Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/28/2022 06:17 PM INDEX NO. 602374/2009
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 110 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/28/2022
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
--__________________________________________Ç
STREET SNACKS, LLC, Index No.: 602374/2009
Plaintiff,
-against-
BRIDGE ASSOCIATES OF SOHO, INC.,
ADAM D. LUCKNER, MIDWAY HOLDINGS CORP.,
YORK RESOURCES LLC, STERLING NATIONAL
BANK, NEW YORK STATE DISTRICT ATTORNEY,
STATE OF NEW YORK, CITY OF NEW YORK, NEW
YORK CITY ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL BOARD,
NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE and
25,"
"JOHN DOES, Numbered 1 through the names of the
lasttwenty-five named defendants being fictitious, real
names unknown to plaintiff, the parties intended being
tenants or persons in possession of portions of the
mortgaged premises,
Defendants.
________________-____..__________------___Ç
AFFIRMATION IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
PETER K. KAMRAN, an attorney duly admitted to practice law in the courts of the State
of New York, affirms the following under penalty of perjury:
1. I am a partner at the law firm of Lester Korinman Kamran & Masini, P.C., attorneys
for defendants Adam Luckner ("Mr. Luckner"), Bridge Associates of SOHO, Inc. ("Bridge
Associates") and Midway Holdings Corp. ("Midway") (collectively, "Defendants") and I am fully
familiar with the facts and circumstances herein.
2. I submit thisaffinnation in opposition to the cross motion for summary judgment (the
"Cross Motion") filed by Street Snacks, LLC ("Plaintiff") an order:
(a) Pursuant to CPLR §3212, striking the answer and affirmative defenses of defendants
Bridge Associates of Soho, Inc., Adam D. Luckner, and Midway Holdings Corp. and
1 of 5
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/28/2022 06:17 PM INDEX NO. 602374/2009
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 110 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/28/2022
granting summary judgment in favor of Street Snacks and against defendants Bridge
Associates of Soho, Inc., Adam D. Luckner, and Midway Holdings Corp, York Resources,
LLC, Sterling National Bank, State of New York, City ûf New York, New York State
District Attorney, and New York City Department of Taxation and Finance for the relief
demanded in the complaint;
(b) Pursuant to CPLR §3215, granting default judgment in favor of Street Snacks and against
defendant New York City Environmental Control Board
(c) Confirming the Stipulation of Discontinuance Without Prejudice dated August 29, 2017
and/or discontinuing this action pursuant to CPLR §3217(b) against the NYC Property
Tenants;
(d) Appointing a referee to ascertain and compute the amount of damages due to Street Snacks
and to determine whether the mortgaged premises known as and by 62 Clark Street, Long
Beach, New York (the "Long Beach Property") and 619 Bridge Street Woodmere, New
York (the "Woodmere Property") should be sold in one or more parcels; and
(e) For such other and further relief that the Court deems just and proper, together with the
attorneys'
costs and disbursements of this action, including reasonable fee.
PLAINTIFF'S CROSS MOTION IMPROPERLY SEEKS RELIEF FROM PARTIES
NO LONGER ASSOCIATED WITH THS FORECLOSURE ACTION
3. Plaintiff commenced this action (the "Foreclosure Action") seeking to foreclose a
blanket lien on three parcels of real property commonly known as (i)533 Greenwich Street, New
York, New York 10013 (the "Manhattan Property"), (ii)619 Bridge Street, Woodmere, New York
11598 (the "Woodmere Property") and (iii)62 Clark Street, Long Beach, New York, 11561 (the
"Long Beach Property").
2 of 5
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/28/2022 06:17 PM INDEX NO. 602374/2009
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 110 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/28/2022
4. The Woodmere Property and the Long Beach Property (collectively, the "Nassau
Properties") are both located in the County of Nassau, while the Manhattan Property is located in
the County of New York.
5. Plaintiff's Cross Motion should be denied as it is palpably improper in that it seeks
relief from parties who no longer have any connection to this Foreclosure Action whatsoever.
6. For example, Plaintiff seeks a default judgment against the New York City
Environmental Control Board ("ECB"). Leaving aside the fact that Plaintiff claims to have served
the ECB almost twelve years ago and should have moved for a default judgment against ECB
before October 20101, ECB no longer has any rational nexus to this Foreclosure Action and
granting any relief against ECB would be improper.
