Court Opinion

ID: 9942816
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-21 21:08:51.998036+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:44:43.157764
License: Public Domain

West 60th St. Assoc., LLC v Maier
               2024 NY Slip Op 30504(U)
                    February 15, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 160364/2023
                  Judge: Arlene P. Bluth
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. 160364/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 150                                                                                          RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/15/2024

                                   SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                             NEW YORK COUNTY
            PRESENT:             HON. ARLENE P. BLUTH                                            PART                              14
                                                                                      Justice
            ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X   INDEX NO.          160364/2023
             WEST 60TH STREET ASSOCIATES, LLC,
                                                                                                 MOTION DATE         02/07/2024
                                                         Petitioner,
                                                                                                 MOTION SEQ. NO.      001 004
                                                 -v-
             BIANCA MAIER, MOR OHANA, BEAUTY BY B NY 2023
             LLC,CIGAR LOUNGE 2023 26TH STREET LLC,HAPOEL
             FE LLC A/K/A HAPPEN FE LLC,NAOMI18, LLC A/K/A                                         DECISION + ORDER ON
             NAOMI18 LLC,JONATHAN DRORY, SHACHAR                                                         MOTION
             ZEPLOVITCH, SARID DRORY

                                                         Respondent.
            ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 36, 41, 42, 44, 45,
            46, 47, 48, 49, 63, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 90, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114,
            115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 129, 131, 132, 133, 137, 138
            were read on this motion to/for                                                  ORDER OF ATTACHMENT                   .

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 004) 64, 65, 66, 67, 68,
            69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 89, 91, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108,
            124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 130, 134, 135, 136, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148
            were read on this motion to/for                                                        DISMISS                         .

                      Motion Sequence 001 and 004 are consolidated for disposition. The motion by

            respondents Sarid Drory, Mor Ohana and Hapoel Fe LLC is decided as described below. The

            petition (MS001) is adjourned to February 29, 2024 to permit the remaining respondent to

            answer.

            Background

                      This is not a plenary action. Rather, this is, apparently, a turnover proceeding brought

            pursuant to CPLR 5225(b). In such proceedings, a judgment creditor typically claims that the

             160364/2023 WEST 60TH STREET ASSOCIATES, LLC vs. MAIER, BIANCA ET AL                                   Page 1 of 13
             Motion No. 001 004

                                                                          1 of 13
[* 1]
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 160364/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 150                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/15/2024

            respondent is in possession of assets of the judgment debtor and seeks a court order directing that

            third party (named as a respondent) to turn over those assets to the petitioner/judgment creditor.

                   In its petition, petitioner contends that it secured a judgment against respondents Sarid

            Drory, Jonathan Drory and Shachar Zeplovitch on October 6, 2022 in New York County Civil

            Court for $139,035.00 (NYSCEF Doc. No. 2) arising out of unpaid rent. In reply, petitioner

            admits that it never obtained a judgment against Sarid and claims he was named here due to an

            oversight. The Civil Court judgment is against Jonathan and Shachar.

                    Sarid is Jonathan’s father and the uncle of respondent Shachar. Portraying Sarid as a

            mastermind in cheating people, petitioner claims that right after the judgment was entered, Sarid

            and Jonathan transferred hundreds of thousands of dollars through newly created companies to

            hide their money from petitioner. The Court observes that Shachar’s affidavit (NYSCEF Doc.

            95), in which he recounts money transfers, suggests he was naïve and blames a nefarious scheme

            on everyone but himself. This affidavit, curiously, was uploaded by petitioner’s counsel; that

            raises questions about the author (or author[s]) of this document.

                   In any event, after petitioner brought a proceeding in landlord-tenant court and secured a

            judgment, it details the allegedly fraudulent transfers it claims have occurred. But this is not a

            plenary action designed to explore allegedly fraudulent transfers. Instead, this is a limited

            special proceeding brought pursuant to statute and that special proceeding is limited to seeking a

            court order to direct a third party, who is holding the judgment debtor’s funds or assets, to turn

            those funds or assets over to the petitioner.

