Court Opinion

ID: 9959932
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-12 20:12:51.294816+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:00.026730
License: Public Domain

Voorhies Terrace Owners Corp. v State Realty LLC
               2024 NY Slip Op 31155(U)
                      April 4, 2024
             Supreme Court, Kings County
        Docket Number: Index No. 515154/2018
                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 04/04/2024 02:55 PM                                       INDEX NO. 515154/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 150                                                           RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/04/2024

           SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
           COUNTY OF KINGS : CIVIL TERM: COMMERCIAL 8
           - -------- -- -~ ------. -- -- -----------x
           VOORHIES TERRACE OWNERS CORP.,
                                                    Plaintiff,             Decision and order

                           - against -                                   Inde~ No. 515154/2018

           STATE REALTY LLC,
                                                    Defendant,                   April 4, 2024
           ------. --- . -.-·----: .. -- . --- .-·· ---- ·---.-------x
          PRESENT: HON. LEON RUCHELSMAN                                   Motion Seq. #2   &   #3

                 The defendant has moved pursuant to CPLR §3212 seekirrg

           summary judgement dismissing the complaint and granting judgement

           upon the first counterclaim.             The plaintiff has cross-moved,

           likewise, seeking summary judgement.                The motions have been

           opposed respectively.          Papers have been submitted by the parties

           and arguments held.         After reviewing all the arguments this court

           now makes the following determination.

                 The plaintiff, Voorhies, is the owner and manager of a

           cooperative housing corporation with one hundred arid five

           apartments located at 2330 Voorhies Avenue in Kings County.                     The

           defendant is the owner of seventeen a·partments arid 2,210 Shares

           since 2000.      Specifically, the defendant purchased tep. apartments

           from SAJL Realty, LLC, namely, apartments lA, 2A, SB, 6B,                   4I, 3J,

           4J, SM:, 6M arid 4N       and seven apartments from Ziege.lman Joint

           Vent:ure IX, namely, 4C, SD, 2Ii Stl 2N, 3P .and 6E; predecessor

           owners of such apartrri.ents.         Exhibit 2 of the contract cont.ained
           the number of unsold shares that. cor~elat'?d to each of the
           seventeen ._apartrn,ents.      Thus, there is no dispute the defendant

                                                     1 of 5
[* 1]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/04/2024 02:55 PM                                       INDEX NO. 515154/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 150                                                        RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/04/2024

           purcha.secl the se:Ve.nteen apartments .._       In _January 20:01 the

           p;l.ainti:ff and de_te;ndant entered into art agreement which stated

           that "the c·orpoia:tion recognizes SR as a bolder of unsold shares

           descr-ibed In the Corpo.r~tion_' s c9operatiy.e. off._ering ·plan -a.nd

           proprietary leas_e. with rega.:tc:i to the shares of stock allocated to

           the Apartments, subject to the additional obligations and

           -a-gre~ments set forth h.e·rein'' _(see, Agreem·ent·, ·13 [N.YSCEF Doc. N.o.

           69] ) .

                     1rhe plainti.f.f a.rgt:!.es that even. though the- de.fe:ndant
           purch~s.ed the seventeen.. apartments and even though thr: 24 th

           amendment to the operating agr:eememt, dated August 8", 199:0, lists

           the unsold sl.'lares _whic:h ·cor.respond to the same seve·nteen

           apartments purchased by the defendant, the owners ~f those shares
           are not the same as the sellers of the .apartments .to the:

           defendant.        .Furthe.;r, the. plaintiff argues- ther agree~ent

           is hot binding.         Consequently , the plaintiff insists there is no

           e:viden.ce the defendant is th.e owner of any uns-old·s.hare s.               The

           defendant .opposes the m9ti.on ~nd ~ls.o moves seeking _sumrna_ry

            judgement dismissing the complaint ·on va·rious grounds, including

           the statute of limitati.Qns, and se._eks a- ·dete:r:minat.i_o n they- are

            the iawful owner. of the unsold shares.

                                            Conclusions of La~

                      Where th~ matetiai facts at issue in a case a~e in dispute

                                                      2

                                                   2 of 5
[* 2]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/04/2024 02:55 PM                                    INDEX NO. 515154/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 150                                                        RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/04/2024

           summary judgment. -cannot .be g,rante.d ( Zucke·rmari. v. C.i ty of. N·ew

           York, 49 NY$2._d 557 ~ 427 NYS~d 595 [1980]).           Genera:lly, it .is for

           the jury, t·he tr·ier of fact to dEftertn±ne the iegai cause of any

           injury-., however, where only one c_onol:us.ion rri.ay be qr awn "from the·

           facts then the question of legal cause may be decided by the

           trial court as a ·matte.:r of law (Marino v, Jamison, "i-89 -Ao_3d 1021,

           136 NYS-3d 3"-2-4 [2d Dept., 2021).
                 These ca.uses of action first arose in 2001 when an ag.reem·ent

           was entered :into· hetwee'n the. parties re9ardin:g uns.o-ld sba·res.

