Opinion
Index 153031/2018
03-02-2022
YEN HSANG CHANG, KENNETH HICKS, RANDY GARCIA. TIFFANY LEE, STEPHEN BOTTA, TAILEEN JOA, SHIRLEY OVID MITCHELL, CYNTHIA LOWE, DANIEL LORIA, NICOLE COCCHIARO, ANN VOTAW, SALVATORE RUSSO, ELIZABETH BOUK, NETANIA BUDOFSKY, JESSICA GOLDHIRSH, JOSEPH OSTWALD, ANDREW O'BRlEN, LAURA PIRAINO, MELODY MERKER, GARY TOPP, KRlSTINA BONHORST, KENT HAINA JR., ANDREW KELTZ, DARRYL WASHINGTON, MEGAN HAGAR, MARlSSAKOELLER, GABRIELLA GARCIA, TIMOTHY BARKER, ADEOLA ROLE, CAROLINA BOTERO, JOSEPH CRACCO, DAVID WALKER, FLORENCE LAGAMMA, MARY LEVITT, RYAN BALAS, DEIRDRE BALAS, JONATHAN LEUNG, LUKE VAN DEE VEER, JOSEPH RlCCARD,, ADRIENNE RlCCARD,, HENRY NICPONSK,, KAREN CLAMAN, PETER CERNAUSSAS, RYAN CLAPP, CLEMENT CHAN, MATTHEW HAENSLY, SCOTT CHAPMAN, MOHAMMAD ISLAM, STEPHANIE MOSHER, ALGERSON ANDRE, LUKASZ JANIK, YOLANDA NUNLEY, MICHAEL ALBERTSON, ADINA WOLF, JONATHAN O'GRADY, DAVID ISAACS, STEPHANIE MACIOCH, ISABELLA CARDONA, MICHAEL WILKE, SHUCHIN SHUKLA, MAMUA JEME, GLENN ENGLISH, ANA MARlE SANTOS, JEN WATSON, KERRY MCFATE, DESIREE GRENAY, JONATHAN GRENAY, TIMOTHY MORAN, LORNE HEILBRONN, J.L. DUFFY, PHYLLIS HIRSHORN, HANS KLUEFER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff(s), v. WESTSIDE 309 LLC, THAYER 45 LLC, POST 118 LLC, SEAMAN 20 LLC, SEAMAN 30 LLC, SEAMAN 133 LLC, VERMILYEA 153 LLC, HEIGHTS 170 LLC, HEIGHTS 624 LLC, HEIGHTS 177 LLC, FT. GEORGE 617 LLC, INWOOD 213 LLC, PAYSON 55 LLC, CROWN ASSOCIATES LLC, GEBS REALTY LLC, ALJO REALTY LLC, ABIII LLC, SKILLMAN 47 LLC, QPI-XXXII LLC, PAGE REALTY LLC, SUNNYSIDE 45-42 LLC, SYLVEEN REALTY LLC, SUNNYSIDE 47-21 LLC, and SUNNYSIDE 42 LLC Defendant(s). MOTION SEQ. No(s).: 7, 8
Unpublished Opinion
IAS MOTION 29
MOTION DATE: 7/20/21
DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION
HON. LEWIS J. LUBELL, J.S.C.
Plaintiffs move (Motion #7) for an order, compelling defendant Sunnyside 42 LLC's production of documents.
Plaintiffs move (Motion #8) for an order, compelling certain defendants production of documents.
Plaintiff asserts that all of the buildings at issue in this litigation are or were managed by Bronstein Properties LLC (Bronstein Properties..
The following papers filed on NYSCEF were read on the motion: Doc. Nos.
Notice of Motion (#7), Affirmation, Exhibits (15), and Memo of Law 268-285
Affirmation in Opposition, Exhibits (8), and Memo of Law 289-298
Affirmation in Reply, Exhibits (3), and Memo of Law 299-303 Notice of Motion (#8), Affirmation, Exhibits (8), and Memo of Law 257-267
Memo of Law in Opposition 288
Memo of Law in Reply 305
Transcripts of Conference 310-311
By way of background, plaintiffs commenced this purported class action to challenge rents charged in various buildings by defendants. Plaintiffs now move to compel defendants to produce certain discovery.
