LLP v. 11 LLC BATHHOUSE HOLDINGS LLC SALOMON JACOBS SHIA LEFKOWITZ YENTY LEFKOWITZ JASON GOODMAN TRAVIS TALMADGE (2026)

This is an action to rescind a commercial lease. Before the Court is plaintiff Jodre Brenecki, LLP's motion for a stay, pursuant to CPLR 2201, of a related action pending in Civil Court, Kings County, Non-Housing Part, North 11 Associates LLC v. Jodre Brenecki, LLP, Index No. LT-305879-26/KI (Civil Court Action). Defendants North 11 Associates, LLC, Salomon Jacobs, Shia Lefkowitz, and Yenty Lefkowitz (collectively the North 11 defendants) oppose. For the reasons below, the motion is denied.¹

Plaintiff commenced this action by filing a summons and complaint on February 16, 2026. NYSCEF No. 1. Plaintiff is a personal injury law firm which rents commercial office space located at 101 North 10th Street in Brooklyn. NYSCEF No. 1 at ¶ 2; NYSCEF No. 47 at ¶ 6. The North 11 defendants are plaintiff's landlord. NYSCEF No. 1 at ¶¶ 20-21, 25. Plaintiff alleges that without its knowledge, consent, or participation, the North 11 defendants permitted and facilitated the construction of a massive luxury rooftop pool and spa facility directly above plaintiff's office, which has subjected the office to violet shaking, falling debris, repeated leaks, and other conditions. NYSCEF No. 47 at ¶¶ 8, 10. Plaintiff alleges that these conditions have disrupted the operation of its law practice. NYSCEF No. 47 at ¶ 11. After the North 11 defendants failed to "meaningfully" or "adequately" address its concerns, plaintiff commenced this action seeking rescission of its commercial lease, and asserting claims for: (1) breach of contract; (2) fraud; (3) breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment/constructive eviction; (4) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (5) account stated; (6) nuisance; (7) trespass; and (8) negligence. NYSCEF No. 47 at ¶¶ 12-13; NYSCEF No. 1 at ¶¶ 106-52.

Ten days after filing this action, on February 26, 2026, defendant North 11 Associates LLC commenced the Civil Court Action against plaintiff for nonpayment of rent. NYSCEF No. 47 at ¶ 17; NYSCEF No. 48. On June 18, 2026, plaintiff filed an Answer with Counterclaims in the Civil Court Action seeking much of the same relief requested here, asserting counterclaims for: (1) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (2) constructive eviction; (3) fraud and misrepresentation; (4) harassment/breach of covenant of quiet enjoyment; and (5) rent overcharge/accounting. By Order dated May 19, 2026, the court in the Civil Court Action denied a motion by plaintiff to dismiss the petition and for a stay of those proceedings, with leave to renew after further discovery. NYSCEF No. 57 at ¶¶ 12-14; NYSCEF No. 60 at ¶¶ 57-59; NYSCEF No. 61.

Pursuant to CPLR 2201, plaintiff now moves for this Court to stay the Civil Court Action pending the conclusion of this case. In support of its motion, plaintiff argues that under CPLR 2201 the Court has discretion to stay a proceeding pending in another court and that a stay is warranted, in part, because of the limited scope of permissible discovery available in Civil Court. NYSCEF No. 47 at ¶¶ 65-81, 124-30. In opposition, the North 11 defendants argue that the stay should be denied because the Civil Court already denied a motion by plaintiff to stay that proceeding, and that even if a stay is warranted, plaintiff should still be ordered to pay rent. NYSCEF No. 57 at ¶¶ 23-25, 34-35.

Stay of Action Pursuant to CPLR 2201

As a threshold matter, the Court lacks power under CPLR 2201 to stay a proceeding pending in another court. CPLR 2201 provides that "[e]xcept where otherwise prescribed by law, the court in which an action is pending may grant a stay of proceedings in a proper case, upon such terms as may be just." Rockman v. Nassau Cnty. Sheriff's Dept., 224 AD3d 757, 758 (2d Dep't 2024) (quoting CPLR 2201) (emphasis added). Thus, an action may be stayed under CPLR 2201 only by the court presiding over it. See Town of Colonie v. City of New York, 237 AD3d 1398, 1402 (3d Dep't 2025) (citing CPLR 2201) ("[A] motion pursuant to CPLR 2201 must be made to 'the court in which [the] action is pending.' "); Fourth Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n of New York v. Garber, 172 AD2d 399, 399 (1st Dep't 1991) ("Besides, the proper procedure for seeking a stay or dismissal of another action would be to apply to the judge presiding over that matter."); see also Halloran v. Halloran, 161 AD2d 562, 564 (2d Dep't 1990); Modernismo Publications, Ltd. v. Tenney, 104 AD2d 721 (4th Dep't 1984).

Plaintiff cites to a number of cases in support of its argument that CPLR 2201 empowers the Court to stay a proceeding pending in another court. NYSCEF No. 47 at ¶¶ 65-81. However, most of the cases it relies upon involve courts staying actions pending before those courts, not actions in other courts. See e.g. Chaplin v. Natl. Grid, 171 AD3d 691 (2d Dep't 2019); El Greco Inc. v. Cohn, 139 AD2d 615 (2d Dep't 1988); Danya Cebus Constr., LLC v Bella Mgt. Group, Inc., No. 527013/2019, 2020 NY Misc. LEXIS 3176 (NY Sup. Ct. Kings Cnty. Jul. 6, 2020). Plaintiff cites only two Kings County Supreme Court cases in which stays of related Civil Court proceedings were granted under CPLR 2201. See Brooklyn Law School v. 111 Livingston LLC, No. 510799/2021, 2023 NY Misc. LEXIS 56383 (NY Sup. Ct. Kings Cnty. Sept. 7, 2023); Payne v. Signature Management Associates Inc., 2024 NY Slip Op. 30243(U) (NY Sup. Kings Cnty. 2024). However, based on the authority cited above—including binding Second Department precedent—this Court declines to follow the holdings in those cases and concludes that CPLR 2201 does not authorize this Court to stay proceedings pending elsewhere.

