Court Opinion

ID: 9930966
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-07 21:09:05.801152+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:09:32.337173
License: Public Domain

Alsaffar v 44 Dev. LLC
               2024 NY Slip Op 30359(U)
                    February 1, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 150928/2022
                  Judge: Paul A. Goetz
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. 150928/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 182                                                                                           RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/01/2024

                                   SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                             NEW YORK COUNTY
            PRESENT:             HON. PAUL A. GOETZ                                               PART                             47
                                                                                       Justice
            ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------X   INDEX NO.          150928/2022
             ABDULAZIZ ALSAFFAR
                                                                                                  MOTION DATE         11/20/2023
                                                         Plaintiff,
                                                                                                  MOTION SEQ. NO.         003
                                                 - V -

             44 DEVELOPMENT LLC,                                                                    DECISION + ORDER ON
                                                                                                          MOTION
                                                         Defendant.
            ------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------X

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 003) 149, 150, 151, 152,
            165,169,170,171,172,173,174,175,176,178,179,180
            were read on this motion to/for                                            INJUNCTION/RESTRAINING ORDER

                      In this residential landlord-tenant putative class action for the refund ofrent overcharges

            and rent reduction, plaintiff is the class representative of current and former tenants of

            defendant's apartment building. Plaintiff seeks to enjoin defendant and any of its affiliates from

            contacting plaintiff directly about settlement offers, and requests that the court hold a settlement

            conference (NYSCEF Doc No 149). In support of plaintiff's order to show cause, plaintiff's

            counsel affirms that defendant has improperly communicated settlement offers directly to

            plaintiff, including by contacting plaintiff at his home (NYSCEF Doc No 150). Defendant

            opposes plaintiff's order to show cause on the basis that plaintiff did not set forth the elements

            for injunctive relief, and that it was supported by only a hearsay attorney affirmation (NYSCEF

            Doc No 175). Defendant also cross-moves for a protective order to: (1) stay all discovery

            pending the determination of defendant's separate motion to reargue (MS #4, NYSCEF Doc Nos

            153-168); (2) limit discovery to only require the disclosure of documents relating to class

             150928/2022 ALSAFFAR, ABDULAZIZ vs. 44 DEVELOPMENT LLC                                                   Page 1 of4
             Motion No. 003

                                                                            1 of 4
[* 1]
                                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 150928/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 182                                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/01/2024

            members' injuries that match plaintiffs allegedly sole injury (i.e., the removal of a COVID rent

            concession); and (3) stay discovery pending the determination of this motion. 1

            Injunctive Relief

                      Because class actions "present[] opportunities for abuse," the court "has both the duty

            and the broad authority to exercise control over a class action and to enter appropriate orders

            governing the conduct of counsel and parties" (Gulf Oil Co. v Bernard, 452 US 89, 99-100

            [1981]). Such discretion is codified in CPLR § 907, which provides that "[i]n the conduct of

            class actions the court may make appropriate orders ... imposing conditions on the

            representative parties" (see also Weinstein v Jenny Craig Operations, Inc., 132 AD3d 446, 446-

            47 [1st Dept 2015] [referring to the "authority granted to the court [under CPLR § 907] to protect

            putative class members and the fairness of the process").

                      Given the court's broad discretion in this matter, and in consideration of plaintiffs

            allegations that he was improperly approached by defendant with a settlement offer, an

            injunction will be granted. 2 Plaintiffs request for the court to hold a settlement conference will

            be denied absent defendant's agreement.

            Protective Order

                      CPLR § 3103(a) permits the court to "make a protective order denying, limiting,

            conditioning or regulating the use of any disclosure device." The provision further dictates that

            "[s]uch order shall be designed to prevent unreasonable annoyance, expense, embarrassment,

            disadvantage or other prejudice to any person or the courts." "Generally, a party seeking a

            1
              Defendant's reply papers (NYSCEF Doc Nos 178-79) will not be considered since it cross-moved (see CPLR
            § 2214).
            2
              That plaintiff's order to show cause fails to establish the elements for a preliminary injunction and is supported
            only by an attorney affirmation is immaterial, as the court is permitted to issue orders regarding the conduct of class
            action lawsuits as it deems appropriate (CPLR § 907).
                150928/2022 ALSAFFAR, ABDULAZIZ vs. 44 DEVELOPMENT LLC                                             Page 2 of 4
                Motion No. 003

                                                                   2 of 4
[* 2]
                                                                                                     INDEX NO. 150928/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 182                                                                        RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/01/2024

            protective order bears the initial burden of showing either that the discovery sought is irrelevant

            or that it is obvious the process will not lead to legitimate discovery" ( General Ins. v Piquion,

            211 AD3d 634, 635 [1st Dept 2018] [internal quotation omitted]). "Once this burden is met, the

            [non-moving] party must establish that the discovery sought is material and necessary to the

            prosecution or defense of an action" (Liberty Petroleum Realty, LLC v Gulf Oil, L.P., 164 AD3d

            401,403 [1st Dept 2018] [citing Matter ofKapon v Koch, 23 NY3d 32, 34 [2014]]).

                   Defendant has not demonstrated that it is entitled to a protective order. Defendant argues

            that discovery should be stayed pending resolution of its motion to reargue, which concerns "a

            critical point relevant to limiting the scope of the class for purposes of pre-class certification

            discovery" (NYSCEF Doc No 174). However, defendant fails to explain how proceeding with

            discovery would cause it "annoyance, expense, embarrassment, disadvantage or other prejudice."

            That discovery may result in the production of more documents and information than is

            ultimately needed does not necessarily indicate that "the discovery sought is irrelevant or that ...

            the process will not lead to legitimate discovery" ( General Ins., 211 AD3d at 635). Defendant's

            argument that discovery should be limited to only require the disclosure of documents relating

            the removal of COVID rent concessions is deficient for the same reason. Finally, defendant's

            request for a protective order staying discovery pending the determination of this motion is

            rendered moot by entry of this order.

                   Accordingly, it is

                   ORDERED that the part of plaintiffs motion seeking an injunction barring defendant

            from contacting plaintiff directly concerning settling the case is granted, and defendant is

            enjoined from so doing, and it is further

             150928/2022 ALSAFFAR, ABDULAZIZ vs. 44 DEVELOPMENT LLC                                  Page 3 of 4
             Motion No. 003

                                                           3 of 4
[* 3]
                                                                                                 INDEX NO. 150928/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 182                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/01/2024

                    ORDERED that the part of plaintiffs motion requesting that the court hold a settlement

            conference is denied at this juncture, and it is further

                    ORDERED that defendant's cross-motion for a protective order is denied in its entirety.

                     2/1/2024
                      DATE                                                      PAUL A. GOETZ, J.S.C.

                                     ~
             CHECK ONE:                  CASE DISPOSED                 NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

                                         GRANTED         □ DENIED      GRANTED IN PART          □ OTHER
             APPLICATION:                SETTLE ORDER                  SUBMIT ORDER

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

             150928/2022 ALSAFFAR, ABDULAZIZ vs. 44 DEVELOPMENT LLC                              Page4 of 4
             Motion No. 003

                                                            4 of 4
[* 4]