Court Opinion

ID: 9954333
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-25 21:11:39.672298+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:12:03.065696
License: Public Domain

Gross v Ellinson
               2024 NY Slip Op 30906(U)
                     March 18, 2024
             Supreme Court, Kings County
        Docket Number: Index No. 518010/2021
                Judge: Francois A. Rivera
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 03/19/2024 12:29 PM                                                          INDEX NO. 518010/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 73                                                                             RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/19/2024

                                                                                         Atfili IAS Term,Part 5:2 of
                                                                                         the Supreme Comt of the
                                                                                         State of New York, held in
                                                                                         and for the County of Kings,
                                                                                         at the Courthouse, at Civic
                                                                                         Center,Brooklyn, New York,
                                                                                         on the 18th day of Match
                                                                                         2024
           HONORABLE FRANCOIS A. RIVERA
           ------------------------------- .--------------- . ------- . ·-- .. ---· -X
           NOOTIEZEV GROSS,
                                                                   Plaintiff,            DECISION AND ORDER
                                                                                         Index No. :518010/2021
                              -against-

           RIVKAH LEAH ELLTNSON, AVROHOM NOCHUM
           GROSS, RAIZY TOBY EDELMAN, and YITZCHOK
           SHOLOM DOV BER GROSS,

                                                              Defendants.
           -. ---- .· ----------------. -------------- .. ----... ----------. --------. -X
                       Recitation in accordance with CPLR 2219(a), ofthe papers considered on the joint
           motion filed ort January 24, 2022, under motion sequence number one, by Rivkah Leah Ellinson,
           Avrohom Nochum Gross; Raizy Toby Edelman, and Yitzchok Sholom Dov Ber Gross
           (hereinafter the defendants) for an order pmsuantfo CPLR § 7503(a): [1 J compelling Nootie Zev
           Gross (hereinafter the plaintiff) to submitto arbitration before the Beth Din of Crown Heights
           located at 788 Eastern Parkway, Brooklyn, New York 11213 on the underlying issues set forth in
           the plaintiff's complaint in this action; and [2]. staying this. action pending the outcome. of the
           arbitration.                                                              ·

           -Notice of Motion
           -Affirmation ofcounsel in support
           -Affirmation of defendant Gross in support
           -Affirmations ofthreenonparties in.support
                  Exhibits A-T
           -Affirmation in opposition
           -Affirmation in reply
                  Exhibits A-B

           BACKGROUND
                    Ort July 20, 202 l, plaintiff commenced the irtsta'rlt action for, inter 11,lia, partition by filing

           a summons, verified complaint,.and notice ofpendency with the-Kings.County Clerk'~ Office

           (KCCO).

                                                                  Page i ofS

                                                                    1 of 5
[* 1]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/19/2024 12:29 PM                                                     INDEX NO. 518010/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 73                                                                         RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/19/2024

                    On September 3, 2021, the defendants interposed and filed a joint verified answer and

            two counterclaims with the KCC0, The first denominated counterclaim seeks dismissal ofthe

            verified complaint based on the doctrine ofresjudicata. The second denominated counterclaim

            seeks a declaratory judgment that the plaintiff has rto interest in the subject property.

                    On 0ctober4, 2012, plaintiffinterposed and filed a reply to defendants' counterclaims

            with the KCC0.

                   On October 5, 2021, the defendants filed a rejection of the plaintiffs reply contending

            thatitwas untimely.

                   The verified complaint alleges the following salient facts. The plaintiff and defendants

            own in fee and possess, as tenants in common~ certain real property, located at located at 409

            Crown Street, Brooklyn, New York 11225; Block 129] Lot 50 (hereinafter the property) as set

            forth in a deed attached to the verified complaint. Plaintiff owns ih fee and possesses an

            undivided one-fifth part of said premises, and each qefendant owns ih fee and possesses an

            undivided one-fifth part of said premises. Upon information and belief said property is so

            situated thatits partition among the parties entitled thereto, according to their respective rights

            and interests, cannot be had without great prejudice to the owners thereof. That all the paities to

            this action, upon informatiori and belief, are of full age and sound mind. That no lands other

            than the aforesaid property are owned by the parties hereto in co111Illon orjointly.

                   Plaintiffseeks an order: declaring that each party is seized and possesses an undivided

            one-fifth interest in the subj ectproperty; directing a court-supervised sa:l e ofthe property, a

            distr.i buticm of the. proceeds pf the .sale; and an accounting between the parties.

                                                          Page2of5

                                                            2 of 5
[* 2]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/19/2024 12:29 PM                                                    INDEX NO. 518010/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 73                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/19/2024

           LAW ANDAPPLICATION

                   The defendants have jointly moved for an order pursuantto CPLR § 7503(a): compelling

           the plaintiff to submit to arbitration before the Beth Din of Crown Heights and staying this action

            pending the outcome of the arbitration.

                   The defendants' motion is premised on the followingaHegations of fact On January 17,

           2011, the parties' mother, Sarah Faygie Gross; granted the parties equal one...;fifth (115th) parts of

           the property via deed, which was recorded in the Office of the City Register under CRFN:

           2011000052615. On September 15, 2018, Sarah Faygte Gross passed away. Sarah Feygie Gross

           made a signed writing dated January 1, 2018, in which she indicated he_r wishes with respect to

           the di vision of her property. A copy of the signed writing is annexed as Exhibit D .. The signed

           writing stated, among other things, that defendant Yitzchok Sholom Dov

           Ber Gross and his family have the right to live on the property. In addition, Sarah Faygie Gross,

           gave defendant Gross (also known as ''ltchie") the option to purchase the property at a discount.

