Exhibit,Appendix: Street Snacks Llc v. 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

On August 12, 2021 a Exhibit,Appendix was filed involving a dispute between Street Snacks Llc, and Adam D. Luckner, Bridge Associates Of Soho, Inc., City Of New York, John Does, Numbered 1 Through 25, Midway Holdings Corp., New York City Department Of Finance, New York City Environmental Control Board, New York State District Attorney, State Of New York, Sterling National Bank, York Resources Llc, for Commercial - Other (Foreclosure) in the District Court of New York County.

Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/17/2022 04:03 PM INDEX NO. 602374/2009
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 161 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/17/2022

SCHEDULE H
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/17/2022 04:03 PM INDEX NO. 602374/2009
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 161 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/17/2022

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------------------------------------X
STREET SNACKS, LLC,
Index No. 602374/09
Plaintiff,
AFFIRMATION
-against- OF AMY D. CARLIN
IN FURTHER SUPPORT
OF AMOUNT DUE
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,
and NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE,

Defendants.
------------------------------------------------------------------X

AMY D. CARLIN, an attorney duly admitted to practice law before the courts and the

State of New York, hereby affirms under penalty of perjury as follows:

1. I am a member of LaRocca Hornik Rosen & Greenberg LLP, attorneys for plaintiff

Street Snacks, LLC (“Street Snacks”). As such I am personally familiar with the facts and

circumstances stated herein.

2. Rather than own up to the amounts due and allow this foreclosure action to proceed,

Bridge Associates of Soho, Inc. (the “Bridge Associates”), Adam Luckner (“Luckner”), and

Midway Holdings, Corp. (“Midway”) (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Luckner

Defendants”) rehash a worn “failure to prosecute” argument already rejected by the court. The

Luckner Defendants’ objection – based on their counsel’s unsworn speculations and inadmissible

“conversations with the Defendants” – should be rejected in its entirety. See the “Objections to

Proposed Computations and Referee’s Report & Demand for Hearing” dated September 29, 2022

(the “Objections”), at p. 1.
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/17/2022 04:03 PM INDEX NO. 602374/2009
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 161 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/17/2022

3. The Luckner Defendants fail to disclose to the Referee that in multiple well-

reasoned decisions, the court previously found that Bridge Associates induced Street Snacks to

forebear from prosecuting this action during complex on-going global settlement negotiations and

then resorted to legal maneuvers to take advantage of that same forbearance. Despite the court’s

conclusive rulings, the Luckner Defendants nevertheless argue in their Objection that interest

should be tolled from August 3, 2009 to November 10, 2015 because Street Snacks unreasonably

delayed the prosecution of this action. The Luckner Defendants have not presented any new facts

or evidence that would require the Referee to deviate from the court’s prior holdings.

THE LUCKNER DEFENDANTS INDUCED STREET
SNACKS TO FORBEAR FROM PROSECUTING
THIS ACTION FROM AUGUST 2009 TO NOVEMBER 2015

4. In four decisions, the court addressed and conclusively rejected the Luckner

Defendants’ arguments that Street Snacks abandoned and/or delayed the prosecution of this action

and somehow “lured” the Luckner Defendants by giving them an indefinite period of time to

respond to the complaint.

A. The Luckner Defendants’ first motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR
§3215(c) was denied.

5. Shortly after Street Snacks filed and served the complaint in this action, Street

Snacks and the Luckner Defendants entered into settlement discussions. During prolonged and

complex negotiations, the parties expressly agreed that the Luckner Defendants would have an

open-ended extension of time within which to respond to the complaint. See the September 14,

2011 letter extending the Luckner Defendants’ time to respond, annexed hereto with the transmittal

email thread as Exhibit A.

