Court Opinion

ID: 9962545
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-23 20:10:31.804391+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:01.388644
License: Public Domain

Bikes by Olga LLC v People
               2024 NY Slip Op 31336(U)
                     April 16, 2024
             Supreme Court, Kings County
        Docket Number: Index No. 506816/2021
                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 04/16/2024 02:09 PM                                                                       INDEX NO. 506816/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 244                                                                                           RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/16/2024

           SUPREME COURT OF THE STA.TE OF NEW YORK
          COUNTY OF KINGS : CIVIL TERM: COMMERCIAL PART 8
           - - - - - ·---. ·-· --------·---.-----. - - .. --·------·. X
           BIKES BY OLGA LLC,
                                                                                Plaintiff,                 Decision and order

                                        - against -                                                      Index No. 506816/2021

           THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORKi
           NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF T:RANSPORTATIQN,
           CITY OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT
           OF TRANSPORTATION, NYCTL 2018-A TRUST,
           2017-A TRUST, NYCTL 2016~A TRUST &
           NYCTL 1998-2 TRUST;
                                           Defendants,                                                         April 16, 2024
           - ··. - - - · - - - - - - - - - . - - .· - - - . .   ·---. - - . --· . ·. . -·. ----· .. X.
           PRE$ENT: HON. LEON RUCHELSMAN                                                                        Motion Seq. #8

                       On November ZS,                          2023 the court issued a subpoena upon the

           New Yor:k City Transit Authority ordering a deposi tiori. from

           someone with knowledge concerning the Trans:i..t Authority's claim

           of right to erect, maintain, and/or enter the structure on a

          portion of real property located at 353 Berry Street in Kings

           County.              The subpoen·a further sought documents regarding the

           same.            The State of New York has filed this motion seeking to:

          vacate the subpoena on the .grounds of sovereign immunity

           depriving the court of subject matter jurisdiction.

                       The facts of the case have been adequately described in

           prior orders and need not be repeated here.

                       The State was originally mad.e a party to this action to

           adj.udicate the owners11ip of the subject property (see, RPAPL

           §1541).               The ownership had been detepnined in a decis.ion of this

           court and, a final judgement was then entered ori March 15, 2022

                                                                                1 of 4
[* 1]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/16/2024 02:09 PM                            INDEX NO. 506816/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 244                                                RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/16/2024

           (see, Order and Judgement [NYSGEF boc, No. 129]).        The State

          argues that upon the entry of the judgement the waiver of

           immunity concluded and that any further litigation concerning the

           property. does not involve the State at .all.     Consequently, there

           can be no action taken against the State without the State's

           consent.     The plaintiff counters the court still maintains

           jurisdiction over the State by virtue of its original waiver of

           immunity.

               RPAPL §1541 states that ''an a ct ion may :Pe maintained ... by or

           against the people of the state of New York" as outlined in the

           article, namely to compel the determination of. a claim to real

          property.      In Hibiscus Harbor Inc., v. Ebersold, 53.Misc2d 868,

           280 NYS2d 44 [County·Court Seneca County 19671 the court

           explained that "basically this section was enacted in order to

           establish a    'clearing house'   for a final determination of claims

           to real property. The intention Of the article is to place the

           court in a position where through its equity juri.sdiction it can

           terminate adverse claims to p~operty and ~rit~r an order ~6 a~ to

           provide a conclusive title to one of the parties involved" (id).

           In that case there were questions whether the state would assert

           claims to disputed property.       The cou~t Bxplained that "ss to the

           questions of whether or not the State of New York should disclose

           to the parties herein any information which they may necessitate

           and whether their agerits and officers must submit to an

                                                2

                                               2 of 4 -·····-·-·--------- -------------~---- --
                                ···············-·-···
[* 2]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/16/2024 02:09 PM                               INDEX NO. 506816/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 244                                                  RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/16/2024

           examination by the parties herein; should be c3.nswered in the

           affirmative"   (id).   In addressing the State's refusal to

           participate the court held that '\to agree with the State's

           contention that only in the Court of Claims, ca11 they J::,e

           examined, would destroy the intention o.f Article 15 and the broad

           equity jurisdiction of the Court under Section 1511 of the Real

           Property Actions and Proceedings Law.        The technical aspects of

           ascertaining descriptions outlined in the various conveyances and

           surveys; and the interpretation of the letters patent; and the

           locations of the defendants' cottages, woulq be thwarted, and the

           proof and issues would become prolonged, if the State would be

           allowed to remain alobf from any disclosure        or examination"     (id).

           These requirements of participation apply all the more so in this

           case where the State is an actual party to the proce.edings.

           Thus, the State;s unduly narrow view of its affiliation in thi.:5

           lawsuit fails to appreciate that without its continued

           involvetnentr the precise contours of the plaintifff s ownership

           remains in doubt~      While i t is true that the State's sphere of

           ownership has been resolved, its continued. participi3.tion in the

           action: can only serve to further the ownership interests of the

           remaining parties.      The court is not deciding whether the State

          .must move for sununa_ry j udgemerit to free its elf of ahy further

           jurisdictional connections or whether the.connections
           auto;rnatically expire 1.1ppn th.e conclus.iori. cif the State's

                                                3

                                              3 of 4
[* 3]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/16/2024 02:09 PM                                       INDEX NO. 506816/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 244                                                           RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/16/2024

           involvement with _the Pti.bject p.rop.E!rty.           I;n.de~d; in Hurley· -v.

          :Hurley, 50 N.Y:2d 78.,     427 NYS2.d 986 [1980] the court held the State

           did not waive immunity for claims 1.w:related to. the property even

           if other claims were validly waived.              Rather, sinc-e there a:re

           clearly contiections between the State arid. the s.ubj ect propierty,

           specifically concerning information the State may pQssess. ·the

           waiver has -not yet expired.
                 The State further argues the State.has provided all
           information in its pos-s·ession.            However,. clearly, th=e plaintiff

           remains unsatisfied with the prod1,1ctions. thus ;Ear.

           Notwithstarid ing the State's assurances to" the contrary th'e

           pL:1iritiff rn·ay inqµire about the cb"ntents- of the subpoena.

           Lastly, since the court considers the <::onclusion of the waiver

           premature the cour-t need not· address ahy of the e.quity arguments

           which a:re inapplicable- at this juncture.
                 Therefore, based on the foregoing, the motion seekihg tci

           vacate the order and subpoena dated November 2B, 202·.3 is dE;!t1ied.
                ::io orde,re.d.
                                           EN';l'ER:

           DATiE;D: April 16;-- 2024
                    arooklyn N. 'l.               .Hon . I,,eon
                                                   JSC

                                                       4

                                                   4 of 4
[* 4]