Bank v Fort Tryon Tower SPE LLC
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Bank v Fort Tryon Tower SPE LLC 2011 NY Slip Op 33461(U) December 16, 2011 Sup Ct, NY County Docket Number: 101283/10 Judge: Barbara R. Kapnick 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. SCANNED ON I212812011 [* 1] SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK - NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: Justice \ 0 I 2 83 10 1 INDEX NO. ' d MOTION DATE MOTION SEQ. NO. 0 I 0 MOTION CAL. NO. The following papers, numbered 1 to were read on this motion to/for Notice of Motion/ Order to Show Cause Answering Affidavits - - Affidavits - Exhibits - Exhibits Replying Affidavits __I-.- _ I _ Cross-Motion: ... Yes Upon the foregoing papers, it is ordered that this motian MOTION I DECIDED IN ACCORDANCE WITH S ACCOMPANYINQ MEMORANDUM DECISION Dated: Check one: FINAL DISPOSITION Check if appropriate: DO NOT POST (IF[' :'>:![qt [* 2] SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF N E W YORK COUNTY OF N E W YORK: IA PART 39 x ______--ll________l____________l_l AMALGAMATED BANK, as T r u s t e e o f TAonqview U l t r a I C o n s t r u c t i o n Loan I n v e s t m e n t Fund (now known as Longview U l t r a C o n s t r u c t i o n Loan I n v e s t m e n t F u n d ) , i n d i v i d u a l l y a n d as administrat.; ve agent f o r i t s e l f and DECISION/ORDER I n d e x No. 101283/10 M o t i o n s Sey. Nos t h e o t h e r Lenders signat-ory t h e r e t o i n c l . u d i n g P e t r a M o r t g a g e C a p i t a l LLC a s Co-Lender, 0 0 1 and 002 Plaintiff, -againstFORT T R Y O N TOWER SPE L L C , MARSON C O N T R A C T I N G C O . , I N C . ALL ROCK CRUSHING, I N C . , LIBELITY MECHANICAL CONTKACTORS L L C , T E C T O N I C E N G I N E E R I N G A N D SURVEYING CONSULTANTS, P.C. , S.J . E L E C T R I C , I N C . , MG E N G I N E E R I N G , P . C., RUTHERFORD THOMPSON, THE STATE OF NEW Y O R K , THE COMMISSIONER O F LABOR O F THE S T A T E OF NEW YORK, THE NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION, THE CITY OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK C I T Y DEPARTMENT O F F I N A N C E , THE NEW YORK C I T Y ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL BOARD BUREAU, a n d " J O H N DOE #1 t o J O H N DOE #so," b o t h i n c l u s i v e , t h e names o f t h e l a s t 50 defendants being f i c t i t-ious, s a i d defendants' t r u e names b e i n g unknown t o p l a i n t i f f , i t b e i n g thereby i n t e n d e d t o d e s i g n a t e h o l d e r s of judgments a n d / o r l i e n s a n d / o r o t h e r i n t e r e s t s which a f f e c t t h e m o r t g a g e d premises d e s c r i b e d i n t h e c o m p l a i n t a n d l e s s e e s , t e n a n t s , occupants a n d o t h e r p e r s o n s a n d e n t i t i e s who may b e in p o s s e s s i o n of- p o r t i o r l s o f t h e m o r t g a g e d premises described i n t h e complaint, ;c, yn1< $> . $ ,, ,r l.j A., ' ,' I! ' ( !I' , L Ll,_L:j IK'$ ' I r' (,l.r,dF 'Yhi.s i s a n a c t i o n b y p l a i n t i f f Amalgamated Bank, a s T r u s t e e o f Longview U l t r a I C o n s t r u c t i o n Loan I n v e s t m e n t Fund f, (now known a s Longview U l t r a C o n s t r u c t i o n Loan i n v e s t m e n t Fund) , i n d i v i d u a l l y a n d [* 3] as administrative agent. for itself arid the other Lenders signatory t.hereto including Petra M o r t y a q e Capital Corp. LLC as Co-Lender ( Amalgamated ) to foreclose on mortgages securinq approximately $95 million in financing made avai1abl.e for the construction of a high-rise condominium development (that :is now l i t t l e more than a hole in the ground) in the Washington Heights neighborhood of Upper Manhattan, and for a deficiency judgment. Pending before the Courl: arc two motions t.hat arc consolidated for decision. dismiss the Under motion sequence no. 001, plaintiff moves to counterclaims and certain affirmative defenses interposed by the borrower, defendant Fort Tryon Tower S P E LLC ( Fort Tryon ) and t h e individual guarantor, defendant Rutherford Thompson ( Thompson , and collectively, the FTDs ) . In addition to opposing the motion, the FTDs cross-move to amend their answer in the forni annexed to their motion papers. Under motj-on sequence no. 002, plaintiff moves to dismiss t-he countercl.aims a n d certain affirmative defenses of mechanic s lien hol-ders defendant Marson Contracting Co. , defendant Tectonic Engineering and (\ Tectonic ). 2 Inc. ( Mar-son ) and Surveying C o n s u l t a n t s , P.C. [* 4] Motion Sequence 001 A s a l l e g e d i n t h e C o m p l a i n t dated J a n u a r y 2 6 , 2 0 1 0 , plaintiff is a New York banking Lorigvi ew UL I RA corporation Consi;ruc t i o r i that Loan as serves Investment. trustee for ( U l t r a ), Fund former1 y k n o w n a s L o n g v i e w ULTRA I C o n s t r u c t i o n Loan I n v e s t m e n t ( U l t - r a J or: F u n d ) , Fund for agent: lender a group whj c h itself i.3 t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e including C a p i t a l C o r p . LLC ( P e t r a ) - itself arid Mortgage Petra On J u n e 1 5 , 2 0 0 7 , p l a i n t i f f , acting as t r u s t e e f o r I:hc Fund ( j . n t h e F u n d s i n d i v i d u a l c a p a c i t y a n d i n i t s capacit-y a s administrative agent f o r t h e co-lenders) into a S e n i o r Loan A g r e e m e n t , P r o j e c t Loan Agreement. w i t h A y r e erne n t s ) a , entered B u i l d i n g Loan A g r e e m e n t F o r t Tryon (collectively, and a t h e Loan . P u r s u a n t t o t h e Loan A g r e e m e n t s , p l a i n t i f f a g r e e d t o l e n d F o r t T r y o n up t o t h e r e s p e c t i . v e amounts of $ 2 1 , 1 5 3 , 1 2 8 . 4 5 Loan ), (the $62,932,719.59 Project high-rise Loan ) condominium Project ) . ( t h e Building Loan ) (collectively, the development in and ( t h e Senj.or $10,914,151.96 to Loans ) Washington fund Heights a (the The L o a n s a r e e v i d e n c e d by a S e n i o r Loan N o t e , two B u i l d i n g Loan N o t e s , arid two P r o j e c t L o a n Notes ( c o l l e c t i v e l y , t h e Notes ), a n d a r e s e c u r e d by a S e n i o r Loan M o r t g a g e , a Building The P r o j e c t i s l o c a t e d on t h r e e l o t s , l o c a t e d a t : 35 Overl.ook l e r r a c e ; ( i i ) 7 3 0 - 7 3 4 West 184t11 Street; a n d 5 2 4 Fort W a s h i n g t o n Avenue ( t h e Property ) . 3 (1) 33- (iii) [* 5] Loan Mortgage Mortgages ). Ci.ty R e g i s t e r and Project (collectively, the The M o r t g a g e s were r e c o r d e d i n t h e O f f i c e o f the a Lhc C i t y of of Loan New Mortgage Ynrk on June 22, 2 0 0 7 (with r e s p e c t t o two o f t h e l o t s ) , a n d on Ju1.y 3 , 2 0 0 8 ( w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e t h i r:d lot.). by Fort The Loan A g r e e m e n t s were i n d i v i d u a l 1 y g u a r a n t e e d Tryon s vice president and sole managing director, Thompson, u n d e r a G u a r a n t y o f Payment a n d a G u a r a n t y o f Completi.on ( t h e Guarant.ies ) . C o n s t r u c t i o n on t h e P r o j e c t b e g a n i n 2 0 0 7 . 2008, plaintiff approved monthly P r i o r t o August draw r - e q u e s t s b y t h e FTDs a s c o n t e m p l a t e d under t h e Loan A g r e e m e n t s . On J u n e 3 0 , 2 0 0 9 , the FTDs a l l e g e d l y f a i l e d t o make t h e i r r e q u i r e d m a t - u r i t y date p a y m e n t s a n d thereby defaulted on the Loan A g r e e m e n t s . Plaintiff provided w r i t t e n n o t i c e o f d e f a u l t t o t h e FTDs on A u g u s t 1 9 , 2 0 0 9 . On o r about January 10, 2010, p l a i n t i f f b r o u g h t t h e i . n s t a n t a c t i o n t o r e c o v e r b y m o r t g a g e f o r e c l o s u r e and sale t h e a m o u n t s owed t o j,t. p u r s u a n t t o t h e Loan A g r e e m e n t s ( f i r s t cause o f a c t i o n ) and t o e n f o r c e Thompson s o b l i g a t i o n s u n d e r t.he G u a r a n t i , e s ( s e c o n d c a u s e of a c t i o n ) . In t h e i r a n s w e r - , t h e FTDs asserred 2 6 a f f i r m a t i v e d e f e n s e s a n d four counterclaims, including: f a i l u r e t o s t a t e a cause of a c t i o n 4 [* 6] (first), lack of standing (second arid third), failure to j o i n a1.1 necessary parties alleged (fourth), Fort Tryon does not owe the amounts (fifth), interest licensed to (30 is usurious business in New Y o r k (sixth), lender ris not (seventh), Fort Tryon was improperly denied its right to extend the terms of the Loans (eighth), laches (ninth), unclean hands (tenth), plaintiff caused defendants' default (eleventh), (twelfth), waiver (thirteenth (fourteenth (fifteenth - - on on heha1.f of (seventeenth), breach of Thompson), Thompson), election of remedies (sixteenth of pendency expired on behalf of Thompson), estoppel - of behalf riotice - fraudulent relief inducement is precluded by on behalf of Thompson), estoppel contract (eighteenth), fraudulent inducement (nineteenth), waiver and estoppel (twentieth), breach of the obligati-on of good faith and fair d e a l $ . n g (twenty-first), unconscionability (twenty-second); breach of contract (twenty-third affirmative defense and first counterclaim), breach of fiduciary duty (twenty-fourth affirmative defense and second counterclaim), fraud (t.wenty-fifth affirmative defense and third counterclaim), and breach of the oblh.gation of good faith and fair dealing (twenty sixth affirmative def-erise and fourth counterclaim). On this mot-ion, plaintiff moves, pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a)(1.) , (a)( 7 ) and (b) to: (i) dismiss t-he counterclaims asserted by the F T D s for. failure to s t a t e a cause of action, and 5 (ii) to dismiss [* 7] the FTDs' second t - h r o u g h fourth, sixth t h r o u g h eleventh, and f o u r t e e n t h t h r o u g h t w e n t y - s i - x t h a f f i r r n a t i . v e d e f e n s e s on t h e g r o u n d s t h a t t h e y d o n o t s t a t e a d e r e r i s e a n d / o r d o not. h a v e merit.:' The F T D s h a v e c r o s s - m o v e d for l e a v e p u r s u a n t t o CPLK 3 0 2 5 (b), t o s e r v e an Amended A n s w e r a n d C o u n t e r c l a i m s i n t h e f o r m a n n e x e d a s E x h i b i t A t o t h e i r N o t i c e of Cross-Motion, d a t e d December 10, 2010. 'The three primary change is the addition of more affirmative d e f e n s e s a n d c o u n t e r c l a i m s a g a i n s t p l a i n t i ff for d e c l a r a t o r y relief (twenty-seventh affirmaf-ive s p e c j fic p e r f o r m a n c e defense and fifth counterclaj.rri) , ( t w e n t y - e i g h t h a f f i r m a t i v e d e ¬ e n s e and s i x t h c o u n t e r c l a i m ) a n d damages f o r repudj.ati.on and a n t i c i p a t o r y b r e a c h of the B u i l . d i n y Loan and Project Loan A g r e e m e n t s a f f i r m a t i v e d e f e n s e arid s e v e n t h c o u n t e r c l a i m ) . (twenty-ninth I n addition, the FTDs h a v e w i t h d r a w n t h e i r s i x t h a f f i r m a t i v e d e f e n s e (usury). 