Court Opinion

ID: 9959907
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-12 20:11:54.628382+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:59.398809
License: Public Domain

David v Arbie Processing, LLC
               2024 NY Slip Op 31214(U)
                      April 8, 2024
             Supreme Court, Kings County
        Docket Number: Index No. 517803/2023
                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 04/09/2024 02:21 PM                                               INDEX NO. 517803/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 85                                                                    RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/09/2024

          SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
          COUNTY.OF KINGS.: CIVIL TERM: COMMERCIAL PART 8
          --   ------ --        -- --------- ----. ---- ----x
          SNIR DAVID;
                                                     Plaintiff;                 Decision and order

                            - against -                                    Index No. 517803/20 23

          ARBIE .PROCESSING, LLC, RON BOROVINSKY
          and ELIZABETH BOROVINSK,
                                         Defendant s,                                   April 8, 2024
          --------- --------- - - - ------- ~-----x
          PRESENT: HON. LEON RUCHELSMAN'                                       Motion Seq. #3       &   #4

                The defendant s have moved pursuant to CPLR §2221 seeking to

           reargue a decision and order dated February 13,                          2024 seeking a

           determina tion the UCC statement s filed by the defendant s cancelled

           the UCC statement s filed by the plaintiff .                   The plaintiff has also

           moved seeking reagument whether the plaintiff may file a notice of

           pendency on propertie s             owned by Arbie.           The motions        have been

           opposed respectiv ely.              Papers have been submitted by the parties

           and arguments held. -After :reviewing all the arguments this court

           now makes the fo1Lowing determina tion.

               In this consolida ted action the plaintiff ha:s sued seeking to

           enforce repayment of a loan made to defendant Arbie Processing LLC

           in 2018.     The plaintiff filed 12 UCC-1 on various propertie s.                            The

           defendant        seeks   an   order    cancelling       those       UCC-ls    filed..        The

           plaintiff did not really oppose that motion.                           Thus,     the 1T1.otion

           seeking     reargum:en t      is    granted     and    upon   reargtimen t      the     motion

           seeking     to    cancel      the    UCC-ls    filed    on    the    variou,s    propertie s

           connected to this lawsuit is granted.

                 Turning to the cross-mot ion, while the court held that notices

                                                         1 of 4
[* 1]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/09/2024 02:21 PM                                                     INDEX NO. 517803/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 85                                                                        RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/09/2024

          of pendency filed on propertie s owned by defendant Arbie is proper,

          the plaintiff seeks clarificat ion whether notices of pendency may

          be filed upon further propertie s.                          Specifica lly,        the plaintiff

          seeks     to     file       notice.s       of    pendency    upon    approxima tely. sixteen

          propertie s, admittedl y, none of which are owned by the defendant s.

                  It     is     well    settled           that   a   notice    of    pendency       provides

          construct ive notice of an action where the judgement may affect the

          title to real property (Sharestat es Investmen ts, LLC v. Hercules,

           178 AD3d 1112, 116 NYS3d 299 [2d Dept., 2019]).                           The purpose of the

           gr ant of the privilege was to prevent 'the ac;quisi t ion pendent e

           lite of an interest in the subject-m atter of the suit,                                       to the

           prejudice of the plaintiff ..• " {see, Israelson v. Bradley, 308 NY

           511, 127 NE2d 313 [1955l).                     Thus, the notice of pendency represents

           a   policy      whereby       "a      suitor's        action     shall   not     be    impeded, or

           defeated by an alienation of the subject property during the course

           of the lawsuit"              (Cayuga Indian Nation of New York v.                        Fox,    544

           F.Supp 542 [N;O.N.Y. 19821).
                                  .              .

                  Eve·n i f these propertie s are connected to the defendant Arbie
           Processing LLC, the plaintiff has not presented any evidence that

           notices of penciency are necessary to restrain so many propertie s.

           Thus, there is simply no basis to restrain so many propertie s to

           secure      a      1o·an   that    is      far less       than    the    value    of    all     these

           propertie s.          The c::ontinued and repeated attempts to file notices of

           pendency that far exceed the loan and that may not be owned by the

                                                             2 of 4
[* 2]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/09/2024 02:21 PM                                          INDEX NO. 517803/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 85                                                            RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/09/2024

          defendant in this case is improper.                There-fore ; the motion seeking

          to restrain any of the propertie s listed in the plaintiff 's motion

          is denied.       The plaintiff has restrained propertie s owned by the

          defendant and the court . has         upheld those notices,               No    further

          property may be restrained in this case..                   Indeed,   the plaintiff

          must obtain prior court permission before filing any restraints on

           any property connected to the defendant s in this case.

                 Turning to the motion seeking reargumert t prohibitin g pre-

           judgement      attachmen t   and    the        dismissal     o.f   the    individua l

           defendant s,    a motion to reargue must be based upon the fact the

           court overlooke d or misappreh ended fact or law or for some other

           reaSon mistakenl y arrived at in its earlier decision (Deutsche Bank

           National Trust Co. , v. Russo, 1 70 AD3d 9 52, 9 6 NYS3d 61 7 [2d Dept. ,

           2019]).

                 First;    the   plaintiff    has     offered no       evidence     at    all   the

           defendant s used the corporate entity in improper ways wherEoby the

           individua ls should not be protected thereby.                 There is absolutely

           no evidence presented theplai.n ti.ff has met the burden of piercing

           the corporate veil.

                 Second, c:::oncernin g pre-judgem ent attachmen t, the plaintiff has

           not presented any conclusio n reached by the court that was                           ih

           error.      Rather, the plaintiff simply seeks to argue,                 once again;.

           that attachmen t is proper.         The court rejected that argument and

           there is no basis to revisit the conclusio ns reached.

                                                      3

                                                    3 of 4
[* 3]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/09/2024 02:21 PM                                       INDEX NO. 517803/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 85                                                         RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/09/2024

                 As, not.12:(l, the.- p,laintiff ·has expended .r.nuch li tigci.tion on H;sue:s

           of atta.chme,nt., restraints On property in various ways and the li,ke.

           As   ncited,   ho   further   restraints       can   be   placed <on any     further

           properties ·without court approval.              The part.ies rna.y   not   further

           proceed with the progression df this case.

                       So· ordered.

                                           ENTER:

           DATED: April 8, 2024
                  Broo-k.lyn N. Y.               Hon.
                                                 JSC

                                                      4

                                                  4 of 4
[* 4]