Motion for Writ in Maverley Investor Group, Llc v. Lender List Llc| Trellis.Law

On March 18, 2024 a Complaint,Petition was filed involving a dispute between Maverley Investor Group, Llc, and Lender List Llc, for Commercial - Contract in the District Court of Kings County.

Preview
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/18/2024 02:42 PM INDEX NO. 507800/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/18/2024

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF KINGS
-----------------------------------------------------------------------X

MAVERLEY INVESTOR GROUP, LLC, Index No. _______________

Plaintiff, SUMMONS
PREMISES:
1017 East New York Ave,
-against- Brooklyn, New York

378 Rochester Ave,
Brooklyn, NY
LENDER LIST LLC,
33 Ford Street,
Defendant. Brooklyn, NY

----------------------------------------------------------------------X

YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED to answer the Complaint in this action and to serve a

copy of your Answer, or, if the Complaint is not served with the Summons, to serve a notice of

appearance, on the Plaintiff’s attorney within twenty (20) days after the service of this Summons,

exclusive of the day of service. If this Summons is not personally served upon you, or if this

Summons is served upon you outside of the State of New York, then your Answer or Notice of

Appearance must be served within thirty (30) days. In case of your failure to appear or answer,

judgment will be taken against you by default, for the relief demanded in the Complaint.

Plaintiff designates Kings County as Place of Trial. The basis of venue is the location of

the subject premises herein.

Dated: November 13, 2023
New York, New York Respectfully submitted,

_________________________________
Kevin S. Golding, Esq.
Attorney for Plaintiff
299 Broadway, Suite 710
New York, New York 10007
Tel: (212) 385-2417

1 of 323
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/18/2024 02:42 PM INDEX NO. 507800/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/18/2024

LIST OF DEFENDANT(S)

LENDER LIST LLC
Defendant
124-19 Metropolitan Avenue
Kew Gardens, New York 11415

2 of 323
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/18/2024 02:42 PM INDEX NO. 507800/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/18/2024

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF KINGS
-----------------------------------------------------------------------X

MAVERLEY INVESTOR GROUP, LLC, Index No. _______________

Plaintiff, VERIFIED COMPLAINT
PREMISES:
1017 East New York Ave,
-against- Brooklyn, New York

378 Rochester Ave,
Brooklyn, NY
LENDER LIST LLC,
33 Ford Street,
Defendant. Brooklyn, NY

----------------------------------------------------------------------X

COMES NOW, Plaintiff, MAVERLEY INVESTOR GROUP, LLC., by and through the

undersigned attorney, Golding & Associates, PLLC, hereby set forth and alleges upon

information and belief, as follows:

NATURE OF ACTION
1. This action manifested as a result of a breach of contract and/or agreement, as

well as fraud and other misconducts committed by the herein named Defendant, LENDER LIST

LLC (“LENDER”).

2. Plaintiff MAVERLEY INVESTOR GROUP, LLC, (herein referred to as,

“Plaintiff”, “BORROWER” and/or “MAVERLEY”) alleges, inter alia, that Defendant LENDER

violated the provisions and intent of the Mortgage and Consolidated, Amended And Restated

Promissory Note (“Loan Documents), fraudulently induced the Plaintiff to agree to an

unconscionable and usurious loan, causing a default and subsequently attempts to sell the subject

3 of 323
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/18/2024 02:42 PM INDEX NO. 507800/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/18/2024

properties at a private auction and avoid a judicial foreclosure proceedings in violation of

Plaintiff’s constitutional due process rights and applicable laws in the State of New York.

3. Plaintiff commences this action seeking recission of the agreement, contract,

and/or loan documents, for declaratory judgment that Defendant’s scheduled private auction sale

of the subject properties without undergoing any judicial foreclosure proceedings is illegal,

violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional due process rights, and for other reliefs as the Court deem

just and proper.

JURISDICTION AND PARTIES

4. At all relevant times, Plaintiff MAVERLEY INVESTOR GROUP, LLC, is a

limited liability company under the law of New York and has a place of business at c/o Lesmore

Willis, 739 Crown Steet, Brooklyn, New York 11213.

