Opinion

Harris v. 353 W. 117th St. HDFC

  • 2024 NY Slip Op 30932(U)
Court
New York Supreme Court, New York County
Filed
Mar 18, 2024
Status
Unpublished
Cited by
0 cases

The opinion

Harris v 353 W. 117th St. HDFC

2024 NY Slip Op 30932(U)

March 18, 2024

Supreme Court, New York County

Docket Number: Index No. 160452/2019

Judge: Sabrina Kraus

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. 160452/2019

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 29 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/20/2024

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

NEW YORK COUNTY

PRESENT: HON. SABRINA B. KRAUS PART 57

Justice

-------------------,X INDEX NO. 160452/2019

Danny Harris, MOTION DATE 3/15/2024

Plaintiff,

MOTION SEQ. NO. 002

353 West 117th Street HDFC,

Defendant. DECISION + ORDER ON

MOTION

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

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 002) 22-28

were read on this motion to/for RESTORE

BACKGROUND AND ALLEGED FACTS

On or about December 16, 2021, the parties entered into a two attorney so-ordered

Stipulation of Settlement (the "Stipulation").

Pursuant to the Stipulation, Defendant was authorized to list the cooperative apartment

known and addressed as 353 West 117th Street, Apartment 2B, New York, NY 10026 (the

"Apartment") for sale with a licensed real estate broker and execute all agreements and contracts

required by said broker to effectuate the same.

Defendant was empowered to accept any bonafide offer that was received for the

Apartment and prepare a Contract of Sale for execution by Plaintiffs.

Any proposed Contract of Sale and transfer of the Apartment was subject to the approval

of Defendant's Board of Directors.

160452/2019 HARRIS V 353 WEST 117TH STREET HDFC

MOTION NO.002 Page 1 of 4

[* 1] 1 of 4

INDEX NO. 160452/2019

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 29 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/20/2024

The Net Proceeds from the eventual sale were to be placed in escrow with Defendant's

attorney in its IOLA account, pending further order of this Court or agreement between the

parties.

The day after entering into the Stipulation, Defendant alleges it retained the services of

Compass to list and market the Apartment for sale. Compass was unable to secure a purchaser

for the Apartment.

In August 2022, Defendant retained the services of Brown Harris Stevens to list and

market the Apartm~nt for sale.

In or about April 2023, Defendant received an offer to purchase the Apartment.

Defendant alleges the potential purchasers disappeared for several months, only to re-enter the

picture in July 2023. From July 2023 through September 2023, Defendant negotiated the terms

of a proposed Contract of Sale with attorneys for the proposed purchasers. Defendant alleges

that the proposed purchasers withdrew their offer to purchase, mainly because of this pending

litigation.

The potential purchasers also notified Defendant that there was evidence of water damage

to the hallway and kitchen ceiling of the Apartment. Defendant hired licensed who determined

that the source of the damage was a water leak originating from the kitchen above. Defendant's

contractors made the necessary repairs to abate the source of the leak, performed mold testing,

and replaced the hallway and kitchen ceiling.

Defendant alleges that Brown Harris Stevens continued to show the Apartment to

prospective purchasers while the work was being performed, but the broker received negative

feedback because of the ongoing repairs. At the insistence of the broker, Defendant agreed to

place a temporary pause on the listing until the repairs were completed.

160452/2019 HARRIS V 353 WEST 117TH STREET HDFC

MOTION NO.002 Page 2 of 4

[* 2] 2 of 4

INDEX NO. 160452/2019

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 29 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/20/2024

In or about February 2024, the repairs to the hallway and kitchen ceiling were

completed. Defendant further alleges it made additional improvements in hopes of increasing

its marketability, including replacement of the base molding, and painting. Defendant has

instructed the Brown Harris Stevens to re-activate the listing and resume showing the Apartment

to prospective purchasers.

In reply, Plaintiffs counsel alleges only that he did an internet search on March 10, 2024,

which did not indicate that the listing had been reactivated.

PENDING MOTION

Plaintiff has now moved for an order restoring the action to the calendar and requests to

proceed with discovery.

On March 15, 2024, the motion was marked submitted and the Court reserved decision.

For the reasons set forth below, the motion is denied.

DISCUSSION

Under the terms of the Stipulation, there are only two instances where a party can file a

. motion seeking to restore this matter to the Court's calendar.

Paragraph 11 of the Stipulation provides 11 (i)f the parties are unable to reach a settlement

with respect to the distribution of the Net Proceeds, then either party may file a Motion seeking to

restore this matter to the Court's calendar. 11 However, as the Apartment has yet to sell, there are no

Net Proceeds to distribute, and any motion pursuant to Paragraph 11 is thus premature.

Paragraph 12 of the Stipulation provides 11 (i)n the event of a default or failure of any of the

parties and/or Dianne Harris to comply with the terms of this Agreement or their obligations as

contained herein, either party may restore and this Court shall enforce the terms, provisions and

obligations contained herein."

160452/2019 HARRIS V 353 WEST 117n, STREET HDFC

MOTION NO.002 Page 3 of 4

[* 3] 3 of 4

INDEX NO. 160452/2019

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 29 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/20/2024

The motion is supported only by an attorney affirmation submitted which fails to make a

prima facie showing that Defendant is in default or has failed to comply with the terms of the

Stipulation. The fact that the Apartment has not yet been sold does not constitute a default under

terms of the Stipulation.

Nor would there be any basis under the terms of the Stipulation to allow for discovery in

the event of default.

Based on the foregoing, the motion is denied.

This constitutes the decision and order of the Court.

3/18/24

DATE

~

CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED NON-FINAL DIS

GRANTED 0 DENIED GRANTED IN PART □ OTHER

APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER

CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT □ REFERENCE

160452/2019 HARRIS V 353 WEST 117TH STREET HDFC

MOTION NO.002 Page 4 of 4

[* 4] 4 of 4

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.