Court Opinion

ID: 9945544
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-27 21:10:30.356009+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:31.834640
License: Public Domain

West-Park Presbyt. Church of New York City v
                Center at W. Park, Inc.
               2024 NY Slip Op 30540(U)
                   February 20, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 652924/2022
                Judge: Nancy M. Bannon
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. 652924/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 127                                                                                              RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/20/2024

                                   SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                             NEW YORK COUNTY
            PRESENT:             HON. NANCY M. BANNON                                                PART                              42
                                                                                       Justice
            ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------X      INDEX NO.          652924/2022
             WEST-PARK PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF NEW YORK
             CITY d/b/a WEST PARK PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH,                                               MOTION DATE          6-27-23

                                                         Plaintiff,                                  MOTION SEQ. NO.         001

                                                 -v-

                                                                                                       DECISION + ORDER ON
             THE CENTER AT WEST PARK, INC. d/b/a THE CENTER
             AT WEST PARK and XYZ CORP.,                                                                     MOTION

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

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 18, 19, 20, 21, 22,
            23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31, 32, 33, 34,35,36, 37, 38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,48,50,51,52,
            53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61, 62, 63, 64,65,66, 67, 68,69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80,
            81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105,
            106,107,108,109,110,111,113,114,115,116,121,122,123
            were read on this motion to/for                                                       SUMMARY JUDGMENT

                                                         I.      INTRODUCTION

                      In this declaratory judgment action, the plaintiff landlord, West-Park Presbyterian Church

            of New York City d/b/ a West Park Presbyterian Church (the "plaintiff' or "Church"), moves: ( 1)

            pursuant to CPLR 3212, for summary judgment on its two causes of action for (i) a declaration

            that its lease agreement with the defendant tenant, The Center at West Park, Inc. d/b/a The

            Center at West Park (the "defendant" or "Center"), is void because the lease violates Section 12

            of New York's Religious Corporations Law ("RCL"), and (ii) a judgment of possession and

            warrant of eviction allowing the plaintiff to eject the defendant and any subtenants from the

            subject premises at 165 West 86th Street in Manhattan (the "Premises"); (2) to dismiss pursuant

            to, inter alia, CPLR 321 l(a)(7), the defendant's three counterclaims for (i) fraud in the

             652924/2022 WEST-PARK PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF NEW YORK CITY D/B/A WEST PARK                                 Page 1 of 18
             PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH vs. THE CENTER AT WEST PARK, INC. D/B/A THE CENTER AT
             WEST PARK ET AL
             Motion No. 001

                                                                           1 of 18
[* 1]
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 652924/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 127                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/20/2024

            inducement, (ii) breach of contract, and (iii) declaratory judgment; and (3) to dismiss, pursuant to

            CPLR 3211 (b ), the defendant's ten affirmative defenses. The defendant opposes the motion and

            cross-moves, inter alia, CPLR 3025(b ), for leave to amend the Answer to add another

            counterclaim. The plaintiff opposes the cross-motion. For the reasons that follow, the plaintiffs

            motion is granted and the defendant's motion is denied.

                                             II.   BACKGROUND

                   A. Religious Corporations Law

                   RCL § 12(1) provides, as relevant here, that "[a] religious corporation shall not ... lease

            for a term exceeding five years any of its real property without applying for and obtaining leave

            of the court ... therefor pursuant to section five hundred eleven of the not-for-profit corporation

            law ["N-PCL"] .... " RCL § 12(5-a) further provides that "[t]he trustees of an incorporated

            Presbyterian church in connection with the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church

            (U.S.A.) shall not make application to the court for leave to ... lease ... any of its real property

            without the consent in writing of the particular Presbytery with which said church is connected."

            Pursuant to RCL § 12(9), if a religious corporation leases real property for a term exceeding five

            years and conveys that property to the lessee without the necessary authority of a court of

            competent jurisdiction, obtained as required by law, the court may, upon the application of the

            corporation or the lessee, issue an order confirming the lease. However, "no confirmatory order

            may be granted unless the consents required in the first part of this section for a ... Presbyterian

            church ... have first been given by the prescribed authority thereof [i.e. "the particular

            Presbytery with which said church is connected"], either upon the original application or upon

            the application for the confirmatory order."

             652924/2022 WEST-PARK PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF NEW YORK CITY D/B/A WEST PARK            Page 2 of 18
             PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH vs. THE CENTER AT WEST PARK, INC. D/B/A THE CENTER AT
             WEST PARK ET AL
             Motion No. 001

                                                           2 of 18
[* 2]
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 652924/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 127                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/20/2024

                   B. The Parties and the Lease

                   The plaintiff, a New York "religious corporation" incorporated under the RCL in

            connection with the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), is the owner and

            landlord of the Premises. The particular Presbytery with which the plaintiff is connected is the

            Presbytery of New York City (the "Presbytery" or "Prescribed Authority"). The plaintiffs

            "Session" has served as the Church's corporate governing body since 1998. Members of the

            Session serve as the plaintiffs corporate officers. The Session is assisted in matters related to

            the Church's real property transactions by the Administrative Commission, which was

            established by the Presbytery for that purpose in December 2020.