5. Plaintiff is the owner of the subject properties commonly known as 1017 East New

York Avenue, Brooklyn, New York (“1017 East Avenue”), 378 Rochester Ave, Brooklyn, NY

(“378 Rochester Ave”) and 74 Utica Avenue, Brooklyn, New York (“74 Utica Avenue”), 33

Ford Street, Brooklyn, NY (“33 Ford Street”), and East New York Avenue, Brooklyn, New York

(“vacant lot”) (collectively referred to as, “properties”, “premises” and/or “Subject Properties”),

6. Upon information and belief, Defendant LENDER LIST LLC is a limited liability

company and has a place of business at 124-19 Metropolitan Avenue Kew Gardens, New York

11415

7. The transactions and events which are the subject matter of this Complaint all

occurred within the County of Kings, State of New York.

8. Plaintiff further states that the Court has jurisdiction over this action.

4 of 323
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/18/2024 02:42 PM INDEX NO. 507800/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/18/2024

9. Venue is proper pursuant to CPLR § 507 which provides: “The place of trial of an

action in which the judgment demanded would affect the title to, or the possession, use or

enjoyment of, real property shall be in the county in which any part of the subject of the action is

situated.”

10. The Subject Properties are situated in and under the jurisdiction of the Supreme

Court of the County of Kings.

11. The Subject Properties cover Block 1420, Lots: 33, 34, 36, 37 and 41, situated

within the State of New York, County of Kings, Borough of Brooklyn.

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS

12. Plaintiff repeats and reiterates the foregoing allegations as fully set forth herein.

13. On December 20, 2019, Plaintiff executed a promissory Note in the amount of One

Million Five Hundred dollars ($1,500,000.00) secured by a Mortgage made in favor of Columbia

Capital Co. (“First Mortgage”). A copy of the First Mortgages is annexed hereto as Exhibit “A”.

14. The First Mortgage covered Block 1420, Lots: 33, 34, 36, 37 and 41, with

addresses at 33 Ford Street, Brooklyn, NY, 378 Rochester Ave., Brooklyn, NY, 1017 East New

York Ave., Brooklyn, NY and well a vacant lot (Lot: 41) (see Exhibit “A”).

15. The public record within the Office of the City Register of the City of New York

shows that the First Mortgage underwent multiple assignments to several entities as follows:

a. July 8, 2020, the Mortgage was assigned from Rudolf Kats d/b/a Columbia

Capital Co. to Patriot Bank, N.A.;

b. April 30, 2021, the Mortgage was assigned from Patriot Bank, N.A. to Rudolf

Kats d/b/a Columbia Capital Co.;

5 of 323
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/18/2024 02:42 PM INDEX NO. 507800/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/18/2024

c. August 18, 2021, the Mortgage was assigned from Rudolf Kats d/b/a Columbia

Capital Co., to Columbia Capital II Inc.,

d. March 23, 2022, the Mortgage was assigned from Columbia Capital II Inc., to

LENDER.

16. Prior to the March 23, 2022 assignment of the First Mortgage, Columbia Capital II

Inc. commenced a foreclosure action against the Plaintiff in the Supreme Court, Kings County

under Index No. 522888/2021 (“foreclosure action).

17. On or around early 2022, the Plaintiff sought to refinance the mortgage loan to the

Subject Properties upon reliance of LENDER and/or its agent’s representation that Plaintiff

would acquire the equity interest that had accrued within the properties and that the pending

foreclosure action would be resolved.

18. Upon reliance of LENDER and/or its agent’s representation that Plaintiff would

acquire the equity interest if Plaintiff refinanced the First Mortgage loan, Plaintiff anticipated and

expected to receive the difference of approximately $200,000.00 in equity interests, at the

closing of the loan and after all relevant closing cost were paid.

19. On March 23, 2022, Plaintiff, refinanced the First Mortgage loan for the Subject

Properties with a new mortgage loan in favor of LENDER, with a 1-year loan term or a maturity

date of March 23, 2023.

20. To memorialize the refinancing transaction, Plaintiff executed a GAP Mortgage

dated March 23, 2022 (“Second Mortgage” or “GAP Mortgage”) in the amount of $1,100,000.00

covering the Subject Properties, along with a Consolidation, Extension, and Modification of

Mortgage and Security Agreement dated March 23, 2022 (“CEMA”), and a Consolidated,

Amended and Restated Promissory Note dated March 23, 2022 (“Agreement”, “Note” and/or

6 of 323
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/18/2024 02:42 PM INDEX NO. 507800/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/18/2024

“Consolidated Note”) in the amount of $2,600,000.00 and in favor of Defendant LENDER.

