Anderson v. Akam Assocs., Inc. (June 5, 2025)

Case details
Full caption
Anderson v. Akam Associates, Inc.
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
New York (NY)
Court
New York Court of Appeals
Decided
June 5, 2025
Disposition
Motion Granted
Anderson v. Akam Associates, Inc., 2025 WL 3056598 (2025) WESTLAW   © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.12025 WL 3056598 (N.Y.Sup.) (Trial Order)Supreme Court of New York.New York CountyCharlotte ANDERSON, Plaintiff,v.AKAM ASSOCIATES, INC., Sutton Apartments Corporation, The Board of Managers ofthe Sutton Condominium, Bradhurst 100 Development LLC, Duvernay & Brooks LLC,Duvernay Sutton LLC, Joni Brooks, Pennrose Properties, LLC, Richard Barnhart, MarkDambly, Magnusson Architecture & Planning, PC, West Manor Construction Corp., Defendant.No. 159765/2021.October 27, 2025.*1 PART 11MMOTION DATE 09/25/2025, 09/18/2025MOTION SEQ. NO. 009 010Editor's Note: This document contains discussion of unverified citations, likely generatedby AI tools used by a party or counsel. These citations are not attributable to the Court. Theunverified citations have been preserved as part of the official record, but links are unavailable.Decision * Order on MotionLyle E. Frank, J.S.C.The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 009) 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 229,230, 231, 232 were read on this motion to/for SEAL.The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 010) 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 215, 216,217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 227, 228 were read on this motion to/for ENFORCEMENT.Upon the foregoing documents, defendants' motions to seal and enforce the settlement agreement are granted.Motion sequence 009, defendants', AKAM Associates, Inc., Sutton Apartments Corporation, and The Board of Managers of theSutton Condominium, motion initiated by order to show cause, seeks to seal its affirmation in support of defendants' motion toenforce the settlement, memorandum of law in support and supporting exhibit A, the settlement agreement dated June 5, 2025,NYSCEF Doc Nos.: 203, 207, and 204. Plaintiff submits an affirmation in partial opposition, however, she does not cogentlyargue why the application to seal should be denied. Rather in its opposition, plaintiff contends that any documents other thanthe settlement agreement should not be sealed under what appears to be an argument that defendants are attempting to hidemisconduct. Plaintiff's argument misses the mark, and the Court finds that sealing is necessary with respect to the documentsreferred to by defendants as said documents refer to the settlement agreements and the very terms that require confidentiality.Accordingly, the application to seal is granted.Motion sequence 010, seeks to enforce the settlement agreement between the parties, which includes execution of a stipulationof discontinuance, attorneys' fees for the instant application and sanctions against plaintiff. Plaintiff opposes the motion on the
Anderson v. Akam Associates, Inc., 2025 WL 3056598 (2025) WESTLAW   © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.2grounds that the matter is marked disposed thus the Court cannot entertain substantive motions. In support of this position,plaintiff states “Once an action is marked disposed, the trial court is divested of jurisdiction to hear further substantive motionsunless and until the matter is restored. (Matter of Oppenheimer v. City of New York, 193 A.D.2d 457 [1st Dept 1993])”.In reply, defendants submit that the legal authority cited by plaintiff to support her contention does not exist. The Court hasin fact reviewed the citation and has confirmed that the citation provided by plaintiff is false and no such case exists. Evenproviding the pro se plaintiff, who is an attorney licensed and admitted to the New York State Bar, the benefit of the doubt andassuming a typo was made in the citation, the Court found the matter Oppenheimer v City of NY, 193 AD3d 957 [2d Dept 2021],and that case does not at all stand for the proposition advanced by plaintiff.Plaintiff does not substantively oppose the motion nor present any legally cognizable argument as to why after receiving paymentin full, she should not be compelled to execute the stipulation of discontinuance. The Court finds that defendants have establishedentitlement to the relief sought and finds that a hearing is appropriate to determine the reasonable amount of attorneys' fees thatare permissible for movant to receive pursuant to the settlement agreem as well as the appropriate sanction against plaintiff forher presenting to the Court an argum and a case that does not exist. Accordingly, it is hereby*2 ORDERED that defendants' motions, sequence 009 and 010, is granted in their enti and it is furtherORDERED that plaintiff is compelled to comply with the settlement agreement and execute the stipulation of discontinuancewithin 7 days of the date of this Order; and it is furtherORDERED that the parties are to appear on February 4, 2026 at 3pm in Part 11, 60 Centre Street, Room 412., for a hearingas indicated above.10/27/2025DATE<<signature>>LYLE E. FRANK, J.S.C.CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED ☑ NON-FINAL DISPOSITION ☑ GRANTED DENIED GRANTED IN PART OTHER APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARYAPPOINTMENT REFERENCE End of Document© 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
ProvenanceKnow exactly where this document came from.Members see the sourcing behind every authority on DocPost — so you can check the record yourself and cite with confidence.Request access