The opinion
Haimovici v Castle Vil. Owners Corp.
2025 NY Slip Op 31865(U)
May 27, 2025
Supreme Court, New York County
Docket Number: Index No. 156094/2022
Judge: Arlene P. Bluth
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. 156094/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 203 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/27/2025
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
PRESENT: HON. ARLENE P. BLUTH PART 14
Justice
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X INDEX NO. 156094/2022
GABRIEL HAIMOVICI,
MOTION DATE 05/23/2025
Plaintiff,
MOTION SEQ. NO. 003
-v-
CASTLE VILLAGE OWNERS CORP., ANDREW DITTON,
JIM BERLIN, MICHAEL UYSAL, TIMOTHY GLADDEN, LISA DECISION + ORDER ON
ALDISERT, HERBERT LAMBERT, EDWARD SONN MOTION
Defendants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 003) 178, 179, 180, 181,
182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202
were read on this motion to/for DISCOVERY .
Plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied.
Background
Plaintiff commenced this action to stop defendants from terminating his proprietary lease.
In this motion he seeks to compel defendants to produce documents to support their position that
plaintiff engaged in objectionable conduct from January 1, 2019 through the present. He also
demands an affirmative representation regarding whether or not plaintiff’s name appears in the
minutes of meetings of the board of directors for defendant Castle Village Owners Corp. (“Castle
Village”) and any findings of fact by the board about allegations from May 10, 2022 and to
compel the deposition of a former board member.
Plaintiff explains that he received a letter from Castle Village’s board dated March 7,
2022 that described his offensive conduct but that he did not learn any details about this conduct
until May 10, 2022—plaintiff insists the allegations in the May 10, 2022 letter are false. He
156094/2022 HAIMOVICI, GABRIEL vs. CASTLE VILLAGE OWNERS CORP. Page 1 of 5
Motion No. 003
1 of 5
[* 1]
INDEX NO. 156094/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 203 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/27/2025
complains that no documents have been produced which detail any findings of fact against him
or that the board made any findings about their allegations. Plaintiff contends that his proprietary
lease was terminated despite the fact that the board never made any such findings. He complains
that two documents, which are allegedly the board minutes from June 27 and July 13, 2022, are
“dubious” because they were not uploaded to Castle Village’s online portal. Plaintiff questions
the authenticity of these documents.
Plaintiff also seeks the deposition of a former board member on the ground that the
deposition of defendants’ witness was unproductive. He insists that the witness defendants
produced was unable to shed light about possible findings of fact against plaintiff prior to the
termination of his lease.
In opposition, defendants argue that much of plaintiff’s moving papers improperly focus
on the merits of this case and not on the discovery dispute at issue. Defendants insist that
plaintiff was provided with a detailed description of his objectionable conduct and point to an
exhibit plaintiff attached to his motion. They observe that plaintiff submitted a detailed written
response to these allegations that the board considered prior to the termination of his lease.
With respect to the request for documents, defendants observe that discovery is complete
and this motion is plaintiff’s latest attempt to delay resolution of this matter. They emphasize that
they have produced all of the documents in their possession relating to plaintiff’s objectionable
conduct and that this demand is from April 20, 2023. Defendants argue that plaintiff has not
provided any basis for his assertion that defendants have withheld documents.
Defendants also argue that they have produced all board meeting minutes in their
possession and that their counsel has specifically identified the Bates numbers for those
documents in communications with plaintiff’s attorney. They observe that the two specific
156094/2022 HAIMOVICI, GABRIEL vs. CASTLE VILLAGE OWNERS CORP. Page 2 of 5
Motion No. 003
2 of 5
[* 2]
INDEX NO. 156094/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 203 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/27/2025
meeting minutes highlighted by plaintiff were not posted on the online portal because they were
special meetings as opposed to general board meetings. Defendants also maintain that there is no
reason to compel the deposition of a former board member. They insist that the deposition of
defendants’ witness was more than sufficient and observe that this deposition was taken in
March 2024, which makes the instant attempt to demand another deposition far too late.