Copies of the GAP Mortgage, CEMA, and Note (collectively, “Loan Documents”) are annexed

hereto as Exhibits “B”, “C” and “D”, respectively.

21. The CEMA consolidated the First Mortgage in the amount of $1,500,000.00, with

the Second Mortgage (GAP Mortgage) in the amount of $1,100,000.00, thereby totaling the loan

amount to $2,600,00.00.

22. Instead of remitting the Plaintiff’s equity interest of $200,000.00 at the closing of

the loan, LENDER used the equity interest and unilaterally applied it to the first 12 months of

mortgage installment payments towards the Consolidated Note at the closing.

23. Plaintiff was unaware and did not agree to the LENDER’s actions in unilaterally

prepaying 12 months of mortgage installment at the closing using Plaintiff’s equity interest.

24. Prior to the closing, LENDER did not explain to the Plaintiff that the intent of the

CEMA and/or Consolidated Note stipulates such action of using the equity interest to pay the 12

months of the mortgage installment upon closing.

25. The written terms of the CEMA or Consolidated Note did not authorize LENDER

to unilaterally apply, use, appropriate the Plaintiff’s equity interest in the properties to pay the 12

months of the mortgage installment upon closing.

26. Had the LENDER explained the intent of the CEMA and/or Consolidated Note or

that the CEMA and/or Consolidated Note contained such terms or stipulation, Plaintiff would not

have refinanced the mortgage loan and would have elected to use its equity differently.

27. At all relevant times during the closing of the loan, LENDER and/or its agents

took excessive commission for the loan, further eroding Plaintiff’s equity in the properties.

7 of 323
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/18/2024 02:42 PM INDEX NO. 507800/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/18/2024

28. At all relevant times during the closing of the loan, LENDER and/or its agents

took additional fees exacted creatively through loan instruments.

29. The Consolidated Note failed to specify the monthly amount owed by Plaintiff and

due to LENDER after the first 12 months of prepaid installments.

30. On April 6, 2022, LENDER filed a UCC-1 Financial Statement against the Subject

Properties, and listed Plaintiff as the debtor, and LENDER as secured party. A copy of the UCC-

1 Financial Statement filings is annexed hereto as Exhibit “E”.

31. In or around March of 2023, Plaintiff defaulted on the loan and sought a 3-month

extension from LENDER so that it can get current on the loan.

32. At all times relevant, Plaintiff also requested a payoff of the loan from the

LENDER.

33. LENDER refused to provide the Plaintiff with a payoff, despite Plaintiff’s due

diligent request.

34. Instead, LENDER scheduled a private auction sale of the Subject Properties for

November 16, 2023, in an attempt to avoid or circumvent a judicial foreclosure proceeding. A

copy of the Notice of Sale is annexed hereto as Exhibit “F”.

35. LENDER breached the terms of the loan documents (e.g., CEMA, Consolidated

Note), deprived Plaintiff of its equity interest in the properties, and unilaterally used the equity

interest to pay the 12 months of the mortgage installment upon closing, outside the four corners

of the parties agreements (e.g., CEMA, Consolidated Note).

36. To the extent that the loan documents (e.g., CEMA, Consolidated Note) provides

that the equity interest be used to pay the 12 months of the mortgage installment upon closing,

8 of 323
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/18/2024 02:42 PM INDEX NO. 507800/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/18/2024

LENDER fraudulently induced the Plaintiff to agree to the terms of the CEMA and Consolidated

Note which is unconscionable.

37. LENDER attempts to circumvent the judicial foreclosure process and instead,

scheduled a private auction sale of the Subject Properties.

38. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law and calls upon the equity jurisdiction of

this Court for a fair and just resolution.

AS FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
BREACH OF AGREEMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT

39. Plaintiff repeats and reiterates the foregoing allegations as fully set forth herein

with the same force and effect.

40. LENDER is liable to Plaintiff for breach of contract (e.g., CEMA, Consolidated

Note).

41. The parties entered into a Second Mortgage (GAP Mortgage) in the amount of

$1,100,000.00, a CEMA consolidating the First Mortgage with the Second Mortgage in the

amount of $2,600,000.00 for the consolidated loan, as evidenced by the Consolidated Note.

