Foremost Contr. & Bldg., LLC v Go Cat Go, LLC

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Foremost Contr. & Bldg., LLC v Go Cat Go, LLC 2018 NY Slip Op 32381(U) September 25, 2018 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 155049/2016 Judge: Marcy Friedman Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [* 1] INDEX NO. 155049/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 124 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/25/2018 003 ()\:VNI:ll LJ...c:) J\·~fl])'JC)\~(N :E.L.EC~'I}~JC~ \:\lfHJ3 ~v... (~AJlLE ('.{),.) :n..:rc~ .., fi}JC:J-I.f\.E.L ~s EIJ-?(;'TRIC~.A.I~ SLLP~Pt:·y C~(J.R~P~ E:I. EC:T'HJC'.l\.L S)ES1fiN ~. ~-_AJ{A~CJI~1\. :U~~N-'1~ .L.L{\ i\".BI~ST' .Rl~ST'()Il.A'Il()}.f (;()RP.~ \$,.l/\5'.{L rv~~./.i\S~:lI(I\.~/, l)Is··rii'J(~l' f)JZ''{\\l/~.J .._L ll\TC'.., J)()Ni\T'() LI-?()N..A. HJ) SlJPPt.):;- S"f.R~E.ET' c:c;_RP~~ i\.(~1~ LN(~.-~ I-3LCrNI)I.~Il litJ1LJ)l~I~S IN"C~•-; S()Ll~.R .n~'i'-TC)\l.\J'I(}l\JS (}() (~i\T· (~(),_LL(~~· 87 L.E.CJ!'{A.I~J) 1).E.'\l.Et;()P.~·'.iI~~N·r I.. L(~-~ i\N'I'Fl()N)"- (~. i\..tA..R.i\.N"l)~ i\.N1) .A.NTlf()N·\~- -~-{ !\·fA. I{J\N()~ GERMAN AMERlCAN CAPITAL CORPORATION, Third-Party Defondant ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X The following e-filed documents, listed by l\f'\'SCEF document number (Motion 003) 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, llO, 1 ll, H4, ll5, I 16, U7, 1 JS, ll9, 120, l21, 122, l23 were read on this motion toifor D!SMISSiSTA Y ............................................................................................................................... This action arises out of construction of a condominium project (the Project) located at 87 Leonard Street in Manhattan (the Property). The main action is brought hy plaintiff Foremost Contracting & Building, LLC (Foremost), the contractor, to recover its unpaid fees for the Project from defendants/third-party plaintiffs Go Cat Go, LLC (Go Cat Go), 87 Leonard Development LLC (87 Leonard Development), Anthony C, Marano, and Anthony M. Marano (collectively, the developer defendants). The complaint in the main action (Foremost Compl.) pleads, among other causes of action against tht.~ developer defendants, a fourth cause of action 155049/2016 FOREMOST CONTRACTING & vs, GO CAT GO, LLC Motion No, 003 1 of 12 Page 1of12 [* 2] INDEX NO. 155049/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 124 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/25/2018 for unjust enrichment, a sixth for "breach of trust," and a seventh for '"defrauding creditors." (Foremost CompL, i;,-r 42-45, 49-53, 54-57.) This complaint also pleads a second cause of action for breach of contract against defendants Go Cat Go and 87 Leonard Development. (Id., ,413236.) This cause of action is based on the allegations that Go Cat Go entered into the construction contract with Foremost (the Foremost Contract) and breached the contract by not paying the amounts due to Foremost, and that 87 Leonard Development was a record owner of the Property and a third-party beneficiary of the contract (Id.,~~· 18, 20, 33-34.) In the third-party action, whkh is the subject of this decision, the developer defendants allege a first cause of action for common !aw indemnification and a second cause of action for cmnmon favv contribution from third-party defendant Gem1an American Capital Corporation (German American Capital), 1 a lender of funds for the Project. (Am. Third-Party Compl., if, 31- 32, 33-34.) German American Capital nmv moves to dismiss the amended third-party complaint in its entirety, pursuant to CPLR 321 l(a) (5) and (a) (7), on the grounds that the developer defendants' claims are barred by res judicata and, in the alternative, fail to state a cause of action. 2 The parties' roles in the Project are not in dispute. Go Cat Go entered into a contract with Foremost for the construction. (Foremost Compl., 4f 18.) 