Court Opinion

ID: 9966034
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-05-03 20:10:00.729949+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:24:49.420231
License: Public Domain

James v Harriet Tubman Gardens Apt. Corp.
               2024 NY Slip Op 31541(U)
                      April 30, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 652541/2020
                  Judge: Lisa S. Headley
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. 652541/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 177                                                                                          RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/30/2024

                                   SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                             NEW YORK COUNTY
            PRESENT:             HON. LISA S. HEADLEY                                            PART                              28M
                                                                                      Justice
            ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X   INDEX NO.          652541/2020
             VENITA L JAMES,
                                                                                                 MOTION DATE         12/18/2023
                                                         Plaintiff,
                                                                                                 MOTION SEQ. NO.         003
                                                 -v-
             HARRIET TUBMAN GARDENS APARTMENT
             CORPORATION, KYROUS REALTY GROUP,                                                     DECISION + ORDER ON
             INC.,NICHOLAS GROSS, JULIA GROSS,                                                           MOTION

                                                         Defendant.
            ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X
             NICHOLAS GROSS, JULIA GROSS
                                                                                                            Third-Party
                                                          Plaintiff,                                  Index No. 595938/2020

                                                 -against-

             BUCKMILLER AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER CORP., ATLAS &
             DESIGN CONTRACTORS INC.

                                                          Defendant.
             --------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 003) 122, 123, 124, 125,
            126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146,
            147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154
            were read on this motion to/for                                           INJUNCTION/RESTRAINING ORDER                 .

                    Plaintiff, Venita L. James (“Plaintiff”), filed the instant Order to Show Cause, seeking 1)
            to amend the plaintiff’s complaint, pursuant to CPLR §3025(b), by adding Citizens Bank as an
            additional Defendant, add Citizens to the relevant parts of the Complaint, add other minor
            additions to clarify the Complaint, and to amend the caption accordingly; and 2) to enjoin Kyrous
            Realty Group Inc. (“Kyrous”), and the Harriet Tubman Gardens Apartment Corporation (“Co-
            op”), pursuant to CPLR article §63, from demanding maintenance and/or assessment fees from
            the plaintiff and Citizens Bank pendente lite. Defendants Co-op and Kyrous (hereinafter
            collectively referred to as “defendants”) filed opposition, and plaintiff filed a reply.
                I.      Background
                    On June 17, 2020, plaintiff commenced this action against defendants for damages
            sustained to her apartment, Unit 7K in the building located at 2235 Frederick Douglas Boulevard,
            New York, New York (“Subject Premises”). Plaintiff and defendant Co-op signed the Proprietary
            Lease agreement, upon the purchase of her share of the Co-op on October 8, 2003. (See, NYSCEF
             652541/2020 JAMES, VENITA L vs. HARRIET TUBMAN GARDENS                                                  Page 1 of 7
             Motion No. 003

                                                                           1 of 7
[* 1]
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 652541/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 177                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/30/2024

