Bartlett v California Leasing, LLC

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Bartlett v California Leasing, LLC 2020 NY Slip Op 33658(U) September 25, 2020 Supreme Court, Queens County Docket Number: 720609/2019 Judge: Leslie J. Purificacion 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. [*FILED: 1] QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 09/28/2020 10:52 AM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 14 INDEX NO. 720609/2019 RECEIVED NYSCEF: FILED 09/28/2020 9/28/2020 10:50 AM SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK CCU NTY CLERK QUEENS COUNTY Part 39 COUNTY OF QUEENS x Index No 720609/2019 PATRICK BARTLETT Platnuff, DECISION/ORDER against~ CALIFORNIA LEASING. LLC, Mot on Seq # 1 Dt!:fendant x The following papers numbered 1-4 read on this mo11on by 0'3tendant CALIFORNIA LEASING LLC , to dismiss the complalrit pursuant to CPLR§ 3211 (a)(1) and (2} and (7) PAPERS NUMBERED N.M , Alls., Extilblls and Service . 1-4 Upon tM foregoing pa,,._rs it 1s ordere:d that this motion submitted without oppos1uon Is daclded as rollows Pla1nt1fl commenced lhl action for "on going robb ry of rnv cJocumenl chang paporwnrk For cou r1 8 money S300 to $500 break stereo system Inadequate t1eat tsee Complaint at paragraph 2. eF1led document number 1) against Defendant by the filing of a" llmmon.. and verffied complaint on December 10. 2019 In his complaint Plaintiff further stat s that h · ri11 out an application regarding ap r1menl for rent at broker's oftic.e I as lor apanment for 51 ,500 to $1 600 The bro1<er said I t1ave on for S 1.800 I lold lh lJ1 oker I would lake 11 ulthly 1m:luded So I fill out epphcauon without checking ut111ty I wall on_ month for lease form C/O After receive the lease Supenntenden rs1c 1 give me number call Conedlson (colc) ror rvice Sn I return the lea!;e to bro er for cha noes 1 of 4 [*FILED: 2] QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 09/28/2020 10:52 AM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 14 INDEX NO. 720609/2019 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/28/2020 Defendant C8lifo111ia now moves to dismiss the complaint. "A motion lo dismiss pursuant to CPLR §3211(al(1) will be granted only if the documentary' evidence resolves all ractual ~ues as a matter of law, and conclusively disposes of lhe plaintlffS claim". The evidence submitted in support ol such molion must be "documentary" or the mo!lon must be denied.(Fontanetta v John Doe 1, 73 A.D 3d 78, 83 898 NY S.2d 569; see Reid v. Gmeway Sherman, Inc , 60 A.D 3d 836, 837, 875 N.Y S.2d 254 . 569) ll is well settled that the Supreme Court of the State of New York Is the trial court of unllmlted original jurisdiction but generally hears cases lhat are outside the Jurisdiction of ot11er trial courts or more limited jurisdiction As a cou11 of original, unlimited, and unqualified 1unsd.iclion, the New York State Supreme Court 1s vested with general ong1nal jurlsdlcUon and Is competent to entertain almost all causes of action N.Y Const art 6 § 7 There are two categories of original Jurisdiction the New York Slate Supreme Court lacks; 1) cases In which lhe federal constillJUOn or an aol Of Congress confers exclusive jur1sdicuon on the tederal eoum> and 2..) actions agalns1 1he Stale of New York wriere 1unsd1chon 1s conferred exolus1vely on the Court of Claims U S Const art VI; N V Const art 6. § 7. 28 U S.C A§§ 1334, 1338(a\ Contrary to Defendants assertion that the Court lacks subject matter Jurisdiction pursuant to CPLR §3211 (a)(2l based on the amoum Plalnttff seeks lhe Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the amounts hi question in the instant matter In deterrrnnlng whether a comple1nl 1s sufficient to wilhsland a motion lo d1sm1ss pursuant to CPLR §3211(a)(7), the sole crlte~lon Is whelher lhe pleadlhg states a cause of action (Cooper v 620 Prop Assoc., 242 AD2d 359 oiling Weiss v Cuddy & Feder, 200 2 of 4 [*FILED: 3] QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 09/28/2020 10:52 AM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 14 INDEX NO. 720609/2019 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/28/2020 AD2d 665). If from the four comers of the complaint factual allegations are disoerned which, taken together. manifest any cause of action cognf2able al law, a motion 10 dlsrnlss will fall (511 West 232nd Owners Corp v Jennifer Really Co 96 NY2d 144 Coop61 supra 242 A.D.2d). The court's function Is to 'accept each and every allegation forwarded by the plalntlff without el<pre$Slng any oplniori as 10 the plainllff's abilily 11lhmelely to establish the truth of these averments before the trier of the tacts'" \ Cooper, 242 A02d. quoting 219 Broadway Corp. v Alexander's. Inc. 46 NY2d 506). Furthermore lhe pleading ts to be liberally cons1rued ari~ the. pleader afforded the benefit of every possible favorable Inference (511 Wes/ 232nd Owners Corp. siJpra ) In the Instant matter, lhe court has ff!Vle'Wed the veriflecJ complain! and finds Iha! II falls to set forth a cause o1 actron against Califo1 nia. Plaintiffs conclusory statement •$300-$500 break stereo system" Is lnsufflclent to Sl.lpporl an allegation a11ainst DefendMl arid ts no! co{lntz.able by lhe Court Plaintiff's conolusory st1.1tement of ·1nsufficlen1 heat• Is not enough to support an a11eg11llon against Defendnnt and Is not cognl:zable by ll1e Court In addition. Callfomla presents as part cif its motion. the lease. signed on each page by Plaintiff The Lease stales In Article 3, entitled "Ren!" ·vow monthly renl for the <1partment rs 1.835.90 unlil adjusled pursuant lo Article 4 helow " The Lease states 1n Article .d, entllled Renl Ad]ustmentl\" "The rent herein shall be adjusted up or down during the Lease term. 1ncludrng retroactively, to conlorni to !lie Re111 Guidelines: The Lease states in Art101e 13, entitled "Services and Facilities• in section a: 'The foltowlng Utllltles are Included rh the rent None' The Ptaintfft tn his complaint confirms the1 he was told by Iha broker that the apartment was $1 ,800, mat PJamtrff signed 111e lease and Plainltff did so "without checking ullllly" 3 of 4 [*FILED: 4] QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 09/28/2020 10:52 AM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 14 INDEX NO. 720609/2019 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/28/2020 Pla1nl11fs adrn1tted knowledge of the amount of the rent and his admitted ta1lu-re to read the Lease nrovlslons do nol Jcrm a basis for an ~on going rnbb rl cf lhe Lease so as la recot'lstruct tl1e Lease and ts not co~mzable by the Court T11ls Is th9 decision and order or lhe coLJrt Date. i (?O Hon Leslie J Purtf1cac1on J .S .C FILED 9/28/2020 10:50 AM COUNTY CLERK QUEENS COUNTY 4 of 4

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.