Shulamith School for Girls Inc. v Shulamith School for Girls of Brookl yn
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Shulamith School for Girls Inc. v Shulamith School for Girls of Brookl yn 2012 NY Slip Op 30590(U) February 22, 2012 Supreme Court, Nassau County Docket Number: 012294/11 Judge: James P. McCormack 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] SCA SHORT FORM ORDER SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NASSAU Present: HON. JAMES P. McCORMACK TRIAL/IAS PART 43 JUSTICE et aI SHULAMITH SCHOOL FOR GIRLS INC. Plaintiffs Index No. : 012294/11 Motion Sequence: No. Motion Submitted: 1/12/12 -against- SHULAMITH SCHOOL FOR GIRLS OF BROOKL YN Defendant. The following papers read on this motion: Notice of Motion/Corrected Notice of Motion.................. Affirmation in Opposition................................................. Reply Affirmation................................................ This motion by the defendant seeking an order to change the venue of the above referenced action from this court to the Supreme Court ofthe State of New York , County of Kings, is decided as provided herein. This is an action by the plaintiffs , Shulamith School for Girls , Inc. , a religious corporation , and Shulamith School for Girls , Inc., an education corporation , for trespass relating to the use ofthe Brooklyn propert by Shulamith School for Girls of Brooklyn , and [* 2] for a declaratory judgement declaring " that it may exercise its rights as owner of the propert to effectuate a sale of the propert" . The plaintiffs ' Summons designates Nassau County as the venue of the action upon the basis that it involves a dispute between paries that are resident in the State of New York , the plaintiffs principal place of business is Nassau County, and the defendant's tortious conduct is affecting and injuring the plaintiffs in this County. Defendants have moved for a change of venue arguing that the action is local in nature and that the judgement demanded would " effect title to , enjoyment of, or possession , use or real propert" , and pursuant to CPLR g 507, it can only be properly heard in the county where the subject propert is located. Shulamith School fo Girls , Inc. was formed in 1953 to own propert and operate a not- for-profit all- girls Jewish Religious Day School. In 2000 Shulamith opened a branch in Woodmere, Nassau County. By 2008 enrollment had declined at the Brooklyn location as a result of many of the familes from Brooklyn moving to Nassau County. During this period enrollment at the Woodmere location steadily grew. According to the plaintiffs Shulamith was no longer able to sustain its operations in Kings County and it began to move its operations to Nassau County where it maintains its base of operations and currently has enrollment of approximately 520 students. By agreement dated April 8 , 2008, Shulamith School for Girls , a religious corporation contracted to sell the Brooklyn propert located at for twenty milion dollars. Subsequently 1277 Est 14th Street, Brooklyn New York litigation was commenced by Brooklyn parents who [* 3] opposed both the move of the school to Nassau County and the sale of the propert v. where Shulamith School for Girls, Kings County their daughters were enrolled (Aaron Berger Index Number 016303/08). After two years of litigation a settlement agreement was negotiated and placed on the record over the course of two days before the Hon. Robert Miler, Supreme Court of the State of New York , County of Kings. Defendant provided this court with the thirt two page transcript detailng the settlement agreement. The settlement agreement specifically provided that Kings County would: maintain jurisdiction to enforce any terms of the agreement , to interpret any provisions that the paries dispute, to act as it specifically stated in connection with the closing and for any purpose of a part request . " (Minutes May 17, 2010 p. 14) and " That if upon presentation to the court of an affirmation by an attorney for Mr. Guttman (the contract vendee) that there has been a refusal to vacate , the Court wil exercise continued jurisdiction over the matter and issue an eviction order. (Minutes May 17, 2010 p. 14) Under the terms of the settlement agreement , two new entities were to be created, Shulamith School for Girls of Brooklyn and Shulamith School for Girls of Long Island. compliance with the settlement agreement , the Brooklyn court appointed a retired judge to supervise elections amongst the parent body of the religious corporation Shulamith School for Girls to approve the settlement agreement and to