Court Opinion

ID: 9958711
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-09 20:09:44.345744+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:38.910634
License: Public Domain

Courtney v Board of Mgrs. of the Chadwin House
                     Condominium
               2024 NY Slip Op 31133(U)
                      April 3, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 151677/2017
                  Judge: Lynn R. Kotler
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. 151677/2017
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 565                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/04/2024

                           SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                     NEW YORK COUNTY
           PRESENT: HON.LYNN R. KOTLER, J.S.C.                                            PART~
           TODD COURTNEY                                                                  INDEX NO. 151677/2017

                                                                                          MOT.DATE
                     -v-
                                                                                          MOT. SEQ. NO. 014 and 015
           THE BOARD OF MANAGERS OF THE CHADWIN HOUSE
           CONDOMINIUM et al

           The following papers were read on this motion to/for _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
           Notice ofMotion/Petition/O.S.C. -Affidavits - Exhibits                ECFS DOC No(s) . _ _
           Notice of Cross-Motion/Answering Affidavits - Exhibits                ECFS DOC No(s)._ _
           Replying Affidavits                                                   ECFS DOC No(s) . _ _

                There are two motions pending in this post-note of issue action which are hereby consolidated for
           the court's consideration and disposition in this single decision/order. Both motions have been filed by
           plaintiff. In motion sequence 14, plaintiff moves pursuant to CPLR §§ 3122, 3124 and 3126, for an or-
           der compelling defendant The Board of Managers of the Chadwin House Condominium Garage {the
           "Garage Board") to comply with a Subpoena Ad Testificandum and Duces Tecum dated August 29,
           2023 {the "Subpoena") or, alternatively, so-ordering the Subpoena and compelling compliance therewith
           in advance of the then-upcoming inquest scheduled before Justice Adam Silvera on January 11, 2024.

                 Defendants The Board of Managers of the Chadwin House Condominium {the "Condominium"),
           The Chadwin Driveway Association, Inc. {"CDA Inc."), Mark Greenberg Real Estate Co. Inc. {"MGRE
           Inc."), Mark Greenberg Real Estate Co. LLC, ("MGRE LLC"), James Goldstick and Infinity Corporation
           {"Infinity") oppose the motion, arguing that "plaintiff and his counsel for the last thirty-three (33) months,
           have utilized New York State's judicial resources to pursue a claim against that non-existent entity."

                In motion sequence 15, plaintiff moves pursuant to CPLR § 3025[b] and [c] for leave to amend the
           caption of the complaint to "correct" the name of the Garage Board to "The Board of Directors of the
           Chadwin Driveway Association". Plaintiff further seeks an order adjourning the inquest presently sched-
           uled for February 29, 2024 and an award of costs and fees "associated with this motion and all prior ef-
           forts to obtain the proper name of the defendant/Board from defendant's counsel which information
           should have been provided previously." Defendants the Condominium, CDA Inc., MGRE, Goldstick and
           Infinity (collectively the "Condominium Defendants") oppose that motion as well and cross-move for
           costs and fees for frivolous conduct pursuant to Part 130, CPLR §§ 8106, 8202 and 8303-a[a]. Plaintiff
           opposes the cross-motion.

                Since this motion sequence is outcome determinative, the court will consider it first in the interest of
           judicial economy. For the reasons that follow, the motion is denied. Previously, in a decision/order dated

           Dated:   '{/t,/i-7
                         f
                                                                               _--IL-vJ:_· __
                                                                               HON. LYNN R. KOTLER, J.S.C.

           1. Check one:                        0 CASE DISPOSED IX( NON-FINAL DISPOSITION
           2. Check as appropriate: Motion is   □ GRANTED □ DENIED □ GRANTED IN PART □ OTHER

           3. Check if appropriate:             □ SETTLE ORDER □ SUBMIT ORDER □ DO NOT POST

                                                □ FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT □ REFERENCE
                                                            Page 1 of 4
[* 1]                                                      1 of 4
                                                                                                    INDEX NO. 151677/2017
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 565                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/04/2024

           May 12, 2021, the court granted defendants motion and cross-motion to dismiss and for summary
           judgment and dismissed plaintiff's complaint as to the Condominium, CDA Inc., MGRE Inc., MGRE
           LLC, Goldstick and Infinity. Specifically, the court stated:

                        At the outset, suspension of parking privileges and the booting of a vehicle is
                        within a board's authority so long as these acts are "done in good faith, and in
                        furtherance of the condominium's legitimate interests" ( Skouras v Victoria Hall
                        Condominium, 73 AD3d 902 [2d Dept 2010)). There is no dispute that plaintiff
                        was delinquent in his payments. Therefore, defendants properly excluded plaintiff
                        from use of his parking space, booted his car, and removed his personal proper-
                        ty. In any event, since the vehicle was booted more than three years before this
                        action was commenced (February 21, 2017), plaintiff's claims as to the vehicle
                        are time.;.barred.

