The opinion
Battery Park City Auth. v Pier A Battery Park Assoc.,
LLC
2025 NY Slip Op 31719(U)
May 12, 2025
Supreme Court, New York County
Docket Number: Index No. 156217/202
Judge: Lyle E. Frank
Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip
Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York
State and local government sources, including the New
York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service.
This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official
publication.
INDEX NO. 156217/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 230 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/12/2025
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
PRESENT: HON. LYLE E. FRANK PART 11M
Justice
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X INDEX NO. 156217/2022
BATTERY PARK CITY AUTHORITY D/B/A THE HUGH L.
CAREY BATTERY PARK CITY AUTHORITY, 01/17/2025,
MOTION DATE 01/18/2025
Plaintiff,
MOTION SEQ. NO. 009 010
-v-
PIER A BATTERY PARK ASSOCIATES, LLC,PAUL
LAMAS, PETER POULAKAKOS, NEW YORK CITY DECISION + ORDER ON
WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT FUND II, LLC MOTION
Defendant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 009) 191, 192, 193, 194,
195, 196, 197, 205, 207, 208, 209, 210, 217, 218, 219, 220
were read on this motion to/for RENEW/REARGUE/RESETTLE/RECONSIDER .
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 010) 198, 199, 200, 201,
206, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216
were read on this motion to/for RENEWAL .
Upon the foregoing documents, the defendants’ motions are denied.
Background
This is a commercial landlord-tenant case centered on a historic building located on Pier
A at 22 Battery Place. The building in question is owned by New York City and had been leased
to Pier A Battery Park Associates, LLC (“Tenant”) under an agreement with the Battery Park
City Authority (“BPCA”). Paul Lamas and Peter Poulakakos (collectively, the “Guarantors”,
together with the Tenant “Defendants”) signed a Good Guy Guaranty agreement in favor of the
BPCA. Tenant granted New York City Waterfront Development Fund II, LLC (the “Fund”) a
security interest in its leasehold estate. The Fund also loaned the BPCA $16.5 million related to
the proposed redevelopment of Pier A. In April of 2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic,
156217/2022 BATTERY PARK CITY AUTHORITY D/B/A THE HUGH L. CAREY BATTERY PARK Page 1 of 4
CITY AUTHORITY vs. PIER A BATTERY PARK ASSOCIATES, LLC ET AL
Motion No. 009 010
1 of 4
[* 1]
INDEX NO. 156217/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 230 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/12/2025
Tenant sent a letter to BPCA and the Fund claiming to have permanently closed its business and
operations in the Pier A building. In July, Tenant’s counsel sent a letter to the BPCA stating that
the April letter constituted formal notice that the leasehold was surrendered. This purported
surrender was rejected by both the BPCA and the Fund.
In July of 2022, the BPCA filed this underlying suit, asserting claims of breach of the
lease and seeking eviction and a declaratory judgment that the lease had been terminated based
on Tenant’s default under the lease. They also sought to hold the Guarantors liable under the
guaranty. Then in March of 2024, the Fund moved to substitute itself as plaintiff in this matter,
on the grounds that the BPCA had assigned their rights regarding several of the claims in this
proceeding to them on January 03, 2024 (the “Assignment”). This motion was granted. Related
to the Assignment is a Settlement Agreement between the BPCA and the Fund, which has been
partially disclosed. As part of this Settlement Agreement, the BPCA made a payment of $1.4
million dollars to the Fund alongside the assignment of certain of their claims against the Tenant
and Guarantors in this action.
