Sharei Torah v. Hendel

What the court wrote

Verbatim from the court's document (public domain). Ellipses mark omitted text; nothing is paraphrased.

Directing that all service in this matter be made upon [Defendant] Mendel Hendel via email to mmhendel@gmail.com; and 10. Granting such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.” (NYSCEF Doc. No. 133) a. Plaintiff's first and second branches of its motion: The first two (2) branches of relief sought by Plaintiff relate to this Court's April 2, 2026 order (NYSCEF Doc. No. 126) (“April 2026 Order”). Under CPLR § 2221 [d]: “A motion for leave to reargue: 1. shall be identified specifically as such; 2. shall be based upon matters of fact or law allegedly overlooked or misapprehended by the court in determining the prior motion, but shall not include any matters of fact not offered on the prior motion; and 3. ... There is an indication on the NYSCEF record on December 1, 2025 at 9:28 am by a clerk as follows: “CASE CLOSED--REMOVEDTOEASTERNDISTRICTASPER DOC #92,” referring to Mr. Hendel's purported “Notice of Removal.” There is another, later, comment by a different clerk on December 1, 2025 at 9:54 am as follows: “Closed on error.” *5 AsPlaintiffappearstobeunaware,theCourtcannotenter a decision on the merits of a motion that has been marked “closed.” The Court also cannot direct a “closed” motion to bereopenedforadecision.Theactionbytheclerktomarkthe within action and Plaintiff's Mot. Seq. 007 “closed” rendered this Court unable to enter any decision on Mot. Seq. 007. As such, this Court denied as moot Plaintiff's subsequent motion (Mot. Seq.