                   Unfortunately, the petition, in a somewhat scattershot fashion, attempts to paint a picture

            of judgment debtors, their family members, and associates moving money to try to hide it from

            creditors. Petitioner argues that Shachar directed that his personal paychecks be deposited into

             160364/2023 WEST 60TH STREET ASSOCIATES, LLC vs. MAIER, BIANCA ET AL                  Page 2 of 13
             Motion No. 001 004

                                                            2 of 13
[* 2]
                                                                                                 INDEX NO. 160364/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 150                                                                    RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/15/2024

            the bank account of his business, respondent Cigar Lounge 2023 26th Street LLC (“Cigar

            Lounge”) and attaches documentation purportedly showing the creation of this account after the

            date of the judgment. Petitioner contends that respondent Jonathan liquidated his personal bank

            account at Citibank (which totaled $177,000) and deposited that money into an account held by

            respondent Naomi18, LLC (“Naomi18”), an entity that petitioner claims is an alter ego of

            Jonathan and respondent Ohana.

                   Petitioner also contends that on that same date, October 19, 2022, Jonathan liquidated his

            personal bank account at Bank of America and deposited that amount (about $34,000) into an

            account held by Naomi18. However, petitioner does not directly claim that any money remains

            with Naomi 18 - it contends that Jonathan and Ohana then transferred the entire amount of funds

            (over $200,000) to an account held by respondent Hapoel FE LLC (“Hapoel”).

                   Petitioner also details how Shachar transferred thousands of dollars to his girlfriend

            Bianca in February 2023. It further alleges that in April 2023, Shachar transferred over $200,000

            from a Hapoel account to a Cigar Lounge bank account and then to an account held by BBB NY

            LLC (an entity petitioner alleges was created by respondent Bianca Maier). Petitioner contends

            the money was then sent back to the Cigar Lounge and then back to the Hapoel account. And so

            “following the money” leads to Hapoel.

                   Respondents Sarid Drory, Mor Ohana and Hapoel (“Moving Respondents”) move under

            MS004 to dismiss this proceeding and to strike the scandalous allegations alleged against them,

            as well as for sanctions. With respect to Sarid, he submits an affidavit in which he emphasizes

            that the petitioner did not obtain a judgment against him and that petitioner never served him.

                   Respondent Ohana questions his involvement in this case and speculates that he was

            named simply because he was an authorized user on a bank account held in the name of Hapoel.

             160364/2023 WEST 60TH STREET ASSOCIATES, LLC vs. MAIER, BIANCA ET AL                Page 3 of 13
             Motion No. 001 004

                                                          3 of 13
[* 3]
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 160364/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 150                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/15/2024

            He observes he grew up in Tel Aviv right next door to Jonathan Drory, whom he considers a

            close friend. Ohana argues that he has been living in California since 2023 and also argues that

            he was never served.

                    In support of the motion to dismiss as to Hapoel, Sarid’s ex-wife Orit Tempelhof submits

            an affidavit in which she claims she is the sole equity member of Hapoel. Ms. Tempelhof

            explains that this entity operates a clothing business and she granted Jonathan and later Ohana

            permission to access Hapoel’s U.S. bank accounts to facilitate U.S.-based transactions. She

            observes that she named Ohana on the account after Jonathan expressed a desire to return to

            Israel (she insists he has since returned to Israel). Ms. Tempelhof also argues that Hapoel was

            never served.

            Discussion

                    Petitioner brings five causes of action in this special proceeding. It seeks a turnover, a

            voidable transfer claim under the Debtor Creditor Law, for the appointment of a receiver, for

            injunctive relief and for alter-ego liability.

                    As an initial matter, the Court dismisses the causes of action for the appointment of a

            receiver and the claim for alter ego liability as neither of these causes of action are stand-alone

            claims. The appointment of a receiver is a remedy while alter ego liability is a theory of

            recovery, not an independent cause of action (Ferro Fabricators, Inc. v 1807-1811 Park Ave.

            Dev. Corp., 127 AD3d 479, 480, 11 NYS3d 548 [1st Dept 2015]).

