Court Opinion

ID: 9964080
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-26 20:10:20.267369+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:09.720027
License: Public Domain

Gouleguine v Gouleguina Mkrtycheva
               2024 NY Slip Op 31366(U)
                     April 19, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 158092/2021
                  Judge: Paul A. Goetz
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. 158092/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 185                                                                                           RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/19/2024

                                   SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                             NEW YORK COUNTY
            PRESENT:             HON. PAUL A. GOETZ                                               PART                              47
                                                                                       Justice
            ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------X   INDEX NO.          158092/2021
             MARK GOULEGUINE,
                                                                                                  MOTION DATE         02/02/2024
                                                         Plaintiff,
                                                                                                  MOTION SEQ. NO.         007
                                                 - V -

             MARIA GOULEGUINA MKRTYCHEVA, SOK HEIBERGER
                                                                                                    DECISION + ORDER ON
             LLP
                                                                                                          MOTION
                                                         Defendant.
            ------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------X

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 007) 133, 134, 135, 136,
            137,138,139,141,142,143,144,145,146,147,148
            were read on this motion to/for                                                AMEND CAPTION/PLEADINGS

            Upon the foregoing documents, it is

                      Plaintiff, Mark Gouleguine moves to amend his complaint to add three causes of action

            for conversion, breach of fiduciary duty, and for an accounting. Defendant opposes arguing that

            the motion is procedurally defective, that the causes of action seek identical relief as other of

            plaintiffs causes of action; and that the causes of action are without merit.

                                                                      DISCUSSION

                      "In general, [i]n the absence of prejudice or surprise to the opposing party, leave to

            amend a pleading should be freely granted unless the proposed amendment is palpably

            insufficient or patently devoid of merit" (Thomsen v Suffolk County Police Dept., 50 AD3d 1015,

            1017 [2d Dept 2008] [internal quotation marks removed]). "A request to amend a pleading,

            regardless of the statutory imperative that it be freely granted ... requires an examination of the

            underlying merit to determine if there is evidentiary proof that could be considered on a motion

             158092/2021 GOULEGUINE, MARK vs. GOULEGUINA MKRTYCHEVA, MARIA ET AL                                      Page 1 of 5
             Motion No. 007

                                                                            1 of 5
[* 1]
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 158092/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 185                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/19/2024

            for summary judgment" (Am. Theatre for Performing Arts, Inc. v Consol. Credit Corp., 45 AD3d

            506 [1st Dept 2007]).

                   First, as a preliminary matter defendant argues that plaintiff's motion must be denied

            because he did not supply a redlined proposed amended complaint along with the motion. "Any

            motion to amend or supplement pleadings shall be accompanied by the proposed amended or

            supplemental pleading clearly showing the changes or additions to be made to the pleading"

            (CPLR § 3025). However, when the changes are "properly highlighted ... in the counsel's

            affirmation and moving brief ... [this] technical defect [can be] overlooked" (Berkeley Research

            Group, LLC v FTI Consulting, Inc., 157 AD3d 486,490 [1st Dept 2018]). Here, plaintiff

            attached both the original and amended complaint and his attorney's affirmation is clear as to

            what amendments are sought so the motion will not be denied on these grounds. However, the

            substantive merit of the three additional causes of action needs to be examined.

            Conversion Claim

                   Plaintiff seeks to add a cause of action for conversion, alleging that after selling the

            apartment unit that plaintiff and defendant co-owned, defendant instructed the escrow agent,

            SDK Heiberger LLP, not to disburse any funds to plaintiff until certain alleged claims of

            defendants' were fully satisfied from plaintiff's portions of the proceeds.

                   The "elements of conversion are (1) plaintiffs possessory right or interest in the property

            and (2) defendant's dominion over the property or interference with it, in derogation of plaintiffs

            rights" (Colavito v New York Organ Donor Network, Inc., 8 NY3d 43, 50 [2006]). However, it is

            settled under New York law that a tort claim cannot arise "where plaintiff is essentially seeking

            enforcement of the bargain, [and instead] the action should proceed under a contract theory"

            (Sommer v Fed. Signal Corp., 79 NY2d 540,552 [1992]; see also Advanced Oxygen Therapy

             158092/2021 GOULEGUINE, MARK vs. GOULEGUINA MKRTYCHEVA, MARIA ET AL                   Page 2 of 5
             Motion No. 007

                                                          2 of 5
[* 2]
                                                                                                     INDEX NO. 158092/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 185                                                                        RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/19/2024

            Inc. v Orthoserve Inc., 572 F Supp 3d 26, 38 [SDNY 2021] ["a claim for conversion cannot be

            sustained where the underlying facts are not sufficiently distinguishable from a breach of

            contract claim"]).

