This is a breach of contract action, brought by plaintiff, Binarapps SP. Z O.O., a Polish corporation, against defendants Pocketbroker, Inc., and Anis Attarwala. Defendants counterclaimed against Binarapps for breach of contract and fraud. Defendants also counterclaimed against plaintiff's counsel, Sabaj Law, P.C., and its principal, Paul Sabaj, seeking the release of $49,000 in Sabaj Law's escrow account to which defendants claim to be entitled.

On motion sequence 001, plaintiff moved under CPLR 1006 (f) for leave to pay into court that $49,000 and discharge Sabaj Law from liability. (See NYSCEF No. 8.) This court denied the motion in February 2024. The court held that because plaintiff claimed ownership of the escrowed funds, it was not a neutral stakeholder for purposes of CPLR 1006. (See id.) To the extent the motion was instead made "on behalf of plaintiff's counsel, counsel does not attempt to show that it is not only neutral with respect to the escrowed funds, but also lacks any interest in those funds" (id. [emphasis in original]), as required by caselaw applying CPLR 1006 (f).

On motion sequence 002, Sabaj Law now moves (again) to pay into court the $49,000 and to be discharged of liability. But Sabaj Law still has not shown that it is neutral with respect to those funds and lacks any interest in them. Counsel's statements to that effect on this motion are conclusory and unsupported by explanation or documentation. (See NYSCEF No. 23 at ¶¶ 18-21, 26-30.) Pocketbroker cross-moves for summary judgment against Sabaj Law and Paul Sabaj, seeking an order directing release of the funds to Pocketbroker pending a final resolution of the action. The cross-motion is denied. Pocketbroker has not satisfied its initial prima facie [*2]burden to show why it should be entitled to hold the funds during this action.

On motion sequence 003, Binarapps moves under CPLR 3024 and CPLR 3126 to dismiss defendants' fifth counterclaim, which seeks an order directing release of the funds to Pocketbroker.^[FN1] Binarapps contends that dismissal is warranted because the allegations supporting this counterclaim contain unnecessary "scandalous or prejudicial matter" within the meaning of CPLR 3024 (b).^[FN2] In considering a CPLR 3024 (b) motion, "the inquiry is whether the purportedly scandalous or prejudicial allegations are relevant to a cause of action." (Soumayah v Minnelli, 41 AD3d 390, 392 [1st Dept 2007].) This court is unpersuaded that the statements and language to which Binarapps objects are irrelevant to defendants' counterclaim or that they are so inflammatory or prejudicial as to warrant dismissal of the counterclaim. The motion is denied.

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that Sabaj Law's CPLR 1006 motion (mot seq 002) is denied; and it is further

ORDERED that Pocketbroker's cross-motion for summary judgment (mot seq 002) is denied; and it is further

ORDERED that Binarapps' motion to dismiss defendants' fifth counterclaim (mot seq 003) is denied; and it is further

ORDERED that defendants serve a copy of this order with notice of its entry on all parties.