                    Petitioner brought this proceeding pursuant to CPLR 5225(b), which provides that:

                    “Upon a special proceeding commenced by the judgment creditor, against a person
                    in possession or custody of money or other personal property in which the judgment
                    debtor has an interest, or against a person who is a transferee of money or other
                    personal property from the judgment debtor, where it is shown that the judgment

             160364/2023 WEST 60TH STREET ASSOCIATES, LLC vs. MAIER, BIANCA ET AL                  Page 4 of 13
             Motion No. 001 004

                                                             4 of 13
[* 4]
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 160364/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 150                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/15/2024

                   debtor is entitled to the possession of such property or that the judgment creditor's
                   rights to the property are superior to those of the transferee, the court shall require
                   such person to pay the money, or so much of it as is sufficient to satisfy the
                   judgment, to the judgment creditor and, if the amount to be so paid is insufficient
                   to satisfy the judgment, to deliver any other personal property, or so much of it as
                   is of sufficient value to satisfy the judgment, to a designated sheriff.”

                   If there are issues of fact in this type of proceeding, Courts are required to hold a hearing

            (Pensmore Investments, LLC v Gruppo, Levey & Co., 137 AD3d 558, 559, 29 NYS3d 1 [1st

            Dept 2016]). That hearing can take the form of a trial by jury if demanded by garnishee (Richard,

            C. Reilly, Practice Commentaries, C5225:6).

            Procedural Posture

                   The judge previously assigned to this proceeding signed an order to show cause in which

            she granted an attachment, ordered petitioner to post a bond in the amount of $50,000 and

            permitted service on respondents by “personal delivery or by overnight delivery at their

            respective residences or wherever else they may be found” (NYSCEF Doc. No. 42 at 6).

            Hapoel

                   The Court finds that petitioner met its burden to show that Hapoel was served through the

            affidavit of service. The remaining issue is whether petitioner stated a cause of action against

            this respondent. The Court finds that it has.

                   Here, while petitioner weaves a story of money going into and out of various accounts

            held by various entities, the only entity that petitioner claims might still be holding money is

            Hapoel. While money might have passed through various entities, there is no claim that any

            money is now with those entities. The entire point of this type of special proceeding is to

             160364/2023 WEST 60TH STREET ASSOCIATES, LLC vs. MAIER, BIANCA ET AL                  Page 5 of 13
             Motion No. 001 004

                                                            5 of 13
[* 5]
                                                                                                             INDEX NO. 160364/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 150                                                                               RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/15/2024

            identify a respondent who is holding money for a judgment debtor and get the Court to direct

            that entity to pay it over to the petitioner instead. The closest petitioner gets to identifying the

            judgment debtors’ funds is where it claims that the judgment debtors’ money went into Hapoel’s

            account and there is no record of it ever leaving. Therefore, a good claim has been stated against

            Hapoel.

                      The affidavit of respondent Zeplovitch details how he hid money from respondent

            (although he blames Sarid for directing how money was moved) NYSCEF Doc. No. 95). With

            respect to Hapoel, the Court observes that Zeplovitch confirmed that although money was

            initially transferred to Hapoel, that money ($201,000) was then transferred to Cigar Lounge (an

            entity held by Zeplovitch) (id. ¶ 18). The managing member of Hapoel claims that when she

            discovered that Zeplovitch had sent money into Hapoel’s account, she instructed Jonathan to

            move the money out (NYSCEF Doc. No. 148, ¶¶ 9, 10). Zeplovitch then insists that he sent the

            money back to Hapoel on April 18, 2023 (NYSCEF Doc. No. 95, ¶ 20).1 No other specific

            information is provided about when and if the money left Hapoel.

                      The Court stresses that the apparent owner of Hapoel insists she has no idea where this

            money is because she is not listed on Hapoel’s bank accounts in the United States (NYSCEF

            Doc. No. 148, ¶ 12). That compels the Court to deny the motion to dismiss as against Hapoel as

            there is an issue concerning whether the money (money that could be used to satisfy the

            judgment) is still with Hapoel. And Hapoel’s managing member has no idea whether the money

            is in the account or not.

            1
              Obviously, a judgment debtor alleging he sent money to Hapoel as part of a scheme to shield money from the
            judgment creditor also provides a basis for a cause of action for fraudulent transfer.

                160364/2023 WEST 60TH STREET ASSOCIATES, LLC vs. MAIER, BIANCA ET AL                         Page 6 of 13
                Motion No. 001 004

                                                               6 of 13
[* 6]
                                                                                                     INDEX NO. 160364/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 150                                                                        RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/15/2024

                   The fact is that Hapoel put Jonathan as an authorized user of the account and he is a

            judgment debtor. That Hapoel may be a legitimate business is not a reason to simply dismiss this

            case under these alleged facts. At this stage of the proceeding, it is unclear if the money is still in

            Hapoel’s bank account and, if it is, whether it actually is being held for the judgment debtor(s).

