Court Opinion

ID: 9916469
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-10 01:07:21.612901+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:25:29.305740
License: Public Domain

Hersko v Hersko
               2024 NY Slip Op 30034(U)
                     January 4, 2024
             Supreme Court, Kings County
        Docket Number: Index No. 510092/2021
                 Judge: Robin K. Sheares
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 01/05/2024 10 :48 AM]                                                              INDEX NO. 510092/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 73                                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/05   024

           SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
           COUNTY OF KINGS
           ------------------------------------------------------------------------X          Index No.510092/2021
           Barry Hersko,
                                                         Plaintiff(s),                        DECISION/ORDER
                   - against -
                                                                                            Motion Sequence No. 02
           Denissi Hersko, et al.,
                                                         Defendant(s).
           --------------------------------------------------------------------------X
              Recitation, as required by CPLR §2219(a), of the papers considered in the review of this Motion:

                                                                                  i"iYSCEF Documt:nl :-.:o:

                                      Sequence II 02
                                      Order to Show Cause/Notice or Motion and
                                       Affidavits/Affirmations Annexed            ll-35: 42
                                            Exhibits                              36-41
                                      Opposition                                  46-47
                                            Exhibits                              48
                                      Sripulalion Cancelling the Notice
                                      of Pendency                                 50- 51
                                      Reply                                       54

                 Defendants' move pursuant to CPLR §3211 (a)(l), (5) and (f) to dismiss the Amended complaint

        dated November 28. 2021; pursuant to CPLR §650 I and §6514 (b) & (c ), and to cancel and discharge of

        record the Notices of Pendency encumbering the following properties:

                     [i] 1322 59th Street, [1322 59th Street], Brooklyn, NY - Block 5712 Lot 9;

                     [ii] 1639 59th Street [1639 59th Street], Brooklyn, NY              Block 5503 Lot 71; 1

                     [iii] 1368 58 th Street [1368 58 th Street], Brooklyn, NY - Block 5705, Lot 63; and

                     {Lv] 5023 15th Avenue, Unit 4 [5023 15 th Avenue] Brooklyn, NY - Block 5458, Lot 1108;

                 Defendants also seek attorneys' fees. Plaintiffs oppose.

                 Defendants' main assertions are that this matter should be dismissed, pursuant to CPLR

         §3211 (a)(5), as Defendants did not engage in fraud and that the statute of limitations for fraud has

        expired. In its opposition, Plaintiffs raise the question of when a justiceable controversy arose in this

            By stipulation dated April 20, 2022, the plaintiffs and all appearing defendants agreed to vacate, cancel,
            discharge the Notice of Pendency on 1639 59th Street and 5023 15 th Avenue.

                                                                         1

[* 1]                                                              1 of
  !FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/05/2024 10: 48 AM)                                                   INDEX NO. 510092/2021 ·~
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 73                                                                         RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/05/2024

         matter.     Only until the question of when a justiceable controversy arose is determined, can a

         determination as the statute of limitations and the statute of frauds be made.          Therefore, as to the

         allegations of fraud and statute of limitations, the Court finds that Plaintiffs' opposition raises a question

         of fact which cannot be determined on a motion to dismiss.

                   Furthem1ore, Defendants assert that this matter should be dismissed, pursuant to CPLR

         §321 l(a)(l}, as the "'defense is founded upon documentary evidence.". A motion made pursuant to

         CPLR §3211 (a)(l) must by documentary evidence "utterly refute" the plaintiffs' a1legations and

         established a defense as a matter of law. Goshen v Mut. Life Ins. Co., 98 NY2d 314 [2002]. In this case

         involving family affairs, documentary evidence simp1y cannot determine whether a cause of action exist

         in the amended complaint when it is the evidence itself that has brought about the cause of action.

         Therefore, the Court will not dismiss this action pursuant to CPLR §321 l(a)(l).

                   In reviewing the Amended Complaint, the general rule in New York State is that pleadings shall

         be liberally construed. Defects shall be ignored if a substantial right of a party is not prejudiced CPLR

         §3206. A motion pursuant to CPLR §3211 (a)(7) for failure to state a cause of action, like that of CPLR

         §3211 (a)(l) is generally not granted due to the rule of liberal construction of the pleadings. People v

         Coventry First LLC, 13 NY3d I 08 [2009] (Breach of Fiduciary Duty), Simkin v. Blank, 19 NY3d 46

         [2012].

                   In regards to the individual causes of action, the Court makes the following determinations:

                                                    First Cause of Action
                           Declaratory Judgment against Denissi Hersko - HFR Membership
                   The First cause of Action is NOT stricken. The Court finds that whether Denissi Hersko holds a
         bona fide membership interest in HFR and/or whether that membership interest should be void is
         sufficiently pleaded.

                                                               2

[* 2]                                                      2 of 5
   !FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK O1/ 0 5 /2 02 4 10: 4 8 AM)                                            INDEX NO. 510092/2021
   NYSCEF DOC. NO. 73
                                                                                             RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/05/2024

                                                  Second Cause of Action
                              Declaratory Judgement against Denissi Hersk- Forged Deed
                 The Second Cause of Action is NOT stricken. The Court finds that it is a question of fact as to
         whether Defendant Denissi forged the deed. Furthermore. the time in which a party may commence an
         action for fraud ··shall be the greater of six years from the date the cause of action accrued or two years
         from the time the plaintiff or the person under whom the plaintiff claims discovered the fraud, or could
         with reasonable diligence have discovered it." CPLR§2 l 3(8). The Court finds that it is a question of
         fact as to \\'hen Plaintiff discovered the alleged fraud; when Defendant Denissi repudiated on her promise
         or prior to that time.

