Hudson 418 Riv. Rd., LLC v Safiya Consultants Inc.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Hudson 418 Riv. Rd., LLC v Safiya Consultants Inc. 2022 NY Slip Op 31675(U) May 23, 2022 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: Index no. 510351/2018 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. INDEX NO. 510351/2018 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 05/23/2022 11:47 AM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 156 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/23/2022 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK . . . . . . .. . . COUNTY OF KINGS : CIVIL TERM: COMMERCIAL 8 --- . ------- --- - -- . ----- - ----~- - -x HUDSON 418 RIVER ROAD, LLC, Decision and order Plaintiff , Index No. 510351/201 8 ~against ~ SAFIYA COJ:,"!SULTANTS INC., ABIED CONSTRUCTION INC.; BROOKLYN BROADWAY MASJID & ISLAMIC CENTER, S.M. G HOSSAIN, MOHAMMAD ULLAH, BTJOY CONSTRUCTION C_ORP., MD A ALI, ASHRAF ALI PE PC., MICAH KWASNIK, ALI H. DAFALLA, IMAM ABDEL HAFID DIEMIL, MOHAMMAD AHMED, G0LZAR HOSSE IN,. HARBOR VIEW ABSTRACT INC. i May 23, 2022 Defendant s, ----------- ----------- ----- - ---------- - _- --- --x· PRESENT: HON·. LEON RUCHELSMAN The defendant the Brooklyn Broadway Masjid and Islamic . . Center [hereinaf ter 'the Masjid'l has moved pursuant to CPLR §2221 $eeking to rea·rgue a decision and order dated May 24, 2018 which granted the plaintiff 's reque.st for an injunction preventing the defendant s from engaging in any construct ion on property located at 9~86 Gates Avenue in Kings County. The plaintiff opposes the motion arguing it has no merit. Papers were submitted by the parties and arguments held. After reviewing all the arguments , this court now makes the following determina tion. As recorded in the pr:ior order; property located /3.t 986 Gates Avenue in Kings County was owned LLC. by Kobas and Solih Realty Oh March 13, 2014 the owner entered into a contract to $ell hi:l.lf the ownership interest to the Masjid. This lawsuit was instituted seeking a determina tion regarding that -ownership . [* 1] 1 of 6 The FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 05/23/2022 11:47 AM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 156 INDEX NO. 510351/2018 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/23/2022 prior decision conclude d that the plaintif f, Hudson 41:S-· EHver LLC, riad standing to bring this iawsuit as the owner of· at. le.ast half the property pursuan t to an \Asset Pur~hase a_nd Stock Sale Agreeme nt' wherein the plainti ff purchase d the share of ownersh ip from K_o_bas and Solih Realty. The agreeme nt did note. that the half allegedl y owned by the Masjid was disputed , howeV~r , the plainti ff duly purchase d whatev_e r rema.in:in g sha:.re Kobas arid Solih Rea.lty stil-1 c;:.>WilE;!d, Up.on reargum ent the Masj id asserts th,e court incorre ctly conclud ed the p,J,ainti. ff maintain _s standing to initiat.e this law-sui·t. and thetefo- re the injuhcti :on must be vacateq._ . Conclus ions 0-f Law A_-motion to rE;argue must be based upon -the fact the.cou rt overlook ed or .misappr ehended fact. :or law or for some other reason mistake nly arr.ive4 at in it,s earli~r decision (0-eutsch e Bank Nationa l Trust Co., .v. ·Russ-o, 170 AD3d 9"52, 96 NYS:2d 61.7 [2d Dept . , 2019] ) . The asset purchase and stock. ~al.e agreeme nt states that Amin .K.obas i.s the sole· sb.3.reho lder of Kobas and Salih Realty Ltd., and thus had the sole right to ent-e-r into· the ag·reeme nt with the piaintif f. The Mas.jid argues that Ebrahim- Salih was in fact a fifty p~tceht owner of Kobas and $alih Realt~ _Ltd., togethe~ ~ith Amin Koba:s who owned the othel:' nalf. [* 2] . Incte·ect, in a· prior order 2 of 6 ···---- ------ ------ ------ ------ ---···-··- ·····-·· ·-·-·-- INDEX NO. 510351/2018 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 05/23/2022 11:47 AM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 156 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/23/2022 dated December 10, 2018 the court acknowled ged the contention . . that a corporate resolution naming Ebrahim Salih as a fifty percent owner was a forgery which raised issues of fact preventing the dismissal of the action. Moreover, in anqther, similar actio•n, entitled Saleh v. Hudson 418 River Rd. Ltd., Index Number 526794/20 19 the court issued a decision ort May 27, 2020 whereby the court once again acknowled ged there were questions of fact concernin g the ownership of Kobas andSalih . . . Realty Ltd., and that in spite of those questions the injunction was still proper. Thus, the Masjid argues yet again that there are questions concernin g the plaintiff 's percentag e of ownership based upon: its purchase of the share