Court Opinion

ID: 9964076
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-26 20:10:06.384482+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:09.814823
License: Public Domain

Prosperum Capital Partners LLC v Bottego Enters.,
                           Inc.
               2024 NY Slip Op 31385(U)
                     April 19, 2024
             Supreme Court, Kings County
        Docket Number: Index No. 529406/2022
                Judge: Francois A. Rivera
Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip
 Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York
 State and local government sources, including the New
  York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service.
 This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official
                       publication.
     FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/19/2024 12:05 PM                                                                          INDEX NO. 529406/2022
     NYSCEF DOC. NO. 19                                                                                               RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/19/2024

                                                                                                            .At an IAS Tenn, Part 52 of
                                                                                                             the Supreme Court of the
                                                                                                             State of New York, held in
                                                                                                             cllld for the County of
                                                                                                             Kings, at the Courthouse;
                                                                                                                  .                 .

                                                                                                             at Civic Center, Brooklyn;
                                                                                                             New York; on the 19 th day
                                                                                                             of April 2024

                                     HONORABLE FRANCOIS A. RIVERA

                                     PROSPERUM CAPITAL PARTNERS LLC
                                     DIBIA ARSENAL FUNDING;

                                                                                      Plaintiff,            DECISION & ORDER
                                                                                                            Index No. 529406/2022
                                                                           -against:':"

                                     BOTTEGO ENTERPRISES, INC . ,
                                     DBA PRECISION CRAFTSMAN,
                                     and ALFRED D BOTTEGO,

                                                                          Defendants.
                                    ----------. -----· ------- .--- . ----. ------. ------· --------------------X
                                            Recitation in accordance with CPLR 2219 (a) of the papers considered on the
                                    notice of motion filed on Nove1nber 14, 2023, by Prosperum Capital PartnersLLC D/B/A
                                    Arsenal Funding (heteinafter the plaintiff) for an order pursuant to CPLR 3212 granting
                                    summary Judgment in its favor on its causes of action for breach of contract, breach ofa
                                    guarantee agree1nei1t and attomey's fees against Bottego Enterprises, Inc., D/B/A
                                    Ptecision Craftsman (heteinaftet the business defendant), and Alfred Bottego (hereinafter
                                    the individual defendants) {collectively the defendants) for breachingtheagreements.
                                    The motion is unopposed.

                                    -Notice of Motion.
                                    -Statement ofMatedal Facts
                                    "'.Affirination in .Support
                                    -Affidavitin Support
                                          Exhibits A~E
                                    -Memorandum of law in support

- 1]
   - -................. _._ .......................................... .                           1 of 8
[*
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/19/2024 12:05 PM                                               INDEX NO. 529406/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 19                                                                   RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/19/2024

            BACKGROUNI>

                     On October 11, 2022, plaintiff cmnmenced the instant action by filing a summons

            and verified complaintwiththeKingsCounty Clerk's office (KCCO). On November 7,

            2022, the defendants interposed and filed a joint verified answer with the KCCO.

                     The verified complaint alleges thirty-two. allegations of fact in support o fthree

            denominated causes of action. The first is for breach of contract, the second is for breach

            of a guarantee agreement, and the third is for attorney's fees based oil an alleged breach

            of the agreement.

                     The verified complaint alleges the following salient facts. On or about June 16,

            2022,the business defendant, in consideration of the sum of$25,000.00, sold, assigned;
                 .                          .                                .   .

            and transferred to plaintiff nine {9%) percent ofits future sales proceeds, up to an

            aggregate amount of $37,250.00. Pursuant to the aforesaidagreement,the business

            defendant agreed tohave one bank accQllnt approved by plaintiff (hereinafter the "Bank

           Account") from which the business defendant authorized plaintiff to debit 93/o of its daily

            revenue until the amount of receivables of $37,250.00 was paid in fuU. Also, by the

            agreement, Alfred Bottego executed a personal guarantee if the business defendant

            defaulted ort the agreement.

                     On or aboutSepteinber 21, 2022, the business defendantstopped 1naking its

            payments to plaintiff and otherwise breached the agreement by intentionally .impeding·

            and preventin15 p'laintiff from making the agreed upon ACH withdrawals from the Bank

           Account whHe conducting r~gular business operations and stiH in re.c¢ipt ofaccourits:-

           i•ecei vab le.

                                                         2 of 8
[* 2]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/19/2024 12:05 PM                                                INDEX NO. 529406/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 19                                                                    RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/19/2024

                   In total, the busin:ess defendant remitted the amount of $22,350.24 leaving a

            balance.of $14,899.76 remaining due and owing. Additionally, pursuant to the

            agreement, the business defendant incurred a "Default Fee" in the amount of $7,500.00, a

            "Non.,.Sufficient Fees'' in the amount of $400.00artd a :'UCC Filing Fee'' in the amount

            of$195.00 to cover the cost of filing UCC-1 financing statement fora total balance of

            $22,994.76 due and owing to the plaintiff.

