Matter of Litichevsky v New York City Bd. of Educ.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Matter of Litichevsky v New York City Bd. of Educ. 2011 NY Slip Op 33494(U) December 28, 2011 Sup Ct, NY County Docket Number: 108290/11 Judge: Paul G. Feinman 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. NNEDON 11312012 [* 1] SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: HON. PAUL 0. FEHlYAN PART la JusUce Index Number: 108290/2011 BORIS LITICHEVSKY, ET. vs. NYC BOARD OF EDUCATION SEQUENCE NUMBER : 001 ARTICLE 78 - The followlng papen, numbered 1 to Notlce of MotlonlOrder to Show Caure An8Wedng Amdavltr INDEX NO. MOTION DATE MOTION SEQ. NO. -- - - ,w m h a d on thla motlon tolfor -Athdrwtta - Exhlblts INOW - Exhlbk IN O W . IN O W . Replylng Affldavltm < Upon the foregoing papem, It I orderad th4t tm s hl NEW YQRK i L Dated: vy? 399 ..................................................................... CI] CASE DISPOSED 2. CHECK AS APPROPRIATE: .............. MOTION IS: QRANTED DENIED 3. CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: ................................................ 0SElTLE ORDER 1. CHECK ONE: 0DO NOT POST ,J.S.C. NON-FINAL 0GRANTED IN PART 0SUBMIT ORDER 0FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT REFERENCE [* 2] SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW Y O K : CIVIL TERM: PART 12 -__-r__________ll__--------------~--------------"----------------------~---------------------------- X In the Matter of BORIS LITICHEVSKY, individually and as a parent and natural guardian of STEVEN LITICHEVSKY, infant,JAMES PAOLICELLI, individually and as aparent and natural guardian of VINCENTPAOLICELLI, infant, ARINA Index No. 108290/11 SHABAKAEVA, individually and as a parent and natural guardian of VLADI(Not E-flled) SLAVA SHABAKAEVA, infant, SAEED A. BUFF, individually and as a parent and natural guardian of UMER A. BUFF, infant, WTLMEC CHIMBAY, as a parent and natural guardian of JECUI CHIMBAY and JECENIA CHIMBAY, infants, SHEREEN LASHARI, individually and as a parent and natural guardian of MOHAMMOD BILAL and ABDURREHUNAN LASHARI, infants, ROSARIO REDON, individually and natural guardian of VICTOR RENDON, infant, ME1 ZHI CHEN, individually and as a parent and natural guardian of AOHUA YANG, infant, AGNES JEON, individually and as a parent and natural guardian of DANNY JEON, infant, Y ELENA REZNTK, individually and as a parent and natural guardian of ANDREW VOVNOBOY, infant, NANCY RODRIGUEZ, individually and as a parent and natural guardian of KRISTINA RODRIGUEZ, infant, JOSE RICO, individually and as a parent and natural guardian of STEPHEN RICO, infant, JULIANA FLORES, individually and as a parent and natural guardian of ERIC FLORES, WENDY FLORES,EVELYN FLORES, infants, REYNA RAMIREZ, individually and as a parent and natural guardian of MALRA RAMIREZ, infant, AMANDA G. TAPLA, individually and as a parent and natural guardian of VANESSA TAPLA, infant, GUADALUPE MEJIA, individually and as a parent and natural guardian of unnamed infant, DELFINA FUENTES, individually and as a parent and natural guardian of JOSE FUENTES, infant, AUREA MOLINA and ALAN HIRSH, individually and as parents and natural guardians of DAKOTA PRADO, infant, ANlSHA DECOTEAU, individually and as a parent and natural guardian of DON JUAN MENDEZ, infant, IRENE GTNDA, individually and as a parent and natural guardian of ISOBELE G N A , infant, YEVGENIYA BOGDONOVA, individually 03 2012 and as a parent and natural guardian of SEMONA BARDMAN, infant, ALLA KAPLAN, individually and ag a parent and natural guardian of BORIS KAPLAN, infant, LISA LAU, individually and as a parent and natural guardian of PEONY TEO, NEW YORK infant, ANTONIETTA FIORENTINO, individually and as a parent and natural COUNTY C L ~ = R K ~ OFF,CF guardian of MICHELLE FIORENTINO, infant, SILVIA E. MEDINA, individually and as a parent and natural guardian of DANIEL MEDINA, infant, SVETLANA SLONOVSKAYA, individually and as a parent and natural guardian of VLADIMIR SLONOVSKAYA, infant, ESTELA SORIANO, individually and as a parent and natural guardian