Court Opinion

ID: 9952868
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-20 19:17:22.661362+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:40:20.634012
License: Public Domain

Silverline Servs., Inc. v PDC Constr., LLC
               2024 NY Slip Op 30840(U)
                     March 15, 2024
             Supreme Court, Kings County
        Docket Number: Index No. 501227/2022
                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 03/15/2024 12:10 PM                                                         INDEX NO. 501227/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 18                                                                            RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/15/2024

                                                                                        At 'ah IA$ Term·, Part 5.2 of
                                                                                        .the Sqpreme Court of.the
                                                                                         State of New York,.heicLin
                                                                                        -and for Jh~_ CouQty of Kings,
                                                                                         at the C01.1r!;house;_ a~ Civic
                                                                                        Center, Brooklyn, New Yprk,
                                                                                        ·qn th~ l:.5tb.·day ofMarch
                                                                                        2024
              HONORABLE FRANCOJS,A. RIVERA
              ------ . --- .--- ·----------------------------- .. --- .---.- --- ·--X
              SILVERLINE
                  .  .. . SERVICES
                       '       . . ·' INC.·'   .
                                                                                        DECI$1.0N & ORI).ER

                                                   ·P.Iainti ff,                        Ind_e~No. .501227/2022

              -agafost-

              PDC CONSTRUCTION, LLCand
              :PAOLA DORAN
                                                   Defendants.
              ---------· --- . ·-------------------- ·---- -----· --·-------------X
                      Reci.tatio'ri i_n accordance. with-CPLR 2219 (a) of the papers- ~-bnsid·ered ·on tb,e.
              notic¢ of 1:notfon filed lJy plaintiff Si.lv~rlin~ Service~. foe. (hereinafter-Silverline or -
              plaintiff) on March· 22, 2.023. under motion sequ_en.ce one for an order pursu.antto CPLR
              32 i2 ·granting summaryjuci.gment in its favor on the.issue of liability oil the cia.ims
              asserted in its complaint ag~inst the defendants PDC Construction, LLC (hereinafter the
              co_rporate'"defendant) ·and Paui A~ Do.ran (h~tein.after the. gu·arantQt) (coUectiv¢ly as
              defendants).
              -Notice of Motion
              -Affidavit in Support
              -Affirmation frt Support
                     E?Ch;ibits A to. f
              -Statement of Matedal :Facts-

              BACKGROUND

                       On )anuary 13, 2022, Silverline commenced the instant action for, inter ·alia,

              ·breach of ¢ontract hy filing a sun1mofls and ,complaint with the Kings-County Clerk's

[* 1]                                                              1 of 9
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/15/2024 12:10 PM                                                 INDEX NO. 501227/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 18                                                                    RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/15/2024

              office (KCCO). On February 23, 2022, the defendants joined issue by interposing_ and

              filing ajqirit ai1swerWith the KCCO, The complaint-alleges forty~seven allegations of

              fact in support of three causes· of ac:tion, n~mely, brec1.ch of contract, breach of a personal

              guaranty agreementl·and unjust enrichment.

                    "The complain·t alleges. the following salient facts 1 among others. On: May 28, 2021,

             plaintiffaµd. defendants entered into an agreement ("Agre.ement 1") wher:eby plaintiff

             agreed to purchas:~ the company defertdant's future receivables Jn the amount of $7,295._

             On July 14, _2021, Agreement 1 was amended S:o that plaintiff would purchase the

             company defendant's future receivables having an agreed-upon value of$14,970. The

             purchase price for these receivables was $10,000.

                    Pursuant to Agreement 1, company defendantagreed to .have one bank account

             approved. by plaintiff (th.e "Bank Account") from ,vhich company defet1dant authorized

             plaintiff to make daily ACH withdrawals until $'14,970 wasfully paid to plaintiff.

                    In addition, guarantor agreed to guarantee ali amounts owed to plaintifffrorn

             company defendant upon a brea;ch in performance by company defendant.. Plaintiff

             re1nitted the purchase price for the future :r~ceiv~bles to company defendant as agreed.

             Company defondari:t :stopped making its payments to plaintiff and otherwise breached_

             Agreement 1 by intentionally impeding and preventing plaintiff fi-oin -inakingthe agreed-

             uponACfi"withdrawals from the'RankAccountwhile conducting regular business

             operations.

