Court Opinion

ID: 9945532
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-27 21:10:14.975627+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:31.535232
License: Public Domain

2512 7th Ave. Hous. Dev. Fund Co., Inc. v Webb &
                      Brooker, Inc.
               2024 NY Slip Op 30579(U)
                    February 22, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 652216/2022
                  Judge: Louis L. Nock
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.
                                                                                                                     INDEX NO. 652216/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 74                                                                                           RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/23/2024

                                   SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                             NEW YORK COUNTY
            PRESENT:             HON. LOUIS L. NOCK                                              PART                              38M
                                                                                      Justice
            ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X   INDEX NO.          652216/2022
             2512 7TH AVENUE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FUND
             COMPANY, INC.,                                                                      MOTION DATE         06/29/2022

                                                         Plaintiff,                              MOTION SEQ. NO.         002

                                                 -v-
                                                                                                   DECISION + ORDER ON
             WEBB AND BROOKER, INC.,
                                                                                                         MOTION
                                                         Defendant.
            ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document numbers (Motion 002) 46, 47, 48, 49, 50,
            51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, and 73
            were read on this motion to                                                            DISMISS                         .

            LOUIS L. NOCK, J.S.C.

                      Upon the foregoing documents, the motion is granted in part and denied in part, in

            accordance with the following memorandum decision.

                      In this action for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty, plaintiff, owner of the

            building located at 2512 7th Avenue, New York, New York, entered into a management

            agreement with defendant to act as Managing Agent for the building. As relevant to the action,

            the agreement was in effect from September 1, 2021, through September 1, 2022 (agreement,

            NYSCEF Doc. No. 48, ¶ 27). Either party could indicate a desire not to renew the agreement on

            60 days’ written notice (id., ¶ 27[a]), or both parties could mutually agree in writing to terminate

            the agreement (id., ¶ 27[b]). It is the second provision that drives the dispute in this matter.

                      On November 17, 2021, defendant’s Vice President, Dimitri Naylor, informed plaintiff

            that due to “arrears and aging of the property,” it would be resigning as Managing Agent as of

            February 28, 2022, unless plaintiff was able to refinance the building (letter dated November 17,

             652216/2022 2512 7TH AVENUE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FUND COMPANY, INC. vs. WEBB                             Page 1 of 5
             AND BROOKER, INC.
             Motion No. 002

                                                                           1 of 5
[* 1]
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 652216/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 74                                                                        RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/23/2024

            2021, NYSCEF Doc. No. 53). On January 20, 2022, plaintiff’s executive director, Mujib

            Mannan, responded to defendant, asking if defendant would “stay on until 15 April 2022 in a

            management capacity until [plaintiff was] able to get the new [Managing Agent] in place?”

            (letter dated January 20, 2022, NYSCEF Doc. No. 54). On March 1, 2022, Naylor emailed

            Mannan and reminded him that the management agreement would terminate as of the end of

            April 2022 (email dated March 1, 2022 to Mannan, NYSCEF Doc. No. 55). That same day,

            Mannan wrote back, simply saying “Thank you” (email dated March 1, 2022 to Naylor,

            NYSCEF Doc. No. 55). On March 31, 2022, Mannan asked Naylor for additional time (letter

            dated March 31, 2022, NYSCEF Doc. No. 56). Naylor responded by email that defendant was

            unable to accommodate such an extension (email dated March 31, 2022, NYSCEF Doc. No. 57).

            Subsequently, Mannan advised defendant that plaintiff did not consider the agreement terminated

            and expected defendant to remain through the end of the term, which position defendant

            contested (NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 67-68).

                   “On a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211, the pleading is to be afforded a liberal

            construction” (Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87 [1994]). “[The court] accept[s] the facts as

            alleged in the complaint as true, accord[ing] plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable

            inference, and determin[ing] only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal

            theory” (id. at 87-88). Ambiguous allegations must be resolved in plaintiff’s favor (JF Capital

            Advisors, LLC v Lightstone Group, LLC, 25 NY3d 759, 764 [2015]). “The motion must be

            denied if from the pleadings' four corners factual allegations are discerned which taken together

            manifest any cause of action cognizable at law” (511 West 232nd Owners Corp. v Jennifer

            Realty Co., 98 NY2d 144, 152 [2002] [internal citations omitted]). “[W]here ... the allegations

            consist of bare legal conclusions, as well as factual claims either inherently incredible or flatly

             652216/2022 2512 7TH AVENUE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FUND COMPANY, INC. vs. WEBB            Page 2 of 5
             AND BROOKER, INC.
             Motion No. 002

                                                           2 of 5
[* 2]
                                                                                                    INDEX NO. 652216/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 74                                                                        RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/23/2024

            contradicted by documentary evidence, they are not entitled to such consideration” (Ullmann v

            Norma Kamali, Inc., 207 AD2d 691, 692 [1st Dept 1994]).