87 Leonard Development was the ffwner ofrecord of the Property. (Prior Complaint, ~ 8.)3 Go Cat Go is the sole ovmer of 87 1 In the amended third-party complaint and in its motion papers, tbe developer defendanl:s refer to German American Capital as "Deutsche Bank" 2 In !he alternative, German American Capital moves, pursuant to CPLR 220 l, to stay the third-party action pending appeal of the action that is the basis of its res judicata claim. As the appeal is no longer pending, the request for a stay is denied as moot 3 Factual allegations as to the roles of the parties are pleaded in a prior action broughl: against German American Capital by 87 Leonard Development and non~party 87 Mezz Member LLC. The prior action (Index No. 15504912016 FOREMOST CONTRACTING & vs. GO CAT GO, LLC Motion No. 003 2 of 12 Page 2of12 [* 3] INDEX NO. 155049/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 124 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/25/2018 Mezz .Member LLC (87 lVIezz Member), and 87 Mezz Member is the 100 percent owner of 87 Leonard Development. (ld_,, ~~ 8, 12.) As of August 2016, Anthony M. Marano was the manager of 87 Leonard Development and of 87 Mezz Member. (Id,, Verification, at 15,) Anthony M. Marano and Anthony C. Marano were guarantors of the loans made by Gem1an American Capital to finance the Project. (kt.,~ 27.) More particularly, by agre(~ment entitled Loan Agreement and dated as of Iv1arch 31, 2011, German American Capital made a mortgage loan of approximately $13 million to 87 Leonard Development as mortgage borrower. (Developer Defs.' Memo. In Opp., at 3; Aff. of Andrew Todres [third-party defs.' attorney], Loan Agreement [Exh. D (3)].) By separate agreement dated as of March 31, 2011, German American Capital made a loan of nearly $15 million to 87 Mezz Member as mezzanine b01Tower. (Developer Defa.' Memo. In Opp,, at 3; Todres Aff., Mezzanine Loan Agreement fExh. D (2)].) As collateral for the mezzanine loan, 87 Mezz Member pledged all ofits membership interests in 87 Leonard Development (Am. Third-Party CompL, 112.) On or about December 1, 2011, Go Cat Go and Foremost entered into the Foremost Contract·- "a Standard Form Agreement Between Owner and Contractor ... concerning the development" of the Property. (Am. Third-Party Compl., ~ 13.) At that time, "the first item of work \Vas perfo:nned and/or the first item of material was furnished" by Foremost. (Foremost Compl., if 24.) On or about April 3, 2013, "the last item of vvork was performed and/or the last item of material was furnished" by Foremost 04J Foremost pleads that $961,262.05 "still is justly due, .. for work perfonned and materials supplied" during this time frame. (Id.,~ 26.) On April 1, 2013, after the developer defendants did not make a payment (German American Capital Memo. In Supp., at 2), German American Capital declared "a technical Event 654279/2016) is discussed further below. (Infra at 5,) The complaint in that action is reforred to as the Prior Complaint. 155049/2016 FOREMOST CONTRACTING & vs. GO CAT GO, LLC Motion No. 003 3 of 12 Page 3of12 [* 4] INDEX NO. 155049/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 124 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/25/2018 of Default" under the mezzanine loan. (Am. Third-Party Compl., i!.16.) German American Capital then "'stated its intention to foreclose on (87 Mezz Member's] membership interests in [87 Leonard Development]."4 (Developer Defs.' Memo. In Opp., at 4.) On August 13, 2013, German American Capital conducted a UCC foreclosure sale of 87 Mezz Member's membership interests in 87 Leonard Development (Developer Defs: Memo. In Opp,, at 4.) At the UCC sale, German American Capital purchased the membership interests for itself. (Id.; Am. ThirdParty CompL, ,[ 19.) The developer defendants plead that at the time of the UCC sale, German American Capital "was aware that [Forernost] claimed payment for labor and materials in connection with the Prope11y." (Am. Third-Party Compl., ii 20.) According to the developer defendants, German American Capital "benefitted from any labor and materials supplied by [Foremost]" (id., ,-r 21), but '"did not compensate [Foremost] for the value of any labor or materials .... " (Id., if 22.) On June 2, 2014, having purchased the membership interests, Gennan American Capital "caused [87 Leonard Development] to sell the Property" to a third party for 33 million doHars, (Id,,,[ 23.) The developer defendants allege that "the proceeds from the saie of the Property, which reflected any labor or material provided by Plaintiff, were then transferred to another subsidiary or affiliate of [German American Capital]," and that they did not receive any of the proceeds from the sale ofthe Property, (Id., 11124-25.) On or about August 12, 2016, prior to commencement of the instant third-party action, 87 Leona.rd Development and 87 Mezz Member commenced an action in this Court (the prior action) against German American Capital. The prior action asserted claims for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and conversion. (Prior 4 In the amended third-paiiy complaint and in its motion papers, the developer defendants refer to 87 Mezz Member as "87 Mezz" and 87 Leonard Development as "87 Development." 