                   In April 2018, the plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the defendant (the

            "Lease"), pursuant to which the plaintiff leased the Premises to the defendant for a five-year

            term, which was deemed to have commenced on January 1, 2018, and which would run through

            December 31, 2022. The monthly rent was $2,200, increasing by 3% annually. Paragraph 7 of

            the Lease contains a five-year renewal option that, if exercised, would extend the defendant's

            tenancy at the Premises through December 31, 2027. Paragraph 16 of the Lease provides that:

                           The Church and the Center hereby represent that each Party has the
                           full power and authority to enter into this agreement and all of the
                           stated terms and conditions. ALL PROVISIONS IN THIS
                           AGREEMENT AND THE ATTACHED EXHIBITS SHALL BE
                           BINDING ON BOTH THE CHURCH AND THE CENTER.

                   Nowhere in the Lease is there any provision expressly addressing the requirements under

            RCL § 12(1) that the plaintiff obtain the written consent of the Presbytery and the approval of the

            court for the Lease.

                   After taking possession of the property in April 2018, the defendant entered into several

            subleases, all of which appear to have expired.

             652924/2022 WEST-PARK PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF NEW YORK CITY D/B/A WEST PARK           Page 3 of 18
             PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH vs. THE CENTER AT WEST PARK, INC. D/B/A THE CENTER AT
             WEST PARK ET AL
             Motion No. 001

                                                         3 of 18
[* 3]
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 652924/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 127                                                                        RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/20/2024

                    In January 2022, the plaintiff advised the defendant that the renewal option provided for

            in paragraph 7 of the Lease would be unenforceable because neither Presbytery consent nor court

            approval was ever obtained for the Lease as required by RCL § 12(1), rendering the Lease void.

            According to the plaintiff, it was not represented by legal counsel at the time it negotiated and

            executed the Lease, but instead acted solely through its volunteer lay leadership; it was unaware

            at that time that the Lease required Presbytery consent and court approval pursuant to RCL §

            12(1); and it only became aware of the statute's consent and approval requirements and/or the

            applicability thereof to the Lease years later, after retaining legal counsel.

                   On February 18, 2022, the defendant notified the plaintiff of its intent to exercise the

            Lease's five-year renewal option. On March 16, 2022, the plaintiff's attorneys sent the

            defendant a letter in response to the defendant's renewal notice, reiterating the plaintiff's position

            that the Lease violates the RCL and is thus void and would not be renewed. The defendant

            remains in possession of the Premises pursuant to the Lease pending a judicial determination of

            the Lease's validity ..

                   The plaintiff, in the meantime, had determined to pursue a sale of the Premises.

            Accordingly, on February 28, 2022, the Administrative Commission voted on and unanimously

            approved a proposed sale of the Premises to Alchemy West 86 th Street LLC, an affiliate of

            Alchemy Properties ("Alchemy"), a developer of residential real estate. On March 3, 2022, the

            plaintiff entered into a purchase and sale agreement with Alchemy. Pursuant to this agreement,

            the plaintiff would sell the Premises to Alchemy to be demolished and redeveloped, in exchange

            for $33 million cash, plus 10,000 square feet of space in the newly built development for use by

            the Church and another $8 million to build-out that space. The purchase and sale agreement

            expressly provides that closing is conditioned on the successful receipt of Presbytery approval

             652924/2022 WEST-PARK PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF NEW YORK CITY D/B/A WEST PARK            Page 4 of 18
             PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH vs. THE CENTER AT WEST PARK, INC. D/B/A THE CENTER AT
             WEST PARK ET AL
             Motion No. 001

                                                           4 of 18
[* 4]
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 652924/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 127                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/20/2024

            and a signed Supreme Court order approving the sale, as well as termination of the Lease with

            the defendant and the delivery of the Premises vacant of all tenants. Approval by the New York

            City Landmarks Preservation Commission was also required.

                   On March 17, 2022, the plaintiffs Session met to discuss, and ultimately approve, the

            proposed sale. Thereafter, on March 27, 2022, the plaintiff held a special congregational

            meeting at which the members of the congregation unanimously voted to approve the proposed

            sale to Alchemy. On April 4, 2022, the trustees of the Presbytery also voted unanimously to

            approve the proposed sale. On June 7, 2022, the Presbytery held its regularly scheduled

            quarterly meeting, at which it voted 91 to 3 in favor of approving the proposed sale to Alchemy.

                   C. The Litigation

                   On August 15, 2022, the plaintiff commenced this action by filing the Summons and

            Verified Complaint, which sets forth two causes of action seeking (1) a judgment declaring that

            the Lease is void ab initio under the RCL, and (2) upon such declaration, an ejectment or a

            possessory judgment and warrant of eviction.