            Doc. 143). The plaintiff and HSBC Mortgage Corporation (USA) Bank executed a
            “Recognition Agreement,” whereby plaintiff secured a loan for the security interest, mortgage
            and/or assignment of the shares of the Co-op allocated to the subject premises. (See, NYSCEF Doc.
            No. 144).
                     In the Complaint, plaintiff states the following causes of actions: 1) for breach of the
            proprietary lease; 2) for breach of warranty of habitability; 3) to direct defendants to approve
            architectural plans so that plaintiff may begin repairs to the subject premises; 4) to declare the
            subject premises uninhabitable; 5) for negligence; 6) for willfully, wantonly and without good
            cause refusing to repair or approving the plans to begin the repairs of the subject premises.
                     Specifically, plaintiff’s complaint alleges that on July 16, 2018, the water from the
            sprinkler head in the apartment located on the floor above the plaintiff, that is occupied by Nicholas
            and Julie Gross, in Unit 8F (“Unit 8F Apartment”), caused damage throughout her apartment, and
            rendered the subject premises uninhabitable. Plaintiff claims that the City of New York
            Department of Buildings issued violations because of the “wrecked state” of the subject premises,
            including the destroyed floors, walls, ceilings, and mold formation.
                     Plaintiff claims her insurance company, State Farm, arranged for her to temporarily stay at
            a Best Western Plaza Hotel on October 5, 2018, and then on October 7, 2018, plaintiff moved to
            an Extended Stay of America for two years. Plaintiff’s insurance company paid her rent or
            maintenance fees through October 6, 2020. Plaintiff alleges that the defendants failed to properly
            renovate the subject premises after the water damage caused by the Unit 8F Apartment, and then
            mailed plaintiff a check from the defendants’ insurance company in the amount of $23,252.49.
            Plaintiff claims that she returned the check to the defendants, and that the defendants did nothing
            to fix the condition of her apartment, and caused plaintiff to perform the renovations of the subject
            premises on her own.
                     Plaintiff also claims the defendants approved her renovations plans on August 20, 2020,
            after previously refusing to sign off on her renovation plan since May 2019. On October 9, 2021,
            plaintiff claims her contractor began renovating the subject premises.
                     On December 16, 2020, plaintiff moved to Tuckahoe, New York, and then she moved again
            on August 1, 2021, to an apartment in Eastchester, New York, where she currently resides. Plaintiff
            contends that on December 16, 2020, in response to delinquent assessment notices and fees for the
            subject premises sent to her mortgage lender, the defendants, HSBC, Citizens Bank predecessor
            in interest, paid protective payments to the defendants in the amount of $15,839.30. Plaintiff claims
            that on November 1, 2021, HSBC sent her a statement that a protective payment of $2,601.12 was
            paid to the defendants for maintenance fees.
                     On February 1, 2023, plaintiff contends she received a statement from her mortgage lender,
            now Citizens Bank, for $29,348.10 for protective payments made in response to the defendants’
            demand for maintenance fee arrears. On August 1, 2023, plaintiff contends that she received
            another statement from Citizens Bank with a negative escrow balance of $17,671.69 because of
            protective payments made to the defendants for maintenance arrears. Plaintiff alleges that through
            the date of the filing of this Order to Show Cause in November 2023, plaintiff’s mortgage lender

             652541/2020 JAMES, VENITA L vs. HARRIET TUBMAN GARDENS                                Page 2 of 7
             Motion No. 003

                                                           2 of 7
[* 2]
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 652541/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 177                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/30/2024

            paid about $52,983.18 in protective payments in response to the defendants’ “improper demands
            for maintenance arrears.” Furthermore, the plaintiff claims she made a total of $5,600.00 in
            payments to defendants for maintenance fees, which should be abated because of their proprietary
            lease provision, section 4(b). However, the plaintiff contends that on August 22, 2023, Kyrous sent
            her another statement for fees in the amount of $5,051.51.
                Plaintiff now moves this Court to amend the complaint to add Citizens’ Bank as a necessary
            party to this action, and to enjoin the defendants from demanding improper fees, as well as, to
            enjoin Citizens’ Bank from making any protective payments for such fees.
                II.      Amend the Complaint and Add Citizens Bank as a Party
                    Plaintiff’s Order to Show Cause seeks leave to serve a supplemental summons and
            amended complaint, adding Citizens Bank as party, along with “minor additions to clarify the
            complaint.” “Leave to amend pleadings under CPLR §3025(b) should be freely given, and denied
            only if there is ‘prejudice or surprise resulting directly from the delay,’ or if the proposed
            amendment ‘is palpably improper or insufficient as a matter of law”.’ CPLR §3025(b); see also,
            McGhee v. Odell, 96 A.D.3d 449, 450 (1st Dep’t 2012). [internal citations omitted]).
                    The plaintiff’s application to amend the complaint in order to add Citizens Bank as a
            necessary party to this action is granted. Plaintiff claims that the non-party, Citizens Bank, a
            banking organization, made improper payments to the defendants in the amount of $52,983.18,
            which represents protective payments that were levied by Citizens Bank as against Plaintiff’s
            escrow account. Specifically, in the fourth cause of action of plaintiff’s amended complaint,
            plaintiff requests, inter alia, an Order to declare the apartment uninhabitable and to direct Citizens
            to stop billing plaintiff for monthly arrears in maintenance. Here, the defendants have not alleged
            any prejudice or surprise to adding Citizens Bank as a party. Further, the Court finds there would
            be no prejudice to the defendant to adding Citizens’ Bank as a party in this action, and adding
            Citizens to the relevant parts of the complaint. Here, the defendant does not state opposing
            arguments to adding Citizens Bank as a party.
                    The plaintiff also seeks to amend the complaint to add purported minor changes, including
            an exacerbation claim within the first cause of action, that the subject premises had a preexisting
            condition because the construction of the building was allegedly defective, including the window
            frames and interior walls. Plaintiff asserts that the defendants commenced a prior action, Harriett
            Tubman Gardens Apartment Corporation v. H.T. Development Corporation, Bluestone
            Organization, and York Restoration Corporation, Index No. 652532/2014 (“the 2014 action”) for,
            inter alia, negligent improper construction of the subject building and the individual units in the
            subject building.
                    In opposition, defendants Harriet Tubman Gardens Apartment Co-Op and Kyrous Realty
            Group, argue that plaintiff’s motion to amend includes proposed new allegations that are
            conclusory, speculative, and unsupported by any evidentiary showing establishing the merits of
            the complaint. Defendant contends that the proposed amended complaint claims that the building
            was so poorly constructed that the subject incident on July 16, 2018, was an “exacerbation of a
            prior condition in her apartment,” however, the plaintiff failed to state any prior conditions in her

