HSBC Bank USA v 127 Fulton LLC

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

HSBC Bank USA v 127 Fulton LLC 2013 NY Slip Op 31959(U) August 16, 2013 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 810083/2010 Judge: Joan M. Kenney 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 812112013 [* 1] SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY JOAN PRESENT: NI. KENbd!??t@ J.SG PART Justice - Index Number-: 810083/2010 HSBC BANK USA vs. 127 FULTON LLC SEQUENCE NUMBER : 003 - OTHER RELIEFS MOTION DATE MomN sm. N f - 7 The following papers, numbered 1 to Notice of MotionlOrder to Show Cause Answering Affidavits - Exhibits I m ,were read on this motion tolfor Affidavits - Exhibits INo(s). INo(s). IN O W Replying Affidavits Upon the foregoing papers, it is ordered that this motion is FILED COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE NEW YORK Dated: n sllblli J.S.C. JOAN M. KENNEY ..................................................................... 0CASE DISPOSED 2. CHECK AS APPROPRIATE: .............. MOTION I: 0 S GRANTED DENIED 1. CHECK ONE: 3. CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: ................................................ 0SETTLE ORDE 0DO NOT POST P r BNON-FINA SITIO ION 0GRANTED IN PART 0OTHER 0SUBMIT ORDER 0FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT 0REFERENCE [* 2] SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK PART 8 ____________________-_-------__-_------ X HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Index # 810083/10 Plaintiff, DECISION & ORDER -against- 127 FULTON LLC, LAURE-ANNE BROWN, NEW YORK CITY ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL BOARD, NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION AND FINANCE, NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION AND FINANCE, NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY TRANSIT ADJUDICATION BUREAU, RED HOOK CONSTRUCTION GROUP-I, LLC and "JOHN DOE #1" THROUGH "JOHN DOE # l o o " the names of the last 100 defendants being known to HSBC, it being intended to designate fee owners, tenants or occupants of the liened premises, if the aforesaid individual defendants are living, and if any or all of said individual defendants be dead, their heirs at law, next of kin, distributees, executors, administrators trustees, committees, devisees, legatees and the assignees, lienors, creditors and successors in interest of them, and generally all persons having or claiming under, by, through or against the said defendants named as a class, of any right, title or interest in or lien upon the premises described in the complaint herein, Defendants. & AUG 2 1 2013 COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE NEW YORK _ _X ____________________-------_-_ KENNEY, Joan, M., J . Westerman, Ball Ederer Miller Counsel for Plaintiff 1201 RXR Plaza Uniondale, NY 11556 (516) 622-9200 FILED Sharfstein LLP Peter ¬3. Grierer, E s q . Counsel for Defendant, Red Hook 400 Town Line Road, Suite 170 Hauppauge, NY 11788 (516) 724-6602 Papers considered in review of these motions: Papers : Numbered : Notice of Motion, Affirmation, Affidavits, Exhibits & Memorandum of Law Notice of Cross Motion, Affirmation in Support 1-25 & Opposition, [* 3] 26-34 Exhibits, Memorandum of Law, Sur-Reply Motion sequences 003 and 004 are consolidated for decision in this foreclosure action. Plaintiff, HSBC B a n k USA, N.A. (HSBC), moves for an Order seeking (1) substitution of 140 Wendover 11, LLC, as assignee for HSBC, (2) a judgment of foreclosure, pursuant to CPLR 3212, and dismissal of 127 Fulton LLC s (the borrower) and Laure-Anne Brown s (the guarantor) counterclaims, (3) severance of the remaining causes of action in the complaint, (4) appointment of a referee to compute, (5) amendment the caption to eliminate the fictitious defendants. Defendant, Red Hook Construction Group-I, LLC (Red H o o k ) cross-moves for an Order, pursuant to CPLR 601, consolidating this action with a related action. Plaintiff s motion consists of five branches. Red Hook only opposes three of the five parts of the motion. The first and fifth branches of plaintiff s motion are granted. The balance of the application and the cross motion will be addressed seratirn. 