East Houston Partners, LLC v Citi Lending Servs. Corp.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

East Houston Partners, LLC v Citi Lending Servs. Corp. 2009 NY Slip Op 33475(U) December 1, 2009 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 112343/09 Judge: Judith J. Gische 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. [* 1] SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK: PART 10 x Decision/Order Index No.: 112343/09 EAST HOUSTON PARTNERS, LLC, Seq. No. ; Plaintiff, ·against- 001 Present t/1-·/ Judith J. Gische (s.c. cir LENDING SERVICES CORP, Defendant. ·-----------·--X l>a 0 03 Ca ~A 10no fJ Recitation, as required by CPLR 2219 [a], of t~,PA~sidefed In the review of this (these) motlon(s); ~,_ Papers ~~Numbered P/tfs motion {consoHdate] w/SJC affirm, exhs , . • . • • . • • . • • . • . • • . . . • . • . • • . . • . . . 1 _________ ........._.._.. _..__.. ________ . Upon the foregolnfJ papers, the decision and order of the court is as follows: Plaintiff moves pursuant to CPLR § 602 an order consolidating this action (''Action 111) with a second action bearing Index number 113222/09 ("Action 211}. The caption in Action 2 is CIT Lending Seryices Com. v. East Houston ~artners, LLC eta/. None of the defendants in this action or any of the other parties in Action 2 have submitted any opposition to the motion, although proof of service has been provided.' In Action 1, plaintiff seeks to recover damages in connection with CIT Lending Seivlces Corp.'s (•CIT') alleged failure to timely and completely fund a $19.475,000 loan commitment (the nproject Loan") it made to plaintiff in connection with plaintiffs acquisition and renovation of the real property known as 41-45 East Houston Street, 1 A stipulation dated November 16, 2009 has been submitted wherein some of the parties to Action 1 and 2 have agreed to the relief sought in this motion. However, not all of the parties have sig ied the stipulation. Page 1 of 4 [* 2] New York, New York, Block 509, Lot 19. PliantHfs causes of aciton aglanst CIT include . breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, promissory estoppel and equHable estoppal. AcUon 2 is a foreclosure action commenced by CJT on the Project Loan against plaintiff and plaintiffs principals Kyle Ransford and Trevor Stahelski. The court has the discretion to order the consolidation of actions where common questions of law or fact exist CPLR 602 {a]; Bradford v. John A. Coleman Catholic High School. 110 AD2d 965 {3d Dept 1985}. It is unnecessary that all the facts and issues be the ~ame, but there must be "at least some Important rules of Jaw and fact in common to both actions. IQ at 966. Thus, while Action 1 and Action 2 do not need to 11 be identical in every respect. individual issues should not predominate. Bender v. Unde~ood. 93 AD2d 747 (1st Dept 1983). Where the actions arise from the same Incident. have substantially :the same facts and issues of law, and t~e same witnesses would testify at both trials if actions were tried separately, consolidation is appropriate. Burger v. Long lstand Rail Road Comgpny! 24 A02d 509 (2d 1965) {different damages, but same collision, same witnesses]. Here, Actions 1 and 2 lnvoJve the same parties, arise out of the same operative set of facts and will require legal analysis of the same causes of action. The motion has been submitted without opposition, and therefore, no one has demonstrated prejudice to a "substantial rlghf' resulting from the consolidation (see Maigur v. Saratogian. 47 AD2d 982 [3d Dept 1975]). Accordingly, the motion to consolfdate is granted and Action 1 and 2 are hereby consolidated. Page2of 4 [* 3] Conclusion In accordance herewith, it is hereby: ORDERED that the motion to consolidate is granted; and it fs further ORDERED that the actions entttled CIT Lending Services Corp. v. East Houston Partners LLC. at al., Index No. 113222/09 is hereby consolidated under East Houston Partners LLC v. CIT Lending Services Corp. et al.. with the following caption: SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF New YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK: PART 10 ----~·---·----·-···-X EAST HOUSTON PARTNERS, LLC, Index No.: 112343/09 Index No.: 113222109 Plaintiff, -againstCIT LENDING SERVICES CORP et al. Defendants. CIT LENDING SERVICES CORPORATION, Plaintiff, -againstEAST HOUSTON PARTNERS LLC, KYLE RANSFORD, TREVOR STAHELSKI, A&B CAULKING COMPANY, INC., BAYPORT CONSTRUCTION CORP., FSM ELECTRICAL CORPORATION, SARAMAC INTERNATIONAL INC.• STONE DIVERSIFIED SERVICES, PARK AVENUE BUILDING AND ROOFING SUPPLIES LLC, KISKA GROUP, LTD, ROTAVELLE ELEVATOR INC., UNITED RENTALS NORTH AMERICA, SOLCO PLUMBING SUPPLY, INC.,· MALOTA PLUMBrNG CONTRACTING CORP., THOMAS S. BROWN ASSOCIATES, INC., ERAPage 3 of 4 [* 4] USA CONTRACTING LLC, COLGATE SCAFFOLDING & EQUIPMENT CORP., A&E SURFACES CO., and JOHN DOE #1 THROUGH . JOHN DOE #10, - Defendants, -----------,---·x and it is further ORDERED fhat upon service on the Clerk of the Court of a copy of this Order with Notice of Entry, the Clerk shall consolidate the papers in the actions hereby consolidated, and shall mark this consolidation In the Court's files; and it is further ORDERED that a copy of this order with notice of entry shall also be served upon the Clerk of the Trial Support Office, who is hereby directed to mark the Court's records to reflect the consolidation; and it is further ORDERED that the pleadings in the actions hereby consolidated shall stand as the pfeadings in the consolidated action; and If is further ORDERED that a prellmlnary conference be held on January 14, 2010 at 9:30 a.m. Any requested relief not expressly addressed herein has nonetheless been considered by the court and is hereby expressly denied. · This shall constitute the decision and order of the Court. So Ordered: Dated: New York, New York December 1, 2009 /:11.,~ 11'EC . 0 Oa 2009 Co~cw "oRk ~~e4of4 CHE,J.S.C.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.