'The p r o p o s e d Amended Answer a l s o c o n t a i n s new a l l e g a t i o n s r e l a t i n g t o : (i) the standing of plaintiff t.o b r i n g this action, and (ii) p l a i n t i f f ' s p u r p o r t e d c o n t r o l . and dominance o v e r F o r t Tryori. P l a i . n t j . f f has n o t moved t o d i s m i s s t h e f i r s t ( f a i l u r e t o s t a t e a c a u s e o f a c t i o n ) , t h e f i f t h ( a m o u n t not o w e d ) , a n d No t w e l f t h ( n o t i c e of pendency e x p i r e d ) a f f i r m a t i v e d e f e n s e s . a r g u m e n t for dismissal o f t h e t h i r t e e n t h ( w a i v e r o f g u a r a n t e e ) a f f i r m a t i v e d e f e n s e i s g i v e n by p l a i n t i , f f . However, a c h a r t o n t h e s e c o n d p a g e o f p l a i n t i f f ' s memorandum o f l a w i n d i c a t e s t h a t i t seeks d i s m i s s a l o f t h e t h i r t e e n t h a f f i r m a t i v e d e f e n s e , a s well. T h e r e f o r e , t h i s Court w i l l c o n s i d e r w h e t h e r a n y o f p l a i n t i f f ' s a r g u m e n t s for d i s m i s s a l of o t h e r d e f e n s e s r e q u i r e s d i s m i s s a l of t h i s d e f e n s e . [* 8] More spec i fi cal 1 y, t h e Amerided A n s w e r a l l e g e s t . h a t p r i o r to e n t e r i n g i n t . 0 t h e 1 , o a n Hgrcernerits, t h e p r e d e c e s s o r cntj.I:y of FOIL. Tr-yon h a d Petr-a Petra loan a q r e e m e n t ci with rnort.qaqc o n t . h e P r o p e r t y i n conric2ct.i 23) . o f t h e a m o u n t of l3ec;iusc or1 and with cl yiveri had a l o a n (Amended A i - i s w p r , f j n a r i c i r i y r e q u i red t . o build Lhc P r o j e c t , ¬11 a i riI..i f.E advised F o r t T r - y o n t h a t i t could n o t f i n a n c e t.he e n t i r e l o a n i t s e l f , h u t would n e e d t o s t r u c t u r e a l o a n w i t h a n o t h e r (id. 91 lender 25). Discussions t h e n b e y a n arid "Intercreditor \\ Lenders") Pet-ra and or 2006 t h a t S e r v i c i ny Agreement dated Junc -1 5, 2007 (Lhe between Petra arid plaintiff (the p l a i r n t i L L i n t h e fall. Ayr,eernenL between Aqreement") 26) (id. . the Urideu- r e s u l t e d i n ;sri terms of t h e IntcrcrediLOr Intercreditor A g r e e m e n t , Petra was t.o f u n d the f i r s t $ 3 0 m i l l i o n of t h e t o t a l $ 9 5 million l o a n amount f o r t h e c o r i s t r u c t . i o n of t h e Project. The n e x t $40 mil l i o n w a s t o be f u n d e d equally b y t h e t w o c o - l e n d e r s a n d t h e L 1asL $25 Pur-suarit occur million was be funded to t h c Loan Agreerrier.iLs, f r-om (.he sale document.:; p r - o v i d e d 38). Lo ; I of t.he b y Arnalgamated repayment of the L,oan:l; was t o condominium u n i . ts, and the d c t . a i l e d s l - r u c t u r e f o r t h i s process The L o a n s h a d ;1n i n i t i a l mat-urity date o f however, (id. T 27) . June 30, loan (id. 'I[ 2009; F o r t T r y o r i had t h e o p t i o n o f e x t e n d i n g t h e t e r m f o r L w o c o n s e c u t i v e p e r i o d s o f t h r e e rnonlrhs i f c e r t a i n c o n d i t . i o n s were met.. 7 [* 9] As a condition of entering into the prior mortgage on the P r o p e r t y , Petra required that Fort Tryori be 1-eorganized as a Single Purpose Entiliy ( S P E ) , 1.irnj.ting its activities to thc development of t h e Property (id. ¶ 24). As a further corldiI:rion to entering into the Loan Agreements, plaintiff required that Forl Tryon enter into an Amended and Restated Limited Liability Company Agreement. of Fort Tryon Tower S P E LLC, dated June 1.5, 2007 (the S P E Agreement ) (id. ¶ 28). Under i t s terms, Fort Tryon agreed that it would n o t e r i g a y e i.ri any other business other than the construction of the Project on the Property; it would not own any other assets other than the Property; it would not commingle its assets with those of any other person; it would not assume any other debts or obtain credit f r o m any other source; and it would not add any other members as o w n e r s (id. ¶ ¶ 29, 3 0 , 31, 3 3 , 34). In addition, under the terms of the L o a n Agreements, every aspect of the construction was allegedly under the control and approval of plaintiff-. Detailed plans and specifications were incorporated i n t o the loan documents and could not be changed without plaintiff s approval (id. T 42). The Building Loan incorporated a detailed line item Building Loan Budyet to be advanced by plaintiff under the Building Loan Agreement. (id. ¶ 43). All contractors h a d tu be approved by plaintiff, All contracts had to be approved by plaintiff and each building loan advance had to [* 10] b e s p e c i f i c a l l y appr.oved b y p l a i n l i i i l f based upon a sitie v i s i t b y plaintiff's construction consultant.. The dist.ribution f u n d s f r o m e a c h a d v a n c e was d i r e c t e d b y p l a i n t i f f As a consequence, domination arid the FTDs cont-roi over a c : i . i v i i . i e s t o t.he P r o l j e c t , k'ort p1 a i i i t i f f 'rryon; f u n d s (id. '11'11 4 4 , P1.a.i.ntjff continued to ¶¶ 44, had 1imi.tirig the 46). complete all of its l i m i t i n g a1 I o f i t s f u n d s t o t h e l o a n and c o n t r o l l i n g t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f advances the advanced loan 2007 and 48). approved approve T h e r e a f t e r - , p1ai.ritj.f.f YI 51). a1.l.ege t h a t (id. for the advances first advance through in August: July 2008 (id. ¶ 49). r e f u s e d t o a p p r o v e a n y f u r t h e r advances ( i d . I n t o t a l , p l a i n t i f f advanced l e s s t h a n $ 1 1 . 5 m i l l i o n of t h e r o u g h l y $ 7 5 m i l l i o n a p p r o v e d u n d e r t h e B u i l d i . n y Loan a n d P r o j e c t (id. 91 5 3 ) . Loan A g r e e m e n t s ' According to the FTDs, b e g i n n i n g September 2008 (about 11 m o n t h s b e f o r e t h e i n i t i a l m a t u r i t y d a t e o f t - h e Loans), p l a i n t i f f refused Project to make any further advances for construction o ¬ the (id. VI 5 1 ) . P l a i n t i f f d i d , h o w e v e r , a p p r o v e a d v a n c e s f o r i n t e r e s t . payments t o Petra and i t s e l f (id. ¶ 5 2 ) . A l s o i n Sept-ember 2 0 0 8 , p l a i n t i f f r e q u e s t e d that: F o r t T r y o n s u s p e n d c o n s t r u c t i o n on A p p a r e n t l y , t h e a m o u n t s l e n t u n d e r t h e S e n i o r Loan A g r e e m e n t . were u s e d p r i m a r i l y t o p a y o f f t h e p r e - e x i s t i n g m o r t g a g e held b y P e t r a i n t h e amount o f $ 1 6 m i l l i o n . [* 11] t h e P r o j e c t , p u r p o r t e d l y a s a r e s u l t o f t h e f i n a n c i a l c r i s i s (id. ¶ 63). P l a i . n t i f f and P e t r a a s s u r e d F o r t T r y o n t h a t payment w o u l d r e s u m e o n c e the f i n a n c i a l m a r k e t s s t a b i l i z e d arid t h a t t h e L o a n s w o u l d b e e x t e n d e d f o r t h e same l e n g t h of t i m e t h l i t c o n s t r u c t i o n a n d payments were suspended a s s u r e d Thompson t h a t if (id. 91 6 6 ) . Plaintiff h e would d l i r e c t Fort and Petra a1.so Tryon t o suspend c o n s t r u c t . i . o n , t h e p e r s o n a l g u a r a n t e e s t h a t h e s i g n e d on t h e Loans would enforced. be riot is It undisput.ed that this new u n d e r s t a n d i n g b e t w e e n p l a i n t i f f a n d t h e FTDs w a s n o t c o m m i t t e d t o writing. Still, i n r e l i a n c e upon t h e a l l e g e d p r o m i s e s o f t h e L e n d e r s , Fort T r y o n Despite Fort suspended Tryon's construction repeated activities requests on the Project. for additional funding, p l a i n t i . f f c o n s i s t e n t l y r e f u s e d t o a p p r o v e a n y more l o a n a d v a n c e s . I n s t e a d , plaintiff r e p e a t e d l y p r o m i s e d F o r t T r y o n a n d Thompson t h a t i t would resume a d v a n c e s a f t e r t h e f i n a n c i a l m a r k e t s s t a b i l i z e d . It- e v e n r e q u e s t e d t h a t Thompson p r e p a r e a m a r k e t s t u d y a s t o when market conditi.ons construction. s p r i n g of would favorable be for resumption of Thompson p r e p a r e d a n d d e l i v e r e d s u c h a r e p o r t i n t . h e 2009, but plaintiff (id. ¶ 7 4 ) . P l a i n t i f f ' s s t i l l refused t o resume financj.ng r e f u s a l continued u n t i l past t h e i n i t i a l m a t u r i t y d a t e of June 30, 2009. 10 [* 12] Prior to June 30, 2009, plaintiff did not give ariy notice to E'ort Tryor) that i.t was in default of any obligation under the Loan Agreements (.id.7[¶ 76, 77). According to the F ' I ' D s , F o r t T'ryon was not in default of any provision of the Loan Agreements at the time when pl-diritiff re ¬used to m a k e a n y further advances. As further alleged by the E T D s , plaintiff's refusal, without cause, to approve advariccs after August 2008, w a s t h e reason the Project was not constructed by the initial maturity date. Discussion In considering a to motion dismiss counterclaims arid affirmative defenses pursuant to CPLR 3211, t h e C o u r t generally presumes that the facts p l e a d e d are true, makes all possible inferences in favor of the pleading party, and "determine [ S I o n l y whether the f a c t s as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory" Leo11 v M a r t i n e z , 8 4 NY2d 83, 87-88 (1994); L e d e r v S p i e g e l , 31 AD3d 266, 267 (1st Dept 2006), a f f d 9 NY3d 8 3 6 (2007) (applying ; the same standard to [notions to dismiss countercl-airns) C o u r t h o u s e LLC v S c h n l i n a n , Corporate Ctr. 74 AD3d 725, 727 (2d Dept 2010) ( a p p l y i - n y the same standard to dismiss affirmative defenses under . C P L R 3211. [b]) However, dismissal is appropriate where the facts alleged are insufficient to make out "any cognizable legal theory'' B r e y t m a n v 11 [* 13] O . l i n v i l l e R e a l t y , L L C , 54 AD3d 703, 704 (2d Dept 2 0 0 8 ) , lv dj.sm 12 (2009), o r w h e r e t h e c l a i m s a r e d u p l i c a t i v e , NY3d 878 Sound, I n c . v Ea:;hian d; F a r b e r , L L P , 74 A D 3 d 1168, 1172-72 (2d Dept ; l o l o ) , Iv di.sm 1 6 NY3d 8 2 5 a1 l e g a t i o r i s evidence, that those are (2011.). Where a p a r t y pleads f a c t u a l unccquivocall y pleadings are c o n t r a d i c ked by riot i . n t e r p r e t a t i . o n and claims based to entitled thereon supra a t 2 6 7 . Leder v S p i e g e l , Rock C i t y documentary such qenerous a r e p r o p e r l y di.smi.ssed, A s such, judgment. d i s m i s s i n g o n e o r more d e f e n s e s , a parLy may move f o r on t h e g r o u n d t h a t a d e f e n s e i.s n o t stated o r h a s n o m e r i t C P L K 3211. ( b ) . L e a v e t o amend arid s u p p l e m e n t p l e a d i n g s s h o u l d be f r e e l y g i v e n upon s u c h t e r m s a s may be l u s t , a s a m a t t e r o f d i s c r e t i o n , the absence however, of prejudice or surprise, CPLR 3 0 2 5 (b). and i n Leave, may n o t be g r a n t e d w h e r e t h e amended p l e a d i n g f a i l s to state a c a u s e of a c t i o n a n d thus lacks m e r i t S t r o o c k L a v a n v B e l t r a n z i n i , 157 A D 2 d 5 9 0 , & Stroock & 5 9 1 ( 1 s t Dept 1990)- Fi r S t Coun t e r c l a i r n and Twentv Third-Affi r m a tive D e f e n S e (breach of contract) E i q h t e e n t h A f f i r m a t i v e Deferise (breach of c o n t r a c t ) : I The F TDs c o u n t - e r c l a i m and a f f - i r r n a t i v e defenses for breach of contract arc based on p l a i n t i f f s obligations plaintiff s under the Loan purported Agreements, f a i l u r e t o continue violations and, i.n of its particular, funding t h e Loans by f a i l i n g t o 12 [* 14] advance Project the amount-s n e c e s s a r y t.o complete construction 01 t h e . A s an i.nitia1 m a t t e r , since Thompson was not a p a r t y t o t h e Loan A g r e e m e n t s , h e cannol: a s s e r t c o u n t e r c l a i m s o r defenses: b a s e d on Lhcse a g r e e m c n t s , AD2d 101, s e c L a S a l l e N a t l . Bank v E r n s t & Young, 785 109 ( 1 s t Dcpt 2001). With r e s p e c t . t o F o r t 'Tryon, p l - a i n t i f f c o n t e n d s t h a t i t w a i v e d i t s r i g h t u n d e r t h e Loan defenses. Section agreement.