elect boards of directors for the Brooklyn and Long Island entities. It was agreed that the proceeds from the sale of the real propert would be allocated among the two educational corporations and those monies were to be used for the purchase and renovation or rental of new facilties for each school. The [* 4] defendant , Shulamith School for Girls of Brooklyn was permitted as a licensee to operate the school on the subject propert 2011. According through the 2010/2011 school year, which ended on June 23, to the plaintiff, defendant has not vacated the propert despite expiration of the license , they have no claim to occupy the propert and they have the not paid any money to the plaintiffs since they have remained in occupancy since June 24 , 2011. According to the Defendant , the Brooklyn entity was entitled to remain in possession ofthe Brooklyn propert until the closing, as it was understood that the Brooklyn entity would need fuds from the sale of the propert to acquire a new propert upon which to operate their school. The defendant has also questioned why the Long Island entity has brought this action as Shulamith School for Girls , Inc. , when it should in fact be callng itself Shulamith School for Girls of Long Island, pursuant to the stipulation entered in the Brooklyn matter. The closing ofthe contract to sell the propert never occurred and the contract vendee Mr. Guttman , has demanded the return of his $2. 5 millon dollar good faith deposit. The contract deposit was utilzed by plaintiffs to make a down payment on propert located in Nassau County, in order to build a permanent home for Shulamith in Nassau County. As a result of the failure to close the contract for the sale of the propert located at 1277 Est 14th Street , Brooklyn New York , the Long Island entity has been unable to close on the purchase of the Nassau propert and the owner of the proposed Nassau propert has instituted legal proceedings to keep the contract deposit that it received from plaintiffs. Plaintiffs allege the defendant' s acts oftrespass are deliberate and intentional and they [* 5] seek and injunction to prevent the defendant from entering the propert. They also seek actual compensatory damages , disgorgement of any sums received from occupants , the fair value of use and occupation of a premises similar to the propert, special damages and nominal damages. In addition , they seek damages to the propert caused by defendant and its occupants use and occupation of the propert since June 24 , 2011. Plaintiff claims defendant's conduct is a malicious derogation of their property rights and they believe defendant is liable for exemplary and punitive damages. Plaintiffs state that Shulamith, religious corporation , owns the property and that they have sought to exercise their possessory rights over the propert posting security to protect the propert from by changing the locks and trespass. The defendants also maintain that they have a possessory right or license to remain in occupancy until the closing of the sale of the propert and the distribution of the sales proceeds. Plaintiffs claim that as a result of the contract vendee s determination not to proceed with the purchase of the propert it wil be difficult, ifnot impossible to sell the propert occupied by defendant. Accordingly, plaintiffs seeks a declaration that it may exercise its rights as owner ofthe propert to effectuate a sale of the propert, and to enjoin the defendant from interfering with the sale. On November 1 2011 , the defendant served a Demand for Change of V enue, pursuant to CPLR g 511 (b) upon the plaintiffs ' counsel , stating that venue had been improperly placed in Nassau County and asserting that Kings County was the proper venue. The plaintiffs did not serve written consent to change the place of trial to Kings County within five (5) days [* 6] after service of the Defendant's written demand pursuant to CPLR g 511 (b). Thereafter defendant made this motion to change venue on November 4 2011 , which is timely pursuant to CPLR g 511(b). Historically, both in New York and elsewhere, civil actions have been characterized as either " local" or " transitory " in nature. Local actions generally involved litigation in which real propert is the subject matter ofthe plaintiff s cause of action. All other actions are said to be transitory because they involve claims that are not land specific and therefore could have arisen anywhere (Alexander , Practice Commentaries , McKinney s Cons Laws of NY , Book 7B , CPLR C501: 1). The Century Code of Procedure (Field Code), originally enacted in 1848, indicated actions