Court Opinion

ID: 9959888
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-12 20:10:29.516159+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:58.613664
License: Public Domain

Wexler v Ambalo
               2024 NY Slip Op 31220(U)
                      April 9, 2024
             Supreme Court, Kings County
        Docket Number: Index No. 536903/2023
                Judge: Leon Ruchelsman
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 04/09/2024 02:21 PM                                      INDEX NO. 536903/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 30                                                           RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/09/2024

          SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
          COUNTY OT KINGS : CIVIL TERM: COMMERCIAL 8
          ---- . -----.-·---· -------·--- ·   ·-·-.----- ·--.---- .x
          AA.RON WEXLER and RICK KAMINER,
                                                  Plaintiff s,            Decision ~hd order

                         - against -                                   Index No. 536903/202 3

          DAVID AMBALO, 4 683 PARK DA LLC,
          SPRINGFIELD 141 LLC, and JOHN DOES and JANE
          DOES #1-10, the last 10 name·s being
          fictitious and unknown to the plaintiff s,
                                         Defendant s,                          April 9, 2024
          ----·--·· ---------· - ·.-·----.--. -.--------- --·----x·
           PRESENT: HON. LEON RUCHELSMAN                                 Motion Seq. #1     &   #2

                The defendant s have moved pursuant to CPLR.§321 1 seeki,ng to

           dismiss the complaint for the failure to allege any causes of

           action.     The plaintiff has cross-mov ed seeking partial summary

           judgement .    The motions have been opposed respectiv ely.               Papers

           were submitted by the parties and arguments were held.                   After

           reviewing all the arguments this court now makes the following

           determina tion.

                 According to the verified complaint the plaintiff Aaron

           Wexler owns 52,5% of an entity called 2351 Managemen t LLC,

           plaintiff Rick Kaminer owhs 17.5% and the defendant David Ambalo

           Owns 30% Of that entity.           That entity is a 90% owner of 2351

           Pacific Street located in Kings CoUhty.               The ~emaining ten

           percent is owhed by Twinnies LLC, which is owned by Wexler and a

           non-party .    Moreover, defendant Ambalo is the sole ow-ner o.f 46_83

           Park DA LLC, which is the sole member of Springfie ld 141 LLC,

           which owns a 50% ownership interest in the pr'operty located at

           4683 Park Avenue in Bronx County.              The other 50% owner is Forrest

                                                   1 of 5
[* 1]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/09/2024 02:21 PM                                      INDEX NO. 536903/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 30                                                           RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/09/2024

          Equitie•s LLC, which is 'Owned by the plaintif fs.               On April 5, ·2023:

          the parties entered .into          a: settleme nt agreeme nt whereby Ambalb
          would become the sole own:er of             23til Pacif .:l..c while the pla'inti£ fs

          would beco_me the sole owners of 46:-S3 Par·k and that further We·xier

          would pay Ambalo $500,000 .            The verified cornpiai nt alleges. that

          Ambalo. repudia ted the agreeme nt by notifyin g the plaintif fs he

          would not be transfe· rring any -of his :Shares because· the closing

           q.id not occur by the closing date.             The plainti ffs _commenced this

           action and have asse;.rted four caus.es of action, namely for

           speci,fic performa nce.,, breach of contrac t, expecta tion damages and

           tortio1,is intE?arfe .tence.     The verified complai nt ~ll~ges tl:1.e

           plaintif fs sat.i:S.fi ed all the co.ndi tions necessar
                                                               .
                                                                   y .f.or
                                                                        .
                                                                           the.

           tran.sf.e r and the defenda nt unilate rally brea.ched said a_gr~eme nt.

                 The defe-nda nts .have now :moved s~-~ki_ng t_o di.~mis9 the

           complain t. on the- grounds no breach_ of_ the settleme nt ag.reer_ne nt

           occurred becat.lsEi" the pla_ihti ffs f.ailed to. satisfy necessa ry

           condi tioris pr·ecede nt .      The plainti ff .;_i have c ro ~:s.-moved see kin:g a

           <;ie:i;;"ermina:t-ion t:he defenda nt must comi:ily with the se-ttlem ent

           agreeme nt.       As   noted the motions a::re> ·opp_qsed .

                                            Conclus ions o.f: Law

                   It is well s·e•ttled that upon a· motion tq di.smis-s the court

           must determin e, accept.ih g th!i:!• alleg.ati ons of the complai nt as

           true, wbethe·r tn-e p.iarty can succeed upon any reafrnnab 1e· vi~w o-f

                                                       2

[* 2]                  ..
                                               2 of ------
                            ·-·-··- ·-····- --·---   5     ------ ------ ------ ------ -
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/09/2024 02:21 PM                                        INDEX NO. 536903/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 30                                                             RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/09/2024

          those facts· (Pere.z -v. Y & M .Tr.anspo·rtati on Co.rporati:0n;- 219 AD3q

          14.49, 1.96 NXS3d 145 [2q. pept., 202~]).              Further, all the

          allegations· in the complaint a·te deemed true and all reasonahie

          inference.s m-c;1.y be tjrawn _in fC;:J.y.or   o.t the p.lain.t_j,ff (.ArchLva1 Ihc .. ,
          v. 177 Realty Corp., 220 AD3d 909, 198 NYS2d 567 [2d Dept.,

          ZOZ3 l ) .   Whether -the complaint will -late.r survive a ·motion for

          -summary judgment, or whe.ther the pla.intiff will ultimately be

          able t.o prove its claims, of cours.$, plays no. part in the

          detE;Jr~inatiqn ,   of .a- pre...,_discove.r y CPLR §·~211 motion to dismiss
           ( ~ . Lam v. Weiss., 219 AD3d '7:13 ,. 195 N':i;'S3d 4.s·s [ 2d Dept.,

          .'2023))..