of YACELYN SORIANO,infant, DALI KHOKHO, individually and as a parent and natural guardian of WTlA KHATIASHUILI, infant, MARINA SMIRNOV, individually and as a parent and natural guardian of VLADA GUNZ, infant, SVETLANA ROZENTSUIT, individually and as a parent and natural guardian of STANLEY ROZENTSUIT, infant, MARTHA MORENO, individually and as a parent and natural guardian of OSIRIS NANDO, infant, CIELITO EVANGELISTA, individually and as a parent and natural guardian of JUDE EVANGELISTA, infant, DOLORES GONZALEZ, individually and as a parent and natural guardian of BRAHIAN ROMERO, infant, LOREN20 BONILLA, individually and as a parent and natural guardian of YESENIA BONILLA, infant, ROEUN (SUSAN) PHYLUONG, individually and as a parent and natural guardian of CINDY ROEUN, infant, JENNY FILED 'AN 1 [* 3] CHEN, individually and as a parent and natural guardian of JOYCE LIN and ALVIN LIN, infants, ADRIANA SANCHEZ, individually and as a parent and natural guardian of JOCELYN PEREZ, infant, ANGELA SHALUMOV, individually and as a parent and natural guardian of SHAWN SHALUMOV, infant, SWARYANA MILASHEVICH, individually and as a parent and natural guardian of KATHERINE MILASHEVICH, infant, ANATOLY SHEMPER, individually and as a parent and natural guardian of ANTHONY SEMPER, infant, LANA MARKELA, individually and as a parent and natural guardian of STEPHAN MARKELA, infant, KIMAN KEO, individually and as a parent and natural guardian of TIMOTHY KEO, infant, LUZINETTE RIPARD, individually and as a parent and natural guardian of ISABELLA TIMASH, infant, TASLEEM GHAFFAR, individually and as a parent and natural guardian of SHAKlBA GHAFFER, infant, OLEG MELTSER, individually and as a parent and natural guardian of ELIZABETH MELTZER, infant, JAIME PEREZ, individually and as a parent and natural guardian of JOSHUA SANTIAGO and KRY STAL SANTIAGO, infants, URSULA KOWALCZYK, individually and as a parent and natural guardian of ISABELA GINDO, infant, G. JAGESSA, individually and as a parent and natural guardian of NATASHA JAGESSA, infant, TONI GERARD1 WOFSE, individually and as a patent and natural guardian of STEVEN WOFSE, infant, ANNA KAZARYAN, individually and ELS a parent and natural guardian of TANYA KAZARYAN, infant, OLGA ROMAINE, individually and as a parent and natural guardian of ALEKSANDRA ROMAINE, infant, KAIUNE ANDREASYAN, individually and as a parent and natural guardian of DAVIT SAJMKYAN, infant, SHABAIYA WAQAR, individually and as a parent and natural guardian of SAAD AHMED, infant, YELENA FAREA, individually and as a parent and natural guardian of GINA AL AMEN, infant, LUCIANA MARTINEZ, individually and as a parent and natural guardian of CINDY FLORES,GISEL FLORES, SELENA FLORES, infants, CAMILLE WELLONS, individually and as a parent and natural guardian of BWANNA BORGELLA, infant, ANGELA JOHNSON, individually and as a parent and natural guardian of DASHAWN HOLMES, infant, MARITZA PEREZ, individually and as a parent and natural guardian of ANTHONY BUITRAGO, infant, LIVlA SANTIAGO, individually and as a parent and natural guardian of CHYNALYNN SANTIAGO, infant, 2012 BARRY ESKENAZI, individually and as a parent and natural guardian of JOEY CRISTINA ESKENAZI, infant, KING TSANG, individually and as a parent and natural NEW YORK guardian of CAITLIN TSANG and KEN TSANG, infants, JULIET MORDUKHAEV, COUNTY CLERKS OFFICE individually and as a parent and natural guardian of REUVEN SHOLOMSON, infant, KIM BLAGBROUGH, individually and a~ a parent and natural guardian of BRIANNA BLAGBROUGH and SAMANTHA BLAGBROUGH, infants. BRYENTH KURE3AN. individually and as a parent and natural guardian o f ADRIAN KURBAN, infant, SYED MASUD W A V E R , individually and as a parent and natural guardian of SAMAR MASUD, infant, SAMINA NAJEEB, individually and as a parent and natural guardian of AWAR NAIEEB, infant, LOLA DUSHIN, individually and as aparent and natural guardian of MALIKA NASRIDDINOVA, infant, NINA KOMISAR, individually and as a parent and natural guardian of NICOLE KOMISAR, infant,RAQUEL BAUTISTA, individually and as a parent and natural guardian of MELISSA