Court Opinion

ID: 9958745
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-09 20:10:37.996742+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:40.652758
License: Public Domain

XBase Digital Inc. v Nash
               2024 NY Slip Op 31073(U)
                     March 29, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 158082/2022
                 Judge: Mary V. Rosado
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. 158082/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 47                                                                                           RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/01/2024

                                   SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                             NEW YORK COUNTY
            PRESENT:             HON. MARY V. ROSADO                                             PART                              33M
                                                                                     Justice
                                                         ----------------------------X           INDEX NO.          158082/2022
             XBASE DIGITAL INCORPORATED,
                                                                                                 MOTION DATE         07/26/2023
                                                         Plaintiff,
                                                                                                 MOTION SEQ. NO.         003
                                                 - V -

             PAUL NASH, BRITEBANC HOLDINGS LTD., KENNETH
                                                                                                   DECISION + ORDER ON
             EPPERS, EPPERS CONSULTING,
                                                                                                          MOTION
                                                         Defendant.
            ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 003) 35, 36, 37, 38, 39,
            40,41,42,43,44
            were read on this motion to/for                                           REARGUMENT/RECONSIDERATION

                      Upon the foregoing documents, there being no opposition and good cause having been

            shown, PlaintiffXBase Digital Incorporated's ("Plaintiff') motion for leave to reargue this Court's

            June 30, 2023 Decision and Order (NSYCEF Doc. 37) is granted. Upon reargument, Plaintiffs

           motion for default judgment against Defendant Britebanc Holdings LTD ("Britebanc") is granted.

            Further, upon reargument, Plaintiffs motion for a money judgment on default against Defendants

            Paul Nash, Kenneth Eppers, Eppers Consulting and Britebanc Holdings LTD ("Defendants"),

           jointly and severally, is granted.

                     I.         Background and Procedural History

                      By Decision and Order dated June 30, 2023 (the "Prior Decision"), this Court granted

            Plaintiffs motion for default judgment against all defendants except Britebanc (the "Defaulting

            Defendants") (NYSCEF Doc. 37). Additionally, the June 30, 2024 Decision and Order directed an

            inquest on damages against the Defaulting Defendants on Plaintiffs First Cause of Action alleging

            breach of contract, and Second Cause of Action alleging fraud (Id.). In that decision, the Court

             158082/2022 XBASE DIGITAL INCORPORATED vs. NASH, PAUL ET AL                                             Page 1 of 4
             Motion No. 003

                                                                           1 of 4
[* 1]
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 158082/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 47                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/01/2024

            denied default judgment against Britebanc on the ground that Plaintiff had failed to adequately

           prove service upon Britebanc (NYSCEF Doc. 37 at 2).

                   On July 26, 2023, Plaintiff brought the instant motion, without opposition, for leave to

           reargue the June 30, 2023 Decision and Order, and upon reargument, for an Order (1) granting

           summary judgment against Britebanc in the sum of $500,000; and (2) vacating the requirement

           that an inquest be held in this matter and granting summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff and

           against all Defendants, jointly and severally, in the amount of $500,000, with interest, costs, and

           disbursements (NYSCEF Doc. 35).

                   II.     Discussion

                           a. Leave to Reargue is Granted

                   Pursuant to CPLR § 2221 (d)(2), leave to reargue shall be based upon matters of fact or law

           allegedly overlooked or misapprehended by the court in determining the prior motion. Whether to

           grant leave to renew or reargue is in the discretion of the Court (Bank of America, NA. v Filho,

           203 AD3d 594 [1st Dept 2022]; Fulton Market Retail Fish Inc. v Todtman, Nachamie, Spizz &

           Johns, P.C., 158 AD3d 502 [1st Dept 2018]). The Court finds that there are grounds to grant leave

           to reargue, as set forth below.

                   In the case at bar, leave to reargue is appropriate because the Court overlooked the fact that

           although Plaintiff failed to serve Britebanc in accordance with CPLR 306, personal jurisdiction

           was established over Britebanc, pursuant to CPLR 320(b), through Britebanc's Notice of

           Appearance and Demand dated November 4, 2022 (NYSCEF Doc. 38).

                   Additionally, in ordering an inquest on damages against the Defaulting Defendants, the

           Court overlooked the fact that Plaintiffs claim is for a sum certain, rendering an inquest

           unnecessary.

