KLG JEWELRY LLC v. [And a Third-Party Action] (2024)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

KLG JEWELRY LLC, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. 706 MADISON LLC et al., Defendants–Appellants, Scalpel Construction Inc., et al., Defendants. [And a Third-Party Action]

2470–, 2471

Decided: June 11, 2024

Manzanet–Daniels, J.P., Singh, Mendez, Rodriguez, Pitt–Burke, JJ.

Hannum Feretic Prendergast & Merlino, LLC, New York (Marsha J. Quinche of counsel), for appellants. Lerner, Arnold & Winston, LLP, New York (Jacob L. Levine of counsel), for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (William Perry, J.), entered October 11, 2022, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the brief, granted plaintiff KLG Jewelry LLC's motion to amend the caption, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Order, same court and Justice, entered on or about September 27, 2023, which, insofar as appealed from and appealable, denied defendants’ motion to renew, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Supreme Court properly allowed plaintiff to amend the caption to “KLG Jewelry LLC/KLG New York LLC d/b/a De Grisogono USA Inc.” This change reflected that KLG Jewelry LLC and KLG New York LLC are the same company, that KLG New York LLC leased space to De Grisogono USA, Inc., and that all three entities were part of the same family business (CPLR 2001, 3025; see Favourite Ltd. v. Cico, ––– NY3d ––––, 2024 N.Y. Slip Op 01496, *4 [2024]; Unique Laundry Corp. v. Hudson Park N.Y. LLC, 55 AD3d 382, 382 [1st Dept 2008]). To the extent that De Grisogono's USA Inc.’s Swiss parent company went bankrupt, defendants were not prejudiced because De Grisogono USA Inc. was added to the caption as a “doing business as” entity. This change is merely descriptive and no new plaintiff has been added (see Golden Distributors, Ltd. v Garced, 134 BR 766, 769 [SD N.Y.1991]; see also Karakaya v. Better Energy Group, 201 A.D.2d 419, 420 [1st Dept 1994]).

Supreme Court properly denied defendants’ motion to renew. Defendants did not offer a reasonable justification for their failure to obtain the bankruptcy filings of De Grisogono's parent company in opposition to plaintiff's motion because those filings were available to defendants at the time of the motion (CPLR 2221[e][2], [3]; see Henry v. Peguero, 72 AD3d 600, 602–603 [1st Dept 2010]). In any event, as already noted, the bankruptcy of De Grisogono's parent company is immaterial to this action because De Grisogono USA Inc. was added to the caption as a “doing business as,” not as an additional plaintiff, and KLG Jewelry LLC remains the actual plaintiff.

We have considered defendants’ remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network