GREYSTONE COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE CAPITAL LLC v. 2142 FREDERICK DOUGLASS BLVD CORP 2142 LLC 2142 NY LLC LLC 100 100 (2026)

The following papers numbered 1 to 5 were read on this motion:

Paper Number

Order to Show Cause, Affirmations and Exhibits 1

Affirmation in Opposition 2

Memorandum of Law in Opposition 3

Reply Affirmation and Exhibits 4

Referee Report 5

On December 1, 2025, defendants 2142 Frederick Douglass Blvd. Corp. (“Corp.”), 2142 Frederick Douglass Blvd LLC, d/b/a 2142 Frederick Douglass Blvd NY LLC (the “Borrower”) and Francesco Brusco (collectively, “moving defendants”) filed their Order to Show Cause seeking (1) temporarily to restrain plaintiff and the Referee from selling, transferring or making any attempt to take possession of the property located at 11 West Prospect Ave, Mount Vernon, NY (the “Premises”); (2) to stay the sale of the Premises scheduled for December 2, 2025 for at least 120 days; and (3) to forbid plaintiff from receiving any deposits or funds in relation to settling “the outstanding balance of the mortgage of the Premises outside Purchaser's current deal/offer.”

The Court struck the temporary relief sought by the Order to Show Cause. The justification set forth in the Order to Show Cause for the relief sought was that “i) Defendants have proof of monthly and annual rentals of which Plaintiff has obtained [sic] via its agreements, forfeited $200,000.00 in the PNC Holding Deposit Bank, and other monies of which would offset the current judgment amount; ii) Defendants have procured atleast [sic] two redy [sic] willing and able buyers between 2023 through 2024/2025 yet Plaintiff's unconscionable actions barred Defendants [sic] ability to get into and execute a full Contract of Sale; iii) Defendants failed to ever receive a timely payoff letter from Plaintiffs; iv) Defendants received the original loan amount of $1,700,000.00 under misguided processes operated by Plaintiff, thus frustrating Defendants [sic] ability to repay from the commencement of the Loan.”

According to counsel for plaintiff, the sale, which had been scheduled since at least October 27, 2025, proceeded according to schedule on December 2, 2025. Plaintiff was the highest (and only) bidder for the Premises. The Premises sold for $2,501,000. This leaves a deficiency of $1,176,797.86.

Although the request for a stay is moot, the Court also denies any request to set aside the sale. The Court has repeatedly held that plaintiff was entitled to foreclose on the Premises; that defendants were in default on multiple fronts; that there was no evidence of fraud or other wrongdoing in the issuance of the loan (or any other aspect of the transaction) and that none of defendants’ defenses or arguments had any legal merit. In reply, new counsel for defendants argues that they “can demonstrate grounds for setting aside the sale based on plaintiff's misconduct throughout the foreclosure process, including the failure to provide proper notices and the unconscionable nature of the original loan terms.” However, these are issues that the Court has already addressed, and has already determined are baseless.

The foregoing constitutes the decision and order of the Court.

Linda S. Jamieson, J.