seeking damages for injuries to real propert, such as trespass , were local. (Code of Procedure Rampe forms of trespass actions as local for venue purposes (see Co. 1976); Town of Hempstead Geidel Litchfield 41 AD 446 (2 Dept. 1899)). Most courts continue to treat all International Paper Co., Dept. 2005); , g 123; L. 1848, ch. 379; v. v. City of New York, v. Giuliani 227 AD2d 605 88 Misc. 2d 366 (Sup. Ct. Nassau Niagra Mohawk Power Corp. 46 Misc. 2d 990 (Sup. Ct. Nassau Co. 1965)). Moreover , in an action for a declaration as to the validity of a lease and the tenant's right to renew it , the Court found the declaration would affect the use , possession or enjoyment of the real propert subject to the lease (see Moschera Catalano , Inc. Advanced Structures Corp. 104 AD2d 306 (1 st Dept. 1984)). Conversely, a landlord tenant action relating solely to the payment terms of the lease would have no such effect (see Port [* 7] Bay Associates v. Soundview Shopping Center 197 AD2d 848 (4th Dept. 1993)). Though CPLR g 503 provides generally that a civil action may be venued in any county where a part resides , it also makes clear that this is a general rule, that may be displaced by an exception. CPLR g 503 (a) provides that: Except where otherwise prescribed by law, the place of trial shall be in the county in which one of the parties resided when it was commenced... CPLR g 503 is explicit in that its authorization for residence-based venue wil 'where otherwise prescribed by law be overcome CPLR g 507 is a law whose venue provisions trump those found in CPLR g 503 under circumstances where the relief sought " would affect title to, or the possession , use or enjoyment of real propert" . Under CPLR 507: The place of trial of an action in which the judgement demanded would effect title to , or possession , use or enjoyment , real propert shall be in the county in which any part of the subject of the action is situated. In Regal Boy Enterprises International V/L Inc. v. MLQ Realty Management, LLC, 22 AD3d 738 (2 Dept. 2005), the Court held that an action seeking a permanent injunction against interference or interrption by defendant of plaintiff s construction on its leasehold premises was required to be heard in the county in which the premises was located. Though the Appellate Division acknowledged that ordinarily plaintiff would be within its rights to bring the action in the county where it resided , the court reasoned that venue was required to be maintained in the county where the propert was located because the relief sought [* 8] involved the title to , or possession , use or enjoyment of propert. Similarly in Rampe v. Giuliani 227 AD2d 605 (2 Dept. 2005), the Court found a nuisance claim brought against the City of New York and its officials , by the residents of Orange County, including the County Executive , arising out of the City' s operation of a men s homeless shelter in Orange County, was properly venued in Orange County because the reliefthey sought would affect the use or enjoyment of real propert located in Orange County. That decision was made despite the fact that the City of New York argued that under CPLR g 504 suits against the City of New York must be brought in New York City. The Second Department held that while CPLR g 504 is mandatory, CPLR g 507 is also mandatory, and that the issue of venue trumps the provisions in CPLR g 504 mandating that suits against New York City be brought there when the relief sought would "effect title to, or possession, use or enjoyment of, real propert" in another county. It is without question that the relief requested: a declaratory judgement declaring, that it may exercise its rights as owner of the propert to effectuate a sale of the propert" and an injunction "to prevent the defendant from entering the propert" would affect the title to, or the possession , use, or enjoyment of, real propert located in King s County. [* 9] In light of the foregoing, based on the residence of the parties, Kings County, not Nassau County, is the proper venue for this action. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED , that the Defendant' s motion is GRANTED; and it is further ORDERED , that the County Clerk of Nassau County is directed to physically transfer the fie to the County Clerk , Kings County; and it is further ORDERED , that the County Clerk, Kings County shall assign an index number to this matter upon receipt of the file. This constitutes the decision and order of DATED: Mineola, New York February 22 2012 ENTEp MAR 022012 MAS&AUCOv OFFICF COUNTY CL!RK'
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.
