Court Opinion

ID: 9916563
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-10 01:10:34.206991+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:25:34.781943
License: Public Domain

Guzman v Park Levy LLC
               2020 NY Slip Op 35566(U)
                      July 30, 2020
             Supreme Court, Bronx County
         Docket Number: Index No. 34626/2019
                 Judge: Laura G. Douglas
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: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 08/11/2020 10:18 AM                                                                                               INDEX NO. 34626/2019E
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 127                                                                                                              RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/11/2020

         SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK                                                                             Index No. 34626/2019
         COUNTY OF BRONX
         PART6

         OSCAR GUZMAN,

                                                                  Plaintiff,                                                DECISION/ORDER

                                           -against-                                                                        Present:
                                                                                                                            Hon. Laura G. Douglas
         PARK LEVY LLC, THE APPLE LAUNDROMAT CORP.,                                                                         J.S.C.
         IGLESIA PE TECO ST AL REHOBOTH, ULTIMATE
         CONSTRUCTION NY, INC., WEST LEVY, LLC JAVIER PONTE,
         JAVED GONDAL, Individually and doing business as
         ULTIMATE CONSTRUCTION, and ULTIMATE CONSTRUCTION,
         Individually,

                                                                  Defendants.

                Recitation, as required by Rule 2219(a) of the C.P.L.R. of the papers considered in the review of these
         motions and cross-motions (Seq. No. I and Seq. No. 2) to dismiss or for summary judgment:

                                           Papers                                                                                                 Numbered

         Notice of Motion by Defendant Park Levy LLC, Affirmation of Eric R.
         Horvitz, Esq. dated December 26, 2019 in Support of Motion, and
         Exhibits (" A" through "M")................... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .... . . . . . . .... . . . . .........   1

         Memorandum of Law by Eric R. Horvitz, Esq. dated December 26, 2019.............                                                          2

         Notice of Cross-Motion by Defendant Iglesia Pentecostal Rehoboth,
         Affirmation of James M. Brown, Esq. dated December 30, 2019, and
         Exhibits ("A" through "P").....................................................................                                          3

         Affirmation of Barry Liebman, Esq. dated February 26, 2020 in Opposition
         to Motion and Exhibits (" ).. .. . .. . .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . . .. . .. .. .. . .. .. . .. .. .. . .. ..      4

         Reply Affirmation of Lawrence S. Wasserman, Esq. dated June 15, 2020 and
         Exhibit ("A").......................................................................................                                     5

         Reply Affirmation of James M. Brown, Esq. dated March 26, 2020................. ...                                                      6

         Notice of Motion by Defendant West Levy, LLC, Affirmation of Zena
         Goldszer, Esq. dated January 2, 2020 in Support of Motion, and

                                                                                  2 of 5
[* 1]
  FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 08/11/2020 10:18 AM                                                                                                                 INDEX NO. 34626/2019E
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 127                                                                                                                           RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/11/2020

         Exhibits ("A" through "E")..... .... .. . ...... ......... ... ... .. . ... ...... ... .. . .... .. ... . . .... ...                                     7
         Notice of Cross-Motion by Defendant Javier Ponte and Verified Answer
         dated January 9, 2020..................... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . .     8

         Affirmation of Barry Liebman, Esq. dated February 26, 2020 in Opposition
         to Motions and Exhibits ("A" through)......................................................                                                              9

         Affirmation of Barry Liebman, Esq. dated February 28, 2020 in Opposition
         to Cross-Motions and Exhibits ("A" through).............................................                                                                 10

         Reply Affirmation of Zena Goldszer, Esq. dated March 12, 2020... .... .. ... . .. ... ....                                                               11

         Reply Affirmation of Joseph A. Altman, Esq. dated March 30, 2020 and
         Exhibits ("A")... . .................................................................................                                                    12

                     These motions and cross-motions are consolidated/or purposes of Decision/Order and, upon
         the fo regoing p apers and afier due deliberation, the Decision/ Order on these motions and cross-
         motions i as follows:

