Gerald Gardner Wright, P.C. & Assocs. v Champion Prop. Mgt., LLC
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Gerald Gardner Wright, P.C. & Assocs. v Champion Prop. Mgt., LLC 2012 NY Slip Op 30449(U) February 6, 2012 Sup Ct, Nassau County Docket Number: 4354-08 Judge: Timothy S. Driscoll Republished from New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service. Search E-Courts (http://www.nycourts.gov/ecourts) for any additional information on this case. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [* 1] SUPREME COURT- STATE OF NEW YORK SHORT FORM ORDER Present: HON. TIMOTHY S. DRISCOLL Justice Supreme Court ------------------------------------------------------------------- x GERALD GARDNER WRIGHT, P. C. & TRIAL/IAS PART: 16 ASSOCIATES, NASSAU COUNTY Plaintiff, Index No: 4354- Motion Seq. Nos. 8 and 9 -against- Submission Date: 12/8/11 CHAMPION PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, LLC and 2701 ASSOCIATES LLC, Defendants. ---------------- x The following papers having been read on these motions: Notice of Motion, Affirmation in Support and Exhibits................................... Memorandum of Law in Support............................................................................ Affidavit in Opposition and Exhibits...................................................................... Correspondence dated October 17, October 18, November 16 and November 17, 2011.................................................................... Affirmation i Opposition and Exhibit................................................................... Notice of Cross Motion, Affirmation in Support and Exhibits........................ Reply Affirmation in Opposition/Support and Exhibits................................... Reply Memorandum of Law in Further Support/Opposition......................... This matter is before the Cour for decision on 1) the motion to reargue by Defendants Champion Property Management , LLC (" Champion ) and 2701 Associates LLC (" 2701 Associates ) filed on September 29 , 2011 , and 2) the motion to amend by Plaintiff Gerald Gardner Wright , P. C. & Associates (" Plaintiff' ) fied on November 18, 2011 , both of which were submitted on December 8 2011 , following oral argument before the Court. For the reasons set forth below , the Court 1) grants reargument and , upon that reargument , modifies the Prior Decision to the extent that the Court directs that Plaintiff may not proceed on a fraud claim; and [* 2] 2) grants Plaintiffs motion to amend but , in light of the Court' s conclusion that Plaintiffs fraud claim is not viable , wil permit Plaintiff to fie a Second Amended Complaint consistent with this decision. The Cour directs Plaintiff to fie and serve its Second Amended Complaint within thirt (30) days of the date of this decision and directs Defendants to serve their answer within thirt (30) days of service of the Second Amended Complaint on them. The Cour directs counsel for the paries to appear before the Court for a conference on April 19 , 2012 at 9:30 a. Counsel shall not be required to appear before the Court for a conference March 1, 2012 as previously scheduled. BACKGROUND A. Relief Sought Defendants move for an Order , pursuant to CPLR 2221(d), granting reargument of the prior decision of the Cour dated August 19 , 201l (" Prior Decision ) and , upon reargument granting Defendants ' prior motion (" Prior Motion ) in its entirety and dismissing the Amended Complaint. Plaintiff opposes Defendants ' motion and cross moves for an Order , 1) pursuant to CPLR 3025(a) and (b)(1), declaring that Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint dated September 30 , 2011 was properly served , pursuant to CPLR 3025(a); or , in the alternative 2) granting Plaintiff leave to serve and fie the Second Amended Complaint nunc pro tunc and deeming same served upon the Defendants effective September 30 , 2011; and 3) granting Plaintiff a default judgment against the Defendants based on their failure to timely answer or otherwise appear in regard to the Second Amended Complaint , and setting this matter down for an immediate inquest of damages. Defendants oppose Plaintiff's cross motion. B. The Paries ' The paries ' History lengthy history, as well as the parties ' positions and applicable law regarding the Prior Motion , is set forth in detail in the Prior Decision and the Court incorporates the Prior Decision herein by reference as if set forth herein. Following the issuance of the Prior Decision and prior to the oral argument regarding this matter , counsel for the paries provided the Court with numerous letters outlining their positions regarding inter alia l) the propriety of Defendants ' rejection of Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint dated September 30 2011 2) the timeliness , and timing, of the motion papers regarding the motions now before the Cour for consideration , and 3) Defendants ' application for costs based on Plaintiffs allegedly [* 3] improper conduct. This correspondence is symbolic , and symptomatic , of the progression of this matter. As noted in the Prior Decision , the Amended Complaint alleges that 2701 Associates is fully liable for all causes of action asserted against Champion, as successors in interest of 50 Clinton Street Associates Management Co. The action arises out of Defendants ' alleged 1) violation of a cour order , 2) misrepresentation concerning the amount of space leased pursuant to a lease agreement , and 3) violation of the terms of a lease. The allegations in the Amended Complaint are substantially similar to those in the Original Complaint. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that there have been violations of his lease agreement for the Premises regarding, inter alia, parking spaces , repairs and maintenance of the Premises. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendants have failed to comply with the Stipulation that was so-ordered by the Cour (Austin , 1.) in a prior related action. The Complaint contains four (4) causes of action: 1) fraud , 2) breach of contract regarding the Second Lease Amendment , 3) breach of contract regarding the Stipulation , and 4) actual partial eviction. In the Prior Decision , the Court denied Defendants ' Prior Motion based on the Cour' conclusion that , pursuant to the doctrine of judicial estoppel , Defendants are foreclosed from seeking dismissal of the Amended Complaint on the grounds that Champion was never the owner of the Propert. The Court reached that conclusion in light of Champion s prosecution of a related Non- Payment Proceeding in a nianer that suggested that they were agents or representatives of the owner of the Property, and Defendants ' lengthy participation in the instant action in a maner designed to communicate , and which in fact communicated , that Champion was acting on behalf of the owner ofthe Propert. C. The Parties ' Positions Defendants submit that the Court misapplied the doctrine of judicial estoppel in light of the fact that there is no prior action in which Defendants took a contrary position that resulted in a final and binding judgment. Defendants contend that , as no judgment was obtained in the NonPayment Proceeding and no proceedings every took place in that action , the doctrine of judicial estoppel is inapplicable. Defendants argue, furher , that assuming arguendo parties in this action , Plaintiffs claims are nonetheless that Defendants must remain as not viable. Specifically, Defendants submit that l) Plaintiff s execution of the Estoppel Certificate in 2004 , subsequent to its execution of the Second Amended Lease and commencement of the Prior Owner Action [* 4] constitutes a waiver of any claim that existed when the estoppel certificate was signed; 2) Plaintiff s claims are barred by the doctrine of res judicata in light of Plaintiff s execution of the Settlement Agreement in connection with the Prior Owner Action , contemporaneously with the execution of the Estoppel Certificate; 3) Plaintiff has failed to plead facts establishing successor liability of either Defendant; and 4) the Amended Complaint fails to allege the elements of fraud. Plaintiff opposes Defendants ' motion for reargument submitting inter alia that l) the Cour properly applied the doctrine of judicial estoppel even though Defendants did not obtain a final judgment in the prior proceeding; 2) the Estoppel Certificate does not preclude the instant action in light of the fact that a) the Estoppel Certificate confirms only that there was no dispute regarding issues including the amount of rent then being paid under the lease; the Estoppel Certificate does not state that there were no ongoing issues or disputes with the landlord pertaining to either the amount of rentable space and/or the rent properly payable under the Second Lease Amendment; and b) Defendants effectively conceded that the Estoppel Certificate does not preclude the instant action when they requested a second Estoppel Certificate from Plaintiff in early 2006; 3) the instant action is not bared by the doctrine of res judicata in light the fact that the prior related action was not fully litigated and did not result in a final judgment being entered against any party but , instead , was resolved pursuant to the Februar 6 2004 Stipulation of Settlement; 4) the Court should reject Defendants ' successor liability arguments which are moot in light of Plaintiff s service of, and instant cross motion to approve and retain its Second Amended Complaint dated September 30 , 2011 which pleads successor liabilty in greater detail than the Amended Complaint; and 5) the cause of action for fraud is viable and the cases cited by Plaintiff are distinguishable. Plaintiff also argues that the Court should permit Plaintiff to file the Second Amended Complaint in light of the liberal amendment policy and the absence of prejudice to Defendants. Defenda.l1ts oppose Plaintiff s motion submitting that the claims in the proposed Second Amended Complaint are also precluded by the doctrines of estoppel and res judicata, contain insufficient allegations of successor liability and do not set