Court Opinion

ID: 9916459
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-10 01:07:04.980495+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:25:29.072158
License: Public Domain

S.I.A.E.A. 1 Inc. v JRHP Equities, LLC
               2024 NY Slip Op 30038(U)
                     January 7, 2024
              Supreme Court, Kings County
        Docket Number: Index No. 525669/2019
                Judge: Francois A. Rivera
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 01/05/2024 10:48 AM                                                                        INDEX NO. 525669/2019
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 74                                                                                            RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/05/2024

                                                                                                         At an IAS Term, Part 52 of
                                                                                                         the Supreme Court of the
                                                                                                         State of New York, held in
                                                                                                         and for the County of Kings,
                                                                                                         at the Courthouse, at Civic
                                                                                                         Center, Brooklyn, New York,
                                                                                                         on the 7th day of January
                                                                                                         2024
              HONORABLE FRANCOlS A. RIVERA
              -------------------------------------------------------------------X
              SJ.A.E.A. 1 INC., and D.S.N REALTY GROUP LLC.,                                             DECISION & ORDER

                                                                    Plaintiff,                           Index No.: 525669/2019

                                              - against -

              JRHP EQUITIES, LLC, ME RECORDS, INC,
              MOSHE PERETZ, UTICA MP CORP., and
              MAORSHABAT
                                         Defendants.
              ---------------------- --- --- --- ------ --- --- --- --- --- ---------,   0   -- --   X
                     Recitation in accordance with CPLR 2219 (a) of the papers considered on the notice of
              motion filed on July 11, 2023, under motion sequence number four by plaintiff S.I.A.E:A. I
              INC., and D.S.N Realty Group LLC (hereinafter the movants) for an order pursuant to CPLR
              3025(b), CPLR 1003 and CPLR 2004 granting plaintiffs: (1) leave to file and serve an runended
              complaint adding Amy Peretz,, Jordan Peretz, and Andrew Shlomovich as defendants; and (2)
              extending the parties' time to file the Note oflssue. The motion is opposed.

                        Notice of motion
                   -    Affirmation in support
                   -    Exhibits A-D
                        Affinnation in opposition
                        Exhibit 1
                   -    Affinnation in reply

             BACKGROUND

                        On November 22, 2019, plaintiffs commenced the instant action by filing a summons,

             complaint, and notice of pend ency with the Kings County Clerk's Office (KCCO). On March

             20, 2020, defendants JRHP Equities LLC, Moshe Peretz, and Utica MP Corp. interposed and

[* 1]                                                                       1 of 6
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/05/2024 10:48 AM                                                     INDEX NO. 525669/2019
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 74                                                                        RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/05/2024

              filed an answer with the KCCO. On July 14, 2020, defendants ME Records Inc. and Maor Shaba

              interposed and filed an answer with the KCCO.

                       The complaint alleges thirty-seven allegations of fact in support of five causes of action.

              The first cause of action seeks a judgment declaring that the plaintiffs have an ownership interest

              in certain real property located at 7416 Avenue U, Brooklyn, New York (hereinafter the subject

              property).    The second seeks injunctive relief restraining, enjoining, and prohibiting the

              defendants from interfering with plaintiffs' rights in the subject property by disposing or

              encumbering it. The third is for breach of contract. The fourth is for fraudulent conveyance.

              The fifth is for conversion.

              LAW AND APPLICATION

                       By notice of motion filed on March 23, 2023, under motion sequence number three,

              plaintiff S.I.A.E.A. 1 INC., and D.S.N Realty Group LLC moved for an order pursuant to CPLR

              3025(b), CPLR 1003 and CPLR 2004 granting plaintiffs: (1) leave to file and serve an amended

              complaint adding Amy Peretz,, Jordan Peretz, and Andrew Shlomovich as defendants; and (2)

              extending the parties' time to file the Note of Issue.

                       By decision and order dated June 15, 2023, the Court denied the plaintiffs' motion for

              failure to comply with Dorce v Gluck, 140 AD3d 1111 [2nd Dept 2016]; CPLR 3025(b). In the

              case of Dorce v Gluck, supra, the Appellate Division Second Department affirmed the lower

              Court'.s denial of the plaintiffs' motion to amend the complaint on two grounds. The first ground

              was that the proposed amendments were palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit. The

              second ground was that the attached proposed amended complaint did not clearly show the

[* 2]                                                      2 of 6
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/05/2024 10:48 AM                                                    INDEX NO. 525669/2019
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 74                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/05/2024

              changes or additions to be made to the pleading (see CPLR 3025 [b]). The instant motion is

              seeking the same relief that was denied by the Court's order of June 1S, 2023.

                     It is noted that Judge Odessa Kennedy issued an order from the Central Compliance Part

              which, among other things, set a specific discovery schedule, and directed the plaintiff to file a

              note of issue by April 7, 2023.

                     A party may amend his or her pleading ... at any time by leave of court or by stipulation

              of all parties" (CPLR 3025[b]). "Leave shall be freely given upon such terms as may be just

              including the granting of costs and continuances" (CPLR 3025 [b ]).