140 Wendover I1 LLC (Wendover) , a s assignee for HSBC, is substituted in the caption and the fictitious defendants are hereby eliminated from the action. Consequently, the caption of the action shall read as follows: SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK PART 8 COUNTY OF NEW YORK 140 WENDOVER I1 LLC, as assignee for HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, [* 4] Plaintiff, -against127 FULTON LLC, LAURE-ANNE BROWN, NEW YORK CITY ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL BOARD, NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION AND FINANCE, NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION AND FINANCE, NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY TRANSIT ADJUDICATION BUREAU, RED HOOK CONSTRUCTION GROUP-I, LLC, Defendants. ...................... ____________X FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND HSBC, Wendover s predecessor-in-interest, as owner of the notes and mortgages, commenced this foreclosure action on November 8, 2010. The mortgages at issue secured a building loan in the amount of $13,338,574.55, and a project loan in the amount of $1,661,425.46 (the loans). When HSBC served its pleadings, the borrower, and the guarantor, were already in default under the terms of the notes, mortgages, as well as, not One, but three separate forebearance agreements, dated October 10, 2008, March 17, 2009 and January 22, 2010. The loans were made to the borrower, on or about November 27, all of its right, title and interest in this litigation, to HSBC filed its pleadings simultaneously with a notice of pendency. 3 [* 5] Wendover. In reply, Wendover's principal, Mark Weissman (Weissman) avers that the consideration for the assignment of the loans and the litigation was $10,000,000.00. The moving papers do not annex any documents supporting this allegation, even though Weissman says "Wendover is me." The parties do not contest that the debt, in excess of $15,000,000, was secured by the building known as, 127 Fulton Street, New York, New York (the building). The building is located with the City, County and State of New York. The original scope of the project was to convert the building from what was presumably commercial property, to a mixed use residential condominium premises. Construction was borrower and the not completed timely, guarantor's default in resulting in the both payment and performance. After the assignment was completed, Wendover, the borrower and the guarantor, executed yet another written modification of the loans; wherein the borrower and guarantor, i n t e r alia, consented to entry of an Order of foreclosure, and waived any defenses, counterclaims or set-offs they may have had against Wendover or HSBC. Notwithstanding the foregoing, issue was joined on or about January 11, 2011, with the service of the borrower and guarantor's joint answer, which included counterclaims. Notably, the borrower and the guarantor both have counterclaims alleging that HSBC, 4 [* 6] "consistently delayed requisitions [to pay Red Hook as the general contractor], causing a delay in completing the construction by the deadline required by the Building Loan Agreement." Now, at this point in the litigation, neither the borrower nor the guarantor have served an amended answer to plaintiff's dated, January 14, 2011. responsive pleading to amended complaint However, Red Hook did serve and file a the amended complaint pursuant to a Red Hook served its amended verified answer on or stipulation. about March 29, 2012. Curiously, neither the borrower nor the guarantor are opposing either the motion-in-chief or the cross motion. Red Hook is a mechanic's lienor, who performed work, labor and services f o r the borrower and was not paid. Red Hook interposed the affirmative defense that [Wendover] "is subject to equitable estoppel." Said defense is predicated upon the fact that the [original] mortgages "lack [ed] appropriate trust fund covenant language.. . ." In t h e action to foreclose Red H o o k ' s lien, the allegations include, i n t e r a l i a , that Red Hook, "performed work, labor and services in the amount of (sic) and fair and reasonable value Seven Hundred Twenty-Three Thousand Eight Hundred and Fifty OO/lOO ($723,850.00) Dollars."2 'Red Hook's cross motion seeks to consolidated the instant action with Red Hook Construction Group-I, LLC v. 127 Fulton, LLC and 140 W e n d o v e r 11 LLC, Index # 107110/11, which seeks, i n t e r alia, to foreclose upon Red Hook's mechanic's lien. 5 [* 7] Red Hook s opposition vociferously alleges that the s o l e motivation for Wendover to foreclose at this stage, is to render Red Hook s lien worthless. Red Hook claims that Wendover has made surreptitious agreements with the borrower and the guarantor, and these allegations can only be refuted or confirmed through the discovery process. It is undisputed that the motion-in-chief was served and filed prior to the commencement of any meaningful discovery. A principal of Red Hook, Christopher Lynch (Lynch), avers that in or about 2010 he had several conversations with HSBC s attorneys