Court Opinion

ID: 9959892
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-12 20:11:14.966033+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:58.636253
License: Public Domain

Musso v OTR Media Group, Inc.
               2024 NY Slip Op 31218(U)
                      April 9, 2024
             Supreme Court, Kings County
        Docket Number: Index No. 523025/2018
                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 04/09/2024 02:21 PM                                                        INDEX NO. 523025/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 225                                                                            RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/09/2024

            SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
            COUNTY QF KINGS : CIVIL TERM: COMMERCIAL 8
             ---   -   -. - -   -----~---------         --------------            X
            ROBERT J. MUSSO, Chapter 7 Trustee of th-e
            Estate of Ladder 3 Corp.
                                            Plaintiff,                                    Decision and order

                                 - against --                                          Index No. 523025/2018

            OTR MEDIA GROUP, INC., AHARON NOE
            a/k/a ARI NOE, SARAH NOE, ZYSHE NOE,
            MOSHE MINZ, C ·& M CAPITAL GROUP, LLC. ,
            GUARDIAN LIFE INSU_RANCE COMPANY OF
            AMERICA, UNITED STATES LIFE INSURANCE
            COMPANY, ING., THE CITY OF NEW YORK,
            GREENFIELD CUSTOM BUILDERS, INC.,
            PARK NATIONAL CAPITAL FUNDING, LLC.;
            WHOOP! U . S .1-\. , I NC. , STERLING CATERERS, INC. ,
            DEAL BUSTER, INC., BLIZZARD COOLING, INC.,
            AND OTR330 BRUCKNER, LLC.,
                                                   Defendants,                                    April 9 1 2024
            - . - - ------- -------------~--- ---- ----x
            GUARDIAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA,
                                                  Plaintiff,

                                      -against-                                        Index No. 5104Bl/2021

            OTR MEDIA GROUP, INC., AHARON NOE a/k/a ARI
            NbE, and ROBERT J. MUSSO, Chapter 7 Trustee of
            the Estate of Ladder 3 Corp.
                                          Defendant,
            - - - - - - - - ------- ---- ------- ------ - -------- - - - - - -    -X
            PRESENT: HON. LEON RUCHELSMAN                                              Motion Seq. #11      &   #12

                    The     defendants        OTR and Noe            move        seeking to        renew   and/or

            reargue a decision and order dated August 21,                                  2023 which struck

            the    answer        of   the    defendants         for     their          failure    to. engage. in

            discovery.           The plaintiff has opposed ±:he m:_otion~.                          Papers were

            submi_tted l:iy the parties and after reviewing all the arguments

            this coµ.it now make_s the following determination.

                                                            1 of 6
[* 1]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/09/2024 02:21 PM                                                               INDEX NO. 523025/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 225                                                                                 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/09/2024

                     As recorded in prior orders, in 2017 the plaintiff obtained

           a judgement against defendant OTR Media Group Inc., in the amount

           of    $287,500          in     a       Chapter       7     proceeding         in    the    United     States

           Bankruptcy court.                     That judgement was based upon OTR' s breach of

            a stipulation of settlement ~xecute<l ih 2011 regarding b~each of

            contract claims that took place
                                       .
                                            in 2010. .                                      This c~~~ent lawsuit

            alleges        violations              of   the      debtor-creditor              law    asserting        that

            fraudulent          conveyances             were        made     by the      individual          defendants

            leaving OTR insolvent.

                     In a       decision and order datecl.                        February     6,    2(120    the court

            ordered the defendant to provide discovery requested within 45

            days.      The plaintiff has moved arguing the defendant has failed

            to   comply         with      discovery             for     the       ensuing     three     years.         The

            defendant Aharon Noe has provided an aff.idav:i.t wherein he states

           that ''I         have    been           waiting       f.or       the    opportunity        to     fulfil    the

            discovery demands including attending a deposition by Plaintiff,

            so   I   can    effecti.vely move                 for     summary       judgment''       (see,    Affidavit

            of   Aharon         Noe,      '.lI     10   [NYSCEF           Doc.     No.   141]).            However,     on

            September 12,           2019          the plaintiff served discovery demands                              upon

            the defendant               (see,       Plaj.ntiff' s           First Notice for Discovery and

            Inspection [N~SCEF Oo~. No~ S~])i                                 on October 2.,          2019· the court

            issue.ct    ar:i,    order:          :CE;!quiring       the      defendant        to     respond    tq     the

            pl~iptiff'~ d~~and~ withiti thirty days (NYSCEF Doc. No~ 37).                                                A

                                                                        2

                                                                    2 of 6
[* 2]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/09/2024 02:21 PM                                                  INDEX NO. 523025/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 225                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/09/2024

           good faith letter was served and when that yielded no discovery a

           motion        seeking    to      strike    the     answer      was   filed •.     That   motion

            resulted in the above noted decision which, aga:in,                              required the

           defendant to comply with the discovery demands within_ forty-five

            days.        A second good faith letter was                    served on July        29, 2020

            informing the defendant that no discovery had yet been provided

            (NYSCEF Doc.         No. 87) .        A second motion to strike the answer for

            the failure to provide any discovery and: a third motion to strike

            for the failure to provide any discovery were both filed.                                   In an

            order        dated    August      23,     2023     the       court. concluded        that     the

            defendants had failed to provide discovery- and thus the answer

            was struck.           The defendants now seek to renew and reargue that

            det ertninati on .      Es seriti a 11 y, the mot i oh to renew really requests

            additional time,         and one last and final opportunity to engage in

            discovery.           The motion to reargue asserts,                    likewise,     the court

            should afford the defendants additional time in which to comply

            with discovery.