             158082/2022 XBASE DIGITAL INCORPORATED vs. NASH, PAUL ET AL                           Page 2 of 4
             Motion No. 003

                                                          2 of 4
[* 2]
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 158082/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 47                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/01/2024

                           b. Upon Reargument, Plaintiffs Motion for Default Judgment Against Britebank
                              is Granted.

                   The First Department has held that "[a]n appearance by a defendant is equivalent to

            personal service of the summons upon it, unless objection to jurisdiction is asserted either in a pre-

            answer CPLR 3211 motion or in the answer" (Urena v NYNEX Inc. 223 AD2d 442,443 [1st Dept

            1996)). Upon review, the Court finds that the June 30, 2023 Decision and Order (NSYCEF Doc.

            37) erred in denying default judgment against Britebanc, as Britebanc's Notice of Appearance

            dated November 4, 2022 (NYSCEF Doc. 38) was the equivalent of personal service upon it.

            Accordingly, Plaintiffs motion for default judgment against Defendant Britebanc is granted.

                           c. Upon Reargument, Plaintiffs Motion for a Money Judgment Against
                              Defendants is Granted

                   It is well established that, when awarding summary judgment on default, there is no need

           for an inquest on damages when the amount in dispute is for a sum certain (Transit Graphics Ltd.

            v Arco Distributing, Inc. 202 AD2d 241 [1st Dept 1994)). The Court of Appeals has held that the

           term "sum certain" "contemplates a situation in which, once liability has been established, there

           can be no dispute as to the amount due, as in actions on money judgments and negotiable

            instruments" (Reynolds Secur., Inc. v Underwriters Bank & Trust Co. 44 NY2d 568, 572 [1978)).

                   In this case, upon review, the Court finds that Plaintiff seeks a monetary judgment for

           $500,000, which was allegedly paid to Defendants for the purchase of Bitcoins which were never

           received (NYSCEF Doc. 40). In accordance with the above outlined criteria, the $500,000 sum

           sought by Plaintiff constitutes sum certain (NYSCEF Doc. 40). Accordingly, an inquest is not

           needed, and Plaintiffs motion for a judgment on default in the sum of $500,000 is granted against

           Defendants, jointly and severally.

             158082/2022 XBASE DIGITAL INCORPORATED vs. NASH, PAUL ET AL                           Page 3 of 4
             Motion No. 003

                                                           3 of 4
[* 3]
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 158082/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 47                                                                         RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/01/2024

                   Accordingly, it is hereby,

                   ORDERED that Plaintiff XBase Digital Incorporated's motion for leave to reargue is

           granted; and it is further

                   ORDERED that upon reargument, the Court's prior Decision and Order dated June 30,

           2023 (NYSCEF Doc. 37) is superseded and amended by this Decision and Order only to the extent

           as set forth below; and it is further

                   ORDERED that Plaintiff XBase Digital Incorporated's motion for default judgment

           against Defendant Britebanc Holdings LTD is granted; and it is further

                   ORDERED that Plaintiff XBase Digital Incorporated's motion for a money judgment on

           default against Defendants Paul Nash, Kenneth Eppers, Eppers Consulting and Britebanc Holdings

           LTD, jointly and severally, is granted in the amount of $500,000.00, plus statutory interest from

           September 21, 2022 (the commencement of this action) through entry of judgment, as calculated

           by the Clerk of the Court, together with costs and disbursements as taxed by the Clerk of the Court

           upon submission of an appropriate bill of costs; and it is further

                   ORDERED that within ten (10) days of entry, counsel for Plaintiff XBase Digital

           Incorporated shall serve a copy of this Decision and Order, with notice of entry, on all parties to

           this action; and it is further

                   ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

                   This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.

                    3/29/2024
                      DATE                                                          N. MARY V. ROSADO, J.S.C.

            CHECK ONE:                  x   CASE DISPOSED                  NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

                                        x   GRANTED         □ DENIED       GRANTED IN PART          □ OTHER
            APPLICATION:                    SETTLE ORDER                   SUBMIT ORDER

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

            158082/2022 XBASE DIGITAL INCORPORATED vs. NASH, PAUL ET AL                            Page 4 of 4
            Motion No. 003

                                                             4 of 4
[* 4]