Preview
Gayle Pollack
Partner
(212) 735-8793
gpollack@morrisoncohen.com
September 23, 2022
VIA NYSCEF and Email:
Hon. Paul I. Marx, J.S.C.
Supreme Court of New York
County of Rockland
1 South Main Street
New City, New York 10956
bglafont@nycourts.gov
mhomenic@nycourts.gov
jlazzaro@nycourts.gov
Re: Hello Living Developer Nostrand LLC v. 1580 Nostrand Mezz LLC,
Rockland Cty. Sup. Ct. Index No. 034885/2021
Your Honor:
Together with Greenberg Traurig LLP, we represent Defendant Nostrand Mezz
Lender LLC (“Nostrand Mezz”), the successor to Defendant 1580 Nostrand Mezz LLC, in the
above-referenced action. I am writing to respectfully request that the Court dismiss the pending
Order to Show Cause for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction filed by
Plaintiffs Hello Living Developer Nostrand LLC (“Hello Developer”) and Hello Living LLC
(“Hello Living,” and with Hello Developer, “Plaintiffs”) as moot.
On September 16, 2022, Plaintiffs filed Motion Sequence No. 005, in which they
sought to add Nostrand Mezz as a party defendant, and further sought a temporary restraining
order and preliminary injunction (i) requiring Nostrand Mezz to remove a document from the
due diligence room set up for the UCC Sale of the “Collateral” pledged by Hello Developer, and
to replace that document with purportedly correct and accurate information concerning the 421-a
eligibility of property owned by Hello Living; and (ii) staying the UCC sale for at least 30 days
from September 21, 2022, to allow for remarketing. On September 19, 2022, the Court granted
Plaintiffs’ request to add Nostrand Mezz as a defendant without objection, and denied Plaintiff’s
request for a temporary restraining order; Nostrand Mezz’s opposition to the preliminary
injunction portion of the motion currently is due on October 3, 2022. The UCC sale of the
Collateral went forth as scheduled on September 21, 2022, and the Collateral has been sold.
Plaintiffs’ motion is moot as they cannot enjoin a sale that has already occurred.
Under New York law, a request for injunctive relief is moot “when the offending conduct ceases
and the court finds ‘that there is no reasonable expectation that it will resume.’” Allsta, Inc. v.
CNA Comm. Ins., 2012 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 6437, at * 20 (Sup. Ct. Bronx Cty. May 2, 2012)
#11537786 v1 \028711 \0011
909 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10022-4784 ∙ p:212.735.8600 ∙ f:212.735.8708 ∙ www.morrisoncohen.com
Hon. Paul I. Marx, J.S.C.
October 4, 2022
Page 2
(denying motion for preliminary injunction to maintain insurance coverage as moot when
coverage expired by its terms during the pendency of the motion) (citing Greilsheimer v. Ferber,
Chan & Essner, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13445 (S.D.N.Y. 1998)). New York courts regularly
deny motions for preliminary injunctions when the conduct at issue has ceased and there is no
proof it is likely to occur again. See Allsta, Inc., at *20; see also McGuire v. McGuire, 29
A.D.3d 963 (2d Dep’t 2006) (affirming denial for preliminary injunction relating to ownership as
moot because all issues as to ownership had been resolved); Farro v. Schochet, 2017 N.Y. Misc.
LEXIS 3429 (Sup. Ct. Kings Cty. Sept. 12, 2017) (request for preliminary injunction denied as
moot where merger it sought to enjoin had been completed).
Nostrand Mezz sent a letter to Plaintiffs’ counsel on September 22, 2022
requesting that Plaintiffs withdraw Motion Sequence No. 005 as it has clearly been rendered
moot by the UCC sale. In its response by letter and follow-up email correspondence, counsel
stated that he would consider Nostrand Mezz’s position, but to date has declined to withdraw the
pending motion and failed to explain what relief it is seeking that was not rendered moot by the
sale.
Simply put, there is no reason that Nostrand Mezz should be put to the task of
drafting a full set of papers in opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion, including the preparation of an
expert affirmation explaining the 421-a process and a full memorandum of law. As such,
Nostrand Mezz respectfully requests that this court deny Motion Sequence No. 005 as moot as
the sale Nostrand Mezz sought to enjoin has already been completed. Nostrand Mezz also
respectfully requests that the Court consider granting any other relief it deems just and proper,
particularly in light of Plaintiffs’ unreasonable refusal to withdraw its motion.
