Opinion
No. 544 Index No. 801404/21E Case No. 2022-02617
06-22-2023
In the Matter of Samaritan-Compass VI Housing Development Fund Corporation, Petitioner-Respondent, v. 1293-95 Rodman LLC, Respondent-Appellant.
Turturro Law, P.C., Brooklyn (Natraj S. Bhushan of counsel), for appellant. Braverman Greenspun, P.C., New York (Benjamin Fox Tracy of counsel), for respondent.
Turturro Law, P.C., Brooklyn (Natraj S. Bhushan of counsel), for appellant.
Braverman Greenspun, P.C., New York (Benjamin Fox Tracy of counsel), for respondent.
Before: Kern, J.P., Friedman, Mendez, Rodriguez, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Mary Ann Brigantti, J.), entered May 26, 2022, which, after an evidentiary hearing, granted petitioner Samaritan-Compass VI Housing Development Fund Corporation's motion to hold respondent 1293-95 Rodman LLC in contempt of an order which granted Samaritan access to Rodman's property pursuant to RPAPL 881, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
The record supports the court's finding, by clear and convincing evidence, that Rodman was in contempt of an August 11, 2021 order and accompanying license summary. In direct contravention of the August 11, 2021 order and accompanying license summary, Rodman repeatedly refused Samaritan access to its property for the purpose of installing a controlled-access zone (CAZ), worked within the CAZ without coordinating with Samaritan and then entered the CAZ and dismantled it, causing weeks of delay and extra costs (see Judiciary Law § 753 [A] [2]; El-Dehdan v El-Dehdan, 26 N.Y.3d 19, 29 [2015]; Gray v Giarrizzo, 47 A.D.3d 765, 766 [2d Dept 2008]).
In opposition, Rodman failed to refute Samaritan's showing and failed to establish a defense (see Mollah v Mollah, 136 A.D.3d 992, 993 [2d Dept 2016]). To the extent Rodman believed that Samaritan was not following the terms of the order and license summary or that Samaritan's schedule was unworkable, its remedy was to move for a hearing, not to engage in noncompliance (see Peters v Sage Group Assoc., 238 A.D.2d 123, 123 [1st Dept 1997]; see also 1319 Third Ave. Realty Corp. v Chateaubriant Rest. Dev. Co., LLC, 57 A.D.3d 340, 341 [1st Dept 2008]). Moreover, the license summary was clear and unambiguous, and thus Rodman's claim that it misinterpreted the terms of the summary in good faith is unavailing (see McCain v Dinkins, 192 A.D.2d 217, 219 [1st Dept 1993], affd 84 N.Y.2d 216 [1994]; cf. Matter of Banks v Stanford, 159 A.D.3d 134, 145 [2d Dept 2018]).