            Stipulation with Certain Respondents

                   After the order to show cause was signed, petitioner entered into a stipulation lifting the

            restraints against respondents Shachar Zeplovitch, Bianca Maier, Cigar Lounge 2023 26th Street

            LLC and Beauty by B NY 2023 LLC (NYSCEF Doc. No. 92). This agreement references a

            settlement and so the Court finds that the special proceeding is moot as against these

            respondents. In any event, there is no specific claim that any of these respondents is currently

            holding judgment debtors’ funds that can be turned over to petitioner and if this was not a

            settlement, then the Court would dismiss this case against them on that ground.

            Sarid Drory

                   In its reply, petitioner admits that it improperly asserted that Sarid was named in the

            judgment. It emphasizes it offered to discontinue the case against him without prejudice but that

            Sarid has refused to sign a corresponding stipulation. Petitioner argues that Sarid masterminded

            the purportedly voidable transfers but argues that it “consent[s] to discontinuance against Drory

            Sr. [Sarid])” (NYSCEF Doc. No. 111).

                   The Court therefore dismisses the proceeding as against Sarid Drory.

                   The only remaining question concerning Sarid are his assertions in the motion to dismiss

            for sanctions and to strike scandalous allegations under CPLR 3024(b). The Court declines to

             160364/2023 WEST 60TH STREET ASSOCIATES, LLC vs. MAIER, BIANCA ET AL                   Page 7 of 13
             Motion No. 001 004

                                                           7 of 13
[* 7]
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 160364/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 150                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/15/2024

            award sanctions given Sarid’s clear relation to the case and the affidavit of Shachar who purports

            to confirm many of the details about Sarid’s efforts to help hide money. The inadvertent naming

            of Sarid as a judgment debtor was an admitted sloppy oversight but Sarid has not shown it was

            sanctionable conduct.

                   However, the Court grants the motion with respect to the request to strike scandalous

            matters alleged in the petition. A Court evaluating a motion under CPLR 3024(b) must consider

            whether the allegations are “scandalous and prejudicial, and not necessary to establish any

            element of plaintiff's causes of action” (Ganieva v Black, 216 AD3d 424, 425, 189 NYS3d 105

            [1st Dept 2023]). This Court’s greatest concern is with allegations made solely to disparage

            Sarid. These include, for instance, an assertion that Sarid stole his children’s health insurance

            payment and allegations about his sex life while living at another apartment (e.g., NYSCEF Doc.

            No. 1, ¶¶ 6, 59, 60). Petitioner even included an entire section dedicated to lodging personal

            attacks against Sarid (id.¶¶ 95-113). The Court declines to repeat all of the allegations.

                   The only purpose for making these allegations is to attack Sarid as they have nothing to

            do with the limited issue here—a judgment issued against two other respondents and Sarid’s

            alleged assistance in helping the true judgment debtors avoid paying the judgment. Making

            arguments about alleged wrongdoing involving an opposing party’s children (petitioner includes

            an allegation about Sarid’s conduct towards his daughters who are not parties) is simply mean-

            spirited, amateurish, and wholly unrelated to chasing the money. It serves no purpose other than

            to show that counsel for petitioner lacks the judgment to focus on the law and the facts even if

            his client may be justifiably upset with Sarid. There are times when a lawyer, who is an officer

            of the court, must tell a client that certain allegations are improper and not necessary. The Court

             160364/2023 WEST 60TH STREET ASSOCIATES, LLC vs. MAIER, BIANCA ET AL                 Page 8 of 13
             Motion No. 001 004

                                                          8 of 13
[* 8]
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 160364/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 150                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/15/2024

            will assume that the failure of petitioner’s counsel to do that here is simply an ill-considered

            blunder, not evidence of evil or malicious intent.

                    And it may well be true that Sarid is not a “stand-up guy.” But this Court is not tasked

            with, nor is it interested in, making moral judgments about litigants. Petitioner used the petition

            as an opportunity to include deeply personal attacks that are irrelevant. That satisfies the Moving

            Respondents’ burden to strike the following paragraphs: 6, 59, 60, 95-113; the Moving

            Respondents did not identify specific paragraphs so the Court picked the ones it deems to be

            especially inappropriate.

