Court Opinion

ID: 9942022
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-20 14:07:59.421824+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:47:35.908504
License: Public Domain

166 Delancey, LLC v Ovadia
               2024 NY Slip Op 30465(U)
                   February 13, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 156475/2021
                 Judge: Mary V. Rosado
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. 156475/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 32                                                                                  RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/13/2024

                               SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                         NEW YORK COUNTY

            PRESENT:          HON. MARY V. ROSADO                                        PART                               33M
                                                                           Justice
            --------------------·-··-····--·---·-·--------------------------------X      INDE X NO.         156475/2021
             166 DELANCEY, LLC
                                                                                         MOTION DATE         03/03/2023
                                                    Plaintiff,
                                                                                         MOTION SEQ. NO. - - - ' -
                                                                                                                 00~1
                                            • V .

             MENACHEM OVADIA OPERATI NG AS BOOST MOBILE,                                   DECISION + ORDER ON
                                                                                                 MOTION
                                                    Defendant.

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 14, 15, 16, 17, 18.
            19, 24, 25, 26, 27 28,29, 30,31
            were read on this motion to/for                                           JUDGMENT · SUMMARY

                     Upon the foregoing documents, Plaintiff 166 Delancey, LLC 's ("Plainti ff") motion for an

           Order granting summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant Menachcm O vad ia

           ("Defendant") is denied . Plaintiff's motion for an Order dismissing Defendant' s affirmative

           defenses is granted in pa.it and denied in part. Defendant's cross-motion to di smiss Plaintiff' s

           Complaint is denied.

                I.       Background anti Procedural Histon •

                     The case at bar. commenced by Plaintiff against Defendant on July 9, 2021 (I\YSCEF Doc.

            I). concerns Ocfcndant-s alleged failure to pay rem and additional rent due and owed under a lease

           dated August 8. 20 19 (the "Lease'") between Plaintiff as Landlord and De fondant as Tenant (the

            ·'Lease") for De fendant' s occupancy of the ground floor commercial space at 102 Clinton Street

            a/k/a 166 Delancey Street, New York, l\cw York (the '·Premises") (N YS CLlF Doc. IS alp. 6).

            Plaintiff's Complaint (NYSCEF Doc. I) asserts causes of action against Defendant for breach of

            contract (''First Cause of Aclion"), a declaratory judgment asserlin~ that Defendant is liable to

             156475/2021 166 DELANCEY, LLC vs. MENACHEM OVA DIA OPERATING AS BOOST MOBILE                     Page 1 of 9
             Motion No. 001

[* 1]                                                             1 of 9
                                                                                                     INDEX NO. 156475/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 32                                                                         RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/13/2024

           Plaintiff for monetary obligations under the Lease ("Second Cause of Action··). and attorneys· fees

            under the Lease ("Third Cause of Action") (NYSCEF Doc. I).

                        On August 29, 2021, Defendant fi led an Answer to Plaintiffs Complaint interposi ng 24

           affim1ativc defenses (NYSCF.F Ooc. 4). On March 23, 2023. Plaintiff brought the instanL motion

           for an Order dism issing Defendant "s affirmative defenses and granting summary j udgment in favor

           of Plaintiff and against Delendant (NYSCEF Doc. 14). On July 24, 2023, Defendant filed a cross-

           motion to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint (NYSCEF Doc. 24).

                  II.      Discussion

                               a . Plaintiffs Motion to Dismiss Defendant' s Affirmative Defenses is Granted in
                                   Part and Denied in Part

                        Pursuant 10 CPLR 321 l (b) "(a] party may move for judgment dismissing one or more

           defenses on the ground that a defense is not stated or has no meri t. " It is well established that "[ol n

           a motion to dismiss affirmative defenses pursuant to Cl'Ll{ 32 1 l(b), the plaintiff hears the burden

           of demonstrating that the defenses arc without merit as a matter of law'' (5./3 E. 11th S1. Huus.