           The plaintiff., however, instituted this lawsuit in 20+8 weJ,.l

           beyond any statute of limitations.               The plaintiff argues that

           pursua.h_t to· a rto-wai.ve.r clause ·contained in the prop.riet_ary lea:~e

           the action is tirneJy.         Paragraph 26 of trie proprietary lease

           l:!tat~s that ·"the failure of the Lessor to insist, in· any· one or

           more iristarices, :upon a strict _per.f·ormance of .'3-ny o.f ttie

           provisions of this Lease, or to exercise any right or option

           'herein· con:ta.ined,.   or to· serve· any notice, or to institute -any
           :action   or p_:toceedin.g,   shall ;i::i.ot .be c:;onstrued a_s a waiver or a

           relinquishme nt £.or the· futur·e of any such provisions, opt-ions or

           rights·, but such. provis,i·on,
                                        .
                                           option. or right shall co.ntinil-e and

           remain in full force ahd effect" (§§.§., Proprietary Lease, 'Jl26

            [NYSCEF Dot:. No. 132]-> .
                 While no.-.waiver clat1.ses     a:re generally :enforc.eable (see,
           A~ards,com LLC V. Kinko's Inc., 42 AD1d 178, Bl~ NYS2d 147 [.l~

                                                     3

                                                   3 of 5
[* 3]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/04/2024 02:55 PM                           INDEX NO. 515154/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 150                                               RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/04/2024

           Qept., 2007 J) they specifically relate to the contents of the

          agreement.    Thus, in this case the clause states that the lessor

          does not waive "arty provisions of this leaser, or any right or

           option "herein containedl' within the lease.      The rights or

           options that are not waived include the right to commence any

           lawsuits.    However, that right merely expressed that no previous

           waiver could he asserted as a defense to any lawsuit :filed.        As

           the court noted in Rotblut   v.   150 East 77 th Street Corp., 7 9 AD3d

          532, 914 NYS2d 22 [Pt Dept., 2010] \'in light Of the 'no waiver'

           provision of the proprietary lease, plaintiffs £ailed to

           demonstrate that defendant waived its right to declare that

           plaintiffs were not holders of unsold shares by agreeing that

           consent to certain acts was not required or that certain fees

           need not be paid" (id) .   Therefore,; no action taken by the

          plaintiff would bar any subsequent ability seeking to adjudicate

           the issue of unsold shares or any other issue.       However, the no-

           waiver clause, did not and could hot, waive the plaintiff's

           bbligat.ion to' comply with any relevant statute of limitations.

           The statute of limitations is an affirrrtative defense which mµst

           be raised by the defendant or is waived (Moody v, HmOud, 192 AD3d

           1007, 146 NYS3d 149 [2d Dept., 2021]).        The second affirmative

           defense contained in the answer asserts the action is barred by

           the statute of limitations (see, Answer to Verified Complaint

           with Counterclaims, '][17 [NYSCEF Doc. No. 3]).     Thus, the defense

                                               4

                                             4 of 5
[* 4]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/04/2024 02:55 PM                            INDEX NO. 515154/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 150                                                RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/04/2024

          of statute of limitations was not waived by the defendant.          As

           noted, no clause in an agreement between two parties can alter

           the time for filing causes of action as outlined in the CPLR.

           The plai]J.tiff is essentially arguing that a no-waiver clause

          preempts the defendant's ability to assert any aff.irmative

           defenses and especially the defert.se of the statute of

           limitations.     However, the no-waiver clause only acts to permit

           the plaintiff to take any action despite the waiver of any

           rights.      The clause does not impose upon the defendant the

           inability to assert any defenses it m:ay possess.       TherE!fore, the

           no-waiver clause cannot possibly allow the lawsuit to proceed in

           light of a legitimate, ahd really unbpposed, statute of

           limitation.s defense.

                 Therefore, the defendant's motion seeking summary judgement

           dismissing the entire lawsuit is granted.        Further, the

           defendant's request seeking a determination they are the owners

           of the unsold shares is granted.         The plaintiff's motion seeking

           summary judgement arid a determination the defendant is not the

           owner of any unsold shares is denied.

                 So ordered.

                              ENTER:

           DATED:. April 4,    2024
                     Brooklyn N.Y.           Hon.
                                             JSC

                                               5

                                             5 of 5
[* 5]