42. With the consolidated loan, Plaintiff anticipated and expected to receive a

difference of approximately $200,000.00 in equity interests, at the closing of the loan.

43. LENDER used the equity interest and unilaterally applied it to the first 12 months

of mortgage installment at the closing.

44. Under the clear and unambiguous terms of the Loan Documents, it does not

provide for LENDER to unilaterally use the equity interest to pay the 12 months of mortgage

installment payments at the closing.

9 of 323
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/18/2024 02:42 PM INDEX NO. 507800/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/18/2024

45. LENDER breached the agreement and the Loan Documents by not remitting the

expected equity interests to the Plaintiff pursuant to the reliance and representation made by

LENDER and/or its agents, that Plaintiff would acquire the equity interest of approximately

$200,000.00 that accrued within the properties from the refinance of the mortgage loan in 2022.

46. By applying the Plaintiff’s equity proceeds from the refinance to prepay the first

12 months of prepaid installments, LENDER “handcuffed” and precluded the Plaintiff from

obtaining future refinance of the $2,600,000 loan with banking institutions.

47. LENDER also knew and should have known that the Plaintiff would need records

of a proper payment history should the Plaintiff elect to relieve itself from the loan obligation

with LENDER by further refinancing the loan in the future with another lending institution.

48. Plaintiff requested a payoff of the loan pursuant to the Loan Documents, but

LENDER refused to honor its contractual obligation to promptly provide Plaintiff with the same.

49. LENDER’s breach deprived Plaintiff of the expected benefits and or equity

interest pursuant to the parties agreement.

50. Plaintiff is in compliance with all the duties imposed upon Plaintiff under the

Loan Documents.

51. As a result of LENDER’s breach of the agreement, Plaintiff has been damaged in

the amount of $200,000.00 in equity interests and has been obligated to retain the undersigned

attorney to bring this action.

52. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law and requests the Court to compel the

LENDER to abide with their duties and obligations.

10 of 323
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/18/2024 02:42 PM INDEX NO. 507800/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/18/2024

AS FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT

53. Plaintiff repeats and reiterates the foregoing allegations as fully set forth herein

with the same force and effect.

54. LENDER fraudulently induced Plaintiff to agree to the terms of the CEMA and

Consolidated Note without explaining the terms of the Loan Documents, which is

unconscionable.

55. To the extent that the loan documents (e.g., CEMA, Consolidated Note) provides

that the equity interest be used to pay the 12 months of the mortgage installment upon closing,

LENDER fraudulently induced the Plaintiff to agree to the terms of the CEMA and Consolidated

Note which is unconscionable.

56. LENDER represented to Plaintiff that with the CEMA, the Second Mortgage, and

Consolidated Note it would receive an amount as difference in equity interests from the

appreciation of value of the Subject Properties.

57. Plaintiff was not made aware that the CEMA, the Second Mortgage, and

Consolidated Note will result to the Plaintiff not receiving any equity interest and that LENDER

will utilize the proceeds to pay 12 months of mortgage installment payments at the closing.

58. Plaintiff was included to sign the Loan Documents upon the false representations

of LENDER.

59. Plaintiff had no knowledge, record or information sufficient to form a belief about

the full detail and/or contents of the Loan Documents to which the LENDER induced Plaintiff to

sign and enter into.

11 of 323
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/18/2024 02:42 PM INDEX NO. 507800/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/18/2024

60. Upon Plaintiff’s default on the loan, Plaintiff sought a 3-month extension to get

current with the loan.

61. Plaintiff further requested a payoff of the loan from LENDER, however,

LENDER refused to provide Plaintiff’s request.

62. Had LENDER properly represented to Plaintiff that it would not receive any

equity interest by entering into the CEMA or any loan modification thereafter, Plaintiff would

not have refinanced the mortgage loan and would have elected to use its equity differently to its

benefit.

63. As a result of LENDER’s actions, Plaintiff has been damaged in the amount of

$200,000.00 in lost equity interest and has been obligated to retain the undersigned attorney to

bring this action.

64. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law and therefore calls upon the equity

jurisdiction of this Court for a fair and just resolution.

AS FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
RECISSION OF THE AGREEMENT AND THE LOAN DOCUMENTS

65. Plaintiff repeats and reiterates the foregoing allegations as fully set forth herein

with the same force and effect.