2
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/17/2022 04:03 PM INDEX NO. 602374/2009
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 161 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/17/2022

6. After numerous attempts at structuring a global settlement failed, on November 10,

2015, the Luckner Defendants filed a motion seeking to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR

§3215(c), arguing that they had not interposed an answer, were in default, and that Street Snacks

failed to move to enter a default judgment within one year. In bad faith, they concealed from the

court the parties’ multiple agreements extending the Luckner Defendants’ time to respond to the

complaint and the long running settlement negotiations. See the Luckner Defendants’ Notice of

Motion and Affirmation of Robert S. Drummond dated November 10, 2015, collectively annexed

hereto as Exhibit B.

7. Street Snacks opposed the Luckner Defendants’ motion, demonstrating that

inasmuch as the Luckner Defendants were given an open-ended extension of time within which to

interpose an answer, they were not in default and as such, CPLR §3215(c) was inapplicable.

Moreover, Street Snacks submitted voluminous documentary evidence demonstrating that from

the outset, the Luckner Defendants and Street Snacks were working to achieve a global settlement

of all the liens recorded against the NYC Property that would not have been possible without

holding the prosecution of this action in abeyance.1

8. Because the Luckner Defendants’ strategy of obfuscation and delay was exposed

to the court, the Luckner Defendants used their reply papers to concoct the preposterous story that

Alan Luckner (Adam Luckner’s father) was not authorized to: (a) negotiate the multiple

agreements extending the Luckner Defendants’ time to respond to the complaint; and (b) conduct

global settlement negotiations relating to the liens recorded against the NYC Property. See the

1
Street Snacks incorporates by reference herein: (a) the Affidavit in Opposition of Thomas Makkos sworn to on
December 21, 2015, annexed hereto as Exhibit C; and (b) the Affirmation in Opposition of Amy D. Carlin dated
December 21, 2015, annexed hereto as Exhibit D, which discuss in detail the parties’ complex global settlement
discussions that first centered on a deed in lieu of foreclosure transaction, then a sale of the NYC Property to a third-
party, and finally the refinancing of all the liens secured by the NYC Property.

3
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/17/2022 04:03 PM INDEX NO. 602374/2009
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 161 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/17/2022

Reply Affirmation of Robert S. Drummond in Further Support of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss

the Complaint dated February 2, 2016, Affidavit of Adam Luckner sworn to on February 1, 2016,

Affidavit of Alan Luckner sworn to on February 1, 2016, and Affidavit of Robert G. Friedman

dated February 1, 2016, annexed hereto collectively as Exhibit E.

9. In addition to the Luckners swearing under oath to this blatant lie, Robert Friedman

parroted the same false story. Mr. Friedman, an attorney, represented Bridge Associates in at least

one of the proposed transactions, that if consummated, would have resulted in the transfer or sale

of the NYC Property. Exhibit C at ¶¶39 and 42; Exhibit D at ¶¶24-29. He is also a close personal

friend of Alan Luckner and a principal of York Resources, LLC, the holder of a second mortgage

on the NYC Property. Exhibit C at ¶20.

10. In its sur-reply, Street Snacks rebutted the lies and misrepresentations the Luckner

Defendants made to the court with duly recorded documents and information establishing that

Alan Luckner had long-standing actual and apparent authority to act on behalf of all the Luckner

Defendants. See the Sur-Reply Affirmation of Amy D. Carlin dated February 10, 2016, annexed

hereto as Exhibit F.

11. The court (Hagler, J.) rejected the Luckner Defendants’ “abandoned prosecution”

claims as wholly unsubstantiated and denied the motion in its entirety. In a Decision dated March

14, 2016, the court concluded:

I heard enough. I read the papers. I did the research. Let me just
read from the supporting papers by Mr. Drummond that is dated
November 10th, 2015.

Paragraph 10 states, “defendant did not answer the complaint, and,
therefore, default of thirty days after service of the complaint on
September 17th, 2009, and September 18th, 2009, respectively.”

For all intents and purposes we all know that is not the case. There
were multiple agreements to permit the defendants to interpose an

4
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/17/2022 04:03 PM INDEX NO. 602374/2009
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 161 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/17/2022

Answer. In opposition, plaintiff’s counsel put in multiple
agreements between the parties to extend the time. It was extended
one time, two times, three times, many, many times. And the record
will bear out that discussion.

It’s surreal to read defendant's papers and then to read the
opposition. I think it was obligation on behalf of the defendants
to tell the Court at the very least it got extended one time, two, three
times and then make the argument that there was no apparent
authority between the parties extending the Answer.

It was quite clear from the papers that Mr. Alan Luckner was acting
on behalf of all the defendants, if it wasn’t actual authority it was
certainly apparent authority. That it was to the benefit of all
defendants to now lull the plaintiff into a position that it did not
take a default against them because they agreed to it, and then use
it as a sword rather than a shield is not the purpose or the intent
of CPLR 3215(c).

It was quite apparent to all parties concerned that the Answer was
extended definitely until such time there was a settlement, and I
think it’s beyond dispute that that was the case. This was just a
legal maneuver to have this case dismissed when there is no real
reason to do so.

See the Decision dated March 14, 2016 (the “March 2016 Decision”), annexed hereto as Exhibit

G at 6:4-7:21 (emphasis added).

B. The Luckner Defendants’ second motion seeking leave to reargue and renew and to
dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR §3211(a) was denied.

12. The Luckner Defendants next sought a “second bite at the apple,” filing a motion

seeking an order: (a) pursuant to CPLR §2221 granting the Luckner Defendants leave to reargue

and renew their first motion pursuant to CPLR §3215(c); and (b) pursuant to CPLR §3211(a)

dismissing the complaint. In their second motion, the Luckner Defendants attempted to attack the

multiple agreements extending their time to interpose an answer by arguing that neither Luckner

nor his father had the “capacity” under CPLR §321(a) to enter into the agreements. The Luckner

Defendants argued that because the agreements were thus “nullities,” they were in default and

5
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/17/2022 04:03 PM INDEX NO. 602374/2009
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 161 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/17/2022

Street Snacks failed to enter judgment pursuant to CPLR §3215(c). See the Luckner Defendants’

Notice of Motion, Affirmation of Thomas C. Lambert dated April 20, 2016, and Affidavit of Adam

Luckner sworn to on April 20, 2016, annexed hereto collectively as Exhibit H.

13. With respect to the branch of their motion seeking to dismiss the complaint pursuant

to CPLR §3211(a), the Luckner Defendants re-packaged their argument that Street Snacks

purportedly abandoned the lawsuit and contended that Street Snacks created “a loophole” that left

the Luckner Defendants “without a vehicle for dismissing the case.” The Luckner Defendants

advanced the novel legal theory that the complaint should be dismissed pursuant to CPLR §3211(a)

“as a matter of equity.” Annexed hereto as Exhibit I is the Affirmation in Opposition of Amy D.

Carlin dated May 25, 2016, filed in opposition to the Luckner Defendants’ second motion.

14. The court (Hagler, J.) quickly saw through the Luckner Defendants’ strained

theories, adhered to its original decision, and denied the Luckner Defendants’ motion in its

entirety, stating:

[I]t all boils down to this: Is it equitable or fair for your client to
take advantage of the plaintiff during negotiations wherein they
could have taken a default against your client, did not do so based
upon the representations of your client? I don’t believe the
appellate courts or the court would not enforce such an
agreement… It would be ultimately unfair to do what you’re
saying.

***

It’s clear to this Court that there was an agreement among the
parties. It would be completely inequitable to allow the defendants
to take advantage of those [agreements], to use it as a sword rather
than a shield. The law never meant for that to occur. Again, very
creative arguments, but nonetheless, there’s no merit to any of the
arguments. Therefore, the Court denies the motion in its entirety.

See the Decision dated August 1, 2016 (the “August 2016 Decision”) annexed hereto as Exhibit J

at 5:4-15 and 11:10-17 (emphasis added).

