Nugent v Hubbard

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Nugent v Hubbard 2013 NY Slip Op 32155(U) September 3, 2013 Supreme Court, Suffolk County Docket Number: 027731-2012 Judge: Emily Pines Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various state and local government websites. These include the New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service, and the Bronx County Clerk's office. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [* 1] SHORT FORM ORDER INDEX NO.: 027731-2012 SUPREME COURT - STATE OF NEW YORK COMMERCIAL DIVISION, PART 46, SUFFOLK COUNTY Motion Date: Submit Date: Motion No.: Present: HON. EMILY PINES J. S. C. MICHAEL T. NUGENT, FRANK BUSTAMANTE, and 52 PHOENIX MGMT. C ORP., 06-04-20 13 06-04-20 13 003 MOTD Attorney for Plaintiffs & Third Party Defendant L. Nugent Peter R. Ginsberg, Esq. Christopher R. Deubert, Esq. Peter R. Ginsberg Law, LLC. 12 East 49 Street, 30thFloor New York, New York 10017 Plaintiffs, Attorney for DefendanUThird Party Plaintiff D. O Donnell, and Defendant Jodi Girl Enterprises Gerald Glass, Esq. Glass & Glass 72 East Main Street, Suite 3 Babylon, New York 1 1702 - against JOSEPH HUBBARD, ASHLEIGH SASSER, THOMAS B. LICARDI, DANIEL CVDONNELL, BABYLON POINT INC., GOLDLIC LLC., and JODI GIRL ENTERPRISES, INC., Defendants. DANIEL O DONNELL, Third Party Plaintiff, Third Party Index 32-303 - against - Attorney for Defendant Hubbard Joseph Hubbard, Esq. 6 19 Deer Park Avenue Babylon, New York 11702 Doreen Turnbull, PRO SE 121 Alicia Drive North Babylon, New York 11703 Francis Turnbull, PRO SE 12 1 Alicia Drive North Babylon, N e w York 1 1703 LAURIE L. NUGENT, DOREEN TURNBULL and FRANCIS TURNBULL, Third Party Defendants. X CORRECTED O R D E R Plaintiffs Michael T. Nugent ( Nugent ), Frank Bustamante ( Bustamante ) a:id 52 Phoenix Corp. ( Phoenix ) (collectively Plaintiffs ) commenced this action against defendants Joseplh C. Hubbard ( Hubbard ), Ashleigh Sasser ( Sasser ), Thomas [* 2] 3. Licari ( Licari ), Daniel O Donnell ( O Donnell ), Babylon Point Inc. ( Babylon oint ), Goldlic LLC arid Jodi Girl Enterprises, Inc. ( Jodi Girl ) for breach of contract, conversion, unjust enrichment, an equitable lien, and declaratory relief. Currently before ihe Court is a motion (Mot. Seq. 003) by O Donnell and Jodi Girl pursuant to CPLR 321 l(a)( 1) to dismiss the Plaintiffs complaint as asserted against them. O Donnell also seeks summary judgment on his counterclaim against 52 Phoenix and Nugent, and his 1 hird-party claim against Laurie L. Nugent, to recover on apromissory note and guaranty. (3 Donnellalso seeks a default judgment against third-party defendants Doreen Turnbull m m d Francis Turnbull o his third-party claims to recover on a guaranty of a note. The Izomplaint alleges, among other things, that O Donnell and Jodi Girl interfered with and converted Plaintiffs interest in tangible property. Factual and Procedural Background Lease/Sublease In May 2010, Goldlic, LLC purchased real property located at 16 East Court, ,3abylon,New York ( Premises ). At that time, the Premises was leased to non-party Hi;-look, Inc. From 2004-2008, Hi-Kook had subleased the Premises to plaintiff 52 Phoenix, which had operated a restaurant on the premises. Pursuant to an Amended and Restated Sublease dateld May 1, 2008, Hi-Hook sublet the Premises to Babylon Point, .which operated a restaurant on the premises. In 2008, Babylon Point was owned by :3ustmante. The Amended and Restated Sublease recites that 52 Phoenix had surrendered its sublease. The Amended and Restated Sublease was assigned to Goldlic 1 n 20 10, when it purchased the Premises. The Amended and Restated Sublease provides. in relevant part: 34. =AIRS AND MAINTENANCE * * * Notwithstanding anything to the contrary set forth above, the heating, ventilating, air-conditioning, electrical and Page 2 of 8 [* 3] plumbing systems, shall, at all times, remain the property of Sublandlord, including, all additions and replacements made thereby by Subtenant. * * * Exhibit B AI terationis : * * * 1\11 fixtures and all paneling, partitions, railings and like installations, installed in the premises at any time, either by Tenant or by Owner on Tenant s behalf, shall, upon installation, become the property of the Owner and shall remain upon and be surrendered with the demised premises unless Owner, by notice to Tenant no later than twenty days prior to the date fixed as the termination of this lease, elects to relinquish Owner s right thereto and to have them removed by Tenant, in which event the same shall be removed from the demised premises by Tenant prior to the expiration of the lease, at tenant s expense. Nothing in this Article shall be construed to give Owner title to or to prevent Tenant s removal of trade fixtures, moveable office furniture and equipment . . . All property permitted or required to be