Court Opinion

ID: 9916467
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-10 01:07:19.199233+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:25:37.471103
License: Public Domain

Sara Tirschwell for Mayor, Inc. v Kramer
               2024 NY Slip Op 30023(U)
                     January 4, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 154123/2021
                  Judge: Sabrina Kraus
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. 154123/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 116                                                                            RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/04/2024

                               SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                         NEW YORK COUNTY
             PRESENT:        HON. SABRINA KRAUS                                    PART                             57TR
                                                                      Justice
                -----------------------------------------------------------X
                                                                                   INDEX NO.             154123/2021
              SARA TIRSCHWELL FOR MAYOR, INC.,SARA
                                                                                   MOTION DATE            11/21/2023
              TIRSCHWELL

                                                 Plaintiff,                        MOTION SEQ. NO. _ _ _00_2_ __

                                          - V-
                                                                                      DECISION + ORDER ON
              STEVE KRAMER D/B/A GET OUTTHE VOTE,
                                                                                             MOTION
                                                 Defendant.
            ------------------------      ---------------------------------X

             The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 002) 67, 68, 69, 70, 71,
             72, 73, 74, 75, 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, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108,109,110, 111,112,113
             were read on this motion to/for                                    STRIKE PLEADINGS

                                                              BACKGROUND

                    Plaintiffs commenced this action alleging breach of contract against defendant whom

            they hired to collect the signatures needed to get Sara Tirschwell (Tirschwell) on the June 22,

            2021, Republican mayoral primary ballot in New York City. Defendant's counterclaim for

            defamation was dismissed by decision and order dated September 30, 2022.

                    Pursuant to a status conference order that was so-ordered by the court dated July 26,

            2023, plaintiffs were ordered to provide the following to defendant:

                    -Plaintiff to provide an affidavit as to the current status of the plaintiff corporation SARA
                    TIRSCHWELL FOR MAYOR. INC., within 30 days
                    -Plaintiff to provide a copy of the retainer between plaintiff and Mr. Mandelker, redacted
                    as to privileged information, within 30 days
                    -Plaintiff to provide a response to Defendants request for proof of expenses as alleged in
                    the complaint, besides the document provided to the campaign finance board, within 30
                    days
                    -Plaintiff to provide the names of the witnesses referenced by Plaintiff in her deposition
                    or an affidavit that Plaintiff does not intend on calling them at trial, within 30 days

             154123/2021 SARA TIRSCHWELL FOR MAYOR, vs. STEVE KRAMER D/B/A GET                            Page 1 of 10
             Motion No. 002

                                                                1 of 10
[* 1]
                                                                                                 INDEX NO. 154123/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 116                                                                    RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/04/2024

                   Additionally, defendant was ordered to produce time sheets and records of time spent by

            canvassers or an affidavit that what was produced is all that is in defendant's possession, within

            30 days.

                   A discovery conference was held with the Court on September 12, 2023 wherein

            defendant raised issues with plaintiff's compliance with the prior order. However, no resolution

            was reached, and defendant was given permission to file the within discovery motion.

                                                 PENDING MOTIONS

                   On September 22, 2023, defendant moved for an order pursuant to CPLR 3126(3)

            striking plaintiffs' complaint and rendering a default judgment against them. (Mot. Seq. 2).

                   On October 20, 2023, plaintiffs cross moved for an order pursuant to CPLR 3212

            granting them partial summary judgment finding defendant liable for breach of contract and

            awarding them damages in the amount of $80,000, plus interest, or alternatively ordering

            defendant to produce certain original documents for inspection pursuant to CPLR §§ 3101 (a) and

            3104(a).

                   The motions are consolidated herein for determination as set forth below.

                                                 UNDISPUTED FACTS

                   As set forth in plaintiffs' Statement of material facts, to which defendant does not submit

            response, the following facts are deemed admitted for the purposes of plaintiffs' cross-motion for

            summary judgment pursuant to 22 NYCRR § 202.8-g and section II(G)(4) of the part 57 rules.