owned by Kobas and Salih Realty Ltd>. and thus does hot have standing to seek an injunction . Moreover, the Masjid asserts the plaintiff should have commenced a cierivativ e action concernin g the repairs. It should be noted that numerous requests seeking the same relief are unlikely to yield different results and thus they should ~eneral1y be avoided. In any event, coricerhin g the prelimina ry injunction , even if issues of fact exist, the ,court can still conclude the moving party ha.s demonstr:a ted a likelihoo d of success on the merits (see, Ruiz v. Meloney, 26 AD3d 485, SlO NYS2d 216 [2d Dept., 2006]). Indeed, "the mere existence of an issue of fact will not itself.be grounds for the denial of the motion" (Arcamone - 3 [* 3] 3 of 6 ········· ··-······ ···-··--- -------- -------- -------- ----- INDEX NO. 510351/2018 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 05/23/2022 11:47 AM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 156 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/23/2022 Makinano v. Britton Property Inc., 83 AD3d 623, 920 NYS2.d 362 [2d This is espeCially true where the denial of an Dept., 2011]) , injunction would disturb the status .qµo and render the continuat ion of the lawsuit ineffectu al (Masjid Usman, Inc., v. Beech 140, LLG, 68 AD3d 942, .892 NYS2d 430 [2c1 Dept., 2009]). Thus, the moving party is not required to: present "conclusiv e proof" of its entitleme nt to an injunction and "the mere fact that there indeed may be questions of fact for tri_al does not preclude a court from exercising its discretion in granting art injunction " (Ying Fung Moy v. Hohi Umeki, 10 AD3d 604, 781 NYS2d 684 [2d Dept., 2004]). Of course, issues of fact will necessari ly prevent the issuance of any injunction on1y where the factual issues "subvert[ s] the plaintiff 's likelihood of success on the merits in this case to such a degree that it cannot be said that the plaintiff establishe d a clear right to relief" (County of Westchest er v. United Water New Rochelle, 32 AD3d 979, 822 NYS:2 d 287 [ 2d Dept. , 200 6] ) . Iri. this Case the plaintifI a5 the pu:i:-ported .so.le owner of the intere.sts of Kobas and Salih Realty Ltd. sought an injunctio n seeking to stop the Masjid from conducting work at the premises that would eventuall y reduce ;t:he value any ownership interests could yield. Wb.ile there is a factual issue concernin g the plaintiff 's share of ownership in Kbbas and $alih Realty Ltd,., there is really no dispute they own a portion of Kbbas and Salih 4 [* 4] 4 of 6 INDEX NO. 510351/2018 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 05/23/2022 11:47 AM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 156 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/23/2022 Rei:ilty Ltd. artd thus a portion of the. property . Theretor ·e, their request seeking an injuncti on during th,e pendency o.f the l:Lti,gati on r~mains proper. Further, there is no basis seeking reargum ent on the grounds the plaintif f. has failed to demonst rate an irrepara ble injury or th~re is a lack qf a b<'3..l.ance of the equities . Lastly, c,:oncerning the pl.ainti ff 1 s qlleged faiiure to .initiate a derivat i v.e a:ctioh, even if true a:nd such c1ot;ion should be .cotntnern;::ed i t has no l,:i~az:.ing on the injuncti on sought which is .a measure seeking to maintain the .status quo.. The request for an injuncti on may properly be sou9:ht .by tpe. plainti ff notwith standing i.ts c,iec;:i$ion t.o forego an.y derivati ve claims. The.ref.o re, seeking to maintain the status qµo while ownersh ip issues are resolved the likeliho od of ·$uqce$.$ on the merits is apparen t. Therefqr e,,. the injti.tu:.:t ion i$ pro:E)er and a:ny motion .see.king reargume :o.t is denied. Turning to the :motion to renew, whet.her or not the· Masj id was aware at t.he time of the. origina l motion ·that Salih did qo:t. sell his share of Kobas. and sa·lih Rea;lty Ltd·. t·.o. the plaintif f; ·as rtoted there a:r·e question s 0£· fact in this regard as, acknowle dged by th~ c:ourt on Decembe r 10, 2018,. 'i'h1,1s, any addition al affidav it supplied by Salih which contrad icts th·e asse:ttio :ns of Kobas and the plainti ff tjo ri:ot alter the court's 5 [* 5] ······· ······· ······- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ----5 of 6 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 05/23/2022 11:47 AM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 156 analysis in any way. RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/23/2022 Therefore1 based on the foregoing the motiort seeking renewal is denied. So ordered. ENTER: DATED! May 23, 2022 Brooklyn N.Y. Hon. Leon Ruchelsman JSC 6 [* 6] INDEX NO. 510351/2018 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.