### S.L. Victory Constr. & Dev. v 40-50 Brighton First Rd. Apts.Corp. 2024 NY Slip Op 31051(U) April 2, 2024 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: Index No. 506650/2021 Judge: Leon Ruchelsman Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip

Op30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local governmentsources, including the New

York State Unified Court System's eCourtsService. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication.

### FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/28/2024 02:24 PM INDEX NO. 506650/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 124 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/28/2024

1 of 6 SUPREME COU:RT OF THE STATE 

## OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS : CIVIL TERM: COMMERCIAL 8



## --------- ------- ------------------------x S.L VICTORY CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPMENT 

### CORPORATION and 

### 'T&S CONSTRUCTION CORP., plaintiffs, Decision Bnd order



### - again.st

- Index No. 

### 506650/2021 40,--,50 BRIGHTON FIRST ROAD APARTMENTS 

### CORP. and TKR PROPERTY SERVICES, INC., April 

### 2, 2024 Defendants,

-- , ------------------- ,___, ________, _____,, __,X PRESENT: HON. LEON RUCHELSMAN Motion Seq. #2 

###  The defendant TKR Property Services Inc., [hereinafter 'TKR'] has movedpursuant 

### to CPLR 

### §3212 seeking summary judgement dismissing the entire complaint. The plaintiff has cross-,moved seeking summary judgement. 

### The motions have been opposed respectively. Papers were submitted by the parties and arguments held and after reviewing a11 

### the arguments, this court now makes the following determination. The plaintiffs are two construction companies that were hired to perform work at defendant's premises loc~ted at 

### 40 Brighton First Road and 

### 50 Brighton First Road, both in Kings County. TKR was the inariagemerit company hired during the relevant time periods. The complaint alleges that plaintiff

### S.L Victory is owed 

### $407,1531 fci'r work performed and 

### T&S Construction Corp.,

1 

### It shouldbe noted 

### that whilethe

### compiaiht asserts 

### the c1mount owe.ci 

### s;1 i victory 

### is $407;

### 153., the 

### owner of 

## s.I. Victory, Andrei 

### Tsi.;irlet.ski. subm~tt~d an affidavit which states the 

### amount owed is $407~162



### (AffidavitofAndred 

### Tsiarletski, 9ll 

### [NYSCEF 

### Doc. No-
.. 81])i 

### anegligible dif.fererice 

### of $9,
[* 1]

### FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/28/2024 02:24 PM INDEX NO. 506650/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 124 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/28/2024

2 of 6 

### i-s owE3d $15_5.,9402 

### for work per.formed. 

### The ahovI=:! 

### noted parties 

### have now moved seeking summary ju.dg.ement. The plai:ntiff argue.s they have p.;resented undisputed: evid:ence 

### that theyperforme.c:i work 

### and haye 

### not been,paid 

### for such wcrrk. 

### 'rKR asse.-rts that as 

### management company

### arid agent 

### for the 

### owner of the 

### premises they -cannot ·be iiable

### .for any unpaid balances owed :t,11.e 

### p-1-ainti.ffss 

### Defendant 40-50 Brighton Firs·t Road Apartments. Cor_p•.;_ ar_g_u_es there are 

### quE3stions of fact 

### whether a contract 

### even existed 

### and whether the ·plaintiff's. are,-e·ntitled 

### to· 

### all the 

### invoices. they have .st.1.bmi

### tted.


### Conclusions
..of 

### Law Where the 

### material_ facts at issue iri 

### a 

### case a:r.e 

### in dispute 

### summaryjudgment cannot be granted ·(zucketman 

### v. City of N·ew York,_ 4:9 NYS2d 557., 

### 427 -NYS2d 

### .595 [1980]), Generally, it i.s 

### for _the jury, t_he trier of fact to determine the legal cause .of any

. . 