^ Lo a s s e r t c o u n t e r c l a i . m s a n d S p e c i f i - c a l l y , F o r t T r y o n a g r e e d to t h e e x p r e s s t e r m of 10.- . o f 19 the Loan A g r e c m e n t s which extinguishes any possible c o u n t e r c l a i m b y F o r t 'l'ryon w i t h r e s p e c t t o any breach of t h e Loan A g r e e m e n t s b y p l a i - n t i f f: Borrower he.reb,y w a i v e s t h e r i g h t t o assert a c o u n t e r c l a i m , o t h e r t h a n a compulsory c : o u n t e r c l a im, in any a c t i o n or p r o c e e d i n g brought a g a i n s t i t b y A g e n t or Lenders or t h e i r a g e n t s or o t h e r w i s e t o offset a n y o b l i g a t i o n s t o make the p a y m e n t s r e q u j - r e d b y No failure b y A g e n t or t h e Loan D o c u m e n t s . T,enders t o perform any of i t s o b l i g a t j o n s h e r e u n d e s s h a l l b e a v a l i d defense t o , o r r e s u l t i n a n y offset a g a i n s t , a n y p a y m e n t s w h i c h Borrower is o b l i g a t e d t.o make u n d e r a n y of the Loan D o c u m e n t s ( e m p h a s i s s u p p l i e d ) . Accordingly, Fort Tryon has waived its right to assert c o u n t e r c l a i m s or a f f i r m a t i v e d e f e n s e s b a s e d o n p l a i n t i f f ' s a l l e g e d 13 [* 15] b r e a c h 01 t h e Loan Agreement-s, 283, (1st Dept 284 1998) s e e Parasrani v D e C a r n b r e , 247 AD2d (defendant mortgagor's "affi,rmative d e f e n s e s a n d c o u n t e r c l . a i ~ n sw e r e p r o p e r l y r e j e c t e d o n t h e b a s i s of his waiver in the mortgage of the right to interpose f o r e c l o s u r e p r o c e e d i n g a n y d e f e n s e , selioff o r c o u n t e r c l a i m " ) Moreover, pursucint F o r t Tryon a g r e e d t o acts or delay a in . t o S e c t i - o n 10.12 of t h e Loan A q r e e m e n t s , l i m j t separate i t s l e g a l r e c o u r s e for any u n r e a s o n a b l e action for declaratory or injunctive relief: In t h e e v e n t t h a t a c l a i m . . . i s made t h a t Agent o r a n y Lender o r i t s a g e n t s h a v e a c t e d unreasonably o r unreasonably delayed acting i n any c a s e where, by l a w o r u n d e r t h i s A g r e e m e n t o r t h e o t h e r Loan Documents, A g e n t o r s u c h L e n d e r o r s u c h a g e n t , a s t h e case may be, h a s an o b l i g a t i o n t o a c t r e a s o n a b l y a n d p r o m p t l y , n e i t h e r Agent ~ i o rs u c h Lender n o r i t s a g e n t s s h a l l be liable for a n y rnonetdry damages and Borrower's s o l e remedy shall be l i m i t e d t o commencing a n a c t i o n s e e k i n g i n j u n c t i v e relief or d e c l a r a t o r y J u d g m e n t . Any a c t i o n o r p r o c e e d i n g t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r Agent. o r a L e n d e r h a s a c t e d r e a s o n a b l y s h a l l be d e t e r m i n e d b y a n a c t i o n s e e k i n q d e c l a r a t o r y judgment . . . (emphasis suppl-ied) . I n sum, a S e c t i o n s 1 0 . 1 9 a n d 1 0 . 1 2 o f t h e Loan A g r e e m e n t s b a r Fort Tryon's c o u n t e r c l a i m and a f f i r m a t i v e d e f e n s e s f o r breach of t h e Loan A g r e e m e n t s . 14 [* 16] Secon d Co unter cla i r n and Twent y -FQur th A ffirm a t.ive Defer1se (breach of f - i d n c i a r y dutv) : These purportedly claims are on premised self-int-erested a decision theor-y t h a t to cease plaintiff's funding monthly advance:; w a s a b r e a c h o f i t s f i d u c i a r y o b b i g a t i o n s t o Fort: Tryori (Amended A n s w e r , ¶ I n making t h i s claj.m, 187). t.he FTDs a l - l e g e that, a s a r e s u l t o f u n d u e c o n t r o l arid i n f l u e n c e t h a t p l a i n t i f f exerted o v e r t h e m , p l a i n t i f f owed f i d u c i a r y d u t . i . e s t o Fort Tryori. This assertion i s based on: (i)allegations t h a t F o r t 'Tryon was r e q u i r e d , a s a c o n d i . t i o n of t h e Loans, t o r e o r g a n i z e a s a n SPE and e n t e r i n t o t h e SPE A g r e e m e n t w h i c h , among o t h e r t h i n g s , p r e v e n t e d Fort Tryon from p l a i n t i f f ' , and seeking financing from any source other than ( i i ) a l l e g a t i o n s t h a t t h e Loan A g r e e m e n t s p r o v i d e d f o r p l a i n t i - f f t o e x e r c i - s e c o n s e n t s a n d approvals r e l a t i n g t o t h e disbursements of t h e monthly advances and t h e P r o j e c t ' s progress t-oward c o m p l e t i o n . Normally, bank " [ t l h e l e g a l r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n a b o r r o w e r and a i s a contracLual one o f debtor and c r e d i t o r arid d o e s not c r e a t e a f i d u c i a r y r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e bank and i t s borrower or i t s guarantors,'' Bank Leumi T r u s t Co. o,f N . Y . v B l o c k 3102 C o r p . , 1 8 0 AD2d 5 8 8 , 5 8 9 (13tDept 1992), lv d e n 80 N Y 2 d 754 (1992). In the instiant contractual case, rights to plaintiff's protect exercise bargained-for its collateral on a of $95 million c o n s t r u c t i o n loan ( w h i c h t h e F T D s do n o t d i s p u t e was n e g o t i a t e d a t 15 [* 17] arms length) does not indicate control. su ¬ficient to impose fi-duciary duties from plaintiff to Fort Tryon, separate and apart f r o m contractual duties arising from the Loan Agreements, B a n y u e N a t i o r i a l e de P a r i s v 1567 B r o a d w a y Ownership A S S O C . , 214 AD2d 3\59, . 360 (13rDept 1.995) (holding t.hat (t)here is no fiduciary duty . . arj.sing out of the contractual arm s length debtor a n d credi.tor legal. relationship between a borrower and a bank . . . .I/) Equally without merit is the contention that the supposedly improper constraints imposed fi.duciary relationship. by the SPE Aqceement created a The allegation that plaintiff demanded that the owners of F o r t Tryon enter into the S P E Agreement as a condition of making the Loans (Amended Answer, ¶ 28), does not obscure the fact that the principals of Fort Tryon were acting on their own volition arid for their own self interest when they agreed to the restricti.ons set forth in the SPE Agreement. Indeed, there is nothing in t h e Amended Answer that indicates that there was anything other than a fair and equitable bargaining position between plaintiff and t h e F T D s at the time of execution. Simply because the F T D s are now unhappy w i t h their agreement cannot be a basis to recover from plaint-iff, see Lagarenne v Ingber, 273 A D 2 d 735, 738 (3rd Dept 2000) (no reli.ef from duty to perform a contract merely because it is a burdensome bargain ). The Court 16 [* 18] also t a k c s j u d i c i a l not.ice, a s i t may, sce Pearis v Goldschmidt, 37 A D 2 d -1001 1 0 0 1 (3d Dept. 1971.) ("The y e r i e r a l c o u r s e of b u s i n e s s i n , a cornmuniIiy, i n c l u d i n g t h e urii v e r s a 1 p r a c t i c e 01 b a n k s . . ., is a m a t t e r of w h i c h t h e court rnay t a k e j u d i c i a l notice") , t h a t s i n g l e ( o r s p e c i a l ) p u r p o s e c r i t i t i e s , c a r r y i n g t h e s d r w restrict.ior-is t h a t the ,!"I'L)s now c o m p l a i n oi, a r e commc)l1iy used i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t t i s e c u r e d l o a n t.ransactions and mortgage s e c u r i t i z a k - i o n s t o jr i s u l a t c a n asset. from t:.tie p o t e n t i a l i n s o l v e n c y o ¬ a b o r r o w e r o r r e l a L e d party, see e . q . Mass Op T L C v P r i n c i p a l 2 1 4 2 7 1 3 at. FN2 (Sup C t i , N a s s a u C o 2 0 0 9 ) Accordingly, L.jfe Ins. Co., 2009 WL .4 a n y c l a i m s or d e f e n s e s t h a t d e p e n d upon t le e x i s t e n c e o f a f i d u c i a r y r e l a t i o n s h i p between p l a i n t i f f a n d F o r t T r y o n c a n n o t be r r i a i n k a i n e d a n d a r e d i s m i s s e d . T h i 1 d Coun te r c l a i r n arid . Twenty - F i f l - 1 1 A f I i r m a tive Defense (fi-z'dL F i f t e e n t h arid NineLeenth Affirmative Deferises ( f r a u d u l e n t I ~, ) i~iducernen ) : t I n t h e i r t h j rd c o u n t e r c l a i m , t h e FTDs a l l e g e t h a t " [ a ]s a resulI. oi t h e f r a u d u l e n t acts of P l a i n C i f T a s a l l e y e d a b o v e , F t . T r y o n h a s been darnayed i n an amount Mi.1.lion Dollars" . . . [ n o ] l e s s than F i f t y (Amended Complaint., ¶ 1 9 2 ) . For t h e purposes of The on1.y a u t h 0 r i . t . y r e l i e d on b y t h e F T D s t h a t i n v o l v e s a b o r r o w e r a n d lender, K . M . C. Co., Inc. v Irvi.rlg T r u s t Co. , 757 F2d 7 5 2 (6th Cir 1985), i s o u t s i d e o f t h i s j u r i s d i c t i o n a n d , a s p I a i . n t i f f c o r r e c t l y observes , h a s beer1 w i d e l y c:rit.i.c:j zed a n d limited Lo iLs f ~ ~ c i : s . 17 [* 19] assessing the sufficiency of this counterclaim, the CourL assumes that the fraudulent acts of Plaintiff as alleged above, refers to the allegations of fraudulent inducement contained in the fifteenth and nineteenth affirmative defenses. The fifteenth affi-rmative defense asserted by Thompson alleges that he was f - r a u d u l . e n t l y induced to enter into per-sorial guaranties by plaintiff s representations that the lenders it represented h a d t h e fi.nancia1 means to fund the Loan Agreements, and that at the time these represent.atioris were made, plaintiff knew that the lenders it represent-ed did not have the financj,aJ.ability to fund the full. amount of the Loans and had no intention of doing so (id. 122-24) * The nineteenth affirmative defense alleges that plaintiff fraudulently induced Fort Tryon to reorganize as an S P E and enter into the Loan Agreements. As does l hompson, the FTDs allege that plaint-iff k n o w i n g l y misrepresented that the lenders had the funds necessary to complete the Project in order to induce Fort Tryon Lo agree to the Mortgages so that, after plaintiff stopped maki.ng advances, it could foreclose on the Property a f t e r the initial malurity date expired. In additiori, the FTDs a1.1.ege that plaintiff fraudulently induced them to suspend construction with promises that construction would resume 18 when the financial markets [* 20] stabilized. these promises, a t t h e time p l a i n t i f f t o t h e FTDs, Accordinq made i t h a d already d e t e r m i - n e d t h a t i . t would n o t p r o v i d e any f u r t h e r advances, yet. d i d s o s o t h a t c l a i m d e f a u l t a n d g a i . n ti.t:le i t cou1.d s u b s e q u e n t l y Lo t h e P r o p e r t y t h r o u g h 3. foreclosure s a l e (id. ¶ ¶ 148-55). When f r - a u d arises from t h e same s e t o f a claim f o r a l l e g e d t o c 0 n s t i t u t . e a breach of contract, facts t h e c l a i m c a n n o t be m a i n t a i n e d u r i l . e s s i: a l l e g e s c o n d u c t d i s t i n c t f r o m t h e c o n t r a c t u a l I see C r o w l e y Mar. A s s o c s . v Nyconn ASSOCS, 292 A D 2 d requirements, T h e r e f o r e , t o p l e a d a c l a i m f o r f r a u d t h a t is 334 ( 2 d Dept 2 0 0 2 ) . n o t d u p l i c a t i v e o f a b r e a c h of c o n t r a c t cl.aim, t h e a l - l e g e d l y f a l s e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o r o m i s s i o n m u s t be c o l l a t e r a l or e x t r a n e o u s t o t h e t e r m s o f the agreement ( i d . ) s u c h t h a t a d u t y i n d e p e n d e n t o f t h e contract is alleged to be breached, No~i-Linear T r a d i n g Co. v Braddis ASSOC., 2 4 3 AD2d 1 0 7 , 1 1 8 ( 1 s t Dept 1 9 9 8 ) ( A S a g e n c r a l rule, to recover necessary t h a t distinct (citation from, damages for t.ort t-he p l a i n t i f f in or omitted) . plead to, addition Consequently, in a c o n t r a c t m a t t e r , and prove the a is a breach o f d u t y breach fraud it of claim contract ) that merely a l l e g e s that. a d e f e n d a n t d i d n o t i n t e n d t o f u l f i l l i t s o b l i g a t i o n s u n d e r a n a g r e e m e n t , e v e n when a c c o m p a n i e d b y a n a l l e g a t i o n t h a t t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n w a s made w i t h a n i n t e n t t o d e c e i v e , w i l l n o t s u r v i v e 19 [* 21] dismissal, 607 see l esoro P e t r o l e u m C o r p . v Holborn O i l Co., 1 0 8 A D 2 d (1st Dept 1985), a p p d i s m 6 5 NY2d 63 7 (1985). Here, t h e c l a i m s o f f r a u d u l e n t i n d u c e m e n t r e s t , a t bottom, on a l - l e g a t i o n s t-l-iat p l a i n t i f f perform t.he Loan could Aqreements. and d i d not, As such, they not intend cannot be to, fair1.y c h a r a c t e r i z e d a s c o l . l a t e r a . 