155049/2016 FOREMOST CONTRACTING & vs. GO CAT GO, LLC Motion No. 003 4 of 12 Page 4of12 [* 5] INDEX NO. 155049/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 124 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/25/2018 Complaint, ~·~· 54-72.) The prior action pleaded that it arose "frorn [Gemian American Capital's] willful breach of the parties' mezzanine loan agreement in an unlawful scheme to usurp Plaintiffs' valuable, but unfinished, Tribeca luxury real estate development project tlrrough a UCC foreclosure sale." (Id.,, L) As further pleaded in that action, '"pursuant to its unlavvful scheme, [Gem1an American Capital] purported to conduct a UCC sale of [87 Mezz Member's] membership interests in [87 Leonard Development], which [German American Capital] acquired for itself Thus, [German American Capital] usurped the highly profitable development project from [87 Mezz Member] and converted [87 Leonard Development's and 87 Mezz Member's] substantial equity in the Property!' 5 (kt, , 52,) By decision dated May 24, 2017, this Court (Singh, J.) rejected these dairns and C'!pi\al Corp., 2017 NY Slip Op 31128 [U], \VL 2265799, * 3-4 [Sup Ct, NY County 2017].) The Court reasoned that "the loans \Vere not repaid. Therefore, under the unambiguous language of the Loan Agreement, an Event of Default was triggered" under a separate agreement between the parties entitled the Additional Interest Agreement. (Id., at * 2 [internal citation ornitted].) The Court further held that German American Capital did not deliberately rniscalculate the amount due under the Additional Interest Agreement (Id., at* 3.) The Appellate Divisio11 afiinned, holding that "German American Capital Corporation (GA.CC) had a right to foreclose Dept 2018].) In the amended third-party complaint in this action, as in the prior action, the developer defendants plead that "pursuant to its unlawful scheme," Gem1an American Capital '\vrongfuliy 5 In the Prior Complaint, "German American Capital" is referred to as "Deutsche Bank," "87 Mezz Member" as "87 Mezz" and "87 Leonard Development" as "87 Leonard." 155049/2016 FOREMOST CONTRACTING & vs. GO CAT GO, LLC Motion No. 003 5 of 12 Page 5of12 [* 6] INDEX NO. 155049/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 124 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/25/2018 usurped the Property in a purported UCC sale of the equity of [87 Leonard Development], in breach of the parties' various loan agreements. As a result of [Gennan .American Capital's] misconduct, the Developer Defendants were wiped out and did not receive a penny from the Property!' (Am. Third-Party CompL, ir~r 19, 1.) It is well settled that on a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7), "the pleading is to be afforded a liberal construction (see, CPLR 3026). [The court must] accept the facts as alleged in the complaint as tme, accord plaintiffs the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and detem1i11e only whether the fr-lets as alleged :fit within any cognizable legal J~rn:.iif~r Realt~CGQ,,, 98 NY2d l 44 [2002].) However, "the court is not required to accept factual allegations that are plainly contradicted by the documentary evidence or legal conclusions that are unsuppmiable based upon the undisputed facts." (;RghiJ1fil'!1tYJ1QQinfillli, 303 AD2d 234, 235 Dept 2005], Iv denieg 6 NY3d 706 [2006].) It is further settled that "[ iJn New York, res judicata, or claim preclusion, bars successive litigation based upon the same transaction or series of connected transactions if: (i) there is a judgment on the merits rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction, and (ii) the party against whom the doctrine is invoked was a party to the previous action, or in privity with a party who [2008] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted], cert denied 555 US 1136 [2009].) New York follows a "transactional analysis approach in deciding res judicata issues." (O'Brien v City 155049/2016 FOREMOST CONTRACTING & Motion No. 003 V!iL GO CAT GO, llC 6 of 12 Page 6of12 [* 7] INDEX NO. 155049/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 124 QfSyr~~llfi_I,':, RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/25/2018 54 NY2d 353, 357 [1981].) Under the transactional approach, "once a claim is brought to a final conclusion, all other claims arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions are barred, even if based upon different theories or if seeking a diffon.