                    In its Amended Verified Answer, the defendant asserts ten affirmative defenses and three

            counterclaims for (1) fraud in the inducement, (2) breach of contract, and (3) "declaratory

           judgment/injunction," seeking, in essence, a declaration that the parties' lease is valid and that

            the plaintiff breached the lease by failing to renew it, a mandatory injunction or specific

            performance of the lease renewal and requiring the plaintiff to obtain necessary approvals, an

            order directing the plaintiff to "withdraw its support for its application to the Landmarks

            Preservation Commission," and disgorgement of "any and all consideration received and/or to be

            received by the plaintiff (including the aforesaid $33 million) in connection with the prospective

            sale" of the property. The instant motions ensued.

             652924/2022 WEST-PARK PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF NEW YORK CITY D/B/A WEST PARK           Page 5 of 18
             PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH vs. THE CENTER AT WEST PARK, INC. D/B/A THE CENTER AT
             WEST PARK ET AL
             Motion No. 001

                                                          5 of 18
[* 5]
                                                                                                      INDEX NO. 652924/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 127                                                                        RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/20/2024

                                          III.   LEGAL STANDARDS

                    On a motion for summary judgment, the moving party must make a prima facie showing

            of its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidentiary proof in admissible

            form sufficient to establish the absence of any material, triable issues of fact. See CPLR

            3212(b); Jacobsen v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 22 NY3d 824 (2014); Alvarez v

            Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 (1986); Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 (1980).

            Once such a showing is made, the opposing party, to defeat summary judgment, must raise a

            triable issue of fact by submitting evidentiary proof in admissible form. See Alvarez v Prospect

            Hosp., supra; Zuckerman v City of New York, supra. "[M]ere conclusions, expressions of hope

            or unsubstantiated allegations or assertions are insufficient" to defeat the motion. Zuckerman v

            City of New York, supra.

                    When assessing the adequacy of a pleading in the context of a motion to dismiss under

            CPLR 321 l(a)(7), the court's role is "to determine whether [the] pleadings state a cause of

            action." 511 W. 232nd Owners Corp. v Jennifer Realty Co., 98 NY2d 144, 151-52 (2002). To

            determine whether a claim adequately states a cause of action, the court must "liberally construe"

            it, accept the facts alleged in it as true, accord it "the benefit of every possible favorable

            inference," and determine only whether the facts, as alleged, fit within any cognizable legal

            theory. Id. at 152; see Romanello v Intesa Sanpaolo, S.p.A., 22 NY3d 881 (2013); Simkin v

            Blank, 19 NY3d 46 (2012); Hurrell-Harring v State of New York, 15 NY3d 8 (2010); Leon v

            Martinez, 84 NY2d 83 (1994). "The motion must be denied if from the pleading's four corners

            factual allegations are discerned which taken together manifest any cause of action cognizable at

             652924/2022 WEST-PARK PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF NEW YORK CITY D/B/A WEST PARK              Page 6 of 18
             PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH vs. THE CENTER AT WEST PARK, INC. D/B/A THE CENTER AT
             WEST PARK ET AL
             Motion No. 001

                                                           6 of 18
[* 6]
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 652924/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 127                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/20/2024

            law." 511 W. 232nd Owners Corp. v Jennifer Realty Co., supra, at 152 (internal quotation marks

            omitted); see Leon v Martinez, supra; Guggenheimer v Ginzburg, 43 NY2d 268 (1977).

                   Leave to amend a pleading should be freely granted absent evidence of substantial

            prejudice or surprise, or unless the proposed amendment is palpably insufficient or patently

            devoid of merit. See CPLR 3025(b ); JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Low Cost Bearings NY,

            Inc., 107 AD3d 643 (!81 Dept. 2013). The burden is on the party opposing the motion to

            establish substantial prejudice or surprise ifleave to amend is granted. See Forty Cent. Park S.,

            Inc. v Anza, 130 AD3d 491 (!81 Dept. 2015).

                                             IV.    DISCUSSION

                        A. Motion for Summary Judgment - First and Second Causes of Action

                   The plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on its first cause of action for a judgment

            declaring the Lease void ab initio because it violates RCL § 12(1) is granted. Although the

            Lease was for an initial term of just five years, it is subject to the requirements ofRCL § 12(1)

            by virtue of the option to renew for an additional five-year term, which brings the full term of the

            Lease to ten years. See Soho Ctr. for Arts & Educ. v Church of St. Anthony of Padua, 146

            AD2d 407,411 (1 st Dept. 1989) ( lease for five-year term with an option to renew for an

            additional five years involved a term of ten years, rendering the lease subject to the consent and

            approval requirements of the RCL). Accordingly, "before such a lease can become valid, the

            [Prescribed Authority] of the church must first give [its] consent, and then court approval of the

            lease must be sought." Id.; see RCL §§ 12(1) & (5-a).

