• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All
Active Filters1
144 results

ONH 14 53RD ST, LLC et al v. CAPSTONE EQUITIES et al

Docket 501640/2023, New York State, Kings County, Supreme Court (Jan. 17, 2023)
Reginald Boddie, presiding
Case TypeCommercial Division
TagsCommercial Division, Commercial, Civil
Deadline01JA6029931 QUALIFIED IN NASSAU COUNTY COMMISSION EXPIRES AUGUST 30, 2025 Executive Attorney Service, Inc.
Plaintiff - Petitioner ONH 14 53RD ST, LLC
Plaintiff - Petitioner ONH 14 53rd ST MEZZ, LLC
Defendant - Respondent CAPSTONE EQUITIES
...
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

NOTICE OF APPEAL

Document ONH 14 53RD ST, LLC et al v. CAPSTONE EQUITIES et al, 501640/2023, 143 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Kings County Feb. 9, 2024)
Plaintiffs explained that, as a result of the UCC sale, the ability of Borrower andMezzto proceed with this case was potentially extinguished as their interest in the collateral was foreclosed upon.
Discussion As a preliminary matter, the Previous Decision did not pass on the issue of whether One Night possessed standing to prosecute this action for the reasons set forth in Defendants' reply memorandum.
New York courts have treated standing as a common-law concept, requiring that the litigant have something truly at stake in a genuine controversy (see Saratoga County Chamber of Commerce v Pataki, 100 NY2d 801, 813 [2003]).
"The existence of an injury in fact -- an actual legal stake in the matter being adjudicated -- ensures that the party seeking review has some concrete interest in prosecuting the action which casts the dispute 'in a form traditionally capable of judicial resolution"' (Society of Plastics Indus.
If this form is to be filed with the notice of petition or order to show cause by which a special proceeding is to be commenced in the Appellate Division, only the name of the attorney for the petitioner need be provided.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

ORDER - OTHER

Document ONH 14 53RD ST, LLC et al v. CAPSTONE EQUITIES et al, 501640/2023, 142 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Kings County Feb. 2, 2024)
At an IAS Term Commercial Part 12 of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, held in and for the County of Kings, at the Courthouse, located at 360 Adams Street, Borough of Brooklyn, Cify and State ofNew York on the 2nd day ofFebruary 2024.
Index No. 50164012023 Cal.
No Order
JOSHUA ZAMIR, and 14 53rd STREET LLC, Defendants After a conference held today, it is hereby ordered as follows: This matter is marked discontinued.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

ORDER - OTHER

Document ONH 14 53RD ST, LLC et al v. CAPSTONE EQUITIES et al, 501640/2023, 140 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Kings County Jan. 19, 2024)
Plaintiffs explained that, as a result of the UCC sale, the ability of Borrower andMezzto proceed with this case was potentially extinguished as their interest in the collateral was foreclosed upon.
Defendants submit that plaintiffs' complaint lacks the requisite allegations of egregious conduct or moral turpitude necessary to support punitive damages.
Discussion As a preliminary matter, the Previous Decision did not pass on the issue of whether One Night possessed standing to prosecute this action for the reasons set forth in Defendants' reply memorandum.
New York courts have treated standing as a common-law concept, requiring that the litigant have something truly at stake in a genuine controversy (see Saratoga County Chamber of Commerce v Pataki, 100 NY2d 801, 813 [2003]).
"The existence of an injury in fact -- an actual legal stake in the matter being adjudicated -- ensures that the party seeking review has some concrete interest in prosecuting the action which casts the dispute 'in a form traditionally capable of judicial resolution"' (Society of Plastics Indus.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

