Court Opinion

ID: 9954332
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-25 21:11:38.431672+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:12:03.063651
License: Public Domain

Harris v 353 W. 117th St. HDFC
               2024 NY Slip Op 30932(U)
                     March 18, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 160452/2019
                  Judge: Sabrina Kraus
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. 160452/2019
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 29                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/20/2024

                             SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                       NEW YORK COUNTY
            PRESENT:         HON. SABRINA B. KRAUS                           PART                               57
                                                                  Justice
            -------------------,X                                           INDEX NO.              160452/2019

             Danny Harris,                                                  MOTION DATE             3/15/2024
                                              Plaintiff,
                                                                            MOTION SEQ. NO.           002

             353 West 117th Street HDFC,
                                              Defendant.                       DECISION + ORDER ON
                                                                                     MOTION

            -------------------X
            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 002) 22-28
            were read on this motion to/for                                   RESTORE

                                    BACKGROUND AND ALLEGED FACTS

                   On or about December 16, 2021, the parties entered into a two attorney so-ordered

            Stipulation of Settlement (the "Stipulation").

                   Pursuant to the Stipulation, Defendant was authorized to list the cooperative apartment

            known and addressed as 353 West 117th Street, Apartment 2B, New York, NY 10026 (the

            "Apartment") for sale with a licensed real estate broker and execute all agreements and contracts

           required by said broker to effectuate the same.

                   Defendant was empowered to accept any bonafide offer that was received for the

            Apartment and prepare a Contract of Sale for execution by Plaintiffs.

                   Any proposed Contract of Sale and transfer of the Apartment was subject to the approval

            of Defendant's Board of Directors.

            160452/2019 HARRIS V 353 WEST 117TH STREET HDFC
            MOTION NO.002                                                                              Page 1 of 4

[* 1]                                                        1 of 4
                                                                                                     INDEX NO. 160452/2019
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 29                                                                         RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/20/2024

                       The Net Proceeds from the eventual sale were to be placed in escrow with Defendant's

            attorney in its IOLA account, pending further order of this Court or agreement between the

            parties.

                       The day after entering into the Stipulation, Defendant alleges it retained the services of

            Compass to list and market the Apartment for sale. Compass was unable to secure a purchaser

            for the Apartment.

                       In August 2022, Defendant retained the services of Brown Harris Stevens to list and

            market the Apartm~nt for sale.

                       In or about April 2023, Defendant received an offer to purchase the Apartment.

            Defendant alleges the potential purchasers disappeared for several months, only to re-enter the

            picture in July 2023. From July 2023 through September 2023, Defendant negotiated the terms

            of a proposed Contract of Sale with attorneys for the proposed purchasers. Defendant alleges

            that the proposed purchasers withdrew their offer to purchase, mainly because of this pending

            litigation.

                       The potential purchasers also notified Defendant that there was evidence of water damage

            to the hallway and kitchen ceiling of the Apartment. Defendant hired licensed who determined

            that the source of the damage was a water leak originating from the kitchen above. Defendant's

            contractors made the necessary repairs to abate the source of the leak, performed mold testing,

            and replaced the hallway and kitchen ceiling.

                       Defendant alleges that Brown Harris Stevens continued to show the Apartment to

            prospective purchasers while the work was being performed, but the broker received negative

            feedback because of the ongoing repairs. At the insistence of the broker, Defendant agreed to

            place a temporary pause on the listing until the repairs were completed.

            160452/2019 HARRIS V 353 WEST 117TH STREET HDFC
            MOTION NO.002                                                                                 Page 2 of 4

[* 2]                                                        2 of 4
                                                                                                    INDEX NO. 160452/2019
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 29                                                                        RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/20/2024

                    In or about February 2024, the repairs to the hallway and kitchen ceiling were

            completed. Defendant further alleges it made additional improvements in hopes of increasing

            its marketability, including replacement of the base molding, and painting. Defendant has

            instructed the Brown Harris Stevens to re-activate the listing and resume showing the Apartment

            to prospective purchasers.

                   In reply, Plaintiffs counsel alleges only that he did an internet search on March 10, 2024,

            which did not indicate that the listing had been reactivated.

                                                   PENDING MOTION

                   Plaintiff has now moved for an order restoring the action to the calendar and requests to

            proceed with discovery.

                   On March 15, 2024, the motion was marked submitted and the Court reserved decision.

                   For the reasons set forth below, the motion is denied.

                                                   DISCUSSION

                   Under the terms of the Stipulation, there are only two instances where a party can file a

           . motion seeking to restore this matter to the Court's calendar.

                   Paragraph 11 of the Stipulation provides 11 (i)f the parties are unable to reach a settlement

           with respect to the distribution of the Net Proceeds, then either party may file a Motion seeking to

           restore this matter to the Court's calendar. 11 However, as the Apartment has yet to sell, there are no

           Net Proceeds to distribute, and any motion pursuant to Paragraph 11 is thus premature.

                   Paragraph 12 of the Stipulation provides 11 (i)n the event of a default or failure of any of the

           parties and/or Dianne Harris to comply with the terms of this Agreement or their obligations as

           contained herein, either party may restore and this Court shall enforce the terms, provisions and

           obligations contained herein."

            160452/2019 HARRIS V 353 WEST 117n, STREET HDFC
            MOTION NO.002                                                                                Page 3 of 4

[* 3]                                                      3 of 4
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 160452/2019
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 29                                                                         RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/20/2024

                    The motion is supported only by an attorney affirmation submitted which fails to make a

            prima facie showing that Defendant is in default or has failed to comply with the terms of the

            Stipulation. The fact that the Apartment has not yet been sold does not constitute a default under

            terms of the Stipulation.

                    Nor would there be any basis under the terms of the Stipulation to allow for discovery in

            the event of default.

                    Based on the foregoing, the motion is denied.

                    This constitutes the decision and order of the Court.

                      3/18/24
                      DATE

                                                                       ~
             CHECK ONE:                  CASE DISPOSED                     NON-FINAL DIS

                                         GRANTED         0    DENIED       GRANTED IN PART         □ OTHER
             APPLICATION:                SETTLE ORDER                      SUBMIT ORDER
             CHECK IF APPROPRIATE:       INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN        FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT   □ REFERENCE

            160452/2019 HARRIS V 353 WEST 117TH STREET HDFC
            MOTION NO.002                                                                              Page 4 of 4

[* 4]                                                     4 of 4