proffer as a prima facie case for summary judgment (see generally Wells Fargo Bank, NA. v Tricario,
        180 AD3d 848 [2 nd Dept 2020]), the Court will address that branch of their cross-motion first. Leave to
        amend a pleading under CPLR §3025[b] is to be freely given "absent prejudice or surprise resulting
        directly from the delay" (see e.g. O'Halloran v Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 154 AD3d 83 [1st Dept
        2017]; Anoun v City of New York, 85 AD3d 694 [1st Dept 2011]; see also Fahey v County of Ontario, 44
        NY2d 934, 935 [1978]). All that need be shown is that "the proffered amendment is not palpably
        insufficient or clearly devoid of merit" (MBIA Ins. Corp. v Greys/one & Co., Inc., 74 AD3d 499 [1st
        Dept 201 O]). To justify denial of such a motion, the opposing party "must overcome a heavy
        presumption of validity in favor of [allowing amendment]" (McGhee v Odell, 96 AD3d 449,450 [1st
        Dept 2012]).

                Defendants Goldhagen and Ward demonstrated that their affirmative defense of standing is
        viably pied. Although the Plaintiff was the original lender, Defendants proffered a copy of a collateral
        assignment of the notes and mortgages, dated November 1, 2019, which Plaintiff apparently executed as
        security for a separate loan of its own. In opposition, Plaintiff failed to demonstrate the existence of any
        prejudice based upon the delay in seeking leave to amend (see GMAC Mtge., LLC v Coombs, 191 AD3d
        37, 50-51 [2d Dept 2020]; cf HSBC Bank USA, NA. v Szoffer, 149 AD3d 1400 [2d Dept 2017]). Since
        Defendants have raised an issue for the first time in opposition to a motion for summary judgment,
        Plaintiff is entitled to submit rebuttal evidence in reply to cure any deficiencies in its prima facie case
        occasioned by the amendment (see GMAC Mtge., LLC v Coombs, supra; Citimortgage, Inc. v Espinal,
        134 AD3d 876, 879 [2d Dept 2015]).

                In moving for summary judgment, Plaintiff was required to establish prima facie entitlement to
        judgment as a matter of law though proof of the mortgage, the note, and evidence of Defendants' default
        in repayment (see eg U.S. Bank, NA. v James, 180 AD3d 594 [1 st Dept 2020]; Bank of NYv Knowles,
        151 AD3d 596 [Pt Dept 2017]; Fortress Credit Corp. v Hudson Yards, LLC, 78 AD3d 577 [Pt Dept
        2010]). A mortgagor's default, "is established by (1) an admission made in response to a notice to
        admit, (2) an affidavit from a person having personal knowledge of the facts, or (3) other evidence in
        admissible form" (Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v McGann, 183 AD3d 700, 702 [2d Dept 2020]).
        Based upon the above amendment, Plaintiff was also required to demonstrate it had standing when this
        action was commenced (see eg Wells Fargo Bank, NA. v Tricario, 180 AD3d 848 [2 nd Dept 2020]).
         850264/2021 AVANT CAPITAL 388 BROADWAY LLC vs. 388 BROADWAY OWNERS LLC ET AL          Page 3 of 9
         Motion No. 002

                                                           3 of 9
[* 3]
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 850264/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 239                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/26/2024

                Proof supporting a prima facie case on a motion for summary judgment must be in admissible
        form (see CPLR §32 l 2[b]; Tri-State Loan Acquisitions III, LLC v Litkowski, 172 AD3d 780 [I5t Dept
        2019]). A plaintiff may rely on evidence from persons with personal knowledge of the facts, documents
        in admissible form and/or persons with knowledge derived from produced admissible records (see eg
        US. Bank NA. v Moulton, 179 AD3d 734, 738 [2d Dept 2020]). No particular set of business records
        must be proffered, as long as the admissibility requirements of CPLR 4518[ a] are fulfilled and the
        records evince the facts for which they are relied upon (see eg Citigroup v Kopelowitz, 14 7 AD3d 1014,
        1015 [2d Dept 2017]).