                        Not only is there no dispute that it was plaintiff who breached the Chadwin Driv-
                        ing Association bylaws, but plaintiff does not even state a prima facie cause of
                        action for breach of contract because he admits in his complaint that he stopped
                        paying the common charges associated with his parking space in the garage.

                The remaining causes of action against the Condominium Defendants were dismissed as duplica-
           tive or for failure to state a cause of action. The only defendant remaining in this action is styled by
           plaintiff's counsel as The Board of Managers of the Chadwin House Condominium Garage (already de-
           fined herein as the "Garage Board" but restated for clarity).

                The Condominium Defendants' then-counsel, Belkin Burden Wenig and Goldman, LLP, answered
           the complaint via a Verified Answer dated April 19, 2017, which plaintiff's counsel claims was asserted
           on behalf of the Garage Board. However, page 1 of the Verified Answer, which lists The Board of Man-
           agers of the Chadwin House Condominium Garage, contains a footnote appended to this entity's name,
           stating:

                        Defendants are unaware of the existence of the Board of Managers of the Chad-
                        win House Condominium Garage. Nevertheless, out of an abundance of caution
                        to avoid any potential argument that said purported entity defaulted by not an-
                        swer the Complaint, it is included herein. By joining in this Answer, Defendants
                        do not waive any rights to assert that one or more named parties are not properly
                        named in this action, all such rights are expressly reserved.

                 Plaintiff's counsel points to the Condominium Defendants Supplemental Bill of Particulars filed by
            then-counsel Abrams Garfinkel Margolis Bergson, LLP which contains the same footnote in connection
            with the Garage Board. Plaintiff's counsel further highlights a substitution of counsel filed by Gartner &
            Bloom, P.C. in place of Abrams Garfinkel Margolis Berson, LLP for all defendants except the Garage
            Board and defendant Sam Koubti. Thus, plaintiff's counsel claims that Abrams Garfinkel Margolis Ber-
            son, LLP remains coun~el.of record for the Garage Board.

                 After the court dismissed plaintiff's complaint in 2021, plaintiff moved to restore this action as to the
            Garage Board. That motion was granted in an order dated December 9, 2022, which stated in pertinent
            part that "to the extent that the Garage Board appeared in this action by Answer dated April 19, 2017,
            that Answer as to the Garage Board is stricken." The court further held that the Garage Board is in de-
            fault and directed that all issues regarding liability and plaintiff's damages against the Garage Board be
            determined at inquest.

                Plaintiff's counsel now claims that he has learned, on or about January 26, 2024, that CDA Inc. has
            a Board, and its correct name is The Board of Directors of the Chadwin Driveway Association. Plaintiff

                                                             Page 2 of 4
[* 2]                                                      2 of 4
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 151677/2017
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 565                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/04/2024

            therefore seeks to file a proposed amended verified complaint, which is annexed to the motion as Ex-
            hibit "Q", correcting the name of the Garage Board.

                  In opposition to the motion, counsel for the Condominium Defendants asserts that there is no entity
            known as The Board of Managers of the Chadwin House Condominium Garage in the ACRIS data-
            base, that none of the discovery exchanged between the parties mentions such an entity and that
            "[p]laintiff and his counsel are well aware of the fact that the remaining named entity does not exist."
            The Condominium Defendants argue that they should be awarded sanction, costs and attorneys fees
            against plaintiff because plaintiff has always known what the name of the entity is that runs the garage
            in the condominium building and "[n]ow on the eve of inquest against an illusory entity, Plaintiff frivo-
            lously attempts to re-litigate its original claims against the Chadwin Driveway Association, Inc. by add-
            ing "Board of Directors" to its name." The court agrees with the Condominium Defendants that such
            conduct is frivolous within the meaning of the court rules.

                 The court may award to any party or attorney in any civil action or proceeding the costs in the form
            of reimbursement for actual expenses reasonably incurred and reasonable attorney's fees resulting
            from frivolous conduct as under 22 NYCRR 130-1.1. Frivolous conduct is defined as conduct which: [1]
            is completely without merit in law and cannot be supported by a reasonable argument for an extension,
            modification or reversal of existing law; (2) is undertaken primarily to delay or prolong the .resolution of
            the litigation, or to harass or maliciously injure another; or (3) asserts material factual statements that
            are false.

                 Here, the record reveals that plaintiff's counsel has known for years that there was no entity known
            as The Board of Managers of the Chadwin House Condominium Garage. This issue was highlighted at
            numerous conferences with the court over the years and is documented in the pleadings, emails and
            transcripts of court appearances. Approximately seven years after this action was commenced, plaintiff
            now seeks leave to amend his pleadings to correct the name of the Garage Board, long after his com-
            plaint was dismissed as to every other defendant in this case and after plaintiff brought a motion to re-
            store his claim against this non-existent entity.

