Court Opinion

ID: 9945554
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-27 21:10:45.141355+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:32.383140
License: Public Domain

Ludlow St. Dev., LLC v Gomez
               2024 NY Slip Op 30527(U)
                   February 20, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 150807/2022
                  Judge: Paul A. Goetz
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. 150807/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 159                                                                                           RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/20/2024

                                   SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                             NEW YORK COUNTY
            PRESENT:             HON. PAUL A. GOETZ                                               PART                             47
                                                                                       Justice
            ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------X   INDEX NO.          150807/2022
             LUDLOW STREET DEVELOPMENT, LLC,
                                                                                                  MOTION DATE         08/18/2023
                                                         Plaintiff,
                                                                                                  MOTION SEQ. NO.         006
                                                 - V -

             CYNTHIA GOMEZ, RAVEN FLEMING, RAMEL
                                                                                                    DECISION + ORDER ON
             GONZALEZ, TAMMY ANGEL
                                                                                                          MOTION
                                                         Defendants.
            ------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------X

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 006) 123, 124, 125, 126,
            127,128,129,130,131,132,133,134,135,144,145,146,147,148,155,156
            were read on this motion to/for                                                       DISCOVERY

            Upon the foregoing documents, it is

                      Plaintiff moves pursuant to CPLR § 3126(3) to strike defendant Raven Fleming's answer

            due to her alleged refusal to produce disclosure. In the alternative plaintiff seeks to compel Ms.

            Fleming to provide full responses to its discovery demands or seeks to preclude Ms. Fleming

            from introducing evidence at trial. Plaintiff also seeks sanctions to the extent that Ms. Fleming's

            failure to respond to discovery demands is frivolous, sanctionable conduct.

                                                                      BACKGROUND

                      Plaintiff owns and operates a building located at 188 Ludlow Street, New York, New

            York (NYSCEF Doc No 1 ,i 7). Because plaintiff's building was financed in part by housing

            credits provided by the New York State Housing Finance Agency ("HF A"), it was required to

            execute a Regulatory Agreement (the "HF A Regulatory Agreement") and rent a percentage of

            units to low-income tenants (id. at ,i 8-13). The HFA Regulatory Agreement imposes income

            restrictions on tenants who apply to live in these low income units (id. at ,i 14). To ensure proper

             150807/2022 LUDLOW STREET DEVELOPMENT, LLC vs. GOMEZ, CYNTHIA ET AL                                      Page 1 of4
             Motion No. 006

                                                                            1 of 4
[* 1]
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 150807/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 159                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/20/2024

            compliance with these requirements, plaintiff hired a company, Asian Americans for Equality

            ("AAFE"), to perform compliance procedures for the low-income units and their prospective

            tenants (id. at ,i 16). AAFE hired defendant, Tammy Angel, to select potential, qualified tenants

            from a waiting list to occupy and rent the low-income units at the building (id at ,i 18-19).

                   Plaintiff alleges that Ms. Angel entered into a conspiracy to rent the low-income units to

            people who did not meet the requirements of the HFA Regulatory Agreement (id. at ,i 20).

            Plaintiff alleges that Ms. Angel caused leases to be rented to defendants, Cynthia Gomez, Raven

            Fleming, and Ramel Gonzalez, despite fraudulent misrepresentations defendants made on their

            application materials (NYSCEF Doc No 1 at ,i 41 -43). Plaintiff filed this suit on January 26,

            2022 and seeks ejectment of defendants Gomez, Fleming, and Gonzalez, and also seeks money

            damages against defendant Angel alleging fraud (id. at p 17).

                   On February 10, 2023 plaintiff sent pro se defendant Raven Fleming a list of discovery

            demand and a set of interrogatories (NYSCEF Doc Nos 125 & 126). On June 15, 2023 Ms.

            Fleming responded to plaintiffs demands and interrogatories by invoking her 5th amendment

            right against self-incrimination on each and every demand (NYSCEF Doc Nos. 129 & 130).

            After several discovery conferences took place without resolution to the outstanding discovery

            issues plaintiff filed the instant motion (NYSCEF Doc No 123).

