Court Opinion

ID: 9959921
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-12 20:12:27.054363+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:59.875483
License: Public Domain

Sungate Partners, Inc. v Titus
               2024 NY Slip Op 31159(U)
                      April 5, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 651695/2020
                  Judge: Debra A. James
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. 651695/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 142                                                                                              RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/05/2024

                                   SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                             NEW YORK COUNTY
            PRESENT:             HON. DEBRA A. JAMES                                                 PART    59
                                                                                       Justice
            ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------X      INDEX NO.          651695/2020
             SUNGATE PARTNERS, INC.,
                                                                                                     MOTION DATE         01/03/2022
                                                         Plaintiff,
                                                                                                     MOTION SEQ. NO.       003 004
                                                 - V -

             MATT TITUS and WEAPONS OF SEDUCTION, LLC,                                                 DECISION + ORDER ON
                                                                                                             MOTION
                                                         Defendants.
            ------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------X

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 003) 60, 61, 62, 63, 64,
            65, 66, 67, 68,69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80,81, 82, 83, 84, 85,86,87, 88,89, 90, 91, 92,
            93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136,
            137
            were read on this motion to/for                                        SUMMARY JUDGMENT (AFTER JOINDER)

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 004) 104, 105, 106, 107,
            108,109,110,111,112,113,114,115,116,117,118,119,120,121,122,123,124,125,138
            were read on this motion to/for                                                       JUDGMENT-SUMMARY

                                                                            ORDER

                      Upon the foregoing documents, it is

                      ORDERED           that        the motion of                    the          defendants Matt       Titus          and

            Weapons          of      Seduction,               LLC       for       summary           judgment      dismissing           the

            complaint (motion sequence number 004) is DENIED; and it is further

                      ORDERED that the motion of plaintiff Sungate Partners,                                                      Inc,

            for      summary            judgment             in       its      favor         against        defendants       (motion

            sequence number 003), as to liability only, is GRANTED; and it is

            further

             651695/2020 SUNGATE PARTNERS, INC. vs. TITUS, MATT                                                          Page 1 of 6
             Motion No. 003 004

                                                                            1 of 6
[* 1]
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 651695/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 142                                                                    RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/05/2024

                   ORDERED that an assessment of damages,                         including reasonable

            attorneys'        fees,     against       defendants Matt           Titus    and Weapons             of

            Seduction, LLC, is directed, and it is further

                   ORDERED that a copy of this order with notice of entry be

            served by the movant upon the Clerk of the General Clerk's Office,

            who    is    directed,         upon    the     filing    of     a   note    of   issue      and       a

            certificate of readiness and the payment of proper fees,                                 if any,

            to place this action on the appropriate trial calendar for the

            assessment hereinabove directed; and it is further

                   ORDERED       that      such    service        upon    the   Clerk   of    the    General

            Clerk's Office shall be made in accordance with the procedures set

            forth in the Protocol on Courthouse and County Clerk Procedures

            for Electronically Filed Cases (accessible at the "E-Filing" page

            on the court's website.

                                                         DECISION

                   This action arises from an agreement between the plaintiff

            Sungate      Partners,         Inc     ("Sungate"),          and    defendants     Matt       Titus

            ("Titus") and Weapons of Seduction, LLC ("Weapons")                              for licensing

            and other services (the "Contract"). (NYSCEF Doc. No. 66.)                               Sungate

            commenced this action alleging that the defendants have breached

            the Contract by failing to pay the amounts due thereunder.

                   The     Contract         provides        that    Sungate       is    engaged      by         the

            defendants        as     the    exclusive         global      licensing      agent      for         the

            defendants and their various related brands in exchange for a 25%

             651695/2020 SUNGATE PARTNERS, INC. vs. TITUS, MATT                                   Page 2 of 6
             Motion No. 003 004

                                                           2 of 6
[* 2]
                                                                                                 INDEX NO. 651695/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 142                                                                    RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/05/2024

            commission on any proceeds derived from prospects introduced or

            procured by Sungate.              (NYSCEF Document Number 66).

                   The instant action concerns on-air spokesperson engagements

            that      Titus       obtained        from      Viatek      Consumer     Products               Group

            ("Viatek"),        a third-party undisputedly introduced by Sungate to

            defendants.

                   The defendants            contend that          the Contract pertains only to

            licensing engagements that were procured by Sungate, and excludes

            service        engagements,           such       as     Titus'    on-air       spokesperson

            engagements with Viatek because the Contract states that Sungate

            was      retained          as      the       defendants'         "exclusive              licensing

            representative" and because Sungate was to be paid "Royalties".

                   This     court      disagrees.        The      Contract   unambiguously provides

            that Sungate will "seek out prospects for licenses, joint venture,

            sales or other means ("Prospects") for the commercial exploitation

            our brand names,           trademarks,         servicemarks,      trade names,            designs,

            images,       likeness       and     derivatives         thereof."     (Id    at     i       1).       In

            exchange, Sungate shall receive "Royalties", which is also broadly

            defined as "consideration payable with respect" to any agreement

            executed with a Prospect.                Under the terms of the Contract, Sungate

            receives the Royalties, deducts its 25% commission, and remits the

            remainder to the defendants.                  ( Id at i 2) .

