Katsaros v Lanzilotta
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Katsaros v Lanzilotta 2011 NY Slip Op 32897(U) October 24, 2011 Sup Ct, Nassau County Docket Number: 011735-11 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 PAUL KATSAROS, TRIAL/IAS PART: 20 Index No: 011735Motion Seq. No. Submission Date: 10/4/11 Plaintiff, -againstISSA LANZILOTTA, JASON HIGGINS, DUSTIN DENTE , ELIZABETH DENTE BRANDON LISI, CLEAR BLUE WATER, LLC, JOHN DOE" and " JANE DOE" , said names being unknown, it being the intention of Plaintiff to designate any person claiming to have any ownership interest in CLEAR BLUE WATER, LLC, Defendants. --------------------------------------------------------------------x The following papers have been read on this Order to Show Cause: Order to Show Cause, Attorney s Affirmation, Affirmation, Affidavit in Support, Complaint and Exhibits........................... Affidavit in Opposition apd Exhibits............................................... Reply Affirmation and Exhibits.............................................. This matter is before the cour on the Order x 1 to Show Cause fied by Plaintiff Paul Katsaros ("Katsaros " or " Plaintiff' ) on August 10 2011 and submitted on October 4 the reasons set fort below, 2011. For the Cour denies the Order to Show Cause and vacates that portion of the temporar restraining order (" TRO") issued by the Cour on October 11 2011 which stayed the foreclosure sale scheduled for October 12 2011 in a foreclosure action pending in the I Although Plaintiffs counsel did not obtain the Cour' s permission to submit a reply to the Order to Show Cause , as required, the Cour, in its discretion, wil consider Plaintiffs reply papers. [* 2] Oyster Bay Management LLC v. Clear Blue Water LLC Supreme Cour of Suffolk County titled et. al. Suffolk County Index Number 45206- 08 pending a hearing and determination of a separate motion before the Cour which is scheduled for oral argument before the Cour on November 1 2011 at 10:00 a. BACKGROUND Relief Sought A. Plaintiff moves for an Order staying foreclosure sales of real propert in foreclosure Samuell actions pending in Nassau, Suffolk, Kings and Queens Counties. Those actions are: 1) Glass Captain Hulbert House, LLC, Clear Blue Water LLC ("CBW"j v. Index Number 24192- 09 ("Nassau Foreclosure Action OBM" v. ), 2) CBW Suffolk County Index Number 45206- Nassau County et al. Oyster Bay Management LLC , which relates to propert located at 53- 55 Main Street, Cold Spring Harbor, New York (" Suffolk CSH Foreclosure Action 3) Shaw Funding, L.P. v. Joam LLC Kings County Index Number 10812- 08 (" Brooklyn Foreclosure Action ), 4) Lauren Berman v. Captain Hulbert House, LLC, CBW Suffolk County Index Number 23883- 09 (" Suffolk Foreclosure Action), and 5) US Bank, NA. County Index Number 23701- 09 (" Queens Foreclosure Action ). Plaintiff also enjoining Defendants Melissa Lanilott Dente Queens v. seeks an Order (" Lanilott" ), Jason Higgins (" Higgins ), Dustin Dente (" Dente ), Elizabeth Dente and Brandon Lisi (" Lisi") (collectively " Individual Defendants ) from directly or indirectly taking any action to exercise authority on behalf of CBW or claim or dispose of any interest in CBW until a fina! decision is made in connection with the relief sought in the Complaint. OBM opposes Plaintiffs application. B. The Paries ' Background . The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment as to the curent ownership ofCBW and , specifically, a judgment declaring Katsaros the 100% owner ofCBW and enjoining any other person or entity from claiming an ownership interest in CBW arising prior to the commencement of this action. The Complaint alleges that on or about August 18 2010 , Defendant Lisi , 2 the managing and sole member of CBW , transferred his entire equity 2 As discussed infra Defendants Lisi and Dente were recently convicted of felonies in the County Cour of Suffolk County related to their involvement in mortgage fraud. [* 3] interest in CBW to Katsaros , in satisfaction of approximately $100 000 owed by Lisi to Katsaros. CBW subsequently commenced a Chapter 11 banptcy proceeding (" Banptcy Action ). Durng the Banptcy Action , OMB alleged that Katsaros was not authorized to sign the Banptcy Petition based on an alleged 2006 operating agreement (" Operating Agreement" and 2007 loan application (" Loan Application ) executed by Defendants Lanilotta and Higgins as alleged members of CBW. Katsaros alleges that the Operating Agreement is not legitimate and was not authorized by CBW or its members. Plaintiff seeks ajudicial determination that is the curent and sole owner of CBW , which will enable him to protect his interest in CBW and CBW' s properties , which are its sole assets. In opposition , counsel for OBM affirms that a stay of the scheduled foreclosure sale in Suffolk County would prejudice OBM. OBM' s counsel also submits that "the murky and criminal background of (CBW) is far more