1 o r e x t r a n e o u s t o the Loan A g r e e m e n t s . Given t h e C o u r t s determinati.on that e x i s t - s belween F o r t T r y o n arid p l a i r r t i f f no fiduciary relationship ( s u p r a ), t h e f r a u d c l a i m s a n d defenses a r e d u p l i c a t i v e o f t . h e F T D s b r e a c h o f c o n t r a c t c l a i m , and a r e , t h e r e f o r e , dismi.sscd. 5 A d d i t i o n a l e v i d e n c e of t h e redundancy of t h e f r a u d claim a n d defenses i s t o be f o u n d j , n t h e i d e n t i c a l a m o u n t , $ 5 0 m i l l i o n , t . h a t b o t h c o u n t e r c l a i m s a l l e g e a s damages. Further, i n d e s c r i b i n g t h e i r damages i n t h e i r b r e a c h of c o n t r a c t c o u n t e r c l a i m , t h e FTDs a s s e r t t h a t F o r t T r y o n s u f f e r e d e c o n o m i c damage, i n c l u d i n g b u t n o t l i m i t e d t o t h e l o s s of p r o f i t on t h e P r o j e c t a n d a l o s s o f c r e d i . t w o r t h i n e s s (Amended Answer ¶ ¶ 182183). B e c a u s e t h e FTDs do n o t s p e c i f y t h e b a s i s o f t h e i r damages i n t h e i r fraud claims, the C o u r t i s l e f t t o a s s u m e that they a r e a t t r i b u t a b l e t o t h e same c a u s e s a s t h o s e p l e d i n t h e i r c o n t r a c t . claims. However, i n a f r a u d a c t i o n , [ t l h e t r u e m e a s u r e o f damage i s i n d e m n i t y for t h e a c t u a l p e c u n i a r y l o s s s u s t a i n e d a s t h e d i r e c t result o f t h e wrong o r w h a t i s known a s t h e o u t - o f - p o c k e t r u l e , Lama Holding Co. v S m i t h B a r n e y , Iiic., 88 N Y 2 d 413, 4 2 1 ( 1 9 9 6 ) ( i n n e r q u o t a t i o n m a r k s arid c i t a t i o n omitted). Under t h i s r u l e , [ d l a m a g e s a r e t o b e c a l c u l a t e d t o c o m p e n s a t e p l a i n t i f f s f o r w h a t t h e y lost b e c a u s e o f t h e f r a u d , not t o c o m p e n s a t e t h e m f o r what t h e y m i g h t have g a i n e d ( i d . ) . Here, o t h e r than t h e l o s s of t h e i r b a r g a i n , i . e . , l o s t p r o f i t s , t h e FTDs d o n o t a l l e g e damages o f t h e t y p e r e c o v e r a b l e i n a f - r a u d c l a i m , a n d t h i s i s a n a d d i t i o n a l g r o u n d o n w h i c h t.o d i s m i s s t h i s claim. 20 [* 22] p l a i n t . i f f h a d an o b l i g a t i o n u n d e r t h e Loan A g r e e m e n t s t o l o a n F o r t Tryor1 more than $73 mill.ion for r c y u i r c d t u compleLe c o n s t r u c t i o n , the knowledge that, w i t h o u t this the Project, (ii) p l a i n t i f f a n d ( i i i )p l a i n t i f f d i d s o w i t h funding, Fort T r y o n would be u n a b l e t o c o m p l e t e t h e P r o j e c t a n d r e p a y t h e Loans (Amended Answer, ¶¶ 194-196). W i t h i n e v e r y contract i s a n i m p l i e d c o v e n a n t of good f a i t h a n d f a i r d e a l i n g . This c o v e n a n t i s b r e a c h e d when a p a r t y t o a c o n t r a c t a c t s i n a manner t h a t , a l t h o u g h n o t e x p r e s s l y f o r b i d d e n by a n y c o n t r a c t u a l p r o v i s i o n , would d e p r i v e t h e o t h e r p a r t y of the r i g h t t o receive t h e b e n e f i t s under t h e i r agreement. Aven time I n v . M g t . v C a n a d i a n Imperial B a n k of Commerce, 2 65 A D 2 d . 51.3, 513-514 ( 2 d Dept 1999) (citations omitted). A i n good f a i t h i n performing i t s c o n t r a c t u a l o b l i g a t i o n s , Holdings, good f a i t h see Amcan Inc. v C a n a d i a ~ Imperial B a n k o f Commerce, 7 0 AD3d 4 2 3 , ~ 4 2 6 (1st Dept 2 0 1 0 ) , lv d e i ~1 5 NY3d 7 0 4 ( 2 0 1 0 ) , ( d i s m i s s i n g a good faith a n d f a i r d e a l i n g c l a i m b e c a u s e i t a r o s e f r o m t h e same f a c t s 21 [* 23] Here, the b r e a c h of good fai.th claim does litLle more than al-lege what is already asserted in the breach of contract claim, namely, Lhat plaintiff breached its obligations under the Loan Agreements to fully fund the Loans FTDs). Thus, (barring any default by the this claim does not provide a separate cause of action from I:he F T D s b r e a c h of contract claim and is dismissed as duplicative, In Lheir proposed fifth counterclaim (and twenty-seventh affirmaLive defense), the plaintiff s claim that the term of t.he Loans has expired, FTDs seek declaration a that: (i) is without merit, (ii) Fort Tryon is not in default of its obligations (iii) plaintif ¬ is obligated to under the Loan Agreements, and approve and disburse constructive advances for the b a l a n c e of the loan proceeds (Amended Answer, In their proposed sixth affirmative defense), the performance, compelling ¶ 206). counterclaim FTDs seek a (and twenty-eighth decree Plaintiff to provide of specific funding for the remaining balance of the Buj.ldirig Loan and Project Loan amounts, consistent with the terms of the loans (id. ¶ 212). 22 [* 24] the i r In proposed affirmative defense) , seventh countcrcl.aim (arid twenty-ninth t h c FTDs allege t h a t b y f a i l i n g a n d r e f u s i n g Iio f u n d draw r e q u e s t . 3 sirice A u g u s t 2 0 0 8 , plaintiff h a s r e p u d i a t : e d a n d a n t i . c i p a t o r i l y b r e a c h e d t h e Bui 1 d i . n y Loan a n d t h e P r o j e c t Loa11 and AcjreerrieriI:s, damages . . . consequently, that E nrt T r y o n is entitled to [ o f n o 1 l e s s t h a n F j . f l y M i l l i o n D o l l a r s (id. ¶ ¶ 2 1 4 - 21.6). The E 1 Ds c l d i m l e g a l e n t i t l e m e n t t o tir-inq t.hese a d d i t i o n a l c;ountcrclaj.rris o n t h e s t r e n g I : h of- p l a i n t i ff s r e c o g n i t . i . o n t h a t t h e Loan A g r e e m e n t s s p e c i f i c a l l y p e r m i t a n a c t i o n s e e k i n g i n j u n c t i v e r e l i e f or d e c l a r a t . o r y j u d g m e n t , ( p l a i n t i f f s movinq memorandum o f ( c i L i n g 5 1 0 . 1 2 o f t h e Loan A g r e e m e n t . $ ) . l a w , at. 6 ) The F l Ds a l s o a s s e r t t h a t a s b o r r o w e r s on a construct.ioin l o a n , t h e y a r e e n t i t l e d t o brinq an action for spccific p e r f o r m a n c e , see D e s t i r i y USA Holdings, LLC v C i t i q r o u p G l o b a l M k t s . R e a l t y C o r p . , 69 A D 3 d 2 1 2 , 221 ( 4 t h Dept 2009), Iv 1.0 appeal d.i:;rr~ 85 AD3d 1656 (4 - Dep t 2011); see also Breyriian v Mechai7, 125 Misc 2d 332, 346-4 1 ( S u p Ct, Nassau C o 1 9 8 4 ) . Factudl allegations support that., at. f o r t h e s e c o u n t e r c l a i m s r e s t s o n t h e FTDs all relevant times, FarL Tryori c o m p l i a n c e w i t h t h e rcquirerrients of t h e Loan Agreements, was in a n d t-hat p l a i n t i f f u n j u s t i f i a b 1 . y refused t o c o n t i n u e m a k i n g l o a n a d v a n c e s t o 23 [* 25] cover necessary expenses to enable the Project to be built (Amended Answer, ¶¶ Tn 49-58, 76-77, 109, 138-243, 173-183, 200-206). response, plaintiff, relying on documentary evidence, asserts that F o r t . Tryon was in default of iLs obligations when plaintiff ceased rriaking advances. Specifically, a s u b c o n t x - a c t o r on the Project, defendant All R o c k Crushing, Iric. ("All Rock"), filed a mechanic's lien dated July 31, 2008 against the Property. Upon the recording 01 All Rock's lien, various p r o v i s j . o n s in Article 2 of t h e 1 3 u j l . d i n g Loan and Project Loan Agreements provided that plaintiff no longer h a d an obligation to make advances f o r the Project, free and precedent Agreement, because clear Fort of Tryon, by 1-iens, failed for continued not to funding, see keeping the fulfill e.g., Property a condition Building Loan Sections 2.9.2 (c) & (e), 2.7. More specifically, Fort Tryon h a d agreed in Section 4.2.2 of the Building Loan Agreement (incorporated by reference into Section 4.2.2 of the Project Loan Agreement), that it. would riot "create, incur, assume or suffer to exist any Lien on any portion of the Property except for Permitted Encumbrances. Thus, a c c o r d i n g to plaintiff, documentary evidence in the form of All Rock's publicly-filed notice of lien and the aforementioned contrackual provisions, not only refutes the F T D s ' claim that Fort Tryon fully complied with all of its obligations and was never in default of the Loan Agreements before plaintiff [* 26] ceased making advances, but affirmatively demonstrates that plaintiff was contractually relieved of its obligati-on to m a k e any f u r t h e r advances aft.cr A u g u s t 1, 20013. The FTD:; h a v e a different view of what effect, if a n y , the filing of AI.] R o c k s lien had on plaintiff s alleyed obligation to coriLiriue f-unding construction expenses. lien, Al.1 Rock served Subsequent to ¬iliny its Complaint a in May 2009 to foreclose, naming plaintiff here as one of the defendants there (see Indcx No. 10061.8/2009). On December 26, 2009, more than a month before Amalgamated commenced the instant action, i.t interposed a Verified A n s w e r with Counterclaims and Cross-Claims to All Rock s Complaint, alleying that the All Rock lien was n o t proper1.y served, that All Rock willfully exaggerated the amount of the lien, that the lien is precluded by lien waivers, and was not a p p r o v e d by plaintiff, and t h a t it was the product or end result. of a pattern or scheme of fraud and deceit and should be declared null and void ( (Amalgamated s Verified Answer in Index No. 100618/2009, T¶ 17, 24, 26, 23 and 33). Significantly, Amalgamated a l s o seeks therein injunctive relief to restrain and prohibit. Marsori (Fort Tryon s construction manager) arid Fort Tryori h The F T D s argument that they received no notice of this default frorn plaintj-ff is of no moment. The Loan Agreements p r o v i d e that plaintiff may take any action to enforce its rights without notice or demand upon an event of default, see Bui.lding Loan and Project Loan Agreements 5 9.1 (b). 