                   To    accept      the    defendants'           interpretation    of     the        Contract

            would require this court to completely ignore the broad language

             651695/2020 SUNGATE PARTNERS, INC. vs. TITUS, MATT                                      Page 3 of 6
             Motion No. 003 004

                                                           3 of 6
[* 3]
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 651695/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 142                                                                        RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/05/2024

            in the Contract defining the scope of work and the compensation

            and     give      weight        solely       to       the     general      terms      "licensing

            representative" and "Royalties" to conclude that the Contract was

            limited to licensing transactions.                      However, controlling precedent

            holds that

                           "The court must read the agreement as a whole so as not
                           to place undue emphasis on certain words and terms, and
                           must be careful not to distort the meaning of the terms
                           so as to create a new contract between the parties."

            Better Living Now,            Inc v Image Too, Inc,               67 AD3d 940, 941         (2d

            Dept 2009) .

                   The language of the Contract further supports a determination

            that Sungate was engaged to service Titus' personal brand, as the

            Contract       clearly states           that      Titus      is   the   owner of the        "'Matt

            Titus' brands and other related trademarks and copyrights". Id

                   Between       2016     and    2019,     Sunga te       received Royal ties          on        the

            revenue        Titus        earned        from        Viatek's          on-air     spokesperson

            engagements,         and deducted its             25%       commission,     and remitted the

            remainder to the defendants as required under the Contract.                                           In

            May 2019, Sungate ceased receiving any Royalties, which were paid

            to Titus, directly, or to an entity Titus controlled, defendants

            claiming that the payments were in error, and that Sungate was not

            entitled to those commissions.                        However,     as this court finds no

            ambiguity in the terms of the contract,                            the parties'       course of

            conduct may not be considered [compare Matter of Bank of New York

             651695/2020 SUNGATE PARTNERS, INC. vs. TITUS, MATT                                    Page 4 of 6
             Motion No. 003 004

                                                           4 of 6
[* 4]
                                                                                                    INDEX NO. 651695/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 142                                                                        RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/05/2024

           Mellon v BlackRock Financial Management,                           Inc,        2 02 AD3d 4 65           ( ist

            Dept 2022)].         However, assuming arguendo, there was such ambiguity,

            the     parties'          course        of     conduct         accords          with     Sungate's

            interpretation of the Contract.

                    Typically, disputes of this nature relate to the obligation

            to pay commissions after termination.                          See McCabe v Command Fin.

            Press     Corp.,      194 AD3d 418,           419      (1st    Dept     2021)    and Arbeeny v

            Kennedy Exec.          Search,       Inc.,     71 AD3d 177,            181     (1st Dept 2010).

            However,        despite        the     defendants            admitted         displeasure         with

            Sungate's performance,               there is no evidence that the defendants

            ever     terminated         the      Contract.         Consequently,           the     obligations

            memorialized therein remain valid and enforceable.

                    The    defendants'         argument       that       Sungate     is    operating       as       an

            unlicensed        theatrical         employment         agency     is        unavailing      as        the

            defendants         fail     to     establish          that     Sungate's        procurement             of

            employment for Titus was not incidental in the face of the ample

            evidence to the contrary.                 As set forth in Gen. Bus. Law§ 171(8):

                           "Theatrical employment agency.    . does not include the
                           business of managing entertainments, exhibitions or
                           performances, or the artists or attractions constituting
                           the same, where such business only incidentally involves
                           the seeking of employment therefor".

             651695/2020 SUNGATE PARTNERS, INC. vs. TITUS, MATT                                      Page 5 of 6
             Motion No. 003 004

                                                           5 of 6
[* 5]
                                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 651695/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 142                                                                                 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/05/2024

                    Finally,         under the terms          of the Contract,                     Sungate,              as the

            prevailing party,             is   entitled to             recover       reasonable                 attorney's

            fees     and expenses         incurred in the enforcement of the Contract.

            ( Id,   'II 7)

                                                                              J)-~ .A - } ~
                                                                            2024040517 4549DJAMESF313DC B7273F4 77 A9784F6B1DBDC2D40

                     4/5/2024
                      DATE                                                            DEBRA A. JAMES, J.S.C.

                                      ~                                 ~
             CHECK ONE:                   CASE DISPOSED                     NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

                                                          □ DENIED
                                                                                                                □
                                          GRANTED                           GRANTED IN PART                           OTHER

             APPLICATION:                 SETTLE ORDER                      SUBMIT ORDER

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

             651695/2020 SUNGATE PARTNERS, INC. vs. TITUS, MATT                                                   Page 6 of 6
             Motion No. 003 004

                                                            6 of 6
[* 6]