                                                  Third Cause of Action
                      RPAPL Article 15 to Cancel Deed as to 1322 59 th Street - Against Denissi
                 The Third Cause of Action is NOT stricken.         The Court finds that whether the deed was
         fraudulent, whether the transfer of said deed unauthorized, and whether Defendant Denissi gained title
         to the premises located at 1322 59th Street fraudulently is a question of fact. Again, the Court notes that
         the determination of when the applicable statute of limitations is a question of fact.

                                                     Fourth Cause of Action
                                  Constructive Trust as to 1322 59 th Street     Against Denissi
                 The fourth cause of Action is NOT stricken. The Court finds that there is a question of fact as to
         whether a constructive trust exists.

                                                      Fifth Cause of Action
                                   Unjust Enrichment against Denissi as to 1322 59th Street
                 The Fifth Cause of Action is NOT stricken. The Court finds that there is a question of fact as to
         whether or not Defendant Denissi was unjustly enriched.

                                                      Sixth Cause of Action
                           Breach of Contract against Denissi, Malky, and Yidi re: 1322 59th Street
                 The Sixth Cause of Action is NOT stricken. The Court finds that there is a question of fact as to
         whether there was a contract and whether there was a breach of said contract.

                                                              3

[* 3]                                                     3 of 5
  [FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/05/2024 10:48 AM]                                                  INDEX NO. 510092/2021.
   NYSCEF DOC. NO. 73
                                                                                           RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/05/2024

                                                      Seventh Cause of Action
                                  Breach of Fiduciary Dut)· against Denissi re: 1322 59•h Street
                 The Seventh Cause of Action is NOT stricken. The Court finds that there is a question of fact as
         to whether there was a fiduciary duty and whether there was a breach of that duty.

                                                      Eighth Cause of Action
                       RP APL Article 15 to Cancel Deed against Denissi and toby re: 1368 58 th Street
                 The Eighth cause of Action is NOT stricken.        The Court finds that whether the deed was
         fraudulent, whether the transfer of said deed was unauthorized, and whether Defendants Denissi and
         Toby gained title to the premises located at I 368 58 1h Street fraudulently is a question of fact. Again,
         the Court notes that the determination of when the applicable statute of limitations began to run is a
         question of fact.

                                                Ninth Cause of Action
                          Constructive Trust against Denssi and Toby re: 1368 58 th Street
                 The Ninth Cause of Action is NOT stricken. The Court finds that there is a question of fact as to
         whether a constructive trust exists.

                                                 Tenth Cause of Action
                             Breach of Fiduciary Duty against of Denissi re: 1368 58 th Street
                 The Tenth Cause of Action is NOT stricken. The Court finds that there is a question of fact as
         to whether there was a fiduciary duty and as to whether Defendant Denissi breached that duty.

                                                EleYenth Cause of Action
                             Unjust Enrichment against Denissi and Toby re: 1638 58 1h Street
                 The Eleventh Cause of Action is NOT stricken. The Court finds that there is a question of fact
         as to whether Defendants Denissi and Toby were unjustly enriched.

                                               Twelfth Cause of Action
                                Breach of Contract against Lefkowitz re: the Condo
                 The Twelfth Cause of Action is NOT stricken. The Court finds that there is a question of fact as
         to whether there was a breach of contract.

                                                             4

                                                          4 of 5
[* 4]
  [FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/05/2024 10:48 AM]                                                  INDEX NO. 510092/2021
   NYSCEF DOC. NO. 73
                                                                                           RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/05/2024

                                            Thirteenth Cause of Action
                                 Breach of Contract against Rivky re: the Condo
                The Thirteenth Cause of Action is NOT stricken. The Court finds that there is a question of fact
         as to whether there was a contract and whether there was a breach of said contract.

                                            Fourteenth Cause of Action
                                Declaratory Judgement against MEHE and Denissi
                The fourteenth Cause of Action is NOT stricken. The Court finds that there is a question of fact
         regarding MEHE relevancy to this matter and concerning MEHE membership.

                Furthermore, based on the papers submitted. and after oral arguments. Defendant's contention

         that plaintiffs have not commence or prosecuted this action in good faith pursuant to CPLR §65 l 4(b)

         absolutely cannot be determined at this time. The Court finds that it is a question of fact as to whether

         or not Plaintiff commenced or prosecuted this action in good faith. Therefore, the court will not direct

         the clerk to cancel the notices of pendency on the properties 1322 59th Street and 1368 58 th Street.

                Since the court is not cancelling the notices of pendency, costs and expense pursuant to CPLR

         §6514(c) are denied at this time.

                Therefore, based on the above, Defendants· motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint is

         DENIED. The Court finds that all fourteen (14) of Plaintiffs' causes of action are sufficiently pleaded,

         the Notices of Pendency ARE NOT vacated. and the application for attorney fees and costs is DENIED.

                This constitutes the Decision/Order of the Court.
                                               ·"'-.,_
         Dated: January 4, 2024                                       ENTER:

         For clerks use only
         MG
         MD✓
         Motion Seq. # 02

                                                             5

[* 5]                                                    5 of 5