                   The plaintiffs submissions establish prima facie that neither Presbytery consent nor court

            approval was ever obtained for the Lease. Specifically, the plaintiff submits a pair of affidavits

             652924/2022 WEST-PARK PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF NEW YORK CITY D/B/A WEST PARK           Page 7 of 18
             PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH vs. THE CENTER AT WEST PARK, INC. D/B/A THE CENTER AT
             WEST PARK ET AL
             Motion No. 001

                                                         7 of 18
[* 7]
                                                                                                    INDEX NO. 652924/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 127                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/20/2024

            from Marsha Flowers, a member of the Administrative Commission and a corporate officer of

            the Church, who signed the Lease on behalf of the Church in her then-capacity as clerk of the

            Session; a pair of affidavits from Roger Leaf, the chairman of the Administrative Commission

            since December 2020 and a former Trustee of the Presbytery from January 2019 to December

            2022; the affidavit of Russel Jennings, another of the Church's corporate officers; and the

            affidavit of Warren McNeill, the Stated Clerk of the Presbytery since November 2016, whose

            responsibilities include recording the minutes of all Presbytery meetings. Each of these affiants

            avers that the Presbytery never consented to the Lease and, consequently, the Lease was not

            submitted to the court for approval.

                   The defendant, in opposition, fails to submit evidence sufficient to raise a triable question

            of fact as to whether Presbytery consent and court approval has already been obtained for the

            Lease. The only evidence the defendant points to in this regard is the Lease itself, in particular

            paragraph 16 thereof, in which the plaintiff represents that it "has the full power and authority"

            to enter into the Lease. The defendant argues that the court should infer from this contract

            provision that the Church obtained Presbytery consent and court approval prior to executing the

            Lease. However, this provision does not expressly mention the RCL, the Presbytery, or the

            court, nor does it refer to the procurement of any consents or approvals whatsoever.

                   Moreover, it is well accepted that a religious corporation subject to the requirements of

            the RCL may validly contract for the alienation of its property "conditioned upon obtaining court

            approval." Church of God of Prospect Plaza v Fourth Church of Christ, Scientist, of Brooklyn,

            54 NY2d 742, 744 (1981). In fact "the making of an executory agreement subject to the

            approval of the Court, is not only not objectionable or invalid as an act ultra vires, but in general,

            the proper and preferable mode of bringing the whole question of the propriety of giving

             652924/2022 WEST-PARK PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF NEW YORK CITY D/B/A WEST PARK            Page 8 of 18
             PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH vs. THE CENTER AT WEST PARK, INC. D/B/A THE CENTER AT
             WEST PARK ET AL
             Motion No. 001

                                                          8 of 18
[* 8]
                                                                                                    INDEX NO. 652924/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 127                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/20/2024

            sanction to the sale into view[.]" Morris v Scribner, 121 AD2d 912, 915-16 (!81 Dept. 1986)

            (internal quotation marks omitted). As such, the court cannot reasonably infer from the contract

            language alone that the Church was representing that it had already obtained Presbytery consent

            and court approval for the lease prior to executing the contract, let alone that the requisite

            consent and approval were, in fact, truly obtained. Indeed, such an inference would be especially

            unreasonable given that a court order approving the lease would be a matter of public record.

            See RCL § 12(1); N-PCL § 51 l(d). No party submits such order.

                   The defendant also complains that the plaintiff has refused to comply with its discovery

            demands, including its demand for documents that might show that the Presbytery's written

            consent for the Lease was, in fact, obtained, thereby thwarting the defendant's ability to gather

            evidence necessary to support its opposition to the plaintiff's summary judgment motion. To be

            sure, "[w]here essential facts to justify opposition to a motion for summary judgment might

            exist, but cannot be stated because they are in the moving party's exclusive knowledge or control,

            summary judgment must be denied." Curry v Hundreds of Hats, Inc., 146 AD3d 593, 594 (1 st

            Dept. 2017) (internal quotation marks omitted). Here, however, evidence of the Presbytery's

            purported written consent to the Lease is not exclusively within the plaintiff's knowledge or

            control because any such evidence could also be procured directly from the Presbytery itself.

            Notably, though, the defendant gives no indication that it has sought this essential discovery

            directly from the Presbytery at any time in the more than two years since the plaintiff first

            notified it, in January 2022, that the Lease was void for violating the RCL, or in the year-and-a-

            half since this action was commenced. In any event, the plaintiff has submitted the sworn

            affidavit of Warren McNeill, the Stated Clerk of the Presbytery since November 2016, who

             652924/2022 WEST-PARK PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF NEW YORK CITY D/B/A WEST PARK             Page 9 of 18
             PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH vs. THE CENTER AT WEST PARK, INC. D/B/A THE CENTER AT
             WEST PARK ET AL
             Motion No. 001

                                                          9 of 18
[* 9]
                                                                                                    INDEX NO. 652924/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 127                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/20/2024

            would have been responsible for recording the minutes of any meeting at which the Presbytery

            voted to consent to the Lease, and who states unequivocally that no such consent was ever given.

