Court Opinion

ID: 9954299
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-25 21:10:50.222893+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:12:04.636459
License: Public Domain

Tender Touch Health Care Servs. Inc. v Tnuzeg LLC
               2024 NY Slip Op 30913(U)
                     March 19, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 653544/2021
                  Judge: Joel M. Cohen
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. 653544/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 135                                                                                             RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/19/2024

            SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
            COUNTY OF NEW YORK: COMMERCIAL DIVISION PART 03M
            ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- X

             TENDER TOUCH HEAL TH CARE SERVICES INC.,                                               INDEX NO.         653544/2021
             TENDER TOUCH REHAB SERVICES LLC,

                                                          Petitioners,                              MOTION DATE        12/21/2023

                                                - V -                                               MOTION SEQ. NO.        004
             TNUZEG LLC, 300 BROADWAY HEALTHCARE LLC,
             VISTACARE, LLC,                                                                         DECISION+ ORDER ON
                                                                                                           MOTION
                                                          Respondents.

            ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- X

             HON. JOEL M. COHEN:

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 004) 118, 119, 120, 121,
            122,123,124,125,126,127,128,129,130,131,132,133, 134
            were read on this motion for               ATTORNEY'S FEES and LEAVE TO REARGUE/RENEW

                      Petitioners Tender Touch Health Care Services, Inc.'s and Tender Touch Rehab Services

            LLC's ("Tender Touch") motion for attorneys' fees and costs against Respondent Vistacare LLC

            ("Vistacare") is granted in the amount of $185,000. Vistacare' s cross-motion for leave to

            reargue and leave to renew the Court's November 30, 2023, order (NYSCEF 114) is denied.

                A. Background

                      In 2021, the Court confirmed a Beth Din (rabbinical court) Judgment (the "Award") in

            favor of Tender Touch and against Respondents Tnuzeg LLC ("Tnuzeg") and 30 Broadway

            Healthcare LLC ("30 Broadway"), and ordered further proceedings to determine whether Award

            is binding upon Vistacare (Tender Touch Health Care Services Inc. v Tnuzeg LLC, 2021 N.Y.

            Slip Op. 32555[U], [N.Y. Sup Ct, New York County 2021], affd, appeal dismissed, 211 A.D.3d

            447 [1st Dept 2022]). On March 30, 2022, the Court entered judgment against Tnuzeg and 30

             653544/2021 TENDER TOUCH HEAL TH CARE vs. TNUZEG LLC                                                       Page 1 of 5
             Motion No. 004

[* 1]                                                                       1 of 5
                                                                                                     INDEX NO. 653544/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 135                                                                        RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/19/2024

            Broadway, and severed the remaining claim seeking to impose liability against Vistacare

            pursuant to CPLR 5225(b) (NYSCEF 70).

                     On November 30, 2023, the Court issued a decision and order finding that Vistacare was

            the recipient of an intentional fraudulent transfer from Respondents Tnuzeg and 30 Broadway

            under former Section 276 of the Debtor and Creditor Law (Tender Touch Health Care Services

            Inc. v Tnuzeg LLC, 2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 34289[U] [N.Y. Sup Ct, New York County 2023]).

            Tender Touch subsequently filed this application for attorneys' fees and Vistacare cross-moved

            for leave to reargue and renew the Court's November 30, 2023, order.

                B. Discussion

                        a. Tender Touch's Application for Attorney's Fees is Granted

                    Former Section 276-a of the Debtor and Creditor Law, which is applicable here, provides

            that the Court "shall fix the reasonable attorney's fees of the creditor. .. " in the case of an

            intentional fraudulent transfer. In order to demonstrate an entitlement to relief, the movant need

            only demonstrate that "the conveyance was done with the actual intent to hinder, delay or

            defraud" (Posner v S. Paul Posner 1976 Irrevocable Family Tr., 12 AD3d 177, 179 [1st Dept

            2004]). As determined in the November 30, 2023, order, Tender Touch has established liability

            against Vistacare under former Section 276 and is entitled to a fee award under Section 276-a

            (Goldenberg v Friedman, 191 AD3d 641 [2d Dept 2021]).

                    Vistacare' s argument that CPLR 5225(b) does not provide for the award of a money

           judgment is rejected as the statute permits for the recovery of "money or other personal

            property." CPLR 5225(b) may be utilized against fraudulent transferees, including alter egos

            and successors, like Vistacare, without the need to commence a plenary action (Mitchell v Lyons

            Professional Services, Inc., 727 F Supp 2d 120, 123 [EDNY 2010] citing WBP Cent. Assocs.,

             653544/2021 TENDER TOUCH HEAL TH CARE vs. TNUZEG LLC                                     Page 2 of 5
             Motion No. 004

[* 2]                                                       2 of 5
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 653544/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 135                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/19/2024

            LLC v. DeCola, 50 A.D.3d 693 [2d Dept 2008]; Rockefeller v Statement Services, Corp., 204

            AD3d 920, 921 [2d Dept 2022]).

                   Vistacare' s argument that Jewish law prohibits the charging of interest is also rejected.