            Dev. Fund Corp. v / Jendrick, 90 AD3d 541 l 1st Dept 20111). Further, lhe Appellate Division has

           held that "filn deciding a motion to dismiss a defense, the defendanl is entitled to the benefit of

           every reasonable intendmcnt of the pleading, which is to be liberally construed" (Id.), While "the

           court should not dismiss a defense where there remain questions of fact requiring a trial"' (Granite

           State Ins. Co. v 'franJa1/antic Reins. Co. I 32 AD3d 479. 48 I fl sl Dept 2015 J), hare legal

           conclusions that '"present no factua l or legal bases" are insufficient to raise an affirmative defen~e

           and should he dismissed (Cluysler F.. Bldg., L.L.C. v Keenwawa. Inc., 2 17 A03d 494 [ 1st Depl

           2023]).

                        Defendant"s Third ihrough Sixth, Eighth, Tenth. Eleventh. Fifteenth through Seventeenth

            and     lineteenth through Twenty-Third Affirmative Defenses, each a mere sentence long, are

             156475/2021 166 DELANCEY. LLC vs. MENACHEM OVAOIA OPERATING AS BOOST MOBILE              Page 2 of 9
             Motion No. 001

[* 2]                                                       2 of 9
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 156475/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 32                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/13/2024

           conclusory, boilerplate, and fail to provide the Court with any factual or legal basis. As such,

           Defendant"s Third through Sixth. Eighth, Tenth, Eleventh. Fifteenth through Seventeenth and

            Nineteenth through Twenty-Third Affirmative Defenses arc d ismissed as conclusory.

                   Defendant's Second Affirmati ve Defense asserts that thi s action must be dismissed because

           New York City Administrative Code § 22- 1005 renders '·tmcnforceable provisions in leases

           providing for personal guaranties by individuals where the tenant's business was negatively

           impacted by COVID-1 9" (:--JYSCEF Doc. 4 at~ 30). As Plaintiffs Complaint in this action does

           not seek to enforce any guaranty, Defendants Second A mm,ative Defense is dismissed a~

           mcritless.

                   Defendant' s Seventh Affim,ative Defense asserts that "Plaintiff has received payment in

           foll by one or more wllatcrol sources" and therefore Plaintiff "would be unjustly enriched if

           allowed to foreclose upon said property" (NYSCEF Doc. 4 at ii 35). As Plaintiff's claims herein

           make no reference to any alleged "foreclosure," Defendant' s Seventh Afiirmative Defense is

           dismissed as meritlcss.

                   Defendant's l\inth Affirmative Defense a~serts that "some of the documents annexed to

           the complaint are not those signed by tl,e dcfendant(s)" (NYSCEF Doc. 4 at ,. 37). As no

           documents are annexed to Plaintiffs Complaint (NYSCF.F Doc. I). Defendants 1inth Anirmative

           Defonse is d ismissed as meritless.

                   Defendant's Twelfth Anirmati vc Defense asserts that " Dcl'cndants never entered into any

           contract or agreement with plaintifT" and ''[flherc exists no privily of con tract with the plaintiff'

           (J\ YSCEF Ooc. 4 at 1 40). Tn his Al'fidavit in Opposition to Pl aintii'f's Motion and in Support o f

            De fendant's Cross-Motion, Defendant testifies, infer alia, that he is not responsible for any lease

           or guaranty (NYSCEF Doc. 26 at        1), that he did not sign any lease or guaranty (l\YSCEF Doc.

             15647512021 166 DELANCEY. LLC vs. MENACHEM OVAOIA OPERATING AS BOOST MOBILE           Page 3 of9
             Motion No. 001

[* 3]                                                    3 of 9
                                                                                                 INDEX NO. 156475/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 32                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/13/2024

           26 at 1 2), an<l lhat his " brother signed [his] signature which (hcj knew nothing about until

           receiving this lawsui t and subsequently the landk1r<l tenant action" (NYSCl3F Doc. 26 at ii 5).

           However, it is well established that "lsJomething more than a ba ld assertion or forgery is required

           to create an issue of fact contesting the authenticity o f a signature·• (Banco Popular N. Am. V

            Victory Taxi ,\fgml. , 1 NY3d 381 , 384 12004-i). Further, a defendant's assertion of forgery is not

           sufiicient 10 defeat summary judgment when the defendant "has not demonstrnted that [theirj

           prclitigation conduct was consistent with a denial of genuineness" (Id).