                     Defendants Park Levy LLC, Iglesia Pentecostal Rehoboth, West Levy LLC, and Javier Ponte
         (collectively, "defendants' ) move separately fo r the same reli ef - di smi ssal of the plai ntiffs complaint
         on the grounds that it is barred by the applicable statute of limitations. The motions and cross-motions
         are denied.
                     The facts perti nent to a resolution of these motions are undi sputed. T he pla intiff commenced an
         action in 201 5 in this Cou1t seeking monetruy damages fo r personal injuries purportedl y sustained on
         May 9, 20 14 following a s lip/trip and fa ll on broken glass and/or debris located at the rear entrance of
         the premi ses fo r which the vario us defendants allegedl y bore some responsibility. By Order dated June
         26 20 19, thi s Court granted the defendants' moti o ns to di smi ss witho ut opposition and di smi ssed the
         plaintiffs complaint in an Order that reads as foll ows:
                     "The motions to dismiss fi led by Park Levy LLC Iglesia Pentecostal Reho both, Javier Gonda!,
         U ltimate Construction, & West Levy LLC are granted without oppos iti on. Plaintiff's com plaint is
         dismissed.
                     Plaintiff' s request for an adjournment is denied. "
         As recited in the Order, the plaintiff did not submit papers opposing the dism issal motions. A copy of
         that Order w ith notice of entry was fil ed and served on June 28, 20 19.                                                       On December I 1, 20 19 the
         plaintiff commenced a new action for the same claims by fi ling a summons and complaint.

                                                                                          3 of 5
[* 2]
  FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 08/11/2020 10:18 AM                                                       INDEX NO. 34626/2019E
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 127                                                                         RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/11/2020
        •   I

                    The instant motions seeking dismissal on statute of limitations grounds are timely since they
            were brought prior to the expiration of the defendants' deadline to respond to the new complaint (see
            CPLR Rule 321 l(e)). The statutory deadline to commence this action was May 9 2017 (see CPLR §
            214(5)). Therefore, the de£ ndants have satisfied their initial burden of proving that the time in which
            to sue has expired (see Bereger v. Stolzenberg, 158 AD3d 738 [2 nd Dept 2018]). The plaintiff then bears
            the burden of raising a question of fact regarding the applicability of an exception, a tolling period, or a
            miscalculation of the statutory deadline. The plaintiff does not dispute that this action, on its face, was
            not filed in time, but contends that the toll ing provision of CPLR § 205(a) applies here and renders the
            action timely filed.
                    In pertinent part, CPLR § 205(a) does not extend its six-month tolling period for the
            commencement of a new action to cases where the previous action was terminated by way of dismissal
            of the complaint for neglect to prosecute the action. In this sense neglect to prosecute includes a failure
            to diligently complete disclosure (see Andrea v. Arnone, Hedin, Casker, Kennedy & Drake, Architects
            & Landscape Architects, 5 NY3d 514 [Ct App 2005]). However, the statute requires the judge issuing
            the ineligible dismissals to "set forth on the record the specific conduct constituting the neglect, which
            conduct shall demonstrate a general pattern of delay in proceeding with the litigation". The defendants
            do not argue that the newly filed action violated the extension period provided by the statute.
                    The plaintiff contends that this dismissal was not granted upon a review of the merits of the
            defendants motion seeking penalties for disclosure violations, since the dismissal order was granted
            without opposition. In addition the plaintiff argues that the dismissal did not set forth the specific
            conduct constituting neglect or a general pattern of delay by the plaintiff.
                    The defendants contend that the plaintiff cannot benefit from the tolling provision of CPLR §
            205 (a), since the underlying order granted dismissal upon motions seeking relief for violations of
            di sclosure obligations pursuant to CPLR 3126. It is undisputed that the plaintiff failed to submit to a
            deposition despite several court orders directing him to do so.
                    Here, the Court cannot conclude that the dismissal set forth specific conduct showing that the
            plaintiff was guilty of a pattern of delay in proceeding with the litigation (see Regis-Dumeus v. Great
            Lakes Kraut Company, LLC, 2020 WL 2630551 [WD              Y, May 26, 2020,     o. 19-CV-6352L Larimer,
            I.], Pecker Iron Works, LLC v. Beys Specialty, Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 32286[U] [Sup Ct             Y County
            2016], and Stora v. City of New York, 24 Misc3d 906 [Sup Ct NY Coun ty 2009]. For these reasons, the

                                                              4 of 5
[* 3]
  FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 08/11/2020 10:18 AM                                                        INDEX NO. 34626/2019E
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 127                                                                          RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/11/2020
        . \

              plaintiff can avail himself of the tolling provision set forth in CPLR § 205(a) and the motions and cross-
              motions are denied.
                     The foregoing constitutes the Decision/Order of this Court.

                 DATED:         July 2Q__, 2020
                                Bronx, New York                       HON.LAU~DOUGLAS
                                                                                      J.S.C.

                                                               5 of 5
[* 4]