Preview:

[*1]


Decided on September 10, 2008
Supreme Court, Kings County
Congregation Yetev Lev D'Satmar, Inc., Ludovick Weisz and Jacob Schonfeld, Plaintiffs
against

Nachman Brach Inc. f/k/a 26 ADAR N.B. CORP., CONGREGATION
BETH JOEL, BETH FEIGE INC., NACHMAN BRACH and BAY
RIDGE FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION,
Defendants.







13224/90

Appearances:
Plaintiff:
David M. Berger, Esq.
Michael Cohen Esq.

Tenenbaum Berger, LLP
Brooklyn NY
Defendant
Noel W. Hauser, Esq.
NY NY
Arthur M. Schack, J.
This matter resulted from protracted litigation dealing with the ownership of
various real property at 533-541 Bedford Avenue, Brooklyn, New York, amidst the factional schism in the Satmar Hasidic community. The tortured and tangled history of this dispute is chronicled in Justice Melvin Barasch's decision, Congregation Yetev Lev D'Satmar, Inc. v Kahan (5 Misc 3d 1023 (A) [Sup Ct, Kings County 2004]), and my decision (Congregation Yetev Lev [*2]D'Satmar, Inc. v 26 Adar N.B. Corp. (12 Misc 3d 1173 (A) [Sup Ct, Kings County 2006]).
In October 2004, when this matter was assigned to me, the only matter remaining to be resolved was the counterclaim of defendant NACHMAN BRACH, INC. f/k/a 26 ADAR N.B. CORP. (BRACH), for the use and occupancy of the 533-541 Bedford Avenue premises as a synagogue by plaintiff CONGREGATION YETEV LEV D'SATMAR, INC. (CYL), and the other plaintiffs. BRACH is wholly owned by Nachman Brach, who lost his status within the Satmar community in various leadership disputes. In the instant matter, corporate defendant BRACH, and its owner, Mr. Brach, failed to comply with five discovery orders issued by me. As a result of these violations, I held in my April 1, 2008 decision and order, Congregation Yetev Lev D'Satmar, Inc. v Nachman Brach, Inc. (19 Misc 3d 1111 [A]), at 2, that "[t]he Brach defendants' and their counsel's clear pattern of dilatory and obstructive conduct, demonstrated by their continued disobedience to Court orders, leaves the Court with no choice other than granting plaintiffs' order to show cause and dismissing the instant action with prejudice."
Therefore, I ordered, at 11:
that it appearing that Noel Hauser, Esq. engaged in "frivolous conduct,"
as defined in the Rules of the Chief Administrator, 22 NYCRR 130-1 (c) and that pursuant to the Rules of the Chief Administrator, 22 NYCRR
130.1.1 (d), "[a]n award of costs or the imposition of sanctions may be
made upon motion . . . or upon the court's own initiative, after a
reasonable opportunity to be heard," this Court will conduct a hearing
affording Mr. Hauser "a reasonable opportunity to be heard," before me in
Part 27, on Friday, May 16, 2008, at 2:30 P.M., in Room 479, 360 Adams
Street, Brooklyn, NY 11201.
The hearing was held on May 30, 2008. Pursuant to 22 NYCRR

Download 2008_51825.pdf

New York Law