[* 2]                                                   2 of 9
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/15/2024 12:10 PM                                                                     INDEX NO. 501227/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 18                                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/15/2024

                       Company defendant rilade payme11tstotaling $11,880, leaving a balance of$3,09b.

              Despite due demand, company defendant has failed to pay the amounts due and owing bY,

              company· defendant to plaintiff under Agreement 1. There remains- a balance due and

              owing to PlaintiffonAgreernent 1 in the amount of $5,590, plus interest, cqsts,

              -disbursements, and attorney's foes.

                      On or about August 19, 2021, plaintiff and defendants entered into an agreement

              (Agreement 2} whereby plaintiff agreed to purchase all rights to company defendanCs

              future receivables having an agreed-upon vaJue of $61,809.77. The p:urchase price for

              these receivable;;s was $41 1234. Agreeinenf 2 was structured so thatinstead of plaintiff

              funding the entire purchase price at the outset, it .instead funded defendant in weekly

              increments. The total weekly funding was $15 ;906. 7-5 to purchase ·future receivables of

              $23,844.22. 1

                      Pursuant to Agreement 2, company defendant agreed to have o_n~ bank accourit

             . approved. by plaintiff (the ''BankAccount';)2 from "vhich company defe11dant authorized

             plaintiff to make daily ACH withdrawals until $23?844.22 was fully paid to plaintiff.

             Guarantor agreed to guarantee all amounts owed to plaintiff from company defendant

             Upon a breachiri performance.by company defendant. Plaintiffremitted the purchase

             price for the futiir~.receivablefto company defendant as agreed.

             1 The.alleged facts regarding Agreeinent2-seem internally inconsistent. Oiie cannot de.tennine .the to.ta! value-of the
             future receiv11oles pu"rchased odfre agr~ed-upQ(r-purchase_ price [Qr ·sllrne.                          . .      ..
             i tt is unclear from the _complah1t whether the Bank Account used for Agreement 2 \1/ijii- the sam¢ or different frQ•m
             the Bartk Ac.count used underAgreetnent "1 •.

[* 3]                                                              3 of 9
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/15/2024 12:10 PM                                                 INDEX NO. 501227/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 18                                                                    RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/15/2024

                    Company· defendant stopped making its payments to plaintiff and othetvvise

            brea:_ch~d Agreement 2 by intentionally impedin~ and preventing plaintiff from making.

            the c1greed-upon ACH withdrawals from the Bank.Ac:count while conducting regular

            business. operations.- Compan)' defendant made payments totaling $11 7 875-, leaving a

            balance of$1 l,969.22,

                    Despite-due demand, company defendant has failed to pay the:amounts due and

            owing by coinpany defendqnt fo plaintiff urider Agreement 2. Guarantor is .respopsible

            for all arnounts incurred because .ofany default of the Company Defendant. There

            remains a balance due and owing to plaintiff.onAgteement 2 in the amount.of

            $14,469.22, plus interest, costs, disbursements; and attorney's fees.

            LA-WAND APPLICATION

                   There is no opposition to the instant motion. However, "(a] summary judgment

            motion should not be granted merely because the party against whom jliclgrnent is sought

            failed to submit papers 1n opposition to the inotion, (i.e., 'defaulted')'' .(Liberty Taxi Mgt;

            Inc. v Gincher.man, 32 ADJd 276,278 n [1st Dept20◊6], citing Vermont Teddy Bear Co.;
                                                                                                                        ./
            v 1-800 Beargram Co., 373 F3d 241, 244 (2d Cir 2004] ("the failure to opposea motion

            for summary judgrnertt alorie does notjµstify the.granting of summary judgment ..Instead,

            the ... court must still assess whether-the moving.party has fulfilled its burden of

            de.monstrafin~ thai there is no genuine:issue of n1ateria:l fact and. its entitlement to

            judgqien(as a.matter6f.l~w"]; se¢-Cugi_ni-v Syst~mLumber Co:,lnc., Ul AD2d.l.14. HS

            (i:st Dept i'985]).

[* 4]                                                    4 of 9
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/15/2024 12:10 PM                                                  INDEX NO. 501227/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 18                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/15/2024

                       Iris well.established that summary judgment may be granted only when no triable

              issue of fact exists (Alvarez v Prospect Hospital, 32 AD3d 276 [1986]). The. burden is

              upon the moving party to make a prima facie showing that he or she i$ entitled to

              summary judgment as a matter of law by presenting evidence in admissible form

              demonstrating the absence of any material issues of fact (Oiujfrida v Citibank, l 00 NY2d

              72, 81 [2003]).