                   After her death, plaintiff contested the validity of the signed writing and soughtto have

           the:issue decided. ·The plahltiff and defetidants then agreed to submit all their controversies to

            bindingarbitration upon all the parties. On December 27, 2018, the parties signed an arbitration

           agreementto submit all their controversies to arbitration before the Beth Din of Crown Heights

           (hereinafter ''Beth Din"), located, at 788 Eastern Parkway, Room 210, Brooklyn, New· Yodc

            11213. The plaintiff and defendants also verb~lly agreed to submit all their controversies to

           arbitration 'before the Beth Din of Crown Heights. Ort December :n, 2018, and March 5, 20 l 9

           the plaintiff and. defe1idants appeared be:f6te Beth Din and presented their ar$utnents, answers,

           and positions with respect to their controversies .

                                                       .Page3 of$

                                                          3 of 5
[* 3]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/19/2024 12:29 PM                                                     INDEX NO. 518010/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 73                                                                        RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/19/2024

                   On April 4, 2019, Beth Din submitted its ruling ("ruling"), which provided, inter alia: that

           the will ofthe mother, Sarah Faygie Gross, regarding the manner of division of the inheritance

           among the descendants exists and stands, and must be obse1':ved in all its details,. exactly, artd that

           all the rights g;ranted to her soh R. Yitzchok Sho lorn in regard to the house, are· in force. A copy

           ofBeth Din Ruling was annexed hereto as Exhibit E.

                   Plaintifftheteilfter commented the•instantaction seeking, i1iter alia, declaratory

           judgment, partition, and· an accounting. On August 13, 2021, and August 19, 2021; Beth Din and

           the Arbitrators sent plaintiff a summons to return to Beth Din. A copy of the Summons to Beth

           Din was annexed hereto as Exhibit H. Plaintiff has refused to return to Beth Din to arbitrate the

           underlying dispute. The defendants now seek an order pursuantto CPLR 7503(a)to compel the

           plaintiff to return to Beth Din arid to submit the instant controversy to arbitration.

                   On a motion to compel or stay arbitration, a court mtist first determine whether the parties

           agreed to arbitration and, if so, whether the dispute gen<::rally falls within the scope of their

           arbitration agreement (see Sisters·ofSi. John the Baptist,. Pi•ovidence ResrConvent v Geraghty

           Constructor; Inc., 67 NY2d 997, 999 [1986]). "Arbitration is a matter of contract[], 'grounded in

           agreementoftheparties'" (Matter o/Belzbergv Verus lnvs. Holdings Inc., 21 NY3d 626,630

           [20l3], quoting County ofSullivan v Edward L. Nezelek, Inc,, 42NY2<i 12J, 128 [1977]). Thus,.

           when deciding whether the parties agreed to. arbitrate a certain matter, ordinary state. law·

           principles that gov1;:rn the formation c;,f contracts apply (see Mozzachio v Sc:hcmzer, 188 AD3d

           873,, 874. [2d D~pt 2020], citi11g First Options ofChicago, Inc. vKaplan,514 US 938,944

           [1995]).

                  In opposition to the motion, the pla:irttiff pointed out the foll owing issues, among others.

           First, the.defendants allege that the parties sigri.ed an ag:reenientto arbitrate but did noram1ex the

                                                        Page 4of5

                                                           4 of 5
[* 4]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/19/2024 12:29 PM                                                     INDEX NO. 518010/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 73                                                                        RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/19/2024

            agreement to their motion papers. Second, the defendants seekto compel arbitration based on a

            signed writing allegedly issued by the decedent which they refer to as a will. Plaintiff contends

           that even if the signed writing relied on by the defendants was,in fact, a will, the probate ofan

            irtstri.inient purporting to be the last will and testament ofa decedent cannot be subject to

            arbitration arid any attempt to arbitrate such issue is against public policy (Matter of Glassman v

            Cohen, 213 AD3d 850, 852 [2d Dept 2023] citing Matter of Berger, 81 AD2d 5 84 [2d Dept

            1981]).

                      There is no dispute that the defendants are seeking to submit to arbitration the issue ofthe

            disposition of their deceased mother's property as set forth in a writing she executed. Plaintiff's

            contention is correct. It is against public policy to submit this issue to arbitration. Accordingly,

            the defendants' motion must be denied.

            CONCLUSION

                      The motion filed by defendants Rivkah Leah Ellinson, Avrohqm Nochum Gross, Raizy

            Toby Edelman, and YitzchokSholom Dov Ber Gross for an order pursuant to CPLR § 7503(a)

            compelling plairttiffNootie Zev .Gross to submitto arbitration the underlying issues set forth in

            the plaintiff's complaint and staying this action pending the outcome ofthe arbitration is denied,

                      The foregoing constitutes the decision and order of this Court

            ENTER                                           ,:
                                                             ~~
                                                               t ~

                                                          Page 5 of 5

                                                            5 of 5
[* 5]