Gadi Ben Hamo, Meyer Chetrit seek to enforce $30.5M Jamaica purchase

Gadi Ben Hamo and Meyer Chetrit as filed a lawsuit Friday seeking to enforce a contract they allege they signed with the Carol Joy Family Properties on December 23, 2019, to buy 11 properties in Jamaica, Queens for $30.5 million. Ben Hamo and Chetrit signed the contract as the buyers to purchase the properties that are on two tax blocks. The suit is specifically seeking to alter a $2 million loan which is also a down payment, to cover all 11 properties. As written, the $2 million loan only covers three of the properties.

According to the complaint, “The parties to Sale Agreement clearly and unambiguously intended that the Note be secured by the Second Mortgage covering by the Hillside Avenue Properties. To date, contrary to the terms of the Sale Agreement, due to the actions of the Carol Joy Defendants, the sale of the Hillside Avenue Properties has not closed.”

Court filings are the positions of one party and are not necessarily accurate or complete.

This is the second lawsuit Ben Hamo and Chetrit have filed related to the portfolio. In the first, filed in April 2021, the two sought to foreclose on the $2 million mortgage related to the portfolio, as PincusCo reported at the time.

The 11 properties are 153-01 Hillside Avenue, (Block 9706 Lot 69), 153- 03 Hillside Avenue, (Block 9706 Lot 72) [__] Hillside Avenue, (Block 9706 Lot 75), 153-02 Hillside Avenue (Block 9763 Lot 13), 153-10 Hillside Avenue (Block 9763 Lot 16), 153-12 Hillside Avenue (Block 9763 Lot 17), 87-65 153rd Street(Block 9763 Lot 11), 87-71 153rd Street (Block 9763 Lot 9), 87-73 153rd Street (Block 9763 Lot 7), 87-77 153rd Street (Block 9763 Lot 5), and 87-81 153rd Street (Block 9763 Lot 3),

The sale contract, according to the complaint, was for $30.5 million and it included a $2 million down payment, recorded as the loan. The deposit was paid and secured as a second mortgage on the properties, which was the loan Ben Hamo and Chetrit sought to foreclose on in the April action.

The second mortgage was secured by three of the 11 parcels, not all of the parcels. The failure of the second mortgage to be secured by all the parcels was, according to the new complaint, was a “mutual mistake and/or scrivener’s error.”

Direct link to Acris document. link