6
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/17/2022 04:03 PM INDEX NO. 602374/2009
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 161 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/17/2022

C. The Appellate Division, First Department unanimously affirmed the March 2016
Decision and the August 2016 Decision.

15. In a Decision dated December 28, 2017, the Appellate Division, First Department

unanimously affirmed the March 2016 Decision and the August 2016 Decision, noting,

“[d]efendants do not deny that plaintiff granted the extensions of time, which were requested on

their behalf by an individual who had apparent authority to act on their behalf and who is identified

in the record as a vice president of Bridge, to allow them to negotiate a disposition of the property

more favorable than foreclosure.” See the Decision annexed hereto as Exhibit K, at 27.

D. The Luckner Defendants’ affirmative defenses were found to be meritless.

16. On or about August 17, 2016, the Luckner Defendants interposed a Verified

Answer (the “Answer”). In the Answer, the Luckner Defendants asserted general denials and

affirmative defenses, including laches (fourth affirmative defense), equitable estoppel (fifth

affirmative defense), and abandoned prosecution (sixth affirmative defense). A copy of the

Luckner Defendants’ Answer is annexed hereto as Exhibit L.

17. The Luckner Defendants failed to submit any evidence to support the fourth, fifth,

or sixth affirmative defenses in their opposition to Street Snacks’ motion for summary judgment,

tacitly admitting that the allegations were meritless. In the Decision granting Street Snacks

summary judgment, the court (Kahn, J.) held:

As pled all the affirmative defenses are entirely conclusory and
unsupported by any facts in the answer. As such these affirmative
defenses are nothing more than unsubstantiated legal conclusions
which are insufficiently pled as a matter of law [citations omitted].
Further, the affirmative defenses were abandoned by Defendants
failing to address the viability of same in their opposition.”

See the Decision dated August 18, 2022, annexed hereto as Exhibit M at 2 (emphasis added).

7
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/17/2022 04:03 PM INDEX NO. 602374/2009
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 161 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/17/2022

E. The Luckner Defendants, and not Street Snacks, wrongfully delayed this foreclosure
action.

18. As the court recognized in multiple decisions, the Luckner Defendants, and not

Street Snacks, orchestrated the purported delay of the prosecution of this action. No matter how

many times the Luckner Defendants repeat their allegation that Street Snacks created a procedural

“loophole” so as to avoid prosecuting this action, the facts remains that: (a) Street Snacks held the

prosecution of this action in abeyance at the Luckner Defendants’ request; (b) Bridge Associates

and Street Snacks sought to resolve this action and reach a global settlement covering all the liens

recorded against the NYC Property; (c) the Luckner Defendants do not deny that the negotiations

were on-going; and (d) the Luckner Defendants knowingly accepted the benefits of Street Snacks’

forbearance, including the time it gave them to attempt to achieve a global settlement.

19. The Luckner Defendants would have the Referee believe that Street Snacks took

unfair advantage of them by continuing to accrue default interest while Bridge Associates worked

on formulating a complex resolution of this action. The Luckner Defendants’ argument that Street

Snacks somehow “lured” the Luckner Defendants into not responding to the complaint is bizarre

because the Luckner Defendants could have interposed an answer or moved to dismiss the

Complaint at any time during the pendency of this action.

20. The Luckner Defendants were not obligated to respond to the complaint until

“twenty (20) days from the date of service of a written demand for same” from Street Snacks. To

date, the Luckner Defendants have not any offered any explanation whatsoever as to why they did

not voluntarily interpose an answer or move to dismiss the complaint prior to receiving such a

demand from Street Snacks.

8
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/17/2022 04:03 PM INDEX NO. 602374/2009
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 161 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/17/2022

F. The Luckner Defendants mischaracterize the factual record.

21. In the Objection, the Luckner Defendants urge the Referee to consider cherry-

picked excerpts from the transcript of Thomas Makkos’ deposition to paint the false picture that

Street Snacks did not reasonably believe that a settlement would be reached with the Luckner

Defendants and sat idly by while default interest continued to accrue.