                   The defendant further contends that three of the affidavits upon which the plaintiff relies,

            including the McNeill affidavit and the exhibits thereto, were submitted for the first time on

            reply and should therefore not be considered by the court. This contention is unavailing.

            Generally, a movant seeking summary judgment may not make its prima facie showing in

            reliance on evidence introduced for the first time in reply, thereby shifting to the nonmoving

            party the burden of demonstrating the existence of a triable issue of fact at a time when that party

            has no opportunity to respond. See Matter of Kennelly v Mobius Realty Holdings LLC, 33

            AD3d 380 (1 st Dept. 2006); see Burlington Ins. Co. v Guma Const. Corp., 6 AD3d 622 (2 nd Dept.

            2009). "This rule, however, is not inflexible, and a court, in the exercise of its discretion, may

            consider ... evidence offered for the first time in reply where the offering party's adversaries

            responded to the newly presented ... evidence." Id. at 381-82 (affidavit submitted in

            petitioner's reply was properly considered where the respondent addressed the affidavit in a sur-

            reply that it subsequently submitted in support of its own cross-motion). Here, as in Kennelly,

            supra, the defendant submitted a sur-reply in support of its cross-motion in which it addressed

            the affidavits and associated exhibits submitted for the first time in the plaintiff's reply. As such,

            the defendant suffered no prejudice as a result of the plaintiff's belated evidentiary submissions,

            and the court, in the exercise of its discretion, may and will consider them. See 2023

            Westchester Assocs., LLC v Ben Ave, LLC, 190 AD3d 627 (!81 Dept. 2021); Hereford Ins. Co. v

            Vazquez, 158 AD3d 470 (!81 Dept. 2018).

                   The plaintiff has thus demonstrated,primafacie, that neither Presbytery consent nor court

            approval was ever obtained for the Lease, as required by RCL § 12(1), and the defendant, in

             652924/2022 WEST-PARK PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF NEW YORK CITY D/B/A WEST PARK            Page 10 of 18
             PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH vs. THE CENTER AT WEST PARK, INC. D/B/A THE CENTER AT
             WEST PARK ET AL
             Motion No. 001

                                                          10 of 18
[* 10]
                                                                                                     INDEX NO. 652924/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 127                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/20/2024

            opposition, has failed to raise a triable issue of fact. As such, the Lease is "void ab initio as a

            violation of [RCL] § 12." Soho Ctr. for Arts & Educ. v Church of St. Anthony of Padua, supra

            at 411 (internal quotation marks omitted); see Wiggs v Williams, 36 AD3d 570, 571 (1 st Dept.

            2007) ( conveyance ineffective for lack of court approval required by RCL § 12); cf. MG W. 100

            LLC v St. Michael's Protestant Episcopal Church, 127 AD3d 624, 625 (I8t Dept. 2015) (MOU

            was not void ab initio because it did not violate RCL § 12).

                   The defendant proposes that this court may nevertheless issue a confirmatory order

            retroactively approving the Lease pursuant to RCL § 12(9). However, a confirmatory order

            under RCL § 12(9) may not be issued because the defendant has not demonstrated that there is

            any approval to confirm, ie. that the Presbytery has given its written consent to the Lease. RCL

            §§ 12(1), (5-a), (9); see 2520 Jerome Ave., LLC v Corp. of Rector, Churchwardens & Vestrymen

            of Saint James Episcopal, 185 AD3d 439,439 (1 st Dept. 2020) (lack of consent from "Bishop,

            Standing Committee and Diocese" precludes grant of specific performance of contract to sell

            church property); Soho Ctr. for Arts & Educ. v Church of St. Anthony of Padua, supra. Further,

            to the extent the defendant seeks an order enjoining the plaintiff to pursue the Presbytery's

            consent to the Lease as a precondition to an application for a confirmatory order under RCL §

            12(9), the plaintiff's submissions demonstrate that such an order would be futile. The

            Presbytery, as demonstrated by the minutes of its June 7, 2022, quarterly meeting, has already

            determined that the plaintiff and its members will be best served by the proposed sale of the

            Premises to Alchemy, voting by an overwhelming margin of 91 to 3 to approve the sale which,

            by the express terms of the purchase and sale agreement, necessarily entails the termination of

            the Lease. Moreover, the only possible basis for such an injunction would be the defendant's

            counterclaim for fraud in the inducement which, as will be discussed further below, is dismissed

             652924/2022 WEST-PARK PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF NEW YORK CITY D/B/A WEST PARK             Page 11 of 18
             PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH vs. THE CENTER AT WEST PARK, INC. D/B/A THE CENTER AT
             WEST PARK ET AL
             Motion No. 001

                                                          11 of 18
[* 11]
                                                                                                    INDEX NO. 652924/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 127                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/20/2024

            pursuant to CPLR 321 l(a)(7) for failure to state a claim. This conclusion is keeping with the

            intent of Religious Corporation Law§ 12 which "was intended to protect the members of such

            corporations" from "unwise bargains." Female Academy of Sacred Heart v Doane Stuart School,

            91 AD3d 1254, 1256 (3 rd Dept.2012) (lease of church property voidable at religious

            corporation's option).

