Harkins v. Stern

Harkins v Stern 2024 NY Slip Op 33599(U) October 8, 2024 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: Index No. 507004/21 Judge: Leon Ruchelsman 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.

FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 10/08/2024 01:03 PM INDEX NO. 507004/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 446 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/08/2024

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS : CIVIL TERM: COMMERCIAL 8 . --- ----- -------------- . --- -----------x .STEVEN HARKINS, individually and derivatively On behalf of LB INTERNATIONAL INC. and .

GOLDEN HILL COMPANY MARKETING INC., Plaintiffs, -against- Inde~ No. 507004/21 JOSEPH STERN Defendant, a.n.ci October 8, 2024 LB INTERNATIONAL INC. arid GOLDEN HILL COMPANY MARKETING INC., Nominal Defendants, ----------- . ----------------------~------x PRESENT: HON- LEON RUCHELSMAN Motion seq . . #!)

The de£endant J::oseph St,erh has mov~d pursuant to CPLR §602 seeking to consolidate :t.h is action· with a pending action in Nassau county. The plaintiff opposes the motion. Pap~r~ were submitted by the partie~ and reviewing all the arguments this coµrt now makes the following determination; According to the complaint the plaintiff was the owner of Golderi Hill Company Marketing Inc., a company that made woven wicker furniture. On June 17, 2Ql9 the plaintiff and. defendant entered into a stock purchase agreement to. acquire all the shares of LB International Inc., a company that sells seasonal products ciS well as wicker furniture. The shares were purchased from LB Thterhational's owne.rs, Joel Margolin, Melissa Kramer; Allison Alper, and Graig Margolin. Thus, the pl _a intiff and defendant entered into a joint 'venture and purchased all the sh.a re.s of LB

1 of 4 [* 1] FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 10/08/2024 01:03 PM INDEX NO. 507004/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 446 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/08/2024

Intetnatiogal and each owned fifty percent of the ~ompany. This act ion ~as oornmen:ced wherein· the plaint::i.ff alleges the·. defenc;l.ant t6ok out loans in the_ name of Go.ldep Hill which he also half acqu_ired from th~ plaintiff . and utilized the funds from those' loans :for his own personal bene•fit. . On July 13:, 202:1, Melissa ·Kramer, Al lisan .A lper, and . G·r:ai g Marg-o 1i-n .CoITlITlen ceq. -a n a,ction agains-t Harkins and Stern and L_B International fo,r the fail_u-r-e to make a . pi;iyment fo_r the shares purs.u'?-nt to the promissory .note entered into between the · s·elle.ts .. and the· p,lainti f f. ·a hd defe ndant he r ein as J?Urchasers.

Tne defendant has moved seeking to consolidate the two . actions for purposes o -f discovery. As noted, th_e plaintiff ~pposes the motio ~ ,

Conclusions of Law rt is well settled that w-hen two cas.e -s re_ptesent common- questions· of law or fact then there should: be a co'n·s o1idat i on (Moses v. B · -& -E Lorge Fau;d,ly Trust, 14 7 · AD'3d 104 3 ~ 4-8 NYS3d 4 2 7 [2d Dept., 2017]). A party opj-e_c ting to th~ consolidation ha,s - th~ pu:rd~n of demonstrating pr~j_udice which harms a subst_ a ntiai ·right (Oboku· v ·.-- New York city Transit- ·J i.:uthorit y, 1·41 .A0;3d 708,. 35 NYS3d_ 710 [2'd D.ept., 2016'j,).

"The two actions- do not concern common questi-o ns of law and fact at all. The Kings County action has been ·brought by the .

2 of 4 [* 2] FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 10/08/2024 01:03 PM INDEX NO. 507004/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 446 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/08/2024 plair1t_iff 9 lleging the- defendant improper-l y utilized funds from Golden Hill for his owri -p~rs-o nal benefit. The Nassau action toricern:s .a lawsuit abou t an unpa.1.d. n·o te. Other than .the tact the pla i ntiff and.. cjefenqant in thi.s act.ion are defendal).t .s in the Na-s:sau action they ar:e- riot -similar in any way-.

The defendant ass-e:r-ts that the two- -eas_es are "inext,rl_cably intertwined and interrelated-,, (~, Affinna-t i_on in Support,- _<Jl3ff LNYSCEF Doc. No 1 4Jl]) becaus~ th• d~cu~ehts the defehd~nt ~eeks in t he Kihqs County action may s.e·- rv.e as defens .e s in t.he Nassau acti-o n._ Thus, the defendant argues tnat -no- s -u ch payment is _ owed in t_ h? l{as:sau action and- discovery sought in this actio_h can ,- substantiate that de-f ense- in the Nassa-u action. Even if ~11, that i,s true there is f.till no. c onnec:t.i9n ·b .e t 'rleen the i;:.w"o actions.

The defendant se·e)<.s to consolidate the ac t ions arguing tr.re s .ame discove,r y will be necessary in both cases-. .However, tha;_t does na_t- -me~n the two ca~res _sha-re common questiorts of law or fact.

Inde¢ci, the defendant -has rtot -explained why -the discovery -so_µ ght 'j:o de:(end 1;.he 'Na:e·e .~ ·. u acti::>n ca,nnot be obt ':lcined· in th•·· ·Nassau actiori. This f ·s. partic.u larly. tru.~ since the ge.t ·~nae.s alleged in.

the. Nas-~au action are- inqre direct and -.involve the' singie issu-e whet_her any further pa¥1f(e-n ts based upon_ the note are re_g uired-.

Th:e Kings County ac:tion is more fact specific, more involved and r _e ql)ires a gre-a ter de.qree of dis·covery.

Furth!:!:J;mo~-e, . the issues. i-n .this ac t ion are not· identical

______________________________________________ [* 3] 3 of 4 , FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 10/08/2024 01:03 PM INDEX NO. 507004/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 446 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/08/2024 to the defens$s in the Nassau action (see, Bruno v. Capetol a, 101 AD3d 785, 957 NYS2cJ. 156 [2d Dept., 2012)). There may be some similarity between the defenses in. both .a c:tions, however, they are far from ider1tical and do not really concern cortlinoh questions of law or fact; Therefore, based on the fore.g oin9, the motion seeking to consolidate the two actions is denied.

So ordered.

ENTER:

DATED:· October 8, 2024 Brooklyn N~Y. Hon. ~ucrieTsman JSC

[* 4] . . . . .. · ·-···--··---·· ----·---·- ··· - ------- - - - - - - 4-of - -4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -