Lang v Zlotnici

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Lang v Zlotnici 2020 NY Slip Op 34085(U) December 9, 2020 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: 502419/14 Judge: Lawrence S. Knipel 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] KINGS COUNTY CLERK 12/11/2020 02:37 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 132 INDEX NO. 502419/2014 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/11/2020 At an IAS Ter1n, Non-Jury Trial Readiness Part of the St1pren1e Court of the State of New York, held in and for the County of Kings, at the Courthouse, at Civic Center, Brooklyn, New York, on the 9th day of December, 2020. PRE SENT: HON. LAWRENCE KN!PEL, Justice. - - - --- -- -- - - -- - --- - - - - - - -- -- --X PIERRE LANG, Plaintiff, DECISION AND ORDER Index No. 502419114 - against - Mot. Seq. No. 8 GREGORY ZLOTNICI<, Defendant. ------------------------------X 'fhe following e-filed papers read herein: NYSCEF#: Notice ofMotio11, Affirmation, and Exl1ibits Annexed _ _ Affirmation in Opposition and Exhibits AnneX.ed _ _ __ IZeply Affirmation and Exhibits Annexed _ _ _ _ _ __ 104-117 121-127 128-130 In this action to recover on a promissory note, plaintiff Pierre Lang (plaintiff) inoves, post-note of issue, for: (!)an order, pursuant to CPLR 3 !26 (3), striking the answer of defendant Gregory Zlotnick (defendant), for failure to adequately respond to the outstanding portions ofPlaintiff s First Combined Demand for Discovery and Inspection, dated Aug. 19, 2015 (D&! notice); 1 (2) leave, pursuant to CPLR 3025 (b ), to add Lemonti PA, Inc. (Lemonti) as a pmty defendant; and (3) an award of costs and attorney's fees. Defendant opposes all three branches of plaintiffs motion. 1 By order, dated Dec. 19, 2019, the Court (Graham, J.) deleted items "f," "g," and "h" from the "documents" section of the D&I notice (NYSCEF #I 03). 1 of 5 [*FILED: 2] KINGS COUNTY CLERK 12/11/2020 02:37 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 132 INDEX NO. 502419/2014 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/11/2020 (1) "Resolution of discovery disputes and the nature and degree of the penalty to be imposed pursuant to CPLR 3126 are inatters witl1in the sound discretion of the motion court" (Morales v Zherka, 140 AD3d 836, 836-837 [2d Dept2016]). Pursuant to CPLR 3126 (3), a court 1nay, among other things, issue an order "striking out pleadings or ... rendering a j11dg1nent by default" as a sanction against a party who "refuses to obey an order for disclosure or wilfully fails to disclose information which the court finds ought to have been disclosed." Nevertheless, "[a]ctions should be resolved on their merits whenever possible, and the drastic remedy of striking a pleading should not be employed without a clear showing that the failure to comply with court-ordered discovery was willful and contumacious" (Rectorv Cityo/New York, 174AD3d 660, 660-661 [2dDept2019] [internal quotation marks omitted]). Here, the record, as developed following defendant's retention of his current counsel, fails to establish a clear showing of a pattern of willfulness or contumacious conduct necessary to justify the striking of his answer pursuant to CPLR 3126 (3) (see Burrell v Baptista, 180 AD3d 988 [2d Dept2020]; MacKenzie v Cityo/New York, 125 AD3d 821, 822 [2d Dept 2015]). Defendant has complied, albeit tardily, with plaintiffs D&l notice and demonstrated, by way of his verified "second response," dated Jan. 20, 2020 (NYSCEF #126)) that he is not in possession or control of the responsive documents (see Poveromo v Kelley-Amerit Fleet Servs., Inc., 127 AD3d 1048 [2d Dept 2015]). Under the circumstances of this case, including that plaintiff filed his note of issue and certificate of readiness before 2 2 of 5 [*FILED: 3] KINGS COUNTY CLERK 12/11/2020 02:37 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 132 INDEX NO. 502419/2014 