Essentially, plaintiff conflates injunctive relief under Article 63 of the CPLR with a "stay" pursuant to CPLR 2201. An injunction is often confused with a stay when it is "included in an order that prevents a party in the instant action from prosecuting an action (counterclaim, etc.), or some phase of it, elsewhere" because it is "often called a 'stay,' despite deriving no authority from CPLR 2201." Patrick M. Connors, 2020 Prac Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, CPLR C2201:2; see generally Congregation Erech Shai Bais Yosef, Inc. v. Werzberger, 189 AD3d 1165 (2d Dep't 2020). However, "[t]he preliminary injunction of Article 63 should be distinguished from a "stay" of proceedings as authorized by CPLR 2201. Technically, a 'stay' refers to a court's temporary suspension of its own proceedings, while an endeavor to stop a proceeding in some other court usually involves an outright 'injunction' and all of the relevant requirements of equity." David D. Siegel & Patrick M. Connors, New York Practice § 327 (6th ed, Dec. 2024 update); see also 544-48 Properties, L.L.C. v. Maitre, 184 Misc 2d 984, 985 (NY App. Term. 2000).

Accordingly, CPLR 2201 does not authorize this Court to stay the Civil Court Action.

Stay of Action by Injunction

Notwithstanding the lack of authority for the Court to stay proceedings in another court under CPLR 2201, the Supreme Court, as a court of equity, may, under certain circumstances, stay a proceeding pending in another court through issuance of an injunction under Article 63 of the CPLR. Although plaintiff does not raise this issue in its motion papers, the Court will consider whether to grant such relief sua sponte.

"[W]here it is sought to enjoin parties from proceeding in another action, such relief must be by injunction in an action where such relief is demanded in the complaint." Grammer v. Greenbaum, 146 A.D. 3, 4 (1st Dep't 1911); see also Capolino v. Bua, 63 AD3d 1092, 1093—94 (2d Dep't 2009); Top-All Varieties, Inc. v. Raj Dev. Co., 151 AD2d 470, 471 (2d Dep't 1989). "As a general rule, the decision to grant or deny a preliminary injunction lies within the sound discretion of the Supreme Court." Congregation Erech Shai Bais Yosef, Inc., 189 AD3d at 1167.

It is well settled that Civil Court is the preferred forum for landlord tenant disputes and that where a plaintiff can obtain full relief in the summary proceedings, such proceedings should not be enjoined by the Supreme Court. See Post v. 120 E. End Ave. Corp., 62 NY2d 19, 28 (1984); All 4 Sports & Fitness, Inc. v. Hamilton, Kane, Martin Enterprises, Inc., 22 AD3d 512, 513 (2d Dep't 2005); Amoo v. Eastlake Realty Co., 133 AD2d 657, 658 (2d Dep't 1987); Lun Far Co., Inc. v. Aylesbury Assoc., 40 AD2d 794, 794 (1st Dep't 1972).

Here, plaintiff can seek full equitable relief in the Civil Court Action by asserting counterclaims or affirmative defenses. Compare All 4 Sports & Fitness, Inc., 22 AD3d at 513 (finding that enjoining of summary proceeding not appropriate where plaintiff could seek relief through appropriate counterclaims), with Capolino, 63 AD3d at 1093—94 (holding that the Supreme Court erred in denying injunctive relief where relief sought, specific performance of a contact of sale of real estate, could not be addressed in summary proceeding); see also RPAPL 743. The equitable relief sought by plaintiff concerning its lease agreement, along with monetary relief, can be fully pursued in the Civil Court Action. See NY City Civ Ct Act § 208; All 4 Sports & Fitness, Inc., 22 AD3d at 513; cf. Congregation Erech Shai Bais Yosef, Inc., 189 AD3d 1165 (affirming order enjoining pending summary proceedings where movant sought a declaration in Supreme Court as to whom had power to act on behalf of landlord, a non-profit corporation). In fact, plaintiff has already sought such relief by asserting counterclaims for, among other things, constructive eviction and fraud in its Answer to the Civil Court petition. Further, contrary to plaintiff's argument that a stay of the Civil Court Action is warranted here because the Civil Court is incapable of facilitating effective discovery of its claims, "differing rules regarding the availability of discovery in the [Civil] Court, is [an] [in]sufficient reason to prefer the Supreme Court to the [Civil] Court as a forum for litigation of [a] landlord-tenant dispute." All 4 Sports & Fitness, Inc., 22 AD3d at 514; see also Brecker v. 295 Cent. Park W., Inc., 71 AD3d 564, 565 (1st Dep't 2010). Accordingly, as full relief is available to plaintiff in the Civil Court Action, injunctive relief enjoining the Civil Court Action would not be appropriate under these circumstances.

It is therefore,

ORDERED that plaintiff Jodre Brenecki, LLP's motion for a stay of the action pending in Civil Court, Kings County, Non-Housing part, North 11 Associates LLC v. Jodre Brenecki, LLP, Index No. LT-305879-26/KI, is denied.

E N T E R:

Dated: October 7, 2026

Brooklyn, New York

Hon. Andrew S. Amer A.J.S.C.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The Court has reviewed the following papers in connection with determining this application: NYSCEF Nos. 46-64.

Andrew S. Amer, J.