                   “When, as here, a defendant moves for dismissal of a cause of action under CPLR

            3211(a)(1), their documentary evidence must utterly refute the plaintiff's factual allegations,

            conclusively establishing a defense as a matter of law” (Himmelstein, McConnell, Gribben,

            Donoghue & Joseph, LLP v Matthew Bender & Co., Inc., 37 NY3d 169, 175 [2021] [internal

            quotation marks and citation omitted]). “To be considered documentary, evidence must be

            unambiguous and of undisputed authenticity, that is, it must be essentially unassailable” (Bath &

            Twenty, LLC v Federal Sav. Bank, 198 AD3d 855 [2d Dept 2021] ).

                   Here, plaintiff has adequately alleged that defendant anticipatorily breached the

            management agreement by attempting to terminate it before the end of the term. “An

            anticipatory breach of a contract—also known as an anticipatory repudiation—can be either a

            statement by the obligor to the obligee indicating that the obligor will commit a breach that

            would of itself give the obligee a claim for damages for total breach or a voluntary affirmative

            act which renders the obligor unable or apparently unable to perform without such a breach”

            (Princes Point LLC v Muss Dev. L.L.C., 30 NY3d 127, 133 [2017] [internal quotation marks and

            citation omitted]). “For an anticipatory repudiation to be deemed to have occurred, the

            expression of intent not to perform by the repudiator must be positive and unequivocal” (id.

            [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]). “[T]he party harmed by the repudiation must

            make a choice either to pursue damages for the breach or to proceed as if the contract is valid”

            (id.). Plaintiff alleges that it attempted to continue to get defendant to perform its obligations as

            Managing Agent for the rest of the term of the agreement, but defendant nevertheless terminated

            the agreement early unilaterally. Where a party elects that path, it could “wait to see if [the

             652216/2022 2512 7TH AVENUE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FUND COMPANY, INC. vs. WEBB            Page 3 of 5
             AND BROOKER, INC.
             Motion No. 002

                                                           3 of 5
[* 3]
                                                                                                 INDEX NO. 652216/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 74                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/23/2024

            repudiating party] would perform when required by the terms of the agreement and, if it did not

            do so, then bring suit on the subsequent breach (AG Properties of Kingston, LLC v Besicorp-

            Empire Dev. Co., LLC, 14 AD3d 971, 973 [3d Dept 2005]). Defendant’s evidence that the

            parties mutually agreed to terminate the agreement, namely, the above cited correspondence

            between the parties, does not conclusively establish a defense to plaintiff’s claims. Accordingly,

            the motion must be denied in this respect (Himmelstein, McConnell, Gribben, Donoghue &

            Joseph, LLP, 37 NY3d at 175). Defendant’s reliance on MCAP Robeson Apartments Ltd.

            Partnership v Munimae TE Bond Subsidiary, LLC (136 AD3d 602, 603 [1st Dept 2016]) to the

            contrary is unavailing because, in that case, the non-repudiating party immediately threatened

            suit upon the repudiation.

                   The motion is granted, however, with respect to the claims for breach of fiduciary duty

            and under the faithless servant doctrine. As a general matter, claims are dismissible where they

            arise from the same facts and seek the same damages (e.g. Ullmann-Schneider v Lacher &

            Lovell-Taylor, P.C., 121 AD3d 415, 416 [1st Dept 2014]; Soni v Pryor, 102 AD3d 856, 858 [2d

            Dept 2013]). Where a claim for a breach of fiduciary duty arises from the same factual premise

            as a claim for breach of contract, it is impermissibly duplicative (Village of Kiryas Joel v County

            of Orange, 144 AD3d 895, 898 [2d Dept 2016]). Here, all three claims arise from the same

            facts, namely, the alleged impermissible early termination of the agreement between the parties.

            While Mannan submits an affidavit alleging other misconduct by defendant, those allegations are

            not set forth in the complaint.

                   Accordingly, it is hereby

                   ORDERED that the motion to dismiss is granted to the extent that the second and third

            causes of action of the complaint are dismissed; and it is further

             652216/2022 2512 7TH AVENUE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FUND COMPANY, INC. vs. WEBB          Page 4 of 5
             AND BROOKER, INC.
             Motion No. 002

                                                          4 of 5
[* 4]
                                                                                                        INDEX NO. 652216/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 74                                                                              RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/23/2024

                    ORDERED that defendant is directed to serve an answer to the complaint within 20 days

            after the date of filing hereof; and it is further

                    ORDERED that counsel are directed to appear for a preliminary conference in Room 1166,

            111 Centre Street, New York, New York, on March 27, 2024, at 2:15 PM.

                    This constitutes the decision and order of the court.

                    2/22/2024                                                                 $SIG$
                      DATE                                                             LOUIS L. NOCK, J.S.C.
             CHECK ONE:                   CASE DISPOSED                   X   NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

             APPLICATION:
                                          GRANTED

                                          SETTLE ORDER
                                                                 DENIED   X   GRANTED IN PART

                                                                              SUBMIT ORDER
                                                                                                      □    OTHER

             CHECK IF APPROPRIATE:        INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN          FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT
                                                                                                      □    REFERENCE

             652216/2022 2512 7TH AVENUE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FUND COMPANY, INC. vs. WEBB                Page 5 of 5
             AND BROOKER, INC.
             Motion No. 002

                                                             5 of 5
[* 5]