            Ohana

                    The Court dismisses the proceeding as against respondent Ohana. As an initial matter,

            Ohana showed that service was improper as he attached a lease (NYSCEF Doc. No. 70) that

            shows he lived Los Angeles, California as of October 18, 2023. The affidavit of service uploaded

            by petitioner (NYSCEF Doc. No. 137) contends it served him at some address in Wilkes Barre,

            PA (Ohana claims this is his father’s address). Petitioner also argues that it served Ohana by

            sending the papers to his business address, i.e., by sending it to Hapoel’s address in New York

            City. The affidavit of service claims that Hapoel’s address is the same as Jonathan Drory and that

            it served Hapoel “care of” Jonathan Drory.

                    The Court finds that service is not sufficient because the order to show cause specifies

            that respondents had to be served at their residences or “wherever else they may be found.”

            There is nothing on this record to rebut Ohana’s claim that his residence and “wherever he might

            be found” was not Jonathan Drory’s apartment in November 2023. Petitioner does not claim it

            served Ohana personally while he was in New York; it just sent documents via overnight mail to

             160364/2023 WEST 60TH STREET ASSOCIATES, LLC vs. MAIER, BIANCA ET AL                  Page 9 of 13
             Motion No. 001 004

                                                          9 of 13
[* 9]
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 160364/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 150                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/15/2024

            addresses where Ohana was not located. That is not sufficient for this Court to find that service

            was proper.

                   Even if the Court were to consider this proceeding on the merits against Ohana, the Court

            would dismiss the petition against him. There are no specific allegations that he received and is

            holding any money as part of the judgment debtor’s efforts to shield petitioner’s collection

            efforts. For instance, the accounts detailed in the petition are all bank accounts held by other

            respondents (NYSCEF Doc. No. 1, ¶¶ 114-120).

                   To the extent that petitioner claims that Ohana is the alter ego of Hapoel, that claim fails

            for numerous reasons. Petitioner only included vague and conclusory allegations to justify

            piercing the corporate veil of Hapoel and, critically, the actual owner of Hapoel included an

            affidavit that contends it is a functioning entity. And the operating agreement of Hapoel details

            that Mor Ohana is a non-equity member and therefore has no ownership stake in the company at

            all (NYSCEF Doc. No. 84). Petitioner did not include anything in reply to show that Ohana

            exerts dominion and control over Hapoel such that he should be personally liable here. While

            petitioner includes significant details in the petition about the many transactions about which it

            complains, none of those transactions show that there is currently any money from the judgment

            debtors in Ohana’s personal accounts.

            Remaining issues

                   Respondent Jonathan Drory filed an opposition. That filing is improper in multiple ways.

            It was untimely as it was filed the day before the return date, which did not give petitioner a

            chance to respond. He claims he was not properly served and wants this case dismissed as

            against him.

             160364/2023 WEST 60TH STREET ASSOCIATES, LLC vs. MAIER, BIANCA ET AL                 Page 10 of 13
             Motion No. 001 004

                                                          10 of 13
[* 10]
                                                                                                    INDEX NO. 160364/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 150                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/15/2024

                   The specific type of proceeding that petitioner brought is intended to seek recovery as

            against third parties (see CPLR 5225[b]); that is, it is intended to seek relief against recipients of

            transfers from a judgment debtor. While a judgment debtor, such as Mr. Drory, can be named

            and certainly may seek to intervene, his papers seek dismissal of the proceeding against him. If

            he is not interested in what could happen to any money Hapoel may be holding, then the Court

            sees no reason to force Jonathan Drory to remain in this case.

                   Moreover, the Court stresses that the causes of action alleged here seek to enforce the

            judgment that petitioner already obtained against respondent Jonathan Drory. Of course,

            Jonathan, as the judgment debtor, cannot be ordered to pay the same judgment again. Rather, the

            intent of the petition appears to seek relief against entities that received funds from Jonathan.

                   Also, petitioner did not mention Naomi18 at all in its reply affirmation nor did this entity

            appear or answer. When a party has defaulted, it is the Court’s role to determine whether the

            petitioner has stated a prima facie case against each respondent. Because petitioner does not

            claim this Naomi18 is currently holding money of the judgment debtor(s) that should be turned

            over to petitioner, petitioner has failed to state a claim against this entity, and Naomi 18 is

            dismissed.

