Bayridge Prince, LLC v City of New York

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Bayridge Prince, LLC v City of New York 2017 NY Slip Op 31250(U) May 5, 2017 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: 3195/2016 Judge: Dawn M. Jimenez-Salta Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various state and local government websites. These include the New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service, and the Bronx County Clerk's office. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [* 1] ;J._. SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS -------------------------------------------------------------------------x BA YRIDGE PRINCE, LLC, Plaintitl: DECISION and ORDER Index No. 3195/2016 -against- THE CITY OF NEW YORK, ENVIRONMENT AL CONTROL BOARD OF THE CITY or NEW YORK, OFFICE OF THE SHERIFF OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, KINGS LAW ENFORCEMENT BUREAU, and DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING PRESERVATION & DEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK; Defendants. -------------------------------------------------------------------------x HON. DAWN JIMENEZ-SALTA Recitation, as required by CPLR §22 l 9(a), of the papers considered in the review of: 1) Plaintiff Bay Ridge Prince L.LC. 's Order to Show Cause dated March 29, 2016 for an order granting the following relief: (a) vacating all judgments entered against the Plaintiff and in favor of the City of New York ("City") premised upon Notices of Violation (NOV); (b) dismissing all NOV's; (d) vacating all Executions premised upon the Judgments and issued by the City against Plaintiff; (e) permanently enjoining Dcfondant Sheriff of the City of New York, Kings Law Enforcement Bureau from collecting any additional rents or proceeds from the Prince Hotel located at 315 93rd Street, Brooklyn, New York, taking action related to the Executions issued by the City against BRP, or taking ~ny other action to enforce the Judgments including forcing the sale of the property scheduled by the Sheriff for June 8, 2016; (e) requiring the Sheriff to withdraw and vacate the Prince Hotel; (t) requiring Defendant New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD) to expedite its review of BRP's Certification of No Harassment or Exemptjon Application; (g) requiring the City and Sheriff to return any and all rent or proceeds collected from the Prince Hotel to BRP; and (h) granting any other relief \Vhich this Court deems just and necessary. 2) Plaintiffs Affirmation in Support of its Motion brought by Order to Show Cause, dated March 28, 2016; 3) Plaintiffs Affirmation of Notice to Defendants dated March 29, 2016; 4) Plaintiffs Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion brought by Or~er to Show Cause, dated March 22, 2016 [* 2] 5) Defendant City's Affirmation in Opposition to Plaintiffs Order to Show Cause with attached affirmations, dated May 12, 2016; 6) Defendant City's Memorandum of Law i~1 Opposition to Plaintiff's Order to Show Cause, dated May 12, 2016; 7) Defendant City's Supplemental Affirmation in Further Opposition to Plaintiffs Order to Show Cause, dated July 21, 2016; 8) Plaintiffs Reply Affirmation in Support of Motion brought by Order to Show Cause dated July 8, 2016; 9) Plaintiffs Reply Memorandum of Law in Further Support of Motion brought by Order to Show Cause, dated July 8, 2016; 10) Defendant City's Notice of Motion pursuant to CPLR §§ 304 and 306(b) dated August 12,2016 . . ll)Defendant City's Affirmation in Support of Motion dated August 12, 2016 12) Plaintiffs Affirmation in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss dated October 25, 2016; 13) Defendant City's Reply Affinnation in Further Support of Motion Pursuant to CPLR §§ 305 and 306-b, dated October 25, 2016; Papers Notice of Motion/Order to Show Cause and Affirmations in Support: Plaintiff 1, Plaintiff2, Plaintiff 3, Defendants IO [Exh. A-C]. Defendants 11. Affirmation in Opposition: Defendants 5 [Exh. A-CJ, Plaintiff 12 [Exh. A-HJ. Replying Affirmations: Plaintiff 8 [Exh. A-D], Defendants 13 Supplemental Affirmation in Opposition: Defendants 7 [Exh. 65-67] Other Memorandum of Law: Plaintiff 4~ Defendants 6 [Exh. 1-64], Plaintiff 9. Plaintiff's Order to Show Cause brought forth against the City ofNew York, the New York City Department of Environmental Protection, Office of the Sheriff of the City of New York, Kings Law Enforcement Bureaq, and the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development is resolved as follows: This Court declines to enter a Decision on the merits of Plaintiffs request for relief in its Order to Show Cause. Due to a filing error, this Court has no subject matter jurisdiction to issue a decision based on the merits of Plaintiffs request for relief. See, 0 'Brien v. Contreras, 126 A.D.3d 958 (2d Dept. 2015). The City's Motion for an Order deeming Plaintiff's action a nullity pursuant to CPLR 304 and for an Order dismissing Plaintiffs action for failure to timely serve the untiled Summons with Notice pursuant to CPLR 306-b is GRANTED. Plaintiff brought forth its Order to Show Cause on March 29, 2016. However, at the time, due to what appears to be a clerical oversight, there was no underlying pleading filed with the clerk of the court. In the State of New York, pursuant to CPLR 304(a) "An action is commenced by filing a summons and c:o111plaint ur sirrnrnons with notice, in accordance with rut~ twenty-one hundred two of this chaptcr.'' 