~nt remedy." (Id.) '"'N'hen alternative theories a.re available to recover what is essentially the same relief for hann arising out of the same or related facts such as would constitute a single 'factual grouping,' the circumstance that the theories involve materially different elements of proof wHI not justify presenting the claim by two different actions!' (Id., at 357-358 [internal citation omitted]; that where plaintiff in the second action "asserts different legal theories, but it seeks to recover for the same alleged harm based on the same underlying events," res judicata bars the second action, as "[i]t is not necessary that the precise legal theories presented in the first action also be presented in the second action"] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted].) Here, the developer defendants argue that res judicata does not apply because the prior action and the instant third-party action do not arise from the same transaction. (Developer Defs.' Memo. In Opp., at 2, 7.) The developer defendants contend that the t\.vo actions arise out of different contracts, and that the instant third-party action pleads claims against German American Capital under the Foremost Contract, while the prior action asserted claims against German Arnerican Capital for breach of the mezzanine loan agreement. (I~t, at 2.) The developer defendants also assert that the \.Vrongdoing at issue in the two actions occurred at different times. They argue that their prior claims "involve[d] whether [German American Capital] wrongfully took control of the Property ... "but, here, "do not in any way tum upon whether the UCC sale was w1ongfuL" (Id., at 9,) The developer defendants farther contend that 15504912015 FOREMOST CONTRACTING & vs. GO CAT GO, LLC Motion No. 003 7 of 12 Page 7of12 [* 8] INDEX NO. 155049/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 124 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/25/2018 "[t]he two actions rely upon different sets of facts, hinge on the application of different laws and seek different fom1s of relief" (Id., at 2.) The developer defendants' arb'llmt:nts are unpersuasive. German American Capital's aHeged vvrongfal acts in connection with the UCC sale are the basis for both complaints. The developer defondants ignore that the complaint in the prior action, iike that in the third-party action (quoted supra, at 5, 6), sought damages as a result of German i\merican Capital's alleged wrongful usurpation, through the UCC foreclosure sale, of the developer defendants' interests in the Project Put another way, although the prior action involved the mezzanine loan agreement rather than the Foremost Contract, the foreclosure, plus all of German American Capital's postforeclosure acts, were at issue because the claim for damages was based on Gem1an American Capital's acquisition of 87 Mezz Member's interests in the Project. following the UCC sale. German American Capital thus demonstrates on this record that the amended third-pmty complaint is based on the same transaction as the transaction at issue in the prior action. German American Capital also satisfies the requirement for the application of the res judicata doctrine that there have been a final judgment on the merits in the prior action, As noted above, the prior action eventuated in a judgment that dismissed the claims on the merits with prejudice. The court turns to the final element of the res judicata doctrine, which requires that a party must have been a party to the previous action or in privity \..,,ith those that were. The developer defendants' sole challenge to privity is that only one ofthe four developer defendants, 87 Leonard Development, was a party to the prior action. (See Developer Defa' Memo. In Opp., at 1-2; see Transcript of Oral Argmnent [NYSCEF Doc. No. 122] at 11-12, 17.) That argument is based on a misapprehension of the standards fbr establishing privity. 