                   Therefore, the branch of the plaintiff's motion seeking summary judgment on its first

            cause of action for a judgment declaring the Lease void ab initio because it violates RCL § 12 is

            granted. Having declared the Lease void, summary judgment on the second cause of action for

            ejectment is likewise granted. The plaintiff's submissions demonstrate its ownership of the

            Premises, its right to possession thereof, and that the defendant is currently in possession of the

            Premises pursuant to the void and invalid Lease. See RP AI Pelham Manor, LLC v Two Twenty

            Four Enterprises, LLC, 144 AD3d 1125, 1126 (2 nd Dept. 2016).

                        B. Dismissal of Counterclaims

                   The branch of the plaintiff's motion that seeks the dismissal of the defendant's second

            and third counterclaims is granted. The second counterclaim is for breach of the Lease, while the

            third counterclaim seeks a judgment declaring, essentially, that the Lease is valid, the plaintiff is

            in breach of the Lease, and the defendant is entitled to continued occupancy of the Premises

            pursuant to its renewal option, as well as an injunction preventing the plaintiff from evicting the

            defendant from the Premises. Given the court's determination that the Lease is void ab initio,

            these counterclaims necessarily fail as a matter of law.

                   The branch of the plaintiff's motion seeking dismissal of the defendant's first

            counterclaim for fraud in the inducement is also granted pursuant to CPLR 321 l(a)(7) for failure

            to state a claim. "To state a claim for fraudulent inducement, there must be a knowing

             652924/2022 WEST-PARK PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF NEW YORK CITY D/B/A WEST PARK            Page 12 of 18
             PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH vs. THE CENTER AT WEST PARK, INC. D/B/A THE CENTER AT
             WEST PARK ET AL
             Motion No. 001

                                                          12 of 18
[* 12]
                                                                                                     INDEX NO. 652924/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 127                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/20/2024

            misrepresentation of material present fact, which is intended to deceive another party and induce

            that party to act on it, resulting in injury." Genger v Genger, 144 AD3d 581, 582 (!81 Dept.

            2016) (internal quotation marks omitted). Further, there must be justifiable reliance on the

            alleged misrepresentation. See Connaughton v Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., 29 NY3d 137, 142

            (2017). Crucially, "[t]o give rise, under any circumstances, to a cause of action, either in law or

            equity, reliance on the false representation must result in injury .... If the fraud causes no loss,

            then the plaintiff has suffered no damages." Id. (internal quotation marks omitted); see Genger v

            Genger, supra ("A claim of fraud in the inducement requires proof of actual pecuniary loss.")

            (internal quotation marks omitted). The defendant's claim is premised on the contention that the

            plaintiff, by asserting in paragraph 16 of the Lease that it had "full power and authority" to enter

            into the Lease, misrepresented that it had obtained the Presbytery's consent and the court's

            approval for the Lease, as required by RCL § 12. However, the defendant's allegations

            regarding the plaintiff's fraudulent intent in making this claimed misrepresentation, as well as the

            defendant's reasonable reliance on it, are entirely speculative and conclusory, and thus

            insufficient to state a claim. See Dashdevs LLC v Cap. Markets Placement, Inc., 210 AD3d 525,

            526 (1 st Dept. 2022) (vague, conclusory, or speculative allegations are insufficient to state a

            claim); Mamoon v Dot Net Inc., 135 AD3d 656, 658 (!81 Dept. 2016) (factual allegations that

            consist of bare legal conclusions are not entitled to presumption of truth or benefit of favorable

            inferences on motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 321 l[a][7]).

                   To the extent that the defendant alleges that the plaintiff misrepresented that it had

            already obtained court approval for the Lease as per RCL § 12, the defendant cannot show that it

            reasonably or justifiably relied on any such representation "because [it] had the means to

            discover the true facts by the exercise of 'ordinary intelligence' or upon 'reasonable

             652924/2022 WEST-PARK PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF NEW YORK CITY D/B/A WEST PARK            Page 13 of 18
             PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH vs. THE CENTER AT WEST PARK, INC. D/B/A THE CENTER AT
             WEST PARK ET AL
             Motion No. 001

                                                          13 of 18
[* 13]
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 652924/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 127                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/20/2024

            investigation."' McDonald v McBain, 99 AD3d 436,436 (1 st Dept. 2012), quoting Zanett

            Lombardier, Ltd. v Maslow, 29 AD3d 495, 496 (1 st Dept. 2006). As already noted, a court order

            approving the Lease would be a matter of public record and could easily have been discovered

            by the defendant upon reasonable investigation. See NYCTL Trust v Reverend C.T. Walker

            Hous. Dev. Fund Corp., 187 AD3d 409 (I8t Dept. 2020) (purchaser ofreal property failed to

            exercise due diligence to discover restrictive covenant on property which was a public record);

            compare McGuinness v Standard Drywall Corp., 193 AD2d 518 (I8t Dept. 1993) (judgment

            creditor is not obligated to find fraudulent transfers made by debtor seven years prior).

