City of New York v Vaknin 2014 NY Slip Op 31499(U) June 10, 2014 Sup Ct, NY County Docket Number: /2013 Judge: Cynthia S.

Transcription

1 Cty of New York v Vaknn 2014 NY Slp Op 31499(U) June 10, 2014 Sup Ct, NY County Docket Number: /2013 Judge: Cyntha S. Kern Cases posted wth a "30000" dentfer,.e., 2013 NY Slp Op 30001(U), are republshed from varous state and local government webstes. These nclude the New York State Unfed Court Systems E-Courts Servce, and the Bronx County Clerks offce. Ths opnon s uncorrected and not selected for offcal publcaton.

2 [* 1] SUPREME COURT OF THE STA TE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK: Part )( THE CTY OF NEW YORK, -aganst- Pettoner, ndex No /2013 DECSON/ORDER ALON V AKNN, Respondent, )( HON. CYNTHA KERN, J.S.C. Rectaton, as requred by CPLR 2219(a), of the papers consdered n the revew of ths moton for: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Papers Numbered Notce of Petton and Affdavts Annexed... 1 Answerng Affdavts and Cross Moton... 2 Replyng Affdavts... 3 Exhbts..., 4 Pettoner the Cty Of New York (the "Cty") commenced the nstant proceedng pursuant to CPLR 5225, 5227 and N.Y.C. Admn Code (a) seekng a judgment aganst respondent Alon Vaknn ("Vaknn") for allegedly unpad hotel tax assessments. For the reasons set forth below, the petton s granted. The relevant facts are as follows. Respondent V aknn s the managng member and., offcer of Sgnature Propertys N.Y., LLC ("Sgnature"), a hotel company that allegedly specalzes n short-term stay apartment suts n New York Cty. n 2004, Sgnature regstered as a hotel operator wth the New York Cty Department of Fnance ("DOF") and began flng hotel tax returns, whch t contn_ued to fle through Durng ths tme, Sgnature was the subject

3 [* 2] of two hotel tax audts by DOF that yelded assessments of unpad hotel taxes for the years 2004 through Sgnature allegedly faled to pay any of the amounts assessed under these audts and on or about December 21, 2012, DOF ssued tax warrants for the unpad taxes. Specfcally, DOF ssued tax warrants aganst Sgnature totalng $655, These tax warrants were subsequently duly docketed wth the County Clerk for the County of New York and have yet to be satsfed. n a tum-over proceedng, such as ths, the court, "wll apply summary judgment analyss J and, absent a factual ssue requrng a tral, the matter wll be summarly determned on the papers presented." Matter ofcenterponte Corporate Park Partnershp J50 v. MONY, 96 A.D.3d 1401, 1402 (1st Dept 2012). Thus, where the pettoner makes a prma face showng of enttlement to judgment, the burden shfts to the respondent to rase a trable ssue of fact n opposton. See d.; see also Matter of TNT Petroleum, nc. v. Sea Petroleum, nc., 72 A.D.3d 694 (2"d Dept 2010). n the nstant proceedng, pettoner has establshed ts prma face enttlement to judgment as matter law aganst respondent for the unpad tax assessments and respondent has faled to rase an ssue of fact. Under New York Cty Admnstratve Code , a tax s mposed for every "occupancy of each room n a hotel n the cty of New York." The occupant of a hotel room pays the hotel tax as part of hs or her room bll to the hotels "operator," whch s defned as "[a]ny person operatng a hotel n the cty of New York." N.Y.C. Admn. Code (2) and (f). The tax s "pad by the occupant to the oper!ltor as trustee for and on account of the cty, and the operator shall be lable for the collecton... and for the payment of the tax." d. at l l-2502(f)(l). Further, the hotel "operator or room remarketer and any offcer 2

4 [* 3],, of any corporate operator" s personally lable for the tax. d. at ( )(2) (emphass added). Thus, when a corporate hotel operator fals to pay the hotel tax, ~he Cty, through ts Corporaton Counsel, may fle an acton aganst the operator or any of ts offcers. d. at (a). Here, pettoner has establshed ts prma face rght judgment aganst respondent under N.Y.C. Admn. Code on the ground that respondent s an off~er of Sgnature. As an ntal matter, the petton and annexed exhbts demonstrate that Sgnature s a corporate hotel "operator" as defned above and currently owes a total amount of $655,3,54.29 n unpad hotel tax, penaltes and nterest. Further, the petton sets forth that respondent s the owner and offcer of Sgnature. n response, respondent has faled to rase an ssue of fact. n hs answer, respondent offers only "general denals" and fals to dspute any essental fact gvng rse to hs lablty under N.Y.C. Admn. Code As an ntal matter, respondent presents no evdence to dspute that Sgnature s a corporate hotel "operator" under or to challenge the amount of tax assessments due thereunder. Moreover, respondent admts that he "owns and s the sole offcer of Sgnature." Addtonally, whle respondents answer contans sx affrmatve defenses, they are nothng more than bare legal conclusons bereft of any legal or factual support. Thus, they are nsuffcent to rase an ssue of.fact. To the extent that respondent attempted to fle an amended answer after pettoner submtted ts reply papers, such answer was not consdered by ths court as t was procedurally,,. mproper. n any event, the court notes that even f t had consdered such amended answer, t! stll would not have changed the courts fnal determnaton. 3

5 [* 4] Based on the foregong, the petton s granted. The Clerk s dre~ted to enter judgment n favor of pettoner and aganst respondent n the amount of $655,354.29, together wth costs and dsbursements. Ths consttutes the decson and order of the court. 4