25 [* 27] from pay<.ng the All Rock lien (id.,4191 13, 27, 33, 36, 38). Having cl-aimed j.n a prior proceeding that the All Rock Ii.en was invalid arid nul.1 and void, plaintiff cannot now claim that F o r t . Tryon s failure LO pay or failure to prevent the existence of what plaintiff itself alleges to be a fraudulent lien, constitutes a default under the Loan Agreements. Thus, assuming the truth of the allegations in the Amended Answer, the FTDs appear to have at: least stated a cause of action for declaratory judqmerit arid specific performance in their fifth and sixth counterclaims and the Answer may be amended accordi.ngly. However, the FTDs cannot assert their proposed seventh counterclaim. That claim, although identified initially as one for injunctive relief, is nothing more than a re-pled - breach of contract claim. - and disallowed Indeed, on reply, the F T D s describe this claim as one for contract repudTation , which, in fact, it is, Accordingly, the seventh counterclaim does not state a claim and cannot be asserted. Second a n d T h i r d ( ~ 1 : a n d i n q )a n d Seven 1 1 ( u n l i c e n s e d l e n u 9 A f f iu a t ve D e f e n s e s : rt The Amended Answer s second and third affirmative defenses raise valid defenses c h a l l e n g i n g plaintiff s standing and authority to bring this action. First, the FTDs correctly observe that the 26 [* 28] pl ainki ff in this action i.s Amalqamated Bank, as TrusLee of Longview LJl.[.,?a J Construction L o a n Tnvest.ment. Fund (now known as Lonqvicw Ultra Construction Loan Investmeill. Fund) , individually a n d as administrat:ive agcrit for itself and Lhe oLher Lenders signatory thereto including Pet-ra Mort-gage Capital Corp. LLC as Co-Lcnder, I whereas I.he riame of the holder 01 the M o r t g a g e s is Amalgamated Bank, as Trustee of L o n y v i e w IJl.tra 1 Construction Loan Investrnent : Fund (see Exs. G, 11 a n d I to the Complaint). Although plaint.i.ff clai-rns that the change in l h e name of the loan fund from I J l L r a I to Ultra is unremarkable (plaintiff s r e p l y mernorandum of law, at 20), the Comp1a.int contains no alleqation that the discrepancy i .s attributable t.o a change in the name of t.he fund as opposed to, for example, a merger or assignment, which might possibly have involved a transfer of t.he Mortgages and Nolies. In addition, in a related case also now pending beforc this C o u r t , Amalqamated s co-lender, Pet-ra, filcd cl Complaint in October 2010, allcging tha?. it assigned its interests in the Mortgages to a Cayrnari Tslands entity known as Petra CRF CDO 2007-1, Ltd..7 However, it. is not clear whether Eletra assigned its interests in Irhe 1,oans before or after t.he commencement 7 of this action. See, P e t r a M o r k g a y e C a p i t a l Corp. LLC a n d P e t r d CIiE CDCI 200 1-1,L t d . a q a i r i s L A i i a l g m a t e d B a n k , as Il rustec of L o r i g v i e w U l t r a 1 C o r i s t r u c t i o n L o a n lr~vestrrie~it Furid ( I n d e x No. 651861/2010). 27 [* 29] Accordingly, [.he second a n d t h i r d a f f j r m a t i v e d e f e n s e s wj 11 riot be d i s r r i i s s e d a t t h i s s t a g e of lj Ir i g a t i o n . The sevcnth allegati.on t h a t a ¬LirmaLive is defense o n e or more o f based t h e Lenders on the E I 13 s for whom P l a i n t i 1 1 purpor-Ls t o b e a 1 ruskeeor a d m i n i s t r a t i v e a g e n t i s not l i c e n s e d t:o do b u s i n e s s i n (.he S t - a t e of N e w Y o r k (Amended A n s w e r , ¶ 38) . More s p e c i f i c a l l y , t h e F T D s contend t h a t t h e Complaint does noli allege that e i t - h e r U 1 L r . a conduct. b u s i n e s s jri 01: t h e Cayman Islands e n t i t y are licensed t o Ncw York, o r i f e i t h e r falls u n d e r t h e foreign b a n k e x e m p t i o n 01 R a n k i n g Law 200. Iri t h i s regard, t h e B a n k i n g L a w p r o h i b i t s a. SecLiori 2 0 0 of f o r e i g n banking c o r p o r a t i o n from t r a n s a c t i n g b u s i n e s s i n t h i s S t a t e unless certain pleatled a n y of requirements these are m e t . requirements, While section pl.ainti.ff 200 not does p r o v i d e i . n relevant p a r t : T h i s s e c t . i o n s h a l l n o t b e c o n s t r u e d t.o p r o h i b i t f o r e i g n banking c o r p o r a t i o n s which do no[. m a i n t a i n a n office i n t - h i s s t a t e f o r t h e t r a n s a c t . i o n o f business f r o m (1) m a k i n g l o a n s i n t-.hj.s s t a t e s e c u r e d b y m o r t g a g e s o n real p r o p e r k y . . . [ o r ] ; ( 2 ) e n f o r c i n q i n t h i s s t a t c o b l i g a i i o n s h e r e t o f o r e or h e r e a f t e r a c q u i r c d b y it . + . i.n t h e t : r a n s a c t i o n o f a n y b u s i n e s s a u L h o r i z c d by t h i s section . . . 28 has [* 30] represents arc unlicensed t o 'Thus, e v e n i f t h e Lenders p i a i n t i ¬ f t r a n s a c t b u s ir-less i n New Y o r k , of 200 the Bankir-i(3- L a w , p l a i n t i f f c a n , p u r s u a n t l:o Section maintain t-his action obligat..ion c r e a t e d by t h e Mortgages, to sce F i r s t W i s . cnforce the T r u s t Co. v H a k i m i a n , 237 A D 2 d 2 4 9 , 2 5 0 ( 2 d Dept 1 9 9 7 ) (p7.a:irit.iff a s a " f o r - e i q n hank in c) r i is which e t 11e 1.e ss , \\ riot licensed a II h o r i zc d t to iri New commence mortgages") . act.ions Accordinyl y , to .... was, f o r e c 1 s u re o [which] tluth0r.i z e s foreign b a n k s t o l o a n money secured b y m o r t g a g e s to State" corrune ri ce t 11 i s m o r t g a g e a c t . i o n [ u n d e r ] B a n k i n g Law s e c t - i o n 2 0 0 arid York enforcc or1 pr-operty i r i t-his S t a t e obligations under those t.he s e v e n t h affirmative d e f e n s e l a c k s n1er.i.t a n d i s d i s m i s s e d . F o i i r t 11 AIf .i j-ma t i vc Defense (fai 1ur-e t o 7 o i 11 n e ces s r 2 r v parties) : Tn t . h e i r fourth a f f i r m a t i v e d e f e n s e , pursuant ("IWAPI,") Lhe to New York Real P r o p e r t y A c t i o n s 1311, p l a i , n t i f f f a i l e d t o joi action, t h e F'I'Ds a l l e y e thal., identifying only the F o r t ri and Procedures Law a l l necessary parties t o Tryon Jewish C e n t e r (an a d j o i n i n g p r o p e r t y owner a.nd t . h e g r a n L o r o f various e a s e m e n t s t o t h e P r o j c c t ) a s an unnamed n e c e s s a r y party (Amended A n s w e r , ¶ ¶ 19- 20, 92-93) ." how eve.^., L h i s a l l e g a t i o n cainnot be t h e basis o f ' R P A P L 1 3 1 1 (1) a n d ( 3 ) define n e c e s s a r y p a r t i e s t o a foreclosure a c t i o n a s " [ e l v e r y person having an e s t a t e o r i r i t - e r e s t i n p o s s e s s i o n , o r o t h e r w i s e , i n t h e p r 0 p e r t . y " ant3 29 a [* 31] valid defense because [n]either RPAPL 1311, which governs forcclosurc actions, n o r CPLK article 10 and 3211 (a) (lo), which govern civil actions generally, requires dismissal of an action in a l l cases in which there has been a failure to join a necessary party ( D i m e Sav. B a n k of N . Y . v Johneas, 172 A D 2 d 1082, 1083 [4th Dept 19911 ) . Further, any orniL ted parties rights would remain unaffected by the foreclosure judgment and sale and the Court c o u l d always order the necessary parties joined Lo the action at the appropriate time (see B o a r d of Mgrs. of P a r k c h e s t e r N . Condominium v Alaska S e a b o a . r d P a r t n e r s L t d . P a r t n e r s h i p , 37 AD3d 3 3 2 , 333 [ l s t Dept 20071). In any event, the FTDs provide no aut-hority for the proposit.ion that Fort T r y o n Jewish Center, as the grantor of an easement, is a necessary party as contemplated by RPAPL 1311. Accordingly, this defense lacks merit and is dismissed. Eiuhth A f f i r m a t i v e Defense (borrower d e n i e d r i g h t to e x t e n d t e r m 0.f the L o a n s ) : Under this defense, the F T D s allege that plaintiff s actions denied Fort Tryon the right, opportunity and ability to exercise its option under the Loan Agreements to extend the term of the Loans (Amended Answer, ¶¶ 100, 102). The FTDs further allege that the right to exercise the option to extend was not discretionary [elvery person having any lien or incumbrance upon the real property which is claimed to be subject and subordinate to the lien of the plaintiff . 30 [* 32] with the Lenders (id. ¶ 101). However, Section 2.1.5 of the Loan Agreements expressly predicates any extension of the Loans upon ;3. number of conditions the F T D s do not c l a i m to have satisfied, including that the extension is acceptable to a n y permanent. lender. Thus, the F T D s did not have an unl.imited right to extend the Loans, and plai.ntif ¬ bargained for, and exercise i t s right not to extend the Loans. was enLitled to To argue, as do the F T D s , that they have sufficiently pled allegations that plaintiff s actions prevented defendants from even reaching the point where they m i g h t have been able to supp1.y evi-clence that the extension was satisfactory to a permanent lender, only demonstrates the degree to which the supporting allegations are improperly speculative and too attenuated to s t a t e a valid defense. A c c o r - d i n g l y , the eighth affirmative defense is dismissed. N j . [ i L h A f f j - r i n d tive D e f e n s e ( l a c h e s ): [Tlhe doctrine of laches is not available in a foreclosure action brought within t h e period of limitations , N e w York S t a t e Mtge, Loan EnforcemenL: & A d n i n . C o r p . v N o r t h Tow17 Phase 11 Houses, 191 AD2d 151, 152 (1st Dept 1993) (citation omitted). Here, the Loan Agreements between plaintiff a n d Fort l ryonmatured on June 30, 2009. Plaintiff filed the Complaint on January 29, 2010, well within the six years allowed for- an action for forecl.osure of a 31 [* 33] mortqage (in real proper.i.y (CPJ,R 2 1 3 ) . Accordingly, the nj n t h a E f i rrnaLive deIense i s dismissed. T c n t h Affirmative U e f c n s e ( u n c l e a n h a n d s ) Uncl-ean harids i n p a r t i c i p a L i n q i . r i a c o u r , y e o f c o n d u c t of d e c e p L i o n a n d d e c e i t is an e f f e c t - i v e b a r t o [an a r : t i o n ] - . . The d o c t r i n e of u n c l e a n hands a p p l i e s when t h e c o m p l a i n i n q p a r t y shows tl-iat t.he o f f e n d i . n g party -is g u i l t y o f -i rnmoral u n c o n s c i o n a b l e conduct . . . [ A ] ny w i l l . Tu1 c o n d u c t w h i c h w o u l d be condemned a n d p r o n o u n c e d by honest and fair-minded men, w i l l be wroriy Kul s u f f i c i e n t t o make the h a n d s o f t h e a p p l i c a n t u n c l e a n a s long a s t h e c o n d u c t p e r t a i n s Lo t h e m a t t e r : i n l.iI.igation . . . ( i n t e r - n a l c i . t a t i o n s and quotat-ion m a r k s omitted). Tii re S t a t e U r h a r l Llevelopn~er~t o r p o l - d t i o n f 2 6 M i s c 3 d 1 2 2 8 ( A ) a t *28 i ( S u p Ct, K i . n c j s Co 2010) . Herc, without t.he cause, Amended Answer t o pruvide alleges t h a l advances t o t h e pl a i n t i L f refused, Project a f t - e r A u g u s t 2008, t h a t p l a i n t i f f s a c t . i o r ? s were t h e sole c a u s e o f F o r t T r y o r i s inability to c o r i s L r u c t i on, advances. repay re1ying the loan and that. upon p 1 , a i n t i f f s Fort promise Tryon t.o suspended resume loan A c c o r d i n q t.he FTD e v c r y L a v o r a b l e i n f e r c n c e , t h e y h a v e , at: this s t a y c , a d e q u a t - e l y pled f a c t s u n c l earl h a n d s . 