## injury, however, where -.only 

### one copclus..;ion 

### Il,la_y ·_be d:rawn .from 

### the :E_acts. the11. :the question of iesal cause. may be decided by the t"iial 

### court as 

### a matter·of 

### law (Marino V'. 

### Jamison, JJ39 AD"3-d 1021, "1"36 NYS.3d 324 [2d
..Dept.., 2021) , 

### It is well settled that 

### to succeed upon 

### a qlaim 

### of breach 

### of

2It should .be noted that whi.le 

### the complaint asserts t'he amount 

### owed·Ti;,;-.S C::'on$truption 

### is $15_5.,:9.40, the

### own.er o"f T&S Construction, Arkadi 

### Shterenberg, submitted an affidavit 

### which .states the amount owed is 

### .$.104:,640 (A£fidavit ofArkadi Sht.erenberg, .11 

### [NY.SCEF

## Do_c. No.

## :sz)), _a difference 

### of<$51,300. 2 [* 2]

### FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/28/2024 02:24 PM INDEX NO. 506650/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 124 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/28/2024

3 of 6 

### contract theplaintiff must establish the existence of 

### a contract, the plaintiff's performance, the defendant's breach and resulting damages (Harris v. Seward Park Housing Corp., 79 AD3d 

### 425, 9lJ NYS2d 161 [pt Dept., 2

### 010]) . Further, as explained in Gianelli v. RE/MAX of·New York, 144 AD3d 861; 41 NYS3d 273 L2d Dept., 2016], "a breach of contract cause o.:E action fails as a 

### matter of law inthe absence of any showing that a specific provision of the contract was breached" (id). Of courser there can be no contract absent·a binding agreement between the partie_s. The plaintiffs insist that although there was nd coristrtictiori cdhtract, the parties understood that the plaintiffs would submit invoices of work performed and that if each invoice was accepted by the de.fendants and entered into their database for payment then automatic approval was assumed. Thus, this ''usage of trade" established·a meeting of the minds between the patties whibh is now enforceable. Indeed, UCC §l-3.03(c) states that a "'usage of trade' is i"lny practice or method of dealing having such r.'egUlarity of observance in a place, vocation, or trade as to justify an expectation that it will be observed with respect to the transaction in question. The existencE:! and scope of such a usagemust be provj:':!d as facts. If it is established that such c.i usage is embodied in a trade code dr similar record, the interpretation of the record is a qμestion of law" (id).

3 [* 3]

### FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/28/2024 02:24 PM INDEX NO. 506650/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 124 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/28/2024