                   Additionally, the defendant fails entirely to allege how any reliance on the plaintiffs

            purported misrepresentation resulted in an actual injury. It certainly does not plead a "pecuniary

            loss," as it expressly alleges that it "has no remedy at law." The defendant does allege that,

            pursuant to the terms of the Lease, it paid rent and raised funds to aid in renovating and restoring

            the Premises. The defendant avers that it raised approximately $500,000 to date but provides no

            proof of such funds being collected or expended. Further, the defendant seeks "restitution" of

            that amount only in regard to its second counterclaim for breach of contract. It never expressly

            claims that these expenditures constitute recoverable damages for purposes of the first

            counterclaim for fraud in the inducement. Indeed, the defendant alleges that those funds were

            from others, not from itself. Moreover, the defendant does not dispute that it obtained the

            benefits for which it bargained - possession and use of the Premises. Indeed, the defendant does

            not seek money damages to recoup any out-of-pocket loss resulting from the plaintiffs alleged

            fraud. Rather, it seeks specific performance so that it may remain in possession of the Premises

            and continue making those contract payments.

             652924/2022 WEST-PARK PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF NEW YORK CITY D/B/A WEST PARK          Page 14 of 18
             PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH vs. THE CENTER AT WEST PARK, INC. D/B/A THE CENTER AT
             WEST PARK ET AL
             Motion No. 001

                                                         14 of 18
[* 14]
                                                                                                      INDEX NO. 652924/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 127                                                                         RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/20/2024

                      Accordingly, because the defendant fails to state a cognizable claim for fraud in the

            inducement, the defendant's first counterclaim is dismissed. The court need not address the

            additional ground asserted by the defendant under CPLR 321 l(a)(l).

                          C. Dismissal of Affirmative Defenses

                      The branch of the plaintiff's motion seeking dismissal of the defendant's affirmative

            defenses is granted. In its answer, the defendant asserts nine affirmative defenses: (1) failure to

            state a claim; (2) that the plaintiff is in default and material breach of the Lease; (3) failure to

            comply with condition precedent to a claim for breach of the Lease; (4) ratification of the Lease;

            (5) unclean hands; (6) inapplicability of RCL § 12 because the Lease was only for a five-year

            term; (7) that the defendant has not defaulted under the Lease; (8) waiver and estoppel; and (9)

            the plaintiff's obligation to act in good faith, and with fair dealing, by applying to the court for

            retroactive approval of the Lease. 1 The first, fifth, and eighth purported affirmative defenses are

            improperly asserted in a conclusory manner without any detail. See Commr. of State Ins. Fund v

            Ramos, 63 AD3d 453 (1 st Dept. 2009); Mfrs.Hanover Trust Co. v Restivo, 169 AD2d 413 (1 st

            Dept. 1991). CPLR 3013 expressly requires that all "statements in a pleading shall be

            sufficiently particular to give the court and parties notice of the transactions, occurrences, or

            series of transactions or occurrences, intended to be proved and the material elements of each

            cause of action or defense." In any event, given the grant of summary judgment to the plaintiff

            on its claims, the defendant cannot reasonably argue that the complaint fails to state a cause of

            action. The others are patently devoid of merit because the plaintiff does not assert a claim for

            breach of the Lease; RCL § 12 is applicable to the Lease for the reasons already discussed; the

            1
             The first and second counterclaims are each also denominated in the answer as a "Tenth Affirmative
            Defense." Because those counterclaims have already been addressed, there is no need to discuss them
            again here.
                652924/2022 WEST-PARK PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF NEW YORK CITY D/B/A WEST PARK           Page 15 of 18
                PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH vs. THE CENTER AT WEST PARK, INC. D/B/A THE CENTER AT
                WEST PARK ET AL
                Motion No. 001

                                                           15 of 18
[* 15]
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 652924/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 127                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/20/2024

            plaintiff cannot evade the requirements of RCL § 12 and unilaterally render the Lease valid via

            ratification; and the court cannot retroactively approve the Lease absent the Presbytery's consent,

            which has not been given and, the plaintiffs proof demonstrates, will not be forthcoming.

                        D. Cross-Motion for Leave to Amend and to Compel Discovery

                   The defendant's' cross-motion for leave to amend the answer is denied. The defendant

            seeks to further amend its amended answer to add a fourth counterclaim that explicitly seeks a

            confirmatory order approving the Lease pursuant to RCL § 12(9). This proposed counterclaim,

            which merely repackages the defendant's claims for specific performance and injunctive relief in

            connection with its three original counterclaims, is "patently devoid of merit" (JPMorgan Chase

            Bank, N.A. v Low Cost Bearings NY, Inc., supra) for reasons already discussed herein.