                   Tirschwell wanted to run for Mayor of New York City in the 2021 election and, to that

            end, she incorporated Plaintiff Sara Tirschwell for Mayor, Inc. to be her campaign organization.

            Plaintiffs needed to obtain 2,250 valid signatures of qualified voters, on Designating Petitions

             154123/2021 SARA TIRSCHWELL FOR MAYOR, vs. STEVE KRAMER O/B/A GET                   Page 2 of 10
             Motion No. 002

                                                        2 of 10
[* 2]
                                                                                                             INDEX NO. 154123/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 116                                                                               RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/04/2024

            properly witnessed between March 2 and March 25, 2021, in order to get on the ballot for the

            2021 Republican New York City mayoral primary election held on June 22, 2021. 1

                      On or about February 27, 2021, plaintiffs retained defendant to, among other things,

            collect the signatures needed to get Tirschwell on the 2021 Republican mayoral primary ballot.

            Defendant and Sarah Tirschwell for Mayor, Inc. entered into a contract dated as of February 27,

            2021, pursuant to which plaintiffs paid defendant $80,000. In return, the contract provided that

            defendant would "implement a GOP New York Mayoral Petition Plan for Sara Tirschwell" that

            was to "target" acquisition of 6,200 signatures on Tirschwell' s Petitions by utilizing 26 paid

            "Petitioners" each working 19 five-hour shifts to obtain signatures on Tirschwell's Designating

            Petitions, for a total of 2,470 person-hours.

                      Defendant acknowledges that, by law, he is required to keep accurate records of the time

            spent by, and payments made to, his staff that worked for plaintiffs' campaign and in what roles

            they worked, such as Petitioner or driver. To satisfy his obligation, defendant kept all of their

            timesheets which also served as his payroll records.

                      On June 20, 2023, in response to a request for copies of "all the time sheets of petition

            gatherers and drivers who worked on the Tirschwell campaign ... ," defendant produced a listing

            of people who worked as his Petitioners and twenty timesheets. On August 25, 2023, pursuant to

            the Court's July 26, 2023, Order requiring defendant to confirm that all timesheets had been

            produced, defendant, produced fourteen additional timesheets, bringing the total timesheets

            produced to thirty-four, and confirming that these represented "the final batch of 'timesheets' of

            petition gatherers and drivers who worked on the Tirschwell campaign." The 34 timesheets

            reflect that the individuals who defendant identified as "petitioners" worked a total of only 472.5

            1
             The original petitioning requirement was 3750 valid signatures over a period of38 days, however that requirement
            was reduced to 2250 signatures over 24 days due to the Covid-19 pandemic
                154123/2021 SARA TIRSCHWELL FOR MAYOR, vs. STEVE KRAMER D/B/A GET                            Page 3 of 10
                Motion No. 002

                                                               3   of 10
[* 3]
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 154123/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 116                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/04/2024

            person-hours, and all together, even including those from individuals who did not work as

            "petitioners," reflect work totaling just 1,261 person-hours.

                    Defendant obtained a total of only 4,454 signatures for plaintiffs. Of those, all but 546

            were deemed invalid by the New York City Board of Elections. On or about April 14, 2021, the

            New York City Board of Elections determined that Tirschwell did not have the necessary

            number of valid signatures required for a spot on the June primary ballot.

                                                      DISCUSSION

                                               Defendant's Motion to Strike

                   Defendant brought its motion on the basis of plaintiffs' alleged failure to produce

            documentation of their damages, including documents underlying expenses submitted to the

            Campaign Finance Board, and attorney retainer agreements and invoices, despite discovery

            orders requiring them to do so.

                   In opposition, plaintiffs produced documentation of expenses that were filed with the

            Campaign Finance Board, and claim the delay was due to difficulty accessing the documents on

            the Campaign Finance Board website.

