Connectone Bank v 2310 Bedford LLC

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Connectone Bank v 2310 Bedford LLC 2021 NY Slip Op 30053(U) January 5, 2021 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: 503195/20 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 01/07/2021 10:33 AM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 66 INDEX NO. 503195/2020 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/07/2021 At an !AS Term, Part Comm 6 of the Supreme 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 5th day of January, 2021. PRESENT: HON. LAWRENCE KNIPEL, Justice. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X CONNECTONE BANK, Plaintiff, Index No. 503 I 95/20 - against 2310 BEDFORD LLC, MORDECHAI LEVI, RA TZI LEFKO\.VITZ, O&A Wooo FLOOR SERVICES LTD., NEW YORK STA1'E DEPT. OF TAXATION & FINANCE, NEW YORI< CITY DEPT. OF FINANCE, NEW YORK CJTY ENVIRONMENT AL CONTROL BOARD, NEW YORK C!TY DEPARTMENT OF J-IOUSING PRESERVATfON AND DEVELOPMENT and· "JOHN DoE" Nos. 1-25, Defendants. The Names of the "John Doe" Defendants Being Fictitious and Unknovm to Plaintiff, the Persons And Entities Intended Being "fhose Who Have Possessory Liens or Other Interests in~ the Premises Herein Described. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X The following ewfiled papers read herein: NYSCEF Doc Nos. Notice of Motion/Order to Sl1ow Cause/ Petition/Cross Motion and Affidavits (Affirmations) Annexed_ _ _ __ 20-38 Opposing Affidavits (Affirmations),_ _ __ 42-45 47-52 Reply Affidavits (Affirmations) _ _ _ __ 56-57 1 of 6 [*FILED: 2] KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/07/2021 10:33 AM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 66 INDEX NO. 503195/2020 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/07/2021 Upon the foregoing papers in this action to foreclose a mortgage on the commercial property at 2310 Bedford Avenue in Brooklyn (Property), plaintiff Connecto11e Bank (Connectone) moves (in motion sequence [mot. seq.] one) for an order: (I) granting it summary judgment against defendants 2310 Bedford LLC (2310 Bedford or Borrower) and Mordechai Levi (Levi or Guarantor), pursuant to CPLR 3212; (2) striking defendants' answer and aftirmative defenses; (3) granting it a default judgment against the non-appearing defendants, Ratzi Lefkowitz, O&A Wood Floor Services, Ltd., New York State Dept. of Taxation & Finance, New Yorl( City Dept. of Finance, New York City Environmental Control Board, New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development (Defaulting Defendants), pursuant to CPLR 3215; (4) appointing a referee to compute the a1nount due to it for principal and interest, pursuant to RPAPL § 1321; (5) holding the Borrower and Guarantor liable for any deficiency that may remain after the sale of the Property at public auction; (6) holding Guarantor liable under the guaranty for all losses that it incurred; and (7) amending the caption to delete the "Joh11 Doc" defendants. Connectone submits an affidavit fto1n Neil Minardi (Minardi), a Vice President of Connectone, who attests that on or about March 14, 2016, Connectone loaned 2310 Bedford the sum of $900,000.00. The loan was secured by a Consolidation Extension and Modification Agreement (CEMA), which consolidated a prior mortgage and a gap mo1igage on the Property. Minardi attests that the loan was further secured by an Assignme11t of Leases ai1d Rents and a security interest. Minardi also attests that "[iJrt 2 2 of 6 [*FILED: 3] KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/07/2021 10:33 AM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 66 INDEX NO. 503195/2020 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/07/2021 order to induce Plaintiff to make the Loan . . ." Levi, as Guarantor, executed and delivered a March 14, 2016 guaranty of the loan. Copies of the loan documents, including the guaranty, are submitted with Connectone's instant su1n1nary judgment motion. According to Minardi, 23 l 0 Bedford defaulted under the loan documents by failing to make the monthly payments that were due on December l, 2019, and by transferring the Property to defendant Ratzi Lefkowitz without authorization. On February 7, 2020, Connectone commenced this foreclosure action by filing a sum1no11s_, a verified co1nplaint and a notice of pendency against the Property. On March 20, 2020, defendants. 2310 Bedford (the Borrower) and Levi (the Guarantor) collectively ans\vered the complaint and asserted the following affirmative defenses: (1) failure "to serve the predicate i1otice required by the subject Note, Mortgage and other instruments to properly declare a default ... "; (2) failure "to comply with the notice requirements of the applicable statutes and law to properly declare a default ... "; (3) lack of standing; (4) "[t]he amount claimed is in dispute"; (5) lack of personal jurisdiction; (6) failure to serve defendants with "1nediation instructions and rules . . . "; and (7) the transfer of the Properly was made by a third party without authority and is a nullity. All of the other defendants failed to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint. 2310 Bedford and Levi, in opposition to Connectone's summary judginent motion, submit an affidavit from Joel Lefkowitz (Lefkowitz), manager of 231 O Bedford, who attests that he and Levi, "the lOOo/o owner of the membership interest" in 2310 Bedford, are the only ones with authority to act on behalf of 2310 Bedford. 