             652541/2020 JAMES, VENITA L vs. HARRIET TUBMAN GARDENS                                Page 3 of 7
             Motion No. 003

                                                           3 of 7
[* 3]
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 652541/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 177                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/30/2024

            apartment sustained at all which would have been exacerbated from the subject incident.
            Defendant asserts, inter alia, the plaintiff’s original complaint, Bill of Particulars and deposition
            testimony never mentioned any prior condition within her apartment before the July 16, 2018,
            incident. Defendant argues that there is no affidavit included, and since the plaintiff resided in the
            subject premises since 2003, she would have noticed if her apartment sustained any kind of damage
            before the subject incident. Defendants argue that no allegations of the prior condition of the
            subject premises was ever pled, or was included in the plaintiff’s testimony.
                    Defendant also argues that the proposed amended complaint would prejudice the
            defendants. Specifically, the defendant alleges that paragraphs 16 through 18 of the proposed
            amended complaint would lead this case to be joined with the 2014 action, which asserts, inter
            alia, claims that the subject building was poorly maintained. Defendant claims that the proposed
            complaint alludes to the 2014 action as alleged “proof” that the asserted claims of exacerbation
            must exist here. However, such assertion would cause a delay in this case for no reason, other than
            to connect this case with an unrelated case filed in 2014. Defendants also argue that the proposed
            amended complaint would cause further undue delay in this case because the plaintiff is attempting
            to have the 2014 action joined with this case.
                    Further, the defendants argue the plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint is unduly
            delayed because it has been over three years since the plaintiff served her original summons and
            complaint, and since a significant amount of time has passed since the original complaint, plaintiff
            has not provided an excuse for such delay. Therefore, the plaintiff’s late amendment in the
            proposed amended complaint should be denied.
                    “While plaintiff was or should have been aware of the facts and theories asserted in the
            amended complaint long before amendment was actually sought, delay alone is not a sufficient
            ground for denying leave to amend.” Greenburgh Eleven Union Free Sch. Dist. v. Nat'l Union Fire
            Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, 298 A.D.2d 180, 181 (1st Dept 2002). In the absence of prejudice, plaintiffs'
            delay in seeking to amend … is not a sufficient reason to deny the amendment. Sheppard v.
            Blitman/Atlas Bldg. Corp., 288 A.D.2d 33, 34 (1st Dep’t 2001). “Prejudice occurs when the party
            opposing amendment ‘has been hindered in the preparation of his case or has been prevented from
            taking some measure in support of his position’.” Jacobson v. McNeil Consumer & Specialty
            Pharmaceuticals, 68 A.D.3d 654-55 (1st Dep’t 2009).
                    Here, the Court finds that the portion of the plaintiff’s Order to Show Cause to add “other
            minor additions to clarify the complaint” is denied. Although the delay in filing the amended
            complaint, over three years after the commencement of this action, would not be a sufficient
            ground alone to deny the motion to amend, the Court finds there would be prejudice to the
            defendant. Plaintiff seeks to include an exacerbation claim of the damages she sustained as a result
            of the subject incident because the subject building was defectively constructed. The plaintiff’s
            amended complaint references the 2014 action, that is currently being litigated, and involves
            determining whether the subject building was actually defectively constructed. It should be noted
            that the issues involving the alleged defective construction of the subject building has not yet been
            determined.