                   In reply, defendant claims that the production is insufficient, particularly with respect to

            legal bills and retainer letters which it claims were not provided despite court orders. In the event

            the court does not strike plaintiff's complaint, defendant requests an order compelling production

            by a date certain.

                   CPLR § 3 l0l(a) provides for the "full disclosure of all evidence material and necessary

            in the prosecution or defense of an action regardless of the burden of proof' CPLR § 3124 grants

            the court the power to compel a party to provide discovery demanded. CPLR § 3126 grants the

            court the power to sanction a party that fails to comply with a court's discovery order.

             154123/2021 SARA TIRSCHWELL FOR MAYOR, vs. STEVE KRAMER D/8/A GET                    Page 4 of 10
             Motion No. 002

                                                         4   of 10
[* 4]
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 154123/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 116                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/04/2024

                   "The nature and degree of the penalty to be imposed pursuant to CPLR § 3126 is a matter

            within the discretion of the court. Gorbatov v Tsirelman, 206 AD3d 887 (2d Dept 2022). The

            striking of a pleading is a drastic remedy and is only warranted where a clear showing has been

            made that the noncompliance with an order was willful, contumacious or due to bad faith. Mateo

            v City of New York, 274 AD 2d 337 (1st Dept 2000).

                   Here, while plaintiffs claim they have now fully complied with the court's discovery

            order, defendant claims there remain documents that have not been provided. Plaintiffs' conduct

            is not sufficiently willful and contumacious as to warrant the striking of the complaint, as it is

            undisputed that plaintiff has been actively participating in discovery and has provided at least

            some of the documents that defendant has requested. Additionally, as the remaining documents

            sought by defendant speak primarily to plaintiffs' alleged damages, the more appropriate remedy

            would be an order precluding them from using them as evidence of damages at trial in the event

            they are not produced by a date certain.

                   Thus, defendant's motion is granted to the extent that plaintiffs are compelled to produce

            any additional proof of expenses as alleged in the complaint, including attorney invoices and

            retainers, within 30 days, or otherwise be precluded from using any documents it fails to produce

            to support its damages pursuant to CPLR § 3126(2).

                                     Plaintiff's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment

                   To prevail on a motion for summary judgment, the movant must establish,primafacie,

            its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, providing sufficient evidence demonstrating the

            absence of any triable issues of fact. CPLR § 3212(b); Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig.,

            33 NY3d 20, 25-26 (2019). If this burden is met, the opponent must offer evidence in admissible

            form demonstrating the existence of factual issues requiring a trial; "conclusions, expressions of

             154123/2021 SARA TIRSCHWELL FOR MAYOR, vs. STEVE KRAMER D/8/A GET                     Page 5 of 10
             Motion No. 002

                                                         5 of 10
[* 5]
                                                                                                                    INDEX NO. 154123/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 116                                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/04/2024

            hope, or unsubstantiated allegations or assertions are insufficient." Justinian Capital SPC v

            WestLB AG, 28 NY3d 160, 168 (2016), quoting Gilbert Frank Corp. v Fed Ins. Co., 70 NY2d

            966, 967 (1988). In deciding the motion, the evidence must be viewed in the "light most

            favorable to the opponent of the motion and [the court] must give that party the benefit of every

            favorable inference." 0 'Brien v Port Auth. ofNew York and New Jersey, 29 NY3d 27, 37 (2017).

                     Plaintiffs seek partial summary judgement on their sole remaining claim for breach of

            contract, contending that it is undisputed that defendant breached the contract by failing to

            Employ 26 "petitioners" for a total of 2470 hours as stipulated in the contract, as defendant's

            own records reflect that Defendant employed fewer than 17 Petitioners who worked a total of

            only 472.5 person hours, or 1261 hours if the work of employees of defendant who were not

            identified as petitioners are counted. While plaintiffs concede that there remain issues of fact

            relating to its consequential damages stemming from plaintiffs' failure to get on the ballot, they

            contend that there is no question that defendant breached the contract, and thus there are entitled

            to at least the amount they paid defendant.