7. This is true for the simple reason that ECB was a lienholder on the Manhattan
Property2, however on March 4, 2020, the Manhattan Property was sold at a tax lien foreclosure
auction3
(the "Tax Lien Foreclosure") and thus is no longer encumbered by Plaintiff's mortgage
lien. Plaintiff even admits this but stillseeks a default judgment against ECB. Id2
8. Likewise, Plaintiff seeking an order granting Plaintiff summary judgment against
Sterling National Bank ("Sterling") and York Resources ("York") is completely improper.
Plaintiff alleges that Sterling and York hold liens on the Manhattan Property junior to Plaintiff's
mortgage lien4.
I S_eeAffidavit Service attached Carlin in of Plaintiff's
of as ExhibitE to the Affinnation submitted support Cross
Motion [NYSCEF Dkt No. 46].
2 s_ee Summons and attached as Exhibit A tothe CarlinAffinnation submitted in support of Plaintiff's
Complaint
Cross Motion [NYSCEF Dkt No. 42].
3 CarlinAffirmation submitted in support of Motion
Plaintiff's at 136 and Exhibit X [NYSCEF Dkt Nos. 41 and 65].
4 4 See
Summons and Complaint attached as ExhibitA to theCarlin Affimiation submitted in supportof Plaintiff's
Cross Motion [NYSCEF Dkt No. 42].
3 of 5
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/28/2022 06:17 PM INDEX NO. 602374/2009
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 110 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/28/2022
9. However, as noted above the Manhattan Property is no longer part of the equation in
this Foreclosure Action and any liens encumbering the Manhattan Property when this Foreclosure
Action was commenced (including Plaintiff's) were extinguished by the Tax Lien Foreclosure.
10. Put simply, there is no relief that Plaintiff is entitled to against these parties since they
hold no interests in or liens against the Nassau Properties (the only real property that can now be
affected by this Foreclosure Action). Affidavit of Adam Luckner executed on June 28, 2022, (the
Luckner Aff.") and submitted herewith at ¶¶2 and 3.
11. Additionally, Plaintiff seeks to have the Court affirm an improper stipulation of
discontinuance5
against various tenants of the Manhattan Property (the "NYC Tenants") (after it
was brought to Plaintiff's attention during the briefing on PlaintifPs prior motion for summary
judgment that the stipulation was improper as it was signed only by the attorneys for Plaintiff and
the NYC Tenants, i.e., the stipulation of discontinuance was not signed by all counsel appearing
in this action).
12. Plaintiff goes so far as to state "[a]s a result of the Tax Lien Foreclosure sale of the
NYC Property, the NYC Property Tenants are no longer necessary or indispensable parties to this
action because their interests will not be affected by the judgment or sale of the Long Beach
Property."
Property or the Woodmere Plaintiff's Memo of Law at p.16. [NYSCEF Dkt No. 105].
13. This statement by Plaintiff is completely true and the same could be said for every
named defendant in this Foreclosure Action except Mr. Luckner, Bridge Associates, and Midway.
Luckner Aff. at ¶¶2 and 3.
14. Once the Manhattan Property was sold at the Tax Lien Foreclosure auction every
subsequent interest was wiped out, but curiously, Plaintiff seeks to have the caption amended to
5
A copy ofthe stipulationof discontinuance is attachedto theCarlin Affirmation submitted in support of theCross
Motion as Exhibit M [NYSCEF Dkt No. 54].
4 of 5
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/28/2022 06:17 PM INDEX NO. 602374/2009
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 110 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/28/2022
Doe"
remove the "John defendants (the NYC Property Tenants) and for some reason is still
pursuing this Foreclosure Action against other defendants who no longer have legal nexus to this
Foreclosure Action or to the remaining Nassau Properties.
15. Based on the above, itis clear that due to the Tax Lien Foreclosure auction this instant
Foreclosure Action has absolutely no nexus to the County of New York with respect to the real
property being foreclosed upon, and further, allbut three of the named defendants no longer have
any interests that could possibly be affected by this Foreclosure Action.
16. Plaintiff's improper insistence on seeking relief against parties that for over two years
have had absolutely no interests that could possibly be affected by this Foreclosure Action coupled
with Plaintiff's failure to seek a proper amendment of the caption (and the relief sought) warrants
the denial of Plaintiff's Cross Motion.
WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter an Order
Defendants'
denying the relief requested in Plaintiff's Cross Motion in its entirety and granting
Motion seeking a transfer of venue to Nassau County, along with any other and further relief as is
deemed just and proper under the circumstances.
Dated: June 28, 2022
Garden City, New York LESTER KORINMAN KAMRAN & MASINI, P.C.
By: Peter K. Kamran, Esq.