32 t.o s u p p o r t t h e i r d e f e n s e of [* 34] Eleverilti Affirmative Defense (nld i n t i ff caused defendanls' dcfault) : Tri defense, this cntj-t-led t o the foreclosure b e c a u s e loriy been assert. thal: plaint.iff is not. [:he a 1 ] . e y e d d e r a u l t was c a u s e d own a c t s (Amended Answer, 7191 109-110), e n t j re1 y b y p l a i n t i f f ' s has FTDs established that: "[a] p r o m i s e e who prevents T t the prorn:isor f r o m b c i n q a b l e t.o p e r f o r m [.he p r o m i s e c a n n o t m a i n t a i n suit he d i s c h a r g e s t h e promisor f r o m d u t y , f o r rioriperTorInarice; Cantcr-bury R e a l Ly " E q u i p . Corp, v P o u g h k e e p s - i e S a v . B a n k , 1 3 5 AD2d CE 102, 1 0 7 ( 3 d Dept 1 9 8 8 ) ( q u o t a t - i o n m a r k s a n d c i t a t i o n 0rnitI:ed). In t h e i n s t a n t c a s e , t h e FTDs a1.l.ege t h a t p l a i n t i f f ' s bad f a i t h a c t i o n in cutting off f u r t h e r a n c e of was riol in Agreements, pay the advances itis of any construction or1 the in i n t e r c s t . , even t-hough Fort. T r y o n its of Project's obligations under init.ia1 maturity date Loan the t h e sole c a u s e o f t h e i n a b i l j - t y o f For[ loan off Accordingly, the o w n finaricial default was for Tryon t o (id. ¶ 109) . L.hi s a f f i r m a t i v e dcferise w i l l n o t h c d i s m i s s e d . b'ourteenth A f f j rmative Defcnse ( e s t o p p e l ) ; T h i r t e e n t h A f f i r m a t i ve Defense ( w a i v e r ) : The fourteenth a f f i r m a t . i v e def-erise, a s s e r t e d on behalf of 'I'hompson, rai ses a d c f e n s c of e s t o p p e l a g a i n s i e n I o r c e m e n t o f t h e Guaranties. 'The e l e m e n t s ot p r o m i s s o r y estoppel a r c : "a c l e a r and unarrhi.guous p r o m i s e , reasonable a n d f o r e s c c a h l c r e l i . a n c e b y (.he 33 [* 35] party to whom the p r o m i s e is rriade, and an injury sustained in reliance on that promisc," Williams v E a s c : ) n , 4 9 A D 3 d 8 6 6 , 8 6 8 (2cl Dept 2008). Howcvcr, even if T h u r n p s o r i alleged a l l of (.he necessary elements of e s t . o p p c 1 , this defense c a n n o t be maint.ained i n t h e face of documentary cvidcrice t h a t . e s t a b l i shes that Thompson and Fort Tryon agreed in (.he Guaranty of Payment arid the Guaranty of Completion that any s u b s e q u e n t pworni.ses would have nu effect t h e i . r o b l . i g a t i 011s under t.he Guaranties. 011 In p a r t - i cular, Section 6.1.1 ot each I;uaranl_y provides in relevant p a r t ? : T H l S GUARAN'TY I S I N T E N D E D BY GIJARAN'l'Oli, AGENT AND LENDER A S A F I N A L AND COMPLETE E X P R E S S I O N OF T H E TERMS Oh' 'YHE GUARANTY, AND NO COURSE OF DEALING BETWEEN GUARANTOR, AGEN'Y AND LENDER . . . AND NO E V I D E N C E O' P R I O R , k CONTEMPORANEOUS OK SUBSEQUEN'I' ORAL AGREEMENTS OR D I S C U S S I O N S OK O'I'HEK E X ' l ' R I N S I C EVTDENCE O F ANY NATIJRE SHALL BE USED T O C O N T R A D I C T , VARY, S U P P L E M E N T OR MODIFY ANY TERM O F T H I S CUAlIAN'I'Y AGREE,MENT, T H E R E ARE N O ORAL AGREEMENTS BETWEEN GUARANTOH, AGENT AND LENDER. Thus, even i.f plaintiff made the promise as alleged, that it would exLend the loan pending plaintiff's rcsumpt i o n of advances if Thomson would agree to suspend c o r i s t r u c t i u n Answer, ¶ 011 thc Projecl. (Amended 117), Lhe F T D s ncvcrthcless agreed that such an extrinsic promise would be unenforceable. Moreover, b a s e d on this provision, the E'"1'Ds' r e l i a n c e or-) t h e promise by plaintiff I:(-) waive of the Guaranties would n o t . have been reasonable. fourteenth affirmative deferise is dismi ssed. 34 enforcement Accordi r - i y l y , the [* 36] F o r t h e i d e n t , i . c a l r e a s o n , t.he t h i - r t e e n t h a f ¬ i r m a t i , v e d e f e n s e , raising Guaranties that claim the waiver of against the enforcement (id. ¶ ¶ 13.3-15) must a1 s o be d i s m i . s s e d . , portion of the twentieth affirmative of (.he In addition, tlellense (inf-r-a) , a s s e r t i n g w a i v e r a n d e s t o p p e l a s a d e f - e n s e t o t h e e n f o r c e m e n t of t.he Guarant:ies (id. ql'il 165-6;6), i s l i k e w i s e d i s m i s s e d . S i x t e e n t h A f f i r n l ; 1 /Live Defense (relief is precluded by election of remedies) : Relying the d o c t r i n e o f e l e c t i o n o f r e m e d i e s , or1 i n RPAPI, 1 3 0 1 ( 3 ) t h e FTDs r n a i n t a i n t h a t p l a i n t i f f ' s ds codified second cause o f a c t i o n for a d e f i c i e n c y judgment., o r money d a m a g e s , i s p r e c l u d e d b y t h e r e l i e f o f f o r e c l o s u r e s o u g h t b y p l . a i n t . i f f i n it.s f i r s t . c a u s e of a c t i o n . elecl b e t w e e n r e c o v e r i n g i n e q u i t y b y A m o r t g a g e e may a n ackion f o r f o r e c l o s u r e a n d s a l e , o r b y r e c o v e r i n g t h e debt. a t law, see W y o m i n g C o u i i t y B a n k ( 4 t h Dept. 1980). & T r u s t Co. v K.j..ley, '75 A D 2 d 4.71, 180 t h e r e l i e f souqht by p l a i n t i f ¬ i n i t s However, s e c o n d c a u s e o f a c t i o n i n t h e C o m p l a i n t i s not a n a l t e r n a t - i v e t o the r e l i e f Rather, it souqht by plaintiff in its is c o n d i t i o n e d o n w h e t h e r FI Pr-0per.t.y s a t i s f i e s t h e o u t s t a n d i n g d e b t . fi.rst of cause foreclosure actj.un. sale o f the P u r s u a n t t o RPAPL 1 3 7 1 (I), i f a m o r t g a g e e e l e c t s t.o b r i n g a n a c t i o n f o r f o r e c l o s u r e , [.he mortgagee unsatisfied can also debt reyuesl against a a named 35 deficiency dcfendanL judgment who is for liable any for- [* 37] payment of the debt secured by the mortgage. Accordingly, this defense lacks merit a n d i.s dismissed. S e v e n t e e n t h a n d T w e n t i e t h Affirmative Defenses (estoppel arid waiver) : In their seventeenth affirmative defense, the FTDs assert that plaintif ¬ should be estopped from claiming that Fort Tryori is in default of its obligations under the Loan Agreements and from f o r e c l o s i . n g on the Property. Specifically, the F T D s assert that. plaintiff knew that F o r t Tryon acted in reliance on the promises made by plaintiff for the funding of the costs of the Project (more than $'73 million) when it entered into the Loan Agreements, and k n e w that without t h e sale of the condominium units the F T D s would not be able to repay the Loans. They further allege that plaintiff knew that they would reasonably rely upon plaintiff's promise to extend the term of the loan when its made the request for Fort Tryon to suspend construction in September 2008. The FTDs claim that plaintiff h a s , in breach of its promises and representations, f a i l e d to resume loan advances and refused to extend the terms of the Loan, as a result of which they were unable to complete construction of the Project by the initial maturity date and have been damaged (Amended Answer, ¶SI 129-143). 36 [* 38] 'The twentie,th affi-rmative defense assserts an addi tiorial d e f e n s e o f e s t . o p p e 1 and w a i v e r a g a i n s t f o r e c l o s u r e and e n f o r c e m e n t of i.s b a s e d 1.argcl.y or1 t h e s a m e a l l e g a t i o n s the Guaranties t h a t In a d d i t i o n , t h e supportjng t h e seventeenth affirmative defense. a g r e e m e n t t o susperid FTDs a l l e g e t h a t i n e x c h a n g e f o r Thompson's construction, plaintiff Intercreditor Agreement agreed that to would negotiate result in revisions to the the r c s u m p t i o n o f f u n d i n g t o c o m p l e t e t h e Project a n d a l o w e r i n g o f t.he i n t e r e s t rate on t h e L o a n s . With r e s p e c t t o i t s r i g h t t o f o r e c l o s e , p l a i n t i f f a r g u e s t h a t t h e s e d e f e n s e s , b a s e d on a l l e g e d o r a l p r o m i s e s , a r e i n v i o l a t i o n o f t h e i n t e g r a t i o n clauses c o n t a i n e d i n t h e Loan A g r e e m e n t s t h a t s t a t e that no provision of the Loan Agreements may be modified or s u p p l e m e n t e d e x c e p t "by a n i n s t r u m e n t i n w r i t i n g s i g n e d b y B o r r o w e r arid [plaintiff]" plaintiff's provide t h a t (Loan argument, Agreements, however, "any p r o v i s i o n of 11.4 [ e ]1 . the s a m e p a r a g r a p h t h i s Agreement Documents may be waived b y [ p l a i n t i f f ] ' I (id. . ) Undercutting goes on to or t h e o t h e r L o a n Additionally, the FTDs a r e n o t a l l e g i . n g a m o d i f i c a t i o n t o t h e Loan A g r e e m e n t s a s a r e s u l t o f t h e alleged o r a l p r o m j . s e s . Rat-her, t h e FTDs a l l e g e t h a t a f t e r p l a i n t i f f s t o p p e d making a d v a n c e s , i t i n d u c e d Fort T r y o n t o s u s p e n d c o n s t r u c t i o n t h r o u g h v a r i o u s p r o m i s e s on w h i c h F o r t Tryon r e l i e d , changing i t s posi.tion t o i t s detriment. 37 This is sufficient [* 39] t o s t a t e a d e f e n s e of w a i v e r a n d e s t o p p e l . , see Nassau T r u s t Co v Montrose Concrete Prods. Corp., 56 NY2d (1982) 103 175, ( d i s t i n g u i s h i n g "between an o r a l agrcement t h a t p u r p o r t s t o modify t h e t e r m s o f a prior w r i t t e n a g r e e m e n t a n d a n o r a l w a j - v e r b y o n e p a r t y t o a w r i t . t e n agreement of a r i g h t t o r e q u i r e of t h e o t h e r p a r t y c e r t a i n p e r f o r I n a n c e i n compl.i a n c e w i t h t h a t a g r e e m e n t : " ) A c c o r d i rig1 y , foreclosure the in FTDs their have stated seventeent-h valid and defenses twentieth . against affirmative defenses. With r e s p e c t t o e n f o r c e m e n t of t h e G u a r a n t i e s , t h i s C o u r t has already determined in i t s d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e f o u r t e e n t h affirmative defense of the Guaranties, ( s u p r a ) t h a t , b a s e d on t h e e x p r e s s l a n g u a g e t h e d e f e n s e s o f e s t o p p e l or w a i v e r may n o t be r a i s e d t o avoid l i a b i l i - t y under t h e Guaranties. Twen t v-Second Aff i r m a t i ve Defense (unc o r i s c i o n a b i 1i tv) : I n s u p p o r t of t h i s defense, t h e F T D s a l . l e g e t h a t plaintiff "engaged i n o p p r e s s i v e and u n c o n s c i o n a b l e conduct w i t h r e g a r d t o t h e M o r t g a g e s , " a n d c o n s e q u e n t l y , p l a i n t i f f s h o u l d n o t be a f f o r d e d the right to foreclose (Amended Complaint, I n s e e k i n g dismissal o f t h i s d e f e n s e , Yl¶ 171-72). plaintiff argues that w i t h r e s p e c t t o c o m m e r c i a l t r a n s a c t i o n s , " c o u r t s h a v e r a r e l y fourid 38 [* 40] unconscionability, and it h a s been held that when businessmen contract in a commercial setting, a presumption of conscionability arises , L i s t e r E l e c . v I n c o r p o r a t e d V i l . of C c d a r h u r s t , 108 A D 2 d 731, 7.34 (2d Dept 3.985) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Granted, the FTDs f a i l to allege the absence of a meaningful. choice in thci.r dealings with pl.aintiff with respect to contract formation. Nevertheless, the Amended Answer also alleges post-exccution conduct by plaintiff, i . e . , plaintiff s unjustified refusal to continue advancing funds and plaintiff s unkept promise of continued funding in exchange for Fort Tryon s agreement to suspend construction, that is sufficient to state a defense of unconscionability . Motion Sequence 002 On this motion, plaintiff seeks dismissdl the of four counterclaims and second through thirteenth affirmative defenses interposed by Marson Counterclaim, counterclaim in its Verified Answer, as well and and Cross Claims. dismissal first the interposed by Tectonic as iri and of second the Cross Claim and first (and only) affirmative defenses i t s Verified Amended Answer, Counterclaim Plaintiff s central argument is that these counterclaims and affirmative defenses ultimately fail because they Y Plaintiff does not seek dismissal of Marson s first affirmative defense (failure to state a cause of action), OL Tectonic s third affirmatj.ve defense for the same relief. 