TC TH LLC v. Jeremy Korer, Defendant. (2026)

On this motion, plaintiff, TC TH, LLC, moves for an award of attorney fees, as permitted by this court's September 18, 2024, order, which granted summary judgment to plaintiff on its claim for breach of lease and dismissed defendants' affirmative defenses and counterclaims (mot seq 001). (See NYSCEF No. 55 [handwritten order].) Defendant, Jeremy Korer, cross-moves under CPLR 5015 (a) (2), (3), and (4) to vacate this court's order. The motion is denied. The cross-motion is granted.

I. Personal Jurisdiction (CPLR 5015 [a] [4])

Defendant argues that this court's order should be vacated because this court lacks personal jurisdiction over him. (See CPLR 5015 [a] [4].) This contention is unavailing.

At the start of this action, defendant entered into a stipulation with plaintiff in which he agreed to forgo personal-jurisdiction defenses in exchange for additional time to answer the complaint. (See NYSCEF No. 15 [stipulation].) Moreover, defendant waived that defense by failing to move to dismiss on that basis within 60 days of raising it in his answer. (See Tannenbaum Helpern Syracuse & Hirschtritt LLP v Deheng Law Offices, 127 AD3d 564, 565 [1st Dept 2015], citing CPLR 3211 [e].)

II. Fraud and New Evidence (CPLR 5015 [a] [2] and [3])

On motion sequence 001, this court concluded that plaintiff established its case for breach of lease against defendant. This court found defendant's allegations that the lease was forged by nonparty Nehal Modi insufficiently substantiated. This court was also unpersuaded by defendant's representation that he signed an agreement—in which he admitted to being the premises' tenant—under duress. Defendant now provides additional evidence to support his allegations about forgery and duress. Plaintiff argues that defendant's arguments are barred by claim and issue preclusion and the law-of-the-case doctrine. (See NYSCEF No. 100 at 3.) This court concludes, however, that defendant has provided a basis to vacate the order.

On the summary-judgment motion, plaintiff provided the lease—purportedly signed by defendant—a ledger, and a stipulation of settlement from a 2022 nonpayment proceeding in Housing Court, in which defendant conceded that he was the tenant of record for the premises. In opposition, defendant represented that Modi and his attorney effectively coerced him into signing the stipulation. (NYSCEF No. 51 at 4.) Defendant also submitted an affidavit from his friend Daniel Bar, who represents that, in December 2021, he witnessed Modi forge defendant's signature on the lease. (NYSCEF No. 47 at 1 [pdf pagination].) Defendant also produced an affidavit from another friend, Nancy Marcus, who represents that, in May 2022, Modi admitted to her that he forged defendant's name on the lease. (NYSCEF no. 48 at 1.)

Defendant now produces additional evidence: a Housing Court petition. An occupant of plaintiff's building brought the petition against plaintiff, as owner of the premises, and Modi as lessee.¹ (See NYSCEF No. 94 at 1.) Defendant submits an affidavit in which he represents that he discovered a Con Edison account for the premises associated with Modi's cell phone number. (NYSCEF No. 89 at 9.) And he provides an email communication with his former attorney showing that the attorney threatened to withdraw if he refused to sign the stipulation. (See NYSCEF No. 93 at 3 [pdf pagination].)

In light of the newly submitted evidence, together with the evidence introduced by defendant on the prior motion, this court concludes that its September 18, 2024, order must be vacated. Defendant has sufficiently substantiated his allegations that he signed the stipulation under duress and that he did not sign the lease agreement. In turn, plaintiff's motion for attorney fees is denied as academic.

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that the branch of defendant's cross-motion to vacate this court's September 18, 2024, order awarding judgment to plaintiff for lack of personal jurisdiction is denied; and it is further

ORDERED that the branch of defendants' cross-motion to vacate this court's September 18, 2024, order awarding judgment to plaintiff on grounds of fraud and new evidence is granted, and this court's summary-judgment order entered September 18, 2024, is hereby vacated; and it is further

ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for attorney fees is denied as academic; and it is further

ORDERED that defendant serve a copy of this order with notice of its entry on plaintiff; on the office of the County Clerk (using the NYSCEF document type "Notice to the County Clerk - CPLR § 8019 (c)"), which shall vacate the judgment entered July 15, 2025, and update its records accordingly; and on the office of the General Clerk (using the NYSCEF document type "Service on Supreme Court Clerk (Genl. Clerk) w/Copy of Order"), which shall restore the action to active status; and it is further

ORDERED that the parties shall appear before this court for a telephonic preliminary conference on February 6, 2026.

DATE 1/16/2026

FOOTNOTES

1.   Defendant contends that plaintiff improperly "failed to disclose the existence of these proceedings, Robyn London's claims, or the fact that Mr. Modi was identified as the 'lessee' and receiving rent" until it made its motion for attorney fees. (NYSCEF No. 89 at ¶ 25.) Plaintiff argues, however, that it had no duty to disclose documents of public record to defendant and that it has "always maintained that Defendant, not Modi, was the tenant of record, and that Modi was merely an occupant" in the Housing Court proceeding. (NYSCEF No. 100 at 6.)

Gerald Lebovits, J.