                     While leave to amend a pleading shall be freely granted (see CPLR 3025[b ]), a motion

              for leave to amend is committed to the broad discretion of the court (see Yong Soon Oh v. Hua

              Jin, 124 A.D.3d 639, 640-41 [2 nd Dept 2015] citing, Ravnikar v. Skyline Credit-Ride, Inc., 79

              A.D.3d 1118, 1119 [2nd Dept 201 O]). In exercising its discretion, the court should consider how

              long the party seeking the amendment was aware of the facts upon which the motion was

              predicated [and] whether a reasonable excuse for the delay was offered (Yong Soon Oh v. Hua

             Jin, 124 A.D.3d 639, 640-41 [2nd Dept 2015] citing, Cohen v. Ho, 38 A.D.3d 705, 706 [2 nd Dept

             2007]). Generally, in the absence of prejudice or surprise to the opposing party, leave to amend

             pleadings should be freely granted unless the proposed amendment is palpably insufficient or

             patently devoid of merit (Yong Soon Oh v. Hua Jin, 124 A.D.3d 639, 640-41 [2nd Dept 2015]

             citing, Rodgers v. New York City Tr. Auth., 109 A.D.3d 535, 537 [2 nd Dept 2013]).

                     lt is noted that the proposed amended pleading seeks to add three individuals. Plaintiff

             wishes to add Amy Peretz, the wife of defendant Moshe Peretz because she was single member

[* 3]                                                     3 of 6
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/05/2024 10:48 AM                                                  INDEX NO. 525669/2019
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 74                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/05/2024

          of the LLC known as JRHP Equities, which was fonned for the purpose of purchasing the

          subject property with plaintiffs' funds. Plaintiffs seek to add Jordan Peretz, son of defendant

          Moshe Peretz, because he was the named President of JP 845 Livonia Corp., a corporation

          fonned for the authorized purchase of a property located at 845 Livonia Ave., Brooklyn, New

          York. Plaintiff seeks to add Andrew Shlomovich because he was the transactional attorney who

          represented the defendants in the various real estate purchases at issue.

                                                                                '·
                 The general rule, of course, is that a corporation exists independently of its owners, who

          are not personally liable for its obligations, and that individuals may incorporate for the express

          purpose of limiting their liability (see Bartle v. Home Owners Coop., 309 N.Y. 103, 106,        The

          concept of piercing the corporate veil is an exception to this general rule, pennitting, in certain                I
                                                                                                                             I
                                                                                                                             I
          circumstances, the imposition of personal liability on owners for the obligations of their                         I

          corporation (see Matter of Morris v. New York State Dept. o/Taxation & Fin., 82 N.Y.2d 135,                    ,   I
                                                                                                                             I

          140-141                                                                                                         1
                                                                                                                             '~
                 A plaintiff seeking to pierce the corporate veil must demonstrate that a court in equity                    I
                                                                                                                             I
          should intervene because the owners of the corporation exercised complete domination over it in

         the transaction at issue and, in doing so, abused the privilege of doing business in the corporate
                                                                                                                         I
                                                                                                                         I
         form, thereby perpetrating a wrong that resulted in injury to the plaintiff (E. Hampton Union
                                                                                                                         ~
         Free Sch. Dist. v. Sandpebble Builders, Inc., 66 A.D.3d 122, 126 [2 nd Dept 2009)).                             ,
                                                                                                                         I'
                                                                                                                         r
                 The allegations of fact in the proposed amended complaint offer no basis to pierce the

         corporate veil as against Amy Peretz or Jordan Peretz who according to the allegations of fact in               I,'
                                                                                                                         r
         the proposed amended complaint were acting on behalf of the LLC or corporation of which they
                                                                                                                         J
         were a part of.                                                                                                 r
                                                                                                                         II
                                                                                                                         f
                                                                                                                         I
                                                                                                                         i
                                                                                                                         I
                                                          4 of 6
                                                                                                                         I
[* 4]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/05/2024 10:48 AM                                                      INDEX NO. 525669/2019
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 74                                                                         RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/05/2024

                       Absent a showing of fraud or collusion, or of a malicious or tortious act, an attorney is

               not liable to third parties for purported injuries caused by services perfonned on behalf of a client

               or advice offered to that client (Asamblea De Iglesias Christianas, Inc. v. De Vito, 210 A.D.3d

               843, 845 [2nd Dept 2022]). In the case at bar there were no allegations of fact in the proposed

               amended complaint which stated a cause of action against Andrew Shlomovich in his role as the

               transactional attorney for the defendants.

                       While the instant proposed amended pleading did comply with CPLR 3025(b) in clearly

               setting for the proposed changes from the original complaint, one of the defects of its prior

               motion, the proposed amended pleading remains palpably insufficient and patently devoid of

               merit for the reasons set forth herein.

                       It is noted that Judge Odessa Kennedy issued an order from the Central Compliance Part

              which, among other things, set a specific discovery schedule, and directed the plaintiff to file a

              note of issue by April 7, 2023.

                       The plaintiffs' motion for a new note of issue date was premised on the assumption that

              the motion to amend the complaint to add the three new defendants would necessitate add it ion al

              discovery of those proposed new defendants. Inasmuch as the proposed amendment is denied,

              the reason for the delay in filing the note of issue does not exist. The plaintiffs are directed to

              file a note of issue within ten days of notice of entry of the instant decision and order.

[* 5]                                                       5 of 6
                                                                                      .r
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/05/2024 10:48 AM                                                       INDEX NO. 525669/2019
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 74                                                                          RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/05/2024

               CONCLUSION

               The branch of the plaintiffs' motion seeking an granting plaintiffs leave to file and serve an

               amended complaint adding Amy Perutz, Jordan Peretz, and Andrew Shlomovich as defendants is

               denied.

                         The branch of the plaintiffs' motion seeking and an order extending the parties' time to

               file the Note oflssue is granted to the extent that the plaintiffs are directed to file a note of issue

               within ten days of notice of entry of the instant decision and order.

                         The foregoing constitutes the decision and order of this Court.

              ENTER:

                                                                           J.S.C.

                                                                HON. FRANCOIS A. RIVt;RA
                                                                         J.S.C.

[* 6]                                                       6 of 6