                Plaintiffs motion was supported by an affidavit from Adam Luysterborghs ("Luysterborghs"),
        the Managing Member of Plaintiff, as well as an affidavit from Jay Schippers ("Schippers"), the
        Managing Member of White Walker Holdings 1 LLC, the alleged current holder of the notes and
        assignee of the mortgages. Both affiants attest that they had "personal knowledge of the facts and
        circumstances" recounted in their affidavits. Such evidence can be sufficient to demonstrate a prima
        facie case for summary judgment (see Bank of NY Mellon v Gordon, 171 AD3d 197,206 [2d Dept
        2019]["Admissible evidence may include 'affidavits by persons having knowledge of the facts [and]
        reciting the material facts"']). Here, the affidavits, based upon personal knowledge, established the
        material facts underlying the claim for foreclosure, to wit the mortgage, note, and evidence of
        mortgagor's default (see eg Bank of NYv Knowles, supra; Fortress Credit Corp. v Hudson Yards, LLC,
        supra).

                As to standing in a foreclosure action, it is established in one of three ways: [ 1] direct privity
        between mortgagor and mortgagee, [2] physical possession of the note prior to commencement of the
        action that contains an indorsement in blank or bears a special indorsement payable to the order of the
        plaintiff either on its face or by allonge, and [3] assignment of the note to Plaintiff prior to
        commencement of the action (see eg Wells Fargo Bank, NA. v Tricario, 180 AD3d 848 [2d Dept 2020];
        Wells Fargo Bank, NA v Ostiguy, 127 AD3d 1375 [3d Dept 2015]). Presently, since Plaintiff was the
        lender when the mortgages were given, it was in direct privity with the Defendants when the action was
        commenced and, therefore, established its standing (see eg Wilmington Sav. Fund Socy., FSB v
        Matamoro, 200 AD3d 79, 90-19 [2d Dept 2021]; Valley Natl. Bank v 152 Sherman Holding LP,
        _Misc3d_, 2023 NY Slip Op 3381 l[U][Sup Ct NY Cty 2023]).

              Accordingly, Plaintiff demonstrated primafacie the note, mortgage, Defendant's default in
        repayment thereunder as well as its standing.

                  As to the guaranty, '" [o ]n a motion for summary judgment to enforce a written guaranty all that
        the creditor need prove is an absolute and unconditional guaranty, the underlying debt, and the
        guarantor's failure to perform under the guaranty"' (see 4 USS LLC v DSW MS LLC, 120 AD3d 1049,
        1051 [l st Dept 2014], quoting City of New York v Clarose Cinema Corp., 256 AD2d 69, 71 [l st Dept
        1998]). Under the guaranty, Defendant Leon "unconditionally guarantee[d] to Lender the payment [of] .
        . . . the unpaid outstanding principal balance of the Note not to exceed $5,000,000.00'' as well as certain
        defined losses, damages, costs, expenses, liabilities, claims or other obligations. The affidavits
        submitted by Plaintiff and the supporting documents demonstrated a prima facie case for summary
        judgment against Leon on the cause of action based upon the guaranty.

              In opposition, none of the Defendants has raised an issue of fact as to the existence of the note,
        mortgage and Owner's default in repayment. Indeed, since none of the salient facts on this issue were

         850264/2021 AVANT CAPITAL 388 BROADWAY LLC vs. 388 BROADWAY OWNERS LLC ET AL         Page 4 of 9
         Motion No. 002

[* 4]                                                     4 of 9
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 850264/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 239                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/26/2024

        contradicted by any of the appearing defendants, they are "deemed to be admitted" (Bank ofAm NA v
        Brannon, 156 AD3d, 1, 6 [ pt Dept 2017]).