                     In opposition, defendant produces additional timesheets2 , which it avers brings the total

            number of person hours worked to over 2,5003, and thus there remain issues of fact as to

            defendant's substantial or complete performance under the contract, and whether plaintiff

            frustrated the purpose of the agreement, warranting the denial of plaintiffs motion.

            2
              Defendant contends that its initial failure to produce these timesheets was due to logistical constraints, including
            that they were stored in multiple locations, and that it did not initially receive timesheets from a researcher and third
            party that it employed to gather signatures.
            3
              While defendant did not provide an exact number in its supporting papers, the total additional work hours
            contained within the new timesheets add up to 1272.
             154123/2021 SARA TIRSCHWELL FOR MAYOR, vs. STEVE KRAMER D/8/A GET                                      Page 6 of 10
             Motion No. 002

                                                                  6   of 10
[* 6]
                                                                                                                    INDEX NO. 154123/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 116                                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/04/2024

                      In reply, plaintiffs dispute that defendant's additional timesheets raise an issue of fact,

            contending that the number of employees and number of hours spent petitioning on behalf of the

            campaign was still well below the contracted amount.

                      "The essential elements of a breach of contract cause of action are 'the existence of a

            contract, the plaintiff's performance pursuant to the contract, the defendant's breach of his or her

            contractual obligations, and damages resulting from the breach."' Canzona v Atanasio, 118

            AD3d 837, 838 (2d Dept 2014), quoting Dee v Rakower, 112 AD3d 204, 208-209 (2d Dept

            2013).

                      That the contract existed, and the fact that plaintiffs performed by paying defendant are

            not disputed. For the purposes of this motion, the only breach plaintiffs seek summary judgment

            on is defendant's purported failure to devote provide the number of people and man hours for

            petitioning as promised in the contract and seek damages only in the amount paid under the

            contract.

                      It is undisputed that the contract required defendant to provide "26 paid

            petitioners/volunteer petitioners" who would each work 19 five hour shifts for a total of 24 70

            man hours. It is further undisputed that the initial batch of timesheets produced show only 472.5

            person hours by 17 individuals devoted to petitioning activities. Even assuming arguendo that all

            of the timesheets produced in the latest batch relate to petitioning work, and it is not clear that

            they are, defendant has provided evidence of at most 1744.5 man hours spent petitioning,

            significantly below the contracted for amount. Thus, plaintiffs meet their prima facie burden of

            establishing the existence of a breach as to this provision of the contract. 4

            4
              While defendants state that there is a material issue of fact as to whether this constitutes substantial performance,
            they make no arguments in support of this contention.
                154123/2021 SARA TIRSCHWELL FOR MAYOR, vs. STEVE KRAMER D/8/A GET                                   Page 7 of 10
                Motion No. 002

                                                                  7   of 10
[* 7]
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 154123/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 116                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/04/2024

                   In opposition, defendant fails to raise a triable issue of fact by raising the doctrine of

            frustration of purpose. To invoke this doctrine, "the frustrated purpose must be so completely the

            basis of the contract that, as both parties understood, without it, the transaction would have made

            little sense" Shmaltz Brewing Co., LLC v Dog Cart Mgmt. LLC, 202 AD3d 659 (3d Dept 2022),

            quoting Warner v Kaplan, 71 AD3d 1, 6 (1st Dept 2009). "The doctrine applies when a change

            in circumstances makes one party's performance virtually worthless to the other, frustrating [its]

            purpose in making the contract." Id. quoting PFF Safeguard, LLC v BCR Safeguard Holding,

            LLC, 85 AD3d 506, 508 (1st Dept 2011 ).

                   In support of its frustration of purpose defense, Defendant only cites plaintiffs' purported

            misallocation of campaign resources, leading to them purchasing a "voter file" containing only

            40% of New York City Republicans as opposed to a complete file, thus impeding their efforts.