1 Furthcrrnor~. "(t]he failure to file the initial papers necessary to 1 Rule twenty-one hundred two states in relevant part, .:(a) Except where otherwise prescribed by law or order of court, papers required to be filed shall be filed with the clerk of the court in which the action is triable. In an action or proceeding in supreme or county court and in a proceeding not brought in a court, papers required to be filed shall be filed with the clerk of the county in which the proceeding is brought.'' [* 3] institute an action constitutes a nonwaivable, jurisdictional defect, rendering the action a nullity.,, See, O'Brien, 126 A.D.3d 958 [internal citations omitted] (despite obtaining an index nwnber and moving by order to show cause, plaintiff failed to file a summons and complaint and thus the court's jurisdiction was never invoked). Accordingly, this Court lacks subject matter jwisdiction to adjudicate this matter or grant Plaintiff's request for relief. This Court does not doubt, based on the assignment of the index number and the acceptance for filing of the Order to Show Cause that Plaintiffs Counsel had a good faith basis to believe that the Summons and Complaint had been accepted for filing with the clerk of the court at the time this action was commenced. 2 Furthermore, this Court has no reason to doubt Plaintiff's counsel's assertion that the clerk in the Ex Parte Motions Office insisted that the office would not accept an order to show cause for filing unless the action was commenced via the filing of a summons pursuant to CPLR 304. It is clear that Plaintiffs counsel operated under his good faith assumption that this action was properly commenced. However, all of these circumstances cmmot change the fact that no underlying pleading was filed at the time Plaintiff commenced this action. This Court has no discretion to waive such a defect. "[C]omplete failure to file the initial papers necessary to institute an action is not the type of error that falls within the court's discretion to correct under CPLR 200 I.,, See, 0 'Brien, 126 A.D.3d 958 [internal citations omitted]. Plaintiff's Counsel is mistaken in his assertion that the action was properly commenced by the filing of an Order to Show Cause, payment of a Request for Judicial Intervention (RJI) and purchase of an index number. This Court agrees with Plaintiffs assertion that CPLR 306-a should have precluded the assignment of an index number to the action without a prior filing of a Summons with Notice. However, the Summons with Notice was never properly filed with the Clerk of Court. As a consequence, no legal action was commenced and the subsequently served Summons with [THIS SPACE LEFT JNTENTIONALL Y BLANK] 2 See, Plaintitrs Affirmation in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss dated October 25, 2016. 3 [* 4] Notice is invalid. Even if this Court were to grant Plaintiff permission to extend the time to serve the Summons with Notice pursuant to CPLR 306-b, this would still not cure Plaintiff's failure to co1mn~nce the action due to the underlying filing defect. See, Hollowell v. Decaro, 118 A.D.3d 749 (2d Dept. 2014). Defendant City timely filed its motion pursuant to CPLR 304 and 306-b in response to Plaintiff's late service of the Summons with Notice. Plaintiff served the Summons with Notice on August 1, 2016 and Defendant City timely filed its motion on August 12, 2016 pursuant to CPLR 320. For all the _reasons set forth above, this Court dismisses Plaintiff's case pursuant to CPLR 304. It is hereby ordered: ORDERED that Defendant City's Ivfotion for an Order deeming Plaintiffs action a nullity pursuant to CPLR 304 and for an Order dismissing Plaintiff's action for failure to timely serve the untiled Summons with Notice pursuant to CPLR 306-b is GRANTED; ORDERED that Plaintiffs Order to Show Cause is DENIED as moot. This constitutes the decision of this Co mi. Dated·May 5, 2017 Brooklyn, New York Bay Ridge Prince LLC v. City of New York, et al. Index No. 3195/2016 \\ ( \ J}cur~.i~~~wiL \ \ Dawu JJimc11<1i-Sitlta .J ·/; '.,. J.S.f.--' -"cm." Dawn ~Jimenez-Saftar 4

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.