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/11/2020 serving the instant motion, the Court, in the exercise of its discretion, declines to strike defendant's answer (see Jli v City ofNew York, 170 AD3d 816, 818 [2d Dept 2019]; see also Rojas v Hazzard, 171 AD3d 819, 820 [2d Dept 2019]). (2) "CPLR 3025 (b) allows a plaintiff to amend his ... complaint, with leave of court, to add a party defendant" (Pensabene v City of New York, 172 AD3d 1396, 1397 [2d Dept 2019]). "As a general rule, leave to amend a pleading pursuant to CPLR 3025 (b) should be freely granted in the absence of prejudice or surprise resulting fro1n the delay in seeking leave, unless the proposed amend1nent is ... patently devoid of merit" (Sa_batino v 425 Oser Ave., LLC, 87 AD3d 1127, l 129 [2d Dept 2011]). Here, the proposed amendment is patently devoid of merit because defendant is the sole obligor on the promissory note (NYSCEF #5). 2 Jn fact, the promissory note recites (in ~ 7 thereat) that it is "secured by ... [defendant's] personal signature" (NYSCEF #5). Accordingly, leave to amend to add Lemonti as a party defendant is denied (see Tarantino v Queens Ballpark Co., LLC, 123 AD3d 1105, l 108 [2d Dept 2014], Iv denied25 NY3d 904 [2015]). (3) Under Illinois law which applies by virtue of the choice-of-law provision in the promissory note, aprevailing parties [are prohibited] ff om recovering their attorney f'ees fro1n 2- Although the document is denominated as "The Contract," it is a note in substance. Plaintif-f co1nmenced this action by moving pursuant to CPLR 3213 fOr summary judgment i11 Jieu of complaint (NYSCEF #1-2). 3 3 of 5 [*FILED: 4] KINGS COUNTY CLERK 12/11/2020 02:37 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 132 INDEX NO. 502419/2014 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/11/2020 the losing party, absent express , , . contractual provisions" (Sandholm v Kuecker, 356 Ill Dec 733, 750, 962 NE2d 418, 435 [Ill 2012]). Here, the promissory note provides (in 1f 8 thereof) that "[zjf [plaintitt] prevails in a lawsuit to collect on this note, [defendant] will pay [plaintiffs J costs and lawyer's fees in an amount the court finds to be reasonable" (emphasis added). "A prevailing party, for purposes of awarding attorney fees, is one that is successful on a significant issue and achieves some benefit in bringing suit" (City of Harvard v Elvis J Henson Trust, 2012 IL App 2d 120091[U],2012 WL 6969339, *6 [Ill App 2d Dist 2012]). "A party that receives judgment in his favor is usually considered the prevailing party" (JB. Esker & Sons, Inc. v Cle-Pa's Partnership, 325 Ill App 3d 276, 281, 757 NE2d 1271, 1275 [Ill App 5th Dist 2001]). Thus far, plaintiff has not been a prevailing party in this action and, therefore, is not entitled to an award of costs and attorney's fees. 3 Co11clusion Accordingly, based on the foregoing, it is ORDERED that plaintiffs motion in Seq. No. 8 is denied in its entirety; and it is forth er 3 Plaintiff's motion for sum1nary judgment in lieu of complaint was denied twice: initially and on reargument (see Orders, dated Dec. 18, 2014 and May 28, 2015 [Rothenberg, J.]) (NYSCEF #18 and 25, respectively). Thereafter, plaintiffs default judgment after inquest, dated Nov. 6, 2017, was vacated by order, dated Sept. 20, 2018 (Rothenberg, J.) (NYSCEF #59 and 80, respectively). 4 4 of 5 [*FILED: 5] KINGS COUNTY CLERK 12/11/2020 02:37 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 132 INDEX NO. 502419/2014 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/11/2020 ORDERED that defendant's counsel is directed to electronically serve a copy of this decision and order with notice of entry on plaintiffs counsel and to electronically file an affidavit of service thereof with the Kings County Clerk. This constitutes the decision and order of the Court. Justice Lawrence Knipel 5 5 of 5

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.