                   It is well settled that a signed document is accompanied by a notary public's

           acknowledgment establishes a presumption of the notarized signature·s due execution and

           genuineness ((ienger v Arie Cienger /995 Life Ins. Trust, 84 AD3cl 471 [1st Dept 20llj).

           Con verse ly, where a signature is not notarized, there is no presumption of due execution (Tl) Bank

           N.A. v Piccolo Mondo 21" Century. Inc. , 93 AD3d 499,500 [2d Dept 2012 1). The Lease document

            filed by Plaintiff herein is not uotari<'.Cd and therefore is not entitled to a presumption of due

           execution (NYSCF.F Doc. 18 p. 7). As such, affording Defendant the hcncfit of every reasonable

           inlendmeni of the pleading, the Court finds that Defendant has alleged adequate facts to support

           his Twelfth Affirmative Defense. and Plaintiff has failed lo show that Defendant's Twelfth

           Affirmative Defense is without merit as a mailer of law. Accordingly, PlaintilI's motion to dismiss

           Defendant's Twelfth Allirmative Defense is denied.

                   Similarly, g iven Defendant's affidavit testimony referenced above (NYSCEF Doc. 26),

           Defendant has demonstrated the presence of questions or fact regard ing whether l)cfendanl signed

           the T.ease in question. As such, Plaintiffs motion to dismiss Defendant's Thirteen1h, and

           Fourteenth Al1irmative Defonses is denied.

             15647512021 166 DELANCEY, LLC vs, MENACHEM OVADIA OPERATING AS BOOST MOBILE          Page 4 of 9
             Motion No. 001

[* 4]                                                    4 of 9
                                                                                                    INDEX NO. 156475/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 32                                                                        RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/13/2024

                   IJefendant's First Affirmative Defense asserts that "Plainti IT fails to state a cause of action

            upon which relief may be granted'' (N YSCEF IJoc. 4 at 29). It is well settled that an affirmative

           defense asserting the failure to state a cause of action "may be dismissed only if all the other

           affirmative defenses arc found to be legally insufficient·' (Raine v Allied Artists Productions. Inc.,

           63 AIJ2d 914, 915 [ Ist Dept 1978'1). As the Court has declined lo dism iss all of Dcfcndam's

           af'lirmativc defenses as legally insufficient, Plainti ffs moti on to d ismiss Defendan t's First

            Affirmative Defense is denied.

                           b. Plaintiff's Motion for Summarv Judgment is Ocnied

                   Summary judgment is a drastic remedy, to be granted 01liy where the moving pany has

            tendered sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact." (Vega v

            Restani Const. Corp., 18 NY3d 499. 503 [2012]). The moving party' s "burden is a heavy one and

            on a moti.o n for summary j udgment, facts must be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-

            moving party." (Jacobsen v New York City Health and 1/osps. Corp.. 22 NY3d 824. 833 [201 4]).

            Once this showing is made, the burden shifts to the party opposing the motion to produce

            evidentiary proof, in admissible form, sufficient to establish rhe existence of material issues of foci

            which require a trial (see e.g.. 7.uckerman v Ciry of New York. 49            ·v2d 557, 562 [1980]:

            Pemberton v New York City 'fr. Auth., 304 AD2d 340,342 [I" Dept 2003]). Mere conclusions of

            law or fac1 arc insufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment (see /Janco Popular Nor1h

            Am. v Victory Taxi lvlgt.. Inc.. I NY3d 381 [2004]).

