Matter of Vashovsky v Zablocki

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Matter of Vashovsky v Zablocki 2023 NY Slip Op 32000(U) June 13, 2023 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: Index No. 528729/2022 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. 528729/2022 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 06/14/2023 08:21 AM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 80 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/14/2023 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS: COMMERCIAL Dl\JlSlGN -.------... -· -------.-----,---.- ---·-·---- ---'--.-- -x In the Matter of the Application of CHANA: VASHOVSKY, individually and derivatively Ihdex No. 528729/2022 Oh behalf of HUDSON VALLEY NY HOLDIN . . ...G. S. LL c,. Petitioner, For the Dissolution of HUDSON VALLEY NY IN OF MOTION HOLDINGS LLC and Other relief, TO DISMISS PETITTON SUPPORT -against-"- Decision and Order YOSEF ZABLOCKI and NATIONAL JEWISH CONVENTH)N CENTER, Respondents, -andJune 13, 2023 HUDSON VALLEY NY HOLDINGS LLC, Nominal nefendant, ------- . - .-. .-·--. .· - ·. ·-------·--. ----·---:x Motion Seq. #c4 HON. LEON RUCHELSMAN The respondent has moved pursuant to CPLR §3211 s.eekiri.g to reargue a decision and order dated March 15, 2023 granting dissolution. The petitioner has opposed the motion, Papers were submitted by the parties and after reviewing all the arguments this court now makes the following determinatioli.. As recorded in prior orders in a companion case ( Index Number 507373/20.21) Uie petitioner and respopder1t are partners in Hi..rdson Valley NY Holdin9,s LLC, Valley Resort, Hotel.. an. ,entity that owns the Hudson The parties have each accused, ..the other of misapp.ropriation, breaches •Of fiduciary duty art othe.r improp,ti'eties. [* 1] This action and petition ~€!.eking dissolution was 1 of 4 INDEX NO. 528729/2022 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 06/14/2023 08:21 AM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 80 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/14/2023 filed and the court granted the petitioner's request seeking dissolution and denied the re.sporid(i1int, _g equitable buy-out. ±AqUQ.,;,t, s eAk ;,.,g .c>.n In the decision granting dissolution and in a decision in the companion case the court permitted the respondent the right of first refusal in purchasing the property and in addition permitted funds alreaciy furnished by respondent to act as a reduction of the purchase price. The petitioner vigorously disputes the nature of paym1:::nts made by the respondent, however, in any event the court permitted such reduction. The respondent now moves seeking to reargue the above rrnted determinations and to permit, instead of dissolutionf an equitable buy-out. The basis for such buy-out is the fact that the respondent has contributed more funds than petitioner and that without such buy-out the respondent is at a financial disadvantage. In the motion seeking to reargue the dissolution decision the respondent submitted an affidavit and $pecifically asked for a reduction of the purchase price already paid. The respondent did not request a: reconsideration of the .dissolution per s.e but rather that the price offered should be reduced. The court granted that request and reduced the amount by contributions made s.itme the receiver had .been 9 ppoint.ed. This motion seeking reargument is really a rnotion the court did not reduc.e the purchase price [* 2] ... by th.e correct amount and. failed to. include . 2 of 4 ·····-·····················-··············--··------------------------------------ INDEX NO. 528729/2022 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 06/14/2023 08:21 AM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 80 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/14/2023 contributions made prior the appointment of the receiver. First, that is not a legal argument motion to reargue. -\::hat -is r,.ra_p~r ,,., _,, There is no legal principle that is urgi:!d has been improperly applied or any facts that have been misapprehended. Rather, the motia,n merely seeks to convince the court to futther reduce the pu.::tchase price in favor of respondent and the only way to accomplish that is to grant a buy-out instead of dissolution. More importc1,ntly, there is n.,o argument presented why the court erred in concluding dissolution is proper. There are no countervailing facts presented that really the partie:s can work together and that dissolution should be reconsidered for that reason. Again, the sole basis seeking reargument is the one- sided desire to benefit the responde:nt's financial position. While that desire is important and critical to the respondent the court must consider all parties as well as the lega,1 arguments. presented. The court's selection of contributions since the appointment of a receiver was not arbitrary, rather, i t was bas·ed upon the fact since that date all contribµtions were recorded artd accounted. Indeed, the respondent himself :explained there were three critical time frames cons.idering the contributions he made. The f.irst tan from April 20_19 to October 2020 where_ "no adjustments to the amounts of proceeds to be re9eived by Defendants [:respondent here] is necessary;' (see, Affirmation .in 3 [* 3] 3 of 4 INDEX NO. 528729/2022 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 06/14/2023 08:21 AM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 80 .g·· uppo ·· r t , RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/14/2023 ar JL 14 . [In·de x Numb er 5073 73/20 21, NYSCEF Doc. No. 546] ); . . . . . . . . The secon d. time tr:am e ran from October 2D20 unti l the appointment prop er amou nts owed to each party and parti: C:::u larly to the respo nden t shou ld he the subj ect of a hear ing, fully aCkn owled ging the amou nt to whic h the respo nden t may be enti tled is subj ect to disp ute. Ther efore , the cour t only base d any redu ction due to the respo nden t Upon the third time fram e, name ly since a rec.e iver has been appo .inted . Thes e amou nts are veri fied (notw ithst andin g thei r natu re is dispu ted) and the .cour t deem ed them prop er. The cour t decl ines the requ est to furth er cred it the cont ribu tions of the respo nden t that are admi ttedl y disp uted , Indee d, the resp onde nt's moti on is reall y ari attem pt to try and secu re, as much as poss ible, the inves tmen t made by respo nden t. That goal is not share d by the cour t and since there has been no basis prese nted why the prio r deci sion of the cour t was in erro r, the motio n seek ing rearg umen t is cons eque ntly deni ed. So orde red. ENTE R: DATED: June 13, 2023 Broo klyn N.Y. Hon. Le~ elsr nan JSC 4 [* 4] 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.