39 [* 41] do not p l e a d f a c t s sufficient to suggest a reason why the Mortgages should be subordinated to Marson's and Tectonic's mechanic's liens I According to Marson's Answer, on J u n e 1, 2007, it entered into a written Construction Management Agreement: ( the "CMA"), with Fort Tryon, under which Marson agreed to act as a construction manager ¬or the Project. Bet-ween October 29, 2007 a n d November 17, 2008, Marson performed work, labor and services and furnished materials in accordance with the CMA, including additional work at the s p e c i a l request of Fort Tryon. November 17, 2008, it is Marson alleges that as of a owed balance in the sum of $1,319,136.76, plus interest. Marson also states that on December 24, 2008, it filed in the New York County Clerk's O f f i c e a Private Improvement Mechanic's Lien against the Property, claiming a lien i.n the sum of $1,258,776.27 as a result of the improvements Marson made to the Property. paid. Marson Marson's mechanic's lien has not yet b e e n acknow1,edges that " [a]t all times hereinafter mentioned[, ] Amalgamated has or held a mortgage lien or an interest aqainst the Property" (Marson Answer, Yr 54). According to the Tectonic Answer, on or about March 3, 2006, March 2, 2007, April 30, 2007, November 19, 2007 and January 9, 2008, Tectonic and Fort Tryon entered into three agreements (the "Tectonic Agreements") under which 40 Tectonic would provide [* 42] c o n s t r u c t i on Project, 18, i n s p c c t . i o n and engineering support Pursuant t o t h e Tect.nnic Agreements, -1 0 , 2006 a n d November 2008, k o r t l ryon, r e m a i n s due a n d o w i n q . 2009, out 01 which Teckonic: r e r i d e r e d of $134,448.43 a balance T h e T e c t o n i c Answer allcqcs that on May 26, i t d u l y arid t i m e l y f i l e d i n t h e office o f t h e C l e r k o f t h e C o u n t y 01 N e w York, a Nutice Under M e c h a n i c s and claiming Answer, 1. between September T e c t . o n i c f u r n i - s h e d erigi.r-ieeriny s e r v i c e s f - o r the i m p r o v e m e n t o f t h e P r o p e r t y . invoices t o services Lo t h e (n a mechanics 38). 1,jeri Law, a s s e r t i n g lien against the P r o p e r t y (Tectonic T e c t o n i c s l i e n h a s not b e e n p a i d . Marson s Counterclaims and Affirmative Defenses F i r s t C ~ n tn x c l a i i n ( s u b o r d i n a t i o n of t h e Mortsaaes) : e Tri i t s fi r s t c o u n t e r c l a i m , Marson a l l e g e s t h a t i t s m e c h a n i c s l i e n i s e n t i L l e d t.c priority over the M o r t g a g e s b e c a u s e p l a i n t . i f f i s n o t e i n t i t l e d to a n y rnort.gage l i e n p r i o r i t y u n d e r S e c t - i o n 22 of t h e N e w York S t a t e L i e n L a w , a n d because Amalgamated k n e w , or s h o u l d have known, t h a t t h e P r o j e c t would h a v e not been successful a n d t h a t Marson would not be p a i d (Marson A n s w e r , (n¶ 93, 95) - The basis for- M a r s o n s r-e ¬ererice t o the L i e n Law a p p e a r s t o be i t s claim t h a t Corrip1.aj.nt w h i le t.he Mort.gagcs w e r c p r o p e r l y fails to a l l e g e , pursuant to L i e n rccorded, T,aw 2 7 , the Lhat. t h e nu; 1 clinq Loan A g r e e m e n t , ir-1c1 udiriy the S e n i o r Loan a n d P r o j e c t : Loan 41 [* 43] Agreements, was f i l e d i n t - h e office o f t h e c l e r k of t h e count-y i . n which any p a r t of the land i s s i t u a t - e d (Lien Law 22) § (see Affirmation 01 R o b e r t Mark Wasko, d a t e d J a n u a r y 5 , 2013. [ Wasko Aff. ], 3-12). argues ¶¶ this Given omission, Marson that. p l a i n t . i f f - s inl:.erests i n t h e P r o p e r t y a r c s u b j e c t t o t h e l i e n a n d c l a i m o f a p e r s o n who shall t h e r e a 1 l : e r - f i l e a n o t i c e o f 1.i.en under this chaptcr (Lien T,aw 5 mechanic s l i e n h a s 22). Thus, Marson achieved p r i o r i t y o v e r claims that i t.s the earlier-recorded Mortgages. T r i t h e o r d i n x y course, p r o p e r l y f i l e d m o r t g a g e s meet-irig t h e s t a t u t o r y requirements a r e e n t i t l e d t o p r i o r i t y over l a t e r - f i l e d mechanic s liens submitted by (Lien Law Marsnn s own c o m p l i a n c e w i t h t h e L i e n Law. by Marson, 13, 1 2 ) . §§ counsel Here, an demonstrates In particular, Af f i r r n a t . i o n plaintiff s and a s acknowledged the B u i l d i n g Loan Agreement , r e f e r e n c i n g and cross- r e f e r e n c i n g t h e S e n i o r Loan a n d P r o j e c t Loan A g r e e m e n t s , was f i l e d i n t h e N e w Y o r k County C l e r k s o f f i c e E. Ex. t o M;rlrson s memorandurn o f (see Wasko A f I . , ¶¶ 1.aw i n o p p o s i t i o n ) . 4 , 10, Further, t h e r e i s a b s o l u t - e l y n o t h i n g i n L i e n Law 5 2 2 which e x p r e s s l y r e f e r s to [ a ] b u i l d i n g 1.oan c o n t r a c t , t h a t s u g g e s t s t h a t p l a i n t : i I L was a l s o o b l i q a t e d t o Ti.le L h e S e n i o r L o a n a n d P r o j e c t Loan A g r e e m e n t s i n thc c l e r k s Properly. oft i.ce t o m a i n t a j n it.s l i e n superiority on tie Consequent-ly, a n y c l a i m f o r s u b o r d i n a t i o n p r e d i c a t e d on 42 [* 44] plaintiff's purported llailure t o file the Building Loan Agreement canriol. ma.i.ntaincd i ri be (:he Iace of documentary evidence demonstrating the contrary. In addition, Marson's allcqation that. plaintiff knew thal. the Project. w o u l d riot he succcssful. arid that: Marson w o u l d not be paid, a 1 . s ~fails as matt.cr law. By its o w r i t e r r n s , 1,ier.iLaw S: 22 only imposes a duty on plaintiff to di.sclose t . h e consideration paid for t h e loan, all related expenses incurred or to he incurred jri connection wit.11 l.he loan, a n d the net sum available to t - h e borrower Lor Lhe improvcmcnt asscrt.ion, " t h e (Lien Law 5 22) - Cont.rary to Marson's disc;losure c o n l e m p l a t e d by the Lien Law is not intended to [unction as a g u a . r a n t e e that a construction project is adequately financed or economically viable, " Howard S a v . B a n k v Lef-cor1 P a r t n o r s h l p , NY2d 837 (1 99.5) . 209 A D 2 d 473, 476 (2d Dept 1994), lv d . i m 86 Marson's A c c o r d j n g l y, f irsl. c o u n t . e r c l a i m i.s dismisscd.'') Secorid C o u n t c r c l a im ( r e a s o n a b l e re.1inrice) : Tri j. ts s e c o n d countcrcla i rn, Marson alleqcs that. it " r e a s o n a b l y relied upon the construction l o a n p r - o c e e d s bcing u s e d statutory t.rust purposes, in accordance 10 wj.tti for I h e tihe strict terms a n d The Court is riot convinced by the addj. t i o r i a l argumern tis contained in Marson's sur-reply letter, dated April 8, 2011 (submitted after. oral a r - y u m e n t on the m o t i - o r i s ) . 43 [* 45] conditions o ¬ th :e I oan (s) and w i t - h plaint-iff properly monitori ny the use of s a i d l o a n f u n d s " (Masson Answer-, all-eyes that it. was "damaged plaintiff" (id. ¶ 41 99). Marson a l s o by its reasonable reliance, upon 100) . As plaintiff correctly observes, reasonable r.eliance is ari eIernent. of a claim, a n d is not., by itself, a legally cognizable t.heory. Marson fails to make clear undcr which es t:uppel , Ir-aud, neyliyerit r e a s o n a b l e reliance. apparent in Lhe mi srepresentaLion) theory it. i.s (e.y., claiming Still, for reasons t h a t will become readily discussion of Marson's unjust enrichment counterclaim, the Court will address the allegations on which this \\ claim'' rests. Marson contends that, as pleaded in its Answer, i t reasonably relied upon the initial filrnding for t . h e Project oL approximately $95 million, as provided Marson has iri the Loan Agreements. submitted Affidavits in oppositj.on to In a d d i . t i on, plaintiff's i.nstant motion, asserting (for the first time) that. it r e a s o n a b l y relied u p o n an o r a l promise made to i.t. by p1.aint.iff's authorized rcpresentaLive, Deborah C . N i s s o r i (a forrrier- Senior Vice-Presidcnt arid Portfolio Manager), that Marson would be paid if it continued t o work on the Project (see e.y. A f f i d a v i . l - . o f Leon 13.Marrano, Ill 44 [* 46] [Marson's P r e s i d e n t ] , s w o r n t o on J a n u a r y 7 , 2 0 1 1 [ M a r r a n o Af ¬., 7 5 LlI). As a n i n i t i a l m a t t e r , T,oan A q r e e m e n L s . Marsori was n o t e n t . i t l e d t o r e l y on t h e T r i p a r t i c u l a r , S e c t i o n 2 . 9 . 5 ( N o Re1 i a n c c ) o f t h e p u b 1 i c l y - f i l e d B u i l d i n g L o a n A g r e e m e n t . . c j p e c i . f i cally p r o v i d e s t h a t . M:ir:;orl c:ould n o t r e l y on f u n d i n g u n d e r t h e Loa n A g r e e m e n t s : A l l c o r i d i t i ons a n d r e q u i r e m e n t s of t h i s A g r e e m e n t are f o r t h e s o l e b e n e f i t of [ p l a i n t i f f ] a n d L e n d e r s arid n o o t h e r Person (iiicl u d i n y w i t h o u 1: .l . i m i ta t i o n , t h e C o n s t r u c t i o n C o n s u l t a n t , Constructiori Marlayer a n d T r a d e C o n t r a c t o r s e n g a g e d i n the c o n s t r u c t - i o n o f t h e I m p r o v e m e n t s ) shall have t h e r - i g h t t o r e l y on Lhe s a t - i s f a c t i o n o f s u c h c o n d i t i o n s and r e q u i r e m e n t s by Borrower (emphasis s u p p l i e d ) . The B u i l d i n g T.,oari a n d P r o j e c t Loan Agreernerits f u r - t h e r provide i n S e c t i o n 2 . 5 . 5 ( b ): A L L P O T E N T I A L L I E N O R S ARE HEREBY C A U T I O N E D TO L X E I I C I S E SOUND B U S I N E S S JUDGMENT I N T H E NO E X T E N S I O N O F C R E D I T TO BORROWER. P O T E N T I A L L l E N O K SHOIJLD E X P E C T [ P L A I N T I F F ] TO MAKE ADVANCES Ob' Y'HE R U I L D I N G [ P R O J E C T ] LOAN ON B E H A L F O E ' L E N D E R S I N AMOUNTS AND AT 'TIMES SUCTI THH'I' 1 ' WlLL NOT R E NECESSARY b'OR EACH 1 SUCH P O T E N T I A L L I E N O R TO E X E R C I S E SOUND B U S I N E S S JUDGMENT IN THE E X T E N S I O N O F C R E D T T TO BORROWER. MOREOVER, A L I I PO'I'ENTIAL L I E N O R S ARE REMINDED THAT S U B D I V I S I O N 3 OF SF;CTION 13 O F THE L l E N LAW O F TJIK S T A T E O F NEW YORK P I I O V I D E S THAT 'NO'l'HING I N T H I S SUBDlVlSlON S H A L I , B E C O N S I D E I W D A S TMPOSINC UPON THE L E N D E R S ANY O B L I G A T I O N T O S E E T O THE P R O P E R A P P L I C A T I O N O F SUCH ADVANCES BY "HI? O W N E R , ' AND L E N D E R S DO NOT IMPOSE: SUCII O B L I G A T I O N ON TIJEMSELVES. 