| Zumba v Build R Us Corp |
| 2025 NY Slip Op 25153 [87 Misc 3d 1041] |
| July 2, 2025 |
| Cohen, J. |
| Supreme Court, Kings County |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| As corrected through Wednesday, January 14, 2026 |
| Juan Zumba, Plaintiff, v Build R Us Corp, Doing Business as Sahakyan Development Construction, Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff, and Brighton 11th St Dev. LLC, Defendant/Second Third-Party Plaintiff. K-Square Developers, Inc., Third-Party Defendant/Second Third-Party Defendant. |
Bonds
- Security Bond
- Out-of-State Plaintiff
- One Bond Sufficient for All Defendants
Downing & Peck, P.C., Rockville Centre, for defendant/third-party plaintiff.
Liakas Law, P.C., New York City, for plaintiff.
Marshall Dennehey P.C., New York City, for defendant/second third-party plaintiff.
Gallo Vitucci Klar LLP, New [*2]York City, for third-party defendant/second third-party defendant.
Build R Us Corp.'s (Build) motion to compel (seq 003) is decided as follows:
Plaintiff commenced this action to recover for damages he claims to have sustained when he was struck by a falling object while performing construction work at the premises located at 27 Brighton 11th Street, Brooklyn, NY. It is undisputed that plaintiff lives in New Jersey.
Previously, defendant Brighton 11th St Dev. LLC (Brighton) moved to compel plaintiff to post a bond pursuant to CPLR 8501 and 8503. The court granted that motion, and plaintiff was compelled to post a bond in the amount of $500. In the same order, the court denied Build's prior motion to compel plaintiff to post a bond as a procedurally defective cross-motion against a nonmoving party (CPLR 2215). Now, Build moves again to compel the plaintiff to post an additional bond.[FN*]
The purpose of CPLR 8501 and 8503 is not to "unduly burden nonresidents' fundamental right to access the courts," but rather to impose "marginal, recoverable security for costs" on out-of-state litigants (Clement v Durban, 32 NY3d 337, 346 [2018]). Defendant's request to compel plaintiff to post separate bonds would, in practice, risk transforming these marginal costs into a financial barrier to litigation in New York. Although the parties do not cite, and the court is unaware of, a case from the Second Department, the First Department has held for over a century that one bond is sufficient for all defendants, and noted that defendants have the option to move for an increased amount if they can demonstrate that good cause requires a larger bond (Feitelson v Moser, 173 App Div 93 [1st Dept 1916]). Despite its age, Feitelson remains good law and its reasoning is sound. Therefore, since defendants have failed to show good cause for a larger bond, Build's motion is denied.