Standard of Review
A party may bring a motion to renew pursuant if it is “based upon new facts not offered
on the prior motion that would change the prior determination” or if it can demonstrate that
“there has been a change in the law that would change the prior determination.” CPLR
§ 2221(e)(2). When bringing a motion to renew based upon new facts, the movant must show
“reasonable justification for the failure to present such facts on the prior motion.” CPLR
§ 2221(e)(3). Renewal is meant to be “granted sparingly” and the moving party must show that
they did not fail to exercise due diligence. Perretta v. New York City Tr. Auth., 230 A.D.3d 428,
432 (1st Dept. 2024). A motion to renew “must be based upon additional material facts which
156217/2022 BATTERY PARK CITY AUTHORITY D/B/A THE HUGH L. CAREY BATTERY PARK Page 2 of 4
CITY AUTHORITY vs. PIER A BATTERY PARK ASSOCIATES, LLC ET AL
Motion No. 009 010
2 of 4
[* 2]
INDEX NO. 156217/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 230 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/12/2025
existed at the time the prior motion was made, but were not then known to the party seeking
leave to renew.” Venuti v. Novelli, 179 A.D.2d 477, 478 (1st Dept. 1992).
Discussion
In these two motions, the Defendants seek to renew their opposition to the motion filed
by the Fund to substitute itself for the BPCA in this action based on the Assignment. The new
facts offered concern the Settlement Agreement and BPCA Board minutes, which did not
become available until after the deadline for opposition on the original motion to substitute.
Defendants argue that the Assignment is invalid because it was not approved by the BPCA
Board, pointing to the public meeting minutes that do not specifically address any discussion of
the Assignment. The Fund opposes and argues that Board approval for the Settlement Agreement
was not needed, that Defendants have not shown that regardless of such a requirement, Board
approval of the two agreements was not granted. They also point out that in the months leading
up to the Assignment and Settlement Agreement the Board entered into two privileged executive
sessions to discuss all pending litigation and that the BPCA has consistently maintained
throughout this proceeding that the settlement was authorized.
The Assignment was signed by the then-General Counsel for the BPCA, Ms. Goldenberg,
who is authorized to sign instruments and manage litigation on behalf of the BPCA. There is an
affirmation from the current Acting General Counsel for the BPCA that states that Ms.
Goldenberg was authorized by the BPCA bylaws to execute the Assignment and Settlement
Agreement. Defendants have not shown that the BPCA was required to specifically approve the
Assignment through publicly available meeting minutes, nor have they established that the
BPCA does not authorize either agreement. Failure on a motion to renew to show how the new
156217/2022 BATTERY PARK CITY AUTHORITY D/B/A THE HUGH L. CAREY BATTERY PARK Page 3 of 4
CITY AUTHORITY vs. PIER A BATTERY PARK ASSOCIATES, LLC ET AL
Motion No. 009 010
3 of 4
[* 3]
INDEX NO. 156217/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 230 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/12/2025
facts would have changed the prior motion’s outcome is grounds for denying the renewal. Solo
Group LLC, Series 9 v. Harris, 213 A.D.3d 607, 608 [1st Dept. 2023].
Furthermore, the Defendants do not have standing to challenge the Assignment. In order
to have standing to challenge an agreement, “a nonparty to the contract must either suffer direct
harm flowing from the contract or be a third-party beneficiary thereof.” Decolator, Cohen &
DiPrisco, LLP v. Lysaght, Lysaght & Kramer, P.C., 304 A.D.2d 86, 90 [1st Dept. 2003]. The
transfer of claims in a proceeding does not qualify as a direct harm that flows from the
agreement. Id. Accordingly, it is hereby
ADJUDGED that motions 009 and 010 to renew are denied.
5/12/2025
DATE LYLE E. FRANK, J.S.C.
CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED X NON-FINAL DISPOSITION
□ □
GRANTED X DENIED GRANTED IN PART OTHER
APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER
□
CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT REFERENCE
156217/2022 BATTERY PARK CITY AUTHORITY D/B/A THE HUGH L. CAREY BATTERY PARK Page 4 of 4
CITY AUTHORITY vs. PIER A BATTERY PARK ASSOCIATES, LLC ET AL
Motion No. 009 010
4 of 4
[* 4]