forth a viable fraud claim. RULING OF THE COURT A. Reargument Standards It is well settled that a motion for reargument is addressed to the sound discretion of the Court , and may be granted upon a showing that the Court overlooked or misapprehended the relevant facts or misapplied any controlling principle oflaw. McGil v. Goldman 261 A.D. [* 5] 593 , 594 (2d Dept. 1999). It is not designed , however , to provide an unsuccessful pary with successive opportunities to reargue issues previously decided or to present arguments different Id. ; Pahl Equip. Corp. from those originally presented. v. Accord Matter of Carter 916 N. (lst Dept. 1992). Kassis l82 AD.2d 22 , 27 2d 821 (2d Dept. 20ll). B. Leave to Amend Leave to amend is to be freely given , absent prejudice or surprise directly resulting from the delay in seeking leave , unless the proposed amendment is palpably insuffcient Aurora Loan Services, LLC devoid of merit. Lucido citing CLR g 3025(b); v. v. or patently Thomas 70 AD. 3d 986 987 (2d Dept. 2010), Mancuso 49 A. D.3d 220 , 222 (2d Dept. 2008). Application of these Principles to the Instant Action C. The Court grants reargument and , upon that reargument , concludes that the Court should not have applied the principle of judicial estoppel in determining that Defendants were foreclosed from seeking dismissal of the Amended Complaint on the grounds that Champion was never the owner of the Propert. Recent cases support th conclusion that judicial estoppel only applies when a par has obtained a judgment in its favor in the prior proceeding. In Ferreira Wyckoff Heights Medical Center v. 8l AD. 3d 587 (2d Dept. 201l), the Second Deparment reaffrmed the principle that the doctrine of judicial estoppel wil be applied when a par has secured a judgment in his or her favor by adopting the prior position, and then has sought to assume a contrar in Wenger v. position simply because his interests have changed. Id at 588. And DMR Realty Management, Inc. 934 N. Y.S.2d 221 (2d Dept. 2011), the Second Deparment held that the doctrine of judicial estoppel did not apply because the prior action at issue settled before the trial court considered the position taken by the plaintiff in that prior action. Id Wenger the doctrine does not preclude Defendants at 222. Under the reasoning of from arguing here and now that they are not a proper part in the instant action , as the Prior Owner Action was resolved by stipulation prior to consideration of any arguments made to the court in that action that may conflict with any positions taken in the instant action. The Court is also persuaded that Plaintiffs fraud claim is not viable. In Eberz, P. Deniea, Packman v. Meiselman, Il- 44 Associates, L.L.C 12 AD. 3d l58 (1 st Dept. 2004), which Defendants cited during oral argument on this matter , the First Deparment addressed plaintiff lessee s claims that defendant lessors had misrepresented the area of the commercial premises at issue. Id at 159. The First Deparment held that plaintiff's claim of misrepresentation , and " dependent causes " alleging fraud and negligent misrepresentation and seeking reformation of the lease , were untenable paricularly since (plaintiff) had every [* 6] opportunity to ascertain the actual dimensions of the leased space. sub judice Id. Given that the matter involves the same issue , the Court is persuaded that Plaintiff s fraud claim is not viable because Plaintiff had the opportunity to ascertain the dimensions of the Premises. Thus , the Cour modifies the Prior Decision to the extent that the Court directs that Plaintiff may not proceed on a fraud claim. The Court also concludes , however , that Plaintiff should be permitted to fie its Second Amended Complaint which fuher details the basis for its theory of successor liabilty on the par of Defendants. While the Prior Owner Action does not preclude Defendants ' arguments of lack of ownership on judicial estoppel grounds , the fact that more than one party has appeared in the role of owner or manager of the Premises has made this action !lore complicated , and militates in favor of granting of Plaintiff s application to amend. Accordingly, the Court wil permit Plaintiff to file a Second Amended Complaint consistent with this decision , and directs Plaintiff to fie and serve its Second Amended Complaint within thirt (30) days of the date of this decision , and directs Defendants to serve their answer within thirt (30) days of service of the Second Amended Complaint on them. Plaintiffs application for a default judgment is denied. Defendants ' application for costs is denied. All matters not decided herein are hereby denied. This constitutes the decision and order of the Cour. The Cour directs counsel for the paries to appear before the Cour for a conference April 19 20l2 at 9:30 a. m. Counsel shall not be required to appear before the Court for a conference on March 1 , 2012 as previously scheduled. ENTER DATED: Mineola , NY Februar 6 , 2012 lS. ENTERED FEB 1 6 2012 NASSAU COUNTY COUNTY CLERK' S OFFICE
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.