                Defendant Leon's assertion that Plaintiff's failure to submit a statement of material facts renders
        its motion defective is misplaced. Section 202.8-g of the Uniform Rules for Trial Courts was amended,
        effective July 1, 2022, to leave the necessity of submission such a statement to the court's direction.
        This Court has made no such direction either by order herein or in its part rules. Further, that
        amendment added subdivision [e] which affords the court with the discretion to permit correction of any
        defect of compliance. Leon's claim that there was a "public sale of the Building" and his reliance on
        UCC §9-615 are factually incorrect and misplaced. The subject premises was not sold, rather Leon's
        membership interest in Owner, which is personality not realty, was apparently sold by Defendant AC
        Broadway Lender LLC ("AC Lender"), a subordinate mortgagor. Further, Leon has not proffered any
        legal theory which supports that the sale of a member's ownership interest in a limited liability company
        which is the mortgagor affects that member's unconditional personal guaranty of the mortgagor's
        indebtedness.

                Goldhagen and Ward's claim that an issue of fact as to Plaintiff's standing exists without merit.
        The pre-commencement assignment of the mortgage and note to non-party Northeast Bank, dated
        November 17, 2017, is irrelevant based on the reconveyance dated November 1, 2019. Defendants'
        reliance on a collateral assignment also dated November 1, 2019, is misguided as that agreement was
        replaced by a subsequent collateral assignment dated June 19, 2020. Thus, Defendants' reliance on
        Reich v 559 St. Johns Pl, LLC, 204 AD3d 850 [2d Dept 2022] is unavailing in this instance. In Reich,
        the collateral assignment included the language that the assignment was made "[t]ogether with the bond
        or note or obligation in said mortgage ... TO HA VE AND TO HOLD the same ... forever" (Reich v 559
        St. Johns PL LLC, _Misc3d__ , 2018 NY Slip Op 32734[U] [Sup Ct, Kings Cty 2018]). In this
        case, the 2020 collateral assignment expressly provides that it was "given solely for the purpose of
        securing Assignor's obligations to Assignee under the Loan Documents and is executed pursuant to and
        subject to all of the terms and conditions of the Loan Documents [and that] ... Assignor remains the
        owner and holder of the Collateral Asset subject to the provisions of the Loan Documents". Moreover,
        Plaintiff retained the right to enforce the within note and mortgage. Under the present circumstances, no
        issue of fact is raised as to Plaintiffs standing based on the collateral assignment (see DO F NP L III LLC
        v. Joshua Mgt. LLC, _Misc3d_, 2022 NY Slip Op 33706[U][Sup Ct, NY Cty 2022]; SKW 6 E. 74th
        St. Lender LLC v Adina 74 Realty Corp., _Misc3d_, 2022 NY Slip Op 32821 [U][Sup Ct, NY Cty
        2022]).

                Goldhagen and Ward's citation to assignments made after this action was commenced is
        inapposite. A plaintiffs standing to bring a foreclosure action is measured when the action is
        commenced, not thereafter (see Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v Taylor, 25 NY3d 355, 361-362 [2015]; PNC
        Bank, NA. v Salcedo, 161 AD3d 571 [1 st Dept 2018]; Bank ofAm., NA. v Thomas, 138 AD3d 523 [1 st
        Dept 2016]). Here, it is undisputed that the present Plaintiff, Avant, commenced this action. The
        assignments to White Walker Holdings LLC ("Holdings") and then Downspout Capital LLC ("Capital")
        occurred on December 15, 2022, after this action was commenced. Those transfers are governed by
        CPLR § 1018 which provides that "[u]pon any transfer of interest, the action may be continued by or
        against the original parties" (CPLR § 1018). As such, either Holding or Capital were authorized to
        continue prosecution of this action without first seeking substitution (see Wells Fargo Bank, NA v
        McKenzie, 183 AD3d 574 [2d Dept 2020]; B & H Fla. Notes LLC v Ashkenazi, 149 AD3d 401 [1 st Dept
        2017]).