22. The Luckner Defendants’ argument has no basis in reality given that Bridge

Associates, and not Street Snacks, failed and/or refused to consummate any transaction that would

have resolved the liens on the NYC Property and this action. See Exhibit D at ¶¶ 35-36.

23. The Luckner Defendants mischaracterize Mr. Makkos’ deposition testimony,

taking it out of context.2 In fact, Mr. Makkos testified that he respected Mr. Friedman and knew

him to be “a substantial person in the business of real estate” with “credibility around town and a

name.” Exhibit N at 122:3-24. Mr. Makkos became “very, very, very, very disappointed” with

Mr. Friedman after he “covered” for Alan Luckner. Exhibit N at 121:6-24. In fact, Mr. Makkos

testified that he believed that Alan Luckner and Mr. Friedman were honorable until 2015:

Q. When, for the first time, did you believe you were dealing with
a couple of clowns, as you describe them.

A. When they moved to squash the note.

Q. That was in 2015; is that right?

A. Yep, Yeah. Not honorable people. Especially Mr. Friedman.

Q. Until 2015 you believed they were honorable?

[Objection]

A. I didn’t believe anything, I was trying to make a deal. They can
be whatever they want. I do business with my brain, not with
my heart. It’s irrelevant [h]ow I feel.

2
Relevant portions of the transcript of the deposition of Thomas Makkos on June 14, 2017 is annexed hereto as
Exhibit N.

9
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/17/2022 04:03 PM INDEX NO. 602374/2009
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 161 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/17/2022

Exhibit N at 171:8-24 (emphasis added); see also Exhibit F at ¶¶ 9-11.

24. Although there were complicated circumstances surrounding the NYC Property,

Mr. Makkos recognized that Street Snacks would achieve a greater return on its investment through

a negotiated resolution of the liens on the NYC Property than it would collecting default interest:

Q. These clowns, as you’ve described them, they were doing that
in 2009, too, not just 2010; am I right?

[Objection]

A. I did not identify them at that time as clowns. They had not
proven to me at that time that they were not honorable and that
they were playing games and that they were clowning around
one after the other.

Q. Ok. So in 2009, you had hoped that there would be an amicable
solution, right?

A. As I answered the same way before, I always have hope. I am a
businessman. And I tried everything possibly, legally, to
consummate the deal and to bring it in to closure. Mr. Luckner
was crying to me that he was in the building for $5 million and
I was sympathizing and I was trying to help him recoup his loss.

Q. Was that done out of your compassionate nature or out of your
business experience?

A. I am a businessman and I also do business and I don’t like to
lose money and if I can help somebody, I will help them because
I believe in G-d. And that’s the way I do business. And the
proof is here, how long I can go. I could have continued and
continued to close, taking my money out or end up with the
building.
I’m in real estate. I didn’t want to make – 24 percent is not
enough interest for me return on investment. If I can buy a
building, I will make a lot more in appreciation. I’m not a
bank. I’m not a lender. I’m not in the business to make -- I
don’t have money out on the street making money on interest.
Even if it’s 30 percent.
But again, they had the choice to stop that bleeding or getting
charged 24 percent at any time they wanted it. They prolonged
it.Not me. I tried to make a deal numerous times, with attorneys
involved.

10
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/17/2022 04:03 PM INDEX NO. 602374/2009
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 161 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/17/2022

Exhibit N (169:8-171:7) (emphasis added).

G. There is no basis for tolling interest from August 2009 to November 2015 because the
Luckner Defendants, and not Street Snacks, wrongfully delayed this foreclosure
action.