CUAUTLE, infant, ABIDA CHAUDHRY, individually and as a parent and natural guardian of HUMA KAZl, infant, ROBERTO REYES, individually and as a parent and natural guardian of BRENDA REYES,infant, MIGUEL A. SOSA, individually and as a parent and natural guardian of MIGUEL GONZALEZ, infant, DANAE HENDERSON, individually and as a parent and natural guardian of SEAN PICKEIT, infant, WILING MA, individually and as a parent and natural guardian of KEVIN LEUNG, infant, AFSHAN MOHAMMED, individually and as a parent and natural guardian of HLJSSAM MOHAMMED, ihfant, FARHAT NASRIN, individually and as a parent and natural guardian of ZAIN FAYYAZ, infant, AMY AUILES, individually and as a ' FILED JAN 03 2 ' [* 4] 1 parent and natural guardian of TIFFANY AUILES, infant, ARACELI MARTINEZ, individually and as a parent and natural guardian of BRENDA COHETERO and KlMBERLY COHETERO, infants, TLMIRA BAKHL, individually and as a parent and natural guardian of KATRINA BAKHL, infant, C. GONZALEZ, individually and as a parent and natural guardian of RUBEN GONZALEZ, infant, HAMID CHOUDRY, individually and as a parent and natural guardianof ABID CHOUDHRY, infant, OLENA STEPANISHCHEVA, individually and as a parent and natural guardian of NIKlTA KLIPKOV, infant, YELENA ZAIKA, individually and as a parent and natural guardian of JONATHAN ZAIKA, infant, CELESTE KEYES, individually and 89 a parent and natural guardian of MARC DAVIS, infant, IRINA KATS, individually and as a parent and natural guardian of DANIEL KATS, infant, BACHAN SINGH,individually and as a parent and natural guardian of SUKHJIT MATHON, infant,TOPGAY SHEWA, individually and as a parent and natural guardian of TENZING SHERPA, infant, and ALEKSANDR FEDOROV,individually and as a parent and natural guardian of CHRISTINA FEDOROV, infant, Petitioners, Pursuant to CPLR Article 78 -against- NEW YORK CITY BOARD OF EDUCATION, and JOHN E.KING, JR., as the ACTING COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION FOR THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondents, from action of the New York City Department of Education to re-site and co-locate Co Island Preparatory Public Charter School with Existing Schools I.S. 303 Herbert S. PLAINTIFFS Advocates for Justice By: Arthur Z. Schwartz, Esq. Nicholas Gaus, Esq. 225 Broadway, ste 1902 New York NY 10007 (2 12) 228-6320 DEPENDANTS New York City Law Department Michael A. Cardozo, Esq. By: Charles Orsland, Esq. I 00 Church Street, r 2- 174 m New York NY 10007 (212) 788-0904 Paners considered revfew of these Artlcle 78 Droceedingg: PAPERS Amended Notice of Petition, Verified Petition, Exhibits A - EE Verified Answer, Memorandum of Law, Aff. of Service Reply Memorandum of Law Transcript of Sept. 15, 20 1 1 Oral Argument . 45% 6 7 8 3 . . NUMBERED 132, 3 [* 5] X "-"-1-----------------------"-------------------------"-------"---~------------"-------------------- In the Matter of ANECIA MCCALL, individually and m a parent and natural guardian of M E A N COLLYMORE, infant, MICHELLE MORGAN & DAVID MORGAN individually and as parents and natural guardians of OXLEY MORGAN, infant, NANCY CAMERON, individually and as a Index No. 109315/11 parent and natural guardian of JORDAN WILLIAMS, infant, DOREEN SINCLAIR, (E-flled) individuallyand as a parent and natural guardian of MARIO RICHAFLDS, infant, MYRTLEEN KLASS, individually and as a parent and natural guardian of COLIN KLASS, infant, GLORIA CHUKWUEKE individually and as a parent and natural guardian of AHUOMA CHUKWUEKE and OBINNA CHUKWUEKE, infants, ZAYOLA RODGERS, individually and as a parent and naturalguardian of AZALEA RODGERS, infant, ANNE MARIE LAGUERRE, individually and as a parent and natural guardian of GOHSNY LAGUERRE, infant, SHARON CLARKE, individually and as a parent and natural guardian of TYRESE CLARKE, infant, KEVIN NEWERLS & TRACHELLE L. STATEN, individually and as parents and natural guardians of TAMIA NEWERLS, infant, EVELYN WEARING & FRED WEARINCJ, individually and as parents and natural guardians of ONYX WEARING, infant, HILARY BARNWELL, individually and as a parent and natural guardian