            Summary

                   The Court observes that the Moving Respondents filed a motion to dismiss but also, for

            some reason, filed papers in opposition to the petition (MS001) without filing an answer. Of

            course, in a special proceeding there must be a petition and respondents must either answer or

            move to dismiss. Or, if there is a default, the Court is tasked with determining whether the

            moving papers present a prima facie case for the relief sought.

             160364/2023 WEST 60TH STREET ASSOCIATES, LLC vs. MAIER, BIANCA ET AL                  Page 11 of 13
             Motion No. 001 004

                                                          11 of 13
[* 11]
                                                                                                     INDEX NO. 160364/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 150                                                                        RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/15/2024

                       As stated above, this is a limited special proceeding that is brought once funds/assets are

            identified. Put another way, this Court views the purpose of this unique proceeding to be for a

            delivery order directing a respondent to turn those assets over to the petitioner/judgment creditor.

            Petitioner must show that the respondent is currently holding assets and claim that the assets are

            owed to, or received from or on behalf of, a judgment debtor, The key part of a such a

            proceeding is that the petitioner must meet its burden to identify respondents that currently

            possess assets attributed to the judgment debtor. The only respondent here that petitioner has

            come close to making those allegations against is Hapoel. Therefore, the proceeding is

            dismissed against all respondents except Hapoel, and Hapoel is directed to answer by February

            29, 2024 and the Court will adjourn the return date of MS001, the petition, to March 1, 2024.

                       The Court understands that respondents named here may have been participating, and

            may be continuing to participate, in a scheme to hide the money. Nothing in this decision

            prevents petitioner from bringing a proper plenary action against them. However, they are

            dismissed from this special proceeding simply because petitioner did not adequately claim that

            they are now holding money of the judgment debtors. Put another way, the Court cannot issue a

            delivery order2 where petitioner has not shown that these respondents are currently holding the

            judgment debtors’ assets.

                       Remaining in this case are petitioner’s claims against Hapoel. This entity is directed to

            answer on or before February 29, 2024 and the return date for MS001 shall be adjourned to

            March 1, 2024. The Court will then assess whether or not a hearing (or possibly a trial by jury if

            Hapoel requests) is required.

                       Accordingly, it is hereby

            2
                See generally, Siegel, NY Prac §§519, 520 [6th ed 2018]).
                160364/2023 WEST 60TH STREET ASSOCIATES, LLC vs. MAIER, BIANCA ET AL                Page 12 of 13
                Motion No. 001 004

                                                                 12 of 13
[* 12]
                                                                                                          INDEX NO. 160364/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 150                                                                               RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/15/2024

                    ORDERED that the motion (MS004) by respondents Sarid Drory, Mor Ohana and

            Hapoel Fe, LLC is granted only to the extent that the petition is dismissed as against Sarid Drory

            and Mor Ohana, and paragraphs 6, 59, 60, 95-113 are stricken as scandalous, and the motion is

            denied to the extent it seeks sanctions or to dismiss the proceeding against Hapoel Fe, LLC; and

            it is further

                    ORDERED that petitioner’s claims for the appointment of a receiver and for “alter ego

            liability” are severed and dismissed as against all respondents as they are not independent causes

            of action; and it is further

                    ORDERED that all claims against all respondents except for Hapoel Fe, LLC are severed

            and dismissed and all restraints and injunctive relief against these defendants are hereby vacated

            and it is further

                     ORDERED that all restraints and injunctive relief against Hapoel Fe, LLC remain, and

            said respondent shall answer on or before February 29, 2024 and the return date of MS001 shall

            be adjourned to March 1, 2024.

                    2/15/2024                                                               $SIG$
                      DATE                                                          ARLENE P. BLUTH, J.S.C.
             CHECK ONE:                    CASE DISPOSED                X   NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

                                                                                                        □
                                           GRANTED             DENIED       GRANTED IN PART              X   OTHER

             APPLICATION:                  SETTLE ORDER                     SUBMIT ORDER

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

             160364/2023 WEST 60TH STREET ASSOCIATES, LLC vs. MAIER, BIANCA ET AL                        Page 13 of 13
             Motion No. 001 004

                                                            13 of 13
[* 13]