25. The Luckner Defendants’ Objection should be rejected out of hand. As detailed

above, to the extent there is blame to be laid for the six years that passed during prolonged

settlement negotiations, that blame falls squarely with the Luckner Defendants. “[I]n an action of

an equitable nature, the recovery of interest is within the court’s discretion. The exercise of that

discretion will be governed by the particular facts in each case, including any wrongful conduct

by either party.” Prompt Mortg. Providers of N. Am., LLC v. Zarour, 155 A.D.3d 912, 915 (2d

Dep’t 2017) (court denied request to toll interest where plaintiffs’ conduct did not merit the

imposition of sanctions against them in the form of limiting the interest awarded to them).

26. The Luckner Defendants have not set forth any unfair or inequitable conduct on the

part of Street Snacks that would warrant the tolling of interest. See U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n v.

Haughton, 189 A.D.3d 1305, 1307 (2d Dept. 2020) (although action was plaintiff’s second attempt

to foreclose mortgage, defendant failed to establish that the circumstances surrounding the delay

were attributable to wrongdoing by plaintiff or its predecessor in interest). Here, there is nothing

inherently wrongful or unconscionable about Street Snacks’ efforts to support the Luckner

Defendants’ attempts to reach a complex global settlement. See Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. George,

186 A.D.3d 661, 664 (2d Dep’t 2020) (tolling of interest was not warranted where there was no

showing that plaintiff engaged in any wrongdoing, or engaged in any lengthy unexplained delay

in prosecution); Wells Fargo Bank v. Lee, 2022 WL 4489374, *2 (2d Dep’t September 28, 2022)

(defendants made no showing that there was any wrongdoing by mortgagee or that mortgagee

engaged in any unexplained delay in prosecution that would warrant eliminating interest).

11
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/17/2022 04:03 PM INDEX NO. 602374/2009
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 161 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/17/2022

27. The litany of authorities cited by the Luckner Defendants are inapposite because

the court, in multiple well-reasoned decisions, conclusively determined that Street Snacks did not

engage in any wrongful conduct in its efforts to foreclose the subject mortgage. See Citicorp Trust

Bank, FSB v. Vidaurre, 155 A.D.3d 934 (2d Dept. 2017) (interest was tolled because of foreclosing

plaintiff’s unwarranted delay); BAC Home Loan Servicing, L.P. v. Jackson, 159 A.D.3d 861 (2d

Dep’t 2018) (mortgagee penalized with reduction of interest as a result of unexplained delay);

Danielowich v. PBL Development, 292 A.D.2d 414 (1st Dep’t 2002) (mortgagee’s unexplained

delay in moving to confirm referee’s report warranted reduction of interest); Bankers Trust Co. of

Cal., N.A. v. Bok, 26 Misc.3d 1203[A] (Sup. Ct., Queens Cty. 2009) (interest reduced where

mortgagee’s papers were devoid of any “good excuse” justifying mortgagee’s delay in completing

the sale of the subject property after obtaining judgment of foreclosure and sale); US Bank Nat.

Ass’n v. Gioia, 42 Misc.3d 947 (Sup. Ct., Queens Cty. 2013) (interest tolled where mortgagee

moved for order to discontinue residential mortgage foreclosure action and mortgagee had

commenced the action but did not file an RJI, did not commence the settlement process, did not

provide a reason for failing to respond to defendants’ applications for a loan modification, and did

not diligently prosecute the action); Yagamo Acquisitions, LLC v. Baco Development, 278 A.D.2d

134 (1st Dep’t 2000). The present case is nothing like these cases.

28. In summary, the facts of this case do not warrant the Referee taking the unusual

step of eliminating any portion of the interest due and owing to Street Snacks in accordance with

the express mortgage agreement entered into by the parties.