            The arbitration agreement provides that "[t]he parties submit themselves to the personal

           jurisdiction of the courts of the State of New York and/or in any court of competent jurisdiction

            for any action or proceeding to confirm or enforce a decree of the arbitrators pursuant to Article

            75 of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules" (NYSCEF 3). Had the parties wanted to

            eliminate interest, they could have done so in their agreement. The Award has been confirmed

            and this is now a fraudulent transfer proceeding under New York law in connection with

            enforcing this Court's judgment.

                   Under Section 276-a, "[i]n awarding attorneys' fees, the Court must take into

            consideration proof of billing and the quantum meruit value of the services rendered by counsel"

            (JH Capital LLC v Skyllas, 66 Misc 3d 1217(A) [Sup Ct New York County 2019] citing

            Bankers Fed. Sav. Bank FSB v. Off W Broadway Devs., 224 AD2d 376,378 [1st Dept 1996]).

            "Among the factors to be considered when setting appropriate attorneys' fees are: the 'time and

            labor required, the difficulty of the questions involved, and the skill required to handle the

            problems presented; the lawyer's experience, ability and reputation; the amount involved and

            benefit resulting to the client from the services'" (id. quoting In re Freeman's Estate, 34 NY2d 1,

            9 [1974]).

                   With respect to the amount of legal fees sought, Vistacare does not dispute any particular

            charges and instead broadly argues that no fees are warranted. In the fraudulent conveyance

            context, the Court need not segregate out the fees incurred in litigating "inextricably intertwined"

            claims (Posner, 12 AD3d at 179). On the other hand, fees may not be recovered for issues that

             653544/2021 TENDER TOUCH HEAL TH CARE vs. TNUZEG LLC                                  Page 3 of 5
             Motion No. 004

[* 3]                                                      3 of 5
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 653544/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 135                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/19/2024

            are entirely separate ( UrbanAmerica, L.P. II v Carl Williams Group, L.L. C., 95 AD3d 642, 644

            [1st Dept 2012]).

                     The Court has reviewed Tender Touch counsel's time entries and most recent invoice

            (NYSCEF 124 and 134) seeking a total of $207,406.08. The Court finds that a substantial

            portion of this proceeding concerned the fraudulent transfer issue and Vistacare' s liability.

            Accordingly, attorneys' fees and disbursements are awarded in the amount of one hundred and

            eighty-five thousand dollars ($185,000), which is approximately 90% of the amount sought.

            This award shall be docketed as a judgment by the Clerk at Tender Touch's request (CPLR

            2222).

               C. Vistacare's Motion for Leave to Reargue and Leave to Renew is Denied

                     Under CPLR 2221(d), "[a] motion for leave to reargue, addressed to the sound discretion

            of the court, may be granted upon a showing that the court overlooked or misapprehended the

            relevant facts or misapplied any controlling principle of law" (Cortlandt St. Recovery Corp. v

            Bonderman, 75 Misc 3d 469,475 [Sup Ct, NY County 2022] [collecting cases]. "A motion for

            leave to renew ... shall be based upon new facts not offered on the prior motion that would

            change the prior determination" (CPLR 2221 [e] [2]) and "shall contain reasonable j ustifi cation

            for the failure to present such facts on the prior motion" (CPLR 2221[e] [3]) (Luna v Port Auth.

            of New York and New Jersey, 21 AD3d 324,325 [1st Dept 2005]).

                     Vistacare has not established that the Court overlooked or misapprehended any facts or

            misapplied the law. Vistacare has not advanced any new facts and, even if it had, Vistacare has

            not established a reasonable justification for failing to complete discovery and submit briefing as

            directed by the Court in connection with Petitioner's fraudulent transfer claim (NYSCEF 116

            [Tr. 8-11]).

             653544/2021 TENDER TOUCH HEAL TH CARE vs. TNUZEG LLC                                  Page 4 of 5
             Motion No. 004

[* 4]                                                      4 of 5
                                                                                                      INDEX NO. 653544/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 135                                                                           RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/19/2024

                    Accordingly, it is

                    ORDERED that Petitioners Tender Touch Health Care Services, Inc.'s and Tender

            Touch Rehab Services LLC' s motion for attorneys' fees and costs as well as for the entry of a

           judgment against Respondent Vistacare LLC is GRANTED IN PART insofar as Tender Touch

            is awarded one hundred eighty-five thousand dollars ($185,000) in attorney's fees from

            Vistacare; it is further

                    ORDERED that, upon a request by Petitioners, that the Clerk of Court docket this order

            as a judgment pursuant to CPLR 2222; it is further

                    ORDERED that Vistacare's cross-motion for leave to reargue and leave to renew is

            DENIED.

                    This constitutes the decision and order of the Court.

                    3/19/2024
                      DATE                                                          JOEL M. COHEN, 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

             653544/2021 TENDER TOUCH HEAL TH CARE vs. TNUZEG LLC                                     Page 5 of 5
             Motion No. 004

[* 5]                                                      5 of 5