The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 002) 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 52, 54, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69 were read on this motion to/for SUMMARY JUDGMENT(AFTER JOINDER). The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 003) 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 53, 55, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75 were read on this motion to/for SUMMARY JUDGMENT(AFTER JOINDER). DECISION ORDER ON MOTION Upon the foregoing documents, the motion of plaintiff Lower Fifth Realty Corp. (“Plaintiff”) for summary judgment (Motion Seq. 002) is denied and the motion of defendant Itria Ventures, LLC (“Defendant”) for summary judgment (Motion Seq. 003) is granted, in accord with the following memorandum decision. The motions are consolidated for decision. Background Plaintiff is the owner of real property located at 178/180 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York (the “Premises”). On July 2, 1996, Plaintiff entered into a commercial lease agreement with non-party Phuman Singh (“Tenant”) for use of the Premises as a gourmet delicatessen (Radmin 1/2/20 aff in support, exhibit C). The lease agreement was later modified pursuant to a modification agreement dated June 24, 2008 (id., exhibit D). On July 26, 2017, Tenant entered into an agreement with Defendant whereby Defendant purchased future receivables of Tenant, as secured by a lien on certain property of Tenant, including property located at the Premises (the “Property”) (Awan 3/5/20 aff in opp, exhibit F). Defendant perfected its lien by filing a UCC-1 Financing Statement on July 31, 2017 (id., exhibit G). In May 2018, Tenant was evicted from the Premises under New York County Housing Court Index No. 62903/17 (Radmin 1/2/20 aff 8). On May 17, 2018, Shujah A. Awan, Associate General Counsel to Defendant, sent a letter to Plaintiff notifying Plaintiff of Defendant’s intention to enforce its rights and remedies under the New York Uniform Commercial Code (the “UCC”) and to exercise its right to take possession of the Property in order to satisfy the secured debt owed to Defendant. In relevant part, the May 17, 2018 letter advised that “I, on behalf of [Defendant], direct you, as the landlord of the Premises, to refrain from disposing of, or transferring in any way, the Property without the express prior authorization from [Defendant],” and advised that Defendant would coordinate with a moving company to effect possession of the Property (Radmin 1/2/20 aff, exhibit E; Awan 3/5/20 aff, exhibit H). After notifying Plaintiff of its security interest, Defendant sought to recover the Property pursuant to UCC 9-609 (b)(2) and UCC 9-604 (d). Defendant did not take any steps through a judicial process to enforce its security interest or otherwise take legal title to the Property. Beginning in June 2018, Defendant sought to arrange a time with Plaintiff to take possession of the Property (Awan 3/5/20 aff 22). Ultimately, Plaintiff agreed to allow Defendant’s mover to remove the Property from the Premises on June 28, 2018 (id. 23). Nevertheless, when the movers arrived at the Premises on June 28, 2018, Joel Radmin (“Radmin”), an officer of Plaintiff, requested that the movers provide an insurance certificate, but was unsatisfied with the certificate of self-insurance that they provided and refused to allow the movers to remove the Property (Awan 3/5/20 aff 25). Radmin asserts that the insurance certificate was fraudulent, and cites this as the reason for his refusal (Radmin 1/2/20 aff