12
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/17/2022 04:03 PM INDEX NO. 602374/2009
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 161 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/17/2022

STREET SNACKS PRODUCED CONTEMPORANEOUS
EVIDENCE AND SWORN TESTIMONY ESTABLISHING
THE EXPENSES IT ADVANCED TO PROTECT ITS SECURITY
AND TO MAINTAIN AND PROTECT THE NYC PROPERTY

29. At his deposition, Luckner admitted that Bridge Associates stopped paying the real

estate taxes for the NYC Property in or around November 2008.3 Exhibit O at 109:17-23; see also

the Affidavit of Amounts Due of Thomas Makkos sworn to on September 13, 2022 previously

submitted to the Referee (the “Makkos September Affidavit”) at ¶¶16-18. Bridge Associates also

stopped maintaining, repairing, and paying the operating expenses for the NYC Property. Exhibit O

at 109:24-25 and 110:2-7. Bridge Associates’ failure to properly manage and provide essential

services at the NYC Property resulted in the issuance of numerous building violations and liens being

placed on the NYC Property.

30. As a result of Bridge Associates’ abject failure to properly manage the NYC

Property during the pendency of this action, Street Snacks incurred substantial expenses protecting

its security and maintaining and protecting the NYC Property pursuant to ¶¶19 and 20 of the

mortgage. See the Makkos September Affidavit at ¶¶ 17-18 and the Affidavit of Thomas Makkos

in Further Support of Amounts Due sworn to on October 17, 2022 submitted herewith (the

“Makkos October Affidavit”), at ¶¶ 8-18.

31. The Luckner Defendants’ argument against Street Snacks recovering the expenses

it advanced is primarily based on their belief that Street Snacks may not have produced every

single document supporting each expense. However, this is not a proceeding that requires such a

heightened burden of proof. Indeed, a “referee may consider both documentary and oral evidence

in computing the amount due on the mortgage.” Isaacson v. Karpe, 84 A.D.2d 868, 868-69 (3rd

Dep’t 1981).

3
Relevant portions of the transcript of Luckner’s June 2, 2017 deposition are annexed hereto as Exhibit O.

13
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/17/2022 04:03 PM INDEX NO. 602374/2009
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 161 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/17/2022

32. Street Snacks satisfied its burden by producing contemporaneous evidence of the

expenses it advanced on behalf of Bridge Associates in connection with the maintenance and

operation of the NYC Property, including, but not limited to, canceled checks with memo notations

indicating their purpose, invoices, receipts, and accounting records of Street Snacks. See Makkos

September Affidavit at Exhibits 6 and 7; Makkos October Affidavit at Exhibits 12-16 and 19. The

expenses were further substantiated by sworn testimony from Mr. Makkos, the principal of Street

Snacks and Makkos Equities. See Isaacson v. Karpe, 84 A.D.2d 868-69); Board of Managers of

Brightwater Towers Condominium v. Lukashevskaya, 37 Misc.3d 1227(A) *3 (Supt. Ct., Kings

Cty. 2012) (referee should have calculated the amount of common charges due based on the

statements in two sworn affidavits and detailed business records).

CONCLUSION

33. By reason of the foregoing, the Luckner Defendants’ Objection and request for a

hearing should be rejected in its entirety, and the Referee should determine that as of September

1, 2022, the amount due Street Snacks is $7,940,109.87, exclusive of legal fees and disbursements

incurred in connection with the within action.

Dated: New York, New York
October 17, 2022

/s/ Amy D. Carlin

Amy D. Carlin

14
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/17/2022 04:03 PM INDEX NO. 602374/2009
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 161 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/17/2022

EXHIBIT A
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/17/2022 04:03 PM INDEX NO. 602374/2009
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 161 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/17/2022

Amy Carlin

From: Allysa Nguyen
Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2011 10:50 AM
To: Amy Carlin
Subject: RE: Street Snacks, LLC v. Bridge Associates of Soho, Inc.

