9 Bleecker LLC v Yippie Holdings, LLC
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
9 Bleecker LLC v Yippie Holdings, LLC 2010 NY Slip Op 33907(U) November 1, 2010 Sup Ct, New York County Docket Number: 102710/09 Judge: Marylin G. Diamond 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. ANNEDON 111912010 [* 1] SUPREME COURTOF THE STATE OF NEW YORK - NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: HON. MARYLIN G. DIAMOND PART 48 Justice ~ ... 9 BLEECKER LLC, INDEX NO. 102710/09 Plaintiff, MOTION DATE -vMOTION SEQ. NO. 00 1 YIPPIE HOLDINGS, LLC et al., MOTION CAL. NO. Defendants. Cross-Motion: [XI Yes [ ] No Upon the foregoing papers, it is ordered that: This dispute involves the plaintiffs claim that its right of first refusal has been breached by the defendants Yippie Holdings, LLC and National AIDS Brigade, h c . ( YippielBrigade defendants ). The plaintiff herein, 9 Bleecker LLC, was the owner of a building locatad at 9 Bleecker Street in Manhattan. The YippieBrigade defendants were tenants in the building. In August, 2004, plaintiff sold the building to the Yippiemrigade defendants for $1.2 million. Under the indcniure/contract of sale, the plaintiff wm given a right of first refusal in the event that the property Was to be sold by the YippieBrigade defendants. It provided that after the event of a contract having been signed for sale of the Property to a bona fide third party purchaser, the Yippiemrigade defendants would give the plaintiff 30 days written notice to elect to acquire the property for a purchase price equal to the lesser of the price set forth in the third party contract or .....( $1,800,000) Dollars. In order to purchase the building and then make necessary renovations, the YippieBrigade defendants obtained a $1,400,000 loan from a company named Centech LLC. Pursuant to a Correction, a Consolidation and Extension Agreement ( CC&E ), the loan w s secured by a mortgage in the principal amount of $1,400,000. Thereafter, on September 12,2006, the CC&E agreement was modified so ag to provide that the outstanding principal balance of $1,400,000, together wt all other ih mounts due, would be paid, in full, on March 1,2007. After the Yippie/Brigade defendants defaulted on this payment, the parties entered into another modification agreement, dated August 1,2007, in which the time to make full payment on the loan WBS extended. In return for Centech s agreement to extend their due date, the YippieBrigade defendants agreed, pursuant to a Deed in Escrow Agreement, to deliver in escrow a Deed in Lieu of Foreclosure. The Escrow Agreement provided that in the event the YippieiBrigade defendants failed to pay the amount due by December 1,2007, the deed would be delivered to Centech or its designee. Thereafter, the Yippiemrigade defendants failed to make the required payment by December 1, 2007. Pursuant to the Deed in Escrow Agreement, the deed was delivered to and placed in the name of Centech s nominee, defendant Devan Holdings, LLC. The deed was recorded in the Ofice of the New York City Register on December 28,2007. The plaintiff has brought this action alleging that the transfer of title from the YippielBrigade defendants to Devan without first giving it the opportunity to purchase the property violated its right of first rehsal. The complaint asserts three causes of action. The first seeks a declaratory judgment that the plaintiff s right of first refusal has been violated by the transfer of the property to Devan and that the transaction should be unwound. The second cause of action is for specific performance and seeks an order directing the YippieBrigade defendants to offer the property to plaintiff pursuant to the terms [* 2] of its contractual right of first refusal. The third cause of action is against Devan and its principal, defendant Bradley Gordon, for tortious interference with contract. In its separate answer, Yippie Holdings has asserted a cross claim against Devan and Oordon for a declaratoryjudgment that the deed to the property should be transferred back to both it and the AIDS Brigade on the ground that they had been defrauded of their title to the property. Finally, the court notes that subsequent to the commencement of this action, Centech brought a foreclosure action against all of the parties herein despite the fact that its nominee, Devan, holds a Deed in Lieu of Foreclosure to the property. See Centech LLC v. Yippie Holdings LLC et ai., NY Co Index No 107802/09. The foreclosure action is based on a provision in the Deed in Lieu to the effect that the mortgage on the property would not merge into the fee interest being conveyed by the Deed in Lieu but would remain a good and valid mortgage. The plaintiff has now moved for sununary judgment for all of the relief sought in its complaint. Gordon and Devan have cross-rnoved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Discussion