5600 New Utrecht Ave. LLC v 5601 13th Ave. LLC
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
5600 New Utrecht Ave. LLC v 5601 13th Ave. LLC 2020 NY Slip Op 33640(U) November 2, 2020 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: 1535/2020 Judge: Leon Ruchelsman 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. 1535/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 15 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/03/2020 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS : CIVIL TERM: COMMERCIAL 8 ------------------------------------------x 5600 NEW UTRECHT AVENUE LLC, Plaintiff, - against - Decision and order Index No. 1535/2020 5601 13TH AVENUE LLC, & SNAP DEVELOPERS LLC, Defendants, ------------------------------------------x PRESENT: HON. LEON RUCHELSMAN On October 21, November 2, 2020 2020 this court issued a decision held that pursuant to Liability Company Law §206 the plaintiff could not maintain the lawsuit. The court further held that "anticipating a swift cure of the filing requirements and a refiling of another complaint and to maintain efficiency and avoid unnecessary and repetitive motions the court must address the substantive issues in these motions" (see, Dec is ion dated October 21, 2 02 0) In that vein the court granted plaintiff's request seeking an injunction preventing the defendant from performing work on plaintiff's property. The plaintiff has seeking a further filed injunction the and instant order to sanctions based show cause upon the defendant's failure to comply with the injunction. The defendant does however, not dispute the injunction was violated, the defendant contends that since the case had been dismissed there was no viable injunction, consequently the defendant did not violate any court order. As noted the court held the plaintiff did not maintain 1 of 4 [* 2] INDEX NO. 1535/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 15 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/03/2020 standing to proceed with the Liability Company Law §206. lawsuit until it complied with Thus, while the plaintiff could not continue the lawsuit in its current state, the failure to comply with Liability Company Law §206 was not a jurisdictional defect warranting dismissal (see, 2004 McDonald Avenue Realty LLC v. 2004 McDonald Avenue Corp., 25 Misc3d 1204(A), Court Kings County 2007]) Indeed, 901 NYS2d 911 [Supreme the plaintiff maintains the ability to cure the defect nunc pro tune. The prior decision was explicit in this regard as evidenced by the above quoted language. If there was any uncertainty about defendant's permissible conduct the proper course of action was to reach out further clarification. This is to certainly true the court for since the court unmistakably continued the imposition of an injunction. It is well settled that where a court has jurisdiction an order of the court must be obeyed (Woistencraft v. Sassower, AD 2 d 5 9 8, 6 2 3 NY S 2 d obligated to 7 [2d comply with a Dept . , 1 9 95 ] ) . court order, Thus, however, "a party 212 is incorrect the party may consider that order to be, until that order is set aside, either by appeal or otherwise, so long as the court issuing the order so" had jurisdiction Jeffreys, 29 AD3d 858, to do (Gloveman 815 NYS2d 687 Realty Corp., v. [2d Dept., 2006]). In reality, the defendant first concluded unilaterally that the court no longer maintained jurisdiction over the case and then second that it was not required 2 2 of 4 to comply with the speci fie [* 3] INDEX NO. 1535/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 15 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/03/2020 injunction this court imposed. court "dismissed" the The defendant repeatedly argues the case and the Affirmation dated October 29, 2020, case was "dismissed" (see, "a party need not obey any purported preliminary injunction issued by the Court after the underlying action has been dismissed" this action applications has before been the dismissed, there Court this jurisdiction over Defendants" Order" dated October 21, "further, ~4, and ~5, 2 02 0, exists Court and because no lacks pending personal "pursuant to a "Decision and this Court dismissed this action based upon Plaintiff's lack of standing" ~6, "it has thus been established that the Court has no power to issue a preliminary injunction after having already dismissed the case" ~12, "it is undisputed that here, this Court dismissed this action for lack of standing" ~16) Therefore, the defendant argues the court lacked any authority to impose the injunction. never dismissed at all. However, the case was If the defendant had any question in that regard it could not merely conclude so unilaterally but rather was required to either appeal or at least inquire further. A party cannot interpret a decision of the court in a way that essentially dissolves the entire lawsuit. This is surely true where as here that is not the law and a further clarification would have settled the matter. Thus, there can be no other conclusion reached but that the defendant chose to ignore and disobey an order of the court. Therefore, the plaintiff's request to order the sheriff to 3 3 of 4 INDEX NO. 1535/2020 [* 4] RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/03/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 15 padlock the property pending the continuation of this lawsuit is granted. The sheriff is hereby directed to padlock the property located at 5600 New Utrecht Avenue in Kings County. Further, the' defendant is enjoined from doing any work at the property until further order from the court or upon consent of the plaintiff. All motions seeking contempt are denied at this time. So ordered.. ENTER: ,fl DATED: November 2, 2020 Brooklyn N.Y. Hon. Leon JSC 44 of 4 Ruche~an
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.
