arrow left
arrow right
  • High Line Development Llc v. Neatppon Chelsea Llc, Johnny Wooh Commercial Division document preview
  • High Line Development Llc v. Neatppon Chelsea Llc, Johnny Wooh Commercial Division document preview
						
                                

Preview

VORK OUN Kk 04 Dv INDEX NO. 654095/2019 08 40 NYSCEF BOC. NO. 22 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/08/2020 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORE COUNTY OF NEW YORE: COMMERCIAL DIVISION PART 60 oe seve x INDEX NG. SS4098/2018 HIGH LINE DEVELOPMENT LLC MOTION DATE Og iare01e Plaintiff, MOTION SEQ. NO. 001 “Ye NEATPPON CHELSEA LLG, JOHNNY WOOH DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION Defendants. HON. MARCYS. FRIEDMAN: ‘The following e-filed documents, fisted by NYSCEF document number (Motion 007) 8, 6, 7, 8, 8, 10, 11 42, 13, 14, 18, 16, 17, 18, 19, 26, 24 were read on this motion tevfor JUDGMENT - DEFAULT Plaintiff High Line Development LLC moves, pursuant to CPLR 3215, for a judgment by default against defendant Neatppon Chelsea LLC (Tenant) and defendant Johnny Wooh (Guarantor). The motion is unopposed. On Septentber 7, 2018, plaintiff and Tenant entered into a written lease agreement for a term from September 7, 2019 until January 31, 2034. Guarantor signed two guaranty agreements with plaintiff which guaranteed Tenant's obligations under the lease agreement, Tenant failed to pay the rent duc for May 2019. As a consequence, plaintiff terminated the lease on May 22, 2019 and evicted Tenant on July 17, 2019, Plaintiff now seeks judgment against Tenant and Guarantor for the amount due over the term of the Lease. Plaintiff hes failed to demonstrate the amount to which if is entitled as a result of defendants’ default under the lease and guaranty agreements. The complaint alleges rent due through January 31 2034 in the amount of $16,926,975 (Complaint, 417, NYSCEP Doo. No. 1.) whereas plaintiff's affidavit of merit claims “judgment against Tenant for all fixed rent and additional rent reserved in the Lease, said sum being $15,861,828." (Alba Aff, € 10, NYSCEF Doo. No. 6.) This disorepancy must be explained Plaintiff has also failed to file a valid non-military affidavit for defendant Guarantor. Gee 30 USC § 3931.) The process server's affidavit of service states that the process server spoke to someone at Guarantor’s residence who confirmed that Guarantor was not in military service. (Pistor Affirm., Ex. C. NYSCEF Doo. No. 16.} Process was served by “nail and mail’—a method of service inconsistent with the claim that the process server spoke with someone and inquired about Guarantor’s military service itis accordingly hereby ORDERED that the motion of plaintiff for a judgment by default against defendants is denied without prejudice to a new motion on proper papers, which shall address the above deficiencies. Such motion shall also be supported by an affidavit of merit and ape ed judgment, This constitutes the decision and order of the court. Se DATE MARCY Sc F KOS OMAN, ESC. CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED NOMINAL DISPOSITION GRANTED [x DENIED GRANTED IN PART APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORRER CHECK & APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSPERREASHGR SMGSUCIARY APPOINTRIENT [| BERERSNCE SS4SHROIS HGH LINE DEVELOPMENT LLC va. NEATPPON CHELSEA LLO Page tof 4 Motion No, O01 lof 1