Although for different reasons, all parties herein agree that the transfer of title to the property to Devan should not be permitted to stand. According to the plaintiff, the conveyance was wrongful because it w s made in violation of plaintiffs right of first refusal. According to the YippidBrigade a defendants, the transfer was fraudulently made without their knowledge by two of their respective representatives. According to Devan and Oordon, the transfer is void because Devan is a nonexistent entity for whom no operating agreement has wen been prepared, much less filed with the Secretary of State, and that Devan was therefore legally incapable of acquiring the deed to the property. Under the circumstances, the court need not resolve each of these issues. Given the parties agreement regarding the result, the court is persuaded that an order should be issued declaring that the transfer of title is null and void. As to the primary issue of whether the plaintiffs right o f fist refusal was violated, the court notes that none of the parties has cited any case which is directly or even indirectly on point. However, in Khan v. Berger, 2005 WL 2001941 (Cal App 2 Dist), a California appellate court ruled that the existence of a right of first refusal does not prevent a property owner from obtaining a loan secured by a deed in lieu on the property. In reaching this conclusion, the court, citing a New York case, Kowalsb Y. Familia, 71 Misc2d 287,293 (Orange Co 1972), noted that it is generally understood that a right of first refusal........ is triggered only when the owner of the property voluntarily seeks to sell it. Id at * 4. In KowaZsQ, t he court held that the right o f fist refusal was not triggered where the owners gave the county an option to purchase their property after being advised by the county appraiser that if they refused to sell, the county would condemn the land and then acquire it through litigation. a The KowalsQ decision w s based on the conclusion that the option to purchase was not a voluntary transaction. Here, too, the decision by the Yippiemrigade defendants to enter into the Deed in Escrow Agreement with Centech was hardly voluntary. They had already defaulted on their mortgage abligations and faced an imminent foreclosure action unless they agreed to deliver in escrow a Deed in Lieu of Foreclosure. On its face, the Deed i Escrow Agreement is far from the kind of contract of sale n necessary to trigger the plaintiff s right of first refusal. In fact, it is not a contract of sale. Rather, it is merely a financing mechanism which provided Centech with an alternative mews of ensuring that it would recover its loan and which provided the YippieBrigade defendants with the opportunity to avoid foreclosure and retain title to the property. The fact that the Yippiemrigade defendants were ultimately unable to do so and were forced to transfer title to CentechLPevan does not somehow make the transaction one which should be characterizvd as a sale. The court is therefore persuaded that the plaintiffs right of first refusal wm not lriggcred by any of the agreements entered into between [* 3] Centech and the YippieiBrigade defendants. The plaintiffs second cause of action for specific performance must therefore be dismissed. Finally, in view of the court s conclusion in the preceding paragraph that the Yippiemrigade defendants did not breach their obligation to offer the plaintiff a right of first refusal, the plaintiffs t b d cause of action against Gordon and Devan for tortious interference with contract lacks merit and must be dismissed. In any event, these defendants would not be liable for this claim since, as a matter of law, they clearly had an economic interest in the transaGtion by acting to protect their own financial stake in the YippieiBrigade defendants business. See White Plains Coat & Apron Co. v. Cintas Corp., 8 NY3d 422,426 (2007). Accordingly, the plaintiffs mation for summary judgment is granted to the extent that, on its first cause of action, a declaratory judgment should be issued declaring the transfer of title from the YippieBrigade defendants to Devan null and void. The motion is otherwise denied. The cross-motion for summary judgment by Gordon and Devan is hereby granted. A declaratory order should be issued declaring that plaintiffs right of first refusal was not violated by the transaction which is the subject of this proceeding and that plaintiff is not entitled to an order of specific performance directing the Yippiemrigade defendants to offer it the right to purchase the property pursuant to its contractual right of first refusal. In addition, the plaintiff s third cause of action is hereby dismissed. Settlejudgment. ENTER Dated: 11-1-10 MAFtYLIN G. DIAMOND, J.S.C. [ ] NON-FINAL DISPOSITION Check one: [XI FINAL DISPOSITION -3-
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.
