Court Opinion

ID: 9962534
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-23 20:10:13.464552+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:00.573358
License: Public Domain

Hernandez v Samouha
               2024 NY Slip Op 31360(U)
                     April 17, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 153558/2018
                  Judge: John J. Kelley
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: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/18/2024 12:55 PM                                               INDEX NO. 153558/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 106                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/18/2024

                             SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                       NEW YORK COUNTY
            PRESENT:        HON. JOHN J. KELLEY                             PART                               56M
                                                                  Justice
            --------------------X                                           INDEX NO.           153558/2018
             DOMINGO A HERNANDEZ,
                                                                            MOTION DATE          04/12/2024
                                                Plaintiff,
                                                                            MOTION SEQ. NO.          003
                                        - V -

             MOSHE SAMOUHA,                                                    DECISION + ORDER ON
                                                                                     MOTION
                                                Defendant.
            -------------------X

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 003) 52, 53, 54, 55, 56,
            57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,82, 86,87,88, 89, 90, 91
            were read on this motion to/for                       INJUNCTION/RESTRAINING ORDER

                   This is an action to recover damages for personal injuries, arising from a slip-and-fall

           accident in front of a Manhattan apartment building (the building) that had been owned by the

           defendant on the date of the accident. The plaintiff moves for a post-judgment injunction

           restraining the defendant from selling or encumbering that building. The defendant opposes the

           motion. The motion is deemed to be one pursuant to CPLR 5203(a) and 5222 for judicial

           recognition that the defendant is prohibited from selling or encumbering that building, and the

           motion is thereupon granted.

                   On March 21, 2023, the matter was called for trial before Justice James d'Auguste, but

           the defendant failed to appear. On March 23, 2023, Justice d'Auguste, in effect, struck the

           defendant's answer pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.27, and directed the entry of a default judgment

           against him on the issue of liability. On March 24, 2023, this court conducted an inquest on the

           issue of damages. In a decision and order after inquest dated September 25, 2023, this court

           determined that the plaintiff was entitled to recover the principal sum of $450,000 from the

           defendant, plus statutory prejudgment interest at the rate of 9% per annum, from March 24,

            153558/2018 HERNANDEZ, DOMINGO A. vs. SAMOUHA, MOSHE                                 Page 1 of 5
            Motion No. 003

[* 1]                                                        1 of 5
  FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/18/2024 12:55 PM                                                 INDEX NO. 153558/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 106                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/18/2024

           2023. On November 8, 2023, the Clerk of the court entered judgment in favor of the plaintiff and

           against the defendant in the total sum of $476,748.47.

                   The plaintiff now seeks to restrain the defendants from selling, transferring, or

           encumbering the building so that it may be levied upon and sold to satisfy the judgment. The

           plaintiff styles his motion as one for a preliminary injunction. The purpose of a preliminary

           injunction, however, "is to maintain the status quo while an action is pending" (Zheng v City of

           New York, 92 AD3d 412, 413 [1st Dept 2012]). An action remains "pending" until there is a final

           judgment entered in the action, either awarding relief to the plaintiff or dismissing the complaint

           (see CPLR 5011; Cooke-Garrett v Hoque, 109 AD3d 457, 457 [2d Dept 2013]; see also State of

           New York Mtge. Agency v Braun, 182 AD3d 63. 68-69 [2d Dept 2020]; US Bank Natl. Assn. v

           Saintus, 153 AD3d 1380, 1382 [2d Dept 2017]; Knapek v MV Southwest Cape, 110 AD2d 928,

           929 [3d Dept 1985]). The defendant correctly argues that, inasmuch as a final judgment has

           been entered in favor of the plaintiff here, the action is no longer pending, and relief in the

           nature of a preliminary injunction is no longer available.