                                                     Conclusions nf Law

                    CPLR §2221 allows for "a motion for leave to reargue (which)

            may     be    granted     on.     a     showing       that    the     court    overlooked      or

            misapprehended the facts                 or the law''         (CPLR    2221) .    Furthermore,

            CPLR §2221 ''allows that a motion for renewal, on the other hand,

                                                              3

                                                         3 of 6
[* 3]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/09/2024 02:21 PM                                                           INDEX NO. 523025/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 225                                                                            RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/09/2024

           is appropri-ate when there are new facts not previously known or

           offered,       or there has been a change or clarification in the law

           that will affect the court's prior decisionu                                   (id) •        It    is true

           that    generally r         a motion           to renew rrtust contain evidence that
           existed a:t the time the original motion was filed but was unknown

           to the moving party                 (Brooklyn Welding Corp.;                   v.    Chin,        236 AD2d

           392,    653 NYS2d          631      [2d Dept.,         1997]).        However,        that rule has

           been defineq as 'flexible' and a party may file a motion to renew

           even if the evidence was known at the time of the original motion

           provided       the     party        offers       a      reasonable         explanation            why   the

           additional        facts          were    not    included within             the     original motion

            (Progressive Northeastern Insurance Company v.                                     Frenkel,       8 AD3d

            390, 777 NYS2d 652 [2d Dept., 2004]).                              However, as the court held

           recently in Wells                 Fargo Bank N .A.,            v.    Mone,     185 AD3d 626,            127

           NYS3d 488 [2d Dept., 2020] "the Supreme Court lacks discretion to

           grant        renewal        where        the     moving        party        omits       a     reasonable

            justification            fb:r     failing      to      present       the     new     £acts        on   the.

            original motion ... the                court    should have           denied the plaintiff's

           motion for leave to renew .•. "                      ( Id) .

                   In    any    event,         .a motion to ·re,;:1.rgue           ot:    to     renew       are   not

            avenue ..s to give an uns11ccessfµl party the opportu:rti ty to rea:rque

            points      all;'.eady     ma.de       and    rej ec:ted      by    the      court         (Ippolito    v.

            Westland S. Shor.e Mall,                 LLP,       14 Mis.c3d 1220 (A),            2007 WL        1719i2

                                                                  4

                                                             4 of 6
[* 4]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/09/2024 02:21 PM                                           INDEX NO. 523025/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 225                                                               RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/09/2024

            (Supreme     Court,      Suffolk County      2007],       citing Williams           P.     Pahl

           Equip.      Corp.     v   Kassis,    182   AD2d     22,    588   NYS2d   8   [lslt        Dept.,

            1992]) .     Fµrther,        where a party fails          to demonstrate that               the

           Court misapprehended any of the relevant f 0 cts or misapplied any

           controlling principle of law,              a motion to reargue must be denied

           Matter of Mattie M. v. Administration for ,Children's Services, 48

           AD3d 392,         851 NYS2d 236      [2d Dept.,      2008],      McNamara v.     Rockland

           County Patrolmen' s           Benevolent Association,            Inc.,   302 AD2d 435,

            754 NYS2d 900        [2d Dept., 2003}).

                  In this case the defendants have not pointed to any mistake

            or misapprehension of law or fact that was made by the court.                                To

            the extent the defendants argue the court should not have granted

            any discovery sanction and should have afforded the defendants

           more time to engage in ctiscovery, no such mistake of law has beeri

            presented.        The court already rejected the def.endants request for

           additional time·.             A reques.t to once again consider whether the

           defendants        can be afforded more time is not a proper basis upon

            which to seek reargutnent or renewal.                    Indeed,   the most effective

            method of seeking a            denial of any sanction would have been to

            promptly en.gage in           some discovery thereby confirming such good

            faith.      The- defendant's affidavits fail to present 9 ny leg;:3.l or

            factual basis u.pbn whibh to grant any reargument or renewal.                               The

            failure     to     ehgag:e   in   any discov,ery and the. failure,              op these

                                                        5

                                                      5 of 6
[* 5]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/09/2024 02:21 PM                                                                       INDEX NO. 523025/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 225                                                                                           RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/09/2024

           motions,     to present any ha,sis for r12consideration in any m9 nner

           demands a denial of the motions.

                 Therefore,      based   on   the       foregoing,                                   t::he    m0,tions   seeking

            renewal and reargument are denied.

                   So ordered.

                                    ENTER:

                  DATED: April 9, 2024
                         Brooklyn N.Y.                            Hon. Leo
                                                                  JSC
                                                                                                 /

                                                        6

[* 6]                                           6 of 6....................................................   ________________