                The settiemettt agr.e.ement .provided that, UJ?On s.at,isfa.ction o.f

           a.11 conditio.ns precedent, the closing would occ:ur .on 9r b~for~

           one hundred and t"l,renty· days from the date of execution (see,

           Settlement Agreement, j2 [NYS-CEF D.oc. N.Q. ?J) ..              Section 8 qf the

          .agreement states that ':'Ambalo shall have the option o.f cancelling

           this Agreement should the i terns provided in section s., 6 .and 7

           herei.n- .not be· complied w.i.th'r (:id)..       Furtner, Section 13 of the

           agreement states that ~'Wexler shall pay to Arribalo the net sum of

          ·Five H.uttdred Thousand Doii:ar:s (.$50.d, .000. 0-0 j at or prior          to
           Glps,ing (the "Payment"), by ce.rti'fied ch.eek or wire.. Should

          Wexler fail to ·make this Payment .by the ciosing Deadli_n.e, then

           tp.i.s Agreement shall be null and void, and the Parties shall

           retain all of their ri9hts and obl~gations prior to this

                                                         3

                                                    3 of 5
[* 3]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/09/2024 02:21 PM                                   INDEX NO. 536903/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 30                                                        RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/09/2024

          Agreement " (id).

                  There is no dispute that the plaintiff s failed to satisfy

          all the condition s precedent contained in paragraph s 5, 6 and 7

          and failed to pay Ambalo $500,000 pursuant to the agreement .                 The

          plaintiffs .argue that the agreement did not contain a time of the

          es-sence clause.            Consequen tly, "Defendan ts were therefore unc:3,ble

          to terminate the agreement without first sending an unequivoc al

          notice that time is of the essence'' (see, Memorandum of Law; page

           9 [NYSCEF Doc. No~ 12]);             How~~er, a time of the es~ence clause

           is not required where the contract contains a specific

           terminatio n provision (USA Recycling Inc .• v. Baldwin EndiCo

           Realty Associate s Inc., 191 AD3d 619, 139 NYS3d 529 [1 st Dept ...,

          2021]) .        Furthermo re, language in a .contract that states if

           condition s remain unfilled by a certain date then "the sole

           remedy of the purchaser is to elect to cancel this contract'; a

           time of the essence is surely implied              (~r   S'.guicciar ini v. Park

           Ridge at Terryville Associate s, 199 AD2d 376, 605 NYS2d 372 [2d

           De pt • ,   19 9 3 J ) •

                   In this case the agreement specifica lly stated that upon the
           failure to comply with the conditionE i, the defendant had the

           Option to cancel the contract and that if the $500,000 was not

           paid by the closing date then the agreement is "null and void"

           (see, Settlemen t Agreement , fil13 [NYSCEF Doc. NO. 2]).            The

           plaintiffs argue the. defendant s terminated the agreement

                                                       4

                                                     4 of 5
[* 4]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/09/2024 02:21 PM                                      INDEX NO. 536903/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 30                                                          RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/09/2024

          prematurely.        Thus, defE;!.ndan,t' s :r:-ep:i;,-eBent·ative, Eli Ambalo, sent

          _ap e~ail on August 10~ 2023 that purported to tancel the

          settlement agreement (see, NYSCEF Doc. No. J.A) ,               However, ·Eli

          .Arribalo- was .not a party t.o the. agreement .-?3-.nd the-re: are: surely

          questions wh_ether he had the authority to so act.                 In any event

          on September 11, 2.0-23 counsei" for David Ambalo sent -a lette.r to_:

          plaintiffs indicat.1.n9 that more than on~- :hundre:q. and twenty _days.
          had passed arid the. plaintiffs had failed to satisfy the

          ccindi tidris precedent and thus the -a-greetnent was void            (.§.§§., NYSCJ~]F

          Doc. No. 7) •.      Thqs, the defendant d.ii::i not have to delay

          termination by first serving ·a time ·-of the essence letter.

          Rather.,. termi·nation: was automatic upon the p.laintif•fi s failure               to
          satisfy the. conditions or pay Ambalo.               Therefore,- .Ambalo's

          termination -occur-.r·ed after one hundr:ed and twenty d.ays anq the

          agreement terminated at that juncture.                There- can be_ no causes ·Of

          ac:tion that flow therefrom.           Thus, the cte:eendant's motion seeking

          to dismiss the complaint is g--ranted.              The plaintiff.' s· cros-s-

          motior1 is denied,.

                 Sci   ordered.

                                            ENTER:

           DAT.ED: April 9·,      2024
                       Brooklyn ·N.Y.              H"on. te6~ Rue.helsman
                                                   JSC

                                                      5

                                                     5 of 5
[* 5]