Court Opinion

ID: 9952466
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-19 20:09:10.668615+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:39:39.830550
License: Public Domain

Hersko v Hersko
               2024 NY Slip Op 30846(U)
                     March 14, 2024
             Supreme Court, Kings County
        Docket Number: Index No. 519449/2021
                Judge: Leon Ruchelsman
Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip
 Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York
 State and local government sources, including the New
  York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service.
 This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official
                       publication.
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/14/2024 03:17 PM                                      INDEX NO. 519449/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 162                                                         RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/14/2024

           SU,PREME    COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
           COUNTY OF KINGS : CIVIL TERM: CCP
           ~   ----- ----------- --- ---- - -         .-.   -- ---~
           BARRY HERSK.0,.
                                                   Plaintiffs,           Decision and order

                           - aga'i-n-st -                             rndex No-. 519A149/2.U20i

           MORRI-S HERS.KO & SARA G. HERSKO,
                                                   Defendants.,              ··March_ .14, 2·0.2=4
           ------·------ .. ---. - ---.--. ---.- .-- . -----------x
           PRESENT: HON. LEON RUCHELSMAN                                      -Motion Seq. #}

                    The plaintiff ha~ m_oved pursuant to CPLR_ :_§3124- seeking to

           compel responses to various di~covery requests.                  The. defendants

           have -opposed the motion.-        Papers Wf:::.:i:'e submitted by the parties

           and arguments he_ld. · Aft.er review:i..ng '3.11 :the arguments t_his cour_t

           hbw makes the following determination ~

                     As re-corded in a prior order, th~ plaintiff qileges he

           loane.d the defendant and his. wif·e signi_ficc1.nt sums of mon.ey.

           Specifically, . according to the ve.:rffied- _second amend.ed complairit,

           ·the def'endants owned a .condominium located at,. 20;3$} 57 th S:treet :i..n

           Kings Coµnty and in 20],.0 .syc:ur~d a           $300,_000 mortgage from TD

           Bank.      In "2"0ll the pla;intiff. alleges .he ioaned. ·the 9-efencta:nts

           _$190,   o·oo to help _them purchase a .!l_ouse located at 1._9:63 63      rd"

           Street in Kin9s County.          The loan was wired at plaintiff's

           direct.ion from plaintiff; s attorney'·s escr_ow.- account in the

           arnqµ-pt o_f -$19-.b·, 000 and was rec_~i-yed by the· defe:n,dants.       Iridee.d;

           the defendants purchased. the hotise in February 2 012.                _In March

           2012 th~ tilain•t'iff alleges· he lqaned the defendaJJ.ts            an additional

                                                  1 of 6
[* 1]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/14/2024 03:17 PM                            INDEX NO. 519449/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 162                                                RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/14/2024

           $169,834.4 5.    Those funds were paid directly to TD Bank by

           plaintiff 's attorney from the same esc:::row account.     The verified

           second amended complaint alleges these funds were used to pay off

           the m·ortgage related to the condominiu m which would then enable

           the defendant s to sell the condominiu m and repay the plaintiff .

           The following week verified second amended complaint alleges the

           plaintiff loaned the defendant s another $90,163.55 which was also

           intended to pay off the mortgage connected to the condominiu m.

           Thos·e funds were also paid directly to TD Bank by plaintiff 's

           attorney from the same escrow account.     In March 2014 the

           verified second amended complaint alleges the plaintiff loaned

            the ctefendant s another $250,000 which was also used to payoff

            the mortgage connected to the condominiu m.    Again, those funds

            were also paid directly to TD Bank by plaintiff 's attorney from

            the same escrow account.    The verified second amended complaint

            asserts the defendant s promised to secure, the loan payments with

            the condominiu m but concede
                                   .
                                         thci.t such guaranty
                                                      . .
                                                              was never reduced

            to a writing.    No funds were ever returned arid title to the

            condominiu m was never transferre d to the plaintiff .     This lawsuit

            was commenced and alleges two causes of action, namely breach of

            contract and ·the imposition of a: construct ive trust.

                  The plaintiff now seeks the defendant 's bank records related

            to these four loans.    The plaintiff argues that the money "loaned

                                              2

                                            2 of 6
[* 2]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/14/2024 03:17 PM                              INDEX NO. 519449/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 162                                                 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/14/2024

           to the Defendant s were used to pay down the mortgage on the Condo

           and to facilitate the purchase
                                 .
                                          of the House ... These allegation
                                                                      .
                                                                            s

           go directly to Plaintiff 's claim that a loan agreement exists

           between the parties and that Plaintiff is entitled ,to a

           constructi ve trust in the condo. However, Defendant s have refused,

           to produce documents reflecting the source of funds used to

           purchase the Propertie s" (Memorandu m in Support, page 6 [NYSCEF

           Doc. No. 122]).   The defendant s have riot produced the requested

           informatio n arguing they have provided all relevant discovery and

           these requests are not relevant.

