The New York Supreme Court recently dismissed a complex property dispute in the case of Follman v. Reiner, Index No. 502908/2025. The ruling, made by Justice Katherine A. Levine on June 8, 2026, affects the rights of Ahron Follman and several other parties involved in the management and sale of a Brooklyn property. This case highlights the challenges of family-owned real estate and the legal intricacies that can arise.
The dispute centers around Ahron Follman, who filed the lawsuit against Malka Turner Reiner and other family members, including Mordechai Tzvi Follman and Avraham Meir Follman. The case began when Ahron sought a temporary restraining order (TRO) to prevent the sale of a property located at 18-28 and 38 Warsoff Place, Brooklyn. The property is owned by FLUSHING WALWORTH REALTY LLC, a limited liability company in which Ahron claims to have a stake.
Ahron initiated the lawsuit on January 27, 2025, filing an emergency order to show cause for a TRO. The court granted the TRO, requiring that rents collected from the property be held in escrow while the court determined the appropriate property manager. The case saw extensive motion practice and several court appearances, with Ahron filing an amended complaint in September 2025 and multiple emergency applications regarding the property.
The core of the dispute involves which trust agreement governs the property and whether Ahron has a right of first refusal to purchase it. The parties argued over whether the 2011 or 2017 trust was operative, with the 2017 trust allegedly divesting Ahron of his one-quarter share of the property. This question of which trust applies is critical, as it determines Ahron's rights regarding the sale and proceeds from the property.
In its ruling, the court decided to dismiss the case without prejudice under CPLR 3211(a)(4), which allows for dismissal when another action is pending between the same parties. Justice Levine stated, "The merits of the action before Justice Velasquez will ineluctably address the sale of the Property described above and listed in this decision." This means that the ongoing case before Justice Richard Velasquez, which also involves the same parties and issues, will ultimately resolve the matters at hand.
The court emphasized that it would be inefficient to rule on the current case while another related case was still pending. Justice Levine noted that the parties had already litigated substantive issues regarding the property sale and that the other case would address the necessary approvals and allocation of funds from the sale.
Furthermore, the court found Ahron's motion for discontinuance under CPLR 3217(a) to be procedurally defective. The court ruled that Ahron could not unilaterally discontinue the case after engaging in extensive litigation and motion practice. Justice Levine remarked, "You [Plaintiff] needed leave of the Court because there had already been litigation." This indicates that once a case has progressed significantly, a party cannot simply withdraw from it without the court's permission.
The dismissal of this case has implications for Ahron and the other defendants, as it means they must continue to navigate the ongoing litigation in the separate case before Justice Velasquez. The outcome of that case will determine the rights and responsibilities of each party regarding the property, including whether Ahron is entitled to any proceeds from a potential sale.
This ruling is significant as it underscores the complexities involved in family property disputes and the importance of understanding the legal frameworks governing such cases. It also highlights the necessity for parties to be cautious about how they proceed in litigation, particularly when multiple cases are involved.
Looking ahead, the parties involved in Follman v. Reiner will need to focus on the related case pending before Justice Velasquez, where the key issues regarding the trusts and property management will be resolved. The dismissal of this case does not preclude Ahron from pursuing his claims in that action, but it does mean he must wait for the resolution of the other case before any decisions can be made regarding the property.
In conclusion, the New York Supreme Court's decision to dismiss Follman v. Reiner without prejudice allows the related case to proceed, which will ultimately determine the fate of the property and the rights of the parties involved. The legal battles surrounding family-owned real estate can be intricate, and this case serves as a reminder of the challenges that can arise when family members become embroiled in disputes over property management and ownership.