             652541/2020 JAMES, VENITA L vs. HARRIET TUBMAN GARDENS                                Page 4 of 7
             Motion No. 003

                                                           4 of 7
[* 4]
                                                                                                    INDEX NO. 652541/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 177                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/30/2024

                     Contrary to the plaintiff’s contentions, the purported changes to the complaint are not
            minor, and if the exacerbation claim is asserted at this juncture, it would prejudice the defendants
            because the amendment would lead this case to be entangled with the building construction issues
            that have been before another court for over 10 years, and continues to be litigated. This would
            cause undue prejudice to the defendants since this case involves damages that were caused from
            the water leak that occurred while the co-defendants, Nicholas and Julia Gross, were in the course
            of renovating their apartment, and adding the exacerbation claim would shift the case to whether
            the building was defectively constructed, which is not relevant to the causes of actions stated in
            the original complaint.
                III.    Enjoin Defendants from Demanding Maintenance Fees Pendente Lite
                     The plaintiff seeks to enjoin defendants from demanding improper maintenance fees, as
            well as to enjoin the non-party, Citizens Bank, from making any protective payments for such fees
            pendente lite. Defendant argues that the plaintiff continued to reside in her apartment after the date
            of the subject incident through October 2018, and she only paid maintenance until May 2019. Then
            the plaintiff stopped making payments in contravention to the Proprietary Lease and the
            Recognition Agreement.
                     To obtain a preliminary injunction, the movant must show: (1) a likelihood of success on
            the merits; (2) irreparable harm absent the relief sought and (3) the balance of equities in its favor.
            Aetna Ins. Co. v. Capasso, 75 N.Y.2d 860, 862 (1990).
                     CPLR §6301 states:
                  “[a] preliminary injunction may be granted in any action where it appears that
                  the defendant threatens or is about to do, or is doing or procuring or suffering
                  to be done, an act in violation of the plaintiff's rights respecting the subject of
                  the action, and tending to render the judgment ineffectual, or in any action
                  where the plaintiff has demanded and would be entitled to a judgment
                  restraining the defendant from the commission or continuance of an act, which,
                  if committed or continued during the pendency of the action, would produce
                  injury to the plaintiff. A temporary restraining order may be granted pending
                  a hearing for a preliminary injunction where it appears that immediate and
                  irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result unless the defendant is restrained
                  before the hearing can be had.”
            CPLR §6301.
                     “A court has broad discretion in awarding use and occupancy during the course of
            litigation.” See, Dye v. RBNB 20 Owner LLC, No. 155646/22, 2024 WL 1098431 (N.Y. App. Div.
            Mar. 14, 2024). “Under New York law, a landlord's entitlement to receive, and an occupant's
            obligation to pay, a reasonable fee for use and occupancy of a premises is not contingent on an
            underlying contract; rather, ... is predicated upon the theory of quantum meruit[.]” (internal
            citations omitted). It is well-settled that the landlords are entitled to an appropriate payment
            pending the outcome of the underlying litigation. See, Trump CPS L.L.P. v. Meyer, 249 A.D.2d
            22, 23 (1st Dep’t 1998).

             652541/2020 JAMES, VENITA L vs. HARRIET TUBMAN GARDENS                                 Page 5 of 7
             Motion No. 003

                                                           5 of 7
[* 5]
                                                                                                     INDEX NO. 652541/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 177                                                                        RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/30/2024