66. As discussed in the foregoing paragraphs, LENDER fraudulently induced Plaintiff

to agree to the terms of the CEMA and Consolidated Note without explaining the terms of the

Loan Documents, which is unconscionable.

67. Additionally, Plaintiff did not receive any equity interest or consideration from

the refinancing due to the appreciation of value of the Subject Properties.

12 of 323
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/18/2024 02:42 PM INDEX NO. 507800/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/18/2024

68. Had LENDER properly represented to Plaintiff that it would not receive any

equity interest by entering into the CEMA or any loan modification thereafter, Plaintiff would

not have refinanced the mortgage loan and would have elected to use its equity differently.

69. Moreover, LENDER’s breach of the Agreement and the Loan Documents by not

paying the Plaintiff/ BORROWER of the expected equity interests pursuant to the Agreement

and the Loan Documents, constitute non-performance of the agreement.

70. Such breach of the Agreement and the Loan Documents substantially defeats the

purpose of the refinancing.

71. As a result of LENDER’s actions, Plaintiff has been damaged and has been

obligated to retain the undersigned attorney to bring this action.

72. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law and therefore calls upon the equity

jurisdiction of this Court for a fair and just resolution.

AS FOR A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
CRIMINAL USURY AGAINST DEFENDANT

73. Plaintiff repeats and reiterates the foregoing allegations as fully set forth herein

with the same force and effect.

74. A 25% interest rate cap set forth in Penal Law § 190.40 — incorporated by

reference in General Obligations Law § 5-521 (3) — applies to a loan to a corporation and the

interest charged on the loan exceeds that cap.

75. General Obligations Law and Banking Law provide that the maximum rate of

interest upon a "loan or forbearance of any money, goods, or things" shall be 16% per annum

unless otherwise provided by law (General Obligations Law § 5-501 [1]; see Banking Law § 14-

13 of 323
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/18/2024 02:42 PM INDEX NO. 507800/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/18/2024

a [1]), and "[n]o person or corporation shall, directly or indirectly, charge, take or receive any

money, goods or things in action as interest" at a rate exceeding 16% (General Obligations Law

§ 5-501 [2]).

76. In addition, a lender commits a class E felony when, without other legal

authorization, the lender "knowingly charges, takes or receives any money or other property as

interest on the loan or forbearance of any money or other property, at a rate exceeding [25%] per

annum or the equivalent rate for a longer or shorter period" (Penal Law § 190.40).

77. Any loan that reserves or takes any greater interest "than is prescribed in section

5-501"—the civil usury prohibition (16%)—"shall be void" (unless the lender is a bank or loan

association, which will be held to have forfeited all interest on the loan) (General Obligations

Law § 5-511 [1]).

78. Under General Obligations Law § 5-521 (1), the defense of usury is not available

to corporations, but this bar does not preclude a corporate borrower from raising the defense of

"criminal usury" (i.e., interest over 25%) in a civil action (see id. § 5-521 [3]), as occurred here.

79. Plaintiff alleged that LENDER committed fraud by intentionally obviating the

usury law in an attempt to be unjustly enriched at the expense of Plaintiff.

80. LENDER breached the agreement and the Loan Documents by not remitting the

expected equity interests to the Plaintiff pursuant to the reliance and representation made by

LENDER and/or its agents, that Plaintiff would acquire the equity interest of approximately

$200,000.00 that accrued within the properties from the refinance of the mortgage loan in 2022.

81. By applying the Plaintiff’s equity proceeds from the refinance to prepay the first

12 months of prepaid installments, LENDER “handcuffed” and precluded the Plaintiff from

obtaining future refinance of the $2,600,000 loan with banking institutions.

14 of 323
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/18/2024 02:42 PM INDEX NO. 507800/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/18/2024

82. LENDER also knew and should have known that the Plaintiff would need records

of a proper payment history should the Plaintiff elect to relieve itself from the loan obligation

with LENDER by further refinancing the loan in the future with another lending institution.

83. At all relevant times during the closing of the loan, LENDER and/or its agents

took excessive commission for the loan, further eroding Plaintiff’s equity in the properties.

84. At all relevant times during the closing of the loan, LENDER and/or its agents

took additional fees exacted creatively through loan instruments.

85. Said commission and additional fees should properly be included as a

component of interest and declared the transaction void as usurious.

86. At all relevant times, LENDER intentionally failed to disclose the true interest

rate on the Consolidated Note that is more than what is legally allowed.