                                 Conclusio ns Of La~

                  It is well settled that a pax:ty may be required to produce

            documents held by a third party where the party has a legal right

            to the documents or has control over the entity or individua l who

            is in possessio n of the documents (New York ex rel. Boardman v:

            National Railroad Passenger Corporatio n,   233 F. R. D .. 200 6]) .     This

            rule applies where documents of a party are in the possessio n .of

            tne agent of that party (American Rock Salt Company LLC v.

            Norfolk Southern Corg__.; 228 F.R.D. 426 [W.D,N.Y. 2004]).             Thus,

            the plaintiff 's attorney and escrow agent who actually wrote

            checks.. and. wired funds on the plaintiff 's behalf   is surely an

            agent of the plaintiff .   The peculiar posture of this case where

                                              3

                                            3 of 6
[* 3]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/14/2024 03:17 PM                             INDEX NO. 519449/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 162                                                 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/14/2024

           the plai)J.tiff seeks discovery of his own agent's records from the

           defendant does not change the analysis.          The plaintiff has not

           presented any reason why he cannot obtain the informatio n from

           his own agent.      The failure to sect1re relevant documents from the

           ,plaintiff 's own agent militates against seeking them from the

           defendant s.     The plaintiff 's inability to secure documents from

           his own agent, in essence; £rom himself, is not grounds to serve

           discovery requests for those same documents upon the defendant s,

                  Notwithst anding, the court must consider the question of

           relevancy .     ''A party seeking discovery must satisfy the threshold

            requireme nt that the request is reasonably calculate d to yield

            informatio n that is "material and necessary "-L e. ,

            relevant-r egardless of whether discovery is -sought from another

            party •.. or a non party" (see, Forman v. Henkin:, 30 NY3d 656, 70

            NYS3d 1:57 [2018], ~ , also, Evans v. Roman, 172 AD3d 501, 100

            NYS3d 26 [ 1 st Dept . , 2019 l) .   Any discovery disputes must

            ultimately be brought pefore the trial court.          Further, the trial

            court maintains "wide discretion tb decide whether informatio n

            sought is 'material and necessary ' to the prosecuti on or ciefense

            of an action" (Vargas v. Lee, 170 AD3d 1073, 96 NYS3d 587 [2d

            Dept., 2019]).      "According ly~ absent an error of law or an

            improvide nt exercise of discretion " the Appellate Court "will not

            disturb a trial court's discretion ary discovery determina tion"

                                                    4

                                                 4 of 6
[* 4]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/14/2024 03:17 PM                                           INDEX NO. 519449/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 162                                                             RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/14/2024

           ( id) ..

                      In th.is. cas_e the _plaintiff a.11eges :he loaned funds to th.e

           defendants.          The defendants do no·t dispute they received :the

           funds· from the esc-.row account:note d.              Ratner, they simply dispute

           the character arid nature of t}:le transfer _qf funds.                  Thus,. the

           dispute in this case is narrow and discreet and concerns only one

           ..question, whether the ·fu;nds :that were unquesti-ori:ab ly tra:ri.:sferred

           comitituted a lo.an.             Of_ col.i-rse; th.ere is no documentary evidence

           such as a promiss.ory note e::upportirtg the existence of a loan

            .(-Ramzan v. O.nited -States Depa.rtinent of Education, -2 0.18 WL 37Z7339

            [-E. D.• t-J. Y. 2018] ) ._   Thus.,   superflu.otis documents. that merely

           confirm undisputed. facts are not relevant.                   The plaintiff argues

           that "it c-a;nnot re·ason~bly _pe dis_.puted             t.hat Pl-aihtiff' s
           al1eg.at:ions put at issue th~ s.our.ce of fu;nds used 1:o pay down the

           TD Mortgage, irtc.luding,. in particular, whether ari.y such payments

           were from f.µ-nds B'.arry loaned. to D.e:fend~nts:' (M.emorartdum ih

            Supp9rt., page~ _(NiSCEF Doc. No.              122]}.     Fir$t,   three 0£ the fou~

            alleges loans were: paid directiy to· TD Bank; thus, this a'rgument

            is dif•ficult. to comprehend,              More importantly,. it i.s. simply not

            rel'qvant how the d~fendants spent the funds given to them..                       The

            nature of that spending cannot establi-sh the transfers made· were

            loans a:t c1ll.         ·Furthe-.r, al"l the documents sought by the plp:intiff

            s.uff er the same infirmities.              They do not help support any of the

                                                           5

                                                        5 of 6
[* 5]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/14/2024 03:17 PM                      INDEX NO. 519449/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 162                                          RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/14/2024

           plaintiff's allegations the money transferred were loans.

                 Therefore, based on the foregoing, the motion seeking

           discovery is denied.

                 So ordered.

                                  ENTER:

                 DATED: March 14 1 2024
                        Brooklyn N.Y.      Hon. Leon R u c h ~
                                           JSC

                                             6

                                           6 of 6
[* 6]