                   PursuanttO the terms ofthe agreement, defendants further owe plaintiff a total of

            $3,724,94 representing reasonable attorney;s fees, or twenty five percent (25%), incurred

            in the collection of the underlying balance. By reason of the foregoing:, the plaintiff has

            been damagedin the sum of$22,994.76, together with attorney's fees of$3,724.94,

            resulting in a sum total of$26,719.70. Despite due de1nand, the business defendant has

            failed to pay the amounts due and owing'.

            LAW AND APPLICATION

                   The defendants did not submit opposition to the instant motion. However; "[a]

            summary judgment motion shoulcl not be granted merely because the party against whom

           judgment is sought failed to submit papers in opposition to the motion, {i.e. 'defaulted')"

            (Liberty TaxiMgt., Inc. v Gincherman, 32 AD3d 276,278 n [1st Dept2006], citing

            Vermont Teddy Bear Co., v l-800Beargram Co., 373 F3d241, 244 [2d Cir2004J ["the

            failure. to oppose a motion for summary judgment alone does not justify the granting of

            swnmary judgnie11t. Insteac:l,the ... court rimst still assess whetl1.er th.e moving party ha~

            fulfilled. its burden ofdeinonstrating that there is rto gei1uine issue of material fact and Its

            entitlement tojudgment as a matter of law'']; see .Cugini v System Lumber Co., Inc., 1 il

                                                        3 of 8
[* 3]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/19/2024 12:05 PM                                            INDEX NO. 529406/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 19                                                                RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/19/2024

            AD2dl 14, 115 [1st Dept 1985]).

                   It is well established that summary judgment may be granted only when no triable

            issue of fact exists (Alvarez v ProspectHospital, 68 NY2d 320, 324-25 [1986]). The

            burden is upon the moving party to make a prima facie showing thathe .or she is entitled

            to summary judgment as a matterof law by presenting evidence in admissible form

            demonstrating the absence of material facts (Giuffrida v Citibank, l 00 NY2d 72; 81

            [2003]).

                   A failure.to make that showing requires the denial of the summaryjudgrnent

            motion, regardless of the adequacy ofthe opposing papers (Ayottev Gervasio, 81 NY2d

            1062, 1063 [1993]). Ifa prima facie showing has been made, the burden shifts to the

            opposing party to ptoduce evidentiary proof sufficientto establish the existence of

            material issues of fact (Alvarez, 68 NY2d at 324).

                   Pursuant to CPLR 3212 (b), a court will grant a motion for summary judgment

            upon a determination that the movant's papersjustify holding, as a rnatter of law, that

            there is no defense to the cause ofaction or that the-cause of action or defense has no

            merit. Furthermore, all of the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the

            opponent of the•motion (Marine Midland Bank v Dino & Artie's Automatic Transmission

            Co., 168 AD2d 610,610 [2d Dept 1990]).

                   In the case at bar, the orily sworn testimony submitted by the plaintiff in support

           ofthe mbtfrm was an affirmation of Jeffrey Pare11a, its counsel (hereinafter Parella:), and

            an affidavit.ofMarlen Kruzhkov, its managing member (hereinafter Kruzhkov).

                  Pa,rella' s affirmatio11. d¢monstrated no personal knowledge· of anY oftile

                                                      4 of 8
[* 4]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/19/2024 12:05 PM                                              INDEX NO. 529406/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 19                                                                 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/19/2024

            transactional facts alleged in the complaint. "An attorney's affirmation that is not based

            upon personal knowledge is of no probative or evidehtiary significance" (Nerayojfv

            Khorshad, 168 AD3d 866, 867 [2d Dept 2019], citing Warrington v Ryder Truck Rental,

            Inc~, 35 AD3d 455, 45 6 [2d Dept 2006]). Parella's affirmation states that additional facts

            in support of the motion are contained in the affidavit ofl(ruzhkov.

                       Kruzhkov's affidavit is used to authenticate the agreement which was allegedly

            breached by the ·defendants. He averred that he is the managing mein ber of the p Ia intiff

            and, as such, has personal knowledge o fp laintit'f s business practices and procedures. He

            further averred that the factual allegations· proffered.in.support.ofthe·.motion for

            summary judgment were derived from his review of the plaintiffs business records. He

            then refetred to the three documents attached to the motion, namely, the agreement, a

            document denominatedasproofofpaymentand a document denominated as a payment

            history.

                   Kruzhkov's affidavit averred that tlie defendants defaulted on the agreement by

            either blocking _plaintiffs access to a designated bank account froin which the business

            defendant agreed topermitplaintifftowithdraw receivables, orby failing to deposit

            receivables into the bank account, or by depositing receivables into an account other than

            the·agreed uponbank account.