4 of 6 

### .J-i.ow~v~-r, 

### to .E:!stablish usage 

### of t~ade as·

## a validbasis 

### to ccmcl.t;i_de cl 

### t;";Ontri;tCt exis.ted expert evidence 

### is generally .necessary 

### (Didzbalis v. 

### Sheridan Transportation Company, 

### ·.t062 WL 3l619.b7.i [~LD.N.°Y. 2002]). 

### There 

### is no

### _e~pert testimony supporting 

### the usage of 

### trade in 

### this case. Furthermore, 

### the .aff

### ida.v"its submitt:ed do· 

### ·not fare .any better e:$t-ablishing contract formc}tion 

### v;La: usa91:; of trade~- Tbt;; 

### affidavits of 

### the owri.e.rs of S.I. Victory artd T&S 

### Construction both 

### state that ~'once the work
was 

### p.e.-r:formed, and i,f 

### .the wor.k was_ 

### -done- si;itisfactorily, 

### ';['l<::R w011·1ct 

### a.dmit the 

### d~b_t anr;i sufftciency 

### of·the 

### wor:k 

### done by 

### Plaintiffs 

### by placing a 

### stai.nip of apptcival oh 

### the 'invoices 

### is·sued

### by the· Plaintiffs" 

### ("Affidavit o·f 

### Andrei Tsicl:r.tets)ci, 18 [NYSCEf Doc. No. 

### 81], Affidavit of Arkadi Shterenberg, <JIB 

### (NYSCEF Doc. No. 

### 82])
. Howe.ver, 

### those self-serving assertions 

### .canno-t be a·ftorp.ed 

### any w•eight (.§..@, .Matter 

### of Barney S-chogel Inc.,. 12. B.R. 69'7 

# rs..o._N.Y. 1997]). The plaintiffs 

### a_rgue that 

### Howard 

### Manciel -an pw:ner of TKR admitted the _invoice system described by the plaintiff's Ctinfi;cmed 

### t.he us-age 

### of trade sufficient ·to es.t-abli·sh the f

### orrnatton o:f 

### ,a c9ntract:• However, 

### a careful review 

### o-f Mr. 

### Mandel's testimony demonstrates that 

### he did 

### not admi.t 

### the ac.ceptanc;·e 

### of an invoice, 

### from 

### the pl~-intiff,.

### s coristituted a::n acceptance of 

### the contract. Rather, 

### he me.rely 

### t..e:sti.t:i~d th_at when the. invoice was received it_ was process:ed for payment.' That

4 [* 4]

### FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/28/2024 02:24 PM INDEX NO. 506650/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 124 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/28/2024

5 of 6 

### p_roce.s.-s did 

### not ine
..an a. 

### contra-ct had 

### been formed 

### and that 

### if

# a: subsequent review 

### of the work

### warrantednon--:payment then 

### a 

## breach occurred. .Moreover, there 

### axe serious questions wh_ether 

### usage of tracle could 

### ewen.he est·a};)lishl;'!d in this_::case since 

### i:h New·York such usage of tr,ade 

### rriust be "so notorious" within 

### the industry 

### that every party··s·hould be 

### aware of it 

### {.British International Insurance Company .Ltd. v·. Seguras La 

### Rep.ublica, S .

### A., 3 4 2 .F.3d 

### 78 [2d. Cir. 2003]). There 

### is no evidence .cif such

### pervasive 

### .conduct throughout 

### the industry.. Indeed, .:j_t 

### is .-cl.iffi.cult

### to ass_.ert 

### that


### a one-sided uncterstandin.g of 

### contr::_act formati_on, isolated.to this

. . 

### case, could_create t:ont:i:acts 

### without the defendants 

### l:iein:g awanI of 

### the.ir existence·,. Thus, 

### the me·~e 

### processi.n.g of 

### invofces doe-~ not 

### foreclose later analysis of 

### the propriety of 

### the invoice 

### in the 

### tTr".st 

### p1a·ce. There 

### is no basi.s 

### to a:rgue once 

### t.he invq,.ice w_as processed

### the defendants. 

### are fo.ret::l.osed from challf::!-n.girig or 

### not 

### paying the invoice 

### based 

### upon issues regarding 

### the work perfo--rmed. Theref·cfre, 

### there·. 

### are s-μrely q11estio.ns 

### o:f- fact. wl:let;:.he.r any contract was formed and consequentl_)'. whether the plaini:iffs 

### are entitle.cl to 

### summary judg·ement. Consequently, the 

### p1·ai·ntif.f1

### ·s mc;:,tion seeking summary j.udge:ment is deni:.ed"

. .. 

### Turning to 

### TKR's motion seeking 

### summaryjudgernent 

### ori the grounds 

## .tt can._have no 

### tnd¢pendent liability 

### as· an agent 

### of the owne:r, the 

### p1a-intiffs have not 

### r.eally oppo.sed 

### that motion 

### qt_her thah 

### to seek their 

### own sμmmary 

### judge~entmotion. Upbn a revi·ew 

### 5 [* 5]

### FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/28/2024 02:24 PM INDEX NO. 506650/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 124 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/28/2024

6 of 6 .of the evidence presented, TKR maint~ins nb independent responsibility pursuant to its agreement with the owner. Consequently, TKR's motion seeking summary judgement dismissing the lawsuit as to them is granted. So ordered.

DATED: April 2, 2024 Brooklyn N.Y. ENTER:

Hon. JSC

.6
[* 6]