                                                      DISCUSSION

                   In opposition to this motion Ms. Fleming again asserts her Fifth Amendment right against

            self-incrimination, arguing that plaintiff has threatened her with criminal prosecution and that her

            answer should not be stricken for asserting her constitutional rights. The relevant portion of the

            Fifth Amendment for this matter states that "No person shall be ... compelled in any criminal

            case to be a witness against himself." The Fifth Amendment "not only protects the individual

             150807/2022 LUDLOW STREET DEVELOPMENT, LLC vs. GOMEZ, CYNTHIA ET AL                   Page 2 of 4
             Motion No. 006

                                                          2 of 4
[* 2]
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 150807/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 159                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/20/2024

            against being involuntarily called as a witness against himself in a criminal prosecution but also

            privileges him not to answer official questions put to him in any other proceeding, civil or

            criminal, formal or informal, where the answers might incriminate him in future criminal

            proceedings" (Lefkowitz v Turley, 414 US 70, 77 [1973]). However, "[b]ecause the Fifth

            Amendment 'protects a person only against being incriminated by his own compelled testimonial

            communications,' it does not obviously apply to production of documents" (In re DG Acquisition

            Corp., 151 F3d 75, 79 [2d Cir 1998]). The Fifth Amendment can only be asserted to prevent

            document production when the act of "producing the documents, [itself] has communicative

            aspects of its own." (In re DG Acquisition Corp., 151 F3d 75, 79 [2d Cir 1998]). "A

            determination of whether the act of production communicates an incriminatory statement, and is

            thus protected, depends on the facts and circumstances of particular cases (Knopf v Esposito, 517

            F Supp 3d 187, 189 [SDNY 2021]).

                   Indeed, "This privilege does not apply ordinarily to "documents voluntarily prepared

            prior to the issuance of a summons. Because the documents are not compelled testimony, there is

            no Fifth Amendment protection for the contents of these records" (id.). Furthermore, a "party

            who asserts the privilege against self-incrimination must bear the consequence of lack of

            evidence, and the claim of privilege will not prevent an adverse finding or even summary

           judgment if the litigant does not present sufficient evidence to satisfy the usual evidentiary

            burdens in the litigation" (In re Adelphia Communications Corp., 317 BR 612, 624 [Bankr

            SDNY 2004]).

                   Here, plaintiff seeks documents which were prepared voluntarily by Ms. Fleming prior to

            this action. She was not compelled by any state actor to create these documents and she did so

            out of her own free will. Furthermore, the documents are material and necessary to the

             150807/2022 LUDLOW STREET DEVELOPMENT, LLC vs. GOMEZ, CYNTHIA ET AL                  Page 3 of 4
             Motion No. 006

                                                          3 of 4
[* 3]
                                                                                                    INDEX NO. 150807/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 159                                                                        RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/20/2024

            adjudication of this case as they likely contain probative information regarding the truthfulness

            of her rental application. Importantly, Ms. Fleming does not have any criminal charges pending

            against her nor is there any indication that there will be criminal charges brought against her if

            she is compelled to produce documents or answer the interrogatories. However, because it is in

            the best interests of justice to reach the merits of cases Ms. Fleming's answer will not be striken

            and instead she will be compelled to provide full responses to the discovery demands and

            interrogatories. However, if Ms. Fleming does not provide the relevant discovery within the

            required time period, her answer may be stricken.

                      Accordingly, it is:

                      ORDERED that the part of plaintiffs motion to compel defendant Raven Fleming to

            provide responses to the discovery demands and interrogatories dated February 10, 2023 is

            granted, and defendant Raven Fleming shall provide responses within 21 days of the date of this

            order; and it is further

                      ORDERED that part of plaintiffs motion to strike the defendant's answer is denied

            without prejudice with leave to renew upon alleged noncompliance with the above; and it is

            further

                      ORDERED that part of plaintiffs motion for sanctions is denied.

                      2/20/2024
                        DATE                                                       PAUL A. GOETZ, J.S.C.

                                       ~
             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

             150807/2022 LUDLOW STREET DEVELOPMENT, LLC vs. GOMEZ, CYNTHIA ET AL                    Page4 of 4
             Motion No. 006

                                                              4 of 4
[* 4]