155049/2016 FOREMOST CONTRACTING & vs. GO CAT GO, LLC Motion No. 003 8 of 12 Page B of 12 [* 9] INDEX NO. 155049/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 124 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/25/2018 As the Court of Appeals has explained, "'privity is not susceptible to a hard-and-fast definition." (Anpli~_d_C_<i!nt:;h:~~-~-Ji:w_,, 11 NY3d at 123.) A Court "must determine whether the severe consequences of preclusion .flowing from a finding of privity strike a fair result under the circumstances. This inquiry is, of course, informed by reference to the policies that res judicata is designed to protect." (Id. [internal citation omitted],) '"[A] person may be bound by a prior [1970].) "Generally, to establish privity the connection between the parties must be such that the interests of the nonpruiy can be said to have been represented in the prior proceeding." (Q:r~~~ILY It is undisputed that Go Cat Go m~ns 87 Mezz Member (Prior Complaint, 'f 12), that Anthony M. Marano was the manager of 87 Leonard Development and of 87 Mezz Member (i~L Verification, at 15), and that Anthony M. Marano and Anthony C. Marano were guarantors of the loans made by German Arnerican Capital to finance the Project. (Id., ~127.) There is no claim here that the status of the three developer defendants is insufficient to establish that they were in privity with the prior parties. Nor is there a claim that the guarantors did not have notice of the prior action and an opportunity to apperu·. (See -'V~lt~r__E,J:1~U~r__~ __(;_Q, __ y__(\~x, 343 F Supp 519, 524 [SD NY 1972], affg llQ m:~i_pi_g_p 486 F2d 13 98 [2d Cir 1973 J, cert denied 414 US 827 [1973] [holding, under New York law, that "guarantor is bound by a prior adjudication involving the principal debtor if the guarantor had notice of and an opportunity to participate in the prior 1927]); 63 NY Jur2d GuarantY.fJ:!1Q..~JdrnlY.~hfa § 376-377 [2018].) The court accordingly concludes that the developer defendru1ts \Vere in privity with the pruties to the prior action. As an of the elements for the application of the res judicata doctrine have been met, the 15504912016 FOREMOST CONTRACTING & vs. GO CAT GO, lLC Motion No. 003 9 of 12 Page 9of12 [* 10] INDEX NO. 155049/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 124 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/25/2018 arnended third-party complaint against German American Capital must be dismissed" The court will, hm.vever, address Gem1an American Capital's alternative argument that the developer defendants' claims lack merit In the amended third-party complaint, the developer defendants seek common law indemnification and common law contribution from German American Capital. (Am. Thi.rdParty Compl., ~~ 32, 34.) In opposing German American Capital's n10tion, the developer defendants argue that "[i]ndemnification is an equitable remedy designed to prevent unjust emichment." 6 (Developer Defs.' Memo. In Opp., at 2.) The developer defendants also contend that "[cJontribution is adequately pled where multiple alleged tortfeasors potentially are subject to liabiHty." 7 (IdJ As the Court of Appeals has explained, "[i]n the 'classic indemnification case,' the one seeking indemnity had committed no v•.rrong, but by virtue of some relationship with the tortfoasor or obligation imposed by law, was nevertheless held liable to the injmed party." (Glaser y citation omitted]), "In indemnity, which arises commonly in cases involving vicarious liability 6 According to the developer defendants, the amended third-party complaint alleges that German American Capital "was in control oftbe property at tl1e time of the $33 million sale, that it caused the Property to be sold. and that it pocketed the sale proceeds without paying the contractors that made the property so valuable." (Developer Defa.' Memo. In Opp., at 2.) The developer defendants conclude that German American Capital "wiH be unjustly enriched if it fails to indemnify [the developer defendants] to the extent that they may be liable for the alleged costs of Foremost's labor and materials." mD The complaint does not in fact allege unjust enrichment, although it does plead that German American Capital obtained the proceeds of the sale \vithout compensating Foremost for the value of the labor or materials that Foremost supplied. {See Am. Third-Party Comp., ii~ l 9-25.) 7 As argued by the developer defondants, "Foremost has alleged causes of action against [the developer defendants] for breach of trust, defrauding creditors, and breach of fiduciary obligations by purportedly diverting the sale proceeds to themselves .... [German American Capital], not [the developer defendants], received and was in possession of !he $33 million in sale proceeds. Accordingly, [the developer defendants 1have adequately alleged that [German American Capital] is liable to the contractor as a separate tortfeasor." (Developer Defs.' Memo. ln Opp., at2.) 