                      Here, plaintiff already has two causes of action seeking a declaratory judgment that he is

            entitled to the full amount of his portion of the proceeds from the sale. While plaintiff argues that

            these causes of action are not breach of contract claims, he is still seeking an enforcement of the

            alleged agreement he had with defendant that they would evenly split the proceeds of the sale.

            As such, the proposed conversion cause of action is insufficient as a matter of law and leave to

            add this cause of action will be denied.

            Breach ofFiduciary Duty

                      "To establish a prima facie case for breach of fiduciary duty, a plaintiff must allege "(1)

            the existence of a fiduciary relationship, (2) misconduct by the defendant, and (3) damages

            directly caused by the defendant's misconduct' (Vil. ofKiryas Joel v County of Orange, 144

            AD3d 895, 898 [2d Dept 2016]). Here, plaintiff alleges that defendant breached a fiduciary duty

            to him by demanding that the escrow agent not release the proceeds of the sale of the apartment

            to him.

                      However, as with the conversion claim, when a cause of action for a breach of fiduciary

            duty is "premised upon the same facts and seek identical damages" as a breach of contract claim

            the breach of fiduciary duty claim should be dismissed ( Chowaiki & Co. Fine Art Ltd. v Lacher,

            115 AD3d 600 [1st Dept 2014]). As with the conversion claim, while plaintiff does not assert a

            breach of contract claim against defendant in this action, he is seeking a declaratory judgment to

            enforce an agreement to divide the sale proceeds evenly. Therefore, this cause of action is

            duplicative and leave to add this cause of action will be denied.

             158092/2021 GOULEGUINE, MARK vs. GOULEGUINA MKRTYCHEVA, MARIA ET AL                     Page 3 of 5
             Motion No. 007

                                                             3 of 5
[* 3]
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 158092/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 185                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/19/2024

           Accounting

                   "An equitable accounting involves a remedy designed to require a person in possession of

            financial records to produce them, demonstrate how money was expended and return pilfered

            funds in his or her possession" (Metro. Bank & Tr. Co. v Lopez, 189 AD3d 443,446 [1st Dept

            2020]). "The elements include a fiduciary or confidential relationship, money entrusted to the

            defendant imposing the burden of an accounting, the absence of a legal remedy, and in some

            cases a demand and refusal" (id.).

                   Here, plaintiff alleges in the amended complaint that on June 18, 2021 plaintiff "made a

            demand upon Defendant to request an accounting with respect to her claims for the sum she was

            allegedly owed for the carrying costs and the sums she collected from renting the apartment to

            third parties during the time she exclusively occupied the apartment" (NYSCEF Doc No 137).

            While, defendant argues that the accounting cause of action is barred by the six year statute of

            limitations since plaintiff seeks records as far back as 2009, "[ c ]laims for an accounting accrue

            when there is either an open repudiation of the fiduciary's obligation or a judicial settlement of

            the fiduciary's account" (Campbell v Bank ofAm., NA., 155 AD3d 820, 822 [2d Dept 2017]).

            Therefore, the statute of limitations began to run on June 18, 2021 when plaintiff alleges that the

            defendant refused to provide him with an accounting with respect to rents collected and sums

            expended in managing the apartment.

                   Consequently, the accounting cause of action is not "palpably insufficient or patently

            devoid of merit" nor is it barred by the statute of limitations and leave to add this cause of action

            will be granted (Thomsen, 50 AD3d 1017).

                   Accordingly, it is:

             158092/2021 GOULEGUINE, MARK vs. GOULEGUINA MKRTYCHEVA, MARIA ET AL                   Page 4 of 5
             Motion No. 007

                                                           4 of 5
[* 4]
                                                                                                    INDEX NO. 158092/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 185                                                                         RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/19/2024

                      ORDERED that the plaintiff's motion to amend his complaint is granted, to the extent that

            the fifth cause of action (for an Accounting) as set forth in the proposed amended complaint in the

            form annexed to the moving papers is permitted to be added, and is otherwise denied; and it is

            further

                      ORDERED that, within 20 days from entry of this order, plaintiff shall serve a copy of this

            order with notice of entry and the amended complaint in conformity herewith; and it is further

                      ORDERED that the defendant shall answer the amended complaint or otherwise respond

            thereto within 20 days from the date of said service.

                      4/19/2024
                        DATE                                                       PAUL A. GOETZ, J.S.C.

                                      ~
             CHECK ONE:                   CASE DISPOSED                   NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

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

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

             158092/2021 GOULEGUINE, MARK vs. GOULEGUINA MKRTYCHEVA, MARIA ET AL                    Page 5 of 5
             Motion No. 007

                                                            5 of 5
[* 5]