Allysa Nguyen
Sheldon May & Associates, P.C.
255 Merrick Road ~ Rockville Centre, New York 11570
Telephone: (516) 763 – 3200 ~ Facsimile: (516) 763 – 3243
Direct Telephone: (516) 394 – 4244 ~ Direct Facsimile: (516) 394 ‐ 4245

THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE RECIPIENT TO WHOM IT IS ADDRESSED, AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED,
CONFIDENTIAL AND EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER APPLICABLE LAW. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, OR THE EMPLOYEE OR
AGENT RESPONSIBLE FOR DELIVERING THE MESSAGE TO THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR
COPYING OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE DESTROY IT AND NOTIFY US
IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONE OR RETURN EMAIL.

Pursuant to IRS Circular 230, we hereby inform you that any U.S. federal tax advice set forth herein was not intended or written by Sheldon May & Associates, P.C. to
be used, and cannot be used, by you or any taxpayer, for the purpose of avoiding any penalties that may be imposed on you or any other person under the Internal
Revenue Code.

From: Amy Carlin [ mailto:ACarlin@lhrgb.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2011 10:45 AM
To: Allysa Nguyen
Subject: RE: Street Snacks, LLC v. Bridge Associates of Soho, I nc.

I would prefer to keep it at 20 days at this time. If and when Mr. Luckner needs additional time, we
can reach an accommodation then.



Amy D. Carlin, Esq.

The Trump Building
40 Wall Street, 32nd Floor
New York, NY 10005
Tel. ( 212) 530- 4835
Fax ( 212) 530- 4815
Email: ACARLI N@LHRGB.COM

 Please, don't print if you don't have to
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This e-mail, and any attachments hereto, is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or
confidential information.
If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this
e-mail, and any attachments hereto, is strictly prohibited.
If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify me by reply e-mail and
permanently delete the original and any copy of this e-mail and any printout thereof. Finally, while the company uses virus protection, the recipient
should check this email and any attachments for the presence of viruses.
The company accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus
transmitted by this email.

From: Allysa Nguyen [ mailto:Allysa.Nguyen@maylawfirm.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 4:20 PM
To: Amy Carlin
Subject: RE: Street Snacks, LLC v. Bridge Associates of Soho, I nc.

1
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/17/2022 04:03 PM INDEX NO. 602374/2009
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 161 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/17/2022

Can you change it to 30 days

Allysa Nguyen
Sheldon May & Associates, P.C.
255 Merrick Road ~ Rockville Centre, New York 11570
Telephone: (516) 763 – 3200 ~ Facsimile: (516) 763 – 3243
Direct Telephone: (516) 394 – 4244 ~

Case Info

Judge

Francis A. Kahn Iii Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

October 17, 2022

Case Filing Date

August 12, 2021

County

Parties

Adam D. Luckner Defendant
ANAKHU, JOY TOLULOPE Attorney for the Defendant
Bridge Associates of Soho, Inc. Defendant
CARLIN, AMY D Attorney for the Plaintiff
City of New York Defendant
John Does, numbered 1 through 25 Defendant
KAMRAN, PETER K Attorney for the Defendant
Midway Holdings Corp. Defendant
MIRRO, MICHELE Attorney for the Defendant
New York City Department of Finance Defendant
New York City Environmental Control Board Defendant
New York State District Attorney Defendant
State of New York Defendant
Sterling National Bank Defendant
Street Snacks LLC Plaintiff
York Resources LLC Defendant
THOMAS KLEINBERGER Attorneys for Defendants
THOMAS LAMBERT Attorney
HARRY KRITZER Attorney
ALLISON FURMAN Attorney
IVAN SERCHUK Attorney
JAMES ARMENAKIS Attorney
BRUCE WIENER Attorneys for Defendants
BRIAN GALLAGHER Attorneys for Defendants
DAVID FOSTER Attorneys for Defendants
ROBERT DRUMMOND Attorneys for Plaintiffs
ROBERT FRIEDMAN Attorney
AMY D'AGOSTINO Attorneys for Plaintiffs
KAMRAN KHAN Attorneys for Defendants

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties