CHARLTON v. 92 PINEHURST AVENUE LLC (2025)

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lynn R. Kotler, J.), entered August 9, 2024, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendant's motion to substitute its successor in interest Getty Industries LLC as defendant, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion court providently exercised its discretion in denying defendant's motion to substitute Getty as defendant (see HSBC Guyerzeller Bank AG v. Chascona N.V., 42 A.D.3d 381, 382, 841 N.Y.S.2d 11 [1st Dept. 2007]).  The substitution would have been prejudicial to plaintiff, who seeks treble damages for defendant's alleged willful rent overcharges.  If Getty were fully substituted for defendant in this action, plaintiff would likely have to litigate when Getty knew or had reason to know about the overcharge as a potential bar to collecting treble damages (see Le Bihan v. 27 Wash. Sq. N. Owner LLC, 205 A.D.3d 616, 617–618, 169 N.Y.S.3d 54 [1st Dept. 2022];  see also Matter of Round Hill Mgt. Co. v. Higgins, 177 A.D.2d 256, 257, 575 N.Y.S.2d 842 [1st Dept. 1991]), a defense that would not be available to defendant.  Thus, if defendant were released from the action, any damages to which plaintiff may be entitled could be substantially diminished.

We have considered defendant's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.