45 [* 47] Thus, a n y reliance by Marson on the written representations of the plaintif ¬ that the L e n d e r s would advance $95 million dollars to construct the [Project] I (Marson s memorandum of law in opposition, at- 8), is unreasonable as a matter of law. As mentioned, Marson also claims that it reasonably relied on an o r a l promise made by an a g e n t of plaintiff, that if it continued to work on the P r o j e c t , Marson would be paid. However, Marson was already on notice, at t h e outset of the Project, that any reliance by it an on oral promise the Loans, Marson Construction Manager s it by to plaintiff be would That is because, to induce Lenders to inherently unreasonable. close made signed Contract, a Consent dated to June of Assignment (the 2007 4, C o n s e n t ) . Under the Consent, if Fort Tryon defaulted under the Loan Agreements, plaintiff could e l e c t to exercise Fort Tryon s rights u n d e r the CMA. occur, t h e n , More specifically, if such default were to [a] t the request of [plaintiff], [Marson] shall continue performance in accordance with the terms of the [CMA] on Lenders behalf . . . (id. ¶ 3). Consent further provides Significantly, paragraph 8 of t h e t-hat \\ [a]11 or notices other communications required or permitted to be given pursuant t o the provisions of this Agreement. shall be in w r i t i n g . . . [emphasis supplied]). Thus, Marson was permitted (id, ¶ 8 to continue w o r k i n g o n l y at the request of [plaintiff], which constitutes a 46 [* 48] communication I . . permitted to be given pursuant to the provisions of the [the] Agreement and is, therefore, required LO be in writing. (id. ¶ ¶ 3, 8). In short, Marson agreed in the Consent that it could riot reasonably r e l y on any oral promise of payment if i.t continued working. A c c o r d i n g l y , Marson s second counterclaim cannot bc sustained and is dismissed. T h i r d CQ( n t e r c l a i m ( u n j u s t enrichment) : i In its third counterclaim, Marson alleges that as a result of Marson s reasonable reliance, plaintiff was unjustly enriched in that Marson s professional construction management services improved the v a l u e of the Property plaintiff claims an interest therein, and that nonpayment for the value, performed by Marson and embodied in the current condition of the Property would allow the plaintiff to be unjustly enriched (Marson Answer, 71¶ 103-104)* To prevail ori its claim of unjust enrichment, Marson m u s t show that (1) plaintiff was enriched (2) at Marson s expense, and (3) that equity and good conscience require restitution, see C l a r k v Daby, 300 A D 2 d 732 (3d Dept 2002) Iv d e n 100 N Y 2 d 503 (2003)* However, as just established, any reliance by Marson on plaintiff s alleged oral promise was unreasonable as a matter of law, and, [* 49] a c c o r d i n g l y , t h i . s c l a i m i s d i s m i s s e d , scc M a n d a r i n T r a d i r i g Ltd. v (1st Dept 2009), a f f d 1 6 NY3d 173 W i l d o n s t e i n , 65 AD3d 4 4 8 , 4 5 1 - 4 5 2 . (2011) (dismj.ssing p l a i n t i f f fs unjust enrichment claim or-) the g r o u n d t h a t the p l a i n t i f f was n o t e n t i t l e d t o r e l y on defendant s representations). ~ Fo i1.rth CouIi 1.: e rc.7 a im ( u n c c i i 7 cio n a b i 1i ty) : In this c;c:,untcrclaim, Marson a l l e g e s that c o n d u c t i n t e n t i o n a l . o r o t . h c r w i s e , by p l a i n t : i . f f uric:onscionabl.e, amoriy o t h e r as and Lh.inqs, be result of the course t o Marson s u c h c o n d u c t > , Marson awarded p u n i t i . v e damages of at . . . of was should, least $2 m i 1 l i o n (Marson A n s w e r , ¶T 108 - 109) . The d o c t r i n e o f u n c o n s c i 0 n a b C l i t . y i s 1.0 be u s e d a s a s h i e l d , not a sword, and may not be u s e d as a basis recovery. Under b o t h the UCC a n d cormnun l a w , Lo more do no than refuse enforcement cl for affirmat:ive c o u r t is enipower-ed 01 the unconscionable cent-ract o r c l a u s e , Super Glue Corp. v A v i s l i e n t A Ca.r Sys., 1 3 2 AD2d 6 0 4 , a G O 6 ( 2 d Dept 198 1). cognizable leqal theory, H a v i n g f a i l e d t o a l l e g e a c l a i m with Marson s dismissed. 48 fourth counterclaim is [* 50] Affirmative D e f e n s e s (second through t h i r t e e n t h ) : Marson's second, third and s i x t h affirmative defenses fail because they do riot state any cognizable legal theory, and instead, simply allege plaintiff's knowledge of v a r i o u s facts. Marson's fourth affirmative defense, alleging that "plaintiff improperly adminislered the loan(s) e . I [and] acted improperly to the New York State Lien Law Tjegi.slativeintent" (Marson Answer, 'J[ 31) d o e s riot state a coqnizable l e g a l theory, and is dismissed. Marson's fifth affirmative defense, al-leging that "Plaintiff failed to cornply with a l l of the terms arid conditions of the loan agreement(s) . . . [therefore, requiring that the Loans] must be subordinated to the lien and claim(s) of Marson ( i d . ¶ 32), has no legal basis. Marson is not a party to the Loan Agreements (or a third-party beneficiary) , and cannot recover on them. Accordingly, this defense is dismissed. Marson's seventh affirmative defense, alleging that "Plaintiff has waived any entitlement to payment based u p o n modifications" ( i d . ¶ 3 4 ) ' l a c k s any factual basis. dismissed. 49 Accordingly, this defense is [* 51] Marson s eighth affirmative defense alleges that Plaintiff failed to follow incl-uding . . the lien law statutory requirements, . inaccuracies in the net sum(s) available to defendant Marson ( i d . 9 35). However, as previously determined, Marsori s allegations respecting plaintiff s compliance with the Lien Law do not state a c l a i m , a n d for the same reasons, do not provide a basis for this defense. Further, documentary evidence contradicts Marson s claim that there were inaccuracies in the description of the net sum available Marson s memorandum (compare Exs. E and F to of law in opposition). Accordingly, this defense i.s dismissed. In its Plaintiff ninth affirmative defense, Marson alleges that is estopped by the concepts of promissory estoppel and/or equitable estoppel from asserting its claims to the amounts sought in this a c t i o n (Marson Answer, 71 36). Marson s defense of promissory estoppel has no merit because, as di-scussed previously, it cannot: demonstrate reasonable reliance on plaintiff, see W i l l i a m s v Eason, s u p r a at 868. The same defect applies equally to Marson s defense of equitable estoppel, Kichey v Harnrn, 1600, 1602 (4th Dept 2010) ( All that is required 78 AD3d for the application of the doctrine of equitable estoppel is reasonable reliance on fraud, deception or misrepresentation ) . this defense is dismissed. 50 Accordingly, [* 52] Marson s tenth affirmative defense alleges that Plaintiff was negligent and/or disregarded, wantonly or otherwise o l d fashion commonsense (Marson Answer, 37). ¶ Marson, however, d o e s not allege any contractual or fiduciary relationship between Marson and plaintiff that imposes a n y duty on plaintiff with r e s p e c t Marson. to Therefore, this defense is dismissed. Marson s eleventh affirmative defense, alleging that basic banking and lending practice . . Plaintiff failed to f o l . 1 0 ~ . [including] a reduction [Marson] was r e l y i n g in lending obligations upon which (id. 71 38), is inappropriately v a g u e . In addition, as previous1.y discussed, Marson could not have reasonably relied on the continuation of loan advances to Fort Tryon in view of the warnings to third parties contained in section 2.5.5 (b) of the Building Loan and Project Loan Agreements. Marson s twelfth affirmative defense, alleging that Plaintiff followed the too big to fail approach, failing to c e a s e drawdowns [sic] by the Borrower (id. ¶ 39) does not state a cognizable defense, and is, accordingly, dismissed. Finally, Marson s thirteenth affirmative defense alleges that Plaintiff attempted tu hide its inappropriate business decision (s) 51 [* 53] and at AS the such, c a u s e d Marson arid o t h e r s t o c o n t i n u e t o p e r f o r m work (id., P,rojcct cognizab1.e c l a i m . ¶ (30). This defense does not state a A d d i t i o n a Tly, i t i s i m p e r m i s s i . b l y v a g u e ; Marson d o e s riot i d e n t . . i f y w h a t b u s i n e s s d e c i s i o n s were i n a p p r o p r i a t e o r how [:hey causcd Marson t o work at Lhe P r o j e c t . Accordingly, this defcnse i s d i s m i s s e d . 2. Tectonic s Counterclaim and Affirmative Defenses F i . r - s t C o u n L e r ~ l a ~ r ( p r i o r i t y of T e c t o n i c s n 7 ien) : T e c t o n i c a d m i L s t h a t i t s m e c h a n i c s l i e n a g a i n s t t:he P r o p e r t y was not. f i l e d until May 2 6 , 2 0 0 9 (Tectonic: Answer, JI 38), 1 8 m o n t h s after plaintiff NoneLhel.ess, first. r e c o r d e d iLs M o r t g a g e s T e c t o n i c a1 1 e g e s , Mortgaqcs are s u b o r d i n a t e in concluso1.y t o its l i e n (Complaint, f a s h i on, ¶ 6). that the ( T e c t o n i c : Answer, 91 40). B e c a u s e T e c t o n i c pleads n o ¬ a c t s a s t o why i t s l i e n s h o u l d t a k e p r i o I - 3t y o v e r t h e p r i o r - r e c o r d e d Mortgages, i t s f i r s t c o u n t e r c l . a i m d o e s nol: state a c l a i m and is tli srrii (and o n l y ) ssed. F ~ L - . s ~ d Secorid A f f i r r q a t i v c Defenses ( f a . i l u r e to i o i n a an necessary p a r t v ) : T e c t o n i c s f i r s t a f f i r m a t i v e d e f c n s e a l l e g e s that. P l a i n L i f - f has not joined necessary p a r t i e s IIO t h i s a c t i o n and, t h i s a c t i . o n m u s t be disrni-ssed pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) 52 therefore, (10) (id. [* 54] Tectonic' 5: second affirmative defense alleges that action for foreclosure of a mechanic's "" [a]n lien filed by All Rock Crushing, Inc. has been commenced," and that the "plaintiff herein has failed to join the plaintiff in said action as a party to the instant action and, therefore, the instant action must be dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a)(10) f o r fail-ure to j o i n party" However, on its face, this defense caririot (id. ¶ 13, 14). a necessary be maintained f o r the simple reason that a review of the caption in this action demonstrates that All R o c k is a named defendant. T h e r e f o r e , this defense is dismi.ssed. Tectonic's first affirmative defense, alleging failure to join a necessary party, is dismissed on the same ground that this defense was dismissed in motion sequence 001 ( s u p r a ) . Conclusion Rased on the foregoing, it is ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to dismiss is granted with respect to Fort T c y o n Tower S P E LLC's and Rutherford Thompson's first, second, third, fourth and proposed seventh Counterclaims; a n d fourth, seventh, eighth, ninth, thirteenth through sixteenth, eighteenth, nineteenth, that portion of the twentieth affirmative defense raising estoppel and waiver against enforcement of the Guaranties, twenty-first, twenty-third through twenty-sixth a n d 53 [* 55] proposed twenly-ninth Affirmative Defenses, and is otherwise d e n i c d ; a n d i t :is f u r t . h e r ORDERED that Fort 'r'ryon Tower SPE LLC' s and Rut.herford Thompson's c r o s s - m o t - i o n t.o amend t h e i r Answer i s g r a n t e d t o t h e e x t e n t i t c:oriforms t o t h i s d e c i s i o n ; that ORDERED d i s m i s s a l of the Marson branch of Contracting Co. arid it i s furl:her plaintiff's motion seeking Inc.'s f i r s t t h r o u g h f o u r t h C o u n t e r c l a i m s a n d secoricri t-tirough t h i r t e e n t h A f f i r m a t i v e D e f e n s e s j s granted; arid i t i s f u r t h e r ORDERED that the branch of plaintiff's motion seekiriy d i s m i s s a l o f T e c t o n i c E n g i n e e r i n g arid S u r v e y i n g C o n s u l t a n t s , P . C . ' s only c o u n t e r c l a i m and granted; and i t further 1.5 first and second Affirmative Defenses is ORDERED t h a t c o u n s e l a r e d i r e c t e d t o a p p e a r f o r a preliminary c o n f e r e r.1c: e i n I A P a r t 3 9 , 6 0 C e n t r e S t r e e t , Room 208 o n J a n u a r y 11, 2 0 1 2 a t . 11.0 0 a . m . IT, T h i s c o n s t i t u t e s khe c3ecisi.on a n d o r d e r of t h i s &r%.t," D a t e d : December De(:eIriber I &I / I 2011 BARBARZP KAPNICK 54 d
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.