         850264/2021 AVANT CAPITAL 388 BROADWAY LLC vs. 388 BROADWAY OWNERS LLC ET AL         Page 5 of 9
         Motion No. 002

[* 5]                                                     5 of 9
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 850264/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 239                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/26/2024

                 The argument that Plaintiff was required to prove the priority of the subject mortgages "because
        multiple questionable issues arise as to whether there have been fraudulent conveyances of the
        mortgage" is meritless. That burden only arises "where there is a claim of a priority interest based on an
        earlier fraudulent conveyance" (JP Morgan Chase Bank v Munoz, 85 AD3d 1124, 1126 [2d Dept
        2011 ]). None of the defendants in this case have pled such a claim in their answers nor do the terms
        "fraud" and "priority" appear in the responsive pleadings of Defendants Goldhagen, Ward or Leon.
        Even the proposed answer of Goldhagen and Ward makes no mention of this issue. Also absent from
        these answers are any facts, or simply allegations, to support a basis for determining these Defendants'
        subordinate liens have priority over Plaintiffs mortgage.

                The assertion the motion must be denied because no discovery has been conducted is unavailing
        as Defendants offered nothing to demonstrate Plaintiff is in exclusive possession of facts which would
        establish a viable defense to summary judgment (see Island Fed. Credit Union v I&D Hacking Corp.,
        194 AD3d 482 [1 st Dept 2021 ]).

                As to the branch of Plaintiffs motion to dismiss Defendants' affirmative defenses, CPLR
        §3211 [b] provides that"[ a] party may move for judgment dismissing one or more defenses, on the
        ground that a defense is not stated or has no merit". For example, affirmative defenses that are without
        factual foundation, conclusory or duplicative cannot stand (see Countrywide Home Loans Servicing,
        L.P. v Vorobyov, 188 AD3d 803,805 [2d Dept 2020]; Emigrant Bankv Myers, 147 AD3d 1027, 1028
        [2d Dept 2017]). When evaluating such a motion, a "defendant is entitled to the benefit of every
        reasonable intendment of its pleading, which is to be liberally construed. If there is any doubt as to the
        availability of a defense, it should not be dismissed" (Federici v Metropolis Night Club, Inc., 48 AD3d
        741, 743 [2d Dept 2008]).

                All the affirmative defenses are entirely conclusory and unsupported by any facts in the answer
        or by the papers submitted in opposition. As such, these affirmative defenses are nothing more than an
        unsubstantiated legal conclusion which is insufficiently pied as a matter of law (see Board of Mgrs. of
        Ruppert Yorkville Towers Condominium v Hayden, l 69 AD3d 569 [1 st Dept 2019]; see also Bosco
        Credit V Trust Series 2012-1 v. Johnson, l 77 AD3d 561 [151 Dept 2020]; 170 W. Vil. Assoc. v G & E
        Realty, Inc., 56 AD3d 372 [1st Dept 2008]; see also Becher v Feller, 64 AD3d 672 [2d Dept 2009];
        Cohen Fashion Opt., Inc. v V & M Opt., Inc., 51 AD3d 619 [2d Dept 2008]). Further, as no specific
        legal arguments were proffered in support of any affirmative defense, other than standing, those
        unaddressed defenses and claims were abandoned (see U.S. Bank NA. v Gonzalez, 172 AD3d 1273,
        1275 [2d Dept 2019]; Flagstar Bank v Bellafiore, 94 AD3d 1044 [2d Dept 2012]; Wells Fargo Bank
        Minnesota, NA v Perez, 41 AD3d 590 [2d Dept 2007]).

                The supposed "counterclaims" by Defendants Goldhagen and Ward against Plaintiff are not
        stated anywhere in their proposed or extant answers. The Court could find no request for relief by these
        parties against Plaintiff. Accordingly, to the extent these "counterclaims" are supposed to exist, they are
        inadequately pied (see CPLR §§3013, 3014).

