Teddy Volkswagen of the Bronx, LLC v. Demersky
- Alison Nathan
- 1:19-cv-02337
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 14
Teddy Volkswagen v. Demersky requested judgment on a settlement default, but the materials do not show a ruling by Judge Nathan.
Teddy Volkswagen of the Bronx, LLC and Phillip Demersky are the parties directly affected by the requested enforcement of the settlement agreement. The materials do not show whether the court granted or denied that request.
What happened
In Teddy Volkswagen of the Bronx, LLC v. Phillip Demersky, the company asked the Southern District of New York to enforce a settlement agreement after Demersky allegedly stopped making required payments.
The agreement called for 25 monthly payments of $1,000, beginning July 1, 2021. The company stated that Demersky had paid $10,000, but that every payment was late, and that the May and June 2022 payments remained unpaid after the company sent a notice giving him five business days to cure the missed payments. The company requested $27,500 through a signed confession of judgment.
The provided materials do not clearly contain a court ruling. They include the company’s request, the settlement agreement, payment records, notice of default, and confession of judgment, but they do not establish whether Judge Alison Nathan granted, denied, or otherwise resolved the request.
The detailed version
- Teddy Volkswagen of the Bronx, LLC v. Demersky · No. 1:19-cv-02337
- Alison Nathan
- July 12, 2022
Materials and procedural posture
The provided text is primarily a June 23, 2022 letter from counsel for Teddy Volkswagen of the Bronx, LLC, together with attached settlement documents and payment records. The text does not clearly reproduce a judicial opinion or order resolving the request. A garbled “ORDERED” notation appears in the materials, but it does not state a discernible disposition.
Underlying dispute and settlement
The company’s original lawsuit allegedly arose from conduct by Phillip Demersky during and after his employment with the company. The settlement agreement identifies claims under the federal 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.
Under the July 21, 2021 settlement agreement, Demersky agreed to pay the company $25,000 in 25 monthly installments of $1,000. The agreement also contained releases of claims by both sides and stated that the court would retain jurisdiction to enforce the agreement if its terms were made public.
Alleged default and requested relief
The company stated that Demersky had made $10,000 in payments, but that each payment was late. It further stated that the May 1, 2022 and June 1, 2022 payments had not been made. The company sent a notice of default on June 15, 2022, giving Demersky five business days—until June 22, 2022—to cure the missed payments.
The agreement’s default provision stated that, after an uncured late payment, Demersky would be liable for $37,500 less amounts already paid. The company requested judgment by confession for $27,500. The attached confession of judgment authorized judgment for $25,000 less payments made before default, plus 50 percent as liquidated damages, and required proof of default, notice to cure, and credit for prior payments.
Disposition
The provided materials do not establish that Judge Alison J. Nathan granted, denied, or otherwise resolved the company’s request. Accordingly, no judicial holding or disposition can be reliably stated from the text provided.
Read the full 14-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.