87. At all relevant times, LENDER concealed the usury and accomplished this

purpose by indirect methods.

88. Plaintiff relied on LENDER's representation that the loan was in compliance with

New York usury law.

89. As a direct cause of LENDER’s fraud, Plaintiff paid thousands of dollars in

excess of the 16% and 25% interest rates, along with subsequent late fees associated with the

loan, among other things.

90. To the extent that Plaintiff establishes at trial that a usury claim, the usurious loan

transaction is deemed void and unenforceable, resulting in the uncollectability of both principal

and interest.

91. Plaintiff demands judgment in an amount to be determined by the Court at trial.

15 of 323
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/18/2024 02:42 PM INDEX NO. 507800/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/18/2024

AS FOR A FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT

92. Plaintiff repeats and reiterates the foregoing allegations as fully set forth herein

with the same force and effect.

93. A 25% interest rate cap set forth in Penal Law § 190.40 — incorporated by

reference in General Obligations Law § 5-521 (3) — applies to a loan to a corporation and the

interest charged on the loan exceeds that cap.

94. General Obligations Law and Banking Law provide that the maximum rate of

interest upon a "loan or forbearance of any money, goods, or things" shall be 16% per annum

unless otherwise provided by law (General Obligations Law § 5-501 [1]; see Banking Law § 14-

a [1]), and "[n]o person or corporation shall, directly or indirectly, charge, take or receive any

money, goods or things in action as interest" at a rate exceeding 16% (General Obligations Law

§ 5-501 [2]).

95. In addition, a lender commits a class E felony when, without other legal

authorization, the lender "knowingly charges, takes or receives any money or other property as

interest on the loan or forbearance of any money or other property, at a rate exceeding [25%] per

annum or the equivalent rate for a longer or shorter period" (Penal Law § 190.40).

96. Any loan that reserves or takes any greater interest "than is prescribed in section

5-501"—the civil usury prohibition (16%)—"shall be void" (unless the lender is a bank or loan

association, which will be held to have forfeited all interest on the loan) (General Obligations

Law § 5-511 [1]).

97. Under General Obligations Law § 5-521 (1), the defense of usury is not available

to corporations, but this bar does not preclude a corporate borrower from raising the defense of

"criminal usury" (i.e., interest over 25%) in a civil action (see id. § 5-521 [3]), as occurred here.

16 of 323
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/18/2024 02:42 PM INDEX NO. 507800/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/18/2024

98. By applying the Plaintiff’s equity proceeds from the refinance to prepay the first

12 months of prepaid installments, LENDER “handcuffed” and precluded the Plaintiff from

obtaining future refinance of the $2,600,000 loan with banking institutions.

99. LENDER also knew and should have known that the Plaintiff would need records

of a proper payment history should the Plaintiff elect to relieve itself from the loan obligation

with LENDER by further refinancing the loan in the future with another lending institution.

100. At all relevant times during the closing of the loan, LENDER and/or its agents

took excessive commission for the loan, further eroding Plaintiff’s equity in the properties.

101. At all relevant times during the closing of the loan, LENDER and/or its agents

took additional fees exacted creatively through loan instruments.

102. Said commission and additional fees should properly be included as a

component of interest and declared the transaction void as usurious.

103. At all relevant times, LENDER intentionally failed to disclose the true interest

rate on the Consolidated Note that is more than what is legally allowed.

104. At all relevant times, LENDER concealed the usury and accomplished this

purpose by indirect methods.

105. Plaintiff relied on LENDER's representation that the loan was in compliance with

New York usury law.

106. As a direct cause of LENDER’s fraud, Plaintiff paid thousands of dollars in

excess of the 16% and 25% interest rates, along with subsequent late fees associated with the

loan, among other things.

17 of 323
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/18/2024 02:42 PM INDEX NO. 507800/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/18/2024

107. Plaintiff alleged that LENDER intentionally obviated the foreclosure process in

an attempt to obviate Plaintiff’s usury defense and to be unjustly enriched at the expense of

Plaintiff.

108. To the extent that Plaintiff establishes at trial that a usury claim, the usurious loan

transaction would be deemed void and unenforceable, resulting in the uncollectability of both

principal and interest.

109. Upon Plaintiff’s default of the Second Mortgage and the Loan Documents,

LENDER unilaterally scheduled a private auction sale of the Subject Properties for November

16, 2023.

