Opinion
12-06-2016
U–TREND NEW YORK INVESTMENT L.P., individually and derivatively on behalf of nominal defendant Hospitality Suite International, S.A. and its wholly-owned subsidiary U.S. Suite Corp., Plaintiff–Respondent, v. U.S. SUITE LLC, et al., Defendants–Appellants, Hospitality Suite International, et al., Nominal Defendants–Appellants.
Daley Law, P.C., New York (M. Teresa Daley of counsel), for U.S. Suite LLC and 440 West 41st LLC, appellants. Sankel, Skurman & McCartin, LLP, New York (Claudio Dessberg of counsel), for Aura Investments Ltd., Hospitality Suite International, S.A. and U.S. Suite Corp., appellants. Morrison Cohen LLP, New York (Y. David Scharf of counsel), for respondent.
Daley Law, P.C., New York (M. Teresa Daley of counsel), for U.S. Suite LLC and 440 West 41st LLC, appellants.
Sankel, Skurman & McCartin, LLP, New York (Claudio Dessberg of counsel), for Aura Investments Ltd., Hospitality Suite International, S.A. and U.S. Suite Corp., appellants.
Morrison Cohen LLP, New York (Y. David Scharf of counsel), for respondent.
Order (denominated order and judgment [one paper] ), Supreme Court, New York County (Charles E. Ramos, J.), entered June 9, 2016, which directed distribution of the subject sales proceeds to plaintiff with related relief, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Appeals from order, same court and Justice, entered November 13, 2015, which granted plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment declaring plaintiff to be the source of certain subject funds, and from order, same court and Justice, entered April 14, 2016, which denied a defense motion for the court's recusal and related relief, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in and superseded by, respectively, the appeal from the June 9, 2016 order.
We perceive no basis for disturbing the court's order directing distribution to plaintiff of the net proceeds of the sale of the property at issue. The court properly determined that plaintiff was entitled to those proceeds based upon loans it advanced related to the acquisition of the property, along with interest due on the loans.
The court's denial of recusal was an appropriate exercise of discretion (see Mehulic v. New York Downtown Hosp., 140 A.D.3d 417, 30 N.Y.S.3d 872 [1st Dept.2016] ).
RICHTER, J.P., MANZANET–DANIELS, FEINMAN, KAPNICK, GESMER, JJ., concur.