Court Opinion

ID: 9958717
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-09 20:09:52.582982+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:39.289020
License: Public Domain

S.L. Victory Constr. & Dev. v 40-50 Brighton First Rd.
                      Apts. Corp.
               2024 NY Slip Op 31051(U)
                      April 2, 2024
             Supreme Court, Kings County
        Docket Number: Index No. 506650/2021
                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 03/28/2024 02:24 PM                                                               INDEX NO. 506650/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 124                                                                                RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/28/2024

          SUPREME COU:RT OF THE STATEOF NEW YORK
          COUNTY OF KINGS : CIVIL TERM: COMMERCIAL 8
          --------- ------- ------------------------x
          S. L    VICTORY CONSTRUCTION                    & DEVELOPMENT
          CORPORATION and 'T&S CONSTRUCTION CORP.,
                                                              plaintiffs,                      Decision Bnd order

                              - again.st -                                               Index No. 506650/2021

          40,--,50 BRIGHTON FIRST ROAD APARTMENTS CORP.
          and TKR PROPERTY SERVICES, INC.,                                                          April 2, 2024
                                           Defendants,
          - - , - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - , ___ ,________ ,_____ ,   __ ,X

          PRESENT: HON. LEON RUCHELSMAN                                                    Motion Seq. #2 & #3

                  The defendant TKR Property Services Inc.,                                    [hereinafter

           'TKR'] has moved pursuant to CPLR §3212 seeking summary judgement

          dismissing the entire complaint.                           The plaintiff has cross-,moved

           seeking summary judgement.                       The motions have been opposed

           respectively.              Papers were submitted by the parties and

           arguments held and after reviewing a11 the arguments, this court

           now makes the following determination.

                  The plaintiffs are two construction companies that were

           hired to perform work at defendant's premises loc~ted at 40

           Brighton First Road and 50 Brighton First Road, both in Kings

           County.       TKR was the inariagemerit company hired during the relevant

           time periods.            The complaint alleges that plaintiff S. L                               Victory

           is owed $407, 153 1 fci'r work performed and T&S Construction Corp.,

                                                 1   It should be noted that while the compiaiht asserts
the c1mount owe.ci s; 1 i           victory          is    $407; 153.,     the      owner of       s. I.    Victory,    Andrei
Tsi.;irlet.ski.   subm~tt~d an             affidavit          which      states          the    amount     owed   is   $407~ 162
(Affidavit of Andred             Tsiarletski, 9ll [NYSCEF Doc. No- .. 81] ) i a negligible dif.fererice
of $9,

         [* 1]

                                                               1 of 6
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/28/2024 02:24 PM                                   INDEX NO. 506650/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 124                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/28/2024

         i-s owE3d $15_5., 940 2 for work per.formed.       The ahovI=:! noted parties

         have now moved seeking summary ju.dg.ement.             The plai:ntiff argue.s

         they have p.;resented undisputed: evid:ence that they performe.c:i work

         and haye not been, paid for such wcrrk.            'rKR asse.-rts that as

         management company arid agent for the owner of the premises they

        -cannot ·be iiable .for any unpaid balances owed :t,11.e p-1-ainti.ffss

         Defendant 40-50 Brighton Firs·t Road Apartments. Cor_p •. ;_ ar_g_u_es

         there are quE3stions of fact whether a contract even existed and

         whether the ·plaintiff's. are, -e·ntitled to· all the invoices. they

         have .st.1.bmi tted.

                                         Conclusions . .of Law

                 Where the material_ facts at issue iri a          case a:r.e in dispute
         summary judgment cannot be granted ·(zucketman v. City of N·ew

         York,_ 4:9 NYS2d 557., 427 -NYS2d .595 [1980]),          Generally, it i.s for

         _the jury,. t_he trier of fact to
                                         . determine the legal cause .of any

         injury, however, where -.only one copclus..;ion Il,la_y ·_be d:rawn .from the
         :E_acts. the11. :the question of iesal cause. may be decided by the

         t"iial court as        a matter· of law (Marino V'. Jamison, JJ39 AD"3-d 1021,

         "1"36 NYS.3d 324 [ 2d .. Dept.., 2021) ,

                It is well settled that to succeed upon a qlaim of breach of

                                        2 It   should .be noted that whi.le the complaint asserts
t'he amount owed ·Ti;,;-.S C::'on$truption is $15_5.,:9.40, the own.er o"f T&S Construction, Arkadi
Shterenberg, submitted an affidavit which .states the amount owed is .$.104:, 640
 (A£fidavit of Arkadi Sht.erenberg, .11 [NY.SCEF Do_c. No. :sz)), _a difference of<$51, 300.

                                                      2

        [* 2]

                                                   2 of 6
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/28/2024 02:24 PM                             INDEX NO. 506650/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 124                                                 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/28/2024

        contract the plaintiff must establish the existence of a
         contract, the plaintiff 's performan ce, the defendant 's breach and
         resulting damages (Harris v. Seward Park Housing Corp., 79 AD3d

         425, 9 lJ NYS2d 161 [ pt Dept. , 2 010] ) .    Further, as explained in

         Gianelli v. RE/MAX of· New York, 144 AD3d 861; 41 NYS3d 273 L2d

         Dept., 2016], "a breach of contract cause o.:E action fails as a

         matter of law in the absence of any showing that a specific
         provision of the contract was breached" (id).

                  Of courser there can be no contract absent·a binding

         agreement between the partie_s.      The plaintiff s insist that

         although there was nd coristrticti ori cdhtract, the parties

         understood that the plaintiff s would submit invoices of work

         performed and that if each invoice was accepted by the de.fendant s

         and entered into their database for payment then automatic

         approval was assumed.      Thus, this ''usage of trade" establishe d· a

         meeting of the minds between the patties whibh is now

         enforceab le.    Indeed, UCC §l-3.03(c)     states that a "'usage of

         trade' is i"lny practice or method of dealing having such

         r.'egUlarity of observanc e in a place, vocation, or trade as to

         justify an expectatio n that i t will be observed with respect to

         the transactio n in question. The existencE:! and scope of such a

         usage must be provj:':!d as facts. If it is establishe d that such      c.i

         usage is embodied in a trade code dr similar record, the

          interpreta tion of the record is a qµestion of law" (id).

                                               3

          [* 3]

                                            3 of 6
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/28/2024 02:24 PM                                       INDEX NO. 506650/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 124                                                          RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/28/2024

                  .J-i.ow~v~-r, to .E:!stablish usage of t~ade as· a valid basis to

         ccmcl.t;i_de cl t;";Ontri;tCt exis.ted expert evidence is generally

        .necessary (Didzbalis v. Sheridan Transportatio n Company, ·.t062 WL

         3l619.b7.i [~LD.N.°Y. 2002]).        There is no _e~pert testimony

         supporting the usage of trade in this case.                 Furthermore, the

        .aff ida.v"i ts submi tt:ed do· ·not fare .any better e:$t-ablishing contract

         formc}tion v;La: usa91:; of trade~-      Tbt;; affidavits of     the owri.e.rs of
         S. I. Victory artd T&S Construction both state that ~'once the work

         was p.e.-r:formed, and i,f .the wor.k was_ -done- si;itisfactori ly, ';['l<::R w011·1ct

         a.dmit the d~b_t anr;i sufftciency of ·the wor:k done by Plaintiffs by

         placing a stai.nip of apptcival oh the 'invoices is·sued by the·

         Plaintiffs" ("Affidavit o·f Andrei             Tsicl:r.tets)ci, 18 [NYSCEf Doc.

         No.   81], Affidavit of Arkadi Shterenberg, <JIB (NYSCEF Doc. No.

         82]) .    Howe.ver, those self-serving assertions .canno-t be a·ftorp.ed

         any w•eight (.§..@, .Matter of Barney S-chogel Inc. ,. 12. B. R. 6 9'7

         rs .. o._N. Y. 1997]).
                   The plaintiffs a_rgue that Howard Manciel -an pw:ner of TKR

         admitted the _invoice system described by the plaintiff's

         Ctinfi;cmed t.he us-age of trade sufficient ·to es.t-abli·sh the

         f orrnatton o:f ,a c9ntract :•     However, a careful review o-f Mr.

         Mandel's testimony demonstrates that he did not admi.t the

         ac.ceptanc;·e of an invoice, from the pl~-intiff ,. s coristi tuted a::n

         acceptance of the contract.            Rather, he me.rely t..e:sti.t:i~d th_at

         when the. invoice was received it_ was process:ed for payment.'                   That

                                                    4

         [* 4]

                                                  4 of 6
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/28/2024 02:24 PM                                          INDEX NO. 506650/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 124                                                             RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/28/2024

        p_roce.s.-s did not ine. an a. contra-ct had been formed and that if a:

         subsequent review of the work warrantednon- -:payment then a                     breach
         occurred.      .Moreover, there axe serious questions wh_ether usage of

         tracle could ewen. he est·a};)lishl;'!d in this_: :case since i:h New· York

         such usage of tr,ade rriust be "so notorious" within the industry

         that every party· ·s·hould be aware of it {.British Internationa l

         Insurance Company .Ltd. v·. Segura s La Rep.ubl i ca, S . A. , 3 4 2 .F. 3d 78

         [2d. Cir. 2003]).        There is no evidence .cif such pervasive .conduct

         throughout the industry..          Indeed, .:j_t is .-cl.iffi.cult to ass_.ert that

         a one-sided uncterstandin. g of contr::_act formati_on,
                                                 .       .       isolated. to this

         case, could_ create t:ont:i:acts without the defendants l:iein:g awanI

         of the.ir existence·,.      Thus, the me·~e processi.n.g of invofces doe-~

         not foreclose later analysis of the propriety of the invoice in

         the tTr".st p1a·ce.     There is no basi.s to a:rgue once t.he invq,.ice w_as

         processed the defendants. are fo.ret::l.osed from challf::!-n.girig or not

         paying the invoice based upon issues regarding the work

         perfo--rmed.     Theref·cfre, there·. are s-µrely q11estio.ns o:f- fact. wl:let;:.he.r

         any contract was formed and consequentl_)'. whether the plaini:iffs

         are entitle.cl to summary judg·ement.                Consequently , the p1·ai·ntif.f 1 ·s

         mc;:,tion . seeking
                        ..   summary j.udge:ment is deni:.ed"

                Turning to TKR' s motion seeking summary j udgernent ori the

         grounds      .tt can. _have no tnd¢pendent liability as· an agent of the
         owne:r, the p1a-intiffs have not r.eally oppo.sed that motion qt_her

         thah to seek their own sµmmary judge~ent motion.                      Upbn a revi·ew

                                                       5

        [* 5]

                                                     5 of 6
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/28/2024 02:24 PM                       INDEX NO. 506650/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 124                                          RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/28/2024

        .of the evidence presented, TKR maint~ins nb independent

         responsibility pursuant to its agreement with the owner.

         Consequently, TKR's motion seeking summary judgement dismissing

         the lawsuit as to them is granted.

             So ordered.

                                       ENTER:

        DATED: April 2, 2024
                  Brooklyn N. Y.       Hon.
                                       JSC

                                          .6

          [* 6]

                                        6 of 6