                   The defendant also seeks to add an affirmative defense alleging that the plaintiff failed to

            name the defendant's subtenants as parties to this litigation, and therefore cannot obtain an order

            of eviction against such sub-tenants. First, the court notes that the defendants themselves have

            failed to identify any current subtenants. In any event, any subtenant of the defendant would not

            be a necessary party "whose presence is indispensable to the according of complete relief' as

            between the plaintiff and the defendant. Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Auth. v Wimpfheimer,

            165 Misc 2d 584 (App Term, pt Dept. 1995); see Joscar Co. v Arlen Realty, 54 AD2d 541 (I8t

            Dept. 1976); 1234 Broadway LLC v Hsien Hua Ying, 50 Misc 3d 140(A) (App Term, 1st Dept.

            2016). This is because a subtenant is "not in contractual privity with the owner" and thus

            "termination of the lease [will] terminate [the] subtenancy." 117-119 Leasing Corp. v Reliable

            Wool Stock, LLC, 139 AD3d 420,421 (1 st Dept. 2016).

             652924/2022 WEST-PARK PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF NEW YORK CITY D/B/A WEST PARK          Page 16 of 18
             PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH vs. THE CENTER AT WEST PARK, INC. D/B/A THE CENTER AT
             WEST PARK ET AL
             Motion No. 001

                                                         16 of 18
[* 16]
                                                                                                 INDEX NO. 652924/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 127                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/20/2024

                   The branch of the defendant's cross-motion seeking to compel the plaintiff's compliance

            with discovery demands is denied as moot given the grant of summary judgment to plaintiff on

            its claims and the dismissal of the defendant's counterclaims.

                   The defendant's remaining contentions have been considered and found to be unavailing.

                                              V.     CONCLUSION

                   Accordingly, upon the foregoing papers and after oral argument, it is

                   ORDERED that the motion of the plaintiff, West-Park Presbyterian Church of New York

            City d/b/a West Park Presbyterian Church, for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3212 on its

            first and second causes of action, for a declaratory judgment and ejectment, and to dismiss,

            pursuant to CPLR 3211 ( a) and (b ), the affirmative defenses and counterclaims of the defendant,

            The Center at West Park, Inc. d/b/a The Center at West Park's, is granted; and it is further

                   ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECLARED that the lease dated April 6, 2018, entered

            into between the plaintiff, West-Park Presbyterian Church of New York City d/b/a West Park

            Presbyterian Church, and the defendant, The Center at West Park, Inc. d/b/a The Center at West

            Park, is void as violative of New York Religious Corporations Law § 12; and it is further

                   ADJUDGED that the plaintiff, West-Park Presbyterian Church of New York City d/b/a

            West Park Presbyterian Church, is entitled to possession of 165 West 86th Street, New York, NY

            10024, as against the defendant, The Center at West Park, Inc. d/b/a The Center at West Park,

            and the Sheriff of the City of New York, County of New York, and/or the New York City

            Marshal, upon receipt of a certified copy of this Order and Judgment and payment of proper fees,

            is directed to place plaintiff in possession accordingly; and it is further

             652924/2022 WEST-PARK PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF NEW YORK CITY D/B/A WEST PARK          Page 17 of 18
             PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH vs. THE CENTER AT WEST PARK, INC. D/B/A THE CENTER AT
             WEST PARK ET AL
             Motion No. 001

                                                          17 of 18
[* 17]
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 652924/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 127                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/20/2024

                     ADJUDGED that immediately upon entry of this Order and Judgment, plaintiffWest-

            Park Presbyterian Church ofNew York City d/b/a West Park Presbyterian Church, may exercise

            all acts of ownership and possession of 165 West 86th Street, New York, NY 10024, including

            entry thereto, as against the defendant, The Center at West Park, Inc. d/b/a The Center at West

            Park, and it is further

                    ORDERED that the counterclaims and affirmative defenses of the defendant, The Center

            at West Park, Inc. d/b/a The Center at West Park, are dismissed; and it is further

                    ORDERED that the cross-motion of the defendant, The Center at West Park, Inc. d/b/a

            The Center at West Park, to compel discovery and for leave to amend the answer is denied; and

            it is further

                    ORDERED that the Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly.

                    This constitutes the Decision, Order, and Judgment of the court.

                     2/20/2024
                       DATE                                                    NANCY M. BANNON, J.S.C.
             CHECK ONE:               0   CASE DISPOSED              □ NON-FINAL DISPOSITION
                                      0   GRANTED         □ DENIED □ GRANTED IN PART             □ OTHER

             652924/2022 WEST-PARK PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF NEW YORK CITY D/B/A WEST PARK          Page 18 of 18
             PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH vs. THE CENTER AT WEST PARK, INC. D/B/A THE CENTER AT
             WEST PARK ET AL
             Motion No. 001

                                                          18 of 18
[* 18]