3 3 of 6 [*FILED: 4] KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/07/2021 10:33 AM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 66 INDEX NO. 503195/2020 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/07/2021 Lefkowitz explains that "[d]uring 2019 Bedford's specific goal became to refinance the property ... " and "at the time (2019) it appeared that my wife, Ratzi Lefkowitz, would be able to obtain a better rate for a refinance tha[n] anyone for [the] LLC." Lefkowitz explains "[t]his is why we executed the October 28, 2019 Deed to Ratzi l,efl(owitz on \Vl1ich plaintiff clai1ns a default" and "I now understand this was improper and could be a breach of the mortgage" (emphasis added). Lefkowitz asserts that "we tried to correct the problem ... " by transfening the Property back to 2310 Bedford by a January 29, 2020 deed, however, Co11nectone had already sent a notice of default. Lefkowitz contends that the October 29, 2019 deed to his wife is a "void instrument" because his wife had no authority to transfer the Property on behalf of 23 I 0 Bedford. Letkowitz also contends that 2310 Bedford's alleged payment default in December 2019 ·'is no\V paid." Defendants submit similar affidavits from Ratzi Lefl(owitz and Levi. Essentially, defendants oppose Connectone's summary judgment 1notion on the grounds that: (I) the transfer of the Property is void, and thus, does not provide a basis on which to declare a default, and (2) 2310 Bedford's payment default was cured. Connectone, in reply, asse11s that defendants acknowledge and admit that: (1) they executed the loan documents and received a $900,000.00 loan from 2310 Bedford; (2) they did not make the payment due on December I, 2019 and therea!ler; and (3) I,eflco\vitz authorized the transfer of the Prope1iy to his wife, Ratzi Lefkowitz, in violation oftl1e loan docu1nents. Connectone asserts that 2310 Bedford's default was not ctired by "one late partial payrnent made after the default and acceleration letter was 4 4 of 6 [*FILED: 5] KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/07/2021 10:33 AM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 66 INDEX NO. 503195/2020 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/07/2021 issued." Connectone argues that "[i]t is well settled that after a default, and after a loan is accelerated, a tender of less than the full repay111ent is insufficient." Disc11ssion Summary judg1nent is a drastic re1nedy that deprives a litigant of his or her day in court and should, thus, only be employed when there is no doubt as to the absence of triable issues of material fact (Kolivas v Kirchoff, 14 AD3d 493 [2005]; see also Andre v Pomeroy, 35 NY2d 361, 364 [1974]). "The proponent of a motion for summary judgment 1nust 1nake a pri1na facie showing of e11titlement to judg1nent, as a 1natter ot· law, tendering sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact" (Manicone v City of New York, 75 AD3d 535, 537 [2010], quoting Alvarez, 68 NY2d at 324; see also Zuckerman, 49 NY2d at 562; Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]). If it is determined that the movant has made a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment, "the burden shifts to the opposing party to produce evidentiary proof in ad1nissible form sufficient to establish the existence of 111aterial issues of fact which require a trial of the action" ( Garn/'lam & Han Real Estate Brokers v Oppenheimer, 148 AD2d 493 [ 1989]). Generally, to establish prima facie entitlement to judg1nent as a matter of la\v in an action to foreclose a 1nortgage, a plaintiff inust produce the mortgage, the unpaid note, and evidence of default (see Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Karibandi, AD3d 2020 NY Slip Op 06244, *I [2d Dept 2020]; Christiana Trust v Mone/a, 186 AD3d 1604, 1605 [2d Dept 2020]; Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Ams. v Garrison, 147 AD3d 725, 726 [2d 5 5 of 6 [*FILED: 6] KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/07/2021 10:33 AM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 66 INDEX NO. 503195/2020 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/07/2021 Dept 2017]). Here, Connectone has produced the loan documents and sufficient evidence that 2310 Bedford breached the terms of the mortgage both by transferring the Property to Ratzi Letkowitz and by failing to make the required payments. Indeed, defendants admit that they intentionally transferred the Property to Ratzi Lefkowitz in an effort to obtain a better refinance rate, which constituted a breach of the 1nortgage. Defendants have failed to identify any issue of fact that would preclude the relief that Connectone seeks. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Connectone's motion (in mot. seq. one) is only granted to the extent that: (I) summary judgment is granted to Connectone as against 2310 Bedford and Levi; (2) a default judgment is granted as against the Defaulting Defendants; (3) the appointment of a referee to compute the amount due to Connectone for principal and interest is warranted; (4) 2310 Bedford and Levi are liable for any deficiency that may remain after the sale of the Property at public auction; (5) Levi is liable under the guaranty for all losses that Connectone incurs; and (7) the caption is amended to delete the "John Doe" defendants. This constitutes the decision and order of the court. An order of reference shall be settled on notice. J. S. C. Justice Lawrence Knip$/ 6 6 of 6

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.