Bikes by Olga LLC v. People

Bikes by Olga LLC v People 2024 NY Slip Op 31336(U) April 16, 2024 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: Index No. 506816/2021 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 04/16/2024 02:09 PM INDEX NO. 506816/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 244 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/16/2024

SUPREME COURT OF THE STA.TE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS : CIVIL TERM: COMMERCIAL PART 8 - - - - - ·---. ·-· --------·---.-----. - - .. --·------·. X BIKES BY OLGA LLC, Plaintiff, Decision and order - against - Index No. 506816/2021 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORKi NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF T:RANSPORTATIQN, CITY OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, NYCTL 2018-A TRUST, 2017-A TRUST, NYCTL 2016~A TRUST & NYCTL 1998-2 TRUST; Defendants, April 16, 2024 - ··. - - - · - - - - - - - - - . - - .· - - - . . ·---. - - . --· . ·. . -·. ----· .. X.

PRE$ENT: HON. LEON RUCHELSMAN Motion Seq. #8

On November ZS, 2023 the court issued a subpoena upon the New Yor:k City Transit Authority ordering a deposi tiori. from someone with knowledge concerning the Trans:i..t Authority's claim of right to erect, maintain, and/or enter the structure on a portion of real property located at 353 Berry Street in Kings County. The subpoen·a further sought documents regarding the same. The State of New York has filed this motion seeking to: vacate the subpoena on the .grounds of sovereign immunity depriving the court of subject matter jurisdiction.

The facts of the case have been adequately described in prior orders and need not be repeated here.

The State was originally mad.e a party to this action to adj.udicate the owners11ip of the subject property (see, RPAPL §1541). The ownership had been detepnined in a decis.ion of this court and, a final judgement was then entered ori March 15, 2022

(see, Order and Judgement [NYSGEF boc, No. 129]). The State argues that upon the entry of the judgement the waiver of immunity concluded and that any further litigation concerning the property. does not involve the State at .all. Consequently, there can be no action taken against the State without the State's consent. The plaintiff counters the court still maintains jurisdiction over the State by virtue of its original waiver of immunity.

RPAPL §1541 states that ''an a ct ion may :Pe maintained ... by or against the people of the state of New York" as outlined in the article, namely to compel the determination of. a claim to real property. In Hibiscus Harbor Inc., v. Ebersold, 53.Misc2d 868, 280 NYS2d 44 [County·Court Seneca County 19671 the court explained that "basically this section was enacted in order to establish a 'clearing house' for a final determination of claims to real property. The intention Of the article is to place the court in a position where through its equity juri.sdiction it can terminate adverse claims to p~operty and ~rit~r an order ~6 a~ to provide a conclusive title to one of the parties involved" (id).

In that case there were questions whether the state would assert claims to disputed property. The cou~t Bxplained that "ss to the questions of whether or not the State of New York should disclose to the parties herein any information which they may necessitate and whether their agerits and officers must submit to an

These requirements of participation apply all the more so in this case where the State is an actual party to the proce.edings.

Thus, the State;s unduly narrow view of its affiliation in thi.:5 lawsuit fails to appreciate that without its continued involvetnentr the precise contours of the plaintifff s ownership remains in doubt~ While i t is true that the State's sphere of ownership has been resolved, its continued. participi3.tion in the action: can only serve to further the ownership interests of the remaining parties. The court is not deciding whether the State .must move for sununa_ry j udgemerit to free its elf of ahy further jurisdictional connections or whether the.connections auto;rnatically expire 1.1ppn th.e conclus.iori. cif the State's

The State further argues the State.has provided all information in its pos-s·ession. However,. clearly, th=e plaintiff remains unsatisfied with the prod1,1ctions. thus ;Ear.

Notwithstarid ing the State's assurances to" the contrary th'e pL:1iritiff rn·ay inqµire about the cb"ntents- of the subpoena.

Lastly, since the court considers the <::onclusion of the waiver premature the cour-t need not· address ahy of the e.quity arguments which a:re inapplicable- at this juncture.

Therefore, based on the foregoing, the motion seekihg tci vacate the order and subpoena dated November 2B, 202·.3 is dE;!t1ied. ::io orde,re.d.

EN';l'ER:

DATiE;D: April 16;-- 2024 arooklyn N. 'l. .Hon . I,,eon JSC