of SET1 BARNWELL, infant STEFANY DE LEON & JAMES SAMUELS, individually and as a parent and natural guardian of KIARA STEPHENSON, infant, MALUON DAVIDSON & CHRISTINA BARIL, individually and as parents and natural guardians of NAISAIAH BARIL, infant, NICOLE TOUSSAINT, individually and as a parent and natural guardian of FRITZ TOUSSAINT, infant, MARY SAUL, individually and as a parent and natural guardian of DEGRA SAUL, infant, SOPHIA PLAMER, individually and as a parent and natural guardian of RICHARD WILSON,infant, DARLENE JACOB, individually and as a parent and natural guardian of JOUANI JACOB, infant, SHAMEKA DAVIS, individually and w a parent and natural guardian of TRAVIA DAVIS, infant, ANDREW BAIRD, individually and as a parent and natural guardian of ANDREW BATRD JR, infant, ANA FIGUEROQ, individually and as a parent and natural guardian of RALLIN FIGUEROQ, infant, AURA MEJIA, individually and M a parent and natural guardian of LAURY DELA ROSA, infant, RANDOLPH PARRIS, individually and as a parent and natural guardian of KYLE GILKES, infant, JOAN MUIR-DAVIS, individually and as a parent and natural guardian of JUSTIN DAVIS and JOSHANE DAVIS, infants, PATFUCIA LOCKHART, individually and as a parent and natural guardian of JENIYAH LOCKHART, infant, MILESSA MARCH, individuallyand as a parent and natural guardian of KRYSTAL REID, infant, MARCIA GOMES, individually and as a parent and natural guardian of ANASTASIA WRRY, infant, MICHEAL PRINCE,individually and as a parent and natural guardian of BRTANNE PRINCE, infant, VANEIETTE MCFARLANE individually and as a parent and natural guardian of KlEIAN MCFARLANE, infant, JASMEEN WILLIS, individually and as a parent and natural guardian of ANDREW GIBBS JR, infant, YVONNE HERIVAUX, individually and as a parent and natural guardian of ROGER HERIVAUX, infant, DAVID BEDEAU & SERANA JAMES, individually natural guardians of DAVID JAMES, infant, PIERRE EUGENE, individually and as a guardian of HERNA EUGENE, infant, Petitioners, FTEhED JAN 03 2012 Pursuant to CPLR Article 78, \ NEW YORK COUNTYCLERK'S OFFICE NEW YORK ClTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, DENNIS WALCOTT, CHANCELLOR, -Respondents, -against- Seeking Relief from an Action of the New York City Department of Education to Re-Site and Co-Locate Explore Charter School with Parkside Preparatory Academy (a/k/a M.S. 002) and 75K14, a District 75 School, in Building K002. X -_r-rr---______________II_______________--------------"---"------------------------------"-""--"-~-- 4 [* 6] FILED Appearances: PLAINTIFFS Advocates for Justice By: Arthur Z. Schwartz, Esq. Nicholas Gaus, Esq. 225 Broadway, ste 1902 New York NY 10007 (212) 228-6320 DEFENDANTS New York City Law Department Michael A. Cardozo, Esq. By: Mark Galen Toews, Erq. NEW YORK 100 Church Street, rm 2-1 74 COUNnCLERKS OFFICE New York NY 10007 (212) 788-0904 JAN 03 2012 PAPERS E-FILING DOC. NOS. Unsigned Verified Petition [without exhibits], Signed Order to Show Cause 2,3 * Aff. of Arthur Z. Schwartz, Signed Verified Petition, Exhibits A M Verified Answer, Exhibits A - E, Aff. of Service 4) 4-1 through 4-7 Respondents' Memorandurn of Law, Aff, of Service 5,s-1 * Reply Memorandum of Law dated Sept. 9,201 1 * Transcript of September 15, 20 1 I Oral Argument - * Hard copy versions of these papers were filed with the Part 12 clerk and considered by the court. However, plaintiffs are directed to upload into the NYSCEFS, within 10 days of entry of this order, those documents followed by a *. The documents should be tagged as relating to motion sequence 00 1. As the signed OSC makes clear, because this is an e-filed matter, New York County protocol requires counsel to upload all suppokting papars to NYSCEF system. Failing to do so results in an incomplete official record in the County Clerk's file, as the County Clerk does not retain paper copies of documents in e-filed cases. Questions regarding e-filing should be addressed to 646-386-3610 or newv4rkef~,c9~~s,stateav.us. PAUL . FEINMAN, G J.: Each of these two proceedings, brought pursuant to Article 78 of the CPLR, involves a challenge to the respondents' determination to co-locate public charter schools in public school buildings. The two proceedings are joined for the purposes of decision. The issue of the co-location of public charter schools in public school buildings has been addressed by this, and other, courts in some detail of late, and some familiarity with the issues is presumed. In each case, the respondent Board of Education (also addressed as the Department of Education [DOE]), issued an Educational Impact Statement (EIS) and Building Utilization Plan (QUP) with regard to the planned co-location. Each of the EISs and BUPs were amended at least once, public hearings were held, and a determination of the DOE, acting as the Panel on Educational I [* 7] Policy (PEP), voted, in both instances, to permit the co-locations. In each instance, the petitioners appealed to the State Education Department (SED) Commissioner (Commissioner), who took evidence and held hearings. In each instance, the Commissioner upheld the DOE s PEP decision, in lengthy and detailed decisions. Petitioners bring the present Article 78 proceedings to challenge the DOE s PEP vote and, ostensibly, the Commissioner s determination on appeal. However, in Litichesky, the petitioners originally named the Commissioner as a respondent, but voluntarily discontinued the petition as to him after the Commissioner promised to move for a change of venue to Albany County Supreme Court. The Commissioner is not named at all in the McCull petition, presumably because the inclusion of the Commissioner might result in a change of venue motion. iy iy In Steglich v Board of Education of the Ct School District of the C t of New York (33 Misc 3d 304 [Sup Ct, NY County 201 l]), this court held that a petitioner appealing a decision of the DOE - on a PEP vote must first bring an appeal to the Commissioner, based on concurrent jurisdiction, and the expertise of the Commissioner in dealing with like matters, In that decision, this court specified, twice, that [ilf aggrieved by the Commissioner s final determination, the parties have appropriate remedies at that juncture to seek judicial review of his actions. Id at 308. In the present two matters, the petitioners have decided, as a tactical litigation strategy (designed, it is assumed, to avoid being forced to pursue this matter in Albany County), to pass over the decisions of the Commissioner, and direct their Article 78 appeals at the DOE s PEP vote. They argue that they do not have to address the Commissioner s decision at all, or may do so in his absence, because it is really the DOE s PEP vote with which they are concerned. Respondents move to dismiss the petitions on several grounds. As relevant here, they claim 6 ~~~ ~ [* 8] that the Commissioner is a necessary party under CPLR 1001 and 1003, or that, alternatively, the Commissioner s rulings are res judicata or collateral estoppel on any ruling this court might make. The petitions must be dismissed as they do not address the final administrative act of the proper agency. When this court held that the Commissioner was the proper party to sue in co-location cases, it was not saying that doing so would be considered a meaningless formality in the future should the Cornmissioner fail to rule in petitioners favor. In each of the present cases, the Commissioner, upon hearings and the acceptance of submissions, rendered lengthy decisions addressing every point of the petitioners complaints. It borders on frivolous to argue that the Commissioner s ruling need not be addressed, or that he need not be a part of these proceedings, merely because that would be more convenient for the petitioners. There is no scenario here which would allow this court to proceed without the Commissioner. The issue may be addressed under CPLR 1001 and 1003. Under CPLR 1001 (a), necessary parties are those [p]ersons who ought to be parties if complete relief is to be accorded between the parties who are parties to the action or who might be inequitably affected by a judgment in the action. See City of New York v Long Island Airports