                     A failure to make that showing requires the denial of the summary judgment

              motion, regard1ess of the adequacy ofth:e opposfog papers (Ayotte v Gervasio, S:1 NY2d

              I 062, 1063 [ 1993]). If a prima facie eShowirtg has been made, the burden shifts to the

             Qpposiog party to produce evidentiary proof sufficient to establish the existence of

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

                    Pursuant to CPLR 321.2 (b), a court will grant a motion for summary judgment

             upon a determination that the mova:nt 1s papersjustify. holding,.as a matter oflaw, that

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

             merit. Furth~rrnore, ~11 the evidence. must be viewed in the light most favorable to :the

             opponent.of the moti9n (Mar.ine Midland Bcmkv Dino & Artie's Automatic Transmission

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

                    The essential ·elements of a .cause of action to tetover damages for breach of

             contract -are·''the existence of a contract, the plaintiffs perfor.mance pursuant to, the

             contract, th.e defendai1t1s. breach of lts ~<:mtractual obligations,. an.d damages resulting from

             ·the .breach:' ((:ruz v Cruz; 213 AD3d 805, 8.0.7 (2d, Dept 2023]).

[* 5]                                                    5 of 9
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/15/2024 12:10 PM                                                      INDEX NO. 501227/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 18                                                                         RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/15/2024

                        "The e1e1nents of a cause of action to recover for unjust enrichment are (IJ the

              defendant was enriched, (2) .at the plaintiffs expense; arid (3) that it is against equity· and

             gootl conscience to permit the defendant to retain what is sought to be recovered,, (Sm,ker

             v Das 2;0J AD3,f973, .975 [2nd Dept 2022], citing Ffnantia!Assl.stan{:~J Inc. v Graham,
                    1

             191 AD3d 952,956 [2d Dept202:l]):

                        A.plaintiffs cause of action for unjust entichfnentmay notbe maintained ifa vaJid

             contract governing the subject matter·exi"sts. Under such circumstances, recovery in quasi

             contract for events arising out of the saine subject.matter are generally precluded (see CSJ

             Group, LLP v Harpe,; 153 AD3d 1314, 1317 [2d Dept2017], citing EBCI;, Inc. v

             Goldman, Sachs & Co., 5 NY3d 11, 23 (20051; Clark-Fitzpatrick, bzc. v Long Is. R.R.

             Co., 70 NY2d 3821 388 [1987]). Siiverline's clailn for breach of contract is undisputedly

             ~.ased ot1 twtl.merchant. agteements. Consequently, Silver line may .not maintain a.claim

             for unjust enrichment

                    In the case .at bat, the only sworn" testimony submitted by Silverline ir1 support of

             the inotion was an affirmation ·of Jeffrey Zachter, its counsel (hereinafter Zachter), and an

             affidavit of Shmuel Brummel (hereinafter Brummel). Zacbter's affirmation contends that

             the facts in suppo,;tof the motion are c6nt.ained in the affidavit of Brummyl.

                    Zadifer1:s affirmation demonstrates no personal krwwiedge ·of any of the.

             transaction·al facts alleged· in the co:rnpJaint. '.'An attorney's affirrnatioh: that is n'ot based

             up-On personafknow1edge is.ofno probative or evidentiary significance" (Nerayojf v.

[* 6]                                                      6 of 9
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/15/2024 12:10 PM                                                       INDEX NO. 501227/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 18                                                                         RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/15/2024

              Khorshad, 168 AD3 d 866, 8·67 [2d Dept 2"() 19]. citing. Warrington v Ryder Truck Rental,
                                                          .                          .

              Im;.,, 3:S AD3'4 455, 456 [:2d Dept 200.6)).

                       B1Jun~el's ~ffidavit. dld not clarify the· apparent inc:_onsfStencies. noted in

              Agreement 2;· Brlllntners affidavit).ll'so µid not clarify whether the 1:mnk accounts.

              des!gnated for Agreement .1 ·or Agreement 2 were the same or different bartk~ccoU:nts .