                    Here, plaintiff cannot establish the likelihood of success on the merits as it pertains to
            whether she is contractually obligated to pay the maintenance payments pursuant to the proprietary
            lease. Defendants argue that “maintenance payments are for services that affect the good of the
            entire building community, not just for the plaintiff's apartment. Plaintiff has also failed to show
            that she has no adequate remedy at law and that she would suffer irreparable injury absent the
            injunction.”
                    Plaintiff argues that she refused to pay the maintenance fees because the subject premises
            was uninhabitable for over five years as a result of the water damage, structural defects, mold
            formation, and the defendants failing to perform proper renovations, however, it is undisputed that
            the plaintiff acknowledged in her affidavit that she hired contractors to “renovate [her] apartment
            properly and up to code” (See, NYSCEF Doc. No. 153).
                    Here, there is no dispute that the plaintiff is subject to the Proprietary Lease agreement and
            the Recognition agreement with her mortgage lender. According to Provision l (a) of the
            Proprietary Lease, the Rent or Maintenance Charges is payable by the plaintiff, as cash
            requirements and also for assessments for any repair, alteration, or improvement to the corporate
            property. (See, NYSCEF Doc. 143). Provision 12 of the Proprietary Lease sets forth the defendant-
            lessor’s right to collect the payment of rent from the plaintiff. Provision 39 of the lease sets for the
            rights of the defendants, including sending written notice to the Lender-Bank of the plaintiff’s
            default. Id.
                    The payment of the maintenance fees during the course of this litigation will not affect
            plaintiff's ability to obtain a resolution of her alleged breach of warranty of habitability claim, as
            the plaintiff may be entitled to an abatement or reimbursement if such claim is successful. Here,
            the plaintiff fails to satisfy the standard for injunctive relief, including success on the merits and
            irreparable harm. The Proprietary Lease agreement and the Recognition agreement are in effect,
            and plaintiff acknowledges that she has control and use of the subject premises since she retained
            a contractor to fix the apartment, and such repairs were underway. Undoubtedly, her “irreparable
            injury” that being alleged that the premises is unhabitable will be or has been remedied by her
            contractor’s repairs to the apartment to bring it up to code. Furthermore, the defendants would be
            prejudiced by the financial harms they would incur if the preliminary injunction preventing the
            collection of maintenance fees during the course of this case is granted.
                    Therefore, the portion of the plaintiff’s application seeking to prohibit the defendants from
            obtaining maintenance and/or assessment fees from plaintiff while this case is pending is denied.
            The portion of the application seeking to enjoin defendants from demanding payments for
            plaintiff’s maintenance fees during the course of this litigation from Citizens Bank is also denied.
                    Accordingly, it is hereby
                    ORDERED that the portion of the Plaintiff’s Order to Show to amend Plaintiff’s complaint
            by adding Citizens Bank as an additional defendant, and amend the caption accordingly is
            GRANTED, and it is further

             652541/2020 JAMES, VENITA L vs. HARRIET TUBMAN GARDENS                                  Page 6 of 7
             Motion No. 003

                                                           6 of 7
[* 6]
                                                                                                    INDEX NO. 652541/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 177                                                                         RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/30/2024

                    ORDERED that the portion to the Plaintiff’s Order to Show Cause seeking to add Citizens
            to the relevant parts of the Complaint is GRANTED to the extent that Citizens shall be added to
            the Fourth Cause of Action; and it is further
                    ORDERED that the portion of the Plaintiff’s Order to Show Cause to add “other minor
            additions to clarify the complaint,” is DENIED; and it is further
                    ORDERED that the portion of the plaintiff’s Order to Show Cause to enjoin defendants,
            Kyrous Realty Group, Inc, and the Harriet Tubman Gardens Apartment Corporation, from
            demanding maintenance and/or assessment fees from the plaintiff pendente lite, pursuant to CPLR
            Article 63 is DENIED; and it is further
                    ORDERED that the portion of the plaintiff’s Order to Show Cause to enjoin defendants,
            Kyrous Realty Group, Inc, and the Harriet Tubman Gardens Apartment Corporation, from
            demanding maintenance and/or assessment fees from Citizens Bank pendente lite, pursuant to
            CPLR Article 63 is DENIED; and it is further
                    ORDERED that the defendants may file an Amended Answer to the Complaint within 30
            days of the plaintiff’s filing of the Amended Complaint, in accordance with this Order; and it is
            further
                    ORDERED that the plaintiff is directed to file form EF-23 to reflect the change in the
            caption; and it is further
                    ORDERED that counsel for the moving party shall serve a copy of this order with notice
            of entry upon the Clerk of the Court (60 Centre Street, Room 141B) and the Clerk of the General
            Clerk’s Office (60 Centre Street, Room 119), who are directed to amend their records to reflect
            such change in the caption herein; and it is further
                    ORDERED that such service upon the Clerk of the Court and the Clerk of the General
            Clerk’s Office shall be made in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Protocol on
            Courthouse and County Clerk Procedures for Electronically Filed Cases; and it is further
                    ORDERED that any relief sought not expressly addressed herein has nonetheless been
            considered.

                    This constitutes the Decision/Order of the Court.

                    4/30/2024
                      DATE                                                        LISA S. HEADLEY, J.S.C.
             CHECK ONE:                 CASE DISPOSED                 X   NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

                                        GRANTED             DENIED    X   GRANTED IN PART             OTHER

             APPLICATION:               SETTLE ORDER                      SUBMIT ORDER

             CHECK IF APPROPRIATE:      INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN        FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT       REFERENCE

             652541/2020 JAMES, VENITA L vs. HARRIET TUBMAN GARDENS                                 Page 7 of 7
             Motion No. 003

                                                          7 of 7
[* 7]