Limousine Service Corp., 48 NY2d 469,475 (1979); Telesford v Patterson, 27 AD3d 328 (1st Dept 2006). In a CPLR article 78 proceeding, the governmental agency that performed the challenged action must be a named party. Matter of Solid Waste Services, Inc. v New York Ct Department of Environmental Protection, 29 AD3d 3 18,319 (1 st Dept 2006). iy . . The Commissioner s pivotal role in this matter is incontestable. It is his decision which was the proper agency s final word. The Commissioner performed the challenged action with regard to petitioners appeals of the PEP vote. Id. To proceed without the Commissioner would be to negate his very existence in the chain of appeal within the proper agencies. To proceed without him would 7 .. . . . . .. - .. .. . .. ... . .. . . . - ..- .. - . . . - ... .- .. . - [* 9] be to inequitably affect his legitimacy as final administrative arbiter in co-location cases, a role this court held to be decisive in Steglish (33 Misc 3d 301, supra). Petitioners reference to Joanne S, v Carey (1 15 AD2d 4 [ 1st Dept 19861) is unavailing. This case did not involve an appeal from a final administrative agency determination, and only discusses which agency among several is the proper one to sue. Mutter ofEra Sieel Construction C orp. v Egan (145 AD2d 795 [3d Dept 19881) is likewise inapt. The issue of whether a party could bypass the final appeal level in the administrative agency in bringing an Article 78 proceeding was not addressed. Petitioners arguments that the Commissioner would only be a necessary party had he granted the appeal, and prohibited the co-location, and that his actions do not make him a necessary party because he did not issue any executory orders (Matter of Litichevsky, Petitioners Reply Memorandum of Law, at 3) are not valid. Denying the petitioners appeal was as much an appealable action for Article 78 consideration as granting it would have been. The failure to join a necessary party is a ground for dismissal of an action without prejudice. Telesford v Patterson, 27 AD3d at 330, quoting CPLR 1003. Because the petitioners knowingly chartered a procedural course not to name the Commissioner, seemingly to avoid an Albany County venue, this court would be justified in simply dismissing these proceedings and not permitting his belated joinder in these proceedings only perhaps to have them then transferred to another county. However, because outright dismissal could theoretically result in the Commissioner s determinations on a subject of great public concern evading judicial review as any new proceedings would be time-barred, the court will permit the petitioners an opportunity to amend the two petitions to add the Commissioner as a necessary party (CPLR 1003 [ Parties may be added at any stage of the action by leave of court or by stipulation of all parties who have appeared... ]). Once the Comissioner . -.. . . - .. . . .. . . .. [* 10] is added, the petitions can then be transferred to Albany County Supreme Court pursuant to a SOordered stipulation, or, if need be, after motion practice, If said joinder of the Commissioner is not accomplished within twenty days of entry of this decision and order, the petitions shall be deemed dismissed. In short, given the absence of a necessary and, indeed critical, party, it would be inappropriate for the court to address the merits of the petitions at this time. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the petitioners in Matter of Litichevsb, et. al,. Index No. 108290/11 and Matter of McCuZZ, et al., Index No. 109315/11, shall, within 20 days of entry of this order, file and serve amended petitions naming the Commissioner of the State Education Department as a necessary party; and it is further ORDERED that if the petitioners fail to amend their petitions in accordance with the foregoing, each petition shall be deemed dismissed, and the Clerk shall then enter judgment accordingly. Dated: December 28,201 1 New York, New York I ' MC. i NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE 9 1

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.