removed by Tenant at the end of the term remaining in the premises after Tenant s removal shall be deemed abandoned and may, at the election of Owner, either be retained as Owner s property or removed from the premises by Owner, at Tenant s expense. * * * End of Term: 22. Upon the expiration or other termination of the term of this lease, Tenant shall quit and surrender to Owner the demised premises, broom clean, in good order and Page 3 of 8 [* 4] condition. . . and Tenarit shall remove all its property from the demised premises. Note On March 28,20 12, O Donnell entered into an Assignment Agreement with nonparties Timothy Kelly and Karen Kelly, pursuant to which the Kellys assigned to O Donnell all their rights, title and interest in the following: (1) Note and Security Agreement dated April 13, 2004, executed by 52 Phoenix in the principal amount of !;275,000 ( Note ), (2) Modification of Note and Security Agreement dated April 14, 2006, executed by 52 Phoenix, and (3) Unconditional Guaranty dated April 14,2006, by Ivlichael Nugent, Laurie L. Nugent, Francis Turnbull, and Doreen Turnbull in connection with the Note, Security Agreement, and Modification ( Guaranty ). Pursuant to an Assumption Agreement dated May 27, 2010, (1) Babylon Point became a co-obligor, together with 52 Phoenix, on the Note and Security Agreement and Ivlodification of Note and Security .Agreement, and (2) Michael Nugent and Laurie L. Nugent agreed to guaranty the obligations assumed by Babylon Point. Babylon Point surrendered the Premises to Goldlic in February 2012. In April 2012, Goldlic entered into a lease for the Premises with Jodi Girl and O Donnell. According to Plaintiffs, Jodi Girl and O Donnell then began operating a restaurant using tangible property in which the Plaintiffs had an ownership interest, which had been left at the Premises after Babylon Point surrendered the Premises in February 2012. Plaintiffs claim that the,ynever authorized Jodi Girl or O Donnell to utilize the tangible property in any way and that they have not been compensated for it by Goldlic, Licari ( Goldlic s principal), Jodi Girl or O Donnell. Re1evant P 1eadingS The second cause of action alleges that Goldlic, Licari, Jodi Girl and O Donnell converted the tangible jproperty left at the Premises. The third cause of action alleges that Goldlic, Licari, Jodi Girl and 0 Donne11 have been unjustly enriched, at the expense ofthe Plaintiffs, by their taking and use of Plaintiffs tangible property. The fourth cause Page 4 of 8 [* 5] of action seeks the imposition of an equitable lien on the tangible property and an j njunction prohibiting its sale, transfer, encumbrance, assignment, removal o r ji sposi t i on. O Donnell interposed counterclaims against Plaintiffs and cross-claims against 13abylon Point. The first counterclaim/cross-claim is for breach of the Note and Guaranty. The second counterclairn/cross-claim is for unjust enrichment. The third counterclaim is for malicious prosecution and abuse of process. The fourth counterclaim I tlleges breach of contract and tortious interference with contract by plaintiff Bustamante. Additionally, 0 I)onnell commenced a third-party action against Laurie L. Nugent, lloreen Turnbull and Francis Turnbull for breach ofthe Guaranty and unjust enrichment. Plaintiffs served a reply to C) Donnell s counterclaims. Third-party defendant Laurie L. Nugent serveld an answer to the third-party complaint. Prior Motion andl Order By Order dated April 8, 2013, this Court (Pines, J.) granted the motion by defendants Licari and Goldlic to dismiss the Complaint as asserted against them. The Order states, in relevant part: Here, it is undisputed that Babylon Point, and not 52 Phoenix or the individual plaintiffs, was the tenant pursuant to the Amended and Restated Sublease with Goldlic. 52 Phoenix was a tenant pursuant to the prior sublease with Hi-Hook, which is not a party to this action. Thus, it is clear that 52 Phoenix does not have a valid claim against Goldlic as there was never a landlord-tenant relationship between 52 Phoenix and Goldlic. It is also undisputed that Babylon Point surrendereldthe Amended and Restated Sublease to Goldlic in February 20 12. Pursuant to paragraph 22 of Exhibit B to the Amended and Restated Sublease, Babylon Point had the right/obligation to remove its property form the demised premises prior to surrender. Pursuant to paragraph 3 of Page 5 of 8 [* 6] Exhibit B to the Amended and Restated Sublease, all property remaining in the premises was deemed abandoned and could be retained by the owner. Thus, Goldlic had the right to retain all property remaining at the premises at the time of surrender by Babylon Point. The Plaintiffs attempt to remove property from the ~xemises,assuming the Plaintiffs had any rights under the Amended and Restated Sublease, was ineffectual as the premises had already