                   Nonetheless, CPLR 5203(a) provides, with certain exceptions not pertinent here, that,

                          "[n]o transfer of an interest of the judgment debtor in real property, against which
                          property a money judgment may be enforced, is effective against the judgment
                          creditor either from the time of the docketing of the judgment with the clerk of the
                          county in which the property is located until ten years after the filing of the
                          judgment-roll, or from the time of the filing with such clerk of a notice of levy
                          pursuant to an execution until the execution is returned"

           Thus, "a judgment, once docketed, becomes a lien on the real property of the judgment debtor

           in the county of docketing" (see Cadle Co. v Calcador, 85 AD3d 700, 702 [2d Dept 2011]; Matter

           of Accounts Retrievable Sys., LLC v Conway, 83 AD3d 1052, 1053 [2d Dept 2011 ]; Soressi y

           SWF, L.P., 81 AD3d 1143 [3d Dept 2011]). Additionally, CPLR 5222(a) provides, in relevant

           part, that "[a] restraining notice may be issued by the clerk of the court or the attorney for the

           judgment creditor as officer of the court." CPLR 5222(b) provides that, with certain exceptions

           not applicable here, "[a] judgment debtor or obliger served with a restraining notice is forbidden

            153558/2018 HERNANDEZ, DOMINGO A. vs. SAMOUHA, MOSHE                                   Page 2 of 5
            Motion No. 003

[* 2]                                                     2 of 5
  FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/18/2024 12:55 PM                                                     INDEX NO. 153558/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 106                                                                         RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/18/2024

           to make or suffer any sale, assignment, transfer or interference with any property in which he or

          - she has an interest: .. until the judgment or order is satisfied or vacated" (emphasis added).

           While service of a restraining notice served pursuant to CPLR 5222 does not create a lien on

           real property (see Freedman v Hason, 2016 NY Slip Op 32611 [U], *4, 2016 NY Misc LEXIS

           4877, *6 [Sup Ct, Nassau County, Apr. 11, 2016]), "the restraining notice serves as an injunction

           prohibiting the transfer of the judgment debtor's property" (Distressed Holdings, LLC v Ehrler,

           113 AD3d 111, 116 [2d Dept 2013]).

                   Thus, the plaintiff is statutorily entitled to a restraint on the sale or transfer of the

           defendant's real property until the judgment is satisfied, either by operation of CPLR 5203(a), by

           service of a restraining notice upon the defendant pursuant to CPLR 5222(a), or by judicial

           recognition of the restraint that is memorialized in an order. The only question thus is whether

           the defendant currently is the true "owner'' of the building. The court concludes that, for

           purposes of restraining the sale or transfer of the building, and levying thereon, the defendant is

           indeed the legal owner.

                   The plaintiff alleged that he slipped and fell in front of the subject building on January 6,

           2018, and he commenced this action on April 18, 2018. As of both of those dates, the

           defendant owned the building. On March 9, 2020, the defendant's attorney, Mark Krasner, in

           response to the plaintiff's demand pursuant to CPLR 3101 (f), informed the plaintiff that the

           defendant did not have "any insurance policies under which any insurance company may be

           liable to satisfy part or all of a judgment which may be entered in this action or to indemnify or

           reimburse for payments made to satisfy the judgment." In an order dated November 18, 2020,

           the court (d'Auguste, J.) granted Krasner's motion to be relieved as counsel. On December 27,

           2020, and, thus, while this action was pending, and after the defendant's attorney was relieved

           of the obligation of representing him, the defendant transferred title of the subject real property

           to his solely owned limited liability company, 1985 Amsterdam, LLC, for no consideration

           whatsoever, despite the fact that the building had an assessed value of $1,565,000.
            153558/2018 HERNANDEZ, DOMINGO A. vs. SAMOUHA, MOSHE                                       Page 3 of 5
            Motion No. 003

                                                            3 of 5
[* 3]
  FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/18/2024 12:55 PM                                                 INDEX NO. 153558/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 106                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/18/2024