Counsel to Defendants
600 Old Country Road, Suite 229
Garden City, New York 11530
(516) 357-9191
pkamran(dllesterfirm.com
5 of 5
Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/28/2022 06:17 PM INDEX NO. 602374/2009 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 110 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/28/2022 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK --__________________________________________Ç STREET SNACKS, LLC, Index No.: 602374/2009 Plaintiff, -against- BRIDGE ASSOCIATES OF SOHO, INC., ADAM D. LUCKNER, MIDWAY HOLDINGS CORP., YORK RESOURCES LLC, STERLING NATIONAL BANK, NEW YORK STATE DISTRICT ATTORNEY, STATE OF NEW YORK, CITY OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK CITY ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL BOARD, NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE and 25," "JOHN DOES, Numbered 1 through the names of the lasttwenty-five named defendants being fictitious, real names unknown to plaintiff, the parties intended being tenants or persons in possession of portions of the mortgaged premises, Defendants. ________________-____..__________------___Ç AFFIRMATION IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PETER K. KAMRAN, an attorney duly admitted to practice law in the courts of the State of New York, affirms the following under penalty of perjury: 1. I am a partner at the law firm of Lester Korinman Kamran & Masini, P.C., attorneys for defendants Adam Luckner ("Mr. Luckner"), Bridge Associates of SOHO, Inc. ("Bridge Associates") and Midway Holdings Corp. ("Midway") (collectively, "Defendants") and I am fully familiar with the facts and circumstances herein. 2. I submit thisaffinnation in opposition to the cross motion for summary judgment (the "Cross Motion") filed by Street Snacks, LLC ("Plaintiff") an order: (a) Pursuant to CPLR §3212, striking the answer and affirmative defenses of defendants Bridge Associates of Soho, Inc., Adam D. Luckner, and Midway Holdings Corp. and 1 of 5 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/28/2022 06:17 PM INDEX NO. 602374/2009 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 110 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/28/2022 granting summary judgment in favor of Street Snacks and against defendants Bridge Associates of Soho, Inc., Adam D. Luckner, and Midway Holdings Corp, York Resources, LLC, Sterling National Bank, State of New York, City ûf New York, New York State District Attorney, and New York City Department of Taxation and Finance for the relief demanded in the complaint; (b) Pursuant to CPLR §3215, granting default judgment in favor of Street Snacks and against defendant New York City Environmental Control Board (c) Confirming the Stipulation of Discontinuance Without Prejudice dated August 29, 2017 and/or discontinuing this action pursuant to CPLR §3217(b) against the NYC Property Tenants; (d) Appointing a referee to ascertain and compute the amount of damages due to Street Snacks and to determine whether the mortgaged premises known as and by 62 Clark Street, Long Beach, New York (the "Long Beach Property") and 619 Bridge Street Woodmere, New York (the "Woodmere Property") should be sold in one or more parcels; and (e) For such other and further relief that the Court deems just and proper, together with the attorneys' costs and disbursements of this action, including reasonable fee. PLAINTIFF'S CROSS MOTION IMPROPERLY SEEKS RELIEF FROM PARTIES NO LONGER ASSOCIATED WITH THS FORECLOSURE ACTION 3. Plaintiff commenced this action (the "Foreclosure Action") seeking to foreclose a blanket lien on three parcels of real property commonly known as (i)533 Greenwich Street, New York, New York 10013 (the "Manhattan Property"), (ii)619 Bridge Street, Woodmere, New York 11598 (the "Woodmere Property") and (iii)62 Clark Street, Long Beach, New York, 11561 (the "Long Beach Property"). 2 of 5 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/28/2022 06:17 PM INDEX NO. 602374/2009 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 110 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/28/2022 4. The Woodmere Property and the Long Beach Property (collectively, the "Nassau Properties") are both located in the County of Nassau, while the Manhattan Property is located in the County of New York. 5. Plaintiff's Cross Motion should be denied as it is palpably improper in that it seeks relief from parties who no longer have any connection to this Foreclosure Action whatsoever. 6. For example, Plaintiff seeks a default judgment against the New York City Environmental Control Board ("ECB"). Leaving aside the fact that Plaintiff claims to have served the ECB almost twelve years ago and should have moved for a default judgment against ECB before October 20101, ECB no longer has any rational nexus to this Foreclosure Action and granting any relief against ECB would be improper. 