complicated" than presented by Plaintiff (Egan Aff. 2). in Opp. at o BM' s counsel affirms that 0 BM is the curent holder of the mortgage and note secured by the propert located at 53- 55 Main Street , Cold Spring Harbor , New York (" CSH Propert" On July 2 2007 , CBW entered into a contract of sale for the purchase of the CSH Propert (Ex. A to Egan Aff. in Opp. ) which Lisi , as CBW' s attorney- in- fact , executed. On Janua 16 2008 CBW executed a mortgage and promissory note agreement with Washington Mutual Ban WaMu ) forthe purchase ofthe CSH Propert (id. at Ex. B). Lanilott signed the mortgage and note as CBW' s managing member , and also executed a personal guaranty. Lanilotta completed CBW' s commercial mortgage application (id. also at Ex. C) which lists Lanilotta as the managing member and 95% owner ofCBW , and Higgins as the owner ofthe remaining 5%. The application includes a copy of the Operating Agreement. After making a few payments CBW defaulted on the mortgage and note. JPMorgan Chase Ban (" Chase ), which acquired WaMu , commenced a foreclosure action against CBW and Lanilotta on December 19 2008. In 2009 , Dente and Lisi were charged , in state and federal cours , with criminal offenses arising from their paricipation in a mortgage fraud scheme (" State and Federal Criminal Actions ). In August of2010 , OBM purchased the note and mortgage from Chase , and OBM was substituted as Plaintiff in the Suffolk CSH Foreclosure Action, as reflected by the Order provided (Ex. F to Egan Aff. in Opp. ). The cour-appointed referee scheduled a foreclosure sale for May 11 2011. CBW filed an Order to Show Cause in the Suffolk CSH Foreclosure Action seeking to vacate the foreclosure judgment. In an affidavit in suport of that Order to Show [* 4] Cause , Katsaros claimed to have a 100% ownership interest in CBW. On May 9, 2011 , CBW filed a second Order to Show Cause seeking to vacate the judgment and stay the foreclosure sale. The Court denied the stay and refused to sign the order to Show Cause which contains the followig notes of the Cour: " Insufficient proofs to support stay application , Lack of meritorious defense , Issues waived" (id. at Ex. H). On May 10 2011 , the day before the scheduled foreclosure sale , CBW fied the Banptcy Action. OHM moved to dismiss that Action alleging that the fiing and that Katsaros lacked authority to file the Action, citing, was in bad faith inter alia the Operating Agreement and Loan Application. OBM' s counsel affirms that at an August 1 2011 conference in the Banptcy Action, Plaintiff s counsel argued that Lisi was previously the tre owner of CBW , and properly transferred his ownership interest to Katsaros, and that the Operating Agreement and Loan Application were fraudulent. OBM' s counsel submits that these representations are in contrast to the admissions of Lisi and Guidi in the State Criminal Action. OHM provides a transcript of the guilty pleas ofLisi and Guidi (Exs. Land M to Egan Aff. in Opp. ) which includes the following colloquy during the Lisi gulty plea on July 29, 2011 before the Honorable James F. X. Doyle in the County Cour of Suffolk County: THE COURT: The Grand Jur accuses you of Grand Larceny First Degree , defendants acting in concert , on or about June 16 2008 in Suffolk County stole certn propert; namely, US curency from (WaMu), the value of which exceeded more than one milion dollars related to improved real propert known as Fift- Thee Fift- five Main Street, Cold Spring Harbor. How to you plead to that charge? THE DEFENDANT (Lisi): Guilty. THE COURT: What were your acts in regard to that propert? THE DEFENDANT: Your Honor , there was a second closing that occured on that building on or about the date in the indictment , and I had helped to negotiate and consummate that closing. THE COURT: Okay. Of course , when you were involved in doing that , you understood that the money was going to be diverted to you and the other co- defendants? THE DEFENDANT: Yes , your Honor. Ex. L at pp. 10- 11. [* 5] Guidi made similar admissions during his guilty plea allocation on July 29 , 2011 with respect to a charge of Grand Larceny in the First Degree in connection with the CSH Propert. The indictment alleged that Guidi , Dente , Lisi and Lanilott committing that crime. acted in concert with each other in Ex. Mat pp. 12- 14. See During a August 1 , 2011 proceeding in the Banptcy Action , in which CBW is the debtor , the judge presiding over the Banptcy Action said the following: (T)his debtor was born , lived , operated and now wil die of fraud. It was created in fraud. It existed in fraud. It' s now trying to come back to life with some form of fraud. And it' s not happening in this cour. Ex. Katp. 37 On August 4 , 2011 , the Cour in the Banptcy Action dismissed that Action , as reflected by the Order provided (Ex. N to Egan Aff. in Opp. On October 11 , 2011 , Plaintiff fied a second Order to Show Cause which included a request for a