regarding payment to Red Hook for the amounts they were owed. Lynch alleges at some point he was informed by Richard Beers, E s q . that HSBC was not going to continue funding the project; and that it sold the loans to an entity called Debt Acquisition Group (DAG). Richard Beers, Esq. (Beers) also allegedly told Lynch that DAG was buying the building and the Note. According to Lynch, when he pressed Beers for the identity of the purchaser of the HSBC debt, he was allegedly told that it was a friendly party to DAG. DAG S principal, Mark Esrig ( E s r i g ) , apparently met with Lynch in April 2011, at 127 Fulton Street, and Lynch was informed by Esrig that if Lynch did not discount the amount owed to Red Hook, 3Notwithstanding the rules for Part 8, which instruct counsel that service of a premature CPLR 3212 motion, will not stay discovery. 6 [* 8] Esrig would foreclose on himself and render Red Hook s lien worthless. In July 2011, Lynch states that he had a meeting with Wendover s counsel, Edward J. Bullard, Esq. (Bullard), Ari Loren and Esrig. DAG. Bullard informed Lynch that he was also representing Lynch was further informed by Bullard that he wanted to mediate the dispute, so the project could be finished. Lynch rejected the amount offered to settle the lien because the offer was insulting. Finally, Lynch states that the movant has deliberately withheld a purchase agreement that may exist, which may shed light on the relationship, if any, between Wendover and the borrower. Additionally, counsel for Red Hook avers that on April 4, 2011, he had a conversation with Beers, who yet again advised that the mortgages were sold to a familiar borrower to the purchaser of 127 Fulton Street, and that a confidential agreement was attendant to the transaction. In reply, Weissman denies having any connection with either the borrower or the guarantor nd dismisses the allegations made by Lynch. ARGUMENTS Wendover argues that it is entitled to the relief sought because it has produced the necessary evidence showing that it is the holder and/or owner of the mortgages and underlying debt and the borrower is in default. 7 [* 9] Red Hook contends very simply that the scheme between Wendover and [the borrower and/or the guarantor] and the concealment thereof, was an effort to avoid a merger of the mortgage with the Red Hook argues further that the sole motivation for the debt. transaction was to discharge Red Hook's mechanic's lien, and that such an effort should be prevented by the doctrine of equitable estoppel. In other words, Wendover could have simply purchased the property and satisfied HSBC's debt, and Red Hook's lien would have remained intact. DISCUSSION "The proponent of a summary judgment motion must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to eliminate any material issues of fact from omitted] . " 2006). the case [internal quotation Santiago v Filstein, marks and citation 35 AD3d 184, 185-186 (1st Dept In the event the movant has satisfied its prima facie burden of proof, the burden then shifts to Red Hook to "present evidentiary facts in admissible form sufficient to raise a genuine, triable issue of fact." M a z u r e k v M e t r o p o l i t a n M u s e u m of Art, 27 AD3 d 227, 228 (1st Dept 2006); see Z u c k e r m a n v C i t y of N e w York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 (1980). If there is any doubt as to the existence of a triable fact, the motion for summary judgment must be denied. See R o t u b a E x t r u d e r s v Ceppos, 46 NY2d 223, 231 (1978). Wendover has failed to address 8 or refute the negative [* 10] implica,tionsraised by the Lynch affidavit, thereby raising factual issues with respect to the veracity or accuracy of the statements made by Weissman. Further, meaningful discovery has not been conducted by the parties prior to the filing of this summary judgment motion. Because discovery may narrowing or resolving assist the parties (and this Court) in disputed issues of judgment motion is denied without prejudice. Suffolk, 14 AD3d Sear-Brown 664 (2d Dept 2005); fact, the summary Magee v C o u n t y of Perroto D e v . Corp. v Group, 269 AD2d 749 (4th Dept 2000) (denying summary judgment motion without prejudice to renew, after completion of discovery). The Court has considered all of the additional arguments raised in the motion-in-chief and the cross motion and find them to be unpersuasive. Consequently, the motions are denied. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the motion-in-chief and cross motion are denied without prejudice. FILED Dated: August 16, 2013 E N T E R : UNTY CLERK'S OFFICE J.S.C. 9

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.