                   As discussed above, IJcfendant's signature on the Lease is nol notarized and thus is not

            entitled 10 a presumption of due execution (TD Bank N. A. v Piccolo Mondo l I" Cemury. Inc., 93

            A03d 499,500 [2d Dept 2012)). Further, Defendant's rcstimony that he is not responsible for any

            lease or guaranty (NYSCEF Doc. 26 al ' I), that he did not sign any lease or guaranry (NYSCEF

             156475/2021 166 DELANCEY, LLC vs. MENACHEM OVADIA OPERATING AS BOOST MOBILE             Page5of9
             Motion No. 001

[* 5]                                                      5 of 9
                                                                                                    INDEX NO. 156475/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 32                                                                        RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/13/2024

           Doc. 26 at ii 2). and that his " brother signed lhis l signature which [hcj knew nothing about unti l

           receiving this lawsuil and subsequently the landlord temmt action" (NYSCL.::F Doc. 26 at ii 5)

           demonstrate questions of material fact regarding Lhe legitimacy ofDefondan1's signa1ure on the

           Lease which preclude summary judgment.

                           c. Defendant's Cross-Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint is Denied

                   Preliminarily, l)cfcndant ' s papers in support of his cross-motion to dismiss Plaintiffs

           Complaint make no argument in support of dismissal and fail to state any ground upon which such

           dismissal is requested (N YSCEF l)ocs. 25-26). However, as Defendant's First Affirmati ve

           Defense alleges failure to state a claim (KYSCFF Doc. 4 at ii 29), Defendam's motion to dismiss

           will be considered mmlc pursuant to CPLR 321 l(a)(7).

                   Pursuant to CPLR 32 l l(a)(7), " [a] party may move for judgmen t d ism issi ng one or more

           causes of ac1ion usserled against him on the ground that ... the pleading fa ils to state a cause or

           action .... " In co nsidering a motion pursuant to CPLR 321 l(a)(7) to dismiss a complaint for failure

            to state a cause ol' action, "the court must give the pleading a lihcrnl construction, accept the facts

            alleged in the complaint to be Lrue and afford the plaintiff the benefi t of' every possible favorable

            inference" (J.P. Morgan Sec. Inc. v Vip,i/ant Ins. Co. 21 l\Y3<l 324. 334 120131). "[T]he sole

            criterion is whether the pleading stales a cause of action, and therefore if from it.s four comers

            factual allegations are discerned which if taken together can manifest any cause of action, a motion

            for dismissal must fail" (Kusher v King 126 AD2d 446, 46711st l)cpt 1987)).

                                   1.      Defendant' s Cross-Motion to Dismiss Plaintill's First Cause of
                                           Action for I3reach of Con tract is Denied

                   ll is well established that "[t]o state a claim for breach of contract, a plaintiff must allege:

            ( 1) 1he purtics en tered into a valid agreement, (2) plaintiff performed, (3) dcfcnclant failed to

            perform, and (4) damages" (VisionChina Media Inc. v Shareholder Represenlafive Servs., LLC,

             156475/2021 166 DELANCEY, LLC vs. MENACHEM OVAOIA OPERATING AS BOOST MOBILE            Pago 6 of 9
             Motion No. 001

[* 6]                                                      6 of 9
                                                                                                     INDEX NO. 156475/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 32                                                                         RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/13/2024

            I 09 J\D3d 49, 58 l Isl Dcpl 2013'1). Plaintiff satisfied ihc first elem en I by claiming that Defendant

           and Plain ti ff entered into a lease agreement dated August 8, 2019 (NYSCEF Voe. I at~ 9). Plaintiff

           satisfied the second element by alleging that "Plaimiff has pcrfonned its obligations under the

           lease·· 0-fYSCEF Doc. I at · 19). Plaintiff satisfied the third clement by claiming that '·r1Jhc

           Payment I3reaches cons1i1u1c breaches of the Lease by Defendant'' (NYSCEF Doc. I at ' 20).

           Finally, Plainti ff satisfied the fourth element by claiming damages in the amount of S52,347.48

           (N YSCEF Doc. I at~ 2 1). As such, Defendant's cross-motion io dismiss Plaintifrs First Cause of

           Action for breach of contract is denied.