               The branches of the cross-motions by Goldhagen, Ward and Leon against one another are denied
        as procedurally defective since neither application was against the party who made the original motion,
        namely Plaintiff (see CPLR §2215; Crawford v 14 E. 11th St., LLC, 191 AD3d 461, 461 [ l5 1 Dept 2021];
        Rubino v 330 Madison Co., LLC, 150 AD3d 603,604 [1 st Dept 2017]).

         850264/2021 AVANT CAPITAL 388 BROADWAY LLC vs. 388 BROADWAY OWNERS LLC ET AL         Page 6 of 9
         Motion No. 002

                                                           6 of 9
[* 6]
                                                                                                 INDEX NO. 850264/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 239                                                                   RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/26/2024

               The branch of the motion to sever Defendants' crossclaims is granted as these causes of action
        are wholly dissimilar and separable from the foreclosure action (see Valley Sav. Bank v Rose, 228 AD2d
        666 [2d Dept 1997]).

              The branch of Plaintiff's motion to amend caption is granted (see generally CPLR §3025; JP
        Morgan Chase Bank, NA. v Laszio, 169 AD3d 885,887 [2d Dept 2019]).

                  Accordingly, it is

                ORDERED that Plaintiff is awarded summary judgment on its causes of action for foreclosure
        against the appearing parties; and it is further

              ORDERED that Plaintiff is awarded summary judgment on its cause of action against Defendant
        Leon based upon the guaranty; and it is further

                ORDERED that the branch of the cross-motion by Defendants Goldhagen and Ward to amend
        their answer is granted, but the branch for summary judgment is denied; and it is further

                  ORDERED that the cross-motion by Defendant Leon is denied; and it is further

                  ORDERED that crossclaims of Defendants Goldhagen, Ward and Leon are severed; and it is
        further

               ORDERED that that Elaine Shay, Esq., 800 3rd Avenue, Ste. 2800, New York, New York
        10022 (212) 520-2690 is hereby appointed Referee in accordance with RP APL § 1321 to compute the
        amount due to Plaintiff and examine whether the tax parcel can be sold in parcels; and it is further

                  ORDERED that in the discretion of the Referee, a hearing may be held, and testimony taken; and
        it is further

                ORDERED that by accepting this appointment the Referee certifies that he is in compliance with
        Part 36 of the Rules of the Chief Judge (22 NYCRR Part 36), including, but not limited to §36.2 (c)
        ("Disqualifications from appointment"), and §36.2 (d) ("Limitations on appointments based upon
        compensation"), and, if the Referee is disqualified from receiving an appointment pursuant to the
        provisions of that Rule, the Referee shall immediately notify the Appointing Judge; and it is further

                ORDERED that, pursuant to CPLR 8003(a), and in the discretion of the court, a fee of $350 shall
        be paid to the Referee for the computation of the amount due and upon the filing of his report and the
        Referee shall not request or accept additional compensation for the computation unless it has been fixed
        by the court in accordance with CPLR 8003(b); and it is further

                 ORDERED that the Referee is prohibited from accepting or retaining any funds for himself or
        paying funds to himself without compliance with Part 36 of the Rules of the Chief Administrative Judge;
        and it is further

                ORDERED that if the Referee holds a hearing or is required to perform other significant services
        in issuing the report, the Referee may seek additional compensation at the Referee's usual and
        customary hourly rate; and it is further
         850264/2021 AVANT CAPITAL 388 BROADWAY LLC vs. 388 BROADWAY OWNERS LLC ET AL      Page 7 of 9
         Motion No. 002

                                                          7 of 9
[* 7]
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 850264/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 239                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/26/2024

                ORDERED that plaintiff shall forward all necessary documents to the Referee and to defendants
        who have appeared in this case within 30 days of the date of this order and shall promptly respond to
        every inquiry made by the referee (promptly means within two business days); and it is further
                ORDERED that if defendant(s) have objections, they must submit them to the referee within 14
        days of the mailing of plaintiffs submissions; and include these objections to the Court if opposing the
        motion for a judgment of foreclosure and sale; and it is further