temporar restraining order. The Cour granted the TRO which provides that , until fuer order of this Cour or fuher order of the Justice presiding over the (Suffolk CSH Foreclosure Action), and pending the hearing and determination of the application, the foreclosure sale scheduled for October 12 2011 shall be stayed. The TRO also included a provision directing Plaintiff to place the sum of $1 00 000 in the Egan Golden escrow account by 3:00 p. m. on October 11 , 2011 , and fuer directing that the escrow agent release a sum suffcient to make all monthly payments due on the underlying mortgage. C. The Paries ' Positions Plaintiff submits that , in light of OBM' s raising the issue of the validity of Katsaros ownership of CBW , Katsaros canot sell properties on behalf of CBW. Plaintiff contends that a judgment declarng Katsaros the curent and sole owner of CBW is necessar so that Katsaros may protect his ownership interest in CBW and attempt to save the Properties from foreclosure and t4at an Order staying the Foreclosure Actions is necessar to avoid irreparable har OBM opposes Plaintiffs application , submitting that the Cour " should not be the next stop on CBW' s continuing train of fraud" (Egan Aff. in Opp. at 15). OBM submits that Lisi Dente , Guidi and Lanilott created and used the corporate form of CBW to commit grand larceny against WaMu after the purchase of the CHS Propert, as well as other larcenies related to other properties. OBM notes that CBW , though Katsaros , already attempted , unsuccessfully, to stay the foreclosure of the CSH Suffolk Propert. OBM describes Plaintiffs counsel' [* 6] application as " utterly meritless and disingenuous (id at 18) in light of his failure to alert the Cour to Lisi' s fraudulent conduct. OBM submits that, in light of evidence demonstrating that the principals and management ofLLC committed larcenies through CBW , the Cour should deny Plaintiffs application for an Order staying the foreclosure of the CSH Suffolk Propert. RULING OF THE COURT A preliminar injunction is a drastic remedy and wil only be granted if the movant establishes a clear right to it under the law and upon the relevant facts set fort papers. v. Willam M Blake Agency, Inc. v. Leon 283 A. D.2d 423 moving in the Peterson 424 (2d Dept. 2001); Corbin 275 AD.2d 35 36 (2d Dept. 2000). Injunctive relief wil lie where a movant demonstrates a likelihood of success on the merits , a danger of irreparable har uness the 75 N. Y.2d 860 (1990); WT. Grant Co. v. Srogi 52 N. Y.2d 496 Romaine 295 AD. 2d 431 (2d Dept. 2002); Neos v. Aetna Ins. Co. injunction is granted and a balance of the equities in his or her favor. v. Lacey, 517 (1981); Capasso Merscorp,Inc. 291 A. D.2d 434 (2d Dept. 2002). The decision whether to grant a preliminar injunction rests in the sound discretion of the Supreme Cour. Doe v. Axelrod 73 N. Y.2d 748 , 750 (1988); Mid-Hudson Waste, Inc. 50 AD. 3d 1073 (2d Dept. 2008); Automated Waste Disposal, v. City of Long Beach American Capital, LLC 40 AD.3d 902 , 903 (2d Dept. 2007); Ruiz v. Meloney, Inc. v. Sterling 26 AD.3d 485 (2d Dept. 2006). The Cour denies Plaintiff's application , based onthe Cour' s conclusion that Plaintiff has not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits. Plaintiffs Order to Show Cause is premised on Plaintiffs assertion that he is clearly the sole owner of CBW , and that claims to the contrar are unfounded. The documentation before the Cour , however , suggests that determining the owner of CBW is not a simple task , which is made more complicated by the admittedly criminal conduct of Lisi and Guidi. In sum , at ths stage , the record before this Cour is far from clear regarding Katsaros ' alleged ownership ofCBW. This is due , perhaps in large par, to the circumstances under which Katsaros acquired any alleged ownership, which at the very least led him to transact business with a since-convicted former attorney whose own business relationships have resulted in at least one other individual pleading guilty to a felony. Indeed , this Cour appears to be far from alone in its views; the Banptcy Cour similarly observed the fraudulent conduct in which CBW was involved. [* 7] Accordingly, the Cour denies Plaintiffs Order to Show Cause in its entirety, and vacates that portion of the TRO which stayed the Suffolk CHS Foreclosure Sale. Any fuer relief regarding any of the foreclosure sales at issue , including the Suffolk sale , may be obtaned by appropriate application to the judge presiding over the individual foreclosure action. All matters not decided herein are hereby denied. This constitutes the decision and order of the Cour. The Cour reminds counsel for the paries of their required appearance before the Cour on November 1 2011 at 10:00 a. m. for oral arguent regarding a separate motion before the Cour. ENTER DATED: Mineola, NY October 24 2011 ENTERED OCT 28 2011 NA88AU COUNTY COUN CLIRK" 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.