              .Brummel's. affidavit is used to authenticate the A&reements which were allegedly.

              breached ~y_the-d.efendants. Bru1n.rnetaverred thathe·is the director pfRisk.Management
              for SilverHne··arid, as .$uch. has personal kn9wle(lg¢· of.its busittess practi¢es:and

              procedures. He.further averred that the- factual. alle.gations proffered in support of the ·

              motion.for summaryjudgmentare deriv.ed.ftom·his review: of the .plaintiffs business

              records. He thyn re.ferc\ed to tbe·documents attached to the: motiQn, n~mely; the.

              A.gr_eenients and th~ d.o.cuments· deno.mhiat~d ~s mercpant balance stateu~ents. for each.

              one of.the agreements.

                     !t is noted that Brummel dilnot aver that he was a signatoiy to the Agreeme·nt or
              that he partiGipatedJn .the execution. of same; Furthe11nore., he did not submit any

              ct·oc111nentary suppprt.ofttre amount Silv~rline puip01tedly _p.r.ovided
                                                                   .       .
                                                                                       to the defendants:.

              This facr-alo:pe ,.-a1Ses material issues of fact regarding the ·plai.J1tiff.s. perfotmar1ce: und,er

              the Agreements. Consequently, the piainti:ffcannot make a prima fac~e showing of.

              entitlement to judgment on its claims for breach of the Agreements or           or the guarantees.
                     Brummel r~fersto the merchant balance statements, annexed as exhibits Band D

              to his affidavit, as proof of the .defenda11ts' default. ''.A proper foundation for the

[* 7]                                                         7 of 9
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/15/2024 12:10 PM                                                   INDEX NO. 501227/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 18                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/15/2024

              ad1nission of.a business record must be provided by someone with personal kno,vledge of

              the maker1s busin<!ss practic~s and-procedures' 1 (Citibank, NA. v Cabrera, 130 AD3d:861.

              861 [2d Dept 2015]). Generally, "the i~ei;e filing of papers received .from other entitles,

              evehifthey are retained in the ·regular course of business, is insufficient to qualify the

              documents as . business- records" (Bank o[N Y.' Mellon v Gordon; 171 AD3d .197, 20·9 [2d

              Dept 2019] quoting Standard Textile Co. vNati'onal Equip. Rental, 80 Ad2d 911, 911.

              [1981]). "Hmvever,s!)ch records may be admitted into evidence if the recipient cau

              e?tahlish pers9nal knowledge, oftbe maker's busine_ss practices and procedures or

              establish that the records provided by the- maker were irtcorponlted into the recipient's ·

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

              Mellon, 171 Ad3d af209).

                     Here, the. merchant balance statements are submitted without explaining theit

              source,. or
                        .
                          their rneaning.
                                       ..
                                          It is neither self-explanatory 110r self-admitting and there was an

              insuftkient foundation for "its admission as a.business record. "[I]t is the business record

              itself,. not the foundational affidavit, that serves as proof of the matter asserted"· (Citibank,

              NA. v Potente,)JO AD3d 861, 862 [2d Dept 2022], .quoting Bank ofN. Y lvfetlon, 171

              Ad3d at205). Accordingly, evidence of th1;; contents of business r~cords is a.dmissible

              only where the records themselves are introduced. Without their introduction, a witness's

              testimony as to the contents of the rec.ords is inadmissible hearsay (see Bank of NY

              J.,fellon, 171 AP'.3.d at 198}. In ;$um,. Silvedine· has faile4 to·.mak:e a prima facie showing. of

[* 8]                                                    8 of 9
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/15/2024 12:10 PM                                                 INDEX NO. 501227/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 18                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/15/2024

              entitlement to summary judgment on any ofthe claims it has asserted against the

              defendants.

              CONCLUSION

                     The motion by _plaintiff Sil verline Services, Inc., for an order pursuant to CPLR

              3212 granting summary j11dgment in •its favor on the issJ.Ie of"liability on tl)e claims

              asserted against the defendants PDC Constructiort, LLC and Paul A. Doran is denied.

                     A copy of th~s ..decisfon and order, along with notice of entry, shall be setved upon

              defendants and filed with th~ Court Within 20 days.of entry.

              The foregoing constitutes the deci_siori and order of the Coutt.

              ENTER:

                                                                                 J.~tc.
                                                                           HON. FRANCOISA. RIVERA

[* 9]                                                   9 of 9