                   The current version of Debtor and Creditor Law§ 273(a}, enacted pursuant to L 2019, ch

           580, § 2, effective April 4, 2020, provides that,

                          "[a] transfer made or obligation incurred by a debtor is voidable as to a creditor,
                          whether the creditor's claim arose before or after the transfer was made or the
                          obligation was incurred, if the debtor made the transfer or incurred the obligation:

                                  "(1) with actual intent to hinder, delay or defraud any creditor of the
                                  debtor; or

                                  "(2) without receiving a reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the
                                  transfer or obligation, and the debtor:

                                                                 *****
                                  "(ii) ... believed or reasonably should have believed that the debtor
                                  would incur [ ] debts beyond the debtor's ability to pay as they became
                                  due."

           This section replaced, among other things, former Debtor and Creditor Law § 273-a which was

           repealed pursuant to L 2019, ch 580, § 2, effective April 4, 2020, and had provided, in relevant

           part, that,

                          "[e]very conveyance made without fair consideration when the person making it
                          is a defendant in an action for money damages ... is fraudulent as to the plaintiff
                          in that action without regard to the actual intent of the defendant if, after final
                          judgment for the plaintiff, the defendant fails to satisfy the judgment."

           Inasmuch as the defendant effectuated the conveyance of the building to his solely owned

           limited liability company subsequent to the repeal of Debtor and Creditor Law § 273-a, that

           provision is inapplicable, and the new version of Debtor and Creditor Law § 273 applies to this

           dispute. Nonetheless, the plaintiff demonstrated that his claim arose prior to the transfer, that

           the defendant's transfer of the building to his limited liability company was clearly effectuated

           without fair consideration, and that the defendant "believed or reasonably should have believed"

           that he would incur "debts beyond" his "ability to pay as they became due," specifically, that he

           would become subject to a judgment debt in this action.

                   Hence, the conveyance is voidable by the plaintiff, even if the plaintiff cannot

           demonstrate that the defendant "intended" the transfer to hinder or delay the plaintiff's ability to

           collect any money judgment against the defendant. The defendant thus is deemed to own the
            153558/2018 HERNANDEZ, DOMINGO A. vs. SAMOUHA, MOSHE                                  Page 4 of 5
            Motion No. 003

[* 4]                                                     4 of 5
  FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/18/2024 12:55 PM                                                   INDEX NO. 153558/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 106                                                                           RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/18/2024

           building for the purposes of restraining its further transfer or sale, and for the purpose of

           compelling a sale of the building to satisfy the judgment entered against him in this action. The

           court concludes that, by making the instant motion, the plaintiff has elected to void the transfer.

                   In light of the foregoing, it is,

                   ORDERED that the plaintiff's motion is deemed to be a motion pursuant to CPLR

           5203(a) and 5222 for judicial recognition that the defendant, both individually, and as the sole

           member of 1985 Amsterdam, LLC, is prohibited from selling, transferring, or encumbering the

           real property and building located at 1985 Amsterdam Avenue, New York, New York, the motion

           is thereupon granted, and the defendant, both individually, and as the sole member of 1985

           Amsterdam, LLC, be, and hereby is, prohibited from selling, transferring, or encumbering the

           real property and building located at 1985 Amsterdam Avenue, New York, New York, pending

           further order of the court.

                   This constitutes the Decision and Order of the court.

                   4/17/2024
                     DATE

                                                                        ~
            CHECK ONE:                     CASE DISPOSED                    NON-FINAL DISPOSITION
                                           GRANTED         □ DENIED         GRANTED IN PART         □ OTHER
            APPLICATION:                   SETTLE ORDER                     SUBMIT ORDER
            CHECK IF APPROPRIATE:          INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN       FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT   □ REFERENCE

            153558/2018 HERNANDEZ, DOMINGO A. vs. SAMOUHA, MOSHE                                     Page 5 of 5
            Motion No. 003

[* 5]                                                        5 of 5