[*1]
Wolf v Friedman
2013 NY Slip Op 51414(U) [40 Misc 3d 1233(A)]
Decided on August 28, 2013
Supreme Court, Kings County
Demarest, J.
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.


Decided on August 28, 2013
Supreme Court, Kings County


Herbert Wolf, Plaintiff,

against

Yaakov Friedman, and SUPERIOR LAUNDRY SERVICES LLC, Defendants.




2751/2013



Counsel for plaintiff: Gorlick, Kravitz & Listhaus, P.C., Bruce L. Listhaus, Esq.

Carolyn E. Demarest, J.



Plaintiff Herbert Wolf moves for an order granting default judgment against defendants Yaakov Friedman and Superior Laundry Services LLC ("Superior Laundry") in the amount of $2,240,400.00, plus interest, attorneys' fees, costs and disbursements.

According to plaintiff, Friedman solicited plaintiff through family connections and borrowed $2,309,400.00 to invest in his laundry business, Superior Laundry. As evidence of its contentions, plaintiff provides copies of four promissory notes. All four notes are signed by Friedman, personally, without any mention of Superior Laundry, and require that Friedman repay the entire balance by December 31, 2009. According to plaintiff, Friedman did not pay the sums by December 31, 2009, although he did make some payments after he defaulted, but that a principal balance of $2,240,400.00 remains. Defendants were served with the summons and complaint, and notice of motion, but have not appeared in this action. Accordingly, based on the foregoing, plaintiff's motion for an order granting default judgment is granted as to defendant Friedman.

However, with respect to defendant Superior Laundry, although plaintiff, in its complaint, argues that liability should be extended to Superior Laundry because Friedman, at a non-binding arbitration before a Rabbinical Court, admitted that he owed plaintiff the money and that it was being used for Superior Laundry, there is no indication that Superior Laundry has any obligation to plaintiff, as the promissory notes were signed by Friedman personally. Plaintiff's argument that Superior Laundry's corporate veil should be pierced is without merit as, here, it is Friedman, personally, who is liable for the unpaid sums. Accordingly, plaintiff's motion is denied with respect to defendant Superior Laundry.

Finally, all four notes provide that: [*2]

If this Note is given to an attorney for collection or enforcement, or if the suit is brought for collection or enforcement, or if it is collected or enforced through probate, bankruptcy, or other judicial proceeding, then Borrower shall pay Payee all costs of collection and enforcement, including reasonable attorney's fees and court costs in addition to other amounts due.


Accordingly, plaintiff's motion for the recovery of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs is granted.

Plaintiff is directed to submit a proposed order on notice within 30 days, including an affidavit in support of its claim for attorney's fees.

This constitutes the decision and order of the Court.

E N T E R:

__________________________________

HON. CAROLYN E. DEMAREST, J.S.C.