                                   11 .    Defendant's Cross-'vlotion 10 Dismiss Plaintiffs Second Cause of
                                           Action for Dcclaratorv Judgment is Denied

                   The First Department has held that on a motion to dismi ss a declaratory judgmem action

            for fai lure to state a cause of action, " the only question is whether a proper case is presented for

           invoking the j urisdiction of the court to make a declaratory judgmen t. and not whether the plaintiff

           is entitled to a declaratory judgment favorable to him" (I.aw Research Service, Inc. v Honeywell.

           inc.. 3 I AD 2d 900, 90 I II st Dept I 969]). As this Coun has proper jurisdiction over the subject

           matter of this action pursuant to CPLR Article 3, Defendant's cross-motion to dismiss Plaintiff's

           Second Cause of Action for a declaratory judgment is denied.

                                   11 1.    Ocfendant's Cross-Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Third Cause of
                                            Action for Altornev·s fees is Denied

                   While ii is well established that ·'attorneys' fees arc not recoverable unless authorized by

            statute, court rule, or written agreement o f the parties" (Re!fv Nagy. 175 J\D3d 107, 130 [1st Dept

            20191), here, Plaintiffs Complaint claims that Plaintiff is entitled to attorneys· foes pursuant to

            Article 54 of the Lease (NYSCEF Doc. I at           27). As such, the Court finds that Plaintiff has

             15647512021 166 DELANCEY, LLC vs. MENACHEM OVADIA OPERATING AS BOOST MOBILE             Page 7 of 9
             Motion No. 001

[* 7]                                                      7 of 9
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 156475/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 32                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/13/2024

           sufli ciently stated a claim for allomcys· fees. Therefore, Defendant's cross-motion to dismi ss

           Plaintiff's Third Cause of Action for anomeys' fees is denied.

                   Accordingly, it is hereby.

                   ORDERED that Plainti n· 166 Uclancey, LLC 's motion for summary judgment in favor of

           Plaintiff and against Uefcndant Menachcrn Ovadia is denied; and it is further

                   ORDERFD that Pla intiff 166 Delancey, LLC' s motion for an Order d ismissing Defendant

           Menachem Ovadia's affirmative dcfonses is granted with respect to l)efendant's Second, Third,

            Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh. eighth, Ninth, Tenth, Eleventh. Fifieenth, Sixteenth, Seventeenth,

           '.\!inetecnth, Twentieth. Twenty-First. Twenty-Second and Twenty-Third Affirmative Defense, and

           denied with respect to Defendant's First, Twelfth, Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Eighteenth

            Aflinnative Defenses; and it is further

                   ORDER ED that Defendant Menachem Ovadia' s cross-moti on for an Order dismissing

            Plainti ff 166 Delancey, LT.C's Complaint is denied; and iL is further

                   ORDERED that on or before March 19, 2024, the parties are directed to submit a

            proposed Status Conference Order to the Court via e-mail to SFC-l'art33-Clerk(d .nvcourts.gov. If

            the parties are unable to agree to a proposed Starus Conference Order, the parties arc directed to

           appear for an in-person status conference with the Court in Room 442. 60 Centre Street, on

            March 20, 2024 at 9:30 a. m.; and it is farther

                   ORDERED that withi n IO days o f entry, counsel for Defendant Mcnachem Ovadia shall

            serve a copy of this Decision and Order, with notice of entry, on Plainti ff at its last known

            business address; and it is further

             15647512021 166 DELANCEY, LLe vs. MENACHEM OVADIA OPERATING AS BOOST MOBILE           Page 8 of 9
             Motion No, 001

[* 8]                                                     8 of 9
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 156475/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 32                                                                         RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/13/2024

                   ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

                   This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.

                    2/13/2024
                      DATE

            CHECK ONE;                   CASE OISPOSED                •    NON-FINAL OISPOSIT10N

                                         GRANTED         □ DENIED     •    GRANTED IN PART          □ OTHER
            APPLICATION:                 SETTl!ORDER                       SUBMIT ORDER

            CHECK IF APPROPRIATE:        INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN        FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT    □ REFERENCE

             151147512021 166 DELANCEY, LLC vs. MENACHEM OVADIA OPERATING AS BOOST MOBILE          Pago 9 of 9
             Motion No. 001

[* 9]                                                     9 of 9