                  Even if these facts did not exist, plaintiff's claims against the proposed defendant are wholly with-
            out merit. It is res judicata and law of the case that plaintiff's claims against the Condominium Defend-
            ants are infirm. When the court noted the Garage Board's default in appearing, it reserved for inquest
            the issues of liability and damages. Plaintiff's counsel even manages to mischaracterize this court's
            December 9, 2022, which stated specifically and very carefully "to the extent that the Garage Board ap-
            peared in this action by Answer dated April 19, 2017". The writing has been on the wall for years that
            the Garage Board did not exist and the footnotes including in filings by the Condominium Defendants'
            counsel containing a reservation of rights to assert that the defendants were named incorrectly clearly
            indicated from inception that even if plaintiff obtained a judgment against the Garage Board, it would
            likely not be worth the paper it was printed on.

                 Yet plaintiff persisted, and as defense counsel noted, plaintiff has burdened this court with numer-
            ous motions and court filings, issued subpoenas and wasted judicial resources with an inquest that has
            needed to be rescheduled multiple times due to plaintiff's inability to admit that he sued a nonexistent
            entity.

                On this record, the time to amend the caption to correct the name of the so-called Garage Board
            has passed. In light of the frivolous arguments advanced by plaintiff and his counsel on this motion and
            the waste of taxpayer-funded judicial resources, sanctions must be paid by both. As well, the Condo-
            minium Defendants have incurred needless expenses submitting opposition and cross-moving with re-
            spect to plaintiff's frivolous motion, which warrants and award of costs and reasonable attorneys fees
            against plaintiff.

                The court hereby sanctions plaintiff and his counsel $1000 each. In addition, plaintiff shall reim-
            burse the Condominium Defendants for their costs and reasonable attorneys fees incurred in connec-

                                                            Page 3 of 4
[* 3]                                                    3 of 4
                                                                                                     INDEX NO. 151677/2017
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 565                                                                         RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/04/2024

                 tion with submitting opposition and the cross-motion on motion sequence 15. The issue of what rea-
                 sonable attorneys fees the Condominium Defendants have incurred in connection with submitting op-
                 position and the cross-motion on motion sequence 15 is hereby referred to a Special Referee or JHO to
                 hear and report.

                       Finally, the court deems plaintiff's motion as a concession that he cannot proceed to inquest
                  against a nonexistent entity. Therefore, the complaint against the Garage Board is severed and dis-
                  missed and the Clerk is directed to mark this action disposed. In light of this result, motion sequence 14
                  is denied as moot.

                  CONCLUSION

                      In accordance herewith, it is hereby:

                      ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to amend (motion sequence 15) is denied; and it is further

                       ORDERED that the Condominium Defendants cross-motion for sanctions, costs and reasonable
                  attorneys fees is granted; and it is further

                      ORDERED that plaintiff and his counsel are each sanctioned $1000 for frivolous conduct. In addi-
                 tion, plaintiff shall reimburse the Condominium Defendants for their costs and reasonable attorneys
                 fees incurred in connection with submitting opposition and the cross-motion on motion sequence 15;
                 and it is further

                      ORDERED that the issue of the what reasonable attorneys fees the Condominium Defendants
                  have incurred in connection with submitting opposition and the cross-motion on motion sequence 15 is
                  hereby referred to a Special Referee or JHO to hear and report; and it is further

                      ORDERED that defendants shall, within 60 days from entry of this decision/order, serve a copy of
                 this order with notice of entry, together with a complete Information Sheet1 , upon the Special Referee
                 Clerk in the Motion Support Office (Room 119M), who is directed to place this matter on the calendar of
                 the Special Referee's Part and/or assign this matter to a JHO for the earliest convenient date; and it is
                 further

                      ORDERED that any motion to confirm or disaffirm the Report of the JHO/Special Referee shall be
                  made within the time and in the manner specified in CPLR 4403 and section 202.44 of the Uniform
                  Rules for the Trial Courts.

                       ORDERED that the complaint against the Garage Board is severed and dismissed and the Clerk is
                  directed to mark this action disposed; and it is further

                      ORDERED that motion sequence 14 is denied as moot.

                      Any requested relief not expressly addressed herein has nonetheless been considered and is
                  hereby expressly rejected and this constitutes the decision and order of the court.

                  Dated:       'ii7                                        So Ordered.•£{

                                                                                       L
                                                                           Hon. Lynn R. Kotier, J.S.C.

        1
         Copies are available in Room 119M at 60 Centre Street and on the Court's website at
        www.nycourts.gov/supctmanh (under the "References" section of the "Courthouse Procedures link).
                                                                 Page4 of4
[* 4]                                                         4 of 4