            However, there is no allegation or evidence that the purchase of a complete voter file was a

            contractual condition, or otherwise that doing so was so fundamental as to undermine the

            purpose of the contract.

                   "Causation is an essential element of damages in a breach of contract action; ... a plaintiff

            must prove that a defendant's breach directly and proximately caused his or her damages." Diesel

            Props Sr.I. v Greystone Business Credit II LLC, 631 F3d 42, 52 (2d Cir. 2011), quoting National

            Market Share v Sterling National Bank, 392 F3d 520, 525 (2d Cir. 2011). "[D]amages may not

            be merely speculative, possible or imaginary, but must be reasonably certain and directly

            traceable to the breach, not remote or the result of other intervening causes." Kenford Co., Inc. v

            Erie County, 67 NY2d 234 (1986).

                   Here, Plaintiffs fail to present any argument as to how defendant's breach of the contract

            provision at issue directly or proximately caused the damages they seek, effectively a complete

             154123/2021 SARA TIRSCHWELL FOR MAYOR, vs. STEVE KRAMER D/B/A GET                     Page 8 of 10
             Motion No. 002

                                                         8   of 10
[* 8]
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 154123/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 116                                                                        RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/04/2024

            refund of the contract amount. Thus, plaintiffs have failed to meet their prima facie burden of

            proving that their damages stem from a breach of the contract provision at issue.

                                        Plaintiff's Request to Inspect Original Timesheets

                    As alternative relief, plaintiffs seek an order compelling defendant to produce original

            timesheets, raising questions as to their authenticity. Defendant disputes plaintiffs' contention

            that the timesheets contain anomalies that would warrant an inspection of original documents.

                    At trial, the best evidence rule "requires the production of an original writing where its

            contents are in dispute and sought to be proven." People v Haggerty, 23 NY3d 871, 876 (2014),

            quoting Schozer v William Penn Life Ins. Co. ofNY, 84 NY2d 639,643 (1994). As such,

            production of original documents for inspection is warranted where, as here, plaintiffs have

            raised substantiated questions as to their authenticity.

                                                        CONCLUSION

                    Accordingly, it is hereby

                    ORDERED that defendant Steve Kramer d/b/a Get Out the Vote's motion to strike is

            granted, to the extent that plaintiff is compelled to plaintiffs are compelled to produce any

            additional proof of expenses as alleged in the complaint, including attorney invoices and

            retainers, within 30 days, or otherwise be precluded from using any documents it fails to produce

            to support its damages, and is otherwise denied; and it is further

                    ORDERED that plaintiffs SaraTirschwell For Mayor, Inc. and Sara Tirschwell's cross-

            motion is granted, to the extent that defendant is required to produce original timesheets for

            inspection, at a time and place to be set at the next discovery conference, and is otherwise

            denied; and it is further

             154123/2021 SARA TIRSCHWELL FOR MAYOR, vs. STEVE KRAMER D/B/A GET                     Page 9 of 10
             Motion No. 002

                                                            9   of 10
[* 9]
                                                                                                      INDEX NO. 154123/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 116                                                                           RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/04/2024

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

            this order with notice of entry on the Clerk of the General Clerk's Office (60 Centre Street, Room

             119); and it is further

                     ORDERED that counsel are directed to appear for a virtual status conference with the

            court via MS Teams on February 6, 2024 at 2:30 pm; and it is further

                     ORDERED that such service upon the Clerk 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 at the address

            www.nycourts.gov/supctmanh);]; and it is further

                     ORDERED that any relief not expressly addressed has nonetheless been considered and

            is hereby denied; and it is further

                     This constitutes the decision and order of the court.

                      1/4/2024
                       DATE

                                       ~
              CHECK ONE:                   CASE DISPOSED                     NON-FINA[      SITION

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

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

              154123/2021 SARA TIRSCHWELL FOR MAYOR, vs. STEVE KRAMER D/8/A GET                       Page 10 of 10
              Motion No. 002

                                                           10 of 10
[* 10]