Very truly yours,
/s/ Gayle Pollack
cc: All counsel of record via NYSCEF
#11537786 v1 \028711 \0011
909 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10022-4784 ∙ p:212.735.8600 ∙ f:212.735.8708 ∙ www.morrisoncohen.com
Preview
Gayle Pollack Partner (212) 735-8793 gpollack@morrisoncohen.com September 23, 2022 VIA NYSCEF and Email: Hon. Paul I. Marx, J.S.C. Supreme Court of New York County of Rockland 1 South Main Street New City, New York 10956 bglafont@nycourts.gov mhomenic@nycourts.gov jlazzaro@nycourts.gov Re: Hello Living Developer Nostrand LLC v. 1580 Nostrand Mezz LLC, Rockland Cty. Sup. Ct. Index No. 034885/2021 Your Honor: Together with Greenberg Traurig LLP, we represent Defendant Nostrand Mezz Lender LLC (“Nostrand Mezz”), the successor to Defendant 1580 Nostrand Mezz LLC, in the above-referenced action. I am writing to respectfully request that the Court dismiss the pending Order to Show Cause for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction filed by Plaintiffs Hello Living Developer Nostrand LLC (“Hello Developer”) and Hello Living LLC (“Hello Living,” and with Hello Developer, “Plaintiffs”) as moot. On September 16, 2022, Plaintiffs filed Motion Sequence No. 005, in which they sought to add Nostrand Mezz as a party defendant, and further sought a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction (i) requiring Nostrand Mezz to remove a document from the due diligence room set up for the UCC Sale of the “Collateral” pledged by Hello Developer, and to replace that document with purportedly correct and accurate information concerning the 421-a eligibility of property owned by Hello Living; and (ii) staying the UCC sale for at least 30 days from September 21, 2022, to allow for remarketing. On September 19, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ request to add Nostrand Mezz as a defendant without objection, and denied Plaintiff’s request for a temporary restraining order; Nostrand Mezz’s opposition to the preliminary injunction portion of the motion currently is due on October 3, 2022. The UCC sale of the Collateral went forth as scheduled on September 21, 2022, and the Collateral has been sold. Plaintiffs’ motion is moot as they cannot enjoin a sale that has already occurred. Under New York law, a request for injunctive relief is moot “when the offending conduct ceases and the court finds ‘that there is no reasonable expectation that it will resume.’” Allsta, Inc. v. CNA Comm. Ins., 2012 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 6437, at * 20 (Sup. Ct. Bronx Cty. May 2, 2012) #11537786 v1 \028711 \0011 909 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10022-4784 ∙ p:212.735.8600 ∙ f:212.735.8708 ∙ www.morrisoncohen.com Hon. Paul I. Marx, J.S.C. October 4, 2022 Page 2 (denying motion for preliminary injunction to maintain insurance coverage as moot when coverage expired by its terms during the pendency of the motion) (citing Greilsheimer v. Ferber, Chan & Essner, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13445 (S.D.N.Y. 1998)). New York courts regularly deny motions for preliminary injunctions when the conduct at issue has ceased and there is no proof it is likely to occur again. See Allsta, Inc., at *20; see also McGuire v. McGuire, 29 A.D.3d 963 (2d Dep’t 2006) (affirming denial for preliminary injunction relating to ownership as moot because all issues as to ownership had been resolved); Farro v. Schochet, 2017 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3429 (Sup. Ct. Kings Cty. Sept. 12, 2017) (request for preliminary injunction denied as moot where merger it sought to enjoin had been completed). Nostrand Mezz sent a letter to Plaintiffs’ counsel on September 22, 2022 requesting that Plaintiffs withdraw Motion Sequence No. 005 as it has clearly been rendered moot by the UCC sale. In its response by letter and follow-up email correspondence, counsel stated that he would consider Nostrand Mezz’s position, but to date has declined to withdraw the pending motion and failed to explain what relief it is seeking that was not rendered moot by the sale. Simply put, there is no reason that Nostrand Mezz should be put to the task of drafting a full set of papers in opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion, including the preparation of an expert affirmation explaining the 421-a process and a full memorandum of law. As such, Nostrand Mezz respectfully requests that this court deny Motion Sequence No. 005 as moot as the sale Nostrand Mezz sought to enjoin has already been completed. Nostrand Mezz also respectfully requests that the Court consider granting any other relief it deems just and proper, particularly in light of Plaintiffs’ unreasonable refusal to withdraw its motion. Very truly yours, /s/ Gayle Pollack cc: All counsel of record via NYSCEF #11537786 v1 \028711 \0011 909 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10022-4784 ∙ p:212.735.8600 ∙ f:212.735.8708 ∙ www.morrisoncohen.com