                ORDERED the failure by defendants to submit objections to the referee shall be deemed a
        waiver of objections before the Court on an application for a judgment of foreclosure and sale; and it is
        further

               ORDERED that plaintiff must bring a motion for a judgment of foreclosure and sale within 30
        days of receipt of the referee's report; and it is further

                ORDERED that if plaintiff fails to meet these deadlines, then the Court may sua sponte vacate
        this order and direct plaintiff to move again for an order of reference and the Court may sua sponte toll
        interest depending on whether the delays are due to plaintiff's failure to move this litigation forward;
        and it further

               ORDERED that White Walker Holdings 1 LLC is substituted in the place of AV ANT CAPITAL
        3 88 BROADWAY LLC as plaintiff in the caption of this action; and it is further

               ORDERED that the "John Doe", "Jane Doe" and XYZ Corp. Defendants are stricken from the
        caption; and it is further

                 ORDERED that the caption shall read as follows:

        SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
        COUNTY OF NEW YORK
        -----------------------------------------------------------------------X
        WHITE WALKER HOLDINGS I LLC,

                                                   Plaintiff,
                              -against-

        388 BROADWAY OWNERS LLC, NEW YORK LEE
        FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, AC BROADWAY
        LENDER LLC, CRIMINAL COURT OF THE CITY OF
        NEW YORK, NEW YORK CITY ENVIRONMENT AL
        CONTROL BOARD, SIGNATURE BANK, NA,
        BARRY LEON, ELISE WARD, CARL GOLDHAGEN,
        LEISURE SALOON INC. d/b/a EDEN DAY SPA,
        ARGYLE SYSTEMS INC., DANIEL SAYNT, MARY
        MEGEE, THE SERIES EVENTS LLC, ANDREW
        WHARTON-BICKLEY, SHAHN ANDERSEN,
        SAMUEL FISHMAN, KIMIKO FUJIMURA,

                                                  Defendants.

         850264/2021 AVANT CAPITAL 388 BROADWAY LLC vs. 388 BROADWAY OWNERS LLC ET AL        Page 8 of 9
         Motion No. 002

                                                                        8 of 9
[* 8]
                                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 850264/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 239                                                                                   RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/26/2024

        -------------------------------------------------------------------------X
                  and it is further

                ORDERED that counsel for plaintiff shall serve a copy of this order with notice of entry upon
        the County Clerk (60 Centre Street, Room 141B) and the General Clerk's Office (60 Centre Street,
        Room 119), who are directed to mark the court's records to reflect the parties being removed pursuant
        hereto; and it is further

                ORDERED that such service upon the County Clerk and the Clerk of the General Clerk's Office
        shall be made in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Protocol on Courthouse and County
        Clerk Procedures for Electronically Filed Cases (accessible at the "E-Filing" page on the court's
        website at the address (www.nycourts.gov/supctmanh)]; and it is further

               All parties are to appear for a virtual conference via Microsoft Teams on May 29, 2024, at 10:00
        a.m. If a motion for judgment of foreclosure and sale has been filed Plaintiff may contact the Part Clerk
        Tamika Wright (tswright@nycourt.gov) in writing to request that the conference be cancelled. If a
        motion has not been made, then a conference is required to explore the reasons for the delay.

                   1/26/2024
                     DATE
                                                                                               ~ I S iA.P..~-J s.c.
         CHECK ONE:                            CASE DISPOSED                         .lcJrQHi: DISPOSITION    •

                                               GRANTED             □ DENIED          GRANTED IN PART               □ OTHER
         APPLICATION:                          SETTLE ORDER                          SUBMIT ORDER

         CHECK IF APPROPRIATE:                 INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN            FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT         □ REFERENCE

         850264/2021 AVANT CAPITAL 388 BROADWAY LLC vs. 388 BROADWAY OWNERS LLC ET AL                        Page 9 of 9
         Motion No. 002

[* 9]                                                                   9 of 9