been surrendered. Notably, Goldlic provides copies of certifications by Gold Coast Abstract in December 20 1 1 and September 20 12 which reflect that neither 52 Phoenix nor Babylon Point had filed any UCC financing statements with regard to any of the property in which Plaintiffs claim an interest. Thus, the documentary evidence utterly refutes the Plaintiffs allegations that the they had rights with regard to the property remaining at the premises. Discussion For the reasons slets forth in the prior Order of this Court dated April 8,20 13, that lxanch of the motion which seeks dismissal of the complaint insofar as asserted against 13 Donnell and Jodi Girl is granted, The documentary evidence demonstrates that the laintiffs have no rights as against O Donnell and Jodi Girl, subsequent lessees of the remises, to the tangible property left thereat at the time Babylon Point surrendered its ,;ubleaseto Goldlic in February 2012. Pursuant to the express terms of the Amended and iestated Sublease, all property remaining in the Premises in February 20 12, when 3abylon Point surrendered the premises to Goldlic, was deemed abandoned and Goldlic, at its election, had the right to either retain the property or remove it. Thus, the documentary evidence utterly refutes Plaintiffs allegations against O Donnell and Jodi Girl and the Complaint is dismissed insofar as asserted against them. That branch of the motion which seeks summary judgment on O Donnell s counterclaim against Michael T. Nugent and 52 Phoenix to recover on the Note and Guaranty, and on his third-party claim against Laurie L. Nugent to recover of the Page6 of 8 [* 7] Guaranty, is also granted. To make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment iis a matter of law in an action to recover on a note, and on a guaranty thereof, a plaintiff must establish the existence of a note and guaranty and the defendants failure to make payments according to their terms (JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Galt Group, Inc., 1028, 1029 [2d Dept 201131, quoting Vevela v Citrus Lake Dev., Inc., 53 AD3d 574,575 I2d Dept 20081). Here, O Donnell submits the loan documents, including the Promissory Note, Modification of Note and Security Agreement, Unconditional Guaranty, and Assignment .%greement, evidence of the default, which establishes his prima facie entitlement to and judgment as a matter of law. Thus, the burden shifts to 52 Phoenix, Michael Nugent, and Laurie Nugent to establish by admissible evidence the existence of a triable issue of fact with respect to a bona fide defense (Gullery v Imburgio, 74 AD3d 1022 [2d Dept 20 lo]). In opposition, Michael Nugent submits an affidavit stating, among other things, 1hat defendants Joseph C. Hubbard and Ashleigh Sasser assumed the obligations of 52 Phoenix and the Nugents under the loan documents in 201 1 when they purchased 13abylon Point and executed a Purchase Agreement. However, Nugent s allegation is iinsubstantiated as the Purchase Agreement, pursuant to which Hubbard and Sasser allegedly assumed the Note, has not been provided to the Court. Additionally, the claim 1hat summary judgment should be denied because O Donnell wrongfully and without notice disposed of the items of collateral (restaurant goods and equipment) securing the Note pursuant to a Security Agreement, is without merit. As set forth above, all property left at the Premises in February 2012 when Babylon Point surrendered its lease was xbandoned and became the property of Goldlic. O Donnell did not dispose of the property remaining at the Premises until after he and Jodi Girl entered into a lease with Goldlic in April 2012, and he did so with Goldlic s consent. Moreover, O Donnell did not become the holder of the Note until March 28, 2012. The unopposed branch of O Donnell s motion seeking a default judgment pursuant to CPLR 32 15 on the third-party claims asserted against Doreen Turnbull and Frances Turnbull is granted. O Donnell has demonstrated that the Third-party Summons and Jerified Third-party Complaint was served upon the Turnbulls pursuant to CPLR 308(4) Page 7 of 8 [* 8] and that neither appeared in the third-party action. Finally, the Note provides for the recovery of reasonable attorneys fees incurred i n enforcement. However, even though O Donnell appears to have an agreement with counsel to pay counsel one-third of the amount due and owing on the Note, he is not entitled to an award of attorneys fees in that amount. Therefore, O Donnell s request l-br an award of attorneys fees is denied with leave to renew upon the submission of proper papers, including records showing the amount of time spent by counsel in mforcing the Note. This constitutes the DECZSZON and ORDER of the Court. ? l3 ki Dated: Riverhead, e York J. S. C. [ ] Final [ X 1 NonFinal Page 8 of 8

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.