110. That LENDER attempts to circumvent the judicial foreclosure process to avoid

certain rights afforded to corporation for affirmative relief. See Paycation Travel, Inc. v. Glob.

Merch. Cash, Inc., 141 N.Y.S.3d 319, 320 (2d Dept. 2021) (“General Obligations Law § 5-521

bars a corporation such as the plaintiff from asserting usury in any action, except in the case of

criminal usury as defined in [ ] § 190.40, and then only as a defense to an action to recover

repayment of a loan, and not as a basis for a cause of action asserted by the corporation for

affirmative relief.”) (emphasis added).

111. Plaintiff seeks a declaratory Judgment that the scheduled private auction sale is in

violation of the Plaintiff’s constitutional right to due process as well as applicable New York

laws and/or the mortgage contract(s).

112. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law and therefore calls upon the equity

jurisdiction of this Court for a fair and just resolution.

18 of 323
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/18/2024 02:42 PM INDEX NO. 507800/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/18/2024

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff/ BORROWER respectfully demand that Judgment against the

Defendant/LENDER as follows:

a. On the First Cause of Action for breach of agreement, Plaintiff seeks an Order

from the Court to compel the Defendant to perform its obligations pursuant to the

Loan Documents;

b. On the Second Cause of Action for fraudulent inducement, Plaintiff seek actual,

compensatory, consequential, and exemplary damages at trial in an amount no

less than $200,000.00;

c. On the Third Cause of Action, Plaintiff seeks an Order rescinding the loan

documents (e.g., CEMA, Consolidated Note), so that the status quo be restored;

d. On the Fourth Cause of Action, Plaintiff seeks an Order voiding the loan and

rending the Consolidated Note unenforceable, resulting in the uncollectability of

both principal and interest;

e. On the Fifth Cause of Action, Plaintiff seeks an Order declaring that the

scheduled private auction sale is in violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional due

process right and applicable New York laws and/or the mortgage contract(s); and

f. For other relief as this court may deem fair and proper.

Dated: November 13, 2023
New York, New York Respectfully submitted,

_________________________________
Kevin S. Golding, Esq.
Attorney for Plaintiff
299 Broadway, Suite 710
New York, New York 10007
Tel: (212) 385-2417

19 of 323
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/18/2024 02:42 PM INDEX NO. 507800/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/18/2024

VERIFICATION

STATE OF NEW YORK )

: Ss.:

COUNTY OF
-

)

w6 e Plaintiff named, deposes and says:
ff

I have read the
foregoing SUMMONS and COMPLAINT and know the contents

thereof. The same is true to
my knowledge except those matters stated upon information and

belief and as to those matters, I believe them to be true. The grounds of my belief as to matters

not stated upon my knowledge are statements or documents m my possession.

Managing Member of Plaintiff,

MAVERLEY INVESTOR GROUP, LLC

Sworn to before me this

of 2[f__2023
day

NO Y PUBLI

Errol Rol>inson
Public, State of New York
Notary
Registration #01R05060473

Qualified in Queens Coun

Commission Expires Nov. 4
My

20 of 323
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/18/2024 02:42 PM INDEX NO. 507800/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/18/2024

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF KINGS

MAVERLEY INVESTOR GROUP, LLC,
INDEX NO. _______________
Plaintiff,

-against-

LENDER LIST LLC,

Defendant(s).

SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT

Kevin S. Golding, Esq.
Golding & Associates, PLLC
Attorney for Plaintiff
299 Broadway, Suite 710
New York, New York 10007
Tel: (212) 385-2417

To the best of the undersigned’s knowledge, information and belief, formed after an inquiry
reasonable under the circumstances, the within documents and contentions therein are not
frivolous as defined in 22 NYCRR § 130-1.1a.

Dated: November 13, 2023
New York, New York

___________________
Kevin S. Golding , Esq.

21 of 323
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/18/2024 02:42 PM INDEX NO. 507800/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/18/2024

EXHIBIT ÒAÓ

22 of 323
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/18/2024 02:42 PM INDEX NO. 507800/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEI

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

Complaint,Petition: Maverley Investor Group, Llc v. Lender List Llc

Preview

Case Info

Parties

Complaint,Petition: Maverley Investor Group, Llc v. Lender List Llc

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties