MEMORANDUM & ORDER This action concerns a dispute between family members over five properties in Boro Park, Brooklyn. Plaintiff Minia Meisels, a British citizen residing in London, brought suit in August 2019 against her son, Henry Meisels, and grandson, Joel Meisels (Henry’s son).1 Minia alleges that her son Henry has improperly “refused to relinquish management control” of the properties. Compl.
12-13, ECF No. 1. Minia’s claim is predicated on her assertions that she was a co-owner, together with her husband Vilmos, of the properties from the time of acquisition in the 1960s and 1970s, and that Vilmos left his interest to her when he died in 2019. Henry, in response, claims to own the properties himself. Minia now renews her (previously denied) motion for preliminary injunctive relief pending resolution of the case. In light of the significantly different posture in which this case now sits, the request for a preliminary injunction is GRANTED IN PART — specifically, it is granted as to four of the five properties at issue, for the reasons set forth below. I. Background A. Factual Background The operative facts have been set out in prior orders. E.g., Order dated October 16, 2020 Adopting Magistrate Judge Levy’s Report and Recommendation 2-4, ECF No. 92; Order dated May 13, 2021, at 3-4, ECF No. 108. Except where otherwise noted, the facts set out below are based on the evidence provided by both parties in support of, and opposition to, the first motion for preliminary injunctive relief and the present motion. The parties do not dispute that the Meisels family took ownership of the five Boro Park properties (the “Properties”) between 1969 and 1975. See, e.g., Third Minia Decl. 4, ECF No. 134; Second Henry Decl. 8, ECF No. 137. They also appear to agree that very little documentation evidencing the purchase or subsequent transfer of these properties survives. It is clear that the original purchases were effectuated through five New York corporations that took title to the Properties. (The parties refer to these entities as the “Meisels Companies.”) Second Henry Decl. 8; Third Minia Decl. 5. The original ownership of these companies (and by extension, the properties) is the key fact in dispute here. As discussed below, Minia says that she and her late husband established the Meisels Companies and purchased the Properties together. Third Minia Decl.