In reply, plaintiff argues that the deposition of the former board member is appropriate
because he signed the resolution finding that defendant committed objectionable conduct and
that, again, defendants have produced no proof that the board ever made any findings of fact
about the allegations lodged against plaintiff. Plaintiff also argues that he never waived any of
his discovery demands.
Discussion
The Court denies the motion. Based on the record submitted on this motion, defendants
have met their burden to show that they have turned over the documents in their possession. This
Court is unable to compel defendants to produce additional documents that they do not have. In
fact, defendants observed that they turned over the special meeting minutes at issue. And
plaintiff did not specifically mention any documents that are missing. That is, he did not identify
documents that he claims defendants are withholding. Instead, plaintiff appears to argue that
defendants’ production does not, according to plaintiff, sufficiently support the termination of
plaintiff’s proprietary lease. Plaintiff also raises numerous arguments about the merits of the
case.
Of course, if plaintiff is correct that defendants lack the required proof, then they will not
prevail in a dispositive motion or at trial. Similarly, plaintiff’s complaints about the authenticity
156094/2022 HAIMOVICI, GABRIEL vs. CASTLE VILLAGE OWNERS CORP. Page 3 of 5
Motion No. 003
3 of 5
[* 3]
INDEX NO. 156094/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 203 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/27/2025
of the special meeting minutes (and the fact that they were not included in the online portal) are
issues to raise concerning the sufficiency of the evidence adduced. But this Court’s task in this
discovery motion is to assess whether or not it should issue an order compelling defendants to
produce additional documents and, here, defendants contend they do not have anything else to
produce. Therefore, the Court must deny this branch of the motion.
The Court also denies the request for another deposition. When asked by plaintiff’s
counsel about any findings of fact, defendants’ witness responded that “Again I’m not sure what
you mean by a finding of fact but the board was presented with evidence including a letter from
Ms. Yuda, including complaints from staff, from Jorge, from Michael Hegewal; from the garage,
from residents within his building, from other members of the board who had altercations with
Mr. Haimovici. There’s conduct that has been ongoing for years including when he assaulted the
prior property manager somewhat over 20 years [ago]” (NYSCEF Doc. No. 192 at 144). This
detailed answer is more than sufficient for a deposition. It is not tantamount to a non-answer that
suggests another witness is needed.
And of course, the fact is that plaintiff is in possession of the May 10, 2022 letter
detailing the specific objectionable conduct (NYSCEF Doc. No. 187). This document includes
many, many examples of such conduct (id. [detailing, for instance, a purported confrontation
between plaintiff and another resident where “Mr. Haimovici told Josephine to “fuck off” and
“you have cancer, I hope you die”]). The Court sees no reason to compel another deposition
based on this record.
Although not dispositive, the Court is concerned about the timing of the instant demand
for another deposition more than a year after the completion of the aforementioned deposition of
defendants’ witness. Surely plaintiff had more than enough time to review the transcript and
156094/2022 HAIMOVICI, GABRIEL vs. CASTLE VILLAGE OWNERS CORP. Page 4 of 5
Motion No. 003
4 of 5
[* 4]
INDEX NO. 156094/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 203 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/27/2025
seek another deposition. While the Court makes no finding that this is part of a scheme to
intentionally delay resolution of this case, the Court concludes that this case is now ready to get
on the trial calendar.
Therefore, a note of issue must be filed on or before June 11, 2025. Any party may file
the note of issue. The upcoming conference is cancelled.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion is denied in its entirety and a note of issue must be
filed by June 11, 2025 (it may be filed by any party).
5/27/2025 $SIG$
DATE ARLENE P. BLUTH, 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
156094/2022 HAIMOVICI, GABRIEL vs. CASTLE VILLAGE OWNERS CORP. Page 5 of 5
Motion No. 003
5 of 5
[* 5]