Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled June 24, 2022

Teddy Volkswagen of the Bronx, LLC v. Demersky

Judge
Alison Nathan
Docket
1:19-cv-02337
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
14
ContractCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Teddy Volkswagen v. Demersky, Judge Nathan ordered Demersky to file a request by July 1 after the dealership sought judgment under their settlement.

Who this affects

Phillip Demersky was ordered to file a request by July 1, 2022. Teddy Volkswagen of the Bronx, LLC’s request for a $27,500 judgment is not shown as granted or denied in the provided text.

What happened

Teddy Volkswagen of the Bronx, LLC v. Phillip Demersky arose from a dispute over Demersky’s former employment with the dealership. The parties settled, and Demersky agreed to pay $25,000 in monthly installments.

The dealership claimed that Demersky missed the May 1 and June 1, 2022 payments. It asked the court to enter a $27,500 judgment under a signed confession-of-judgment agreement, after giving notice and an opportunity to cure the missed payments.

On June 24, 2022, Judge Alison Nathan ordered Demersky to file a request by July 1, 2022. The text provided does not show that the court entered the requested judgment or otherwise ruled on the dealership’s application.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Teddy Volkswagen of the Bronx, LLC v. Demersky · No. 1:19-cv-02337
Judge
Alison Nathan
Date
June 24, 2022

Background

Teddy Volkswagen of the Bronx, LLC sued Phillip Demersky over alleged schemes to take money from the dealership during and after his employment. The settlement agreement identifies the claims as including a claim under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and New York common-law claims for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of the duty of loyalty, and violation of the faithless-servant doctrine.

The parties settled before trial. Under the July 21, 2021 settlement agreement, Demersky agreed to pay the dealership $25,000 in 25 monthly installments of $1,000, beginning July 1, 2021. The agreement stated that if a payment was late and Demersky did not cure the default within five business days after notice, he would owe $37,500 minus payments already made. It also included a signed confession of judgment, which could be filed after a default and notice to cure.

Application for Judgment

The dealership’s submission stated that Demersky had paid $10,000, but that the payments were late. It said the May 1 and June 1, 2022 installments had not been paid. The dealership sent a default notice on June 15, 2022, giving Demersky until June 22 to cure. According to the submission, he did not cure the missed payments.

The dealership therefore requested entry of a $27,500 judgment by confession. The materials also state that the settlement agreement had originally been confidential and that an earlier order declined to retain jurisdiction to enforce it unless its terms were made public. The provided materials say the agreement was made part of the public record with the dealership’s application.

Court’s Action

On June 24, 2022, the court ordered the defendant to file a request by July 1, 2022. The order says “SO ORDERED” and identifies the judge as sitting by designation. The materials provided do not explain what type of request Demersky was required to file, and they do not show that the court granted or denied the dealership’s request for judgment by confession. Accordingly, the ruling shown here is an interim procedural order, not an entry of the requested judgment.

The authoritative version

Read the full 14-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.