Cohen et al v. G&M Realty L.P. et al

Filing 181

MEMORANDUM and ORDER: Defendants motion 177 seeking a stay is granted in part and denied in part. In the exercise of its discretion, the Court grants defendants a seven-day extension of the current stay until March 14, 2018. This will afford defend ants a total of 21 days from judgment to secure a supersedeas bond or, alternatively, an appropriate letter of credit. Regardless of which, if any, is presented to the Court, it will rule on its adequacy when submitted. Defendants alternative motion to stay pending post- trial motions is denied as premature, as no such motions have been filed. Ordered by Judge Frederic Block on 3/6/2018. (Innelli, Michael)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------x JONATHAN COHEN, SANDRA Case No. 13-CV-5612(FB)(RLM) FABARA, STEPHEN EBERT, LUIS LAMBOY, ESTEBAN DEL VALLE, RODRIGO HENTER DE REZENDE, DANIELLE MASTRION, WILLIAM TRAMONTOZZI, JR., THOMAS LUCERO, AKIKO MIYAKAMI, CHRISTIAN CORTES, DUSTIN SPAGNOLA, ALICE MIZRACHI, CARLOS GAME, JAMES ROCCO, STEVEN LEW, FRANCISCO FERNANDEZ, and NICHOLAS KHAN, Plaintiffs, -againstG&M REALTY L.P., 22-50 JACKSON AVENUE OWNERS, L.P., 22-52 JACKSON AVENUE, LLC, ACD CITIVIEW BUILDINGS, LLC, and GERALD WOLKOFF, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Defendants. --------------------------------------------------x MARIA CASTILLO, JAMES COCHRAN, Case No. 15-CV-3230(FB)(RLM) LUIS GOMEZ, BIENBENIDO GUERRA, RICHARD MILLER, KAI NIEDERHAUSEN, CARLO NEIVA, RODNEY RODRIGUEZ, and KENJI TAKABAYASHI, Plaintiffs, -againstG&M REALTY L.P., 22-50 JACKSON AVENUE OWNERS, L.P., 22-52 JACKSON AVENUE, LLC, ACD CITIVIEW BULIDINGS, LLC, and GERALD WOLKOFF, Defendants. --------------------------------------------------x Appearances: For the Plaintiff ERIC BAUM ANDREW MILLER Eisenberg & Baum LLP 24 Union Square East New York, NY 10003 For the Defendant DAVID G. EBERT MIOKO TAJIKA Ingram Yuzek Gainen Carroll & Bertolotti, LLP 250 Park Avenue New York, NY 10177 BLOCK, Senior District Judge: Judgment was entered against defendants in these actions on February 21, 2018, in the amount of $6.75 million dollars. They duly filed a notice of appeal, triggering an automatic 14-day stay of enforcement of the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(a), which will expire on March 7, 2018. They now have filed a letterrequest seeking a discretionary continuation of the stay for an unspecified period of time to allow them to either secure an adequate bond or letter of credit. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(d), an appealing party may stay execution of a judgment pending appeal by posting a supersedeas bond. “The stay issues as a matter of right in cases within Rule 62(d), and is effective when the supersedeas 2 [bond] is approved by the court.” 11 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2905 (3d ed.) (citing Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Am. Broad.Paramount Theaters, Inc., 87 S. Ct. 1, 3 (1966)). Defendants may, with the Court’s permission, file a letter of credit in lieu of a bond. See Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hughes, 515 F.2d 173, 177 (2d Cir. 1975) (approving district court’s exercise of its discretion in allowing such a substitute). The Court will likely approve an appropriate letter of credit in lieu of the bond. In the exercise of its discretion, the Court grants defendants a seven-day extension of the current stay until March 14, 2018. This will afford defendants a total of 21 days from judgment to secure a supersedeas bond or, alternatively, an appropriate letter of credit. Regardless of which, if any, is presented to the Court, it will rule on its adequacy when submitted. The defendants’ letter also advises the Court that they intend to submit post-trial motions challenging the efficacy of the Court’s opinion, and ask, in anticipation of the filing of the motions, that once received, the Court exercise its discretion and—even if no stay has been effected by reason of the filing of a supersedeas bond or letter of credit—nonetheless stay enforcement of the judgment pending judicial resolution of the motions. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(b) authorizes the Court to do so. Since such motions have yet to be filed, the Court will await their receipt before ruling on this 3 premature request. SO ORDERED /S/ Frederic Block___________ FREDERIC BLOCK Senior United States District Judge Brooklyn, New York March 6, 2018 4

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?