In support of Motion #7, plaintiffs assert that defendant Sunnyside 42 LLC (Sunnyside 42) has failed to properly respond to certain discovery demands. Plaintiffs note that the motion relates to two buildings, known as 43-35 42nd Street and 43-39 42nd Street, Queens, New York (Buildings). Plaintiffs assert that the Buildings were owned by "Bronstein-related entities," but were sold to Sunnyside 42 in mid-207.. Plaintiffs also assert that two of the named plaintiffs (that is, plaintiffs Scott Chapman and Mohammad Islam) are former residents of the Buildings. Plaintiffs assert that the discovery demands relate to these two plaintiffs and these Buildings.
In particular, Document Request No. I seeks all documents and communications between, any Plaintiff and Sunnyside 42. Document Requests 2 to 8 seek lease documentation, apartment registrations, and evidence of individual apartment improvements (JAI), and "all documents and, communicaiions Supporting the calculation of the legal regulated rents" specifically for the apartments of plaintiffs Chapman and Islam, and generally for the remaining units in the Buildings. Document Requests 10 and II seek any applications or receipts for any loans in connection with the Buildings. Document Request No, 12 seeks due diligence materials related to the purchase of the Buildings. Document Requests 13 and 14 seek the Buildingss DHCR "Registration Rent Roll Report," and DHCRss "Cases by Building Report." Document Requests 15 and 16 seek monthly rent rolls, and leases with charges reports, for the Buildings. Document Requests 18 to 22 seek ownership and operating documentation for the Buildings. Document Request 23 seeks documentaiion related to any insurance policy that might provide coverage for the claims in this' action, Document Requests 26 and 27 seek information related to Sunnyside 42's affirmative defenses, and documenss which it may rely upon, at trial.
In support of Motion #8, plaintiffs assert that a discovery issue has arisen with the Bronstein Defendants, who owned and operated 26 buildings in which plaintiffs reside(d). Namely, plaintiffs note that they have served similar discovery demands to the discovery demands outlined in Motion #7 and that the Bronstein Defendanss have objected to producing any materials pre-dating the applicable statute of limitations period.
Under CPLR 902, plaintiffs are required to move for class certificaiion promptly, but this deadline may be extended to permit discovery relating to the prerequssites of a class action under CPLR 901 (see Galdamez v Biordi Canst. Corp., 50 A.D.3d 357, 358 [1st Dept 2008]). Discovery in general broadly mandates "full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecuiion or defense of an action" (see CPLR 3101 [a]) and the appropriateness of a particular discovery demand is a matter addressed to the.sound discretion of the Court (see Andon ex rel Andon v 302-304 Mott St. Assoc, 94 N.Y.2d 740, 746 [2000]). However, pre-class certification discovery is limited in scope "to ascertain the dimensions of the group of individuals who share plaintiffs grievance [and] not to plant the seed of ltiigation in the minds ofthose who until now have given no indication of being aggrieved" (Smith v Atlas Intern. Tours, 80 A.D.2d 762, 764 [1st Dept 1981]).
Here, plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate how the discovery demands in Motion ##7 and 8 are "necessary to determine whether each of the prerequisites contained in CPLR 901 have been met . . .:" (Katz v NVF Co., 100 A.D.2d 470, 474 [1st Dept 1984]). Accordingly, Motion ## 7 and 8 are denied without prejudice to remaking the applications upon a proper showing or by demonstraiing that the discovery is appropriate at this juncture, even if it not directed at satisfying the prerequisites of CPLR 901.
To the extent not specifically addressed herein, the Court finds plaintiffs' remaining arguments to be without merit. Based on the foregoing, it is hereby
ORDERED that Motion ## 7 and 8 are DENIED without prejudice.