155049/2016 FOREMOST CONTRACTING & vs. GO CAT GO, LLC Motion No. 003 10 of 12 Page ill of 12 [* 11] INDEX NO. 155049/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 124 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/25/2018 ... a party held legally liable to plaintiff shifts the entire loss to another. The right to do .so may be based upon an express contract, but more commonly the indemnity obligation is implied ... based upon the law's notion of what is fair and proper as between the parties." (~:!!i~LY.IWQ f!figg~-~-i:\5.~QfJl.~, 75 NY2d 680, 690 [ 1990] [internal citations omitted].) "'(T]he key element of a common-law cause of action for indemnification is not a duty running from the indemnitor to the injured party, but rather is a separate duty owed the indenmitee by the indemnitor, The duty that fom1s the basis for the liability arises from the principle that every one is responsible for the consequences of his ovvn negligence, and if another person has been compelled to pay the damages >.:vhich ought to have bt~en paid by the vvTongdoer, they rnay be recovered from him." (R@WJY.t.Y..Bnt~m., 90 NY2d 177, 183 [1997] f_intemal quotation rnarks, citations, and ellipsis omitted].) "[l]n contribution, the tort-feasors responsible for plaintiffs loss share liability for it. ... [T]heir common liability to plaintiff is apportioned and each tort-foasor pays his ratable part of the loss." (Mas, 75 NY2d at 689-690 [internal citation omitted].) Under CPLR artide 14, "[t]he 'critical requirement' for apportionment by contribution ... is that the breach of duty by the contributing party must have had a part in causing or augmenting the injury for which contribution is sought." (R§.g_µet, 90 NY2d at UG.) Here, giving the developer defendants the benefit of all reasonable inferences, the allegations of the amended third-party complaint do not suppmt a claim for common la1-v indemnification. The developer defendants do not cite any authority on this motion that a lender is oh ligated by statute or common law to compensate a contractor for its ·work, after the lender forecloses on a loan made to finance a construction project. The allegations of the amended third-party complaint also do not support a claim for 155049/2016 FOREMOST CONTRACTING & vs. GO CAT GO, LLC Motion No, 003 11 of 12 Page 11of12 [* 12] INDEX NO. 155049/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 124 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/25/2018 common law contribution. The Foremost complaint does not allege a viable tort against the developer defendants. In opposing Gem1an American Capital's motion, the developer defendants argued that Foremost pleaded tort causes of action against them for breach of trnst, defrauding creditors, and breach of fiduciary duty, in connection \:V1th the sale of the Property. (Developer Defs.' Memo. hi Opp., at 12.) As the developer defondants ack11ovvledged at the oral argument, Foremost's pleading was predicated on the allegation that 87 Leonard Development was the o·wner of the premises at the time the Property was sokL This allegation was, however, based on a mistake of fact as to the ownership, as it was Gennan American Capital that ow11ed and sold the Property. (See Transcript of Oral Argument [NYSCEF Doc. No. 122] at 16.) Significantly also, the amended third-party complaint fails to plead a viable tort against German American Capital. As noted above, the decision of the prior action against German American Capital (see SUL!ra, at 5-6) held that the foreclosure was not wTongfu!. It is accordingly hereby ORDERED that the motion of third-party defendant Gem1an American Capital Corporation to dismiss the amended third-party complaint is granted in its entin.~ty with prejudice; and it is further ORDERED that branch of the said motion for a stay is denied as rnoot This constitutes the decision and order of the court Dated: New York, New York September 25, 2018 CHECK ONE~ APPLICATION: CHECK ff APPROPRIATE: r,.-.-.-..-..·.·f~ i i r. . . . . . . . . i L.J r--~~1i NON~FINAL mSPOSfffON CMlE DISPOSED GRANTED SETTLE D ~------- DENJF.D om:mR ~..~... j ~--·····1 INCLUDES '.fRAN§F'EHJRE.ASSIGN i ! J l...._...._...._...._...._...._...._.. 15504912016 FOREMOST CONTRACTING & vs. GO CAT GO, LLC Motion No, 003 12 of 12 GRANTED IN PART SUBMff ORDER FmUCMRY APPOINTMENT D D OTHER REFERENCE Page 12of12

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.