7. This is true for the simple reason that ECB was a lienholder on the Manhattan Property2, however on March 4, 2020, the Manhattan Property was sold at a tax lien foreclosure auction3 (the "Tax Lien Foreclosure") and thus is no longer encumbered by Plaintiff's mortgage lien. Plaintiff even admits this but stillseeks a default judgment against ECB. Id2 8. Likewise, Plaintiff seeking an order granting Plaintiff summary judgment against Sterling National Bank ("Sterling") and York Resources ("York") is completely improper. Plaintiff alleges that Sterling and York hold liens on the Manhattan Property junior to Plaintiff's mortgage lien4. I S_eeAffidavit Service attached Carlin in of Plaintiff's of as ExhibitE to the Affinnation submitted support Cross Motion [NYSCEF Dkt No. 46]. 2 s_ee Summons and attached as Exhibit A tothe CarlinAffinnation submitted in support of Plaintiff's Complaint Cross Motion [NYSCEF Dkt No. 42]. 3 CarlinAffirmation submitted in support of Motion Plaintiff's at 136 and Exhibit X [NYSCEF Dkt Nos. 41 and 65]. 4 4 See Summons and Complaint attached as ExhibitA to theCarlin Affimiation submitted in supportof Plaintiff's Cross Motion [NYSCEF Dkt No. 42]. 3 of 5 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/28/2022 06:17 PM INDEX NO. 602374/2009 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 110 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/28/2022 9. However, as noted above the Manhattan Property is no longer part of the equation in this Foreclosure Action and any liens encumbering the Manhattan Property when this Foreclosure Action was commenced (including Plaintiff's) were extinguished by the Tax Lien Foreclosure. 10. Put simply, there is no relief that Plaintiff is entitled to against these parties since they hold no interests in or liens against the Nassau Properties (the only real property that can now be affected by this Foreclosure Action). Affidavit of Adam Luckner executed on June 28, 2022, (the Luckner Aff.") and submitted herewith at ¶¶2 and 3. 11. Additionally, Plaintiff seeks to have the Court affirm an improper stipulation of discontinuance5 against various tenants of the Manhattan Property (the "NYC Tenants") (after it was brought to Plaintiff's attention during the briefing on PlaintifPs prior motion for summary judgment that the stipulation was improper as it was signed only by the attorneys for Plaintiff and the NYC Tenants, i.e., the stipulation of discontinuance was not signed by all counsel appearing in this action). 12. Plaintiff goes so far as to state "[a]s a result of the Tax Lien Foreclosure sale of the NYC Property, the NYC Property Tenants are no longer necessary or indispensable parties to this action because their interests will not be affected by the judgment or sale of the Long Beach Property." Property or the Woodmere Plaintiff's Memo of Law at p.16. [NYSCEF Dkt No. 105]. 13. This statement by Plaintiff is completely true and the same could be said for every named defendant in this Foreclosure Action except Mr. Luckner, Bridge Associates, and Midway. Luckner Aff. at ¶¶2 and 3. 14. Once the Manhattan Property was sold at the Tax Lien Foreclosure auction every subsequent interest was wiped out, but curiously, Plaintiff seeks to have the caption amended to 5 A copy ofthe stipulationof discontinuance is attachedto theCarlin Affirmation submitted in support of theCross Motion as Exhibit M [NYSCEF Dkt No. 54]. 4 of 5 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/28/2022 06:17 PM INDEX NO. 602374/2009 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 110 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/28/2022 Doe" remove the "John defendants (the NYC Property Tenants) and for some reason is still pursuing this Foreclosure Action against other defendants who no longer have legal nexus to this Foreclosure Action or to the remaining Nassau Properties. 15. Based on the above, itis clear that due to the Tax Lien Foreclosure auction this instant Foreclosure Action has absolutely no nexus to the County of New York with respect to the real property being foreclosed upon, and further, allbut three of the named defendants no longer have any interests that could possibly be affected by this Foreclosure Action. 16. Plaintiff's improper insistence on seeking relief against parties that for over two years have had absolutely no interests that could possibly be affected by this Foreclosure Action coupled with Plaintiff's failure to seek a proper amendment of the caption (and the relief sought) warrants the denial of Plaintiff's Cross Motion. WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter an Order Defendants' denying the relief requested in Plaintiff's Cross Motion in its entirety and granting Motion seeking a transfer of venue to Nassau County, along with any other and further relief as is deemed just and proper under the circumstances. Dated: June 28, 2022 Garden City, New York LESTER KORINMAN KAMRAN & MASINI, P.C. By: Peter K. Kamran, Esq. Counsel to Defendants 600 Old Country Road, Suite 229 Garden City, New York 11530 (516) 357-9191 pkamran(dllesterfirm.com 5 of 5