                   Ktuzhkov's allegedthat the pay1nent hi~tory~ annexed as exhibit Oto his affidavit,

            was proofofthe defendants.' default. "A proper foundation for the admission of a

            business record must be provided by someone wi_th personalknowledge ofthe maker's

            businesspra¢tices and procedures" (Citi.bi:mk) N.A. v Cabrera, 130 AD3d 861, 861 [24

                                                        5 of 8
[* 5]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/19/2024 12:05 PM                                               INDEX NO. 529406/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 19                                                                RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/19/2024

            Dept 2015]). Generaily, "the mere filing of papers received from other entities, even if

            they are retained in the regular course of business, is insufficient to qualify the documents

            as business tecords'''{Bank ofN.Y Mellon v Gordon, 171 AD3d 197,209 [2d Dept 2019],

            quoting Standard Textile Co. v National Equip. Rental, 80 AD2d 91 t 911 [2d Dept

            1981]). "However, such records may be admitted into evidence if the recipient can

            establish personal knowledge ofthe maker's business practices and procedures or

            establish that the records provided by the nrnker were incorporated into the recipient's

            own records and routinely relied upon by the recipient in its own business" (Bank ofN.Y.

            Mellon, 171 AD3d at 209).

                   In paragraph 16 ofKruzhkov's. affidavit, Kruzhkov alleged thatthe defendants

            breached the agreement "by defaulting on its representations and warnmties to Plaintiff

            under the Agreement and by failing to direct its receivables/payments to Plaintiff, by

            blocking Plaintiffs access to a designated bank account from which Business Defendant

            agreed to permit Plaintiff to withdraw receivables, by failing to deposit receivables into

            the Bank Account, and/or by depositing receivables into an account other than the agreed

            upon Bank Accouht.'' Although the plaintiff contends that defendants performed certain

            acts, the alleged acts were stated in the alternative and the payment history did not

            _provide proof of any one of the alleged acts. Here, the payment history is submitted

            without explaining how to read it Itis not self-explanatoty. Nor does it establish any of

            the alleged acts by the defendants con•stituting a default under the agreement.

                                                      6 of 8
[* 6]
      FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/19/2024 12:05 PM                                                                               INDEX NO. 529406/2022
      NYSCEF DOC. NO. 19                                                                                                   RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/19/2024

                                                           The plaintiff did not annex its own bank records or the bank records of the

                                        defendants in support of the motion. It is unclear whether the payment history data is

                                        derived from other records. "[I]tis the business record itself, not the foundational

                                       affidavit, that serves as proof of the matter asserted" (Citibank, NA. vPotente,210 AD3d

                                       861, 862 [2d Dept 2022], quoting Banko/NY Mellon, l 71 AD3d at 205). Accordingly,

                                        evidence of the contents of business records is admissible only where the records

                                       themselves are introduced. "Witho11t their introduction, a witness 1s testimony as to the

                                       contents of the recorcls is inadmissible hearsay" (Bank of New York Mellon v Gordon,

                                       171 AD3d 197 [2d Dept 2019]). In smn, plaintiff has failed to make a prima facie

                                       showing of entitlement to summary judgment on it claim that the business defendants

                                       breach of the agreement.

                                                           Inasmtlch as the plaintiff did not make a prima facie showing that th~ business

                                       defendant breached the agreement, the plaintiff did not establish that the obligation ofthe

                                       individualguarantor was triggered; As a result, the plaintiff also failed to show that the

                                       guarantor breached the agreement.

                                                          Inasmuch, as the plaintifffailed to demonstrate that any defendant breached the

                                       agreement, the third cause ofaction for attorney's fees basecl on a breach of the

                                       agreement is also unsupported. The motion is therefore denied withoutre·gardto the

                                       sufficiency orlack o(opposing papers (See Cugini v System Lbr. Co:, I 11 AD:id 114,

                                       115 [1st Dept 1985]).

                                       CONCLUSION

                                                          The. inotio11 by Ptospenun Capital Partners LLC D/B/A Arsenal Funding for an

                                                                                             7 of 8
-7]- ..........-...··-···-·- .............................. ·········- ........... .
[*
     FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/19/2024 12:05 PM                                                                         INDEX NO. 529406/2022
     NYSCEF DOC. NO. 19                                                                                              RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/19/2024

                                  orderpursuant to CPLR 3212 granting summa1y judgment in its favor on its causes of

                                  action for breach of contract, breach of a guarantee agreement, and attorney's fees based

                                  on the breach asserted as against Bottego Enterprises,Inc., D/B/A Precision Craftsman

                                  and Alfred Bottego is denied.

                                                  The foregoing Gonstitutes the decision and order of the Court.

                                  ENTER:
                                                                                                       __ ..J>_.,~

                                                                                                    l.8.C.
                                                                                        HON. FRANCOISA; RlVERA

-8]- .............. ·-······-··............................... ..                   8 of 8
[*