NOTICE OF ENTRY

Document ONH 14 53RD ST, LLC et al v. CAPSTONE EQUITIES et al, 501640/2023, 141 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Kings County Jan. 19, 2024)
Plaintiffs explained that, as a result of the UCC sale, the ability of Borrower andMezzto proceed with this case was potentially extinguished as their interest in the collateral was foreclosed upon.
In opposition, plaintiffs argue that the court already determined that One Night has a sufficient stake in this action, as the beneficial owner of ONH, to participate as a party.
Discussion As a preliminary matter, the Previous Decision did not pass on the issue of whether One Night possessed standing to prosecute this action for the reasons set forth in Defendants' reply memorandum.
New York courts have treated standing as a common-law concept, requiring that the litigant have something truly at stake in a genuine controversy (see Saratoga County Chamber of Commerce v Pataki, 100 NY2d 801, 813 [2003]).
"The existence of an injury in fact -- an actual legal stake in the matter being adjudicated -- ensures that the party seeking review has some concrete interest in prosecuting the action which casts the dispute 'in a form traditionally capable of judicial resolution"' (Society of Plastics Indus.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

ORDER - OTHER

Document ONH 14 53RD ST, LLC et al v. CAPSTONE EQUITIES et al, 501640/2023, 139 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Kings County Dec. 14, 2023)
At an IAS Commercial Part 12 of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, held in and for the County of Kings, at the Courthouse, located at 360 Adams Street, Borough of Brooklyn, City and State of New York on the 14th day of December 2023.
Index No. 50164012023 Cal.
No. 15 MS 6 Order
Defendants.
The court sua sponte adjourns motion sequence six to January 18,2024 as the motion was not timely briefed in accordance with the undersigned's part rules.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

EXHIBIT(S)

Document ONH 14 53RD ST, LLC et al v. CAPSTONE EQUITIES et al, 501640/2023, 135 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Kings County Dec. 7, 2023)
At an IAS Commercial Part12 of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, held in and for the County of Kings, at the Courthouse, located at 360 Adams Street, Borough of Brooklyn, City and State of New York on the 26th day of October 2023. ,x Index No. 50164012023 Cal.
Honorable Reginald A. Boddie Justice, Supreme Court ONH 14 53RD ST, LLC, and
NYSCEF Doc Nos. 97 -tt5 Upon the foregoing papers, the motion by proposed intervenor, One Night Holdings LLC ("One Night"), the beneficial owner of plaintiffs, ONH 14 53rd ST, LLC, and ONH 14 53rd ST MEZZ, LLC, to intervene as a plaintiff in this action and to amend the caption to reflect same is GRANTED pursuant to CPLR l0l2(a)(2) and the caption is hereby amended to reflect: [intentionally left blank]
JOSHUA ZAMIR, and 14 53rd STREET LLC, Defendants.
Having granted One Night's motion to intervene, any previously granted temporary stay is hereby lifted.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

EXHIBIT(S)

Document ONH 14 53RD ST, LLC et al v. CAPSTONE EQUITIES et al, 501640/2023, 131 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Kings County Dec. 7, 2023)
Exhibit 1 At an IAS Commercial Part 12 ofthe Supreme Court ofthe State ofNew York, hetd in and for the County of Kings, at the Courthouse, located at 360 Adams Street, Borough ofBrooklyn, City and State ofNew York on the l Sth day of May 2023.
Based on the TPG Decision's dismissal of plaintiffs' complaint and the reasons stated therein for such dismissal, plaintiffs' claims for tortious interference with contract and permanent injunctive relief against defendants, Capstone Equities and Joshua Zamir ("Capstone Defendants"), are unsustainable.
According to the complaint, the $20 miltion in damages represents the monies plaintiffs would have saved under the loan purchase agreement with TPG RE Finance 2, Ltd. C'TPG), the lender for plaintiffs' notes on the Whale and the defendant in the TPG Action, had the loan purchase agreement closed.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Capstone Defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' claims for unfair competition is denied at this juncture.
Moreover, an action to recover for unjust enrichment sounds in restitution I To sustain a claim for unfair competition, plaintiffs must show that the defendants misappropriated the plaintiffs' labors, skills, expenditures, or good will and displayed some element of bad faith in doing so (see Parekh v Cain,96 AD3d 812, 816 [2d Dept 2012]).
cite Cite Document
Analyze
1 2 3 4 5 ... 9 10 11 >>